Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
IS031_ST. ANDREWS PRESBY. CHURCH 2 OF 3
I IIII�II IIII III IIIII IIRIII IIIII IIIIII IIII III IIII ( oil No. 97 C E R T I F I E D FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION S T. A N D R E W ' S P R E S B Y T E R I A N C H U R C H MASTER PLAN OF FACILITIES September 1982 • TABLE OF CONTENTS St. Andrews Presbyterian Church 1. Notice of Determination 2. City Council Minutes September 27, 1982 September 13, 1982 August 23, 1983 August 9, 1982 June 28, 1982 3. City Council Staff Reports September 13, 1982 August 9, 1982 (Supplemental) August 9, 1982 4. Initial Study 5. Geotechnical Report - April 26, 1982 6. Schematic Design - January 15, 1982 7. Additional Correspondence and Information NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: [= Secretary for Resources FROM: 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Planning Department County Clerk City of Newport Beach n Public Services Division 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 838 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination-in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PROJECT TITLE: Master Plan of Facilities - St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Use `MpAa RY2 PROJECT LOCATION: 600 St. Aiidrbts Road, Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the adoption of a Use Permit, Traffic Study and Resubdivision which allows for the implementation of a Master Plan of facilities for St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. Including a new santuary, education . building, steeple, on-site parking and other facilities and amenities. CONTACT PERSON: Fred Talarico, Environmental TELEPHONE NO. (714) 640-2197 Coord. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER N/A This -is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1 . The project has been ® approved by the City of Newport Beach. ❑ disapproved 2. The project ❑ will have a significant effect on the environment. ® will not ' 3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration is Yt%:aUL4x AVAILABLE AS INDICATED BELOW. (See Over) Ad hm DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: FRED TALARICO, Environmental Coordinator Date 1V 4. Mitigation Measures were made a condition of approval of the project. •� 5. The record of the project approval, may be examined at the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, P.O. Box 1768, 3300 W. Newport Blvd. , Newport Beach CA 92663-3884 (714) 640-21971 �J _ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers 'fib SS 9GF TIME: 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALLS jiy 9 DATE: September 27, 1982 'INDEX Present x x x x x x x R LL-CALL. Motion x B. The readin�tbe Minutes of the Meeting of .�.F ;. >"Y•;•,,.'-;,. �"�'^+;,'1; All Ayes September 13, 1982�-Va waif ved, approved as written, and ordered filed. ' �„4�"""��y^"`;"^µ" n '';:-`_�,••;, Motion x C. The reading of all ordinances and er solutions :+isw,w�.-y..x�%;F;cKa7•a+: '2%+-�•.*"-,r=1i=ti>= All Ayes under consideration was waived, and the City-Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. BEARINGS: •'.........' 1. Mayor Heather opened the continued public hearing St. Andrews ,�•.,,.�.?"';:•,::.;:, ';°_-•�+. and City Council review of action taken by the Plan- U/P 822(A) rt ',.�•,•7 -^ ning Commission on June 24 1982 to approve a (88 _�•�;,.;•,•,-:%.;'..'! TRAFFIC STUDY, USE PERMIT NO. 822 (AMENDED) AND RESUBDIVISION NO. 723, applications of the St: Andrews Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach,'to .,"'��: `•`�= permit the construction of a new church facility • . _ _ _ "• .-w'•: in the R-1 and R-2 Districts at 600 St. Andrews _ Road, on property bounded by St. Andrews Road, Clay ~ •'^' °" -+ `• '- Street, and 15th Street, across from the Newport +)�; Y.°;n<?�-x+„S,J'_;i%)ifi;•,,i;,�<1t; �sya'? Harbor High School in Cliff Haven. Letters regarding St. Andrews Church proposal, were - -�-:'� '•:..: presented. K•w•" H'^",'• '"`C"" �S'"^^ �•�"�'�" - The City Clerk advised that after the printing of _ the agenda, 14 additional letters had been received V' • A_p r.`y'� `µ� regarding the subject request. Mayor Pro I= Hart and Council Member Maurer, members of the St. Andrews Church Ad Hoc Committee, stated that several meetings had been held with representa- •^ tives from the church, as well as community associa- tions, As a result of those meetings, the ad hoc committee recommended the following: r.. - +• -::::?:, - �• 1) that the sanctuary be situated a minimum h,�.°.�• _ - - of 92 feet from the curb line of Clay _ + Street; ' -'.r ',' '�,,'•,n.'. 2) the sanctuary be a maximum of 46 feet in height; "'�`_•`_-, 3) there be a`minimum of 250 parking spaces '2i` "u;( ;:niy'•i„'{:{iw,'`,, ',�'•;t; on the site; 4) the nonoccupied identification steeple, with a cross, may exceed the maximum height ` of 46 feet, subject to approval_of•the .y,.;¢q 63y �: •J�tiyy7 iy:.�iy('dg{ �I. Planning Commission: 5) any square footage lost (resulting in the reduction of the steeple) be permitted at '�"'s*'L�`-+:":W:<�";"z `+l"":m3,�•' :+5,.'"^F-;:�y another location on the subject property; ,•• _ _ and 6) a revised site plan shall be approved by y the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code, Volume 36 - Page 278 . :z`t'Kr�;•,r-�'a5`'4.'tit1S .w,a r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . C CIL ME B RS MINUTES 9 G ' UN ROLL CALLS NP P September 27, 1982 INDEX + -•--• - Milan Dostal, 1821 Tradewinds, representing the •,.w-w�.-+•--»-.•• - Applicant, advised that the conditions recommended M1 Nam,'-.r,•rj, ,TL, 4Vn+ by the ad hoc committee were acceptable to the church .. . -_ Peter Gendran, 519 Signal Road, member of Cliff Haven _ - - Community Association, expressed appreciation to the -C' Council for the time and effort given to them re— lative to this project. Dr. John Huffman of St. Andrews Church thanked the • °,k.�'_ , ad hoc committee members, the City Council, Planning _ Commission and staff for their assistance. He ;�;='�(`--) t`• •,`y-^,,,r .+Y stated that the church wants to be good neighbors and continue to serve the community. ell - ,,.;+ •,:;ram,„,��a ;:„r�;;•,�v,4�s Joe Gallant, resident, stated that he lives directly s.,t„•,;; ,���,.,; ;i.;`i,., ;,,�-..-.,� across the street from the church, and if the •:;r;,;1,{;,b.:.,:,i;�:�•;n',n C�s��-,-,,��;., i'o^; sanctuary is now moved to the north side of the alley, as recommended by the ad hoc committee, he - W+!;- will request.the trust officer for the Stanley family to take a hold off their application in order that �V">SM1�,• .r the church may proceed. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, Y the public hearing Was closed. "� ' Motion x Motion was made,to sustain the actions of the Plan- _ - ,- sing Commission on Use Permit No. 822 (Ame'nded), the Traffic Study, Resubdivision No. 723 and the Environ- mental Document, subject to the conditions recom- mended by the St. Andrews Church Ad Hoc Committee, as set forth in the foregoing. Request was made by Council Member Strauss that the _ � •.. '.y."• height of the steeple be subject to approval of the City Council, and there being no objections, it was included in the motion. All Ayes- - Y The motion was voted on and carried. - - 2. Mayor Heather opened the public hearing and City Malazian Council review of action taken by the Planning Com- U/P 2089 mission on July 22, 1982, to approve USE PERMIT'N0. (88) - -- 2089, a request of GARY E. MALAZIAN, NewpoWteach, " '%'- rS' -`•'��'' to permit the construction of a four unit/Tesiden- ul<'?•7+; =t-: '0=e`�h,'7�r """ tial condominium development and related'garage facilities in the R-3 District. The,proposal also included a request to allow a portion of the develop ment to exceed the twenty-four £yot basic height on the front one-half of the ]]oot located in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation/District, and the accep tance of an Environmental ocument. -,•-;�_;' - _ Report from the Plan g Department, was presented. Gary Malazian, 4827 Couxtland Drive, Applicant, stated that thefstaff had adequately covered his request in heir report, and that he did not have any addit final remarks. Volume 36 - Page 279 T'��'�-N�L[;;p.��.ti''Y i,at!;'Z:^inti.W�f•"YS',Ky'J^i r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • C UNCIL ME 8 RS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NALL PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: September 13, 1982 ROLL 9 pn F� INDEX 'Personalized Neighborhood Watch Street signs were pre- sented to residents Mr. & Mrs. Gordon Young and Ms. Barbara.Long, in appreciation of their outstanding lead- ,,, ership. Police Chief Ch rles R. Gross gave an overview of the Neighborhood Watch Program, and stated the Police Depart ::;<;•.,:,,;,j,�,;i�;';>,,:,'is::w ., i;'�r u;:,a� '«e- ment was very appreciaEive of the community's current _ interest and participatio in the program. •�'; id _ All Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. g\\\\ Motion x B. The reading of the Minutes of [h�Meeting of August -" All Ayes 23, 1982, was waived, approved as iu itten, and ordered filed. Motion C. The reading of all ordinances and resolutio sunder •• :' `" '- ,�w,.�",.. _ - All Ayes consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was 'i'Jjy-•'gy�r]�.%i1 y�%�� - �:'� directed to read by titles only. x. D. HEARINGS: - . - . .-•�q::r-r:':,','•%,•' 1. Mayor Heather opened the continued public hearing St. Andrews and City Council review of action taken by the U/P 822(A) Planning Commission on June 24, 1982, to approve a (88) TRAFFIC- STUDY, U8E_P,ERM{T_NO. 822 (AMENDED) AND ��` •`,i" • �g;.'+.•-s•.'`,' '^•y RESUBDIVISION NO. 723, applications of the St. ;; Andrews Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach, to permit the construction of a new church facility located in the R-1 and R-2 Districts at 600 St. .:'e...Fr Andrews Road, on property bounded.by St. Andrews - • • - - _ Road, Clay Street, and 15th Street, across from the Newport Harbor High School in Cliff Haven. Report from Mayor Pro Tom Hart and Council Member Maurer regarding the meetings of the Ad Hoc Commit- - ';,, •�..��• '•�; ^y(I.a,-.' tee, were presented. . . _^-•• �,'�;.`,Y'",�: :µ.•;+:�/ �' Letters regarding St. Andrews Church proposal, were / presented. The City Clerk reported that after the printing of •'�!,='' �r "� '% the agenda, nine additional letters and one petition • - - - _ - had been received from residents regarding the church proposal. Notion x Council Member Maurer, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Com- mittee, stated that the negotiations between the _ church and the community associations appear now to �• be at a point where some solutions could be made, v.'� and therefore, made-a motion to continue the public ' hearing to_September_27 to provide additional time to bring to a conclusion the negotiations currently underway. Milan Instal, representing the applicant, stated that they had no objections to continuing the public hearing to September 27. All Ayes The motion was voted on and carried. Volume 36 - Page 268 ram!.•,' ld� q•f „0 y#�y.7.� ,.: .�i�SY..4'.iX4i:'.,('N'}`a'�1�^.�:lµ vi".L.�.',J.YGT4 r�iP_i 12•'''ti) •1y C UNCIL ME a RS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH yG 5S p� 0 MINUTES ROLL� CALL 9� �y��GNif+ ��p August 23, 1982 INDEX BICYCLE TRAILS CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: BT/CAC Motion x Motion was made to accept the resignation of All Ayes Barbara Kimbrell with regret, and to confirm iatrict 1) Council Member Strauss' appointment o Frances Parrer to fill the unexpired term of Bar are Kimbrell ending December 31, 1982. :';-1.5•L:u.?eti,.�:�,,:,.Wr-^,..:Ns't:'..t:S-,.'a•,�C-'• Motion x Motion was made to accept the resignations of All Ayes Robert . Patterson, and Gary Schaumburg with regret, a d to defer (District 3) Mayor Pro Tem • Hart's app ntments to September 13, to Fill their ' -.; °- unexpired terms ending December 31, 1982. ay5.�•:pl.,`,r,^,,;, .,_`,« 4. Rep art from Che�City Attorney and City Clerk Election/ ' regarding REFERENDUM ON RESOLUTION 82-41 (GPA 81- GPA 81-1 Ref _•-•S• ';'� c:?.;:>:?;v,;=;k�v:r•-'•%?'• 1), AND AUTHORI2II•TG EITHER THE PRINTING OF THE .;a ti^e; •e^i:'•;.�, •^ RESOLUTION OR A SYL-OPSIS OF THE RESOLUTION, was (39) ,•yam ..v.,, presented. • -• - Motion x Council Member Maurer indicated he felt the elec- torate olution No. 82-41 in its • entirety should because ofvitseIffiRortance, and therefore, motion was made to authoriz the printing of the • - -- -, . - resolution in full. Council Member Strauss stated t at, inasmuch as the resolution is 57 typewritten ages, and is "terribly oppressive" to look at and x lI) consider, in view of all other readiing material • - ' "%'.? -7 included with the sample ballot such\as candidate •- statements, ballot arguments for and a3ainst measures, etc., he thought the resolution would burden the voter and that it would be much better to summarize the contents of the resolutioq and let the electorate request the full resolut3ea, if that is their desire, To print the resolutio- would be inefficient in his opinion. Ayes n,,,,.• - - Noes x x x x x x x The motion to print the resolution in full was voted on and carried. 5. Memorandum from Council Member Hummel regarding U P 822 A - CHURCH SITE DESIGNATIONS,-was presented. / ( ) Motion x - St. Andrews - - Council Member Maurer, member of the St. Andrews (88) _Church Ad-Aoc,Covuni.ttee�made_a motion 6o refer the subject-letter_to said comnittee_for review._ It was noted that the Public hearing on St. Andrews Church use permit had been continued to September 13, 1982. '•"FL•-+.Et iv�=F.?c;•:r:;';;c+�'•� .<;•i�». Council Member Hummel indicated that the purpose of his letter to the Council was to request adds- _ tional information from the staff which could be ' •, - -, passed on to the church ad-hoc committee. He - Volume 36 - Page 266 ...A�if%lti^'p'•z•)Jy,(+�lRi�i��_I4'�-''''hrw`•4•t^rv-•. ;w.. .:'i�.0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UN CIL ME 8 RS MINUTES ROLL NAVY ��J+P August 23, 1982 INDEX stated it was his understanding that the Planning DIP 822(A) Department is considering a planned-community St. Andrews ,�-4.�F>'w$'Ej-a^5%-:�==f�•'=-`�_�' +?T'+3'+==± development for the use of the Castaways property, and he does not know if a church site is being provided in that development. . ;%wrn;:,ii..C.w'&:j5•:�-' ,�rtyscrt»+; i:,+ :a . . It was indicated by the City Attorney that, ` inasmuch as the St. Andrews Church application was still pending, the land-use issue referred to by Council Member Hummel should be considered sepa- rately from the church. _ Motion x Following comments, substitute motion was made by '+•=r ,.•y"d'' i+;t:,,'�„`: Council Member Hummel to direct the Planning Department to report back on the procedures " •''„'�',• ,'w.:'' sir % ' available to designate a church site on the Casts- , -;;u,�h },..%_«{gin L,±',.;G_ar,,;j•;} ways property after a determination has been made by the Council on the application of St. Andrews _ - Church. r„esy, ;•ki.�..t;Fj;a.; 3 js7:'r•• r,': in response to Council inquiry, the Planning Director advised that his staff was presently working with The Irvine Company on the preparation of a planned-community development plan and the .•, �y«� rs ,,,oGry,,•f,•`,"t.-,„�i�, environmental documentation for the Castaways Y,�G�•A?'a•.�,':F`.T? site. To date, nothing has been completed and no public hearing has been scheduled. Motion x Following discussion, substitute motion was made r •• Ayes x x x to table the subject item, which motion FAILED. • .. - Noes x x x x Ayes x The substitute motion made by Council Member • Noes x x x x x Hummel, as set forth in the foregoing, was voted Abstain x on and FAILED. Ayes x x x x x The original motion made by Soy nc Member.Maurer, Noes x as set for ilth in the for was voted on and - *%•i,X-i Abstain x carried. K. Additional Business: None. . The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. :','�W'�••,�.'�'•4+.>�'kiy._117E.fiKM;S�:; 9:ti.�17i.;1'iwWt+l Volume 36 - Page 267 \• ri'"ii��r t' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UN ME B RS MINUTES - ROLL CALLS dU A August 23, 1982 INDEX To the Pending Legislation and ProceduralResolutions/ .• - •• "._ •--. Et Committee, resolution of the City of Other Cities -•;- •yhi 'c�Y,',._,•, "•...^_y •1,•, f WestminsterijRining with the City of Anaheim (77) -;y;,, -�`„"`^'`_T, y,y ", rw urging our State-Legislators to defeat AB-2660 _ (would alter the comp-ositzLon of the South Coast M - }•• Air Quality Management Distr tt SCAQMD) Board _,;x,,,,y„ _;�_,: �,�,- ;.;.f:;_:;• ,_;%. by adding three political appointees- be '+Mh`"✓ f4fi-:•a*•'"t','�"Y.,-29';°a'^'a' t!`"+"'%7Y. appointed by State office holders). _ - w :,••, (e) To Planning Department for.-inclusion in the /P 822(A) records, letters from Mr. and Mrs. Charles D, St, Andrews Thompson,Mrs.'tharles Wickert, Mrs. Florence Chrch ." •,;,,,,_,4. Parker, Mrs. Ruth Silvey, Mr. and Mrs. Andrew (88) =•. . - '+t`^r Kalanz and William R. Franklin regarding St. Andrews Viesbyt_eria_n-"_Church. (f) To Santa Ana Heights Annexation Ad-Hoc Com- SAna Hghta/ _ mittee for consideration, request of James G. Annex •• - - Harker, President, Back Bay Homeowners Associa- (21) :" ""! ' ::•'_ tion, to move on the Santa Ana Heights Aane�Ca- t1on. {// •.^fr;,;;,ct^,.,Lsty�: ,:`; v_ ,4mr.�; :.,?�C,7% (g) To Planning Department for Inclusion in he U/P 2080 records, Barbara Maples' letter regard#ng "Fun "Fun Zone" ea Zone." •;�^'�•.: , ,;,%° •;j.�3 3':W^-.%FrS+-"^""^ 5. COMMUNICATIONS;- For referral to the City/Clerk for 4.•:.. Inclusion is the retards: .r�� ^,�' •,,. Y,w„` ,'; .T.} 1 (a) Dorothy D. Uhlig, Secretary, Eastbluff Apt. •s o• - .- Owners Association, inquiry regarding U.S. Supreme Court ruling on compensation to owners of apartment buildings by television cable . . .- companies. (b) South Coast Air Quality nagement District's -'-•r;?••.,.;' ,proposed amendments and notice of public hear- - ,V":."'•v"'•G:3;: +; -'4 ing on September 10 (New Source Review, Regu- lation XIII). (c) Al "King Alfonso" Bizanetz's correspondence Te garding his ongoi4 campaign against high interest rates,rLrganized crime and Seagram Distillery family. •• - ..-- - ',�Ll+ (d) Local Agency xmation Commission of Orange County Miny 9 of July 28 and Preliminary •--" '•` '_- - Agenda for'August 25, 1982. • .•,,. / ' 6. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGEB - Fos denial and confirmation of (36) the City C7,drk's referral to the claims adjuster: (a) Evan anger for property damage alleging Klinger '.w\,iF'�?•fir;�J�=k.iay..zM iz»6c:��a:`.S.�1TC cldgged sewer drains due to City trees aus- t ined on July 15, 1982, on 621 Marguerite venue. Volume 36 - Page 261 ''°�z<".•w��K'??�"jai-;w;', •A'1 'J'S�s.:� , tuna 'r.��.h*r',,•.q!%iY'.`s.'�':.,:d3:,:P,�i`*s"Y1k;2,'^N"E-.3 e d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCIL MEMB RS MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING NALLR S•y S� PLACE: Council Chambers • .—, „• . .. 9P9 .p G9 TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: August 9, 1982 ROLL `pip �'P INDEX Permaplaqued Certificates of Appreciation were presented e.o.--+'w-,• ,-�_ to outgoing Board of Library Trustees member David • Henley, and Planning Commissioner Allan Beek. Present x x x, x x x x A.\ ROLL CALL. ��;�', �� .);�,,- •y,',,,. Motion x B. The reading of the Minutes of the Meeting of July "'°""'�!':!¢^a:�y?�^ :':'�'✓� ='�'k`�"R' "'h"' -'_ All Ayes 26, 1982, was waived, approved as amended on Page - -�^��•�,•;,,) •"�%'° 227 paragraph 1, line 6..."state of the art" � ',,;,;yS;iF.�:{;,;,y r4:c'�zY :� •s had..., and ordered filed. ' " •-'.:,,:*,`e}r,t;,,,- •;:,; ,,;,---,'.. Motion x C. The reading of all ordinances and resolutions under °•at--„i ' - " All Ayes consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was _'; ;:::':^'`..:. .'i•; _ •;�y!;� directed\to read by titles only. .Lo,'r,n„" y..o,:y v'•�8:..--•:�"s,.'.:4: D. HEARINGB: � 1 - "'-t;y'"•.,.;;�•^ 1. Mayor Heather opened the continued public hearing Residential Condo Pr • regarding proposed Ordinance being, j/ „�"'•.% .-'""'EY"'"'" \ PC Amnd 568 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (94) • +-='' *.�r=:•;, ^,' AMENDING CHAPTER 20.73 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH •-:',i=•' +:: ,%;:y �u.rm4i. .-. ;ir.�.v'" yxi� MUNICIPAL C06E AS IT PERTAINS TO RESIDENTIAL 1 �•,,,�` ,L;;•.'v,,.,;,,;., gµV CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 568, a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to consider _ r,.,, .:,.••._ ' t�:n_�„.•,�-.t+'s!'}•:"`,} an amendment to Chapter 20.73, Title 20, of the Adak •- ti-`' 'Newport Beach Municipal Code, regarding Residential Condominium Projects. \ LL;,; ;;,: . •^'`• '"' Report from the Planning Department, was presented. :..;:s:..;::•.' .:� •- f'}^'�`-x'�€ - .=?;la^_:. _ Report from the City Attorney,\was presented. ;i:�ti•=h1 ,'-,'^.'..:•� " ��'�^a:ray" ':) The City Attorney stated that his,office had just ':>;,.,'•p?';�'•"�,�'�"ti-++, •q{;'fi• received the opinion from the Fai,�Political :�,-:,,,_A,�,•y.:•,n„ ,, _ ,^.,� Practices Commission as to the Council's concern ' �.""- `•.%`"'0a*�+'.t•i!•S-":•.-• - • • over possible conflict of interest issues regarding the subject ordinance, and after revAwin said opinion, he felt there would not be a conflict of ".•4:=.ri,.;_',,t:�sn,,.,!w_,-�'�.'"^V' interest if the Council did not take any testimony at this time, and took the recommended ac ion on .. �,-y;-� ••,n;,.'i, - _ the agenda. Motion x Motion was made to close the public hearing; disal- All Ayes low introduction of proposed ordinance; and d rect •• the Planning Commission to consider changing t e implementation action of Objective 9 of the Hous� Element in recognition of conditions over loss o rental housing and dislocation of rental tenants. -.,r;.:.�r,-.; .tea•^- ,.«, 2. Mayor Heather opened the public hearing and City St,,Andrews, x',•;.,,•,„r,.,.yl,Lk r-;:Tr'-. „- =.{ Council review of action taken by the Planning U/P 822(A) _ Commission on June 24, 1982, to approve a TRAFFIC- (88) _ - STUDY, U$E_PRMIT N0. 822 (AMENDED), AND AESUB- RIVISION NO. 723, applications of the ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Newport Beach to permit the _ construction of a new church facility located in the R-1 and R-2 Districts at 600 St. Andrews Road, on property bounded by St. Andrews Road, Clay •- Street, and 15th Street, across from the Newport Harbor High School in Cliff Haven. •.: '-, y Volume 36 - Page 245 ,`�je�•,��.ly���'I%7y'K�•F"�nrb,,':p`�'r;',�-i�' , _p+,+F"�v'id'dr"�^r?'Af,Y�.•Tca;:S7S,�-i*'ti=°��ci:-`S ... CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCIL MEMB RS MINvTES ROLL CALF NP 9 Au ust 9 1982 INDEX In response to Mayor Heather's inquiry regarding a ISt. Andrews - a.,«:�• "' possible conflict of interest inasmuch as she is a D/P 822(A) "z�. r;; -• member of St. Andrews Church, the City Attorey .ep,• 'yr '-+,.,`"w�,��`.'.3y?Qd ,y�j advised that, in his opinion, the Mayor couia • participate in this matter; there would not be a conflict of interest; and said participation would «;it; ;Yyy;","r'+ht:'• fia'"'Z ;;�.' "'�Y not taint an1' y decision of the Cit Council. - ,. ti ,tiA r,.,+,•.-1 The Mayor stated that she has not pledged any monies towards the Church building fund and has ' .'•s'.,v,i.,i,�.;'• ,��:.;,c,•;;'-,.,`,..i;1;-,.'» "divorced" herself as much as possible as to the decision making as a member of the Church, so that •`✓='!�?, r:" -„'•>' she could still fulfill her City function and %'•"` represent the City fairly. .a,r "�• "l`M1~r`F` •.'s�' '', Report from the Planning Department, was presented. Letters in support of St. Andrews expansion were :Y ;';� `r ti:;.•e, received from: • ` ,rf Harold Zook, Architect; John Thousand; Ralph ';p''u-�'+f":;� .;Y„,;,"=::;+ `"`•'°''•^'•'" and Dorothy Hilmer; Sid Lindmark, President of the Illuminators (w/petition signed by 26 of their members); Mr. and Mrs. Pat Halderman; - - Betty Mitchell; Mrs. Mildred Nelson; Mary and George Ingles; Mrs. B. Atkinson; Frank and '•i";'✓~d.;5�i ,14*N"a V'',4" Phyllis Herman; Pearl Oberlin; Robert Curtis; ' • ' _ Peggy Caudell; R. G. Mitchell; Mr. and Mrs. ., ,,-.-. Francis Brown; and Henry Swenerton; Charles nr irr z,w:f,(,y4 ••m;�t,y sfiy',xl:} and Marie Palmer; Pete and Orlene Foss; v.` '-;" Phyllis and Kenneth Fowler; Dr, and Mrs. "• - Ronald Rebel; and Edward and F. Joy Ellison. '•:. ;1 •"- Letters opposing St. Andrews expansion were re- ceived from: - —•- - Marcia Maze; Marie Eggstaf£; Tom and Arline Parker; and Barbara Whitford. -•':+r,••v, The City Clerk advised that after the printing of the agenda, additional letters were received From •~'' + the following: ,'• ' "^' - `'•"�: "^ "!•+- r Opposed - Gay and Randall McIlwain, Elaine andl Dick England, Dorothy McKee, Linda Schack, -r i5.q'r'.%�'sn"r4t�',�_%:!}5�+�`';'`.','",'•:' Hollie A. Double, Newport Crest Homeowners ' Association, and Dennis W. Double. Supporting - Frank Caudell, Alice M. Pomeroy, , . •S.�rj�;y- M1�,. j .+,pj p% 'iv -', E. J. Hunter, Edgar R. Barton, John W. Watts, and A letter was also received from Paul Ryckoff re- _ - - garding the proposed height limit. In addition, the City Clerk advised that Cathy Schuller of 900 Kings Road, had telephoned and ., voiced opposition to the proposed tower. Volume 36 - Page 246 • .yam. -.____ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES Z q ROLL CALL �if�� �'P August 9, 1982 INDEX Milan Dostal, representing the Applicant, stated St. Andrews that the Church project has been in the works for . U/P 822(A) over 20 years, and that there was a drastic need '.r =i'•�: for the facilitybeing sought.ht. He stated that the r?.M,:7t: ^"a;,;e`.rk'w•_.:,,»�.....v t..`Pk•,.3;,!e`s - - Church was a function ction of the entire community and serves a valid social need in the City. They felt ^�,,,hN, ,ry ,��;i:., •;,;: s;t�;,.;,. it would be a major asset and add an economic boost to the community. • �i In response to Council inquiries, Mr. Instal stated that the proposed cross-licensing parking agreement _• between the School District and the Church is currently being studied by the legal counsel for -� the school. As to the economic aspects of the proposed expansion, it was felt that, because of the landscaping and the quality of architecture, _ - the surrounding property values would increase. • Dr. John Huffman of St. Andrews Church stated that the Church serves the operational needs of the community and is not just a neighborhood church. He stated that 67% of their membership consists of Newport Beach residents. He discussed some of the programs and services they provide and indicated • - they were outgrowing their present facility. He stated that they currently have a membership of -•..\'y,}My .? , ;-R� ,,� kF; tty�;"y,.'�' approximately 3,000; however, their present sanctu- ,., +'':•,;• r,,,, , sty was only designed to hold 1,500. He urged the '- - ' Council to grant their request for the expansion. • - C. Edward Ware, Architect for the project, referred to exhibits on display, which he stated represent _ the needs of the Church in areas of worship, class- , _ room and fellowship. He stated that in consulta- tion with the Planning Department staff, they designed the facility upward and more compact, and • - by doing so, they are maintaining more open space. He discussed the height of the tower and stated • - that it would not be a detriment to surrounding properties. The following persons addressed the Council in favor of the proposed expansion: :M1- „�,,'t .-}y`rv._•fi•� Charles Palmer, 1701 Kings Road; Dora H£11, 617 Via Lido Send; Vin Jorgensen, 1533 Antigua Way; Roy Ward, 1508 Galaxy Drive; Chuck Rubsamen, 1208 S. Bay Front, Balboa Island; - John Palmer Miller, 1621 Ruth Lane; and Larry ;av� jY ,pj ,y*g.� Weisoff, Corona del Mar. Brian Jeanette, resident of Newport Heights, stated -^ -: � .1' :�,,,'•, ,^:' >oS,71 that he had been asked by some of the residents of _ - Cliff Haven and Newport Heights to address the - Council regarding their concerns. He stated that, if the parking agreement between the School and the Church is a condition of approval, they feel the requirement should be met prior to approval of the • project. Another concern is the height of the Volume 36 - Page 247 t;•;i r,uA:h.'„-h.-.`Yvkr_ajtl`?+.�>s,,-+'�.;(d.iYs�/i r ` CITY OF NE`NPORT BEACH '�Y,i-w`:�'_`.i1.:�•`Fk rA:`•^'y�::,�•.'+ii'f3'�'1+E i • C UNCIL ME 8 RS MINUTES ROLL CALL �P� �'P August 9, 1982 INDEX building in ,relation to the existing one-and two- St. Andrews story buildings in the area. They feel the steeple U/P 822(A) - will reduce residents' privacy and solar rights, and suggested the steeple be brought down to scale '" s„•,IgF+.>?ily;h2e':!";;-^ nx'' •'�`"^ " with the area. In addition, they feel the Church membership will increase as a result of the expan- sion which will create additional problems to -«ifs;-`+ ��•<"+•:'Nr��;�:;?'zFrr?'?+ *''i">5'�% surrounding residents. In response to comment made regarding use of the high school parking lot, it was pointed out that Condition of Approval No. 39 states "that in the event the Church should lose the opportunity to •••`' �;.�,�-:,t,Y�_;-�;.7;:',-r•� :':;,:,,;-� park in the high school parking lot, they shall be j,t:•,;.:h'; _`�S fir,.;T.i:. '�:.. -': required to come back to the City for an amendment •'.%'4+. ••,7-fir;;d++� ;'h'�.!•" '++(•�'-� to this use permit and provide adequate off-street parking. Barbara Whitford, 406 Snug Harbor, Member of St. Andrews Church and Cliff Raven Homeowners Associa- tion, addressed the Council and read a prepared statement in opposition to the proposed expansion. R-+.Y7n:+'^�:••:n"".,'r,'dF'? +itf"•� r She stated that the proposed use was not consistent with the General Plan and was not compatible with single-family residential. ,yy ;�frrJ, f,_„• �M: `_,� �"�;f„� Motion x Inasmuch as the Council had considered this item ,;•M1 .:� x approximately one and one-half hours, motion was .- - 'made to continue the public hearing to September 13, •��' �, y'. ,,:;� 1,? -auhr;.at.' 1982. In addition, a committee was appointed con- n..CS';y'HP9�.•P•'.•'X,:,v -•^"•' sisting of two members from the homeowners associa- tions, two representatives of the Church, and Mayor _ .- Pro Tem Hart and Council Member Maurer, to meet in an attempt to resolve major concerns. " The Mayor inquired if there was anyone in the audience who could not attend the continued hearing on September 13 and wished to give testimony at this i,r+^••.t/ =s _ - ?r time. _ Willard Courtney, 611 St. James Place, made refer- _ - - ence to the Master Plan of Facilities prepared by Larry Seeman Associates, Inc., and stated that the figures with respect to parking were "illogical and don't fit." He indicated he did not feel there -• : :,-^�+{;r;(ir:::Cn,�.r;>.�.;;'•,. ':�:. would be adequate parking for the number of people attending the Church. Larry Smith, 3 Oakmont Lane, spoke in support of th ,�r '„, .•, .L - �;:.••i;•,+i project. He stated he felt the parking requirement ° :" ' •++.,.`.Sx?$,z�.�'r_ `:' were being met and urged approval of the request. He stated that in driving through the neighborhood he has noted the area is expanding with many home •:-1 �AdS.",��Y:p:.j+ii�i,,r, yr�;y:,�,�.,_tr! additions, remodeling, etc., which he did not feel increased traffic. He also felt the traffic on Sundays in the area of Dover and the Church was minimal. • Bob Cooper, 418 Signal Road, appeared in opposition - to the proposal. He indicated he did not approve f of the appearance of the structure, as it was not !I compatible with the area. Volume 36 - Page 248 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCiL MEMB RS MINUTES S �A ROLL CALL ��Np� �9 August 9, 1982 INDEX All Ayes The motion on the floor was voted on, and carried. y _ E. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: •u„ � "\• — - ,.vr - 'v Motion x e following actions were taken as indicated, except All Ayes fo those items removed: \ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION: Pass to second read- - •�i,;,;.,p';'''•�;;•"'-',« '... ng and adoption on August 23, 1982: (a Proposed Ordinance No. 82-18, being, Ord 82-18 Y V.ehCode/Enfcm AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (85) "`,`,h i%;,�,':•�• RESCINDING SECTION 12.66.040 OF THE -.;� ,=`• _ NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REMOVING 1=„•-„jt��;r SLJr,', �,.E;,{:7,�';�,y�^,."`:'.,� VEHICLE CODE'ENFORCEMENT FROM PRIVATE STREETS IN NEWPORT CREST. (Report from Traffic Affairs Committee) '•'° •• 2. RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION: (a) Resolution No. 82-118 requiring vehicles on Tfk/Signals 6 Prospect''Street to stop at Seashore Drive and Signs ••`,.%•;n;. ": directing the Traffic Engineer to erect and Res 82-118 maintain all necessary signs thereat. (Report (85) -from Public\.\orks) (b) Resolution No. 82-119 approving participation Garbage/Trsh ''•• ;',''��' '"•?�.',r7'.�' 'F'=x'^"'-Y'Y 9'•�':` in litigation'against the County with regard O/C Land Fill to County Land'Fill Gate Fees. (Report from Res 82-119 • City Attorney w/, resolution) (44)/(54) .,, ,-; -;`• -`,^, .:.- (c) Resolution No.82-120 approving a Dam Failure Flood Cntrl/ ^�:. .''• ~' - Evacuation Plan (DBEP). (Report from the City Dam Failure ::;-+�, •� Manager) , Res 82-120 (79) (d) Resolution No. 82-121'\requesting the Orange No.Star Bch/ '-•;,y..,"''' • " County Board of Supervisors to consider the ^�,r.,'•; Aquatic Ctr adoption of a Joint Powers Agreement relative Res 82-121 to the establishment of en Aquatic Center on - North Star Beach. (Report from Assistant City Attorney) ••M«`'✓`'}'«:�`r?�`.'"" 'T` - 3. CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS - For•approval: (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. '- (b) Agreement with Jean Tandowsky for services as Arts Comsn a publicity consultant for the City Arts Pblety/82-83 Commission 1982-83 Fiscal Year; and authorize C-2116 •.ry,,'ri{•,•'rt:'e•Y.` ,.y ., Y the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said (38) agreement. (Report from Chairman d€ the Arts % Commission) \ 4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral as indicated: _ - - - (a) To Pending Legislation and Procedural Abics Legislation Committee: California Water Resources Associa- (48) tion (Water Resources Statutory Initiative); and request for recommendations on budget . finalization of cities from California Assem- •" blyman (27th District) Larry Stirling. Volume 36 - Page 249 �,. r d ,'Y OF NEWPORT BLCH C UN CIL ME B RS MINUTES ROLL CALL ��G�i1+� P June 28, 1982 INDEX .r� Captain Jim Gardiner of the Police Department ad- NB Police Ann dressed the Council and stated that the morale thin the department is very high, and the staff � '.,�, -� FyN -,'•'7X is nthusiastic about their work. As a result, _ thei productivity has increased, which reflects a safer Qmmunity. For the first five months of this year`they have lowered their seven major offenses by 11%. He spoke in support of their ` proposal andd ndicated their willingness to work with the Council and staff to resolve the differ- ,': - ences. n - r•%^c-f« -�;' Barbara Long, 1337 Gblaxy Drive, Vice President of .."•b; •' ': `�''K�1�=,;;.��+:.,.r -. i• Area II Community Conskess, addressed the Council %•I'<'s,�.'-4="-=�~'2' and stated that she represented a volunteer organs- ' ..`W ems'.;:, ,•',"_..a-:.. -"•;-�:.=,;i_=:! '[5�;-:n:,'u`^=i_'?a•;'(s�'„^".(r,iv'i`,,;;f, :+_ ration consisting of representatives from the �?r•^''--"`.._F;..-c,..,. various homeowners associations in the City. She ti t°-� "'^^-:r.' ' '• organizes and administers "Neighborhood Watch" programs, and feels the community needs a strong police department. She stated that the residents _ - want to retain the current personnel; continue -'•+sY-�:" �•:- _ to attract the "cream of the crop," and urged the •.».7+'i,��`!'� •�:'=r«;;=f'. ,`}',':"".+;•: '-;r Council to give consideration to the association's .. - proposal. \\\ It was indicated the Council would also consider std�'�:-•`• "' ?;:+' • the Police Employees Association's proposal in ` ? •^�.~:�Y�,-�W#10 , Executive Session following the meeting. K. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion x 1. Motion was made-to schedule a public hearing on DIP 822(A)/ All Ayes August 9, 1982, for Use Permit No. 822 (Amended),- Tfk Stdy e -,• Traffic Studi and Resubdivision No. 723, St, Andrew Resub 723 Church. 2. Motion was made to extend completion date of con- Balboa Pier All Ayes tract to July 13, 1982, with Douglas Cavanaugh Concsn •• ..;,1 ;..•.t:..>;,_r - relative to the Balboa Pier Concession, as recom- C-2326 ` - mended by the City Manager. (38) The Council adjourned to an Executive Session at 9:50 p.m., to discuss personnel matters. r •'7:Ma; >•r ih.,'... "' • The meeting reconvened at 10:30 p.m., and adjourned in •;i.4.},;:;,-_:r:>,i%i-•!1 ?," -",.;+o memory of Carter McDonald, former member of the Library Board of Trustees, and William Narbeck, former Chief 1 Building Inspector. J + Volume 36 - Page 209 City Council Meeting September 13, 1982 Agenda Item No. D-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Mayor Pro Tem 'Hart and Council Member Maurer SUBJECT: ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Background At the City Council meeting of August 9, 1982, •a committee consisting of two members from the Homeowners Association, two representatives of the Church, and Mayor Pro Tem Hart and Council Member Maurer, was appointed to meet and to attempt to resolve the major concerns which have been raised with respect to this project. Subsequent to the August 9, 1982 City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Hart 'and Council Member Maurer have met collectively on two occasions with Peter Gendron and Barbara Whitford; representing the Community Association, and Bob Curtis • and Jim Hunter, representing the Church. In addition, Council Member Maurer has met individually with the representatives of the Community Association and the Church. Recommendation The negotiations with the committee.appear now to be at a point where there is some movement between the Community Association and the Chur6b. We would therefore recommend to the City Council that there be an additional continuance of the public hearing on the Traffic Study, Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) , and Resubdivision No. 723 so as to provide additional time to bring to a conclusion the negotiations currently underway. Respectfully submit ed, JAMES D. HEWICKER lanning Director for Mayor Pro Tem Hart and Council Member Maurer JDH/kk City Council Meeting August 9, 1982 Agenda Item Nos. D-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Supplemental Information "St. Andrews Project" Attached please find a copy of the Initial Study for the above subject project which was inadvertently not distributed with the previous information on this project. Respectfully Submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Fred Talari o Environmental Coordinator FT/pw attachment • City Council Meeting August 9, 1982 Agenda Item Nos. D-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the expansion of an existing church facility located in the R-1 and R-2 District. AND Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a new church sanctuary building in the R-1 and R-2 Districts which includes meeting rooms, a banquet room, classrooms, administrative offices and a kitchen facility. A new education building is also proposed. The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the proposed sanctuary building and a building-mounted cross, to exceed 35 feet in height; a request to waive a portion of the required on-site parking spaces for the proposed sanctuary; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND Resubdivision No. 723 (Public Hearing) Request to establish a single parcel of land for the expansion of an existing church facility, where 10 lots, a portion of one lot, and a proposed abandoned alley presently exist. LOCATION: Lots 31-35, Tract 1220; Lots 142-146, Tract 1218; a portion of Lot 171, Block 54, Irvine's Subdivision; and a 20 foot wide alley located at 600 St. Andrews Road, on property bounded by St. Andrews Road, Clay Street, and 15th Street, across from the Newport Harbor High School, in Cliff Haven. ZONE: R-1 and R-2 APPLICANT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach • OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach • TO: City Council - 2. Suggested Action If desired, sustain or modify the actions of the Planning Commission. OR Sustain or modify the actions of the Planning Commission on the Traffic Study, Resubdivision No. 723 and the Environmental Document; and deny Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) with the Findings listed in Exhibit B. Planning Commission Action At the June 24, 1982 Planning Commission meeting the Commission approved the above subject project taking the actions indicated below. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes is attached. A. Approved the Traffic Study (6 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent) B. Accepted the Negative Declaration (4 Ayes, 2 Noes, 1 Absent) C. Approved Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) (4 Ayes, 2 Noes, 1 Absent) D. Approved Resubdivision No. 723 (6 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent) Application The St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach, has proposed several applications which would allow the construction of a new church sanctuary building which includes meeting rooms, a banquet room, classrooms, administrative offices and a kitchen facility. Additionally, a new education building is being proposed. The several requests being made, in order to accomplish this are outlined below: 1) Acceptance of a Traffic Study prepared pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic Phasing Ordinance") and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Guidelines for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") , and the approval of the project based on the data contained therein for the ultimate purposes of issuances of building and grading permits. 2) Acceptance of an environmental document as having been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the "State CEQA Guidelines" and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on the project. L_ . TO: City Council- 3. 3) The approval of Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) to allow for the expansion of an existing church in a residentially zoned area, to exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet and to waive a portion of the required off-street parking. Use Permit procedures are outlined in Chapter 20.80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4) The approval of Resubdivision No. 723 to establish a single parcel of land where ten (10) lots, a portion of one (1) lot, and a proposed abandoned alley presently exist. Resubdivision procedures are outlined in Chapter 19.12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The project site is located between 15th Street, Clay Street, and St. Andrews Road in the Cliff Haven area. The site is located across the street from Newport Harbor High School. Adjacent land uses include: Newport Harbor High School to the north and northeast; Masonic Temple and residential (primarily duplexes) to the west; and, single-family residential to the south and . southeast. • Project Description The existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church facilities are located between 15th Street, St. Andrews Road, and an alley. The proposed expansion area, between the alley and Clay Street, presently is occupied by 12 one and two family residences. St. Andrews Church owns these homes and lots. Most of the homes have been owned by the church for several years. The homes have been used by church employees or families being assisted by the church. The proposed project will result in removal of the 12 residences and some existing church buildings. New construction would include: a sanctuary/education/administration building, an education building, and two parking lots. Project statistics are shown on the following pages. The new education building will be similar in design to the existing education buildings. The new sanctuary will have a brick exterior painted an off-white/gray color to match the existing buildings. The roof will be tiled to simulate wood shake. • The church anticipates an 18 to 20 month construction period that is expected to begin in 1982. Building occupancy is anticipated in January 1984. TO: City Council - 4. Project Characteristics The below chart provides a comparison of the project as approved by the Planning Commission and the original project reviewed by the Commission at its meeting of April 22, 1982. PLAN COMPARISON Planning Commission Approved Project Original Project *Sanctuary/Education/Administration Building *Lower Level Fellowship Hall 5,943 sq.ft. Stage & Storage 1,049 sq.ft. Kitchen & Serving 1,903 sq:ft. Loby 1,340 sq.ft. 10,235 sq.ft. 10,642 sq.ft. Education 4,053 sq.ft. 5,544 sq.ft. 0 Music 3,512 sq.ft. 3,160 sq.ft. Administration 1,043 sq.ft. -0- Circulation & Music 3,383 sq.ft. 51098 sq.ft. TOTAL 24,923 sq.ft. 24,444 sq.ft. *First Floor Workshop Sanctuary 12,408 sq.ft. Narthex 3,760 sq.ft. 16,168 sq.ft. 18,398 sq.ft. Education 1,843 sq.ft. 3,437 sq.ft. Administration 1,223 sq.ft. -0- Circulation & Music 3,817 sq.ft. 11525 sq.ft. TOTAL 23,051 sq.ft. 23,360 sq.ft. *Second Floor Workshop (Balcony) 4,982 sq.ft. 6,155 sq.ft. Education 1,843 sq.ft. 3,682 sq.ft. Administration 2,707 sq.ft. 1,594 sq.ft. Circulation & Music 3,122 sq.ft. TOTAL: 23,654 sq.ft. 11,431 sq.ft. *Third Floor Administration 2,360 sq.ft. 2,614 sq.ft. III • TO: City Council -5. *Fourth Floor Administration 1,747 sq.ft. 2,183 sq.ft. *Fifth Floor Administration 1,389 sq.ft. 1,817 sq.ft. *Sixth Floor Mechanical Rev. Project Meeting and/or Chapel ' -0- 1,555 sq.ft. Mechanical Original Project *Building Height Lower level -15 feet -15 feet First level 0 feet 0 feet Second Floor 12 feet 12 feet Third Floor 24 feet 24 feet Fourth Floor 36 feet 36 feet Fifth Floor 48 feet 48 feet •, Sixth Floor (Mechanical)62 feet 60 feet Mechanical 74 feet Maximum Building Height 85 feet 105 feet Top of Cross 105 feet 145 feet Parking High school Lot 265 spaces 265 spaces Clay St./St. Andrews Rd. Below Grade 77 spaces At Grade 84 spaces 75 spaces Above Grade 80 spaces Total 232 spaces Clay St./15th St. At Grade 44 spaces 44 spaces TOTAL PARKING: 393 spaces 541 spaces The Planning Commission and the applicant made several other changes in the proposed project from that originally submitted. The changes include rotating the sanctuary tower 45 degrees, a reduction in administrative space, and a reduction in the number of seats in the sanctuary. Attached for City Council review and consideration are elevations which indicate the project with dated • lines showing the original submittal (Attachment No. 5 to the June 24, 1982 Planning Commission staff report) . • TO: City Council -6. Conformance with General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element designates the site as Low-Density Residential (between 15th Street, St. Andrews Road and the alley) and Two-Family Residential (between the alley and Clay Street) . Churches are a permitted use in residential areas. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the "State CEQA Guidelines," and City Policy K-3, an Initial Study was prepared on the project. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, the City's Environmental }Affairs Committee determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration for the project was issued. Copies of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration are attached. Zoning The project site is designated R-1 (between 15th Street, St. Andrews Road and the alley) and R-2 (between the alley and Clay Street) . These zoning • designations are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. The proposed project is a permitted use in any residential district subject to the securing of a use permit. A summary of the zoning requirements, existing conditions (church only) and the proposed project's conditions is presented in the comparison chart below: ZONING COMPARISON CHART Zoning Code Item Existing Proposed Requirements User type Religious institution, Religious Conditional R-2 residential institution use permit Height 36' existing 34' average - sanctuary new sanctuary 46' to top of pitched sanctuary roof 85' (plus 40' cross) 35' tower in admini- stration building Parking (See Staff Analysis) • • TO: City Council -7. Setbacks(1) Clay Street 20' 201+ 20' St. Andrews Rd. 4' 201+ 4' 15th St. 4' 201+ 4' (1) The applicants pp propose a minimum 20' setback for all new building construction. Staff Analysis TRAFFIC STUDY The applicants have requested acceptance of a Traffic Study and approval of the proposed project based on the data contained therein for the purposes of issuance of 'building and grading permits. The Traffic Study was prepared in conjunction with the Initial Study and is included therein as an appendix, The Traffic Study was prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport • Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic Phasing Ordinance") and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") . The City Traffic Engineer identified four intersections that could be impacted by the proposed project. The Traffic Study indicates that the increased project traffic would not exceed one percent of the existing, plus committed projects, plus regional growth traffic on any approach to the four intersections identified during the 2.5 peak period. The Planning Commission approved the Traffic Study with the findings indicated in the attached minutes. USE PERMIT NO. 822 (AMENDED) At its meeting of February 15, 1962, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Use Permit 822 to permit the expansion of the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church sanctuary (i.e. increasing the seating capacity of the sanctuary from 470 persons to 750 seats and other minor buildings additions) . No on-site parking spaces were required by the Planning Commission, but credit was given for 180 spaces on the property of the Newport Harbor High School to the north of the subject property across 15th Street. • At the date of the granting of Use Permit No. 822, the on-site church facilities consisted of the sanctuary, a chapel, five classroom buildings, and a large fellowship-social hall. • TO: City Council -8. Building records on file in the Building Department also indicate that one of the classroom buildings was converted into a day care school in 1970. At its meeting of February 25, 1974, the City Council approved an amendment to Use Permit No. 822 to allow for the construction of a new church sanctuary and related church facilities; the conversion of the existing sanctuary into multi-purpose rooms and offices; off-street parking spaces; and the acceptance of an environmental document. The amended Use Permit No. 822 was never implemented. The St. Andrews Presbyterian Church is now requesting an amendment to Use Permit No. 822 to permit the construction of a new church sanctuary building which includes meeting rooms, a banquet room, classrooms, administrative offices and a kitchen facility. A new education building and off-street parking are also proposed. The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the proposed sanctuary building and a building-mounted cross *to exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height and a request to waive a portion of the required on-site, off-street parking for the proposed sanctuary, . Based upon the testimony at the public hearings it appears to staff that there are two major issues related to the request: parking and structure height. Each of these is discussed on the following pages. Parking The applicants have requested a waiver of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requirements for on-site parking spaces for the proposed sanctuary. The Planning Commission's approval of this project included several conditions (Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) Condition Nos. 28,29,30,32,33,35,37,38, & 39) which relate to the design and provision of off-street parking for the proposed project. Based upon these conditions, the applicants have prepared a revised site plan (Attachments No. 3 & 4) , the revised parking layout provides parking as indicated below: PROPOSED PARKING SPACES LOCATION REGULAR COMPACT TOTAL High School 265 265 Clay St./ St. Andrews Rd. Below Grade 41 82 35 72 76 At Grade 41 37 78 • Clay 15th St. Grad At Grade 44 44 TOTALS: 391 72 463 % Total Parking (84%) (16%) % On-Site Parking (62%) (38%) TO: City Council -9. Neither the R-1 nor the R-2 Zoning District makes a specific provision for church related off-street parking requirements. Section 20.30.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code though provides that places of public assembly shall provide one parking spaces for each five seats. Based upon the Zoning Code, the project is required to provide 227 on-site/off-street parking spaces. A parking study has been prepared by the City's consultants for both "peak" and "non-peak" periods. Field studies were accomplished on the following Sundays: December 20, 1981; January 10, 1982; and June 21, 1982. The findings of these studies are summarized on the following pages. ATTENDANCE - "NON-PEAK" Attendance Total Attendance Capacity %Capacity EXISTING January 10, 1982 7:30 a.m. 215 15% 750 29% 8:45 a.m. 683 48% 750 91% 10:15 a.m. 564 37% 750 75% 0 1462 100% 2250 63% June 21, 1982 7:30 a.m. 177 12% 750 24% 8:45 a.m. 644 45% 750 86% 10:15 a.m. 625 43% 750 83% 1446 100% 2250 64% Average of 2 above 7:30 a.m. 196 13% 750 26% 8:45 a.m. 664 46% 750 89% 10:15 a.m. 595 41% 750 79% 1455 100% 2250 65% ESTIMATED Future Initial Attendance 9:00 a.m. 800 55% 1135 71% 10:00 a.m. 655 45% 1135 58% 1455 100% 2270 64% ESTIMATED Ultimate Attendance (1) 9:00 a.m. 1041 55% 1135 92% • 10:00 a.m. 852 45% 1135 75% 1892 100% 2270 83% (1) Ultimate "Non-Peak" attendance has been estimated as approximately a 30% increase over the measured conditions average. • TO: City Council -10. ATTENDANCE "PEAK" EXISTING ATTENDANCE % TOTAL ATTENDANCE CAPACITY % CAPACITY December 20, 1982 , (7:30 a.m.) 250 13% 750 33% (8:45 a.m.) 910 48% 750 1.21% (10:15 a.m.) 739 39% 750 99% TOTAL: 1899 100% 2250 84% ESTIMATED Future Initial Attendance , (9:00 a.m.) 1044 55% 1135 92% (10:00 a.m.) 855 45% 1135 75% TOTAL: 1899 1008 2270 84% ESTIMATED (1) Ultimate Attendance (9:00 a.m.) 1357 55% 1135 1.20% (10:00 a.m.) 1112 45% 1135 98% TOTAL: 2469 100% 2270 109% . "NON-PEAK" PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ATTENDANCE SUPPLY PERSONS PER VEHICLE EXISTING January 10, 1982 (8:45 Service) on street 199 alley 34 High School 237 683 470 1.45 June 21, 1982 (8:45 Service) On street 173 alley 31 High School 214 664 418 1.54 Average 2 above (8:45 Service) On street 186 alley 33 • High School 226 664 445 1.49 • TO: City Council -11. ESTIMATED Future Initial Attendance ("Non-Peak") (9:00 Service) On street 115 alley -0- RYh School 226 on-site 196 800 537 1.49 ESTIMATED Ultimate Attendance ("Non-Peak") (9:00 Service) On street 238 alley -0- (2)H School 265 On site 196 1041 699 1.49 "PEAK" PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ATTENDANCE SUPPLY PERSONS PER VEHICLE EXISTING December 20, 1981 (8:45 Service) On street 228 alley 34 High School 277 910 539 1.69 ESTIMATED Future Initial Attendance ("Peak") (9:00 Service) On street 157 alley -0- IIyh School 265 on-site 196 1044 618 1.69 ESTIMATED Ultimate Attendance ("Peak") (9:00 Service) On street 342 alley -0- (2)H School 265 On site 196 1357 603 1.69 • (1)Two (2) on-site spaces assumed to be used by Church Vans. (2)Assumes increased usage (15% over Average) • TO: City Council -12. The preceding charts indicate that upon initial occupancy of the project for both "peak" and "non-peak" conditions, adequate parking will be available. However, as growth in attendance occurs it is anticipated that demand for on-street parking will increase and ultimately exceed both "non-peak" (238 projected vs 186) and "peak" (346 projected vs 228) . Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) , Condition No. 38, requires the applicants to monitor attendance and semi-annually report attendance figures to the Planning Department. They are also required to monitor usage of the off-street parking areas. During any four (4) week period where attendance exceeds 1040 persons per service, or if attendance exceeds 915 and usage is less than 85% of capacity for the high school and on-site/off-street parking areas, the applicants shall modify the projects operational characteristics to lessen parking demand in a manner acceptable to the Planning Department or apply for an amendment to the Use Permit to provide additional on-site/off-street parking. It should also be noted that additional parking could be provided by restriping the existing high school lot and adding compact parking spaces. It was the opinion of the Planning Commission and staff that the condition described above will provide sufficient control and allow leeway in the event • the anticipated split in attendance between services or choice in parking locations does not occur. Structure Height Structures on the existing church site are one and two stories tall. The existing sanctuary is thirty-five feet tall. The Planning Commission has approved the applicants' request for the construction of a portion of the proposed sanctuary building and a building-mounted cross which would exceed the height limit. Section 20.02.080 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that church structures used for church purposes are exempt from height limitations, except that any structure exceeding thirty-five feet in height shall require a use permit. The revised proposed project will have a total height of 85 feet to the top of the structure, and 105 feet to the top of the proposed cross. Elevations, sections and floor plans are attached. Section 20.02.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishes the below listed criteria for reviewing structures in excess of the basic height limit. While the proposed use (church) is exempt from meeting the criteria, staff has provided an analysis of the project related to the criteria to facilitate consideration of this project: • 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than are required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. • TO: City Council -13. 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. The Planning Commission found that the project meets the criteria specified under Item Nos. 1 and 4, in that without the use permit, the same amount of floor area could be contained in a lower structure covering a larger area of the site. If this were to be done, the design might result in less open space and landscaped areas and might also result in a less visually appealing development. All setbacks established by the zoning district are maintained by the proposed project. • With respect to Item No. 2, the Planning Commission found that the proposed design results in a more desirable architectural treatment of the church and provides a stronger and more visual character for the site than could have been accomplished within 35 feet. with respect to Item No. 3, the Planning Commission found that the proposed structure will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing surrounding development. While no structures have space occupied at this height, the tower at Newport Harbor High School is 97 feet tall. The aesthetic and view impacts of the church tower will be comparable. The visibility of the tower from a particular location will depend on distance, topography, landscaping at view location and meteorological conditions. Additionally, the proposed structure has been designed so as to locate its highest portion at the approximate center of the site. Finally, the revised project sanctuary was rotated 45 degrees and tower lowered by 20 feet. The overall visual effect of these two changes will vary depending upon the location of the viewer. From Clay Street the project will appear somewhat shorter and to have additional mass, if compared to the original submittal. The administrative offices on the third, fourth, and fifth floors will look directly to the west where previously they viewed to the south/southwest. Although windows from these floor have been added in the • revised plans which provide views to the south/southwest. • TO: City Council -14. RESUBDIVISION NO. 723 The applicants have requested the approval of Resubdivision No. 723 to establish a single parcel of land where ten (10) lots, a portion of one (1) lot, and a proposed abandoned alley presently exist. The total area of the parcel would be 3.94 acres. Resubdivision procedures are outlined in Section 19.12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The proposed map is consistent with all provisions of said section and the Newport Beach General Plan and zoning for the site. Alley Abandonment A Revised Preliminary Report from the California Land Title Company indicates that the underlying fee of a portion of the alley between the church buildings and residential units was never conveyed to the adjacent parcels in Tracts 1218 and 1220, and that this underlying fee remained under the ownership of the developer, Earl W. Stanley, and his wife, Mildred Stanley, or their successors or assigns (the Stanley Estate) . The proposed project requires that the alley be abandoned by the City. If the alley is abandoned by the City after a finding is made that there is no longer . a public need for the alley, the alley right-of-way reverts to the underlying fee owners--Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church and the Stanley Estate. Before a parcel map can be filed to create a single parcel in the block surrounded by Clay Street, Saint Andrews Street and 15th Street, the Church will need to obtain clear title to the underlying fee to the full width of the alley and have the alley abandoned. The applicants have indicated a preference that a vote on the project precede efforts by the City to abandon the alley. The project has been conditioned by Planning Commission action on the abandonment, by the City, of the alley which transects the site. In order to abandon the alley the City Council will ultimately need to adopt two resolutions. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT DAMES D. HEWICKER, Dire or 1"J, By Fred Talarico, • Environmental Coordinator FT:tn . TO: Planning Commission -15. Attachments: (For City Council Only) Exhibit "B" 1. Revised Project Date (July 1982) 2. Revised Site Plan - Parking Garage Upper Level (July 1982) 3. Revised Site Plan - Parking Garage Lower Level (July 1982) 4. Letter: Henry K. Swenerton - July 13, 1982 S. Planning Commission Minutes, Staff Reports and other Information A. Planning Commission Minutes - June 24, 1982 B. Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 1982 C. Attachment Distributed Evening of June 24, 1982 D. Memorandum: Planning Director - June 24, 1982 E. Planning Commission "Supplemental Information Report" - June 24, 1982 with Attachments F. Planning Commission Staff Report - June 24, 1982 (with Attachments) G. Attachments Distributed Evening of April 22, 1982 H. Planning Commission:"Correspondence" - April 22, 1982 I. Planning Commission: Staff Report - April 22, 1982 • EXHIBIT "B" 8/9/82 EXHIBIT""B" RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 822 (AMENDED) USE PERMIT NO. 822 (AMENDED) FINDINGS: ' 1. That not withstanding any previous approval of Use Permit No. 822, the expansion of the church between the alley and Clay Street is not desirable. 2. That in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach, the visual character of the subject property and surrounding residential area would be altered so as to have a less desirable and appealing nature. . 3. That not withstanding any previous approval of Use Permit No. 822, the expansion of the church without all required off-site parking is not reasonable. 4. That the increased building height, in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach, does not result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building. 5. That occupying portions of the proposed project above the average height of the existing on-site sanctuary is not in keeping with the primary land use of the neighborhood. 6. That the occupied portions of the proposed project above the average height of the existing on-site sanctuary could be relocated on-site through the re-design of the proposed project. 7. That the proposal to occupy portions of the project above the average height of the existing sanctuary increases the bulk of the vertical dimensions of the structure. ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 600 ST. ANDREW'S ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA CONSULTING ARCHITECT ARCHITECT C. EDWARD WARE ASSOCIATES INC.' IRWIN & ASSOCIATES AIA 415 Y BOULEVARD 16400 PACIFIC COAST HWY. ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS 61107 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 PROJECT DATA EXISTING PROPOSED ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS 1. USER TYPE R-2 R-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, (RESIDENTIAL) (RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION) REDUCTION-OF SETBACK FOR PARKING 2. BUILDING AREA 44,688 S F. 100,428 S.F. 3. NO. OF PARKING 0 ON-SITE 198ON-SITE 277 AT 18' PER SEAT SPACES (USE OF STREET/ALLEY 227 AT 22"PER SEAT PARKING & HIGH SCHOOL 270 HIGH SCHOOL LOT (1 PER 5 SEATS LOT) 468 TOTAL IN SANCTUARY) 4. BUILDING HEIGHT 36' 34' AVERAGE - NONE (EXISTING SANCTUARY) NEW SANCTUARY 85' MAXIMUM - ADMINISTRATION BUILDING p 5. NO. OF SEATS/ 650 AT 18" PER SEAT 1385AT 19 PER SEAT E? OCCUPANTS 544 AT 22" PER SEAT 1135AT 22' PER SEAT I 0 3 ( SANCTUARY ) (SANCTUARY) I to rri 00 N � Z I t-S S.L�3,L I{:1NNN;)NtlI113.LAlIF'Ii 1IiI S,Ma1i[INtl',45 tlItl C'3.LYI�OSStl i � III�Htl ^•Si,LtlI:)OSStl 3Ntl/s\(INtlM[13 nu d s-o-s sNtlld 311S arFs.vor Ys os au o .w L•W�2 WLL'T,..Lv.na MaH. .s ��.�- ' ' ) l I' ' P JL t'N•FAI (saJ7.66) .4xN -aI.LK 9wVN,n..Y4f Ll» L .. . I•rn -------------- ot \ � 6 CO = C m CO o NO Aumvins 30tldS'JNINBtld A � O IID8pII0 NtlIN8.I,AflSBNd S.h18NflNtl'yS VIV 53ytl100SS ' S.IAeyIHONtl ^'S3ytlI00SStl 3>ItlM L18tlMf13 :1 191e a [4[•. 9s a.9 o O1 Nvid Ellis °.til s.vvxtil 6 •+�L9o')i WLL'XAl1nWi N..N• � 1 - -_ �1 w• \ JS P.9 Fq ebvv/ }�YO• O� S, � y v,avo.o.viol vi°l -um ��tvs�iun Avu voc.as.aysww /•i .10 10, \ , tk, I . i 00 - I - o o HENRY K. SWENERTON ATTACH�M]'EENNT' NO.. 4' ,'��n�'j� ` 1106 W. OCEAN FRONT 8/9/82 .• ` / 1 {� t NEWPORT BEACH, CAUFORNIA 92661 `ti��C�' PHONE(714)673.8395 cP July 13, 19 sD �• •'� '• j S C1S't aEACN, g . _I I N CITY COUNCIL NEWpORt Op1,tE• •� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH y �u _,41��� RJ 3300 W. Newport Blvd. , lkst Newport Beach, Ca. ,. 92663 ti till S ti c� Subjects Public Hearing In The Matter Of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Scheduled For .august 9, 1982 Before The City Council Honorable Mayor and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council , We most earnestly and respectfully request that you will take the time to read and consider this letter. We have owned our home at the above address since it was . built in 1939 and we are charter members of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. We are fully acquainted with the growth of Newport Beach and appreciate the problems you face in objectively resol- ving disputes regarding land use and planning in this city. As you know the application of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church was approved by the Planning Commission following a public hearing on June 24, 1982. However, the action of the Planning Commission has been appealed. We urge the Council to support the action of the Planning Commission and to deny the appeal for ,the following reasonss 1 . The St. Andrews Presbyterian Church is recognized as one of the leading congregations in its denomination and is serving the community very ,effectively with vital programs Date which address some of the most serious problems afflicting etaaSENTTO: our society. Newport Beacn needs this church. ❑Councilmen 2, The revised architectural plans which have been prepared ❑-1Wanager ❑ feerivyr by C. Edward Ware Associates, one of the most able church ❑ ' architectural firms in the county , are responsive : ❑ Dir. y, p ❑ P8 8 R Dir. li -planning Dir. ❑ police Chief ❑ p,W. Dir ❑ Other 2 . A. To the program needs of the church congregation, in terms of worship, Christian education, fellowship and administration; B. The suggestions of the Planning Commission as expressed at the first public hearing which we attended; C. To the objections of the neighbors. We urge the Council to look beyond the noise level and the verbal aggression of some of the neighbors to the legitimate and urgent needs of the community for adequate worship facilities. To all of our neighbors we extend the hand of goodwill and love. The St. Andrews Church has no plans for a quantum increase in its membership, even though Dr. John Huffman, Senior Pastor, and his most able staff now attract congregations of a size which cannot be accomodated in the present sanctuary. A larger percentage of the church membership is now attending services. There are numerous Presbyterian churches in Orange County, including the recently founded church in Irvine. • The new plan will utilize an entire city block, which, although small, will avoid any incursions into, or direct contiguous interface with residential parcels, as in the past. Our neighbors will benefit by church goers using on-site parking facilities which will greatly alleviate street parking in the area. The new architectural plans reflect a nearly 30�5 reduction in the mass of the new building and a lowering of the steeple by some twenty feet. In the past, the planning at St. Andrews Church has been some- what myopic. The existing sanctuary, from the start, was too small. It is not realistic to continue to conduct three consecutive Sunday services , church school and related worship services. The burden on ministers, choir, church school teachers and other staff is too great. Members, being unable to find seats in the sanctuary, must be accomodated in chapels or the fellowship hall. As a former Chairman of the Building Committee at the La Canada/ Flintridge Presbyterian Church, a trustee of Occidental College • and of three church-related nonprofit hospitals and a school board, /�F 3 • I have had considerable experience in master planning over the years. I believe that the master plan as now approved by the congregation and the Planning Commission, is brilliant. Further- more , the plan will ensure minimal disruption and inconvenience during the construction phase. When the church construction is completed, it will be a source of inspiration and pride to the entire neighborhood. Thank you for serving our community and representing all of our citizens. Sincerely, /a G COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: June 24, 1982 DRAFT FT m F City of Newport Beach KH ROLL CALL INDEX X X X * X X X Commissioner King was absent. Commissioner Balalis was present at 7:45 p.m. EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Craig Bluell, Senior Planner Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary . Staff advised the .Commission that the applicant for. Items No. 5 and 6 - Use Permit No. 2086 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 11806, has 'withdrawn these items. Items No. Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with 1 2 and 3 the expansion of an existing church facility located in the R-1 and R-2 District. TRAFFIC AND STUDY Request to permit the construction of a new church E PERMIT sanctuary building in the R-1 and R-2 Districts which USE 822 includes meeting rooms, a banquet room, classrooms, men ed) administrative offices and a kitchen facility. A new education building, is also proposed. The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the proposed sanctuary building and a building-mounted cross, to exceed 35 feet in height; a request to waive a portion of the required on-site parking spaces for the proposed sanctuary; and the acceptance of an environmental • document. -1- PC- N COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUT�5 x City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX AND Request to establish a single parcel of land for the RESUB- expansion of an existing church facility, where 10 DIVISION lots, a portion of one lot, and a proposed abandoned N0. 223 alley presently exist. LOCATION: Lots 31-35, Tract 1220; Lots 142-146, Tract 1218; a portion of Lot 171, Block 54, Irvine's Subdivision; and a 20 foot wide alley located at 600 St. Andrews ALL Road, on property bounded by St. Andrews' DROVED Road, Clay Street and 15th Street, ONDI- across from the Newport Harbor High TIONALLY School, in Cliff Haven. ZONE: R-1 and R-2 APPLICANT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach • OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach Agenda Items No. 1, 2 and 3 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. Planning Director Hewicker presented background information on these items. He referred to the supplemental staff report and stated that an additional count of the church parking was taken on Sunday, June 19, 1982, which was, Father's Day. He stated that the applicant has revised the parking proposal. Commissioner Balalis was present at 7:45 p.m. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Milan Dostal, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Dostal stated that the revised plan attempts to satisfy the concerns of the neighbors and the necessary programs of the Church. He stated that the height and mass of the proposal have been decreased, the visual impacts to the neighborhood have also been decreased, and the proposed parking facilities have been increased. -2- COMNUSSiONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES e a m m x H City of Newport Beach n m ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Dostal stated that a new parking study has been performed for the .proposed project. He stated that they have received' positive responses from Newport Harbor High School ,relating to the joint usage of the high school parking lot. He stated that they are awaiting the preparation of documentation from the school district's attorney. He stated that the school district is also interested in utilizing the church's parking lot for the' school's auditorium use during the evening hours. Mr: Dostal read to the Commission a letter dated June 24, 1982, from Mr. Paul Kloster, MAI appraiser and resident of Newport Heights, which stated that the proposed project will benefit the community and be a part of the continual upgrading of the neighborhood. Commissioner Balalis asked if the high school would be using the church's parking lot in the evenings during the football season. Mr. Dostal stated that the church's parking lot on the corner of 15th Street and . Clay Street would be available for the school's use during the evening. Commissioner Balalis expressed his concern that the parking lot is located close to a residential area and asked if evening time limitations would be imposed on the parking lot and the proposed parking facility. Mr. Dostal stated that this would be possible. Mr. C. Edward Ware, of C. Edward Ware Associates, Inc. , Architects, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Ware referred to the revised renderings of the proposed project and described the revisions in comparison with the original design. He stated that seating in the worship area has been reduced, which will improve the parking situation. He stated that the mass of the building has been reduced by approximately 28 percent, one floor of occupancy removed, and 20 feet in height has been eliminated. He stated that the fifth floor will now be for conference type meetings and small groups. Further, that two people, the Senior Pastor and his secretary will occupy the fourth floor. Fie further stated that the sanctuary tower has been rotated 45 degrees and the entrance from Clay Street to the parking area has been eliminated. Commissioner Beek asked if the proposed tower is needed to make a statement for the church and is required for • the office space, or if the office space can be accommodated under the 35 foot height limit. -3- COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES • m m ' City of Newport Beach � aW � m � m ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Ware stated that the addition of a third floor to the other buildings for the office space, would destroy the design concept and aesthetics of the proposal. He stated that the proposed sanctuary tower makes a statement that this is a church and that it is an important and worthy structure to the people of the community. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Ware stated that the top floor will be utilized as the mechanical room. Mr. Ware stated the advantages in having the fans and air in-take ducts located at a higher level. He also stated that this space will accommodate the overrun for the elevator. Mr. Carl Irwin, of Irwin and Associates, Architect representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Irwin stated that on May 27, 1982, an 85 foot boom, the height of the proposed structure, was . placed on the property. He delivered a slide presentation which depicted the height of the 85 foot boom in relationship to 30 different locations in the area. The last two slides were graphs on' the parking study. .He discussed the proposed surface parking and the proposed below grade parking structure. Mr. Irwin stated that studies have indicated that it will be between three and five years before the church's Sunday attendance capacity will need the parking spaces within the proposed parking structure. He stated that during this time; the church can develop an alternate plan for the use of the high school's parking lot and the rescheduling of church activities to resolve the parking issue. He stated that if the proposed parking structure is not 'built, the church will monitor the growth of the congregation and the street parking in conjunction with the Planning Department's indication that the proposed parking structure is necessary. Commissioner Balalis asked how the church services will be staggered in order to facilitate the parking. Dr. John A. Huffman, Jr., Pastor of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, stated that they are desirous of having an 8:.30 a.m, and a 10:15 a.m. service, which • increases the time between the services, rather than three services. -4- COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES e A ode CO m F w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Charles Palmer, resident of 1701 Kings Road, appeared before the Commission and stated that the revised plan will be a tremendous asset to the community of Newport Beach. Mr. Ron Reble, resident of 1821 Kings Road, and a member of the Cliff Haven Community Association and member of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, stated that he can understand both sides of this unique issue. He stated that this situation deals with good guys against good guys. He stated that he endorses the revised plan of the church and urged approval of the proposed project. Commissioner Balalis asked the speakers to express their comments on the proposed parking structure and whether the proposed parking structure should be built. Mr. Reble stated that the proposed parking structure • should be built at a later time. He stated that the proposed surface parking will help to alleviate the current parking congestion. ,Mr. Jack Gerling, resident of 411 Kings Road, stated that the church is a good influence and an integral part of the community. He stated that the proposed addition to the church will increase the value of surrounding properties and urged approval of the proposed project. Mr. Jack Grimshaw, resident of 400 Signal Road, stated that the growth of the site will be beneficial to the community. He stated that the proposed project will beautify the area and increase property values. Mrs. Maureen Grimshaw stated that they have lived in this area for over 23 years. She stated that the church provides a variety of programs for many people in the community and urged approval of the proposed project. Mr. Roy Ward, resident of 1508 Galaxy Drive, stated that St. Andrews Presbyterian Church is an active, progressive church in the community. He stated that the church needs this structure, because the community needs its services. • -5 COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES � I � d = m x H City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Peter Gendron, President of Cliff Haven Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Gendron submitted a questionnaire which had been circulated to the residents.of the area and stated that the responses overwhelmingly indicate that occupied space above 35 feet is not acceptable within the R-1 zoned community and that adequate, on-site parking must be provided. He stated that of the 380 questionnaires mailed, over 200 were completed and returned. He stated that the revised plan still represents a high rise office building in a residential community. He stated that this is a matter involving environmental impacts, density and height, not religious issues. He stated that the Commission must determine if this proposed office building with its massive height, constitutes good planning and would be allowed within any residential community within the City of Newport Beach. Mr. Gendron urged denial of the proposed project. . Mr. George West, resident of 412 Snug Harbor Road, read to the Commission the comments received from the questionnaires which related to concerns with the proposed capacity, high school parking lot, height of the proposed sanctuary, architectural features and traffic congestion. He stated that only eleven comments on the questionnaires were received in favor of the proposed project. He stated that a reduction of 20 feet in height in not a compromise and stated that the mass of the building is not being reduced, but is being redistributed. He urged denial of the proposed project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. West stated that in order of opposition, they are opposed to the height, inadequate parking and mass for the proposed structure. He stated that the 35 foot height limit is a main concern and should be enforced on the proposal. He also stated that the desired number of seats for the church, is more than the land can support. Mr. Willard Courtney, ' resident of 611 St. James Place, distributed to the Commission his written presentation. Mr. Courtney stated that no attempts have been made in the revised plan to correct the objections which were • stated at the last meeting. He stated that the City's -6- 1 COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES s � � r c x d > = City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Code requiring one parking space for every five seats is totally unrealistic and not a valid factor in determining what is adequate parking for this use. He discussed how adequate parking for this use should be calculated. He stated that in considering the proposed new sanctuary seating, he has determined that 541 on-site parking spaces should be required. He stated that at 70 cars per level, a 7.3 multi-level parking structure would be necessary. He stated that this is totally unacceptable to the area. Mr. Courtney stated that in the early 1960's, he was Chairman of the Building Committee for the church when an addition was made to the existing sanctuary. He stated that at that time, the City required that the church provide a letter from the school giving their permission to use the school parking when not in conflict with school activities, which was accomplished. Further, he stated that the church was planning to acquire the Clay Street properties when and . if they became available and that these properties would be used for parking. He stated on this basis, permits for the expansion of the existing sanctuary were granted. He then referred to the staff report dated January 3, 1974, which he stated substantiates his statements. Mr. Courtney compared the proposed project and the parking plan with other churches in the area. He stated that the church has the capability of providing on-site parking, but is not doing so. He stated that the church should be required to provide subterranean and grade level parking. He then urged denial of the proposed project. Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Courtney to clarify his position on the required• on-site parking and the proposed parking structure. Mr. Courtney stated that a seven level parking structure would be necessary to accommodate the required on-site parking. However, he stated that a multi-story parking structure is unacceptable in a residential district. Mr. Courtney stated that alternate plans could be prepared which would accommodate the parking needs, but he stated that the applicant has indicated that they did not want him to design their project. • -7- /s= N COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES � x � r � m 0 w m F N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Barbara Whitman, resident of 406 Snug Harbor Road, and a member of the Cliff Haven Community Association negotiating committee, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Whitman referred to the questionnaires and stated that the responses clearly indicate a denial of the proposed project. She stated that a stronger, more visual character is not desirable. She also stated that the height of the proposed sanctuary can not be compared with the existing high school tower or a crane with a piece of plywood attached to it. She stated that the rotation of the tower by 45 degrees and the 20 foot height reduction is not negotiation or cooperation by the applicant. She referred to the letters of correspondence and the petition received in favor of this project and stated that many of these people do not even live in the City of Newport Beach. Ms. Whitman summarized by stating that project constitutes too large of a structure on too small of a parcel of land and urged denial of the proposed • project. Mr. Kurt Herberts, resident of 464 Santa Ana, and representing the Newport Heights Community Association, stated that they strongly endorse the position expressed by the Cliff Haven Community Association. He stated that proposed height of the sanctuary is totally unacceptable. He stated that it is essential that the applicant provide adequate, on-site parking to ensure the surrounding residents from unwanted encroachments on their streets. He stated that a 20 foot reduction in height is not a reasonable compromise when considering that the initial proposal exceeded the City's height limitation by 200 percent. He stated that the church has not been designed out of necessity, but rather for aesthetic value. He strongly urged the Commission to deny the proposed project. Mr. George Lackey, resident of 612 St. James Place, stated that the Commission must consider the current traffic patterns in the area, not the projected or proposed traffic patterns. He stated that on Sunday, June 6, 1982, he observed 474 cars parked for church activities and on Sunday, June 13, 1982, he observed 456 cars parked for church activities. He also described the traffic congestion which occurs in this • -8- AF- O COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES r � � I a � x N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX area every Sunday morning. He stated that if the Proposed project is approved, these traffic numbers will be doubled and will create further congestion in the area. He expressed his concern that the fire road into the high school is usually blocked by parked cars. He further stated that the crane depicted in the slide presentation can not be compared to the impact of the proposed sanctuary tower. Mr. Lackey urged denial of the proposed project. Mr. John Bayless, resident of 2215 Winward Lane, stated that he is a statistician by trade. He stated that the many statistics have been incorrectly presented by the non-expert speakers. He stated that the church is needed by the community and urged approval of the proposed project. Mr. Robert Craig, resident of 418 Snug Harbor Road, • stated that he does not want his family to become a statistic when the 1,100 congregation members leave the church in their cars at the same time. Mr. Frank Claudell, stated that he had lived at 435 Snug Harbor Road for over 17 years. He stated that the church congregation has been polled and they are ready to build the proposed structure. He urged approval of the proposed project. Commissioner Beek asked for the applicant's response to Mr. Courtney's comments on alternative plans. Mr. Dostal stated that many alternative plans have been studied. However, he stated that the revised plan represents the least impact to the community and provides the best plan for the needs of the church. He stated that the alternative plan would include unattractive block buildings which would not constitute good planning for the neighborhood. He stated that the proposed plan will upgrade the neighborhood and increase the property values for the entire City. He stated that the proposed plan represents the ultimate, professional application which will solve these problems. • -g- is- P COMMISSK>V6 June 24, 1982 MINUTES A r S m m W City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Dr. Huffman stated that an adequate poll of the congregation was taken through the committee process. He stated that 80 percent of the congregation polled, were in favor of the proposal. He stated that keeping the architectural design below the 35 foot height would have a negative aesthetic impact on the community and would not facilitate the present Sunday attendance in two services. He stated that the revised plan would provide the church with adequate sanctuary, education and office space. Dr. Huffman stated that they acknowledge that during the entire history of the church there has been a parking problem. He stated that they are grateful for the use of the high school parking lot and stated that they are now in a position to offer the use of the corner parking lot on 15th Street and Clay Street to the high school for five days a week. Dr. Huffman referred to a comment which was made at the last meeting relating to the Crystal Cathedral and • stated that the proposed project is only one-third the volume and mass of the Crystal Cathedral. Mr. Courtney referred to the staff report dated January 3, 1974, and outlined the previous requested expansion proposal of the church. He stated that under this request, the church was to utilize the Clay Street properties for parking purposes and the structure was to be constructed under the 35 foot height limit. Commissioner Allen stated that assuming the church can obtain an agreement for the 265 parking spaces from the high school and 238 on-site parking spaces in the proposed subterranean parking structure, this would give the church a total of 503 parking spaces. Mr. Courtney stated that 97 of the 238 on-site parking spaces are for compact cars -which is not realistic. Planning Director Hewicker explained that the staff ! does not represent the applicant, nor the neighborhood. He stated that staff has attempted to present unbiased comments and an unbiased presentation on these issues. Planning Director Hewicker stated that Section 20.02.080 of the Municipal Code exempts churches from the height limitations of the City. However, he stated • that a use permit, with the proper findings, is required if a church wants to exceed the height limitation. -10- COMMISSIC)NERS1 June 24, 1982 MINUTES r � x � r c City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Planning Director Hewicker explained the church's present on-site parking on the alley right-of-way and the private property parking on either side of the alley. He discussed how the attendance and parking numbers for this project have been gathered and stated that the staff's calculations are a reasonable representation of what is occurring on the site. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the church does utilize the high school_ parking lot. He referred to Mr. Courtney's previous comments and clarified that back in 1974 the City Council removed the condition requiring a written agreement between the church and the high school. He stated that it is not considered good planning for a use to provide parking for their maximum needs and for a use across the street to also provide for their maximum parking needs, when the maximum use of the properties involved due not occur at the same time. He stated that the Municipal Code does recognize the fact that there are opportunities for • joint use of parking spaces. He stated that this practice is utilized in a number of locations throughout the City. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the applicant has proposed a subterranean parking structure. He referred to a letter from the Cliff Haven Community Association dated June 10, 1982, which states that adequate on-site parking should be provided at grade level or,below. Mr. Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that an additional condition be added to the resubdivision application which would require the subdivider to provide satisfactory evidence that all persons with record title ownership in the parcel to be subdivided, consent to that ownership. He stated that the Map Act allows the City to require the subdivider to provide evidence that they have the consent of all persons having underlying fee ownership. Mr. Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer, expressed his concerns with the proposed two level parking facility. He stated that approximately 60 percent of the spaces in the proposed facility will be compact spaces. He stated that these spaces are considered to • -11- COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES 0 A r c m ' CO m xy City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX be prime parking because they are located close to the church. He stated that this is not a workable situation. He stated that the use of compact parking must be designed to be self enforcing in order for it to work well. Mr. Edmonston also expressed his concern with the access to the lower level of the proposed parking facility. He stated that this could be resolved through the loss of a small number of parking spaces and raising the at-grade level, approximately three to four feet, in order to minimize the grade difference from the street to both the upper and lower levels. He stated that a retaining wall would be required in order to accomplish this. He stated that the ramp as proposed, makes certain turning movements virtually impossible for drivers which would be exiting the facility. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Edmonston stated that the parking surface itself would be raised three to four feet for the at- grade level. Commissioner Balalis asked how the compact spaces can be designed to be self enforcing. Mr. Edmonston stated that compact spaces should be distributed within the parking facility so that they are neither the best spaces or least desirable spaces, combined with the physical difference of their size in the aisle, will make the compact spaces self regulating. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Planning Director Hewicker explained that this proposal is for a specific number of seats and a specific amount of square footage within the building. He stated that this is the criteria which was utilized in calculating the parking needs. He stated that the Building Department has not assigned an occupant load to the building which would govern the way in which the Uniform Building Code would dictate the construction of the building and the number of exits. -12- COMMISSONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES e X � r e d m F N 0 City of Newport Beach !ROL CALL INDEX Chairman McLaughlin asked if there is adequate parking for the project, if the proposed parking facility is not constructed. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the staff would continue to work with the applicant until a satisfactory parking structure is designed. He suggested that the perhaps some of the compact spaces from the proposed parking facility could be distributed to the high school parking lot. He stated that this would provide more on-site standard parking spaces. Commissioner Kurlander asked if the compact spaces were to be redistributed to the high school parking lot, would the proposed parking facility have to be enlarged to support the standard parking spaces. Mr. Edmonston stated' that by eliminating the width necessary for the aisle going down to the lower level, the proposed parking structure could be redesigned to handle all full-sized parking spaces. Mr. Edmonston • stated that possibly 10 percent of the parking spaces would be lost by implementing such a plan. The Planning Commission then took the following actions: TRAFFIC STUDY Commissioner Allen stated that an approval of the Traffic Study only indicates that the traffic during the p.m. peak hours during Monday thru Friday will not be offensive as defined by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Motion Motion was made for approval of the Traffic Study, A11 Ayes X X Y * X X X subject to the findings of Exhibit "A", as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and. City Policy S-1. -13- /s- 7- COMMISSONERS1 ,rune 24, 1982 MINUTES � r � y - City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project generated traffic will be less than one percent of existing, plus committed, plus regional traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of a critical intersection. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any "major", "primary-modified" or "primary" street. USE PERMIT NO. 822 (AMENDED) Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) , subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A", deleting Condition No. 36, which prohibits vehicular access to the site from Clay Street, and Condition No. 38 be revised as suggested in the • supplemental staff report. Commissioner Winburn asked if a condition should be added which pertains to the below grade parking structure as discussed by the City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Edmonston. Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, referred to Condition No. 29, which states that the layout of all parking and circulation shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. He stated that this condition would adequately cover this concern. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Planning Director Hewicker stated that Condition No. 37 refers to on-site/off-street parking, not off-site parking. He suggested that the condition be revised to reflect that twenty-five (25%) percent of the off-street parking spaces, whether they be on-site or on the high school parking lot, be provided. 11c, stated that this would still have to meet the approval of the City Traffic Engineer and that staff can then determine the balance of how the compact spaces should occur. Chairman McLaughlin clarified that the total number of compact spaces for this project can not exceed twenty- five (25%) percent. Planning Director Hewicker concurred. -14- ��— e4 COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES � x City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Balalis asked staff to explain how the revised Condition No. 38 will be monitored by the applicant. Mr. Talarico stated that the annual report of the church would require them to also monitor the usage of the two off-street parking lots. He stated that the components of the services can be changed to draw more members to one service than another. He stated that they can also add or delete services in order to comply this condition. Commissioner Balalis expressed his concern that this would enable the church membership to grow, by adding additional services. He stated that limiting the church to a certain number of services is an unenforceable condition. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the applicant would have to modify the projects operational characteristics and programs to lessen the parking demand in a manner acceptable to the Planning Department, or apply for_an_amendment to the use permit to provide additional on-site/off-street • parking. Commissioner Winburn referred to the supplemental staff report and stated that the growth patterns of the church has not exceeded a one percent increase in the past two years. In response to a question posed by Chairman McLaughlin, Dr. Huffman stated that the church currently has three services on Sunday, but they are desirous of becoming a two service church. He stated that they would be desirous of monitoring the church attendance over a five year period, or until such time as the construction of the parking structure is warranted. Commissioner Beek referred to revised Condition No. 38 and asked why a change would be required if the usage is less than 85% capacity. Mr. Talarico stated that if the off-street parking areas are achieving less than 85% capacity, it means that the people are utilizing more of the spaces on the street, which creates a greater impact upon the community. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the intent of the condition is to maximize the use of the lots and minimize the use of the streets. • -15 �s- U COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES � A � r c F City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Allen suggested that a condition be added which relates to the church utilizing the high school parking lot. She stated that a signed, off-site parking agreement to be approved by the City Council, would not be realistic for the church to obtain from the high school. She stated that she believes that the church is making a good faith effort to obtain some kind of license agreement from the high school. She suggested that perhaps the applicant can obtain such an agreement from the high school, or that the progress of such an agreement be made available, before the City Council hearing on these items. Mr. Dostal stated that they are making a good faith attempt to obtain a cross license from the school board for the use of the high school parking lot. He stated that the dialogue and response from the school is very positive. However, he stated that the final decision is that of the school board. He added that they would • not like to condition the project with a license agreement. He stated that they currently have a gentlemen's agreement with the high school. Mr. Lackey stated that the occupants of the Oakwood Apartments can not use the high school parking lot, because use of the lot was denied by the high school. Commissioner Beek stated that he is a resident of Oakwood Apartments and that there is adequate parking for the apartments, without the use of the high school parking lot. Amendment X Commissioner Allen amended the motion and recommended that rather than requiring a written agreement with the high school, an additional •Condition No. 39 be added which would state, "That in the event the church should lose the opportunity to park in the high school parking lot, they would be required to come back to the City for an amendment to this use permit to provide adequate Accepted X off-street parking." Commissioner Winburn accepted this as an amendment to her motion. Commissioner Allen stated that it would be virtually • impossible to build the proposed project on the site and make everyone happy. -16- /s-w COMMSSONERS1 June 24, 1982 MINUTES � r � m � m x u. > Cityof Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Amendment X Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Allen. She suggested that the alternative design would be acceptable if there be no occupancy of the tower space over 35 feet. She stated that this will remove 3,100 square feet or three percent of the total 100,000 square feet. She stated that according to the testimony, this will only be removing office space for two people. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would not accept this as an amendment to her motion. Commissioner Kurlander stated that such an amendment would be eliminating the occupancy and use of two floors of the proposed tower. Chairman McLaughlin stated that the people opposed to the project are not opposed to the office space for two people, they are opposed to the mass of the proposed structure. Commissioner Allen stated that this amendment will serve to create a disincentive to build the mass. She • stated that two people moving their offices to somewhere else on the site, is a small trade-off for the applicant to make. Ayes X Amendment by Commissioner Allen was now voted on, which Noes X X X X X AMENDMENT FAILED. Absent Commissioner Beek stated that he would be voting against the motion. He stated that the church is a guest in the community and the community is its host. He stated that up until now, the church has been a good guest in the community. However, he stated that the church should be more sensitive to the community's feelings. Ayes X X X X Amended motion for approval of use Permit No. 822 Noes X X (Amended) , subject to the findings and conditions of Absent * Exhibit "A", with Condition No. 36 to be deleted; Condition No. 37 to be revised as discussed; Condition ,No. 38 to be revised as suggested in the supplement staff report; and, the addition of Condition No. 39, which AMENDED MOTION CARRIED, as follows: • -17- is- x COMMISSIONERS1 June 24, 1982 MINUTES � z � r c N m m F City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared. in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 2. That based on the information, contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. 3. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. . 4. The increased building height will result in more public visual open space than could be achieved by the basic height limit. 5. The increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 6. The increase building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. 7. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. 8. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 9. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. • -18- COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 10. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 11. The approval of Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. . CONDITIONS: 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include, if required a description of haul routes access points to the site and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation• and dust control plan if required shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region. 5. The velocity of concentrated run-off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. • -19- COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES 3 � H . � r c m � d City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of ' a soil engineer and an engineering geologist based upon the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. This shall establish parameter of design for all proposed structures and also provide recommendation for grading. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 7. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 8. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project • shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan) . 9. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 10. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 11. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over-watering. 12. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. • -20- ��AR COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES � r c • m � m m y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 13. The site's existing landscape plan shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program shall be modified to include the concerns of the conditions above to the maximum extend practicable. Any change(s) in said existing program as a result of this review shall be phased and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. 14. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated to be no greater than 55 Dba at the property line. 15. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said shall be attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a' qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Planning Department. 16. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 17. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 18. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 19. That all on-site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 20. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 21. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. • -21- COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES � r City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 22. All work on the site shall be done in accordance with the city's council Policies K-5 and K-6. Verification of said shall be provided to the Building and Planning Departments. 23. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. 24. The applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. 25. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the • Engineer stating , that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. Any parking lot lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department. 26. That no private school program for first grade and above shall be permitted on-site without a future amendment to this use permit and re-evaluation of the Traffic Study. 27. A dust control program shall be implemented during the construction period. 28. The angled driveways on St. Andrews Road and Clay Street shall be revised in accordance with a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. 29. The layout of all parking and circulation shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. -22- �S CC COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES � x � � E m m F y. City of Newport Beach m w ROLL CALL INDEX 30. That all applicable conditions of Resubdivision No. 723 shall be fulfilled. 31. That an off-street pick-up/drop-off area shall be provided onsite 32. That any above-grade level parking spaces shall be phased with growth in membership/usage and subject to amendment to the Use Permit. 33. That handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a manner approved by the City. 34. That the intersection of the private drives and public streets be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 35. That all development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plans, floor plans and elevations. 36. Deleted by the Planning Commission. 37. That the off-street parking, whether on-site or on the high school parking lot, shall be provided as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A maximum of twenty-five (25%) percent of the required parking may be compact parking spaces. -23 I ir— COMMISSIONERS rune 24, 1982 MINUTES � r c d � m x u City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 38. The applicants shall monitor attendance and semi-annually report attendance figures to the Planning Department. The applicants shall also monitor usage of the high school and on-site/ off-street parking areas. During any four (4) week period where attendance exceeds 1040 persons per service, or if attendance exceeds 915 and usage is less than 85% of capacity for the high school and on-site/off-street parking areas, the applicant shall modify the projects operational characteristics to lessen parking demand in a manner acceptable to the Planning Department or apply for an amendment to 'this Use Permit to provide additional on-site/off-street parking. 39. That in the event the church should lose the opportunity to park in the high school parking lot, they shall be required to come back to the City for an amendment to this use permit and provide adequate off-street parking. RESUBDIVISION NO. 723 In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Burnham stated that the Map Act only gives the City the authority to require the subdivider to obtain the consent, not necessarily the ownership rights, to the fee. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 723, All Ayes X X X * X X subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A", with the additional condition that the applicant shall acquire the consent of all those with rights to the portion of the vacated alley that does not revert to the church when it is abandoned, which MOTION CARRIED, as follows: FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied • with the plan of subdivision. -24- COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES iC � r c • m � m A m x w > City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 2., That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 4. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. • CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That all unused drive depressions be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. 4. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record the parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on-site improvements prior to recording of the parcel map. 6. That the on-site storm drain system connect to the • 15th Street storm drain. i -25- COMMISSONERS1 June 24, 1982 MINUTES � A r e m � m F H. >I City of Newport Beach RC)I I CAI i INDEX 7. That the existing 8 inch sewer main from Snug Harbor, running thru the development, be re-routed down Clay Street and connected to the 15th Street sewer. 8. That the existing 8 inch sewer main from Pirate Road, running thru the development be re-routed down Clay Street to the St. Andrews Street sewer. 9. And that all -of the above improvements be designed by a registered engineer using City standards. All modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. That the existing sewer easements located between lots 143 and 144 of Tract 1212 and between lots 33 and 34 of Tract 1220 be abandoned. 11. That a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk be . constructed along the Clay Street and 15th Street frontages, with access ramps at the intersections of Clay Street and 15th Street, St. Andrews Road and 15th Street, and Clay Street and St. Andrews Road. 12. That the existing 20-foot alley located between St. Andrews Road and 15th Street be vacated prior to issuance of any building permits and that the existing alley approaches be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. That the, existing sewer and water mains located in the alley be abandoned in a method satisfactory to the Public Works Department and the Utilities Department unless utilized as private services. 13. That all unused driveway depressions be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk and deteriorated curb and gutter be reconstructed along the Clay Street, 15th Street and St. Andrews Road frontages. 14. That street lights be installed with spacing to be approved by the Public Works Department on 15th Street, St. Andrews Road and Clay Street. • -26- COMMISSIONERS June 24, 1982 MINUTES 3 x r c m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 15. That the applicant shall acquire the consent of all those with rights to the portion of the vacated alley that does not revert to the church when it is abandoned. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:50 p.m. and reconvened at 11:00 p.m. Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 65 Item #4 from the P-C District to the P-C/MHP District. L TION: A portion of the Irvine subdivision more • commonly known as the DeAnza Mobile Home Park which is generally bounded by Newport Bay on the north and west; AMENDMENT Newport Dunes on the east, and East N0. 774 Coast Highway on the south. ZONE: P-C INITIATED BY: C1 .y of Newport Beach APPROVED OWNER: The ine Company Commissioner Kurlander tated that he would be abstaining on this item, d to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Arthur Sullivan, President of DeAnza Bayside Village Homeowner's Association an President of the Golden State Mobile Homeowners Leagu appeared before the Commission. Mr. Sullivan stated th t he represents 252 memberships of the DeAnza Mobile Hom Park and that many of the members are in attendance o the meeting tonight. He stated that they unanimously upport the adoption of an overlay mobile home park zone. -2.7- ATTACHMENT B - 8/9/82 COMMISSIONERS April 22, 1982 MINUTES � x fm ; m a n u City of New ort Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Item Nos. Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with 2, 3 & 4 the expansion of an existing church facility located in the R-1 and R-2 District. AND Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) (Public Hearing) ALL CMINUED Request to permit the construction of a new church TO JUNE sanctuary building in the R-1 and R-2 Districts which P4�982 includes meeting rooms, a banquet room, classrooms, administrative offices and a kitchen facility. A new education building is also proposed. The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the proposed sanctuary building and a building-mounted cross, to exceed 35 feet in height; a request to waive a portion of the required on-site parking spaces for the proposed • sanctuary; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND Resubdivision No. 723 (Public Hearing) Request to establish a single parcel of land for the expansion of an existing church facility, where 10 lots, a portion of one lot, and a proposed abandoned alley presently exist. LOCATION: Lots 31-35, Tract 1220; Lots 142-146, Tract 1218; a portion of Lot 171, Block 54, Irvine's Subdivision; and a 20 foot wide alley located at 600 St. Andrews Road, on property bounded by St. Andrews Road, Clay Street, and 15th Street, across from the Newport Harbor High School, in Cliff Haven. ZONE: R-1 and R-2 APPLICANT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant • ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach -6- COMMISSIONERS April 22, 1982 MINUTES ; � m m m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Agenda Items No. 2, 3 and 4 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. Commissioner Winburn stated that she occasionally attends church services at the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Commissioner Winburn is entitled to participate and vote on these matters. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, explained the critical p.m. peak hour activity which was utilized. Mr. Talarico also explained how the capacity of the proposed church was calculated. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Milan Dostal, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Dostal delivered a presentation which outlined their need for the proposed ' facilities. He stated that an overwhelming 80 percent • of the congregation voted in favor of the proposed design for the church. He stated that they have also had meetings with the neighbors of the area to discuss this proposal. He stressed that the church has strived to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Dr. John A. Huffman, Jr. , Pastor of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, appeared before the Commission. �. Dr. Huffman stated that St. Andrews Presbyterian Church is a community church which has a membership of approximately 2,900 members. He stated that the attendance of the Sunday worship services averages between 1,300 to 1,800 persons. He described the various programs of the church which aid and 'serve the community. Commissioner Beek asked Dr. Huffman if the expanded facilities of the church can be accommodated without the proposed corporate office tower. Dr. Huffman stated that for the past 15 years, the church has needed expanded sanctuary, education and office space. He stated that the offices must occupy the steeple because as much space' as possible is needed for the church parking. Commissioner King asked Dr. Huffman if it would be feasible to upgrade the existing structures and provide • more worship services. Dr. Huffman stated that this -7- COMMISSIONERS April 22, 1982 MINUTES � x li � r ro � m n x City of Newport Beach � m ROLL CALL INDEX may be difficult because the existing structures would have to meet the Code. Further, he stated that they are a family church and they would like for the entire family to participate together in the worship experience, rather than having many numerous worship services. He stated that their theme has been "growing towards wholeness" in a spiritual, mental/intellectual, social and physical growth towards a balanced. living. Mr. C. Edward Ware, of C. Edward Ware Associates, Inc. , Architects, and also representing Irwin and Associates, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Ware described how the proposed design of the church was developed. He stated that the highest point of the church has been located at the center of the site. He presented a model and colored renderings which depicted the proposed project and landscaping plan. He stated that the structure will be sound attenuated and the outdoor activity will be screened from the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that they have attempted to make the design of the church compatible with the • existing neighborhood. Mr. Ware stated that the meeting rooms and offices in the tower will accommodate approximately 50 persons. He stated that only 8 percent of the proposed tower is . 'above the 35 foot height limit. He then described the various heights included in the proposal. He stated that the buildings will be constructed of brick which will be painted a soft gray/beige to match the existing wood frame buildings. Mr. Ware presented a drawing depicting the plotted pattern of the sun in the summer and the winter months in relationship to the proposed• project and the surrounding area. Commissioner Beek stated that since the tower contains only 8 percent of the office space, it may be possible to redesign the structure so as to keep the office space within the legal height limit. Mr. Ware stated that this may be possible, but in doing so, the aesthetic value of the building is lost. Mr. Ware stated that detailed traffic and environmental studies have been performed for the proposal. He stated that there will only be a one percent increase • in the total traffic. He stated that every effort has -B- . 3 COMMISSIONERS1 April 22, 1982 MINUT�S o x r c m � m m F = Q City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX been made to acquire as much off-street parking as possible. He stated that they have even included a lower level in the proposal in order to obtain more of the needed fellowship space. He stated that the tower will be subtly lit during the evening and that the hours of the lighting will be regulated. Commissioner Balalis suggested that the applicant consider redesigning the tower, so as to reduce the tower's height to 65 feet, therefore eliminating the problem with the shadows. He stated that the office space which would be lost through the height reduction, could possibly be located elsewhere on the site. I Mr. Peter Gendron, President of Cliff Haven Community Association, appeared before the Commission and stated that over 213 homeowners in the area are opposed to the current plans for the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. Mr. Gendron presented a map of the surrounding area which depicted the residences which are opposed to this • proposal. Mr. Gendron then referred to the petition which was submitted by the property owners and residents which states, "That any further development of the church property be done in strict compliance to the thirty-five foot height limitation as provided in Ordinance No. 1454 of the City of Newport Beach. Further, that any such development be required to provide adequate on-site parking at grade level or sub-grade level only." He concluded that this proposal will have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood because of its density, height and intensified traffic and parking problems. Mr. George West, resident of 412 Snug Harbor Road, distributed complete copies of the petition to the Commission and stated that the petition contains more than 460 valid signatures in opposition to the current proposal. Mr. West expressed his concern that the proposed office tower will have a fantastic view of the ocean, yet homeowners in the area do not have the same opportunity to exceed the height limit to obtain such a view. He then stated that the homeowners of the area will only get to view the proposed office tower from their residences. He further stated that the height of COMMISSIONERS April 22, 1982 MINUTES A F W S City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX peak on the sanctuary will be 46 feet which also exceeds the height limit. He stated that there is more than enough space on the site to accommodate the office space without exceeding the height limit. He further stated that the mass and magnitude of the proposed structure is overwhelmingly out of scale with the surrounding area. He stated that the high school and its tower are a landmark and should not be compared to the proposed office tower. Mr. Willard Courtney, resident of 611 St. James Place, stated that the construction of a parking lot will not provide new on-site parking, it will only replace the parking which is being lost in other areas. He stated that traffic jams with arrivals, departures and drop-offs will be created if access to Clay Street is denied. Further, he stated that the computation for the needed parking is in error. He stated that all • discussion regarding parking, mentions only the sanctuary use and that no mention has been made of the parking required for the uses which run concurrently with the main service, such as bible study groups, sunday school classes and choir activities. He also stated that the developer should not be able to claim a major portion of the parking requirements, 265 spaces, on the Newport Harbor High School property that they do not own or control. Mr. Courtney submitted his written report to the Commission. Mr. George Lackey, resident of 612 St. James Place, stated that he has participated in the traffic control program for the Newport Heights and Cliff Haven areas during the last four, years. He stated that the proposed project and office tower will create double the traffic during the weekdays, and more than double the traffic on the weekends through the surrounding residential area. He stated that the church should remain a community church, but the proposal must be scaled down and adequate parking must be provided in order to reduce the impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. • -lo- COMMISSIONERS April 22, 1982 MINUTES fm ; W m x w. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Barbara Whitford, resident of 406 Snug Harbor Road, expressed her concerns with the inadequate parking of the proposal and the increased traffic flow which it will create through the residential neighborhood. She stated that the proposed structure is not consistent with the surrounding land uses and the increased building height will result in an undesirable and abrupt scale relationship between the structure and the existing developments. She further stated that the proposal will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of the neighborhood. Mr. Steven Dobbie, President of the Newport Heights Community Association, referred to his letter dated April 20, 1982 and stated that the 105 foot height of the proposed sanctuary/office tower will have a negative and overpowering effect on the surrounding residential community. He stated that the increase in scale and capacity will also increase the traffic and parking loads in the adjoining neighborhood. • Mr. Robert Craig, resident of 418 Snug Harbor Road, stated that the current proposal is eleven feet higher than the Crystal Cathedral which is only 94 feet high. Ms. Catherine Cowden, resident of 2024 Winward Lane, spoke in favor of the proposal. Mr. Craig Porst, resident of 321 Kings Road, stated that if the height and mass of this development is approved, future developments will also be requesting the same. Mr. Joe Robinson, resident of 315 Pirate Road, stated that he is not entitled to have an ocean view from his house or office. He suggested that the proposed office tower of the church be turned so that it can view their members in Irvine. Mrs. Kay Spurgeon, resident of 436 Snug Harbor Road, stated that she has lived in this area for over 34 years and it has always been a nice and quiet neighborhood to live in. She stated that she can understand why the church must enlarge, however, she expressed her concerns with the extent of- the expansion and the height of the proposed tower. • -11 COMMISSIONERS April 22, 1982 MINUTES 3 X m I City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Steve Double, resident of 507 Kings Road, expressed his concern that the increase in traffic may create a danger for the children coming to and from school. Chairman McLaughlin suggested that this item be continued to a later date, in order to give the Commission adequate time to study and evaluate the additional information which has been presented at the public hearing. Commissioner Balalis stated that, as indicated in the public testimony tonight, there are many different reasons for the opposition. He again suggested that the applicant consider eliminating the top three floors, or approximately 45 feet of the proposed tower. He stated that he would like further time to study the traffic issue. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he shares the concerns expressed by Commissioner Balalis. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Dostal stated that a six week continuance would be acceptable and give the applicant adequate time to scale the project down and meet further with the neighbors. Commissioner King expressed his concern with the height of the proposed structure and the availability of the parking. Commissioner Winburn concurred. Commissioner Beek stated that the comments made by Mr. Courtney, relating to the parking, are a main concern and need to be studied further. Commissioner Allen concurred and requested that the staff and the applicant's architect respond to Mr. Courtney's comments. She stated that real traffic counts will make a big difference in the evaluation of this project. She further . stated that a realistic parking number must be calculated for the site and a legitimate off-site parking agreement must also be considered. She also expressed her concern with the proposed height of the tower. • -12- COMMISSIONERS April 22, 1982 MINUTES m m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Balalis also suggested that specific figures be obtained from the applicant relating to the use of the facilities during the weekdays and weekends, which may coincide with functions of the Newport Harbor High School. Chairman McLaughlin expressed her concerns relating to the parking issue. Motion X Motion was made to continue these items to the Planning A11 Ayes X X X X X X Commission Meeting of June 24, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED. t t The Planning Commission recessed at 9:50 p.m, and • reconvened at 10:00 p.m. ,e R uest to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed Item #5 65, 9 sq. ft. medical office building. LOCATIO A portion of Lot 169, Block 2 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 TRAFFIC Hospital Road on the northeasterly STUD�— orner of Hospital Road and Placentia A nue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. ZONE: A-P APPROVED CONDI- APPLICANTS: Park Lido, td. , Robert Wish, TIONALLY General Part r, Santa Ana OWNERS: Same as applicant Planning Director Hewicker discusse ,the background information related to this item. He stated that this is a request for approval of a Traffic Study and that there is no way in which the Commission c&ij legally • bind the applicant, or a future owner of the prajerty, -13- ATTACHMENT'C = 8/9/82 • ATTACHMENTS DISTRIBUTED EVENING OF-JUNE 24o 1982 1 . Sample: "Petition to retain the present usage and height regulations of the Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church Parcel" (492 signatures) 2. Post Cards: Survey of residents in the vicinity of the project 3. Letter: Stan Henline - June 23, 1982 4. Letter: Paul G. Kloster - June 24, 1982 5. Letter: Phyllis and Kenneth Fowler - June 22, 1982 6. Letter: Mr. and Mrs. Foss, Jr. - June 22, 1982 7. Letter: D. V. Skilling - June 22, 1982 8. Letter: Chuck Stegmeir - June 22, 1982 9. Submitted written summary of presentation made at Planning Commission • Meeting - June 24, 1982 10. Sample: Petition from Illuminators in support of revised plans - June 20, 1982 11 . Letter: Stephen N. Bernard - June 21, 1982 12. Photo Index to Planning Commission presentation - June 24, 1982 • PETITION TO RETAIN THE PRESENT USA GE AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS OF THE SAINT ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PARCEL We the undersigned, being property owners and/or residents of Newport Beach and having been informed of the expansion plans of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, do hereby petition the city of Newport Beach as follows: That any further development of the church property be done in strict compliance to the thirty five foot height limitation as provided in ordinance number 1454 of the City of Newport Beach. Further, that any such development be required to provide adequate on site parking at grade level of sub-grade revel unit'. NAME << /ADDRESS DATE /(� /t /-> `�`✓..`�'J. 2. 3. \c Z 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. • 17. 0$9. 20. 21. — - — 10 WS NO 1. The church has,revised the proposed L� height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable? • 2. Should St. Andrews coon Form to the existing height limitation (351) For r/' 1�1 their new sanctuary? i' 1—� 3. Would you allow a height variance? 6J IF yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews proyide adequate on-site parking me required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church mcceptabl in our community? (existing 544)h.4 w S. Comm an is vt Vi5 NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L height from 105' to 851.Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yes...please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church accepts b) in our community? (exist Mg 544) (�I S. Comments --� y5s NO gna re 1. The church has revised the propos ad L� La height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptab,�e. X a 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for rV!III Ci their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF Yea.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1365 seat capacity church acceptabl in cur community? (existing 544) • S. Comments A � agn ura // YES NO a aurch has revised the proposed �( ,.,,J,iaight from 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable 2:"Should St: Andrews conform to the ((�� • existing height iteticrr (35') for` 0 L� their new sanctuaryary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yea...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City . ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 138S seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments S' AII. kfu)S ML{ eoMPL'l u��TF/ ALL ej-rY ORpINANctS, NO F_VCEPTIONS ALL&v.E01 gna •u e YES P40 1. The'church has revised the proposed M1 height from 105' to 85'.I8 this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') For their new sanctuary? Ci O 3. Would you allow a height variance? If Yea...please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? 1•S� 5. IB a 1385 Beet capacity church acc eptmbl6 I in cur community? (existing 544) L� 6. Comments #t�m 9�5 �®�75 h2QspQ. vis No 1. The church has revised the proposed f 1 O height From 105' to 851 .Is this acceptab a. 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for 0 (� their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? rl u If yam.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City © , ordinance for their proposed expansion? 13 S. In a 1385 Beet capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) • S. Comments g au�� ✓ WS NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L_ height From 105' to 85' .Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrheight conform ion to the existing height limitation (351) For their new sanctuary? I 3. Would you allow a height ver lance? D �1 IF yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City r('QV% ordinance For their proposed expansion? 1'-J S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptablL in our community? (existing 544) 6. Comments agna ura - ✓ - - -- gyres NO 1. The church has revised the proposed height From 105' to 851.Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') fors their new sanctuary? 1- 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yes. . .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? s. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptably 1 in our community? (existing 544) !!!!lIJJJJJJ �J S. Comments g e Yes NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L� height From 105' to 851.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') For �I Ci their new sanctuary? 3. Wculd you allow a height variance? ' Md� C r /( 21nu/r-)- �1 , IF yes...plea state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on;- to p ng ea req iy or a _ - d-�ax ansion? ....,,LL S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) • S. Comments lot ����igna ure i3 Y T I. The church has rev SeArj the proposed a • height From 105' to 89".Is this acceptab e. of .. . 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') Far rvl I�1 their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ Ibl IF yea...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrqws provide adequate on-a).ta parking as required by City r--� ordinance for their proposed expansion? 'J 5, Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptebl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments / Szgnaturb �LtL.v WS NO 1. The church has revised the propos ad L� height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (3S') For PrIA their new sanctuary? V_V 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IF yes,.,plesse state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. za a 1385 seat capacity church acceptebl�l '(�I in our community? (existing 544) U Yy S. Comments gJr .ur e ✓ - - - YSS NO 1. The church has revised the proposed cn height From 105' to 85I .Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for �I 1`1 their new sanctuary? I_! 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IF yen...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? u 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church soceptablS"1I in our community? (existing 544) �Iw • S. Comments gna ro l V/ YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed LL height From lO5' to 85'.Is this acceptable? • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the .. . : i existing height limitation (35'), For*: - `• ❑ their new sanctuary? 1 3. Would you allow a Insight variance? ❑ IF yes.. .please state height. I 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acc eptablEJ 0 in our community? (existing 544) �,J S. Comments igneu'r-a y WS NO 1. The church has revised the proposed Ln height From 105' to 851 .I9 this acceptable-? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the �t existing height limitation (35') for > rn rl their new sanctuary? OD L f ❑3. Would you allow a height variance? If yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? ❑ S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments 'ea p"'�h2�7- s- .d.dl�+��lK.'✓G4C.�ct�t ' Signature n(e5 NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptgble 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For I C�their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ ILVILIJ IF yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? LAdIJ 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl Ll MM in our community? (exiat�ng 544) J-1 • S. Comments igne u a �� fi :..VeS . N0 1. The church has revised tH8 propoe ell L� height From 105' to 851 .Is this aoceptabtee'? • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing Height limitation (35') for Put Ci their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ❑ ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl6`'I {.T1 in our co nity? (existing 544) �JJ pJ S. Commen�iGK A(/) CQ.ti � L Signature X YES No 1. The church has revised the propoe ad height from 105' to 85'.Is this aeeeptebr'? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For �I their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If you...please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking on required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptabl in cur community? (existing 544) 6 Comments z 5�: �o R-37 igna re YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L� 0 height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For IC if I�1 their new sanctuary? R U 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IF ygs...pleass state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking me required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? IJ 5. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) • S. Comments 2, ,tl olen •ure l(p 1. The church has revised the proposed L height From 105' to 85' .Is this acceptabl a? • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the r existing height limitation (351) For T' their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IF yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City 4V ordinance For their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1355 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) U S. Comments t✓ gna u a -V/ --- - -- KES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ ,� IF yea...please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking me required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? 1429 S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments 'gna ure ts NO 1. The church has revised the proposed lL height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable? 2,. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height varisnc KP ❑ IF yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1355 sent capacity church acceptabl D in our community? (existing 544) • S. Comments 'gna ure / qp? ST ANOR�w YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L� ULJ height From 105' to 85' .Is this acceptable • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') For rM, I"1 their new sanctuary? LL11 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IF yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City 1--� ordinance For their proposed expansion? IJ 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl G-1 in our community? (e iating 544) LI 1at 6 comment 53gn urn 1. The church has revised the propoa ad �� height From 105' to 85'.Is this ecceptab4 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (3S') for their new sanctuary? jai 3. Would you allow a height variance? El If yea...please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking an required by City ❑ ordinance for their propoa expansion? S. Is a 1385 sent oepac ty church acceptabl u �( in our community? (exi ti g 544) ,. �li S. Comments gna ur `DE-ryS NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L( height From 1051 to 85'.Is this acceptable., 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (3S') For Q their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yea...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? IJ 5• Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptabl6 Ij in our community? (existing 544) �i y[�f • S. Comments K.1M :R0.710 Euk �B 3 8 *' YES NO _ 1. The church has Nevisea•the' proposed L� height From.105' to 851 .Is this acceptable? • 2. Should St. Andrews confirm to the existing height limitation (351) For their new sanctuary? L �J 3. Would you allow a height variance? /^ If yes.. .please state height. ,�_ 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ® ordinance Fqr their proposed expansion.' IJ 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptably in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments YES NO 1. The church has r 4ised the proposed L height From 105' to 851.Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For their new sanctuary? I� 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yea.. .please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church accepts�+16� in our community? (existing 544) 6. Common to�i�PAG/T Y`- !i With the eloeing of 5 / '— PUclic Schools, why " 3 ours -- expand the Church 7 JW* dont e 2 B.,bV6hulere HELP THS; NffiEllY in �Jrenge County YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposedL height From 105, to 85'.Ie this acceptabP? 2. Should St. Andrews can Form to the existing height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? fla(� yL�I 3. Would you allow a height variance? DCI IF yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate an-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptable i In our community? (existing 544) Li S. comments /0 1/g �y Sign re /9' WS NO 1. The church has revised the propos ad L height From 105' to 85'.Is this ie an • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (354) For their new sanctuary? M. 4.1WI 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ • IF yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments 1-C SPLVyMS -MB 6_ -mpi-6cc, d- V&tl.4 •a os51 fS L-e_ EkYY44 U S& oF• PH IAP-Lh�.Ai O FCo c M ur a �Rfa}wk1 Au 'Ar_R,gcoy "StY��=ci4Yo"S-wa-rw /yy�."dc�!� Vey NO 1. The church has revised the propos ad L� height From 105' to 8S'.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for ❑ their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yes...please state height. ��x • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? i 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl�l fi7I in our community? (existing 544) 6. Comm alto � ' • •CLfL.x/� gna ur e � %?ES- NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L` height Pram 105, to 851.Ia this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrawa conform to the existing height limitation (35') For their new sanctuary? `k 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...please state height. 4, Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking ap required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptablk'( in our community? (existing 544) �I • S. Comments gna •urn ao 1. The church has revised the proposed Ll height from 105' to 85' .Is this acceptable • 2. Should St. Andrews uonFnrm to the existing height limitation (36') for fell I'�I their new sanctuary? 2, 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yea...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking sip required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl�l in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments lgn ure *YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L� height from 105' to 851 .I5 this ecceptabie 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for ICI their new sanctuary? U 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yea...please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) 6. Comments Signature / 7.zo ,}. The church has revised the proposed height from IO5' to 851 .Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for ❑ their new sanctuary? (- 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yea...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl (�1 in cur community? (existing 544) . 6. Comments i a e a� L ✓ yes No' 1. The church has revised the proposed LL ❑ height from 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable? • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') For �I ❑ their new sanctuary? 7 3. Would you allow a height var lance? ❑ If yen...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? IJ 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments,. _ � U1.a ure YES NO 1. Thr/church has revised -;he proposed w •D height from 105' to SS':Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews ccn#arm to the existing height limitation (35') for rg their new sanctuary? ICY 3. Would you allow a height ver lance? ❑ • IF yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on+site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? 1J S. Is a 1305 seat capacity church acceptabl" in our community? (existing 544) L S. Comments - a u e YES NO i 1. The church has revised the proposed �L IXI height from 105' to BS'.Is this acceptabra? 12. Should St. Andrews conform to the ,�. F existing height limitation (351) for AVf r} their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 Beat capacity church mcceptabl +l�l • in our community?�� (existing 544).f' 1J S. Comment scV Xu/ Q�,� &4 / OQ� agn ure v v o-1� ✓ YES No 1. The church has revised the proposed Ln height from 105' to 851 .I9 this acceptable • 2. Should St. Andrews confirm to the existing height limitation (351) for their new sanctuary. 55 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking me required by City ❑ ordinance For their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptably in our com1mu��n��it��y? (existing 544)1 S. Comments�7lL6a� ` DY OUefe�.1OW lM' O N Sl9N91- Rd. C►,�, igna .u�a �OeS ale ehTlee i�,Nee.G I* 9TTEMIp ON6' _ ch✓Rch � .-.--�� _�� - - - --- ------- YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L, 91 height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For (i'I their new sanctuary? llLL 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City © ❑ ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptably '�❑ in our community? (existing 544) �1 . S. Comments S� A �. " r A� .f Signs urn .._✓___ __ _ __ __. Ctrs-_�, 1. The church has revised the proposed height from 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes. . .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequae on-site parking as required by Citty ❑ ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptsbl in our community? (existing 544) 1J11 S. Commen 1. The church has revised the proposed L, height from 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for C_Y, their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...plesse stets height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City F••� ,21or oe proposed ax�psnaion? '�J( S. Is a 1385 sent capacity chuceptabl 1•� in6urommunity? (existing 544) S. Commute 4 gna •urn YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L� height from 1051 to 851.I9 this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') For ❑ their new sanctuary? L 3. Would you allow a height variance? . If yes.. .please state height. (o0 a • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl . in our community? (existing 544) S. Camment.Saale ea c)M d/c 3kX;A9110e. '1 gna ura ✓. .._....--- - ---------•— ---- YES NO 1..4Y�.j�jchurch has revised the proposed jn 11eigFt From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For Ci y their new sanctuary? L_ ✓V_'.1 3. Would you allow a height var ience? If yes...please state heigM. -, 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City MV ordinance For their proposed expansion? uw S. Ia a 1385 Best capacity church acceptabl G-'i in our community? (existing 544) 1l • S. Comments `-CA41�7 C G +bu G + gna yarnozx t)EuICE x¢y s o l G s s)•J��s P 1. The church has revised the proposed height from 105' to 851.I8 this acceptab a. • 2. Should St. Andrews aonfcrm to the existing height limitation (351) for R7' their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yea...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance'���AAfor S�Jh'�air prc,poge gxpansion? uv `FKa elHw VSt n%.t� gc_fno6L 5, Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptabl in our commun ty? (existing 544) L' S. Comment udT 14U' )'{OUges t� Too- l a0W0 © Ir ) Signature ���fli re own�e�g2oss Sr_ LooKout� YSS NO 1. The church has r'a. d the proposed a -height from 105' t 85. .Is this acceptab a 2. Shoulei St: Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for ❑ ' their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ • If yes.. .places state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinan a fo air pr cposed expansion.' 5. I"-6is Beat capacity church acceptabl6� in our community? (existing 544) S. �Co/mm�ents1,Y�gsd � +�9 / /1 � xgne ur ✓ iy v v .�Keojs led. YSS NO 1. The church has revised the proposed 91 height from 105' to 851.Is this aoceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for {�/ ❑ their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking as required by City ' or enca for their prppased ;pans S. Is a 1 85 seat capacity church accept b15—i �Q'f in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments �.IMgwt�+A / ign u e Y, 1. The church has revised the proposed height from 105' to 85'.Is this acceptabler • E. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for (' CI their new sanctuary? El Ct 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑,�^�y� If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ��qq ordinance for -their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) �I u s. Comments. ZF PA /� l�s A 41Z,4 G � e YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed ;L height from 105' to 8S'.Is 'this eccepteblee7 I 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For i �y their new sanctuary? U 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If You...plaege state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? 'J S. Is a 1385 Beet capacity church acceptabl in our communitpy? (existing 544) S. Comments gne ure —✓ --- ---- %; --- YES NO I. Tla'e church has ravisedj the proposed O height from 105' to 85.1.Is this acceptab e. , 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for ❑ �' their new sanctuary? I- 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 13851eaat capacity church aoceptabl5:'1� in our community? (existing 544)..4.P S. Comments .s gn■� 1. The chuqLRh has revieat the proposed Ln height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptabler i • �, Should 9t. Andrpws;por�orm to the f existing height limitation (351) for 0 1'1 their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow 9 height variance? If Yea...Please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-sitp parking as required by City ❑ ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl5-'I in our cgmmuntt�? (existing S44) �1 a7 6/-",y S7Gvc70l1' s flcv l �h.e mm to - - lgna r NO }. The church has revisgd the proposed height from 105' to 8S' .Is this aoceptab e. 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (3S') for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? • If yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking a9 required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion,. S. Is a 1385 east capacity church acceptably 1 Cin our community? (existing 544) u 6. CoKments�•• J •�tt�-C.PRh.�L7c�. i � d Ws No ,1. The church has revised the proposed �y1 height from 105' to 85'.Is this acceptab a A E. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for �I their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5, Is a 1385 seat capacity church ecceptablki'1 • in our co munity? (existing 544) � ate- San•�m�` , a,. S. Co ment's�...(dL-V, aCPQ g a r - 1 —✓ : ws NO n�� 1. The church has rev is ad the proposed aib height from 105' to 85' .Is this aopoptr • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the f7' ❑existing height limitation (35') for their now oenctuarO ❑ 3. Would you allow a height variance? If yes...pleese state height. q, Should St. Andrews provie byguate City ❑ on-a its parking as requi ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 goat capacity church acceptabl in our community? uJistingaP� ,•�� S. Comm ents+�� 7t1 N`N-lN..IL i4,0L r� ,ny�.,,,,x NOT- OQM gme ure PAv44wr. SpwJE AVAIL A&M A 7W- t&H sCEkaL YE5 N0 1. The church has revised the proposed height from 105' to 85'.Is this ecceptabre'.� 2. -Should St. Andrews conform to the ❑ existing height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ® 1J 1 • If yes...please state height. '76 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking an required by City ❑ ordinance for their proposed expansion?/tN 5, Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) L1YY,JJ �J S. Comments r' 1GV{-'1—�D .•r�A�n7LWlj'{�OJ f 9ewpr�.v� V.eg S#y gna ure c3Z1 .A'.v�G /il�i7s o/L •. ..- _- . -_._.-......... • yes NO 1. The church has revised the proposed n R height from 105' to 85' .Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for ❑ ❑ i their new sanctuary,?.' L. 1_ 3. Would you allow a heighA ariance? ❑ c If yen...please state height. 2fe-o 1- � v 4~, 4. Should St. Andrewdf provide adequate on-site ping as 1equired by City ordinance for tt,;'�ir pr olsef expansion? ❑ ❑ S. Ie a 1385 neat capacity church edc eptabl�l I""f • '.r in o r �community? �(exiacing 5441 IJ {.J !�/bs � S. Comments o �p 8 Vis .NO 1. The church has revised the prppoaed D N height From 105' to 851 .Is this acceptable • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the � (:Iexisting height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? MM 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IG�J If yes...Please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 east capacity church acceptabl6J� in our community? (existing 544) S. Camments3L 77e'elf Q6't g •ure •G10 V/ YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed n height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') For (�,{ their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes.. .please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? 5, Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptably in our community. (existing S44) _ El S. Comments Scene ut�e NO 1. The church has revised the proposed Ln height from 105' to 851.I9 this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for Ci their new sanctuary? L! 1i CI 3, Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes. ..please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City D ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385' aeet capacity church acceptabl�l in our community? (existing 544) 1—A� • S. Comments„'1__`'�rx . ignSE'ura 0?9 WS NO 1. The church- hAs revised the proposed L` 19 rq,height from lbS' to 85' .Is this acceptable? • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for 1,7! I'�I their new sanctuary? JZU 1.._ 3. Would you allow a height variance? D If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking ea required by City D ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church soceptabl in our community? (existing 544) 6. Comments ) er G A NSi k��C�rcBf- EF INUzGp57C.o v ✓ Ws NO 1. The church has revised the proposed height from IDS! to 8S'.Is this eoceptabl e"? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for 1�'j their new sanctuary? El CD 3. Would you allow a height variance? • IF yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking an required by City {q ordinance For their proposed expansion? �y 5, Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl@G( (�'f 'in our community? (existing 544) 6. Commente� Signature yes 1. The church has revive& the proposed n � height From 1CS' to 85'.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews con Form to the existing height limitation (351) for �,{ C�their' new ,c sanctuary? �S( 3. Would you allow a height variance?� If you...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 138S meet capacity church acceptabl jr in our community? (existing 544) JJ(Cyy!! • 6. Comments 3e) ure YES -NO 1. The church has revised the proposed height from 105' to 851 .Is this acceptab a. • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for Ci 0 their new sanctuary? ��•-�•--� 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ LJ If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ❑ r-� ordinance for their proposed expansion? 'J S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments 9 a l• ,�"�i� eC v rt 4.n�rueh/ Signs urn YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed LL height from 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable � 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for C� their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ • If yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ® r-n ordinance for their proposed expansion? 'J 5, Is a 138S seat capacity church acceptabl6M �i in our community? (existing 544) G. Comments gne ure --�--.- --- YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L, height from 105' to 85'.Is this aoceptabra? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) fonte, their new sanctuary? T 0 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ t✓I If yes.. .please state height. 'C 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5, Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptebl in our community? (existing 544) 1' u • S. Comments, w"fin ` S3gna ura VFS NO • i. The ah� ha "revYMuN"4th e1•�proposed .+ .+4n D height frdR 105' to 851.Is phis scoe tobie7 Adj4".-'4,W- /i��F�fy • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For f i ❑ 1 their new sanctuary?yLS � � ID— 0 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF Yea...places state height. �^= ,.s-1 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? ®�� S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church ecceptabl GT11F �"f in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments 5srw,e,r� r gcco n on!rc Vis NO v v 1. The church has revised the proposed D height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptablee'f 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yes. . .please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church ecceptabl�l in our community. (existing 544) J,�I S. Comments �y�jy 1. The church has revised the proposed height From 1-05' to 851.Is this acceptabq 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') For their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yea...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church ecceptabl in our community? (existing 544) • S. Comments ✓ Ws NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L` height From 105' to 8S' .Is this acceptable • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For ❑ their new sanctuary? 1- 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IF yes...planes state height. ' 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate cn-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion?ltv S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl5-I in our community? (existing 544) U 6. Comments �-�i 0 A. Slgndturo YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L M height From 105' to 8S'.I9 this acceptabiee't 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for r (may their new sanctuary? ILY �1 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking an required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 13S$ seat capacity church acceptably-1 ('v1 in our community? (7e�xxiisting 544) S. Comments- .44-A��o 6 ' A � ..�" I gne r� _..�- - - ------ YES NO 1. The church has revised th6 proposed L height from 10S' to SS'.Is this acceptable? 7� 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the pe5lf existing height limitation (35') for -�=qg ❑ their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. draws provide adequate on-sit park in as required by City �h( ardinan a air ro osed expone n. f1i�f/ Scf�ocL G�7Gg/���itOcrC,r/�!�/F.//✓'� S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptably=( in our community? (existing 544)li r 1 . S. Comments La ' igna re • 33 �• �. Yrs� No 1. Tha church has revised the proposed L� Z height From 105' to 851.Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for �I rj their new-sanctuary? l_! 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ U9 If yea...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate cn-site parking an required by City ® r—•� ordinance For their proposed expansion? �.�.I S, Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptabl G'� in our community? (existing 544) E1 S. Comments "o ag a urn Q � /, y� Ws NO 1. The church has revised the proposed �L height from 105' to 8S1.Is this acceptablee? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For C Ci their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ �I • If yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking all required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? u S. Is a 1385 sent eepapity church acceptabl�'1 in our community? (existing 544) U S. Ccmmmts QQWEG.i S'C'Auc MJG rI 'j o-p .r}��C-c lv2 t IS �vtYllhVN�T r) l til CW�c 5 agna�re ,.✓__ _ . . _ . ___ Yr5 yNO 1. The church has revised the proposed Ln height From 105' to 85' .Is this ecceptablq? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for t�i ❑ their new sanctuary? IICC 3. Would you allow a height variance? � 1 ❑ IF yes. ..please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? = S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptab11 • in our oommun y? (existing 544) �Ej S. Comments S gnern �u 1. The church has revised the proposed height from 105' to SS'.Is this ecceptabTe • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the f existing height limitation (35') For 101 ❑ their new sanctuary? 101 l_. 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking me required by City ❑ ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl" in our community? (existing 544) J S. Comments I .,if Y:? %'H! w />.. �, .. 4�� A. r .a /,ca tip'•- ^•. .vi A...:> 5igna LIS,ai... �/. '! . ✓ �. _...,�_ __ . _ _ __. . . _ _._.__ YES N 1. The church has revised the proposedL height From lOS' to 851 .Is this acceptabl ai i 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for f� Icy their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ (� If yes.. .please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking as required by City �`-� ordinance For their proposed expansion?jz< S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acc eptobILI in our community? (existing 544) L.� 5. Comments_ ' gna 1. The church has revised the proposed r height from 105' to 85' .Is this acceptt�16 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ a If yes...pleasa state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) ,(/I • S. Comments gl�Yn "' C/7S/ W��'V �r� Signature �s- st,�J N(dsr �E pt�SG}' ESTroNJ_s0. NO IV/The church has revised the proposed L� height From 105' to 85' .js this acceptabl? �} • 2. Should St. ewe confirm to the 1g existing heightight limitation (351) for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height vsrianca?" ❑ If yas.,. .plesse state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? Ina S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl b"'1 in our community? (existing 544) �I S. Comments • igne ura `/ -•---- - - . YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed _ L� height from 105' to 851.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') For their new sanctuary? LAI 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes.. .please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrew, provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments l igna ura NO v v 1. The church has revised the proposed 1LUaj height From 105T to Q51 .Is this ecc eptabl�a 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the �I existing height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? {{�� 3. Would you •allow a height variance? ❑ 1 IF yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking me required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 sent Capacity church acceptabl5'"'1 in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments C. _ �ignaturA.( • ' ' i/ 36 ";. Y�E'y5 NO «t• The church has revised the proposed !L`� height from IO5' to 85'.Is this acceptable? • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation 971 O tFjeir new sanctuary? ,•,�•. .• 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes. . .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-Bite parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? IVI 5, Is a 1385 seat capacity church mcceptabl5-1 in our community? (existing S44) S. Comments r ii a ure 1. The church has revised the proposed L� height From 105' to S5' .Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform td the C� existing height limitation (351. for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IF yes...please state height. • 4, Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ® �•--� ordinance For their proposed expansion? 5, Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments ,4A4 C e MMvryTi.�S yJL�,, sifQ3�6.�-- �5 •"igna ure Yss ,No The church has revised the proposed IL X height From 1OS' to 85' .Is this acceptable? i 2. Should St. Andrews canFarm to the existing height limitation (35') for I•"7 their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height var ion eq ?i .- If yes.. .please state height, "t-"J`VJ�T/"�� 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 138S seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) • S. Comments "49 !/16602- HMV AZEW'e'OS4PLfCf- yes NO 1. The church has revised the proposed , height from 105' to 851 .Is'this acceptab� • 2. Should St.height Andrews -conform limitation to the existing height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl Ll � III in our community? (existing 544) j-���� S. Comments � 'S'�"gnature Ws NO 1. The church has revised the proposed q 1ci Height from 105' to 851.I9 this ace eptab 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes. . .please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate iJ on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl6( rVi in our co��m jjun ity? (existing 544))) 1 S. CommentslC�� � no u At UtP.N4 ,�( /1Owt,. pC.MY�O..y 9v/JI,R�/ ✓ _ . .. - yes NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L` height from 105' to 85' .Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for K7I I'�I their new sanctuary? �L L 3. Would you allow a height var lance? ❑ If yaw...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking up required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? XN 5. Is a 1385 meat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) • S. Comments . agne ure �� I. Theghurch has revised the proposed 1L� height from 105' to 851 .Is this acceptable? • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (3S') for I'�I their new sanctuary? U 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptebl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comment 079h, cvKL/• ' ig u e f�.aRk'E,@ 636 �SiC 74 M&, ;�--------__ - - � ---- --yes NO 1. The church has revised the proposed -1 height from 105' to 8S' .Is this acceptab e. 'e. Should St. Andrews pcnfarm to the existing height limitation (351) for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ 13J If yes.. .please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking an required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5. Is a-1385 seat capacity, church acceptablW-1 in our community? (existing 544) S. CommentsT_ ign ure V/ YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L height from 105' to 5S' .Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for (�) 0 their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow 9 height variance? ❑ If yes. . .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking me required by City ❑ ordinance for their proposed expansion.' S. Is a 1385 meat capacity church acceptsbl�l in our communyi�ttty?/ (existing 544) J�1 • S. Comments. Signs urea �J -�'-i. The church has ravFssd the pd height from 105' to 8i'.Is thMM6ceptabler r • "2-. Shcui.J .St. Andrews conform to the existing hai�ght limitation (351) for ry) 0I their new sanctuary? JCS 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...pleaee state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ❑ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church scoeptebl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments 41 a+ 3gnazuF a VES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed ! height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable, 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') For their new sanctuary? �V 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IF yes.. .please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking an required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church soceptabl� in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments l YES NO 1. The church has revised the propos ad height From 105' to 85'.Is this aceeptabq IN 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for Ci their new sanctuary? 3. Would you al}ow a height variance? ❑ ,� If yes...Please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-Bite parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? 11�XII 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acc eptablb�f in our community? (existing 5444) 1L. • S. Comments tt Sig s urea— 'e/Q 1. The church has revised the proposed L� height from 105' to 851 .I9 this eccaptable? • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the Ci existing height limitation (351) for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion?5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church ecceptablU M in our community? (existing 544) �-11 S. Comments `Lx- lf1.L 1 /'v O"CPy3TRL ZATNEDr`6�-5-�� rAe Ili , ilQ. .� LLZ/+ YES NQ . 1. The church has revised the proposed height from 105' to SS' .Is this acceptab e. 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for (r[`, ICI their new sanctuary? Lnk L- 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yea...please state height. �l • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expens ien? 5. Is a 1385 most capacity church ecceptabl�l in our community? (existing 544) LI S. Cammente..������� 5/ / yigne ura YES NO ]:. .,'(pia church has revised the proposed ..height from 105' to 851 .1s this acceptab 2.:gbould St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For (�1 their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl Ej K71 in our community? (existing 544) 11�� AQJ • S. Comments x ne ure �/ 1. The church has revised the proposed LL height From 1O5' to 85'.I9 this Boo actable • Z. Should St.height conform to the �I existing height limitation (351) For their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height var ience? If yen...please state height, sb 4. Should St. Andrews provide edaquate%J nL ,J on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church ecceptabl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments C'_` l!;JE �..tv�Y d't''1Ti ftvy, is ynoJi�u� ivwc, 9(YEL*V4.CS S3gna �F lZol GAFf'qu✓C' ✓/ Yes No 1. The church has revised the proposed !L`y 9. height From 105' to 85'.IB this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for �I C� their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow 9 height variance? •® • IF yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-sitQ parking me required by City O ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptablb in our community? (existing 544) �I S. Comments " 1. The church has revised the proposed height From IO5' to 85'4 Is this accept e. 2. Should St..Aidrdwe conform to the Ci existing height limitation (3S') for their new eanctuery? 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-Bite parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 Beet capacity church acceptabl • in our community? (existing 544) S. Commaite g r .. a i Ws NO I. The church hem revised the proposed Ln height From IO5' to 851 .I8 this accaptabls'7 • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for Ci their new sanctuary? l� 3. Would you allow a height variance? D IF yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptebl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments n • gna ur X ---- -- ----•—_.-.__..__.. Yes NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L height From IOS' to SS'.Xs this acceptable /-' 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? • If yes. . .please state height. 4, Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptably'( in our community? (existing 544) LI S. Comments_ 1��d7CJ gna urge v v5s N0 1. The"Dhurch has raviorr d the proposed I . Er height from 105' to 854.Is this ecceptab e. 2. Should'St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For f�W� their new sanctuary? L L 3. Would you allow a height variance? ✓� IF yes...please state height, 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City, r ordinance For their proposed expansion? u S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptablk�l in our community? (existing 544) 1LJJ • S. Commsnter„J'f ) P inning. I/��rn Yi nna jdl tlt I'M-roixwa- �r1'irr i C/y 1 1. The church has revised the proposed !}�` height from 105' to 85' .Is this acceptabre? • 2. Should St, Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for 5� ' (�} their new Banetuery? f"> �L11 3. Would you allow a height variance? M If yes...please state height. .5.0 4. Should St. Andrews provide ad4{uate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? 0 S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabls-1 in our community? (existing 544) .r wih 6. Comments /f1 116 e fr 7' 1 i�T �U � igne ure ✓ YES N%% 1. The church has revised the proposedNO L� height from 105' to 851.Ia this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for El new sanctuary? 3. •Wculd you allow a height var ienca? ,� �� If yes.. .please state height. •� • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-Bite parking no required by City D ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl M71 in our community? (existing 544) f�1 S. Comments bal; agna •ure Yes NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L TO height From 105' to 85' .Is this acceptabr,e 2. Should St. Andrews oon Form to the existing height limitation (35') fQ(' their new sanctuary? ' V 3. Would you allow a height variance? If yen...please state height. k SUI 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City O ordinance for their proposed expansion? 29 S. Is a 1385 sent capacity ch rE acceptabl*7"1 in our community? (exis ng 44) LN (..� • S. Ccmmenta gna �� __✓__.�..��. _ _ _ . __._Yc5 NO I 1. The church has revised the proposed •• height From 105, to 85'.Is this acceptabq • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') far their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? If Yes.. .please state height, 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking an required by City O ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptebl� In Our community? (existing 544) Lai 6. Comments lgne ure YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed. height From 105' to 85'.Is this ecceptabge 2. Should St, Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for C� their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? If you...please state height. NQ • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? 5, Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptablb I in our commmyyu��n ity? (existing 544) J�J 6. Common oft, �.a g ure Yes NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L z height From 105' to 851.Is this acceptable 2, Should St. Andrews conform'to the existing height limitatio 5') for their new sonctu cry? [( Kr L1 3. Would you allow a height variance? If yes,, ,please state height. H.S� 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking es required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) • S. Comments oxg�u e �� YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L� height from 105' to S51 ,Is this accgptab .T.i • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for Ci 7-1their now sanctuary? L_ 3. Would you allow a height ver ience? El IF yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 Beat capacity church ecceptabl in our community? (existing 544) LJ�� S. Comments J a, 1( YES NO 1,. The church has revised therproQcsed L height From 105' to 85I.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for r7 c ' their new sanctuary? I_ 3. Would you allow a height variance? ' n• If yew...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate • on-situ perking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 Beat capacity church accaptabl6--A in our community? (existing 544) a. Comments ign ur yt5. NO L. The church has revised the proposed WffaigMt from 105' to 851 .Is this ace epte6q 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') For r y their new sanctuary? 1_'I 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yes...please state height. T 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking as required by City D ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church ecceptabl�l in our community?y (existing 544) • 6, Comments , , Signa ure R. G. MacDonald t/4 �( %-iS NO 1. 'The church has revised the proposed 1 1 height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptab e. • 2."Should exists St. Andrews statormion to the existing height ary stetson (35')r For L1 I"�'I their new sanctuary? 1ILL U 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IF yen.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking so required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion?")"tt 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existin 5 J S. Comments ! e ura x " YES ffN�O I. The church has revised the-proposed L �7t:� height From 105' to 85'.Is this aoceptable3 cc�' 2. Should St. Andrews con Form .to the existing height limitation (351) For their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IF yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptablS—I in our community? (existing 544) 5. Comments, Signs u � - - `�(eS NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable? ® i •`a; Should St. Andrews conform to the 'existing height lim#etion (35') For their new sanctuary? IG� 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IF yea...please stage height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City O ordinance For their proposed expansion? X S. Is a 1385 se cepac� church acceptabl5—i in our mmun sty ( xis tang 544 JJ�—�� �( jyrs .s F nw•+y S. Comments_/3E.f ie ;en -/ �,. X7 x - .- ----- yEs No la The church has revised the proposed IL N height From 105' to 85' .Is this acceptabia. • 2.,)Should St. Andrews conform •to the existing height limitation (35') for �i 0their new sanctuary? 3.v Would you allow a height variance? �. IF yas. . .please state height. 45 Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5. Ia a 1385 seat capacity church acoeptabl5-'I in our community? (existing 544) U1 S. Ccmmentsly� l5 A- eEr�tNevr A-L bm4u� putty. II�� S igne ure ✓ ,i Y--��5 NO 1. The church has revised the proposed 1 , height From 105' to 851.I9 this acceptab a. 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for i their new sanctuary? V-1 3. Would you allow a height variance? IXL If yes.. .please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City 3 ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptebl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments agna ure e Yns NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L� height From 105' to 85' .Is this agceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for C�their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow q height variance? .� I If yes.. .please state height. .5o � No OrCu?iC8 S?Ace i4bode 3S 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-aite parking me required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? IJ S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl In our community? (existing 544) • S. Comments. gna ure / V WS NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L height from 105' to 85' .Is this acceptable. • 2. Should St. Andrew. conform to the existing height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allpw a height variance? ❑ .� If yes...please State height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl6r( in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments gna .ur 1. The church has revised the proposed L4 M height from 105' to 851 .Is this ecceptabi a. 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...please state height. VEXY LfM MD • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5. Ie a 1385 seat capacity church acceptably (�I in our community? (existing 544) 6. Comments r t S Yis rN+�O 1. The church has revised the proposed L� IACI height from 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable? 'f-� 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for their new sanctuary? L 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City a ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl y in our community? (existing 544) • 5. Comments 72.9 s( n lgne ura �� 1. The proposed height from--306' to 851 .I9 this acceptab a. • 2. Should St. Andrews con Form to the existing height limitation (35') For their new sanctuary? ' 3. Would you allow a height variance? ® (� If you...please state height. _cr^.Jsv 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate en-site parking as required by City MA ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 went capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) MAX. 1100 S. Comments xgna ure �(-EyS NO I. The church has revised the proposed n �( height from"105' to 85'.Is this accepteb LOT 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the t existing height limitation (351) for their new sanctuary? �1 1 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IF yes...please State height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking an required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? ❑ 5, Is a 1385 neat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) L� u 6. Comments t na 'ura L' ' .�.: .., .N . „• . . • yes "'NO , -1 1. The church Chas revised the proposed L height from 1Q5' to 85'.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351), for their new senctuar `'' ❑ 19 3, Would you allow a height ver isnc d? IF yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on.aite parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? uJ S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl r,49 in our community? (existing 544) IJ {L} • S. Comments 5 a ur • - - -• __'_�Yes NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L, height From 105' to 85' .Is this acceptabl'. ;• 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for D f:h l�l their new sanctuary? LLB i0�-7� 3. Would you allow a height variance? lizi If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking es required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? LCJ S. Is a 1385 Beet capacity church acceptabl�i in our community? (existing 544) i..�� S. Comments agne , e YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L4 g height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptabl a? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for their new sanctuary? (— Ci 3. Would you allow a height variance? El t] If yes.. .please state height. `JO/ 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1365 seat capacity church acceptabl E'l in our community? (existing 544) LI S. Comments g�B7V gnaIulb 5 NO 1. The church has nevi Ot pr opus acl height From 105' to dN•;� this acts i �i7 w 2. Should St. Andrews o�hPLl^m to-the__,'•. existing height limi 1(35') their new seric�tuery? 3. Would you allow a height variance? If yes..'please state height. _- 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? �f S. Is ,a 1385 seat capacity church acceptablrl in our community? .(existing 544) ^• S. Comments 0, 4.Yes . -, V `5/ % eyS NO 1. The church has revised the proposed { � • height From 105' to 85'.I'e°�this a eptab e. • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For �i ❑ their new sanctuary? l- 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes.. .plsase state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate en-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 poet capacity church ecceptablU in our community? (existing 544) 7 � 6. Comments a r ViS NO 1. The church has revised the proposed height From 105' to SS' .Is this acceptab a. 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For r,7 ❑ their new sanctuary? I— 3, Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes.. .please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City I ordinance for their.proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 Beat capacity church acaeptebl in our community? (existing 544) U S. Comments Mre WS NO 1. The church has revised the proposed Ll a] height from 105' to 851 .Is this eeceptebla? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For f.il their new sanctuary? U3 1_ 3. gould you allow a height variance? If yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-mite parking as required by City D ' ordinance For their proposed expansion? s. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptebl in our community? (existing 544) U • 6. Comments igne u �� - - YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed height From 105' to 85' .Is this acceptab a • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For C� their new sanctuary? I- 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...plasse state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking an required by City r-n ordinance For their proposed expansion? 1J S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) 6. Comments z 1. The church has revised the proposed 1L� height From 105' to 851.Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? 1�—{ 3. would you allow a height variance? If yen...please state height. ....7� • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) 6. Comments�S �pS1dJ'I O%sr CS 4 ur e Ws NO 1. The church has revi®4pd.the-proposed L� height from lOrj,' t0 8 '•Is this ecc eptebl e? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For their maw sanctuary? ��yy.. �•-� 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yes...Please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City. ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1365 seat capacity church acceptabl in our oo muni y? (existing 544) • S. Comments JgTwture S3 Y _ r OS NO 1. The church has revised the proposed �� height from 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the ❑ existing height limitation (35') For their now sanctuary? 0 3. Would you allow a height variance? ✓L,f n If yes.. .please state height. 1.510 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate _/ on-site parking as required by City I�`L,}6('I�' ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptablE Y in our community? (existing 544) - S. v v 1. The church has revised the proposed L, height From 105' to 851.Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') For. ' their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ �Q IF yes...please Mete height. /\ • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? s. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptabl U ❑ in our community? (existing 544) 5. Comments Signature. WS No 1. The church has revised the proposed L height From 105' to 85' .Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For �{ ❑ their now sanctuary? iL.'�.1 l- 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IF yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parkingg as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? 'J S. Is a 1385 Beet capacity church acceptabl�l 'yam in our community? ex is_ting 544) �,,,,I 'L�y • S. Commenta�Gt9� e ur l NO 1. The church has revised the proposed Ln height From 105' to 851 .I0 this etc eptabl e7 • 2. Should St. Andrews o to the � ❑ existing height limitationtation (359) For their new sanctuary? 1 3. Would you allow a height variance? D If yea...plaaga state height. 4. Should St. Andr"a provide adequate ❑ on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptebI I Is in our community? (existing 544) L��1� S. Comments n � gna ur yes NO ..�� �. -j-� 1. The has rav]/ed the Proposed n he ight' fr om 105' to85'.Is this aco eptab e. 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the �' O existing height limitation (3S1) for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variant e7 ❑ IF ye,...please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate ' ❑ ❑ cn-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed axpans ion. S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl E'I in our community? (existing 544) a. comments / — ig a ure ,T % eys NO 1. The church has rayissd the proposed 1 ` height From 105' tq aS' .Is this acceptab a. 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the ❑ existing height limitation (351) for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? �y//1' ❑ S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church accepted '% ' in our community? (existing 544) No • S. Comments agne ur� ,{�S- I. The church has revised the proposed Ln R height from 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable'? • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for i Imo) their new sanctuary? l—� 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...planes state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide sdmquate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? jaj S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) �1 u 6. Comments r ign �--- .r v l� WS NO 1. The church has revised the proposed3�" height From 105' to 85'.I" this ar6(�t"Mbl- 2. Should St. Andrew" conform to the existing height limitation (35') For (vI Ci their new sanctuary? IDS (- 3. Would you allow a height verisnce? ❑ • If yen...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? Lai S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl6"( elf in our community? (existing 544) 6. Comments � / /�C fY Sagna urn 1. The•ChLroh (1as revised the proposed this h et�hiL.'from 105'.,�� BS' .Is this ecc eptab a. 2. Shcuke,St. 9ndrewe confprm •to the existing height limitation (35') for C� their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yen...please agate height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site pricing ae required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? ,,,,,,���••• S. Is a 1385 went capacity church aeceptabl • in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments 9 � 1. The church his revised the-proposed height from 105' to 85' .Is this mccmp/y bloT • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for i their new sanctuary? �I 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IF yam.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expension? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church scceptabl rJl in our community? (existing 544) U �y S. Comments AfNURIN SNUyx/o'.O6 wiccimd 131 mNPLy WIPM 7yr. /L�/,. '�:• C�� .i2. vow.'igna re WS NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L� height From 10§' to 85'.Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing -height limitation (35') For �' CD new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ • If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church ecceptabl� in our community? (existing 544) 10 S. Comments gna uure f (' NOS NO 11. Th4 church has revised the proposed 0 Height From IDS' to 85'.Is this ecceptabla 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') For �I their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yew...pleass state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate cn-site parking an required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptabl,U • in our community? (existing 544) ^ S. Comments _ Gem.toe /,.aeKe VES NO 1. The church hae..detWOd the p►oposed height from 105.' •to 85',-Is this acceptable? • 2. Should St. Andrews donform to the existing height limitation (351) for r%7I C� their new sanctuary? 1IdQ L. 3. Would you allow a height variance? If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking ee required by City ® ordinance for their proposed expansion? 1J S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl � In our com unity? (exist in Ej �. S. Comments aw � lg .� yES NO 1. The church has revised the prcposed L� height from 105' to 851 .Is this acceptable? 2. should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for their now sanctuary? I- 3. Would you allow a height variance? D If yes...please state height. • q, Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking ea required by City gyp( ordinance for their proposed expeneion? IG�I 5, Ie a 1385 Beat capacity church acceptably in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments E5ignature WS* NO 1. The church has revised the proposed 1 1 height from 105' to 85'.Is this accapteb e. 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the IL.],I existing height limitation (351) for CD their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City �y ordinance For their proposed expansion' L^F S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl6—� • in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments s O l WW1 CKuN 00, Signature 1. The church hap revised tJ���R�p' roposed � height from 105' to 85' .Ie 'this aocaptwbTe • 2. Should St. Andrewf•eonfor+M to the existing height limitation (3S') for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yeg...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 most capacity church acceptablE'1 in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments L r, x gnat ure L. v WS NO 1. The church Fas revised the proposed height From 105' to S5L.Isa),this acceptabl a. e 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height var fence? ❑ • IF yea. . .please otete height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adaqumte on-site parking no required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 sent eepecity. church acceptebl� in our community? (exist ng 544) S. CAM an a "!"a "� J a ✓ Ves NO 1. The-ohurch has revised the proposed L� he'tg t from 105' to 851.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the, existing height limitation (351) for �i ICI their new sanctuary? I_.1 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yen.. .Please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City �--•� ordinance for their proposed expansion? ,Q I,J S. Is a 1385 meet capacity church acceptabl�( in our community? (existing 544) Jet • fit 6A J."z�><• orrrmr�.�':orr il�'[�ihc ram: %rC e/1"M�i i1)r1G�a tC�_. 6. CC..amm m to - ,, 4„([ f ,n�, n r � ,.v,char rI-Vy'z7 L .^d»mE+Sl.?PtnS SM f-'i(, r// r - Karr k 4Nc• r:.l�el, t+u•r:/:n f4'o� aira.a - cr : :<. :$L�rr /••I.1. •NIL'r /- ..%r ze cqb`, iS µ -- M;clrl�/iir:y. Harrr•e. •:2C �' 71a/ n '�On'aF°urrul�'raeerr/"'��h'eY��b��ur %m�M.fim, ik��.� 1. The church has revised the proposed L� height from 105' to 85' .Is this acceptable • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for (�'1 their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ u If yea.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andnawe provide adequate on-site parking am required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? iJ 5. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments ) /I(� /I -Y t' (�(.0 l..K./ -- Signs u�ra e 1. The church has revised the proposed L� height from 105' to 85'.Is this eaceptabP•? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for their new manctuary? W 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes.. .pleaee state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parkin as required by Cites (� ordinance $ _ Ad S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in cur community? (existing 544) S. Comments /e A6'�`*"*ut '7� 12 N- r 1. The church has revised the propose.l. Ln height from 105' to 85'.Is this ecmaptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for (tT'I C� their new sanctuary? l([4�, I- 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ IWV, If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate an-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? lai S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments -DfC W, -✓� .�c�= • / ign■ urn / 1�0 _ Yes No 1. The church has revised the proposed height From 1Q5' to 85' .Is this acceptabP 2. Should St. Andr*B conform to the existing height )imitation (351) For N Ci their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? If yes...plans& Qtate height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion i S. Ie s 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) y/1� 47k1 S. C✓omments .JQ.LtRi. �' �-'1 C%d.n✓�r� 5ag�a ur yes NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ' • IF yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5. Ie a 13SS seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments Signature _.✓_ _ __. _. _ .. . Ws N0� 1. The church has revised the proposed LLL height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for r C� their new seno�uery? 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF Yes...plaese state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City O ordinance For their proposed expansion. LJ S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptablH'I • in our community? (existing 544) JAI S. Comments � gne 1. The church has revised the proposed L� height from 105' to 85' .Is this acceptable /--' • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for Im (`1 their new sanctuary? �J 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes.. .pleaae state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City }�} ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptablk'1 ' in our community? (existing 544) 1� S. Comments STgna ure ✓ / yes Nivio 1. The church has revised the proposed 1L, height from 105' to 85' .Is this acceptebie7 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for (�} their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes.. .pleasa state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments i na re i — - yG5 No 1. The church has revised the proposed L, height from 105t to 85'.Is this acceptable'?' - 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for �i f� their new sanctuary? LI 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes. . .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate cn�site parking as required by City M r� ordinance for their proposed expansion? 'J S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl in our community? (existing 544) • S. Comments 1, ui Signs ure Vis hhN��IOI 1. The church has revised the proposed LL, height from 105' to SSI.Is this ecceptable? vv�+ 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35t) for their new sanctuary? L..f 3. Would you allow a height variance? If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking an required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? Lad s. Is a 1385 seat capacity church noceptabl6� in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments T.�, 92wdt� 4.*. 'L (,cSecwgya. r, p ure y'9�'Y S'�vvej loJO�l b3 Yes NO 1. The church has revised the proposed R1 El height from 105' to 85'.Is this acceptab e. • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For ❑ ICTI their new sanctuary? L 3. Would you allow a height variance? P- If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking es required by City (--� ordinance For their proposed expansion? � ❑ S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptsblViOP4 in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments -- , rt Signature co� ,_✓__�_.___ -.. _ . - - -• - - --'---- Yes NO 1. The church has revised the.proposed L� ❑ height From 105' to 851.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For, (zA- I'�I their new sanctuary? WI U 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ If yes...please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking se required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 sent pepecity church acceptably �I in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments - igna urn Yes NO 1. The church has revised the proposed height From 105' to 85' .Is this acceptab e 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For ❑ their new sanctuary? L. 3. Would you allow a height variance? Lai IF yen.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking an required by City � ordinance for their proposed expansion? 'J 5. Is a 1385 seat cepecity church acceptablp;71 in our community? (existing 544) ��II • 6. Comments LS- gna P' t .uu..•1 FI�S.{l•� 1. The church he Travis 3•e�the ropos„pd:.. height from 1 to B5i .Ish his $npgptsb e. • 2. Should St. Andre(vr conform to the existing height`limitation (35') for 1;71 their new sanctuary? �� •F� 3. Would you allow a height variance? Q ❑ )Qj If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ❑ i ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 sent capacity church acceptabl5"1PRM in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments ,J.4(1, 5 ignatuu 'S— f, 1 ❑ 1. The church had.haysiaed• the proposed height from 105•' to 85,'.Is this acceptant p? 2. Should St. Andrews-edn Farm to the existing height limitation (351) for ❑ their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yes.. .please state height. • 4. `L���31rOJreP ads in yuGs any any yyr ordinanoe' for their ropoe ad_�,expansion7?? 0 ❑ 5, Is a 385 ' oepE it ch.scc pttablcy r� in our community? (existing 544) 6. Cammen tppo �YH�^� d fL�L Signature ((// yr5 NO^ 1. The church has revised the-proposed ❑ height from 105' tc 85'.Is this acceptableT 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? If yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City F--, ordinance For their proposed expansion? 'J 5, Is a 1385 seat capacity church ecc e�.�g616`J1 in our community? (existing 544) 1�I 1 S. Comments gna ure ��" Yes No 1. The church has revised--the proposed height from 105' to 851.Is this accepts • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? . If yes.. .please state height. w6a eJCY IS 'ia5!zpV 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-vita parking no required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptably in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments i a ura NO 1. The church has revised the,-proposed height from 105' to 85r.I9 *is accepts e. .. 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? �( 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yes.. .please state height. - • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City O ordinance for their proposed axpension? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabiDl j in our community? (existing 544) �J l-•1 S. Comments 9 a urn'a YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed height From 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the-19 existing height limitation (351) for their new sanctuary? Ci �I 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF y levee stet hei ht lilh$7 elder the- c�iurc4 deems 1'egsor4-4 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate%f 6$5!* E on-site parking as required by City �,/ Ord in�e.yn�ee for their/proposed expansi,110,1 Pn? ,�� 5, Ie a 1385 seat capacity church accepts al • in Our community? (existing 544) S. ,Commente �'x�p'pB/Gxp"'� PKEI "Y/ i Mtn< %(Ss NO .1..The Church has revised the proposed .4migha,t from 105'• tc 851.I9 this acceptable-? • 2. Should St. Andrheight stnformation to the existing height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? I- 3. Would you allow a height variance? ¢ssrAQJ If yes.. .please state height. fl' 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking as required by City �•--� ordinance for their proposed expansion? IJ S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church mcceptabl6�D'� �I in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments S gne urn YSs NO 1. The church hae 'revised the proposed �l height from 105' to-85' .Is this acceptabla? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the Ci existing height limitation (351) For their new sanctuary? 3. Woullj you all• t(,tse �9 ht Valle c e yee pleaprovide at; height. euadequate 4. Sfr1l�a And ro id !- on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5, Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl�( in our comma ity? (a istin /44) S. Comments i gna are YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed L�r ff height from 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable 2., Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') For their new sanctuary? L- 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yes.. .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed axpensio, �✓ 'J 5, Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl b:Y in our community? (existing 544) �J • S. Comments ign u a ✓ ' Vis NO 1. The church has revised the proposed ❑ height From 105' to 851 ,I8 this accepts a. • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for ❑ I��('� their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height var fence? ❑ If you...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking an required by City ❑ �-�.j( ordinance For their proposed expansion? �Q,I S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptably in our community? (existing 544) �( S. CommentsT T//C/ .Y�9dc oar.G'.Powi✓ Tdrir F.Pcsc�ii-F ' <i v &X ydcQ r 'A"we rrit ry rg r,.�y ijCne iyo.YDGt f f/,✓6 00 sari- 01AV. : f T/.pry //tc4 Yd Fo � .ct 06F�:�J�r. .. 1. The church has revised the proposed height from 105' to 851.Is this accepts e. �J(J 2. Should St. Andrewe conform to the existing height limitation (351) for their new sanctuary? LV MM 3. Would you allow a height variance? • If yes...please state height. S35'G' 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking lie required by City ❑ ordinance For their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church aeceptabl"lS:)(� in our community? (existing 544) ��QII (—( S. Comments Sagna urge a 3 ' K __ --'`/ES �NO 1. The chryrch has revised the proposed 0 ❑ height From 105' to Q5'.Ie this acceptable? - 2. Should S.t. Andrews conform -to the existing height limitation (35') for (y'I their new sanctuary? 1—❑ l� 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ ❑ If yes. . .please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate an-site parking an required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? ❑ 5. Is a 1385 Beet capacity church ecceptablW—i • in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments gn■ u _" / 1. The church has revised the proposed A ❑ height From 105' to 85' .Is this eccepteb e. • 2. Should St. Andrew- conform to the existing height limitation (35') For ('�' their new sanctuary? �L_Y—/JZ �L 3. Would you el ow ® height vq�eJr iarica / IF ye-... igISQ�~NAY[// 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking as required by City ❑ .�q� ordinance For their proposed expansion? Y� S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church aoceptabl@PI in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments r A� � igna e` 1. The church has revised the proposed Jy[�t ff - heightfrom 105' to 851.Is this ecceptabI3? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for C� their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? ❑ • IF yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ❑ •Nn ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church ecceptebl in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments gna ura . 1. The church has revised the proposed height from 105' to 85' .Is this accepta6 e. 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') for ❑ (� their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? L..1 IF yea...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ❑ ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptably inJ our community? (existing 544) Sig"e ure 1.✓The church has revised the proposed VO 0 height from 105' to 851 .Is this scceptah e. • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (3S') for ('�' in their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? �p,1 If you...planes state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking an required by City D ordinance for their proposed expansion? .� Zane S. Is a 138S sent capacity church acceptablET.i in oaet community? (existing 544) m....j F.d. e S. Comments ..;Z= —I Signature YES NO 1. The church has rovfe:d the proposad height from 105' to- 65' .Is this acceptab e. cl 2. Should St. Andrews cogform' to the Ci existing height limitation (35') for their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height ver ience? If yes...plans* state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking on required by City ❑ ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5, Is a 1385 sent capacity church aceeptabl in our community? (existing 544) j�O 6.�Comments 1 ^ ' 'led n - --YES NO 1. The church has ra,Ased the proposed ��(L height from 105' to 85'.I�i'th ie acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height. limitetion (351) For D their new sanctuary? L M 3. Would you allow a height var4ence? y If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking an required by City D �( . ordinances for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptap1671 • in our community? (existing S44) G. Comments gn u a �/ �;, _ _ � _ •- - - ---- - _ _ - Y NO- 1. The church has revised the proposed L height from 105' to 85' .Is this acceptable? • 2. Should 5t. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35') For ('�'� their new sanctuary? I_Ci l_ 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yes.. .plaase state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City 1' or inane for kheir p oposed xpa sic 5. Za Be seat capacity church ecc eptabin in our community? (existing 544) 1.� S. Comments.,u-fF^/� .3e.5i� A - O+-+.•• `)4[s�/`/y"ILP.,� � Ojai a ne ur e YES N0, 1. the bhurch has revised the proposedL height From 105' to SS'.Is this acceptebP? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the Ci existing height limitation (351) For their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF yes. please state height. `�L01 //nncc.. S 4. Should St: Andrews provide ed quote 8 ` on-site ping as required by City O� ordinance For their proposed expansion'. S. a 1385 seat capacity church acceptabl pTj( ❑ in r community? (existing 544) S. Comments" v/'-tw rn'v,c•,ibLC u c'G-.4..8E/c-00- A,9 /'zz, ;/ SignAtur. YES NO 1. The church has revigad the proposed L height Fr9p 10d., to 85'.Ia this acceptabl a? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) Fork Ci their new sanctuary? ` 1_ 3. Would you allow a height variance? M✓ If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? 5, Is a 1355 seat capacity church acceptabl g� • in our comDmuunniittyyn?- (ax sti/7ng/1544) LJ S. Comments oc �'^"• "gym- iCl--�uJ:cr- tf.a2 yis NO ;1. The church has revised the proposed W- height From 105' to 851 .I9 this acceptable. 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For Ci My their new sanctuary? us 3. Would you allow a height variance? 9� n If you.. .please state height. MNl1lNgYEL. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance For their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptable N in our community? (existing 544) Nit u S. Comments 41 1NQ �,j(11. igi urn 1. The church has revised the proposed height from 105' to 851.Is this aceeptab a 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35,') for Ci M their now sanctuary? 3. Woula you allow a height var Lance? t • If you...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 sent capacity church scoeptabl� in our community? (existing 544) 6. Comments i a ur Fa, %(ES NO 1. The church raa rev sod the proposed height frkr6 lot ty 85'.Is this acceptab e. ' 2."ghould St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? IF you...planes state height. 7 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 seat capacity church mccepteblk�l • in our community? (existing 544) Jam( S. Comments 5 gna uri— re.�L- �� �__ _._ _ _ . _-_�_'.._•_._...w--..--.._. YES NO I 1. The church has revised the proposed J-�y. .height from 106' to SS' .Is this acceptebia • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the"40 existing height limitation (35') Kr their new sanctuary? L MM 3. Would you allow a height variance? If you...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate , on-site parking as required by City ordinance For _their proposed expansion' S. Is a 1385 • ap Sty c p�l� in our community? roxisting 544) V S. Comments i�.�/ Ti '��5igne ure Vie NO 1. The church has revised the proposed height From 105' to 851.I9 this aoceptab 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For Ci their new sanctuary? L 3. Would'you allow a height variance? IF you.. .please state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City O ordinance For their proposed expansion? 5. Is a 1385 sent capacity church ecceptabl( in cur community? (e*isting 544) JGy (�( S. Comments _ Xxgr^xur a� —�, �-^_•---- -- .-- -, -_._ �YE�S( NO 1. The church has revised the proposed height .from 105' to 85'.Is this acceptable? 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for Ci their new sanctuary? 4 3. Would you allow a height variance? �Y--190 ' If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City Q ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 meet capacity church ecc eptabl • in our community? (existing 544) IJ $. Comments gna ure / 3 VC-5 NO 1. The church h6s revised the proposed N 0 height From 105' to 85'.Is this aocaptable • 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (35t) for ��{ I'�'I their now sanctuary? 1�1��� L_1 3. Would you allow a height variance? n If ye:...pl a a to gight 4. Should St. draws provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 smelt capacity church mcceptabl� in our cam mw ity? (existing 544) I S. Comments ^ ,,J ,DN � YES P40 1. The church has revised the proposed height from 105' to 851.I9 this acceptah e 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) For �I O their new sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? If yen.. .plans* state height. • 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site perking es required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion?)\\ S. In a 1385 sent capacity church acceptabl' in our community? (existing 544) S. Comments _ .+'�Tnal:ur e yes NO 1. The church has revised the proposed 'M height from 105' to 85I.Is this acoepta6 e. 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for �j{ their new sanctuary? L..Ci R1 3. Would you allow a height var canoe? If yes...please state height. n ' 4. Should St. Andrews provide adequate on-site parking as required by City ordinance for their proposed expansion? S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church acceptab18�1 • in our community? (existing 544) JJQQII u S. Comments gna urea ` � 714 • ---^� "`�_- -- - - Yes NO 1. The church has revised the proposed height from 105# to 851.Ig this acceptab e 2. Should St. Andrews conform to the existing height limitation (351) for CiI their new Sanctuary? 3. Would you allow a height variance? , If yes...please state height. 4. Should St. Andrews provide ad%quate on-site parking as required by City �7�{ ordinance for their proposed expansion? �LI S. Is a 1385 seat capacity church eooeptabl 11 in our community? (existing 544) N S. Comments gna u e ' • • 79 rerPBd��• •. June 23, 1982 Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Gentlemen: Being unable to attend the hearing on Thursday, June 24, 1982, regarding the St. Andrew's Church's request for a building permit, • I would like to state my opinion. I have lived in Newport Beach since 1946 and have resided at 230 Kings Place since 1961 . I honestly feel that what the Church is requesting should be approved by the Planning Commission. I see no reason why it should cause a hardship to the residents of Cliff Haven area and I personally feel it would upgrade the area. I am not a member of St. Andrew's Church, but I am a concerned citizen voicing my opinion. Sincerely, AltOO714"� Stan Henline 230 Kings Place Newport Beach, California • THE APPRAISAL OFFICES OF '•, R E C[, VC:p PAUL G. KLOSTER INCORPORATED . I 17632 Irvine Blvd. Suite"Q" , OL G. KLOSTER MAI,SRPA Tustin,CA 92680 ,- 'C. 714/731.6921 .`�,'. NEt• : „ �• '" June 24, 1982 I=f J Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Proposed Expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church I have lived in Newport Heights for twenty three years as a property owner. For twenty years my occupation has been that of a professional real estate appraiser. During that time I have actively engaged in apprising Newport Beach properties. I believe that the proposed project will benefit the com- munity. The project is located in a small quadrangle of in- dustrial and high density development including Newport Harbor High School, Ensign Middle School, St. Andrews Pres- byterian Church, Masonic Lodge, The Zonita Club, Senior Citizens Center, and the 1500-unit Oakwood Apartment project. During the Period of time that these developments have taken place, the nearby residential areas of Newport Heights and particularly "Cliff Haven" have enjoyed strong popularity with home buyers evidenced by steadily rising prices. With wide public knowledge of the proposed project, property prices have remained steady and have even increased in a generally declining market. Owner confidence in the area is so strong that there are more homes being remodeled now than at any time in my recollection. Most of these remodels repre- sent 50 to 100 per cent increases in investments by the pro- perty owners. The proposed improvements will be a part of the continual up- grading of the neighborhood and should increase the fine services already available to us nearby residences. ASincerely,el ?,� A 4 )6/ 'vw'v' • Paul G. Kloster, MAI/SRPA Resident of Newport Heights Newport Beach, CA PGKmm 1 JUN2v ID �aocv ii ��' ;fi; •� 4�>YNa .` (vEW?CFI � C:+LIr !J ! • r A P-1 4�iq's`'<"1'� ��� '�:•`yr!nr-.�F,�;°sLnaM:?rr'.Y% ,r� R, :.+. 1.: •:t: _ _ s,,... i�..:•,w .t,✓jT+L�"'�Ntl='tp�'{`J' Siv J ' 1 � JUN2 4 1982o- A;z ?91L -Zt "O D. V. SKILLING June 22 , 1982 Mrs . Debra Allen Planning Commissioner City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Debbie : I would like to take this opportunity to urge your favorable consideration of the plans which St. Andrews is presenting to the Planning Commission this week. I feel the church and itsr architects have been responsive to the inputs they received from neighborhood residents and ? the community as a whole, and that the current plans will provide a building which will be regarded as a real addition to Newport Beach. • St. Andrews certainly needs the expanded facilities to handle its own present and projected needs; but, in addition, the facilities will continue to be used by other community groups on an as-available basis and, therefore, I feel the expansion will be of benefit to the entire community. Thank you for your interest and consideration. Best regards. Sincerely yours , D. V. Skilling a i ay �-U;nuira�G� G�•� • r, r, i c;ur �i J/ I � i' 0,4J kk Ova Via- 7)- p t4v-�74�eL_ (7-e L OL IILL UA 6 tkL 144 vrr-a� a, 6Li V114t Y7� 'i,',�S.�V:II `"3'Ai:J.t:is:•. L.+: .:.n.. . 'm ....PJ�' •lf -a::`:`•L ... .:x': i:r.:.:';:i!'..;".•:a:a.• i .,;L;tr.:. �•J: d',I s. YS',Y� a laO Y'\y::�$':•.•l.. .ry ...•....^/.. i>{,':•'iC.i �l;'..r1rL•i":'•.«'OE,l'+'.��tr,>na.4''' •i,'.r'ia>; e..(f• x.a:M�' tr3' "r.%1.� ....: ."+`<^"'IA••.'W.r'=3���i '^r •..?i� �i'�� .:•y'i�.::%..;:...y'•. .I,J 4 �i�>.y�^4 f'q'.a iRn.yJ,• r �� •ta'�xra@�. ., ;fi Z\�".G".�V�;�;vo-t �.w:x .,✓,i-`;q•l. {Y,n(: r;:p' ,15•.� �'r:'� .,5��;':: r. s 4 '"`t'': :'f.:•,i`'+"•ja..eTJ3.'1.^aki�,.-�:.w•(?.l�n":b`P;:*,:�.'�l'0.15S;Y'1..K�..ac�:'n;,7r�t;t"(:y�l:.i<S'�<�,��;:.:;:„[1.X; 3!t�4.�1' -•e•�....''n.,'.:.::.c�`•.L.1'::: P�'r v�ji;.r... a/d Gc�lvd..t,�kJL�w6�� � m-iL�i�cLc�L �� RECCIVCD `�•\ fin-:,r!n10n} , `JUN2d 1982>- 8 t , CU'G.I a �' ,? RECEIVED Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission, Please 1 tfine StCEIVED 7 DEF:1RTNIENT 41 not "against everything, " I am speaking out to aid, `hop �'kie�ITce`ss good planning. The Cliff Haven /Newport Heights area 4a' great,:,. metamorphosis. One only has to drive around our streets to`6ee house;,d4iKt-r house being completely rebuilt. Cliff Haven and the Heights ate is andd will be oneof the finest of our city and good planning now is imperative. At our last meeting I pointed out several errors in the staff report and the deficiencies regarding parking of this project. In as much as you have copies of my remarks I shall noTenumerate them again. I have reviewed the revised plan and I see no correction to the objections that were voiced at that time. All of the arguments that were presented at that time are still valid, save the access to Clay St. No attempt has been made, in this revised plan to alleviate any of these problems. Also at our last meeting we talked about "adequate parking" and I suggested 0ou that the City' s code requiring one parking space for every five seats is totally unrealistic and not a valid factor in determining what; is "adequate parking" for this usage. At that time I referred to page 36 LSA Report and averaged the two ratios to a factor of 1. 7 attendees per car. Since that meeting I visited the Lutheran Church and obtained the following ficures: 350 seat sanctuary 148 parking lot spaces 44 street parking spaces 192 total parking spaces 350 divided by 192 = 1.8 and that is not allowing for any staff parking that is provided which would, of course, lower the factor. I also visited Mariner' s Church (built in 1976 on 7 acres) and counted approx. 290 on-site. parking spaces for a 600 seat sanctuary. This would produce a 2.07 without counting a considerable amount of street parking. This church is holding . approx. 2 acres in reserve for parking when they construct a new sanctuary. *arks Presbyterian has 148 on-site parking for what I estimate to be a 250 seat facility. Again a 1.7 factor. I should like to mention that none of these churches are over the 35 ft. 'height limit. The City' s 1 Parking requirements are based upon the "Public Assembly" category, n . church service certainly is not a public assembly--it is non-secular in church and most assuredly does not attract the public per se. If this city does not have the proper classification for this parking requirement I would hone that these figures would be considered when determining what is "adequate parking" . At our last meeting using the figures from LSA Rrport, page 36, I sub- mitted that on Dec. 20, 535 cars could be estimated to have been at that service. I am told that the present sanctuary seats 630. The new sanc- tuary is'-to seat 1100 or more, thus it can be said that the new sanctuary will be 1. 75 times larger. 535 cars times 1.75 is 936 cars. One might say Dec. 20 was a particularly heavy attendance so let 's cut it 100 cars. 435 times 1.75 equals 761 cars. Another estimate that I have made is as follows: Sanctuary '54 1100 x 1.7 = 647 Choir (90 seats) 50 • Staff etc. 20 Education 1 sp./1000 sq. ' 38 755 Less perimeter 70 (currently 77) Less street 100 Required total on site 585 Less small lot 44 541 a 70 cars per level, it would require levels. It should be noted 7. 3 again that under the City' s code, the seating capacity of the new sanc- tuary is 1400. I estimate that if all of the Clay St, lots were used for grade level and one sub-grade level parking it would produce approx. 440 spaces. If one applies the 1. 7 factor to this figure, the result vs 748 seating capacity. Thus it can be seen that'this would just barely serve the requirements of the present church plant. I would like to add that such a configuration would allow for ingress on 15th St, and exit on St. Andrews--a smooth traffic flow. I do not • see how the same can be accomplished by the plan proposed by the app- licant. Ladies and Gentlemen of the commission, there is something that I wish 4 to publicly get off my chest, so if I may take just a bit more of your 0 time. _ 3 _ In thr early 1960 ' s, I was an elder in St. Andrews. I was appointed pprman of the Building Committee that subsequently constructed the trans- '�3 s, Stewart Lounge and the mi,.ister' s study as a'} addition to the existing sanctuary. In our talks with the city at that time, the Planning De"p't pointed out that the lack of parking was apparent. It was also noted that the high School could not be relied upon as a permanent solution SHaitTf�<< to the oarking� In fact the City did require# that we provide a letter from the school giving their permission to use the school parking when not in conflict with school activities--this was done. It was explained to the Planners that St. Andrews was planning to acquire the Clay Street properties when and if they became available and that these properties would be used for parking. It was on this basis that the permits for the expansion of the existing sanctuary were granted. I have conveyed this information to the present St. Andrews building committee, but it Oed to fall on deaf ears. I have no documentation to support the above nor do I know of what documentation the City mgy have, but I do =resent this to the best of my recollection. i T,feel that St. Andrews made a committment to City of Newport Beach,a committment of which I was a part, and a committment that I feel should be honorrd now that the capability exists. To quote Robert Service "a promise made is a debt unpaid" . To summarize: Lutheran Church 350 seats 148 on site parking St. Marks Church 250 seats 148 "" "lift"""" Mariners Church 600 seats 290 "" """"" " St. Andrews Church 1100/1400 seats 128 lift "" """ " " To grant a permit in view of the above presented facts certainly is not good planning. Please deny this application. May I please present Barbara Whitford. • JI. MNUKtW"J YKCJDTICKIHK UnUKun June 20, 1982 We, as participants of the Illuminators, desire to express our support for the • revised plans of St.'Andrew's Presbyterian Church before the New ach Plan- ning Commission. a5 �q Printed Name & Signature Address W All.ry S V T St SgNiAdj �4wq �. 24/zy N . { vsf , ti �vG ,2 CA 9270S RAI �� /� • G7. 9a QJ� z5-632 k1i1,�,S A4is-sT�oi., vle o °t•26�[ I k ns cP fw vE� 65e¢r 5L6G3 �a YA6 21 u v �2d�-Grp Jc LS-z rc� j 9 z -7 • -lZ�3 ,Toward ,�J?arwr4(4y. June 21 , 1982 Ms. Debra Allen City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Ms. Allen: As a member of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach, I am writing this letter to you to inform you of my position concerning the proposed new church building. I as well as our entire church family of 3,000 to 4,000 attendees are very much looking forward to the new building. Because of the large congregation, we find that we have outgrown our present building and need to construct a larger space for our worship services and educational areas. • Fortunately, our land space on which the building is to be built is sufficient for parking; and our revised and lower tower is an attractive addition to the neighborhood. I am pleased with the carefully made plans for this new church structure. Thank you for your consideration in this important matter. I am grate- ful that we live in a country where one can worship his God without government interference, create an environment of positive influence for our family, and maintain and hopefully increase the good moral and ethical attitudes of our country to continue in peace and harmony within our nation. Very truly yours, -� [< ;t �� . 1./,.•� F ;l/.! G '^ � /e Stephen N. Barnard „••, SNB:jmr A�UIV2, 31982,%-4p; Y Post Office Box 8430, Newport Beach, California 92660 4350 %'on Karman Avenue, Suite 350, Newport Beach, California 92660 Telephone (714) 752-9484 ■ r IrA Arrhtreaure/Pumingftenm Ln RECEIVED \ ■ H"nnngrm Oeotlt/0°1i PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUN241982> Cr a o` +aEw7CAu:..,...i. PHOTOS OF ST. ANDREW'S CHURCH #1. From the Western corner of the proposed sanctuary #2. From the alley at St. Andrew's #3. 30' South of Clay and St. Andrews intersection #4. 1120 Clay #5. Intersection of Pirate and Clay #6. Across from 1020 Clay V. Intersection of Clay and Snug Harbor #8. 911 Clay #9. Intersection of 15th and Clay #10. Intersection of 15th and St. Andrews - view toward church #11. Intersection of 15th and St. Andrews - view toward school tower #12. Haven at St. Andrews Road #13. Coral Place at St. Andrews Road #14. Jr. High School Playground (100 yards West of St. Andrew's on Cliff Drive) #15. 1604 Coral Place between St. Andrews Road and Irvine #16. 1601 Clay #17. 306 Pirate #18. 330 Pirate #19. Corner of Snug Harbor and Cliff #20. 406 Snug Harbor #21. 418 Snug Harbor #22. Corner of St. James and 15th #23. and #24. Irvine and 15th Street in front of the school #25. North-East side of the high school (along 16th St., 100 yds. West of Seagull Lane) #26. Castaways - Lutheran Church parking lot North (Church is not visible) #27. Castaways - Lutheran Church parking lot South (Church is not visible) #28. Jamboree Road near the Dunes (1/4 mile West of Santa Barbara Drive) #29. West of the Newporter Inn • #30. On Pacific Coast Highway, West of Jamboree Q� 0 ❑ 16400 Podfic Coost Highway,Suire 205 • Huntington Deodt.CA 92649 213/592.9309 714/846,3319 13 8477 Enterprise Way,suite 110 • Oakland,CA 94621 415/635-8669 30-FRAME NUMBER �e 4V-CAMERA LOCATION e NEW za HARBOR HS. ee OQ 1 "aho SITE 26 � 87. JAMES ,�Q ®27 0 16ra ®zz O AQUATIC PARK ® m �� am NEWPORTER OP JR. H.S. w INN 0 = 14 g 71 0 pPNp m ' = ctffF 29 z W CpgsT ppCIpIC <u = 0 Q Z *30 NEWPORT BAY MAIN CHANNEL . old y ATTACHMENT D - 8/9/82 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 24, 1982 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) St. Andrews Project At the request of Commissioner Allen , the Staff has segregated the correspondence received relating to the St. Andrews ,project. Attached is a breakdown and tabulation of the correspondence • received. ' D. HEWICKER lann g Director JDH/kk Attachment 90 • BREAKDOWN OF ST. ANDREWS CORRESPONDENCE AS OF JUNE 24, 1982 Of the 86 pieces of correspondence received relating to St. Andrews: Residents of Newport Beach in favor of the project: 49 Residents of Newport Beach opposed to the project: 19 Residents of Costa Mesa, Irvine, H.B in favor of project: 10 Persons whose address was not listed in favor of project: 8 86 . 4/22/82 Petition containing 492 signatures to retain present usage • and height regulation - 5 persons out of 492 did not live in Newport Beach. 6/20/82 Petition containing 41 signatures in favor of proposed project - 29 persons out of the 41 signatures did not live in Newport Beach. 6/24/82/pw • q/ H i i nUnnuv i t - o/tq oc Planning- Commission Meeting June 24, 1982 Agenda Items No. 1, 2, 3 • Additional Information CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Report "St. Andrews Presbyterian Church" Weekday Church Activities At the April 22, 1982 Planning Commission meeting the Commission requested additional information related to daily activities on the project site. Attachment No. 2 to the Planning Commission staff report of June 24, . 1982 (hand numbered pages 36A through 42) is a church facilities usage chart that indicates the location, hours, program, and -average attendance Both present and future for church facilities. Attachment No. 14 to this staff- report is a weekday parking demand analysis. Attachment No. 15 to this staff report is a graph which compare's parking supply on-site with weekday demand by time of day. These attachments were prepared by the applicant's architect. This analysis indicates that the supply of on-site parking spaces will exceed demand (see Revised Parking Proposal) for existing and' . future weekday • activities. Some on-street parking through will probably continue to occur. Revised* Parking Proposal Subsequent to the preparation of the June 24, 1982 Planning Commission staff report the applicants revised their parking proposal. Attachment No. � 16 to this staff report is revised project data. The revised data indicates that . 238 on-site/off-street parking spaces will be provided. This is 'an increase of 110 parking spaces ..over the plans attached to ' the June 22, '1982• staff report. .The revised parking• layout will provide parking as Indicated below. Copies•of the revised plan will be presented at the continued public hearing. PARKING SPACES LOCATION. " REGULAR.. COMPACT TOTAL , . High School 265 265 Clay St./ - St. Andrews Rd. Below Grade . 40 57 97 At Grade 40 57 97: Clay St./ 15th St. At Gracie 44 44 TOTALS: 389 114 503 t Total' Parking' (77%) (23%) ' i On-Site Parking '(52%) (48%) • TO: Planning Commission -2. The revised parking proposal provides access to the "below grade" parking at the Clay Street/St. Andrews Road from Clay St. for 97 parking spaces. Access to "at grade" parking for this area for an additional 97 spaces would be provided from St. Andrews Road. Staff has suggested that in any approval of the proposed project that their be no vehicular access to the site from Clay Street (Use Permit No. 822 Amended, Conditions No. 36) . This was suggested to lessen traffic through adjacent residential areas. The revised parking proposal provides for vehicular access to Clay Street. If this access is prohibited the applicants would be required to again revise the proposed parking plan. It -is the opinion of staff that this can be accomplished, but that there would be less utilization of this parking area and more on-street parking The revised proposal exceeds the requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for on-site/off-street parking. Staff had though suggested as a condition of any project approval that a maximum of twenty-five (25%) percent of the required parking may be compact parking spaces (Use Permit. No. 822 Amended, Condition No. 37) . The revised plans indicate that 48% of the required on-site/off-street parking will be compact parking spaces, but that only 23% of the available off-street parking spaces (with high school lot included) will be compact parking spaces. The Planning Commission may wish to revised these suggested conditions based upon their review of the revised plans and testimony presented at the continued public hearing. • Finally, the City Traffic Engineer has not as of this ' writing had an opportunity. to review the revised parking plan. His comments on the plans will, be transmitted under separate cover or verbally at the continued public hearing. Parking Study At the request of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church an additional analysis of the parking characteristics of the existing church facility was performed. A copy of a letter report summarizing this analysis from Weston Pringle and Associates is attached (Attachment No. 1) and also summarized 'on the following pages. The field studies were accomplished• on Sunday, June 20, 1982, which was "Fathers Day". Additionally, the applicants architect has provided a parking study which ,is attached to this staff report (Attachment No. 17) . �i i it • TO: Planning Commission -3. ATTENDANCE $ I Attendance Total Attendance Capacity %Capacity EXISTING January 10, 1982 ("Non Peak") 7:30 a.m. 215 15% 750 29e 8345 a.m. 683 48% 750 91% 10:15 a.m. 564 37% 756 75% 1462 100% 2250 65% June 21, 1982 ("Non Peak") 7:30 a.m. 177 12% 750 24% 8:45 a.m. 644 45% 750 864 10:15 a.m. 625 43% 750 83% 1446 100% 2250 64t Average of 2 above ("Non Peak") 730 a.m. 196 13% 750 26% 8:45 a.m. 664 46% 750 89% 10:15 a.m. 595 41% 750 79% 1455 100% 2250 651 ESTIMATED Future Initial Attendance ("Non Peak") 9:00 a.m. 800 55% 1135 71% 10:00 a.m. 655 45% 1135 58% 14 55 100t 2270 64% ESTIMATED Ultimate Attendance (1) 9:00 a.m. 1041 55% 1135 92% 10:00 a.m. 852 45% 1135 75% 1892 100% 2270 83% (1) Ultimate "Non Peak" attendance has been estimated as approximately a 30%' increase over the measured conditions average. 1 . • TO: Planning Commission -4. PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ATTENDANCE SUPPLY PERSONS PER VEHICLE EXISTING January 10, 1982 (8:45 Service) . On street 199 alley 34 High School 237 683 470 1.45 June 21, 1982 (8:45 Service) On street 173 alley 31 High School 214 664 418 1.54 Average 2 above (8:45 Service) On street 186 • alley High School 22626 664 445 1.49 ESTIMATED Future Initial Attendance ("Non Peak") (9:00 Service) On street 75 alley -0- Ilyh •School 226 on-site 236 800 597 1.49 ESTIMATED Ultimate Attendance ("Non Peak") (9:00 Service) On street 198 alley -0- (2)HIIc School 265 On site 236 1041 699 1.49 (2)Two (2) on-site spaces assumed to be used by Church Vans. Assumes increased usage (154 over Average) 5 • TO: Planning Commission -5, The preceding charts indicate that upon initial occupancy of the proposed project that adequate parking will be available. Further that the demand for on-street parking will be less than the present conditions. This would be true even with less than complete usage of the parking area at Clay Street/St. Andrews Road. As parking demand increases on-street parking will increase and will ultimately exceed the average of the two measured conditions. It is the opinion of staff that this is not a significant increase (+6.5t or 12 cars).. The parking supply ' estimated at ultimated future attendance is based upon utilization of both the high school and on-site parking areas at their capacities. Staff therefore suggests that any approval of this project contain the revised wording of Use Permit No. 822 Amended, Condition 'No. 38 indicated below. 38. The applicants shall monitor attendance and semi-annually report attendance figures to the Planning Department. The applicants shall also monitor usage of the high school and on-site/off-street parking areas. During any four (4) week period where attendance exceeds 1040 persons per service,or if attendnace exceeds 915 and usage is less than 85% of capacity for the high school and on-site/off-street parking areas, the applicant shall modify the projects operational characteristics to lessen parking demand in a • manner acceptable to the Planning Department or apply for an amendment to this Use Permit to provide additional on-site/off-street parking. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By ' Fre a arico, Environmental Coordinator FT:tn Attachments:l. Letter Report: Weston Pringle and Associates - June 21, 1982 2. Letter: Mary and William Thompson - June 17, 1982 3. Letter: Mrs.. Atkinson - June 16, 1982 4. Letter: Francis E. Caudell - June, 1982 5. Letter: Mr. & Mrs, Alon - June 19, 1982 6. Letter: Bill Davies - June 15, 1982 7. Letter Dr. and Mrs. Rebal - June 18, 1982 S. Letter: Joyce and Pat Dunigan - June 21, 1982 9. Letter: Stephen N. Barnard - June 21, 1982 1O.Letter & Petition: Sid Lindmark - June 21, 1982 • 11.Letter: Elizabeth & Glen Slater - June 32, 1982 12,Letter Patricia Ford - June 22, 1982 13.Letter Ralph and Dorothy Hilmar - June 22, 1982 14.Weekday Parking Demand Analysis �% • TO: Planning Commission -6. 15.Weekday Parking Demand/supply Graph 16.Revised Project Data 17.Parking Study - Carl Irwin and Associate June 21, 1982 18.Letter: Mr. & Mrs. Albert Huntsman - June 20, 1982 19.Letter: Mrs. & Mrs Emlyn Jones - June 22, 1982 20.Letter: Mrs. Majorie Gamble - June 21, 1982 21.Letter: J.B. and Rachel A. Newman - June 21, 1982 22.Letter: Charles and Marie Palmer - June 21, 1982 23.Letter: Evelyn M. Caudell (Peggy) - June 23, 1982 24.Letter: Lloyd and Rachel Diggs - June 21, 1982 25.Letter: Paul and Wilma Pritchett - June 19, 1982 26.Letter: F.R. Herman M.D. - June 23, 1982 27.Letter: Mary Ann Mercer - June 21, 1982 28:Letter: D.V. Skilling - June 22, 1928 29.Letter: John W. Watts - June 21, 1982 30.Letter: Mrs. Sterling H. Wolk Jr. - June 23, 1982 31.Letter: Donald D. Wells - June 21, 1982 • 91 r Weal" PVgk cued Aaaadsl a 74 ...... .. . ..... . _ _ . _ T..R-AFFIC.__ . ..& TRANSPO_.RTATION ENGINEERING June 21, 1982 S R g Ca n1n8 0 8 o,;nr�3'I�2►' Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator CITY of City of Newport Beach j, NEVCRTS EACN' 3300 Newport Boulevard Cpllf• Newport Beach, CA 92660 � yy Dear Mr. Talarico: In response to your request, observations were made of parking at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach on Sunday, June 20, 1982. These obser- vations were conducted utilizing the same procedures as the prior studies and as described in our April 5, 1982 letter report. • A count was completed at 6:30 AM to determine non-church related vehicles parking in the area. To determine peak church parking, a count was conducted at 9:00 AM and the difference in the two counts represents the church related parking. The results of these counts are illustrated on Figure A and follows. High School. Lot - 214 vehicles Streets - 173 vehicles Subtotal 387 Church Alley 31. Total 418 A subtotal is indicated which does not include parking in the alley behind the church. This allows a comparison with the data in the previous studies which did not include the alley. It should also be noted that of the seven vehicles parked in the alley at 6:30 AM, four were in spaces signed for church parking only. q! 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE SUITE 110 FULLERTON• CALIFORNIA 92631 ('114) 67t•7031 Attendance data for Juno 20. 1982 wure provided by Lhe church. The following attendance was reported: SERVICE STARTS ATTENDANCE 7:30 AM 177 8:45 AM 644 10:15 AM 626 Based upon the 8:45 AM attendance of 644 persons, the parking demand was 0.60 vehicles per attendee (1.7 persona per vehicle) without including alley parking and 0.65 vehicles per attendee (1.51 persons per vehicle) including alley parking. For comparison purposes, the ratio of 0.60 vehicles per attendee falls between the 0.55 ratio of December 20, 1981 and the 0.64 ratio of January 19, 1982. These comparisons are based upon observed parking demands that did not include the church alley. The data obtained on June 20, 1982 do not appear to change the •conclusions • and recommendations of our previous report. With completion of all planned I parking facilities as described in our April 5, 1982 report, the on-street parking would be approximately equivalent to that observed on June 21, 1982. We trust that this additional information will be of assistance to you. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. t Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:bas • cc: Ms Carollyn Lobell i 11 � (23 2�4 CARS /N HIGH SCHOOL LOT i I � 1 • � y'9L (14) F'y 21 19 1 ! (11) 2 30 (26) 21 (3) 10 (0) (1) ✓AAI, es (2) ALLEY 3822 ( 99� 16 (II)(17) (0) 5 q (2) S� 4 (q (d (2) • (3) It Sts I y n s • It m .0 (3) 8 ct/os (0) 7(6) p (5) (21 O • (4) (II Sr LEGEND_ 34 WIPAWING AT 91OIOAM (10) AORK/NG AT 6wAM ON-STREET PARKING- ✓UVE 20,W2 &ON MINGLE AND ASSOCIATES PIOUR' U A ( dd ID even 9 R W/,%,IGVAtat Ur Qoxowe%" Auj C„ 2 �1982 1 O fCD ILI 17 600,� JUgtfc��rvG�K 2 • �o '18,�? G�Z?� . j oz � � 3 13 ,AY�p ,�yo�0 5 441 Pe V LA� 14 & /o • � off• /l'�T1K NMbI.A Mb .� • Bill Davies 430 Pirate Rd. Newport Beach,Ca.9266 June 15,1982 THE PLANNING COMMISSION C/O CITY HALL 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Re: St. Andrews Church Newport Beach As a resident of Newport Heights.,located Close to this proposed development I wish to contribute the following comments. I feel that the overall size of the project is completely out of context with the existing community, particulary after considering the numbers involved; i.e. size of the parking 'facility, vehicular access routes site entrances, etc. • Whilst many of us in this neighborhood are perfectly happy with the existing church,- I am sure than an expansion of this magnitude can only degrade the local amenities. Sincerely, Bill Davies Co w , ' 0 • ''°ate� + ' it JUN21i982a► 10 NEWPt1nT �um•��� �����/�''°`�- ����n��� lam, ,� e�zorwl'w I ' � �TCp�cHNt•uT ,�� 8 1 �Gt-C.C,C.1�'ti.,k.��/ ,�l..cl,� ,,✓•'f--f�,� �'D�--� �Cl_.�.�---�1 .,CAL .�C•U'Zt— ,�GZ� , � ���.�.,n�: �.,�(,'�--¢ � �.�� flu:. ,��c..e: •'�c�.C�-c=f��•��-�'� . �• .. C-�tiL�:�z.c�� .�-h..�-rK.l�.�_ •cam., �.-c�.��-�%_��._��c.� �:.1"'�t,C'z.l::,- Q.,�TX.' • ,�}'YCtZ,vL� � .-L.(.,;9., ,� ...C1•'�i,D--- •Gc 2�.�.. ..C�--''-.C,G.-��. % •�...e:. '.�J��..•yam.�.._. �LYtLt i'1-L�L'�J-•cif.. ..�1.a--a..� •--ems-dam.,, . 1 1 le r u 1 b$ 1 � 9&ard,9&ard, J, arnard,.7x June 21, 1982 Ms. Helen McLaughlin City of Newport Beach Planning Department 330b Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Ms. McLaughlin: As a member of. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach, .I am writing this letter to you to inform you of my position concerning the proposed .new church building. I as well as our entire church family of 39000 to 4,000 attendees are very much looking forward to the new building. Because of the large congregation, we find that we have outgrown our present building and need to construct a larger space for our worship services and educational areas. • Fortunately, our land space on which the building is to be built is sufficient for parking; and our revised and lower tower is an attractive addition to the neighborhood. . I am pleased with the carefully made plans for this new church structure. Thank you for your consideration in this important matter. I am grate- ful that we live in a country where one can worship his God without government interference, create an environment of positive influence for our family, and maintain and hopefully increase the good moral and ethical attitudes of our country to continue in peace and harmony within our nation. Very truly yours, ✓Stephen N: Barnard � SNB:jmr • �— Post Office Box 8430, . ... 4 Newport Beach CaliforniaCahforn�a 92660 t7 4350 Von Karm an Avenue to 3 Sui • 50 Newport Beach New p , California 92660 Telephone(714) 752-9484 Ll-i St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church E00 iT.ANDREWE RD.•NEWMRT{EACH, CALIFORNIA 92M•PHONE E21-2W June 21, 1982 Mrs. Helen McLaughlin - City Planning Commission 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mrs. McLaughlin: We would like to, express our individual and group support for the revised plans of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church which are now before the Planning Commission. Our group of singles, the Illuminators, averages 90 people weekly on Sunday mornings and is one of several groups which has outgrown the capacity of our present facilities. Continued use of the 'Current site is more economical than other alternatives, preserves a "neighborhood church" identity and decreases the travel time necessary for many of our participants. An opportunity was given to individuals on June 20 to express their support of the revised plans by signing the enclosed petition. Sincerely, Sid Lindmark President Illuminators SL:ff Enclosure 7 R`• OUR MINISTIIY ,� Dr.Johnv.A.ll4mL.Huffman,Jr. Tha Rev.Wllllam L.flanapsn Dr.John A.Huffman,Sr. t;;T" TheRw.Lydia M.SarsnWn ({3 Dr.Charles B.Friesen \'•' 1d�.14i'�%' ` Mr.Stephen T.Murray !'�+•,� .,I6'r- MM Evelyn M.Caudell -ICU i O Mrs.Carolyn W.Baylis June 20, 1982 We, as rtici ants of the Illuminators d ' 51 NA1 for Pa p desire -to express our support for the • revised plans of St.'Andrew's Presbyterian Church before the' Newport Beach Plan- ning Commission. Printed Name & Signature Address r�� ?,.c�3 t Z . `�--•-fie. �� _ � � 2�f 0 eir/ r.- 7d-9 4./,^ mil, .z L =-r- ,P,C /17ZZO, 5N�-R�2 Y /3q S d vvo =7 �Oa�e • AiQCiB �/����G.4 sc •5�2/ �'i�/r.y o�v�� LUq y ��y E, C/acl:u3 a z lot 92 • 9 T z6z 530 TUSTIN AVENUE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92663 • (714) 548-7046 June 21 , 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport' Beach Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 Dear Sirs: We are writing-to inform you that we are-, members of St. Andrew' s Presbyterian Church and wish to go on record as being in full support -of the Building Planning Committee of• St. Andrew's Church. Very truly yours, Glen W. Slater Eliza eth M. Slater 9 RFCEI trn (for s•;:Yt@I1L a•� 'JUN221982*- _ 17012 Edgewater Lone Huntington Beach California 92649 June 190 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Newport Beach California Dear Sirs: As a member of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church I would like you to know that I fully support the present building program of the church, and feel that the church has shown its concern for objections of the people in the neighborhood by revising their original plans. I hope that the planning commission will grant the permission needed to pro- ceed with the program. • Sincerely ,yours, Patricia H. Ford Member of St. Andrew's Church :•t $UN2 2 MZW y - � 6;ALIi. / f ti (� 1021 Goldenrod Ave. , Corona del Mar, CA 92625 June, 190 1982 Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach, 3300 W, Newport Blvd. , Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subjects Proposed new Sanctuary Building, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Commissionerst We are Dorothy and Ralph H. Hilmer, residents of Corona del Mar and members of St. 'Andrew's Church for 21 years. We urge the Newport Beach Planning Commission to accept the plans and proposals as redrawn and now being submitted for considera- tion in the hearing to be held Thursday, June 24, 1982. These revised plans reflect a nearly 30% reduction in the mass of the new building and a lowering of the height of the steeple by some 20 feet -- both- are in response to the comments and criticisms of the Commissioners and from persons in the community. St. Andrew's has grossly outgrown the present sanctuary and facility as witnessed by the need for three Sunday morning worship services and classes that meet in every available • space, not only on Sunday but almost six days a week. The proposed new building will allow two worship services on Sunday morning as well as space for growth. The offices and classroom areas in the new building are more adequate for the traffic and load even now imposed. The architects have been keenly aware of the fact that residences are located across the street and have planned both landscaping and building with those residential owners in mind. The end result should enhance rather than detract from the general'.looks and land value of the area. We urge you to con- sider the anticipated appearance of trees and landscaping on the otherwise stark area of parking and blank concrete wall. As St. Andrew's members for many years; we urge the Commissioners to favorably consider the plans as revised, We desperately need the new larger sanctuary and trust you will allow the building to progress, • Rewctfully a,tbmi, ted, 1021 Goldenrod Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 `�UN22.P � •-r MONOAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m O m o m o m o m O m o m o m o rti 'Y rl .1 N rl eq N 1. 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 ?. 15 15 15 1. 40 40 40 40 3. 80 80 80 80 80 80 i. 60 60 60 60 60 S. 20 20 20 20 20 20 7. 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 a. 20 20 20 25 25 25 25 25 25 1, 10 10 10 10 L. 20 20. 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 1. t 5. 6. 7. { 8. 9. cults 20 20 163 163 63 b3 163 173 48 30 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 120 120 160 255 5 5 1 utos 12 12 102 102 02 02 102 108 30 19 19 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 75 10 1 TUESDAY g m - W OH O O, '+ .r N N .+ .ti N N M m e! < N to 10 �O f� 1� co ,y ,y ,y N ti .y r1 rl r1 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 24 12 12 12 12 12 12 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 00 200 ZOO 200 200 100 100 100 100 loo 00 3 200 200 200 200 200 00 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 1 2 2 2 Z I 14 14 14 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. dults 24 k15 20 38 36 38 52 52 52 38 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 22 22 2 474 650 50 50 50 450 utos 15 12 24 24 24 32 32 32 24 12 12 12 12 12. 12 12 13 13 2 296 406 6 406 06 281 WEDNESDAY .r• o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ o $ M o M o � o � o m o not g •..�O m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m O m m O O i� � O O Oi O1 O O, .- .r N N .•� .- N N m m < v N of tp O e� n O � 01 Of' O O '+ ' r•1 r1 r•1 1. 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 ?• 16 16 16 16 3• 4 4 4 4. 8 8 8 8 S• 20 20 -20 5• 5 5 7. 8 8 8 8 3. 5 5 9. 6 6 I• 4 4 t. 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 ?. 80 80 80 80 t. 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 4. 150 I50 150 150 S. 150 150 50 50 150 150 150 150 150 50 S• 20 20 20 20 �• 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20I 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 3• 1 3 3 3' I 12 12 12 12 lults 80 230 250 190 208 223 r03 03 1 203 203 203208 190 185 85 20 20 120 126 58 57 37 36 71- 71 60 92 92 92 72 60 Itos 50 50 50 144 156 1191130.11391127 27 127 127 127 127 119 116 p6 12 12 12 16 37 37 '23 23 44 44 36 57 157 57 45 37 O • THURSDAY o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o M o to o m o m o m o m o m . o m o - N P-1 .-•1 .••1 N e� .-1 .-' r1 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 12 12 12 12 I, 15 15 15 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 14 14 100 100 LOD 100 100 100 ;• 20 20 20 20 20 20 3. 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 1• 10 10 10 10 10 10 50 50 50 - i S. I - i 4 6. 6. 7 i I 9. dolts 20 20 38 88 88 ,811 38 38 38 20. 20 20 20 20 20 20 J22 14 14 50 50 32 197 207 207 13013010 10utos 12 12 24 55 55 55 24 24 24 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 9 9 31 31 45 123 12 12 i 1 ' D ' FRIDAY EL .O 1p 1� n O O a O O O, ti N N N •r ti N N M � Q .Y O O O tD 1� n N O 01' O� O O N ' I. 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 2. 20 20 20 20 3. 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 4, 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 '20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 S. 15 15 15 6. 100 100 100 00 100 100 100 100 7. 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. ' 14. I' 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Adult20 20 20 20 20 20 38 38 38 38 38 38 20 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 145 145,245 230 30 30 230 230118011.801 Autos 12/1�2 12 12 12 12 4 4 24 24 24 24 24 12- 2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 91 91 153 144 44 44 144 144 112 112 a rwr+nagvw is I YY Y NO. 300 ST. ANDREW'S PFIESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF CARS 280 • 280 270 260 250 240 O OS D AR IN 230 220 210' 200 190 180 170 160 150 A TE N TE PAF KIN Q P� •{. 140 i \ t • • 130 — 120 / 1 '•Ij • 110 ■ Mali 100 1 '1 90 80 70 t 1 1 t i/ 1 60 / e / 60 30 ! ! • '••• t / ! 20 10L ii i TIME OF DAY 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 6 .6 7 8 9 10 � 6 • MONDAY ................. TUESDAY .................................... ...... WEDNESDAY --- -- TN UR S DA Y --------------------- FPlnAY rrrrurruuuruurruu ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 600 ST. AN DREWS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA CONSULTM ARCHITECT .' ARCHITECT C. EDWARD WARE ASSOCIATES INC. IRWN & ASSOCIATES AIA 415 Y BOULEVARD 16400 PACFIC COAST HWY. ROCKFORD. LLNOIS 61107 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92649 PROJECT DATA EXISTING PROPOSED ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS 1.USER TYPE ((RESIDENTIAL) (RELIGIOUS CONDITIONAL USE IGIOUS NSTITUTION) REDUCTON OF SETBACK FOR PARKING 2. BUILDING AREA 44,688 S.F. IGQ428 S.F. 3. NO. OF PARKING 0 ON-SITE 234 ON-SITE 277 AT 187 PER SEAT SPACES NSE OF STREET/ALLEY 227 AT 22'PER SEAT PAWING 8 HIGH SCHOOL 270 HIGH SCHOOL LOT (1 PER 5 SEATS �0��� 506 TOTAL N SANCTUARY) 4. BUILDING HEIGHT 36' 34' AVERAGE - NONE (EXISTING SANCTUARY) NEW SANCTUARY 85'MAXIMUM - ADMINISTRATION BULDNG 5. NO.OF SEATS/ 060 1385AT lg PER SEAT . 00CUPANTS (SANCTUARY) 1135 AT 22' PER SEAT (SANCTUARY) PARKING STUDY for ST. ANDREW' S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 600 ST. ANDREWS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 Prepared by IRWIN 5 ASSOCIATES Architects/Planners 16400 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach,—California 92649 (714) 846-3319 June 21 , 1982 ANALYSIS OF ST. ANDREW'S PARKING SPACES .PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKING CODE C - NUMBER OF SEATS IN SANCTUARY NUMBER OF PARKING -SPACES REQUIRED PROPOSED PARKING 1385 Seats @ 18" per seat 1385 Seats 23'8 On site = 277 Parking spaces 270 High School 5 Seats per car required per — code, 568 TOTAL OFF-STREET PARKING - 277 Code required spaces 231 EXCESS PARKING SPACES PARKING WITHOUT BELOW-GRADE AT DEDICATION NON-HOLIDAY SERVICE TOTAL SUNDAY ATTENDANCE: 1462 NUMBER OF CARS PARKING AVAILABLE 55% 1st Service: 804 -804 People = '536 cars 14.1 On site 45% 2nd Service: 658 1.5 People per car 7 Demolition of Clay St. houses (1/2 of 15) 270 High School - • 199 Street parking 1-10-82 617 SPACES AVAILABLE - 536 Required spaces 81 EXCESS PARKING SPACES �� • • Page F.T. -- _ -.-_ .vo GI�i1G3 ST. ANDREW'S MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS NON-HOLIDAY SERVICE' PROJECTED SUNDAY ATTENDANCE: 2100 NUMBER OF CARS 50% 1st Service: 1050 1050 People = 700 cars 50% 2nd Service: 1050 1.5 People pe"r car PARKING AVAILABLE WITHOUT GARAGE PARKING AVAILABLE WITH GARAGE 141 On site 141 On site 7 Demolition of Clay Street houses (1/2 of 15) 9 On site (below grade) 199 High School 7 Demolition of Clay Street houses (1/2 of 15) 99 Street Parking 270 High School 617 SPACES AVAILABLE 199 Street Parking 1-10-82 700 Required spaces 714 SPACES AVAILABLE ( 83 PARKING SPACE DEFICIT) 700 Required spaces 14 EXCESS PARKING SPACES • • Page* ST. ANDREW'S MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS HOLIDAY SERVICE .. 1 PROJECTED ATTENDANCE: 1135 NUMBER OF CARS 1135 People = 668 cars 1.7 People per car PARKING AVAILABLE WITHOUT GARAGE PARKING AVAILABLE WITH'GARAGE 141 On site 141 On site 7 Demolition of Clay St. houses (1/2 of 15) 97 On site (below grade) 270 High School 7 Demolition of Clay St. houses (1/2 of 15) 277 Street parking 12-20-82 270 High School 695 TOTAL SPACES AVAILABLE 277 Street parking 12-20-82 - 668 Required spaces 792 TOTAL SPACES AVAILABLE 27 EXCESS PARKING SPACES - 688 Required spaces 124 EXCESS PARKING SPACES 1 Page PROPOSED SCHEDULE Of SERVICES - Will be adjusted as required to achieve balanced attendance at services. . S (1) (2) 8:00 a.m. - 1st Service 8:30 a.m. - 1st Service OR 10:00 a.m. - 2nd Service 10:30 a.m. - 2nd Service GROWTH PATTERNS (Year End) YEAR MEMBERSHIP % CHANGE ATTENDANCE % CHANGE 1976 4030 - 852 1977 3073 (24% Decrease) 918 7% 1978 2983 ( 3% Decrease) 1071 14% 1979 2766 ( 7% Decrease) 1361 21% 1980 2799 1%- Increase 1454 6% 1981 2835 1% Increase 1472 1% 5-31-82 2890 2% Increase 1541 4% Assumed maximum future growth rate of 4% G/�o�pa JUN2 3198z� !� • 40) ��uN23�s�•. . New Ct'Llf- N e ' ",7 430 9 DIV ' • ��9 June 219, 1982 Planning Commission- City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport 131vd. Newport 5eaoh, Ca. 92663 Gentlemens This letter is submitted respectfully as a request that the future building program and plans as sub- mitted by the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church 9ail'ding Planning Committee' be considered' favorably. As members of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church we are In a position to realtz a the need for such a program to maintain- the high standards in this community that have been enjoyed since the beginning of this church. . We realize your tremendous responsibility in trying. to control further growth of this area and to maintain• the . standards which will benefit all people of this area. Therefore, it is our request that after careful consider- ation, you will accept the building plans as submitted so that the Presbyterian, Church may be an inspiration and benefit to nll members of this community. Sincerely, J G J. B. Fewman 1750 19hi.tti er Ave. # 70 Costa Mesa, California 92627 Rachel A. Newman 1750 Whittier Ave. # 70 Costa Mesa, California 92627 • nt `.. Al CHARLES C. PALMER 1701 KIN0S ROAD NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 9266O PHONE O4e.86OO June 21. 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Variance St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Public Hearing June 24, 1982 Dear Commissioners: Mrs . Palmer and I have been residents of the Cliff Haven Community for over twenty years. We are members of the Cliff Haven Homeowners Association. We are members of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. We have participated in many of the benifits this Church has provided to the Newport Beach Community. • We urge your positive consideration to the REVISED PLANS that are now before you. Yours truly, Charles and Marie Palmer °' o r • 1 " 1 U I wish to give my 'whole-hearted support to the application / for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church to build a new Sanctuary and other buildings. The hearing is an Thursday, June 24th. St. Andrew's has a vital ministry and the need for more worship space, more classroom space, more office space is badly needed. Much study.has gone into this proposal over many years and the proposal to be acted upon on Thursday has taken into considerations all aspects. An overwhelming number of our active members are in support of this plan and it is the Hope of many that we will be able to proceed. Sincerely,/G'� Sveiyb R, Caut�YY(P(/Cu� eggy) A Rutland Road, Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 June 21, 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 330U W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Commissioners: We are active memoers of St. Andrews Church. We wish to advise you that our complete support is behind the plans and proposals for our bu.Llding as newly developed by our Building Planning Committee. We ask that you consider carefully this new plan and the urgent need of our St. Andrews congregation. Thank YOU. Yours truly, X Lloyd and Rachel Diggs • � g s �Fr ` `g198Zor � N 33 C/ Corena del y[ar, Ca. June 19, 1962. • Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach, 6300 W. Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, California, 92663. Subject: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Building Project. We urgently suggest approval of revised Building Plans of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church that have been submitted to the Commission, and is the subject of Public Hearing, June 24. 1982. We felt thwt the plans previously submitted, with the higher tower, would have boom a definite asset, not only to the City, but also to the immediate can- • xunity; but can see no reasox that asyexe in the oommunity should complain about the revised plans. Six 7ely, . -951 �E� /Q c� 220 Yvexing Canyon Road* 'X(OL �1 , Corona del Yarn California, 92625. N�p CPS Fc 13� F. R. HE M.D. 910 KINOS NOO ROAD CI • N(WIOBT B[ACH. CALIFORNIA .•�({� • ►NONt048.8660 JUN231982i' �t aw Olt L/ RIVIRRA EXEe TIVR SERVIGRS on - June 21, 1982 Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Planning Commission Members: As a member of St. Andrew' s Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach, I want to voice my approval of the revised plans and elevations for our church. I feel that the architect has taken all things into con- sideration and has come up with an esthetically and physically sound solution to the previous negatives. Please count me in as approving St. • Andrew's new plans to come before your Commission on June 24th. Thank you for listening to a concerned citizen. Sincerely, Mary Ann Mercer Member of St. Andrew' s 833-9410 640-4491 r•. 1� JVN�:31g8,�•1, � Y •. r 2082 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE.IRVIN[.CAUF011NIA 92715 D. V. WILLING • June 22, 1982 Mrs . Lloyd E. Winburn Planning Commissioner City of Newport Beach 3300 West 'Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Joan: I would like to take this opportunity to urge your favorable consideration of the plans which St. Andrews is presenting to the Planning Commission this week. I feel the church and its architects have been responsive to the inputs they received from neighborhood residents and the community as a whole, and that the current plans will provide a building which will be regarded as a real addition to Newport Beach. • St. Andrews certainly needs the expanded facilities to handle its own present and projected needs; but, in addition, the facilities will continue to be used by other community groups on an as- available basis and, therefore, I feel the expansion will be of benefit to the entire community. Thank you for your interest and consideration. Best regards . Sincerely yours , 4X-1 D. V. Skilling .i- �rW �T t�.ca�1,, ��� � �,.-4 �ifN231982 �T • �itY r:a NEY•�''MCA'y1F�PCN b N • li 2339 Arbutus Street Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 June 21, 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 330 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear'Members of the Planning Commission: This letter is written in support of a decision for approval of the plans for the development by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church of a new facility at the site at 600 St. Andrews Road, Newport Beach. • As you know, there has been a thoughtful attempt on the part of the Building Committee and the project architect to design a facility that both meets the expanding needs of St. Andrews and is compatible with the surrounding residential property. Yours very truly, o W. Watts 7- ! � f N fig Da-ae On • •:%�Fn �F.G Et -�� r �rlCnt crn•aF �1 CALIF. p HI 01F(• ki('•67M1MUS N J 071kV.V SA W i • � 39 DONALD • 1200'K D. WRd 200'Kings Rd Newport Beach, CA 92663 June 21, 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA -92663 RE: Variance St Andrews Presbyterian Church Public Hearing June 24, 1982 Dear Commissioners: My Wife and I purchased our lot on the North side of Kings Road near the intersection of St Andrews in 1952. We picked this Area of the City because of the close proximety of schools and church. Both of our children had their education here and we all became Involved in this community* We saw the impact St Andrews has played in the "Quality of our city. We enjoyed the height of the High School Towlri'r as it always gave us a landmark.:to point. out our area. • Having been a Builder and Developer since World War Up I have studied the church plans and am aware of the great effort in its planning. I feel the current modification is a great improvement on the previous plan with the rotation of the building and the enlarged parking area with- out any parking'atructures' on Clay street. I am not on the church planning session, but feel this current application should be Passed as presented* I realise the time and effort you put in representing us on the Commission as I personally have attended many sessions during our developma►t and building of Baycrast and homes in Dover Shores. "Quality" has always been our tradamark. The addition of the sanctuary at St Andrews will be a "quality" asset to our Neighborhood and our City. Sincerely Yours Donald D. Wells Cn ATTACHMENT F - 8/9/82 • Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1982 Agenda Items No. 1, 2, 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the expansion of an existing church facility located in the R-1 and R-2 District. AND Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a new church sanctuary building in the R-1 and R-2 Districts which includes meeting rooms, a banquet room, classrooms, administrative offices and a kitchen facility. A new education building is also proposed. The • proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the proposed sanctuary building and a building-mounted cross, to exceed 35 feet in height; a request to waive a portion of the required on-site parking spaces for the proposed sanctuary; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND Resubdivision No. 723 (Public Hearing) Request to establish a single parcel of land for the expansion of an existing church facility, where 10 lots, a portion of one lot, and a proposed abandoned alley presently exist. LOCATION: Lots 31-35, Tract 1220; Lots 142-146, Tract 1218; a ,portion of Lot 171, Block 54, Irvine's Subdivision; and a 20 foot wide alley located at 600 St. Andrews Road, on property bounded by St. Andrews Road, Clay Street, and 15th Street, across from the Newport . Harbor High School, in Cliff Haven. ZONE: R-1 and R-2 APPLICANT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant • ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach • TO: Planning Commission -2. Background At the April 22, 1982, Planning Commission meeting the Commission opened the public hearing on the subject items, took testimony and continued the public hearing to the meeting of June 24, 1982. The purpose of the continuance was to allow for additional testimony and to allow staff and the applicants an opportunity to respond to issued raised at the meeting. Additional information requested related to usage of church facilities has been provided by the applicant and is attached as Attachment No. 2. Since the April 22, 1982 meeting, the applicant has revised the proposed plans, met with the neighbors and provided additional information requested by the Commission. It would be appreciated if members of the Planning Commission could bring the April 22, 1982, staff report and other materials previously distributed to the continued public hearing. Should any of the Commissioners wish an additional copy of any information previously distributed please contact Fred Talarico at the Planning Department (714) 640-2197. Revised Project Characteristics The applicants have made several changes in the proposed project. A copy of the revised plans are attached for your review and consideration. The table below indicates the major changes from the original plans: • PLAN COMPARISON Revised Project Original Project *Sanctuary/Education/Administration Building *Lower Level Fellowship I Hall 5,943 sq.ft. Stage & Storage 1,049 sq.ft. Kitchen & Serving 1,903 sq.ft. Loby 1,340 sq.ft. 10,235 sq.ft. 10,642 sq.ft. Education 4,053 sq.ft. 5,544 sq.ft. Music 3,512 sq.ft. 3,160 sq.ft. Administration 1,043 sq.ft. -0- 'Circulation & Music 3,383 sq.ft. 5,098 sq.ft. TOTAL 24,923 sq.ft. 24,444 sq.-ft. *First Floor Workshop Sanctuary 12,408 sq.ft. Narthex 3,760 sq.ft. 16,168 sq.ft. 18,398 sq.ft. • Education 1,843 sq.ft. 3,437 sq.ft. Administration 1,223 sq.ft. -0- Circulation & Music 3,817 sq.ft. 1,525 sq.ft. TOTAL 23,051 sq.ft. 23,360 sq.ft. TO: Planning Commission -3. • *Second Floor Workshop (Balcony) 4�982 sq.ft. 6,155 sq.ft. Education 11843 sq.ft. 3,682 sq.ft. Administration �,707 sq.ft. Circulation & Music Y,122 s .ft. 1,594 sq.ft. TOTAL: 23,654 sq.ft. 11,431 sq.ft. *Third Floor Ja ('S� f�'d Administration 2,360 sq.ft. 2,614 sq.ft. *Forth Floor Administration 1,747 sq.ft. 2,183 sq.ft. *Fifth Floor Administration 1,389 sq.ft. 1,817 sq.ft. *Sixth Floor Mechanical Rev. Project • Meeting and/or Chapel -0- 1,555 sq.ft. Mechanical Original Project *Building Height Lower level -15 feet -15 feet First level 0 feet 0 feet Second Floor 12 feet 12 feet Third Floor 24 feet 24 feet Fourth Floor 36 feet 36 feet Fifth Floor 48 feet 48 feet Sixth Floor (Mechanical)62 feet 60 feet Mechanical 74 feet Maximum Building Height 85 feet 105 feet Top of Cross 105 feet 145 feet Parking High School Lot 265 spaces 265 spaces Clay St./St. Andrew Rd. Below Grade 77 spaces At Grade 84 spaces 75 spaces Above Grade 80 spaces Total 232 spaces • Clay St./15th St. At Grade 44 spaces 44 spaces TOTAL PARKING: 393 spaces 541 spaces 1 • TO: Planning Commission -4. The applicant has made several other changes in the proposed project. The changes include rotating the sanctuary tower 45 degrees, eliminating the entrance form Clay Street to the parking area, a reduction in administrative space, and a reduction in the number of seats in the sanctuary. Attached for Planning Commission review and consideration are elevations which indicate the proposed project with doted lines showing the original submittal (Attachment No. 5) . Based on the testimony presented at the April 22, 1982, public hearing it appears that there are two major issues related to the proposed project. Each of these issues are discussed on the following pages. Parking The applicant's have requested a waiver of a portion of the required on-site, off-street parking spaces for the proposed sanctuary. Presently there is no on-site, off-street parking for the existing sanctuary. Parking is now accomplished in the Newport Harbor High School parking lot, in the alley and along the public streets adjacent to the church and in the surrounding residential area. The applicant's proposed parking is as indicated in the Plan Comparison Chart of this report. • Neither the R-1 nor the R-2 zoning district make a specific provision for church related off-street parking requirements. Section 20.30.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code though, provides that places of public assembly shall provide one parking space for each five seats. The following chart reviews city requirements and parking demands as established by field surveys conducted by the City consultants: ATTENDANCE EXISTING January 10, 1982 ("Non Peak") Attendance Total Attendance Capacity %Capacity 7:30 a.m. 215 15% 750 29% 8:45 a.m. 683 48% 750 91% 10:15 a.m. 564 37% 750 75% 1462 100% 2256 65% ESTIMATED Future Initial Attendance ("Non Peak") Attendance Total Attendance Capacity %Capacity 9:00 a.m. 804 55% 1135 71% • 10:00 a.m. 658 45% 1135 60% 1462 100% 2270 64% 14� • TO: Planning Commission -5. ESTIMATED Ultimate Attendance (1) Attendance Total Attendance Capacity %Capacity 9:00 a.m. 1045 55% 1135 92% 10:00 a.m. 855 45% 1135 75% 1900 100% 2270 84% (1) Ultimate "non peak' attendance has been estimated as approximately a 30% increase over the measured conditions of January 10, 1982. PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND EXISTING January 10, 1982 (8:45 Service) ATTENDANCE PARKING PERSONS PER VEHICLE • On street 199 40 alley 40 High School 237 683 476 1.44 ESTIMATED Future Initial Attendance ("Non Peak") (9:00 Service) ATTENDANCE PARKING PERSONS PER VEHICLE On street 165 alley -0- High School 265 On site 128 804 558 1.44 ESTIMATED Ultimate Attendance ("Non Peak") (9:00 Service) ATTENDANCE PARKING PERSONS PER VEHICLE On street 333 alley -0- • High School 265 On site 128 1045 726 1.44 • TO: Planning Commission -6. Newport Beach Municipal Code CAPACITY CODE REQUIRED PARKING 1135 (1 per 5 seats) 227 The proposed project is deficient in required on-site/off-street parking -by 99 (227-128 = 99) parking spaces. Additionally, as growth in attendance occurs on-street parking will increase and ultimately exceed both non-peak (199 vehicles and peak (288 vehicles) conditions. Staff therefore has suggested that any approval of Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) include Conditions No. 37 and 38. These conditions will require the applicant to provide additional on-site parking in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (227 on-site/off-street spaces) . They also require the applicant to monitor church attendance and make quarterly reports to the Planning Department. During any four (4) week period where attendance exceeds 950 persons per service the applicant will be required to modify the projects operational characteristics or apply for an amendment to this Use Permit to provide additional on-site/off-street parking. Staff is of the opinion that the on-site parking per Municipal Code noted above will provide sufficient parking to allow a leeway in the event the anticipated split in attendance between services or choice in parking location does not occur. It should also be noted that additional parking (approximately 60) can be provided by adding compact stalls to the proposed on-site lots and by making maximum use of the high school site. However this will provide little leeway for additional growth. If the Commission goes beyond this point then it would be the opinion of the staff that additional environmental documentation needs to the prepared. Structure Height Structures on the existing church site are one and two stories tall. The existing sanctuary is thirty-five feet tall. The applicant's have requested the construction of a portion of the proposed sanctuary building and a building-mounted cross which would exceed the height limit. Section 20.02.080 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that church structures used for church purposes are exempt from height limitations, except that any structure exceeding thirty-five feet in height shall require a use permit. The revised proposed project will have a total height of 85 feet to the top of the structure, and 105 feet to the top of the proposed cross. Elevations, sections and floor plans are attached. Section 20.02.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishes the below • listed criteria for reviewing structures in excess of the basic height limit. While the proposed use (church) is exempt from meeting the criteria, staff has provided the Planning Commission with an analysis of the project related to the criteria to facilitate consideration of this project: ' TO: PlanningCommission -7. • 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships ' being created between the structure and existing developments or public 'spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. As indicated in the previous staff report it is the opinion of staff, that the project meets the criteria specified under Item Nos. 1 and 4, in that without the use permit, the same amount of floor area could be contained in a lower . structure covering a larger area of the site. if this were to be done, the design might result in less open space and landscaped areas and might also result in a less visually appealing development. All setbacks established by the zoning district are maintained by the proposed project. With respect to Item No. 2, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed design results in a more desirable architectural treatment of the church and provides a stronger and more visual character for the site than could have been accomplished within 35 feet. With respect to Item No. 3, it is the opinion of staff . that the Planning Commission may find that the proposed structure will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing surrounding development. While no structures have space occupied at this height, the tower at Newport Harbor High School is 97 feet tall. The aesthetic and view impacts of the church tower will be comparable. The visibility of the tower from a particular location will depend on distance, topography, landscaping at view location and meteorological conditions. Additionally, the proposed structure has been designed so as to locate its highest portion at the approximate center of the site. Finally, the revised project sanctuary has been rotated 45 degrees and tower lowered by 20 feet. The overall visual effect of these two changes will vary depending upon the location of the viewer. From Clay Street the project will appear somewhat shorter .and to have additional mass, if compared to the original submittal. The administrative offices on the third, fourth, and . fifth floors will look directly to the west where previously they viewed to the south/southwest. Although windows from these floor have been added in the revised plans which provide views to the south/southwest. �� • TO: Planning Commission -8. Should the Planning Commission feel that they wish to not allow the area above thirty-five feet to be occupied (5,496 sq. ft.) , as the Newport Harbor High School tower is not occupied, then the below condition should be added to any project approval: "That no structure space above thirty-five feet from natural grade shall be used for any purpose other than mechanical equipment, vents, shafts and other uses which in the opinion of the Planning Department are of a similar nature." Alley Abandonment Staff has received a Revised Preliminary Report from the California Land Title Company which indicates that the underlying fee of a portion of the alley' between the church buildings and residential units was never conveyed to the adjacent parcels in Tracts 1218 and 1220, and that this underlying fee remained under the ownership of the developer, Earl W. Stanley, and his wife, Mildred Stanley, or their successors or assigns (the Stanley Estate) . The proposed project requires that the alley be abandoned by the City. If the alley is abandoned by the City after a findings is made that there is no • longer a public need for the alley, the alley right-of-way reverts to 'the underlying fee owners--Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church and the Stanley Estate. Before a parcel map can be filed to create a single parcel in the block surrounded by Clay Street, Saint Andrews Street and 15th Street, the Church will need to obtain clear title to the underlying fee to the full width of the alley and have the alley abandoned. Recommended Action There are several actions to be taken on the proposed project. It is recommended that each action be considered in the order in which it is presented in the staff report and listed below, if the Planning Commission desires to approve the proposed project, with the conditions related to on-site - off-street parking as suggested by staff (Conditions No. 40) , the following actions should be taken: 1) Traffic Study: Approve the Traffic Study with the Findings indicated in Exhibit "A". 2) Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) : Approve or modify and approve the proposed project with the Findings and subject to the Conditions indicated in Exhibit "A", and any others the Planning Commission may deem appropriate. 3) Resubdivision No. 723: Approve the Resubdivision map with the Findings and subject to the Conditions indicated in • Exhibit "A". If the Planning Commission desires to deny the proposed use permit, then / actions 1 and 3 above, and 4 below should be taken: ` QO Ll� • TO: Planning Commission -9. 4) Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) : Deny the use permit with the Findings indicated in Exhibit "B". If the Planning Commission desires to approve the project as with the on-site - off-street parking as suggested by the applicant, the request should be continued to the meeting of September 9, 1982. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. ICKER, DIRECTOR By Fre Varico Environmental Coordinator FT/tn Attached to April 22, 1982 Staff Report: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" 1. Negative Declaration 2. Letter from Anthony & Joy Schuck dated April 2, 1982 3. Letter from Mrs. Edward W. Burke dated April 5, 1982 4. Letter from Marie W. Eggstaff dated March 28, 1982 S. Letter from Linda West dated March 29, 1982 • 6. Petition with 492 signatures (example) 7. Letter from Judie Carlson dated April 13, 1982 8. Letter from C.R. Carlson dated April 14, 1982 9. Letter from Cliff Haven Community Association dated April 15, 1982 10. Letter from C. R. Carlson dated April 14, 1982 11. Initial Study 12. Plot plans, floor plans, elevations, etc. ATTACHMENT NO. 1) Letter from Robert Craig dated March 5, 1982 2) Letter from Louise & Robert Wiese dated April 11, 1982 3) Letter from Robert Craig dated April 13, 1982 4) Letter from Marjorie Gamble dated April 15, 1982 5) Letter from Robert & Joan Diemer received on April 20, 1982 6) Letter from Wilson Little dated April 19, 1982 7) Letter from Ron & Charlotte Rebal dated April 19, 1982 8) Letter from Avalon Atteridge dated April 19, 1982 9 & 10) Letters from Mrs. Donald Hall dated April 19, 1982 11) Letter from Mrs. Baines received on April 20, 1982 12) Letter from Cathy Anderson received on April 20, 1982 13) Letter from Edgar Barton dated April 19, 1982 14) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Harold Rowes dated April 19, 1982 15) Letter from Edward Sowers, Margaret Sowers, Ruth Price and Edna Little dated April 17, 1982 16) Letter from Linda Boucher dated April 19, 1982 . 17) Letter from Darrel Boucher dated April 19, 1982 18) Letter from William & Mary Thompson dated April 12, 1982 19) Letter from Ruth Lampe dated April 18, 1982 TO: Planning Commission -10. 20) Letter from Linda Scheck dated April 18, 1982 21) Letter from Charles & Marie Palmer dated April 19, 1982 22, 23, 24) Letters from Joyce Dunigan dated April 20, 1982 25) Letter from Mrs. Ralph Boyer dated April 20, 1982 26) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Whitney dated April 19, 1982 27) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Emlyn Jones dated April 20, 1982 28) Letter from Merrill & Helen Mundy dated April 19, 1982 29) Letter from Maurice & Marie Bush dated April 19, 1982 30) Letter from Bettie Ellis dated April 17, 1982 31) Letter from Hazel Curtis received on April 21, 1982 32) Letter from Gloria Spence dated April 19, 1982 33) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Stillinger dated April 20, 1982 34) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Leonard' Hall dated April 19, 1982 35) Letter from Glen & Elizabeth Slater dated April 19, 1982 36) Letter from Clarence & Celia Turner dated April 19, 1982 37) Letter from Alice Pomeroy dated April 19, 1982 38) Letter from Ethel Wonn dated April 20, 1982 39) Letter from E. Vernon Frost dated April 20, 1982 40) Letter from Eileen Frost dated April 20, 1982 41) Letter from Patricia Ford dated April 21, 1982 42) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Pangburn received April 22, 1962 43) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Hunter dated April 20, 1982 • Attachment Distributed Evening of April 22 1982 1. Letter: Newport Heights Community Association - April 20, 1982 2. Letter: Mrs. R.G. MacDonald - April 16, 1982 3. Letter to each Planning Commissioner from Joyce Dunigan April 20, 1982 Attached: Revised Exhibit "A" Revised Exhibit "B" 1. Revised plot plans, floor plans, elevations, etc. 2. Church facilities usage chart 3. Report: Willard Courtney - April 22, 1982 4. Memorandum: Public Works Department - June 11, 1982 5. Letter from Henry K. Swenerton dated June 14, 1982 6. Letter from Castleman Smith dated June 15, 1982 7. Letter from F. Jerry Hendrickson dated June 16, 1982 a. Letter from Judie Carlson dated June 16, 1982 9. Letter from C.R. Carlson dated June 15, 1982 10. Letter from Cliff Haven Community Association dated June 10, 1982 11. Elevations (proposed and original submittals) It "REVISED" EXHIBIT "A" • RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDY USE PERMIT NO. 822 (AMENDED) RESUBDIVISION NO. 723 June 24,1982 1) . TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed. project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project generated traffic will be less than one percent of existing, plus committed, plus regional traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period' on any leg of a critical intersection. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project • generated traffic will neither. cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any "major", "primary-modified" or "primary" street. 2) . USE PERMIT NO. 822 (AMENDED) FINDINGS: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. 3. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. • 4. The increased building height will result in more public visual open space than could be achieved by the basic height limit. � z TO: Planning Commission - 2. Exhibit "A" Continued. • S. The increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 6. The increase building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. 7. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. 8. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 9. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 10. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, • under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons .residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious ' to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 11. The approval of Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. Development of . the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage • facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. TO: Planning Commission - 3. Exhibit "A" Continued • 3. The grading permit shall include, if required a description of haul routes access points to the site and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan if required shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region. 5. The velocity of concentrated run-off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 6. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist based upon the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. This shall establish parameter of design for all proposed structures and also provide recommendation for grading. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" • grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 7. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. S. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan) . 9. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 10. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. • 11. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over-watering. ( s3 I`t TO: Planning Commission - 4. Exhibit "A" Continued. • 12. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 13. The site's existing landscape plan shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program shall be modified to include the concerns of the conditions above to the maximum extend practicable. Any change(s) in said existing program as a result of this review shall be phased and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. 14. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated to be no greater than 55 Dba at the property line. 15. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said shall be attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Planning Department. • 16. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 17. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 18. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 19. That all on-site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 20. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 21. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. • I �� r� TO: Planning Commission - 5. Exhibit "A" Continued 22. All work on the site shall be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. Verification of said shall be provided to the Building and Planning Departments. 23. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. 24. The applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. 25. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. Any parking lot lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department. 26. That no private school program for first grade and above shall be permitted on-site without a future amendment to this use permit and re-evaluation of the Traffic Study. 27. A dust control program shall be implemented during the construction period. 28. The angled driveways on St. Andrews Road and Clay Street shall be revised in accordance with a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. 29. The layout of all parking and circulation shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 5 L t►p TO: Planning Commission - 6. Exhibit "A" Continued • 30. That all applicable conditions of Resubdivision No. 723 shall be fulfilled. 31. That an off-street pick-up/drop-off area shall be Provided onsite 32. That any above-grade level parking spaces shall be phased with growth in membership/usage and subject to amendment to the Use Permit. 33. That handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a manner approved by the City. 34. That the intersection of the private drives and public streets be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches • in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 35. That all development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plans, floor plans and elevations. 36. That there shall be no vehicular access to the site from Clay Street. 37. That on-site - off-street parking shall be provided as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A maximum of twenty-five (25%) percent of the required parking 4 p ng may be compact parking spaces. 38. The applicants shall' monitor attendance and quarterly report attendance figures to the Planning Department. During any four (4) week period where attendance exceeds 950 persons per service, the applicant shall modify the projects operational • characteristics to lessen parking demand in a manner acceptable to the Planning Department or apply for an amendment to this Use Permit to provide additional on-site/off-street parking. I l TO: Planning Commission - 7. Exhibit "A" Continued • 3) . RESUBDIVISION NO. 723 FINDINGS: I. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 4. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates • sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and • that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements P s be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That all unused drive depressions be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. 4. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if -it is desired to record the parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public • improvements. r/ �5 I t0 TO: Planning Commission - 8. Exhibit "A" Continued • 5. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on-site improvements prior to recording of the parcel map. 6. That the on-site storm drain system connect to the 15th Street storm drain. 7. That the existing 8 inch sewer main from Snug Harbor, running thru the development, be re-routed down Clay Street and connected to the 15th Street sewer. 8. That the existing 8 inch sewer main from Pirate Road, running thru the development be re-routed down Clay Street to the St. Andrews Street sewer. g. And that all of the above improvements be designed by a registered engineer using City standards. All modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. That the existing sewer easements located between • lots 143 and 144 of Tract 1212 and between lots 33 and 34 of Tract 1220 be abandoned. 11. That a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed along the Clay Street and 15th Street frontages, with access ramps at the intersections of Clay Street and 15th Street, St. Andrews Road and 15th Street, and Clay Street and St. Andrews Road. 12. That the existing 20-foot alley located between St. Andrews Road and 15th Street be vacated prior to issuance of any building permits and that the existing alley approaches be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. That the existing sewer and water mains located in the alley be abandoned in a method satisfactory to the Public Works Department and the Utilities Department unless utilized as private services. 13. • That all unused driveway depressions be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk and deteriorated curb and gutter be reconstructed along the Clay Street, 15th Street and St. Andrews Road frontages. • 14. That street lights be installed with spacing approved by the Public Works Departmentp g to be Street, St. Andrews Road and Clay Street. °n 15th • EXHIBIT " O F RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 822 (AMENDED) USE PERMIT NO. 822 (AMENDED) FINDINGS: 1. That not withstanding any previous approval of Use Permit No. 822, the expansion of the church between the alley and Clay Street is not desirable. 2. That in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach; the visual character of the subject property and surrounding residential area would be altered so as to have a less desirable and appealing nature. 3. That not withstanding any previous approval of Use Permit No. 822, the expansion of the church without all required off-site parking is not reasonable. • 4. That.the increased building height, in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach, does not result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building. 5. That occupying portions of the proposed project above the average height of the existing on-site sanctuary is not in keeping with the primary land use of the neighborhood. 6. That the occupied portions of the proposed project above the average height of the existing on-site sanctuary could be relocated on-site through the re-design of the proposed project. 7. That the proposal to occupy portions of the project above the average height of the existing sanctuary increases the bulk of the vertical dimensions of the structure. . � 59 �'CTFri-•c� • �a ST, ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 800 ST. ANDREW'S ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONSULTING ARCHITECT ARCHITECT C. EDWARD WARE ASSOCIATES INC. IRWIN & ASSOCIATES AIA 415 Y BOULEVARD 16400 PACIFIC COAST HWY. ROCKFORD.LLNOIS 61107 HUNTNGTON BEACH, CA 92649 PROJECT DATA EXISTING PROPOSED ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS 1.USER TYPE R-2 R-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, (RESIDENTIAL) (RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION) REDUCTION OF SETBACK FOR PARKING 2. BUILDING AREA 44,688 S.F. 10Q428 S.F. 3. NO. OF PARKING 0 ON-SITE 128 ON-SITE 277 AT 187 PER SEAT SPACES (USE OF STREET/ALLEY 227 AT 22'PER SEAT P NG& HIGH SCHOOL 265 HIGH SCHOOL LOT (1 PER 5 SEATS LO 388 TOTAL N SANCTUARY) 4. BUILDING HEIGHT 36' 34' AVERAGE- NONE (EXISTING SANCTUARY) NEW SANCTUARY 8T MAXIMUM - ADMNISTRATION BUILDING 5. NO. OF SEATS/ 544 1385 AT 19 PER SEAT OCCUPANTS (SANCTUARY) 1135 AT V PER SEAT (SANCTUARY) o _ I ' I I I WYIKt\ YlM1YYa•\ � `q n V i««�MKII 4 10 I r� • ffl71.l.. • ai'pl�fIM Niw(MY) I 6 � �� �/p ry�Y.Lyt Nw a• • � I .wLwa_�_____ —anw.rrr___. ___ _ __ / •w.a�7w.+ 1lWd.w 4!Shl.� � f\ _ � •raw(w.liw°nW �-i1N�iMA nnaorraee_ _ _ ,917E PLAN ysr C. bWARD WAIM A'S9DCIATL6- ARCIUM � IR U1'EB Awe ✓I<.ANDRLW'B PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH .. •I\\ }I ....�..�... Yr.r.w Oaf©© f.i' ar. e `_ . .< 1"-U' OVERALL CLrAt Moir CM RIA • , �' �; • 'R �' WORKSHOP am I . -; �� � 4� r :i . E. iOFFICE DIRL PRINT FAIL ='leFGADWIIIHIP LOWER L FLOOR KM 50!13CFCOMKITst 3E - � MUSIC 3AG4 TOTAL' 24AN SF. J! i 111 y;ull 1�611..,11 �i • O • I' •• '1 ! I u I . , • • • • i i p • � • I c • • • / / Yi II I i` � 17V-O' OVERALL cm LEN owes .rx2lFIDEPAWS FU IFIIIIIIIII i.,, —� LMARY COATS- �� terra , ` . OFIE FMT FLOOR PLAN LOWY VIOFA*v 12 -:•.' Tool nnm 111 ---r— 77Y-D'OVERALL Y - I I Z 1 � I,rm Exrt RRDN RoaF 1 JAN WOWN . T AM � I CIRRI 307/Yr r 371/t x— —. - -x tPFER c ••, COW. 13!X W 3ECQtQ FLOOR PLAN O EDLCA SCI 4ARY Of AR 6 AREAS WJSW OFFICE O 14kt •wor4wv 6 9mv) 4.932 .EDUCATM 1" 0 At130T. •ADLIMTRAT10N 2.707 ieffOMFL D a a 0 1rx17- •MODULATION i kw- 3.122 TOTAL 12AM 3F. 13'Rtr-4r s CAW HBPLW Yx1r ADM lrxlr lrxtr- 13'x1r 47.ANDREW B PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH w �_ .... C.EDWARD WARE ASSOCIATES. ARCHI7't(.T3 � IRWDt i MWIATx3 AIA �,.,.,,, ii S I I I ' I � t TO EW STAIRS 16�x�26x LOBBY' t7x1Y ' � i — -- -- - . KIT. MMIM ROOMICHAPEL 20'x2S' FIFTH FLOCK PLAN • • � _ TOTAL AREA LASS SALOW \ �J j• 1 V p 1Cx 11 x27 .BOO Y` I� ia • a i 1441 V 9EC�T 8@tOR PASTOR —1 1 + -• L L 1 � WOfKIIGf. i{OFfl OP81 TO BELOW• WAITM • • u n TTiiD FLOOR PiJW PLAN ors�� N IRWIN k A690CUTR8 AU dT.ANDRRW't PRR88YTRRIAN CHURCH { _ G IDWARA WARS ASBDCUTtB...ARCHITECTS ""�""^ "CH — -- •------ YAz in i \ II _4TovoFGF4se. r-, .........».--. .......................0 o n o a a-------- %%% Gaux I 11 - i CPVATION i • I -ff A i C.EDWARD WARL A&90CIATtB AROHITDCIB '� IRWIN A�A880CIA'RB AIA R8YRRAN CHURCH �'�� ,4-7 ; f t r r MAX BLM W. — i- I I I i J uf•-c_roe�aa�+ -- .T ........................................ ...... I I ' � � aRAoe o• 0Da HF I i • I I I Q "4• - —- \\ EAST ELEVATION • • » —a' rMAW WET EMAIM .___________ . • .. .. -------- --------------------------------------------- 1------ _ .... -- C.EDWARD WAR[ASSOCIATES- A[CHR[tT/ � IRWIN/ASSOCIATE/ ..««. R.ANDR[WY PR[/BYT[RIAN CHUR� CH s-/ IS'-C TOP Cf CROSS Y-C 6EET?XLI P • r-or cr MMTEr� -�- -- - - -- ------ ------------ OUSIESS OFFICES I OFFICES/ or — b CFO RIA/TODDLERS BOOKSTORE-CLASSRO%q I i cFlon FEHFiARSAL FaLDweLP � . LO"T DH/L SECHOH THFU AM W BLDfi tltt G EDWARD WARC ASSOCIATES�. ARCHITECTS IRWIHkASBOCiATES AIA ST.AHBOCVYB PRBSBYT'ORIAN CHUCCH M lr TOP OF `. I 1 I 1 ® r-d - _ 1 gip,' ? rjy' - 1CPP1CFd _�-IAO SOOKSTOM CIAY>lTRffT L PFOCT FM I OLABBXOOMS 16' 1 ��•wr 1(�l GCDWAAD WARS ABBOCIATC4•. AwRCH17DCie 1AW1 A890CIATBB AlA• Sr.ANUA6W'8 PAPbBYTBRIAX CHURCH — CIO r w J sr.ANDNEWR ROAD LCWEA LVL II MMNUME WE KCTIDN �. G D IRW1N•AR90CAL AIA[DWAR WAR DR Sr.RT ANDRRWR PRUBYTMUAN "'� "•��� r+cur .� CHURCH R-// .rW w�..Y�YMYr•.Yw•-NM• wY r ----� 1 � ; w , I t t a � w. r� B •! I i 10 z. 4t rW r• QUAD I RAN � G. DWARD WARZ ABBOCIATIM ARCNITWM IRWIN I ABBOCIATRB AIA BT.ANDRRW'/lRLBY7'tAIAN CHURCH r' •"f.r. "r...r r �..�«.r«r +w-.rrr« r-r `-I= 1_ M 4P.M ,%� , , , ORIGINAL DESIGN — i NEWPORT HARBOR HIGH SCHOOL ' REVISED DESIGN 'M,p,w� SUNRISE 7:05 SUNSET 4:55 cll- i ♦ f I % i 1 e � off:• , \ V aqpV9 NEW SANCTUARY •• CLAY St NORTH �u WINTER DECEMBER 21 g SHADOW STUDY PLAN PACIFIC STANDARD TIME S-1S t ■Am r M� NEWPORT HARBOR HIGH SCHOOL / '(.jJ� urmag fltyyM �eF eog frig D 11_ 12 2_ 8 4 NEW SANCTUARY .: �)'•a.� � S ----- `ORI01 DESIGN UNRIZE 6:56 REVIS DES 1r SUNSET 8:06 NORTH / c T D mo SUMMER JUNE 21 SHADOW STUDY PLAN DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME S-1t 1 • •1 AVERAGE ATTENDANCE SPACE HOURS OF DAY PROGRAM (AGE) PRESENT PROJECTED 8:30 - noon 2 yeax old (project 24 - 30 mos) 20 '15 Room 01 2 7:15 - noon Birth - 18 mos.(project 18 -24. m( 3) 16 below • 3 8:30 - 10: 18 mos. to 26 mos.(project 30 73 mos)6 10 4 8:30 - noon 3 year old 23 26 5 8:30-- noon lst grade 28 20 6 - noon 1st grade begin fall-'8-2)- Y0 7 - noon n ergarten t • 8 8:30 - noon Kindergarten (begin fall 183) 20 9777T- noon 4 year old 13 2 . "10 - noon s extra c aes act v ty an pec a 11 - noon pec a 8:30 - 30:00 2nd cads be in fall 183 Y0 12 - noon 2nd grade 20 20• - 13 noon 3rd grade 14 ' � - noon mdsjcjwors a ow 8:30 - 10: 3rd grade (begin fall '84) 80 Resource lam - noon Teacher supply/resource center Ave 8:30-10: 6th grade (begin fall '82) Y0 Luther. 8:30 - noon 6th grade 20 20 Calvin 8:30 - noon Sth grade 37 20 ' • Rnbx :30 - noon 4th grade 18 20 Carpenters - 10: igh School Sunday School 60 4:30 - 6 m Hi h School Leadershi adults 15 49 Fireside - - noin0 ecomers - Sunday c o0 inatora ( 0-50 Sun ah School 100 Dierenfield a ore aervi eau- ganct cry-� o�r earses 10-11e30 Ad It C1 Stewart Lounge ' - A u t Class 20 30-40 10:-11:30 , Adult Class 20 30-40 Chapel ` 10 lt 35 50-60 , 10 - 11:30 Adult Class 25 40-50 Sanctuary em - noon Worship Services each service 650• 1000 4pm-lOpm Concerts as arranged 00-600 100-I000 Kitchen 4pm-8pm Choir supper when concerto 80 90 Bookstore/Library 9 - noon inn Administration 8 - noon (number decrease - counters new ar, a) 7 2 (new)Nursery f - noon Birth until creeping 15 Creepers - noon creepers until walking 15 Hudson a Children's Worship 65-100 0 - 10: College Sunday School in Hudson Hall - 11:30 Young Marrieds 24 . 1 Addl. classrc :30 - noo to allow additional 4th or Sth gra a class as eeded0 1 Addl. meeting rm 8:30 - 10 Junior High Sunday School 80 1 Addl. meeting rm. 8:30-10 High School Sunday School 100 1 Addl. meeting rm. 8:30-10 College Sunday School 40 • 1 Addl. meetin 10 - noon Becomers (21-35) Sunday School 100 + 1 Addl. meeting rm 8:30 - 10 Illuminators Rehearsal rm 8:30 - noon Sanctuary Choir - 200 +90 OVER Rehearsal rm 8:30 - noon Children and Youth Choirs 60-100 ' AVERAGE ATTENDANCE SPACE HOURS OF DAY PROGRAM (AGE) PRESENT PROJECTED Room pl 9 - noon 2 years old 14 14 • 2 9 - noon 6 mos. - 2 years 9 9 3 8:30-12:15 4 years old 16 16 4 8:30-12:15 4 years old 15 15 5 8:30-12:15 4yeara and 5 years old 16 16 6 - 4 years old 15 7 - 5 years old ID 1B 8: -12:15 8 4 years and 5 years old 16 16 9 - years o 15 15 12:15-2pm Teacher/aide staff meetings(lst.2 week) '10 11 • 12 13 14 Resource 9.- 5 available by request - no staff pr sent Bus Luther. • Calvin Knox 7:30-9 pm Audio Visual Comm. (2nd week) 10 15 Carpenters 7-9 p.m. Understanding Adolescents 14 25-40 Fireside - noon Newport Beach Bible Study 60 80. 7:30-1Ot00 various meetings during month 20- 25-60 Dierenfield 9 noon Parent ongntetion in September 6-1 0 pm Shipmates `4th week) 100 120 Stewart Lounge pm j ottice for minister 1 - 5 pm JK Wedding Hostess Chapel - Pm Hance Comm (2nd wee 15 y 9-12 noon AB Helpline 20 25 Sanctuary Kitchen - noon on occas on a ng - teac era only use 11:30-130 Flower preparation for shut-ins 5 10 pm pma es t wee Bookstore/Library Administration 8-5pm offices oven (new) ' Hudson Hall 8:30-12:15 Children in rainy weather 40 at a :ime CHAPEL/SANG Memorials Services Mon -. Fri at various times - _ VIEMNY14LD HALL day s night Various special meetings and seminars at various days in the 100-500 100-700 week AVERAGE ATTEHDAWCE SPACE HOURS OF DAY PROGRAM (AGE) PRESM PROJECTED Room #1 9am-noon 2 years old 12 12 2 am - noon mont s - years=o g 9 • 3 am - noon years 13 13 4 am - noon years 12 12 5 - our an years o 16 16 6 8:30-12:15 Three and four years old 15 15 7 8:30-12:15 Five years old 15 15 8 8:30-12:15 Four and Five years old 16 16 9 8:30-12.15 Three and Four years old 15 15 ..10 12 13 14 Resource g _ 5 staff present 9am -2:30pm Hus 7:00-7:30pm Group Leaders - Divorce Recovery 5 8 4 _ , Luther. 7:00-7:30pm Group Leaders - Divorce Recovery 5 8 Calvin 7:00-7:30pm Group Leaders - Divorce Recovery 5 8 6:45-7:45am Hi h School Girls i S ud • 12 Knox 7:00-7:30pm Group Leaders- Divorce Recovery 5 g Carpenters 7 - 10 p.m. Singles/Adult Classes 35 50+ Fireside 10:30-11:30 Total staff meeting 18 25 7 - 10 various ca:miittea and/or adult 15 75-100 'Dierenfield 7:30-9:30pm Di rW 8Q Y%Fkshop - adult 150 200+ , Stewart Lounge OPm o ce or m star P. various committee or seminars 50 100 Chapel 7-10 p.m. adult•class ' 25 100 Sanctuary 7-10 p.m. adult class 25 won d use a new room Kitchen 8:30-1215 Te asegresmenalliy �PreStrcho 1 6 Infant/ oddler) p ep ra on Bookstore/Library open Administration Bam-Spm offices open lq 20 (new) Hudson Hall 11: - 11:30am Five years old - films 19 15 rehearsal room late afternoo Westminster Handbells (Jr. High) 15 late morning Adult Womens Handbell Choir astors to,y - pm Program Staff 30 12 see a possi ility of at 1 ast 4 additional classes when buile Lng complet d SPACE HOURS OF DAY PROGRAM (AGE). PRESE\T PROJECTED 9am-lpm 2 years 14 14 Room O1 3:30-5:30 child care - Action Alley/Choir 5 unknown �am-lznoon U mos - Z years 2 � • - Years o 16 , 16 3 4:00-6:00 Preparing for Adolescence - grade 10' years old 4 4:00-6:00 Preparing for Adolescence - grade 5 10• Years and 5 years old 16 16 5 4:00-6:00 Action Alley - grade 1 18 18• 6 $4:00g0 1-6:100 AAction Alley - grade 1 158 18 7 ggi08-16,?805 Acion A�ley - Kindergarten 18 unknown 8 4i0�-116. 005 Preparing1n£or eoolescence -grade 5 111g6 771..g6 9 -6?805 Aceion Ailey - grade 2 18 18 :10 4:00-6:00 Action Alle - grade 2 is 18 11 4:00-6:00 Action Alley - grade 3 18 18 12 4:00-6:00 Action Alley - grade 3 18 18 r Choir rehearsal - grades 3,4 25 13 4:00-6:00 Action Alley - grade 4 18 18 14 66 77 g$oy Choi rehearsal - grades 3,4 11gg 4e88-6:88 ACrion Alley - grade 4 18 18 Resource. 9am-6pm staff presentmost hours Hus 4:00-6:00 Preparing for Adolescence - grade 10 10 Luther. 4:00-6:00 Preparing for Adolescence- grade 5 10 10 Calvin 4:00-6:00 Preparing for Adolescence-grade 5 10 10 • _ m orepar h C or e - 1st week Knox 4:88_9:88p Preparing ?qm jtdogeacenceeek a 5 Carpenters arents meetings orientation - oce sional 120 12D' 4:00-6:00 Teen Talk - grade 6 13 _ __ _ 40 Hudson Ha: 4:30-5:30 Junior High mid-week fellowship 50 12noon-1:00 St. Andrews' Choir School 40 48 (4 clas ee a. n 01 cl ;n9 Preparing or o ma group 5 1 0 Fireside 5:30-6:00 Boy choir supper -grades 3-8 25 40 6-10pm Deacons dinner 6 meeting - 3rd wee 38 60 ' 6:30-lOpm Session - 2nd week 30 30" 6-lOpm Adult Ed dinner 6 meeting - 1st we 23 25 6-8am. Mena Breakfast 60 80 •• Dierenfield lam-9am Women #n CChangin Times limeh-2nd week• 80 150 Stewart Lounge m n g An_no°on Qe 4A rmi - n week 15 20 Chap�1 PPk Deputation - rd week ' 4:00-6:00 Preparing for Adolescence-grade 5 10 10 Sanctuary Kitchen yy - Teachers use q casional11 Infa t/T ddler, PreS ool 4i30- :3 Choir suppersMyagers 4eh weekC Bookstore/Library Administration 8am-5pm offices oven 14 90 d 6:30-10pm Voyagers - 4th week 80 100 Audaon Hall 8:30-12:15 PreSchool in rainy weather 30 30 • 6:00-7:00 Boy Choir rehearsal - grades 5-8 25 25 Pastors Study 730-930pm Ministerial Relations Com - 1st we ' 10 12 Music Office 730-9:30pm Music Committee - 3rd week 10 12 ry XVLXXVL X11eG UINI.G SPACE HOURS OF DAY PROGRAM (AGE)_ PRESENT PROTECTED 9am-noon 2 years 12 12 Room O1 monuns-Z years 9 9 f 2 • am-noon years 1 3 Years 14 12 4 years and 5 years old 16 16 5 6 - years and 4 years old 15 15 7 - years old 15 15 8 8:30-12:15 4 years and 5 years old 16 16 9 T. - . years and 4 years old 15 15 :.10 it 12 13 14 Resource 9am-5pm staff present 9am-2:30 pm wee HUB 7pm-9pm Infant/Toddler Preschool committee 12 1 12' Luther.. Calvin • Knox 7:30-9 m Youth Ed: Comm. - 3rd w Carpenters 9:30-11 am Parent orientation/meetings occasi nally 50 50 Fireside 9:30am-noon -Children Committee - 2nd week 13 13 7pm-9pm Teacher Training (2 weeks) Childre m 35 50' '• ierenfield 5pm-6pm Handbell Choir 5tall '13 14 7pm-lOpm Sanctuary Choir Rehearsal 80 100 Stewart Lounge pm- pp ce or minister 7 m-10 m Christian Education Comm.-4th week 15 20 Chapel 7-9 occasional we dding rehearsal Sanctuary 9pm-IOpm Sanctuary Choir 70 90 itches :d - • Teachers use - Infant/Toddler - Pr School ' Bookstore/Library dministration 8am-5 m offices onan 14 new Aud pm-1 pm to ioQJcec onymoua rainy weathe 10+ 18+ Di r 6':00-7:15pm Carpenters Guild 40 50 „ SPACE HOURS OF DAY PROGRAM (ACE) PRESENT ^•• PROJECTED 9am-noon 2 years old 14 14 Room 01 am-noon b wont s- years 2 • 8.3 -1 .l Years old 1 1 3 years o 4 years and 5 years old lb 16 5 ' years old 1.7 6 years old 7 8 8:30-12:15 4 years and 5 years old 16 16 years old 9 i '.10 it 12 13 14 Resource 9am-5pm available by request - no staff pr sent Hue Luther Calvin • Knox Carpenters 9:3 -llam PreSchool uses for parent meetings occasions Fireside 6am-Bam Single Men's Breakfast ' 15 20 6 m-ll m Pilots - 1st week 50 80 Dierenfield am 9-10 P.M. occasional aaminars,meetings 50 Soo Stewart Lounge mP pm -Office or WHO HO 1 m-5 m Wedding Hostess Chapel 5pm-8pm Wedding rehearsals Sanctuary 5pm-8pm Wedding rehearsals Kitchen 8:30-12:15 Teachers use - Infnat/Toddler-PreS hool ' Bookstore/Library open' Administration Sam-5 m offices' open 14 20 (new) Hudson Hall 8:30-12:15 PreSchool uses in rainy weather . 40 40 6:30-7:30 pa College Bible Study 10 15 7pm-llpm Commodores - 2nd week • 80 100 • AVERAGE ATTENDANCE SPACE HOURS OF DAY PROGRAM (AGE). PRESENT PROJECTED Room 11 5-15 5-50 • 2 child care as needed 3 4 5 i 6 7 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Resource 9am-noon staff present Bus Luther.' • Calvin Knox Carpenters 9 am to 10 1 m. Seminars as scheduled 50-100 k50-300 Fireside various Wedding Receptions as scheduled 50-25050-250 . Seminars as scheduled Dierenfield various Wedding Receptions 50-250 50-250 9am-4 m Seminars sponsored by Singles 1,10 Stewart Lounge 10-am 10 p.m. reserved for bridal party 8-20 B-20 Chapel various Weddings to 100 to 100 Sanctuary war ous Weddings to 600 to 600 Kitchen - Muchprep. or seminars various• reception prep. Bookstore/Library Administration (new) Rudson Hal seminars or meetings as scheduled 50-100 50-100 Eghearsal ream morning Chamber orchestra 15 _,MbAMs] room morning Brass choir B. (/V r!! K/llr(. ��Ctci/ / / / ••� •• `-rr •••,'•ruts r rcc c` IYL'CAMm.��{JD..'� �3 Regarding the discussinon of parking in the staff report, there • are a number of basic errors. First, there is mention made that there is presently "no off- street on-site parking." This is noltrue. Last Sunday at 9 A. M. there were 42 cars parked on-site in paved areas served. by th e alley. None of these were illegally parked in the alley and most were in areas posted as being for St. Andrews use only. The proposed develop,ent indicates that the construction of the 44 car lot at the 15th Et. ?Clay St. intersection will provide new on-site parking. It will not. . It will only replace that which is being lost. The second error is that the plot plan shows 76 cars in the grade level lot at St.* Andrews/Clay St. with the access corping from Clay. However staff condition number 39, denies any access to • Clay St. If the access to the grade level as well as the lower and future above grade lots is all from St. Andrews, much of the grade level lot will be taken with ramp, drive, etc reducing it"s planned capacity. This will create traffic jams at the entrance to this structure with arrivals, departures, and drop offs. Please consider this -232 cars as shown page8 Planning report allowing 24' per car would create a line 5568 ft. long. The third, and the most glaring error in the staff report is in the computation of the needed parking. . While the planning reg- ulations indicate 5 persons per car, St. Andrews own figures shown on page 36 of the LSA report indicate approximately 1. 6 Persons per car. . With the sanctuary being increased by nearly • 700 seats, there will be over 350 additional cars to be parked. In fact, using the actual parking requirements as provided by 8 "d G� the applicant (page36 Lah report) and averaging the two ratios 1 Of Dec. 20 and Jan. 10, would give an average ratio of 1.7 persons • per vehicle. Using a code seating capacity of 1400, this would result in. '824 cars instead of the 280 cars the zoning code would require. rr Using 1100 seatini capacity 9 1.6 per person / vehicle"would be 688 spaces required. " Again using St. Andrews own figuveaifrom page 36, on Dec. 20 228 vehicles were parked on the street. Assuming the High School lot was full at 265 cars and the 42 in the alley would total 535. The zoning code would require 150 spaces. In as much. as the present sanctuary has aCapacity of approx. 750 - ,0.4X►.��:Zu- "')e yy " a /8' " .Jfy gi• qq'/ 338 yi 3_ //fly .. 9 It should be noted that all discussions regarding parking mention • only the sanctuary. The Church's Sunday bulletin. notes that in addition to the services, there are 15 Bible studey groups plt'ts a full number of children' s Sunday School classes. No mention is made of possible use of the old sanctuary and chapel or seating for thtchoir. The plans indicate 38,000 square feet of education space. No mention has been made of the parking required for these uses which run concurrently with the main service. In addition, there is the 440 seat banquet facility. While this would possible no be used concurrently with the sanctuary, it is entirely possible that it' s use could coincide faith functions at Harbor High. I would like to add that I am a licensed real estate broker, and • that my real estate career has been entirely in the commercial field. Never in my experience have I seen a developer or a develoo,emt make uo for a shortage of required parking spaces on an off site lorcation /g3 � 45 that the development didn't own or control by some written agree- ment. In this case the developer is claiming a major portion of th- narking requirements { 265) spaces on property that he. does not own . • or control. In fact my investigation indicates that no such agree- ment exists or is even likely to exlrt -as it would probably be . illegal. At any rate there is- no guarantee that these 265 spaces are available to this project for the life of the project and should not be counted as such. I would like to add •that I personally would strongly object to and resent my school tax dollars being used to subsidize this Jroject in this manner. In summary: I strongly urge the commission to look at the reality of this issue. Most of the attendees come.by auto and by actual count the 5 persons per vehicle is in total error and is not a realistic figure even though it may be "code". • There are no parking spacesfigured into the total requirement for staff, studir groups, Sunday' school classes etc. ' The applicant is claiming 265 spaces that cannot be guaranteed to this project. The residents and property owners of Cliff Haven have by their petition indicated that any above grade parking : structure is totally unacceptable in this area. Therefore on behalf of the Cliff Haven Community Assn, I request that this application be rejected and denied. . 1 -7 tv June 11 , 1982 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: SAINT ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH We have received a Revised Preliminary Report from the California Land Title Company which indicates .that the underlying fee of a portion of the alley between the church buildings and residen- tial units was never conveyed to the adjacent parcels in Tracts 1218 and 1220, and that this underlying fee remained under the ownership of the developer, Earl W. Stanley, and his wife, Mildred Stanley, or their successors or assigns (the Stanley Estate). The Church's proposal requires that the alley be abandoned • by the City. If the alley is abandoned by the City after a finding is made that there is no longer a public need for the alley,, the alley right-of-way reverts to the underlying fee owners--Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church and the Stanley Estate. Before a parcel map can be filed to create a single parcel in the block surrounded by Clay Street, Saint Andrews Street and 15th Street, the Church will need to obtain clear title to the underlying fee to the full width of the alley and have the alley abandoned. Don Webb City Engineer DW:jd /yj 47 �:v' 9 HENRY K. SWENERTON r f �1161g82�,, 1� 1106 W. OCEAN FRONT • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92661 t..• � PHONE 1714)673.6396 r S�E' {,If`n „ June 14# 1 J PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 W. Newport Blvd. , Newport Beach, Ca. , 92663 Subjects Public Hearing In The Matter- of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church scheduled for June 24, 1982 Before the Planning Commission. Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, We most earnestly and respectfully request that you will take the time to read and consider this letter. We have owned our home at the above address since it was built in 1939 and we were charter members of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. • We are fully acquainted with the growth of Newport. Beach and appreciate the problems you face in objectively resolving disputes regarding land use and planning in this city. The- application of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church should be approved for the following reasons: 1 . The St. Andrews Presbyterian Church is recognized as one of the leading congregations in its denomination and is serving the community very effectively with vital programs which address some of the most serious problems afflicting our society. Newport Beach needs this church. 2. 'The revised architectural plans which have been prepared by C. Edward Ware Associates, one of the most able architectural firms in the country, are responsive : A. To the program needs of the church congre&ation, in terms of worship, Christian education, fellow- ship and administrations B. The suggestions of the Planning Commission as expressed at the last public hearing which we • attended; C. To the objections of the neighbors. rg � -�S Z We urge the Commission to look beyond the noise level and . the verbal aggression of some of the neighbors, as expressed at the last hearing, to the legitimate and urgent needs of the community for adequate worship facilities. To all of our neighbors we extend the hand of goodwill and love. The St. Andrews Church has no, plans for a quantum increase in its membership, even though Dr. John Huffman., Senior Pastor, and his most able staff now attract congregations of a size which cannot be accomodated in the present sanctuary. A larger percentage of the church membership is now attending services. There are numerous Presbyterian churches- in Orange County, including the recently founded church in Irvine. The new plan will utilize an entire city block, which, although small, will avoid any incursions into, or direct contiguous interface with residential parcels as in the past. Our neighbors will benefit by church goers using on-site parking facilities which will greatly alleviate street parking in the area. • The new plans reflect a nearly 30% reduction in the mass of the new -building and a lowering of the steeple by some twenty feet. In the past, the planning at St Andrews Church has been some- what myopic. The existing sanctuary, from the start, was too small. It is not realistic to continue to conduct three consecutive Sunday worship services, church school and related services. The burden on ministers, choir, church school, etc. , is too great. Members, being unable to find seats in the small sanctuary, must be accomodated in chapels or the fellowship hall . As a former Chairman of the Building Committee in the La Canada/ Flintridge Presbyterian Church, a trustee of Occidental College and of three non-profit hospitals and a school board, I have had considerable experience in master planning over the years. I believe that the plan, as now presented, is brilliant. Further- more, the plan will ensure minimal disruption and inconvenience during the construction phase. 3 • When the new church is completed, it will be a source of inspiration and pride to the entire neighborhood. Thank you for serving our community and representing all of our citizens. Sincerely, r. • r J�O 50 Y�o1 :ae�a d2.Lv� lr7u Scurtu /ma, Ca.L.Li.onn.La • ,jcuze 1>, 1Yit1 ,:�. :de.Cczz ncLau;}h.l.Lh, ��.Lann.in� Cv:,us.L��.Lvrz. CLt, v� dewpost aeaccz, Ca-tif-'onn.La 33uzJ w. dewpvnt ciLvd. ,dew,:,ort Jeach, CatZ4oiva.La 92663 clean alp. /1cLaugh.l.Ln. l n.L4 Z4 to exp4e4.j uc;F -duppoat Foiz .the bu-Lia.Lng p2o;.ect vl: St. And2ew4 P4e4bytea.Laa Cnunc/z. The fact twat St. And4ew4 t4 g4ow.Lng ZA a hea.L.thy j.Lga dn. ouiz time4, when t/zeae j4 40 mucn aeg.atZ4ve behay.Loa., not only .in oua aa.ea, but a.Ln many pxace4 .in t/ze wo4.4d. It t4 encouaag..Lnd. to aea.l.L,.e that /,cony peop" aae tnyiag bg .tneZA iZve4 and .Ln4,LuSe`n, .to '/aake .the wvz.ld a be.tten p.Lace. P.lea4a g..Lve ca2e4u,l con4.Lde4at.Lon, and • �avoaab.le 2eact.Lon to .the p.lana or. our. Chuach. Thank yvu 4oa youit 4esz.Lou4 conj.Ldeization. Since2ety ryou4, ik4. Ca4t.leman Smith .9 5 REC Et�'f.n f�j ��, JUN 171982� pTr� %E*PORT ACK' 1/ JUN 1719820- P G' . ��'-dam' n�� >' . /W .�(JL�r�e�. L1ac,cy�, Q�a.-�c. o-C rc-.c.. �t�iCc'� �� .�,�a�-.�c�, . Y.�e-�.e..<-'may °`"- , •�O .mac-t..,..., -�-�" `� �� ���-� lc.� �x-a�-x-u..m.,e..�zf-� o � �� � ��� ,�c.fe4t_ ate. .Gt //Sc2 ' N GD..�k�-G� .iLeK.�Et�. • t9 r � - kj' ' a. —G.1C s • � qz JUN181982a IX"144 �/ 9�t� Wt C.Iwvw� c� wnr�e �� a ..2c#.�/ .4r.�� `�• �,,,,u,,.,,,_ �. �'�`' � �+�. � ac,. � `�^� .a.,�.�' mil•,;.. w�ul.DC- k/A w� a-e-47ol, °- ,�0 a..Q 'Opw Oyu /Lt4 q,..,Jl." PL,�. Jay,, A l38S � cit"I'A G.W�u4 C m/� l/ / �Nn .,N. i w �LtAw fGU..c.(� 1cG /ioa 'A cW7hD�Yl c. /"Y1bou S � q3 evvLM�tri�+.G U- &e. ,� 7`- azl� /`�y 0" � fU.,.fte" ss.� .u��c.:cau d , .P. , y',�t -4s .[� j6 ,C� xc� /a�� Zi nv /�^��, �4..✓ tn�-. wee_ �e. .e..e.�.e,W. 7�, -4. 7 �Z a? X, Jae p��„f �'/ ✓�.Y�`� ��CCP.e.� � //�`^"'�V/'Ty�E.�.Lur� .f`�t¢P.7`-(///J . 'ga -jk l Pam cut 0' �¢. Ce� 10 U — ua P s. • ✓�u (91i f f T iaven (9ommunity, .{-association • P. O. Box 1332; Newport Beach, California 92663 June 10, 1982 Mr. Robert Howard St. Andrews Presbyterian Church 600 St. Andrews Road Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Howard: Pursuant to the meeting of May 12, 1982 with the Building Committee of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, careful consideration has been given to the revised plan presented by the Church at that meeting. The conclusions reached by this committee regarding such revised plan are as follows: 1) The plan; although it has been scaled down in height by some 19 percent is stilt 50 feet above the height limit. The plan still calls for occupancy above the height limit. 2) The plan has not addressed the parking requirements and no change or consideration was given to indicate that the developers have any changes in mind. • In view of the above and bearing in mind the wishes of the homeowners, this committee finds the revised plan to be unacceptable. In fact, this committee feels that a clear mandate has been given by the property owners of the Cliff Haven area. That mandate being: 1) That development of the Church property shall be in compliance to the 35 foot .height limit for occupied space, and a reasonable height for a steeple arrangement. 2) That such development shall provide for adequate onsite parking at grade level or below. This committee will continue to request that any development be within the aforementioned parameters. In order to be fair to all concerned, the Homeowners Association has Initiated a questionnaire to be distributed to all homeowners to solicit their response to the new proposal by St. Andrews and any additional comments which would assist in a resolution to this matter. We would like to continue meeting and communicating with you in the hope of pursuing an acceptable plan. Please advise us as to a convenient time for our next meeting. Sincerely yours, CLIFF HAVEN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ;�k- �uNla 4 Peter Gendron et, Tyw Presi ent / 77 r; I / ------- ----- CtONMLt3EYATgN -DOTTtp --------- --- ----- - to t5-o�TOP OF Cross -- - - - -------- --- �` _ _.ems c- - ; � 11 1 r 11 TT- tlt r , GRAM ' t '1M1l.lILQ Nf. FAiT kiFYATgN `lw�OMIG•NLEMATIOM -0OTrED `--- 1 � Y l 1 - _ � , 1 _ ME6Tg�ENATIOM "�� i -- ]IWCEDWMwWAMASSOCMM, iRWIN! AtT+16 MAoP.AKMMW'8 Pkt`$ VTMAN CNf1ACH `� a•Ir. - -t6 ,, �c' AMIL Ri00. p\ ` i `.00OYY.6EYAilON-OOTfED i i ' ------------------ - i 7 � r r OpOEMEIEVAt10l1 - r -On RIDQ _ � / ' ��` MONM4P/A1pM • (�—'• M �wi' nn�--nnnnn- nr�r�wnr-r �� 1 ` i r � i i •QUIH HlYAt10N '�" ', Q ED»ARD WARS AMSOUAM,8 MWIN 8l'.ANbkEW S Fk4SRY1£klAk CNUkCH YR ns nu ... .uasiYtl s•rwt q�. nW.n Yn g-fie ATTACHMENT G - 8/9/82 ATTACHMENTS DISTRIBUTED EVENING OF APRIL 22, 1982 19g NEWPORT HEIGHTS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION • Newport Beach, California April 20, 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion Use Permit No. 822 Commissioners: Our Association respectfully requests you to address the following objections to Use Permit application #822. 1 . The 105 ft. height of the proposed sanctuary/office tower is unacceptable. The project would have a negative and overpowering effect on the sur- rounding residential community and it would not be in keeping with the pri- mary land use and character of the neighborhood. 2. The increase in scale and capacity will also increase the traffic and • parking loads in and around the adjoining neighborhood. This could only worsen the already overcrowded traffic and parking conditions on the streets in the surrounding area. In summation, we feel the proposal is one that will have long-lasting, negative impacts on our community and respectfully request that the Planning Commission categorically deny the issuance of the requested permit. SiSin�ours , STEVEN DOBBIE President SD/jf • � q9 � o my, `�� 4.r• 12 P 417 Snug Harbor Road 9 Q c�oGP�� 1 Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 April 16, 1982 Ms. Helen McLaughlin, Chairman Planning Commission City of Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 Dear Chairman McLaughlin: As a long-time member of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, I • strongly oppose the proposed new sanctuary and 105' tower. According to our calculations, the windows from the offices in the tower would look down on our backyard and we object to the lack of privacy that would afford. In addition, we feel traffic and parking would be a major problem. Apparently, only 200 on-site parking spaces are proposed for a 1,500 seat capacity sanctuary. We have been told by the church there eventually might be a one-story parking structure to accomodate additional parking. We feel the unattractive tower at 105' (well over the 35' height limit in the City of Newport Beach), as well as the proposed parking structure are totally inappropriate for our neighborhood. At the present time, cars are parked in front of our house during church services. We can only see this situation getting worse. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, 1 1 • (Mrs.) R. G. MacDonald BM/ms Q �O �,_r ���� `�c��o-ram✓ J �-ytL' ���L�YIa-c,�a� . �7d�-✓I-C2ii!I/yam/ t-P�i G��-u� .�2.2.� . � J ' �Lfif J �rd��i Q� O-LthJ `�• .�C/Lc' � a m �. _ N N •_ /, y ,y ,. [l ✓ - W UC/K(iCJ wzCJ w G • �'l�i�••EJY • V W a-'Ii.i ✓l..i'li � N � 'O � v � APR2 2]982.�- ATTACHMENT H - 8/9/82 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1982 • Agenda Item Nos. 2, 3 & 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY, USE PERMIT NO. 822 AND RESUBDIVISION NO. 723 ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, NEWPORT BEACH The attached letters have been received by the Planning Department in connection with the above applications: ATTACHMENT NO. 1) Letter from Robert Craig dated March 5, 1982 2) Letter from Louise & Robert Wiese dated April 11, 1982 3) Letter from Robert Craig dated April 13, 1982 4) Letter from Marjorie Gamble dated April 15, 1982 5) Letter from Robert & Joan Diemer received on April 20, 1982 6) Letter from Wilson Little dated April 19, 1982 •, 7) Letter from Ron & Charlotte Rebal dated April 19, 1982 8) Letter from Avalon Atteridge dated April 19, 1982 9 & 10) Letters from Mrs. Donald Hall dated April 19', 1982 11) Letter from Mrs. Baines received on April 20, 1982 12) Letter from Cathy Anderson received on -April 20, 1982 13) Letter from Edgar Barton dated April 19, 1982 14) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Harold Rowes dated April 19, 1982 15) Letter from Edward Sowers, Margaret Sowers, Ruth Price and Edna Little dated April 17; 1982 16) Letter from Linda Boucher dated April 19, 1982 17) Letter from Darrel Boucher dated April 19, 1982 18) Letter from William & Mary Thompson dated April 12, 1982 19) Letter from Ruth Lampe dated April 18, 1982 20) Letter from Linda Scheck dated April 18, 1982 21) Letter from Charles & Marie Palmer dated April 19, 1982 22, 23, 24) Letters from Joyce Dunigan dated April 20, 1982 25) Letter from Mrs. Ralph Boyer dated April 20, 1982 26) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Whitney dated April 19, 1982 27) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Emlyn Jones dated April 20, 1982 28) Letter from Merrill & Helen Mundy dated April 19, 1982 29) Letter from Maurice & Marie Bush dated April 19, 1982 30) Letter from Bettie Ellis dated April 17, 1982 31) Letter from Hazel Curtis received on April 21, 1982 32) Letter from Gloria Spence dated April 19, 1982 33) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Stillinger dated April 20, 1982 • 34) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Leonard Hall dated April 19, 1982 35) Letter from Glen & Elizabeth Slater dated April 19, 1982 36) Letter from Clarence & Celia Turner dated April 19, 1982 • TO: Planning Commission - 2. ATTACHMENT NO. 37) Letter from Alice Pomeroy dated April 19, 1982 38) Letter from Ethel Wonn dated April 20, 1982 39) Letter from E. Vernon Frost dated April 20, 1982 40) Letter from Eileen Frost dated April 20, 1982 41) Letter from Patricia Ford dated April 21, 1982 42) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Pangburn received April 22, 1982 43) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Hunter dated April 20, 1982 PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/pw • attachments • �c 3 • Robert J. Craig 418 Snug Harbor Road Newport Beach, CA March 5, 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 Dear Commission Member: Everyday that Newport Harbor High School is in session, Snug Harbor Road, Clay Street and 15th Street turn into the overflow parking area for student vehicles. At the end of each school day these streets then turn into a virtual drag strip as excited students race to leave the area. Then on every Sunday, religious• holidays and now some Saturdays and evenings the same parking problem develops as a result of religious service attendance at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. St. Andrews which is supposed to be a community church is now planning to signi- ficantly expand the size of their facilities due to growth in attendance. In- cluded in their plan is a 7 or 8 story building and provisions for a parking struc- ture. I object to this proposed' expansion for the following reasons: I. It will significantly disrupt a quiet residential ' area. 2. Currently I must limit my 6 year old son'sactivity due to the ever increasing traffic problem in the area. 3. The area height restriction is 35 ft. and should be rigidly enforced. In addition, I contend that the 7 to 8 story "tower" and a parking structure St. Andrews is planning is totally not in accord with the requirements of a community-neighborhood church. I beg of you as our Planning Commission to seriously consider the negative impact this will- have on my neighborhood and the safety of its children. In addition I ask each one of you to look out your front window and just imagine for a moment the possibility of looking at a parking structure and a 7 or 8 story tower. Sincerely, - • � tr-L.i -n n;ngty-° 4,g r^LAI<NlilG DEPARTN cN7 • F P'fl1\ 5 1962'v "I )1 9 9$V:S,.'r • APR131982�- /3/ /98L Ae i 33oa ?Uur 4?.t Q Ao --- -- - _ cc ,dt QinaC.uwer. . t�ueu.�.- --- • �e��'OtioyJ LO? _. .ar�oZ ary � 0 77�71 UxN �� 'IWO � 76 OU�U� upp❑�ppp G f.. f(•.1 iS }yt. '�.�.cil..� D �J���(//�/{��)� ��/� � /J�/J�� / f. T�...•. ' li13.:E`{ai�N:Yi„'�/ `I-.M� �/" /!/� � i r..(IV.i �"�K��•G/ � /��" .�—K•:// ♦ �� i ' .�.:_>�.i?y ��%ri? ';•'�1 i��--O"�—s��Z..*-r:••L/ C �%� �� :�+is.`.RCS=ts?2w�L,'.�,ti V 0 . ... .:H "•i� ..r�JTx.�i:ali. .��:�. ..r Li:.. .4,•..;:Ss:$4 ^9 (..,:-4Ln�M5�.. w.4`c��� �..+�.L�.'tty.3'.A.12a7� v.} .. •. "Lt' T�'?{}k: � }�v.4'�•',�h` 'FC\t:-+'.Rk4^J:�aa. .�ty'�:,'ar.•.4Ap.-.i��S}.. a.,:':�. • .'-7" �. . .' .. ._ :J r ::i::�F!-:a°�.- fii. t - .`-x. :r;idY,�Y.1&w Helen McLaughlan, Chairperson Planning Commission . City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 • Dear Mrs. McLaughlan: Bob and I have been residents of Newport Beach for 27 years and members of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church for many of those years. We fully support the building plans that have been submitted for the consideration and approval of the Planning Commission. We urgently ask for your support for this important project which will enable the church to continue to serve the needs of the entire community. Sincere y,,, Mr. and Mrs. Hobert S. Diemer 1119 Essex Lane Newport Beach California 92660 .-a L • "� VVitf 3 �v. Y911Q.chmmY � 1 April 19$ 1992 Ulan a..,ek Planning Co:amissioner City of !"agpC'-"t Baach 3300 ' ewpo.rt Blvd. Newport Beac.i, Ca. 92663 Re: Building Plans SuL;n'.tted by Officials of St, andraws Pr3sbytarian Chu=oh Dear Mr. Seek: It seems to me that there arse. sav,ar:,j good raauons for approval of plans for naw construction to accoao'late St. Andrews Presbyterian church. Firrstp there is obvious need. • Second, the near-prohibitive price of land demands that maximum use be made of existing space. This makes moving to a new location practically impossible. Third, the proposed new structure will oe aesthetically attractive, much more attractive than the current row of hounou at the location on Clay Street. I appreciate t.re fact that certain people in the section known as Cliff Haven are vigorously protesting, specifically, the height of a section of tie proposed new buildin- . That certainly is their privilege, one that I should be the last to deny. Evun so, my wife and I live within five blocks of St. Andrays Presbyterian and we submit that the new structure will add to the attractiveness of the community and not dobtiuch it as prot--3stnr..3 claim. Th•.nk y•nz for your serious consid•:ration of t!iis matter. .40S sincerely, •r . 1. 321 i'ul'.ertan Ava. r..,,:yport Ba,ach, Cu,. 92663 • �� APR201982"'-» N !bL &Am�pf0la J�/ttoK f8zf�( cRaod .ff&w mk JS" GGf: 92663 .-a:7 �L/L••fP/l/ g`��v%L7JZGQG�O�L�����/%%��1 �,T/ �, /� ,.:�d+::.iq.``Y"�'• ��� Y • .e,7 •.�•,c5c 2 :�, ti 'S ApR�p 198 � • �k�.c�� N ..>; dQ•L !,n•j-r'�.LTda. ..J:yi'::y, ti {q •min'� •.M1'. 5't L,f•,:. � :J,v4 .'y,Y . >. •. '. y,�...'. : ^.�i..:L- :•t ...{.. :•..).� ..{ice � 5rv.4� K'�:•t1}{i "psi-" j.4,'{C� :pd*.'it':i,43�j?. i ice. ... .ray`.' Y �� �::i,`Ai•�.5.'f'. . r'.:}� N 5 i. „ice .ti f /.� ~ f��n • .: IYWLf ii�Y �j w'4.�' N'i�4`M�,���'hl iw` M1 N.v.+i' ':1:. .•r..' :y. a •:b o' ?'7 /hr� may., v.r, a•kpE� ^./. .a>.::,;p,.,,. C C' i 66 /YY�'G�-'�C_- �fi✓1.t-E:'is.�--�—�-- Ll�:(/ ��-C-J-Y�a� ''S�t:,is;�s%'si�tir���,'ry': / ;uti2.r:•vi�ur�::.�?.414:!ufrfil.•`:+• APR201982O-Cti r• f 4 � . All � . , • ..p;k•a�r'�.•".rl: �:=ti.`l.` V'.'i%:� .;i. ���1.'S .•+,:�i :t.:l•� ���' .nl.^,i�:LR�/,- :'.a.!'iii:� .,r„4..y-:;�:.{ •�2 -ro'l., >Ynl,. ,-fn. `•.1'' .. �.!:\s '1.J iV .C3•�� ! � ) .I)� JP. j f"t:•.:(� �•' ':: . '"• .., ".'r. ...:i:•;.. 'rsi'.'.o r�+o r;�!)k.•'R',.�:%�'.gN:�.,���`i )d`.. .e• �;.•` r^' 'k h t%i'diq.�l.' ), '` .. . . .r.:. . ._r''!e,,:.,`,� 1', tyf,{r;�•.'� 3c%'y;�rt.;:•n x'�•s�X�+.!. ' �' tier`..>� `;•Ui�J.n.�,,, 1 • AffkChI'12e4t 9 MKS. DoNALd MAUCN HALL 2516 Uisia BAyA NCWPoBT BCACH) CA. 9266o . ..;TWA.iCiO�}✓.�;V�'hny'd'�)��wtAxM41i!�:�'N V '}yJw / � / �£i�,1E•r.,'1'.�•]'la. V/IJA/J ! "�''x+�r;ar.,i?s`; r:.Ldar4�;i,zarx..!� Ci1��/✓ �✓, u ;.`.' -i. �.•rti.a: .`E\•,. .•fe S:d!�r],' '.(:a';1: 1. ,ti is ei'.C.:ni i+�•n uih%ry;e•'..i.::i,�;n ii•i '.:v""�A.jfTiF' ..•.' 1.' •N s - i:Ip ..'i ` ' ,11.. i:J ` �ilY, C" :, c+,: ..• fi„ .., a, .� b ,�• .,{I� .I ;�•� 1 �:1'. r iS: S•;V..».,}•vY iny.ya.. "yy u••�y.cE•.y 1y_16:,'✓.��^9, 1. l=C. �. ;`. ... • • � .1. YI.Y �.f f'1� :'<}:��� ���4••y:l tl:.�:'�'{. i0."1 V•' ..1,.y[,t 14 .• 1}yi •l?y. y{ „�.{�;`) �^\� 3M1Cw�' Y:�yh::-.t �c �iY .a �4`�;�Vy � t i. _ �. .�/ �C.K�"•.�cL"/ . •SCn�+:i�Y�4i!�:r'�,:1. %Sn. +i.:.'r^s-`71,a"'cy,3j(ryf}+..•rr,'�5�fi / 1 ll--'!' :r.:rr�:Y,LS,tiG.'t�trx�: 't a App201982 , •rrr, �r•�"t1 ..[i '•.\L� Jar �Ll ].:'c•. :3Ai'�• s.. ;p' _.''�. •��.; ei.:'•'^.ia:n{n "•'Ai• w1 V:�+ 'yj' .iY 'n'S`r ••Sr ..aY• �e:�•A+::. v'A. �f•w•N• �):•� Sri w 'Y'+"( . . .. . • �tcc�irrJertt Div MKS. ,ONALb HAU6N HALL 2s16 UISTA SAYA • NEWPORT 56ACHr CA, g2660 4, Kee .i.: J 1 .'J q� '•rr. r c�. 'ic::�?iXohii'aAtiinh.. ��if•L� /1./.u� ✓✓�"� i�"/'�-�`^'_ ;� � Y�.df�....i::l.�^r,1�.V\CTiS4.Y,L�'. ;i '{•IS Yr. �i��f rA .ri.Vo •�}.:� _l.Vii •• 1C15,..i�r`r d;�`51 i'hY'� r�l'./! ruU'r.l;' �;i1,r�4ry'!J•.i. J "u;1'. Y ::n.-,.K�'S./ �(.rtinr; .r)5'; i]•' YrCE'�;.e 4q. :.�� .:�`� � �%"� F s_>�.V.:•. Q" P .p,• ..+.�•9'?[•:'l.tu`.`Y;�'� �..; r:': •••: ;A;}1;.., 'F:l'a `Y.1^ .:'r rnz.:;') ..��]� `�:�i•:`r_7 • ';�[;; {•�+�. ib• V,�'"4 ' r. ji �' +'1...E.(� ...i :,$n 'o.hr,r:''�.' Yk Cl�i..r� M1t.;:'at:- Y.e.lns��� e�• •rr ;n t ;, nt 1. • .. � ..... i Y.0 ,.LK� .• �. • � _ .":5'� } r.'''•;1 :�,:.!• ;�.1J=• . "AIJ�N„�/�4A�. i I l�✓ �%r"""LC1ti.'a/ t"-/C�.c.c�c�1./ 44.4,+ w '+h+fc 'us'F'S!��$iy'��".t't•� U � o� J � ^'`-� •�• i't", a.a" III :;�.;..�.5� �tz� :;n �.c-c.F� �••�i-_,p�e'Z.�i /� G c;Y:y"•T:rt.,t,rwriy;�.. .. �• .. ..,!` � cam/ -u t:.cC/ .:eSe+�:t�Rdi�SiJ:�94�ii�7h,r�F�vt4' �� /✓ \..f�'l.C�. `;:?"''^;r r,R,t?Aic..34;tt; 100 €7PR201982 CiL •t;_ �:L: :i:' :-van. �.Y•:..f... ry J2` Lei♦ �rj:.`(:..�",.`,T,iJ .::h'a/::Y'}�.•�1Y�C'•y^jft »!! ; L3. .. .. ':nh r�.y,. T� '.9R. �. :},�! :.5,••. T:"�•'le'.. .'%F'ri r,'.y`CT.:w::T~\:.3i.t..a r:}ij�riiJ..:.:;~'.e'.::v.K:'f�G'2..•.'4�•.pra:•Y„ Yr�."h..e.�ti���::4 qCA MRS. P. F. BAI46S �JJ,.(�4 • - 427 PIRAT6 RO&a, N6WPORT BEACH, CA. 2O - - , R�� �a� v`� •�i v GZ�(.1,� N•C.-�Q�i�ZL¢'L`�Gc_�i+-�d/ � -%tLA rS 'M.ri�: S+`t•!•!oi`_x* v.9 R E r ER I�, l,,C,,>eA.zL-- ,pt/ V '�'L�•� .y�,,,,y ,.n«.i.'�F�:' .,�i ,dkte>,. +•. ;t12, APR 201982,*-Fi, r . ,•r'C Ky:c.�34bht.` �Ar1;i "v y,-' .�._:Ii _ :,;,,],1'�ai .`:�•K ,.%lid .). n}. Nri jr, r$�.r ,.:`. ^��' .2r Si.'I".`�'J'•" •`Q...JLi`.' Tu°.'a.^r`$.Ci', '�q `.y', !.i'= jrv`•y`•`y y;i^•w:...;'..l� Hie_. ..,",i:f.�•1;:)1; '?,', .r rl� :6L..".'r-...:"r�,rii�•�:i::. ..r -v:v�`i•Y.;iii�.wr.���.��rYJ,rr�rnY,,: 'Y'�i4'�Csil..�-��.:'y�S;er.�'e.yri�AFc�"P!•YJrs ^�i// C:atn.lJ C(J+J'nApE210n ' dVo. 5403 GSEaifzou -rbxivE -datitoxnia 92663 `'"'t<"-�•,��1'i�at,:'•7,�°..�^?�`3��;k ;•'<S�;a•icfi::�s,�`'s`�sh3i',rati'e s` •" v ,.-� oe OP .:e,+:�F:=�X?5�•t*t�,�,7ai'siv-A. d?E4 �� �� G....�.f?_.nQ � fli>....•h..;i,✓,•xz.•i`�.3iiikutita�.w. o\ . ��-sly �-� c.c�..�� � r' ,V,�,..`•� \ \ ��, i, i. �. ,•,.'. ::i�� qr.i .,i r., •.<'�i.: 'try: :p5a .ny.i •.�;: :i"f.i•=,•_Cu...'vs v::::.i.::..ti:Mt:a�'iti!!{{l`i!:. . . . . >,:..}r, a./Jt G.'r��'• i t �iy.:•• ,'.fy}:�tLnr •1.N;k.D�• V tt+•i.. � :'\�T?�„ h�:�Cp�SS't. .:�f,'i....•..la�up�,.H}W.Y.•.i • •t•, -;�. .... . ..... " . . •.y: ...a,•...1. ,.q) .. .. .. .c.••tit:;,):.c_-?va:•,F•:�`f.�.i,��" i Edgar R. Barton :. 1156 North Rutland Road Newport Beach, California 92660 April 19, 1982� of Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach, �9 01ga2 1 City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, 5 QQ CI '' '.,' JZ` Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: I am writing on behalf of myself and wife to fully support the plans presented to you • r. .':', by the Building Committee of St. Andrew' s Church, concerning the building of a new group of buildings on the property owned by ;< • '; the church, bounded by St. Andrew's Road, 15th Street, and Clay Street. JrJJ�:�::ll�4rs" �."cr •3.Y5V3y�l'c'tt<j45. 1Je have been members of the church for many years, involved in many of the activities there to the extent that vie have good ? knowledge of the needs and conditions that must be met if St. Andrew's is to continue to be a strong factor in aU the life of the fleirport Beach community. The new plans do provide a long term meeting of the needs. ;10 recommend your approval. Yours very truly, n•s`:'t r,V•j�4=i�,�p;t ':yi4{: '(b:p 1. i.; '•..p.i:t4})f'r,• '..5� '` v/:,�:y d:rr'�'r•":!:>$l '`A�':N1:`'+i' .:f•_ '•.•.Jd.:�'ii•,:y�w:r•Ir,:'.r`':r:. .•Y '•rs'y�.b .. .` • '. ,n.rn.a_✓�•: :'•Y��'`t,..-.r;ni(loi'{. f.fi•• ."i°t•M n.:� ,.i$d:. $'ii71✓.ti '':+'r::air, .li*;.�\:'.H.%S1!0,-:Rjh>«..�.i • �YIYhsYw�h4�'i/Y1;''f,•iM..](r`',KfkY;�Rr+f`u•,^�'A,�L��]y'�' +ft:. 'i:' . .... i'•'• .r-:'.. . . J•ra. •:id ^" ..ii, .:7;. .•t;-"�,:, uc.- '1.: } From the desk of A�LTCA�ROWE - - .- : A2 EGG r14(1 V� l � GCS C��f�ICi, � /�1 .:..r,5i":�:^fi4F#?tirx`r'r'`S;,;s'1?1S=�:rrvY;x � Lv �^ / � ',r,;?� i;>ai>....�t:-.r,'r�.'.r?.d{.•'.'.+�„?rA'. �IThe Harold Rowes 330 Mayflower St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 , l.I V L'.N• �'iL� :'�:h'K.3 :a:J :L. .:: n'�l':.1'° ;�. _..f,�':z" _ n�;:'�i �1,�.:1!'•ry i�".:•:•`.u%-.'.')%�' g�ii`:X�r ltii. 't7 ; v1P. i'� •(�,a. t "��,,. _ e �`l.: '4.y � .e'{'.ii'..'�\:'! ' v ,- v`C'S6F{'4i'.'.e�l;., �,��1?'Y�µO"•�.�e"�•..s.. .. , P:'i�..' �lY ..1..\.i 'A'. '�S me'• 'R'r1C rwLl..Ti t?. .f; ) y 1 KJA��� / iC.-aLrJL•?LG.L/G/ �I� J>lGG ''<<'.�JLGIlI�iGQ� � Am- / � 7.Lf:��' ����4✓���-� 'a'� 1,, 2e;�t Yi %I late �Glrf� l �t�GGRG?rn �J CLk•l lYii (� pia K=' •;, ._ r . l � �C11 �K C`J • �ffachment �/� • I w� I • r�J'LG-�-� ��7 G��Yt-�C'�<r-o-� /c rr `•' • ,�c�'�`L'r r_� `•/G S Sc o c�Ct �����G[ r D PT /�Pr�ic �� • 1 Q ,:• •�; //12,,c,J 9af003 A�a�hrren�- ��7 e s ' nnee w'f a e-�-c� o�-�' l�2 ez e.�L ... _ m-2G'bl.�•e l^ D'f„ �� �l�LG�. 6�c.cJ S CO • V-i+ � ' �2>>, t/O J -S'tc.afa �iia ;4L�i�L��. • F {'1 ec.:,� /-'je�C/c.•, �� /�.GAG 3 • 5n G� APR '97�iCLjs�7C�t ?2:41fY,',•!��Q.� •�p v� 12 •w.:•vg;:'�S�?zoisaojiini•'$�;rt;�-"'<m�?ecy;;� ',`�'t��� U j�_ -"'„� y/��pt-�f�-� �� :F1•s;, a,,.�� i•'rs$:,�a,2is:!•r;k+xn'. - o�� n /Gce Cu,ta �31�s A 7aln2re .)� :Ji• "Aul:.3 .M1 ::y'., -„Fs. .(i ..,p:w:G ii:•�l1',i •'�� .fjNr i-:J �'O''G'(•%:�ni'AY��.A', fl! <i[µ: ., i"<i:},•�:i •+�•<4y f:I�(j�7:. �L. .�-:i$'. ,h t :....V�:3,•<�i'{a r a•., `,' ,Y•�L1�,: y,.t.w.i�.%•1! .v. lai•"'��F.'.:1'ii� "i:. .. .i.' .. . e �,•'':;!°iG', y� ::°.ji�,:;:it7"�,..�;�i„U,r .St;:f,'Si�.�3.s•,:..ry N,gTv.�< fy,• J-. ' PLbEfA501 (Miff Drivep�Newport Beach,p California 92663April 189 1U82 NRWPMembers of the Planning CommissionCity of Newport Beach / 3300 Nelrport Boulevard Newport Deachq California 92663 Re: St. sndrews +l'resbyterian Church Use Permit 822 and Ilesubdivision No. 723 Dear Planning Commissionerse I have been a resident of Newport 1!ea.ch aad Cliff Raven for thirteen years and have always found St. Andrews 1'resbyterian Church to be a good and generous neighbor. I have to voice my opposition, howeverg to their neu• building plans which include. a 105=foot structure requiring a conditional use permit. It houses a conference room at the top floor and offices on the lower floors. It cannot• be* called a steeple. It is in reality an office building, and one with it panoramic ocean view. The need for a new sanctuary may he pressing. The • neeO for additional office space may be pressing. Uowevery the plan submitted is not ailpropriate for our 'traditional residential neighborhood. It requires additional open space around it. It intrudes on and overpowers the neighborhood. As a contrastq the 93—foot tal'1 Ilarbbr Iiirah School Tower has been a landmark for over fifty years. 'rile neighborhood grew up around .the high school. It is an anpropriate structure and relates to the-surrounding cou•nunity. The structure proposed by St. Andrelrs Church does not. If this proposal were being submitted by an orl;+ulization of-her than a church, would the size and height even he considered? I think not. I request that the church be denied the permit and thc:t they be required to observe the siime 'legal height limits as the rest of the community. I -further request that tlle•� meet with the Cliff Haven Community Association and the Newport Heights Homeowners Association to develop a Plan that will lie agreeable to all concerned. Sincerely yoursi2 • Linda Scheck fi�fachn�x5��'ZI CHARLES C. PALMER 1701 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 • PHONE 04E.5000 April 19, 1982 Planning Commission I City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: USE PERMIT 822 Dear Commissioners: We have been residents of' Newport Beach for over thirty years. We are members of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and do live in the Cliff Haven Community on Kings Road. We urge you to give positive consideraton to the proposal that is before you. • We support the costruction of the new CHURCH SANCTURY on St. Andrew's Road. Yours truly, Charles and Marie Palmer • / 11�' � 1 1 • ' IC' �r:,g';:;+iti:�=:;2ii25v`•:<i�; ��/i 'W��V /�\11 f ''/ „_ �/ � Ys'.�tk:,.ta.tH1.'!i'6y,�4Y++',5.4-' ->d. 7 /. ..:il::�.•s_1Yf`''`�fl'?"• • � ����� I Ia///^/�,[� J/l /I � yyy`!%r/`j�•II`/nl t?� /iv/' n ". • +�'1'.Y!!'tti.^ s7.+^<?"+y.) �Y/trill ! O�v � -:���✓WL/ ' ��y'f. r,A7�Y!j�:�h4�•;': ' r t LIL t 1 i ✓� r • 1 ' 'r /' �'"'S'Jl 1� CIL, - - �: `1:•:}.: ].4: '.�N':•ti t•,'h r:'� �JJ•e: i_5[: - .�+�Jn'Iin aJ;.4'i 15' ::1$r •'i' � .I�.•, F(ri Pam:p.l'C'V.1 nl..+'=.��;:ri+l.�aa. ;�4 r.�4`'.�,b-`;4��'_':tjg.+..r:y.�.-..''.�l•.�p„�;,.{3.v.js:::'.•�i�l.._.....;p`r'o;.,,yMl�i,.:ifi-�e...::R�wr`a:.-::�..'' �f .ea. r iz 17 ✓ �.. - � �Yi'S-YC.�i ��L.0�C2�'.,�?.�Cr�.o-' ./h-e•-B�t� �.°:•;.�-' I . .- . ��•� can. -� . �- .::.:• � •• . .•. ;:DJ'ltiKr:,rpi. - / ,i e r p ] � e•'�'�%'9�••.+i•^�=-i ,//`a'•i'--Z�;%/�-c/��""`+ .%•R,'Y.F�'�i,MF:>�rl vAutfsli',r'^5`�'r• J • ,�� ��-coin/ �a � •'. ' -.x,•;aw +;.:„v:;•�;¢.;�;:+,'t• ;:h,1tii;.k`.: 1.'..::'-a�.� .i:';iM:v;:� ";d iva a�r:_�. .^t.;° nt:•.f ,�. =i• i.;�"�- -.f,. -YA'.Y,.t'1M.•^,•()�:�i•.�i�..?. •".. I•>-.':� ..::�i ^aS�� .. � . .. - a. � , ' •. n ". .. .. .. . . � - .. ..:+:, 'ri'.. '•i;:..,id;;' aa:.=L:G•:�'=y;k•-°,�PPY's�) .:;7K`�?`e.�aa",rXis�t�:f.;':'. F:d: ;?! aU �.e '. 5j< .. ✓ �""� 4^��i/C�i� �C,i(� S� ^ •.N:i�i.A.n.E••f'�i�F�dYH*�~•'. . C�6,6�z � y �� :'lA,',;tii:?Ti.Ax�r�•�,h:.n:�G,�.ilnr'r;:• - APP20 ?9fJ2> �:-na;,..:•„ .J:� .r:+,:`Lf'6?' ,..y.B••- '�:Dil.: ,.i., .yy.;•%,V ;;}iS):'n.'A::'„�`; .a.`.;'•.r,.�i. ••n+ .�:r �. n' .�.. ... S!. 3.��i ••/+'.4"- r T a":V:�'$`�"it„� '��'- .!',o... .:,:�L' .., . .. . -. 'r�:1 ^.t'.r-.^ :,f.: _ ... •. .. •. ••Y•'. r �I��.. .��,.IC .�NSJ•i. nSY� p� `�]��•.e . fri�i.,.r ry , • 40 AW2-I 7tachrri3 •:.�S;:ayiln�yr;xxfi "� ' � /r `i f!' - �������� ����'fb itlw<'..."•t�7l Mj'hiR)Y.µ LeJ ' ^>":f':A:,vale �ic•/l..': /�..iC.!��„���,�`�.(�l �..��..� J `b�YF:n.'ri:w�:S :� :;:si"jds;^4,�"r.� i +.Q': •p,}=. ��l.ye� q:f�•.i ti: - �.C': ;(•.. =r: °.4' :f.ib'• ;.T.t :�'•; ,. �Y. •:`4'cEn •.iJ Vn'a.' .'Wy4'•N.� •"/:L., .1'^ ?L}:.'y: .��Y .:��i '.n,•�. '%i::;v..i. F .. • ... • -. . ♦'l.V �f. :^4'.�� 5.. `:Li::Kfi:..A}\�S'. •: �....�. :S. k...:.} .n:j�:'i •`:J..4�13'y;,4y Ft.+•Sl`f:t;•e 7'^vY-'.ziti�� pr .��q' / �j /,j/p"'✓ / �.�/Cj�L�•' (���/°��Gt,� nJ .a • J i�.nr':l''r.:y„�A./afib{C7?;5�i�.+e�j'Yi? /vdt�� V��/�/ �v <�.il�/ L�IJ'y(e%�r(�i[,J �•:'�•.'J�'J.„ri� r\ r�7✓� '��' • x, • ' APR2 11982•y Ap . _ •..'.,�� . `"• �" � (mac, �/�6�3 � �:,;: . . �5cjr�e 1 e-Her Cep1tS � cetyed' .der - he ��l h¢r Commi-w* . mud leevs in y�' Y�e) �'�-ram �• . ' i;3ra�irit•;iriidt`�e; 1 ``�%�YL/� '^ {)efjt2%XAi'':/Ne?F3`bl'.,•u`'Y?• �. .:1:.'tn V /\.�C.�Y / G��W'��-` _ �r.� ' ✓Q (/�' ):hi..�s.'��1 ':��..\�l�'i �L. D i;fii;;•c i:l;t`.^^? � ' � �,(��l'�� y:.iw +^.r.�:�:'+fi\y�5?.'r;t . ��/��Y-�t•LJ .fit .� ,� � �,�• . :•°• .`wig}'S?• 'yii�'?' •.�• •"' .:yt.'.i•y"•.iti., �a7:� •ay% :i�- i•1' }:;;• '.x• • •;,::F�.:,.� ay„��.1:,•`'i:.i:.w`)).•c.N...br'=i��'`.4�... :(d"'ri"^�i�\, C%i..� ..i•:.! lsh r:-r�.. ' .. .• . .:1�� t:it.. _..11t•.\ � \ilw• Vh��Y• �' • � • � ' .-J�M1�•� r.. 'S'i�xf+41iI1t�{,''t:ey'ST V W ���q/�//'j��/�JJ��i1)�+�lX����"�/C.L�-�/v �F'a��f��4�i1'�� •��* • �U1 /f • x,: �.1'w. .�i.:v:;:^it•y!• .a' .n. 'i�:. :.'t: 5.4:. ".:\f:r.: i1' .. ... ^-.. �04 z : . : ... .�'.;^ ,r•fu��'i4Y'•�+.�?Syi? /L1-�-o�;''���,,��rr..1.-c��-�-�C., L '.k,;;,...:sc�!:.firk.3h . ' � Q���19D '•t is '� � •. ..,;:a;rr).^ .:�,•*,�.'-•�Y»r:+ii.:ihvtS'.s,,;r;•�, � '� � vc?,Q,r.;�:'- ;;`.�'�?<FSr�c a•a�; \.. .. . e ..Y .• .. �.y.'.(:�.t�"li r.In•• ♦ . . .{:.,ice(. •,•:•'?ii:+:3d'4`'�Fi-i+.7ti':r' r<:r`?ul-'iY `..:ir'rr:�l� z✓ts iiio��.'d\:.�'::set��. ��s'�_ yt.a.:• .. `l • r., •K yr: .�f,G '�, .,. ';t;., .y ' N ...al.,� '�. '�a\L � JH.: .4 .}•�.a4C -1 'S'IG . . � •.« • �-IS:Jl ir:" Helen McLaughlin April 19 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Peach' 3300 W. Newport Blv.d Newport BEach, Cal 92663 Dear Sir: • I am a resident of Newport BEach and a member of St. Andrews Presb. Church, and am in full support of the building plans placed before you. Please give your support to the important Project. ' f , ' Sincerly Yours. Mt. & Mrs. Lorin 8. Whitney `. .r ,�� 3121 W. Coast Hwy # 4a t Newpott Beach, Cal 92663 f �' q y:%.hG cl? ram, Nachmestta� �:iY�}iT^'u'•iF'ytiS'L;i�<Y/).::'F�,t�']R:�Yra;k: V�\ \lam. �.• �'i�SY��^�:' ee " /YJ,f3N.t/�Gl./yq� �tu-G� �TYlL-�L�iG•Y�'�v • l� lGs:r9��cG✓/ ,1!-p/��"".ru4r '72ctit�Y'' • _ /G�' G''tc2� Vic.,-C`G7'.�r,...� /p—N*�%cG��y, • MN i M CLM NS [MIEN E � C��-�•k'1G I��� 8 656A SU9 FNEbNU CLN �'!� f�Jv NUNTINGTUN bCN CA 92b4b .',•iNaei+T:nii$'Y�'7�%"xt Y�r�143Cj:��;7y //,.� �.Llr�i ^ // -/• ��i:����Lu,�:in_ � CLr�ad L�..�zLrrLc•�..ccGnLGx. • - !��, / /J•c-'cif � �(�',GIy�.Cz�/�LCGt• . /J/ G-ZnIc,GGLL•GGl�.1 ��,H7r�cy�o�•,w��{ y� . . d,i:'f+Ff.^,L"srvyie�wyihii�.r`„L•5:,ia?+ L fir" _1 �� // ,{/(L..C�!/K(-�/' ' . �L.l./{iY'•�t'n•E�•L�(/�p�.�—,�/ l/J �/// /7�.L/(! // {/�,I��'�+ .yw::a:,;?.rj��!r; Lot L) ZVI .. .. . - C'G'L�./ t���✓ v -L_' ,l//Gl�� ^�(J�%LIEU �'� 1 ' /�I� _ _ • ..Ltd • �ti4i.G-"J G�•� : .7vt- ��� C L,IL y�� - l� APR2 •.+a: r:.iL:y:�i• ..�:J.:�iey).r-.:`T':'�)C"�?": �.�.. _ .'..3.aF: .>: .:� .,•;;-'*'_1'd'. ".t: .. v•�. �:'fi�" .fir vv. '`.Zi.. ':.1^k.:}'.,, r +:Y• �in•Y. _ ` ".'�' ��Ltl,slv�•i.oa v U Ylcw/�ta7 Aeaa' gx-663 144 '' ' ✓f�CEEtlau� 1.k2 1'ZCEJ N07v1�itcGi.�rr �u— , : , • • I�X, l o-ccGtikb P, t a l yZ�� �5 aE<<� - . • �%tiCra:�- .2l �.f8�,u'c(�¢..eE•h, -� rrYrE t-l�..v' u- .. � • '. • /S,racc�i'�•.Z`pu�.l� ahpze� - -��, �Yielcucw on G:'Q/VVicae� j;n.,•,xrt:,::-;�.::�n�.ary;in-;+S.:iwiR,�;. .�.+ ��tE�'C � •�l�R-a y�t,i•N ,�c2 0. �G'Hf/ zEtiH e .Xtl.c� w .MY.. G� GZ •�CEu�Q ���� S'C�c�z�P'Q�EtG'c�lc� <fC�bty.+,�ct - y�J�"L`'�/� �tsrn �G�.t+ �'c2riJ-v Gntc/ c'rit `,.�rnlc �.cr�� � � • .S'Cf/6, (A L'�N -L�Lt CL'1n GYW E2rtt•LGWIiw� 'A. zf, I cr�lulos Crt z�c—et�i» Cv�Cf'y-•r,a..��/ . tG G.X eLtec- lbotGd 441 Selvo46cyr .xv :.%a� ':1,�S:, 1.d..(`ii.L!' :.i:.- •�,1:. .•Y.e�f4,der .i." ..'!. .. .• •� ':i t'ii ;;. - .. �:_s;'i.;r.4.. ;:.i.: i�.G -dt,`.�s...•24.. '.�. ':%".'-[' anti'- �i+� , -�• •:,T .. . . . .. . . :b• :;•',fa:.C:' y4 is..t.•:•�� .'r..- '�r•'Y."�. :'ri'�:".7`., . . �}{t�,C�'1✓?1 Path � 3t� . . . . , Mrs. Gerald E. Ellis 1115 Nottingkam Road ; Newport $each, Calif. 92660 • ~�� ,�LG'LL�'c�{'L,� L�-Y// 7`-GCL'���'LCy, l..L-?72!IJ�G�''r7� Y .r.r.�d��;".ry�4fTt.. S�. ::Y�!✓:ram;/."�:+�n�•,7%•6;,;. 39 . .K�: �bG: '-:'ii!L� _ � _ .Y:I�e.+iL •.s.R ,i:1{.': ,.Ll. •: .,C.�,',oC. ''v"`�•o •.�., •si!:{i:i •..,:nl '.�}. �:i:R;tJ:a9'.fc.� �rM"i a�`vif' .:J �:a,�..v.�i: �.�1�:�. 5'i , .y. ., f .. - .='ram?„•n. • . . :�:'� i:�`,",��t+1y;'i•�,:,,�t..::i:i`:�R:•i�{:.�`i'':�i"{:....�`' � fir}-""..'"::.�; ��.;r���:' .. WccmLem YCA - y • � • �`i.0 �3(tZl Lru���') llYicetnLcs,eoev+ co//l �w�r.'ti/ (l' ) /rJ CJMe- iGoJ( d�GK L0uh �.G1tC'Etf;y : Sacricl. �:as .l�N G•'e•w� \J & 6Jelutf,ftd d44- "D [YZ LV✓L4LL j hpc..y4l"aul� J ` n 7� �) J p �J / �/71,CG LLC).Z- a,,el /�;[C LL/3 LG �,L61•[`� Cj �/LGCa P.A( e Lv eus,C . -YGL ��Lea Ol-/Xlt,Y,/ 7IWVLlE4I� C - v/ . (CLIl�1!(iy , �/ �llLy3Llj•�CLe • y. ,Qh l(,'6•u(.r/ ��GGv� � /1'13e Zlcu,�" c2latee. • (uc� C`IL.Ltcl� �iuzc nc:3;�l,�dll, G/z 713•/A i {tilcLil` .it�2 C•(Gi-yL� [QL'Ythe/i(-wu//ltiv�' CwC.c( [I•/z<t�L .Ca .4�cV E • /1.Et+,e�y nn-eeZL� C�(e /f2cecC(�/ L�d��.R�Q�, a. e- OZO Mc-Y Cll/�•� SLLl7 (�V.{ � .s�..wL(,c,;l(' L�� {I'LE/.v S'r;Lr� ��/=i,`,, �`�P S•ILCG�L/ L`� �LiP L�G91LILL�L'1LLi Ob rJ.SLLLCu•Cq \"�. + ', [/LCGZt� J Y <�(,•Vyi L�Cci j ! CG2Lt-J 6Jt, ' .. •. ,�' • ... ,. . .. tt. •::i3:i't+t'rnu4,�i�',t�4wijk J\� � t �' `'/\ 4"Sss�k�tv`.{¢,y2:�;k/.^`r ��;r f :;t.. ��.�,.., n ... , - , � l;�" �,. � _ i • .• : i °�rf�FJ:�b':�n�nb,4'7:ir �/' WJ� G' _,L LR�/`�}"i"��� '' �%���, :..w�:v�i;r,:..„1.,rsr: �� � � /� �p , !Ncje N"%4' u^ t�DR%Ss u,U ENvCGc�•� • . • 'f ��n• ��;•' .:H��tii x;� ".J�. �: :,h'�• +fLi. •+1i _tt.:• ':.�Vn.FA" �.y%.�: ::W t:.� •a%•!_ :'e w,'.:,�. v.,y.Ji.J.: -�):A.. =«d' ,�f':•:�. jai: R2ii .{"r'� ..t��:.:." .�}n�`�' .. `'� • . ! • .. zil Ott, lJ . 'F�!\� rAi.'!'lKl ��iLV`r 'L0� "� `���tl L•!n-•G4'�C'L.(�t'��� i i• • ;.., ppR2 � S �� i.'1*i Wit.' :•r. J.Y,u `a bi„Ca:s•�i. .:•.:.;:• S: ,i}: .'f. :iti l'{Y3. ^,Y .. .• •s Mom,. iT .. chmP,s 3 3 • April 20e 1982 Planning Commission City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Planning Commissioners! This letter is to tell you of our support for the plans for the proposed Sanctuary for Ste Andrew's Presbyterian Church. We feel that it would be a definite asset to the community of Newport Beach. The church has been a good-neighbor in this same location for over twenty-five years and will be a factor in up-grading the area • for many years. The grounds) landscaping and up-keep are always done in the beat taste. An outstanding architectual firm is planning the church and the results will be nationally recognized, we feel sure. The firm was mentioned in the last issue of Time magazine for its outstanding work in the field of Church architecture. Ste Andrew's Church is trying to be an influence for good in the High School community across the street, to serve the community in many ways and to be an attractive addition to Newport Beach in every way, We desperately need more room to carry this mission forward. Sincerely yourrsi i Mr. and Mrs. k4 C. Stillinger 1906 Santiago Dr. Newport Beaohg CA 92660 1_ • / r. -. .V APR2 191�$? ;-- Hof CALtr. fiLHwAmeect W-3V 1724 Antigua Way • Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 April 19, 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Attentions Joan Winburn Dear Ms. Winburn, This letter is in regards to the Planning Commission's consideration of St. Andrew' s Presbyterian Church application for a building permit to construct a new church at the present location. It is requested that the Commission give favorable consideration to this matter in light of the following: 1 . The primariry purpose of any local church should be to administer to the needs of the community, not only from a religious viewpoint, but from a charitable and brotherly love basis. St. Andrews is certaily dedicated to that • purpose. 2. If the community is a growing community (which is certainly the case of Newport Beach) a serving church must grow in order to serve that growing need. 3. The members of St. Andrews are members of the community. They are a dynamic group, fully dedicated to serving the needs of the community. The current facility is entirely inadequate for the needs that now exists , or will exist in the future. 4. Finally, it is requested that the Planning Commission keep in proper perspective this entire matter. It should not be "we, the church$' vs. "they, the community" . The church is the community, a service arm of the community. Your favorable consideration in this matter will be a real service to Newport Beach and deeply appreciated. r.� Sincerely, • APR2 1982� =; Mr. & M nard Hall • 530 TUSTIN AVENUE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92663 (714) 548-7046 April 19, 1982 Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. '92663 Dear Sirs: We are members of St. Andrew' s Presbyterian Church and we wish it to be known that we are in support of the Building Plan. • Sincerely, Glen W. & Elizabeth N. Slater APR221982- t-, • LL. 3� CELIA SALTER TURNER • 1507 ANTIGUA WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 April 19, 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach 92663 Dear Commissioners : As residents of Newport Beach and members of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, we have been privileged to observe the growth of St. Andrews, not only in size, but in its commitment .to the community. Major commitments of the church include liaison with Hoag Hospital Presbyterian,tremendous work with the youth of the community, the ABC Helpline, just to name a few. If it is to carry on these important functions its growth is not only inevitable but essential. We would like to add voices of support to the proposed building plans. • Sincerely, I MMO 2"ttp Celia2Salter Turn L .ire .�--�-- Clarence :"Turner ��Y • ' - ,• i9\ APR2 219 I,i 4 �,, R Alice :,:. f Lv r 3 ¢05 Fernleaeaf o Corona del Mar, Ca, 92625 • April 199 1982 Helen McLaughlan, Chairperson City Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard ,Newport Brach, California 92663 Dear Ms. McLaughlin and Members of the Commission, As a resident and property owner since 1952, our Newport Beach community is very important to me, and I am always..concerned that its best interests be served. As a member of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, I support the building plans which will be placed before you at your meeting on Thursday evening, April 22, 1982. St. Andrew's is badly in need of newer and larger facil— ities, and I shall very much appreciate your. careful and thought— ful consideration in this matter. • Sincerely, . 1-P; Po�ic�M roy (Mrs. Leason F., Jr. ' `ti• .1 j ."J �� I �'c //GIs- 4 t���r..�._- /� ,.,,: y`'''",.•�<� i.�i;r{w:::p(-�ei;:^.:Ci4•.ti!:•�'Y�;nrl � � { l —T'��f'�j � �`_Q ���ry +'<b5'S�kIY+r�?�i�:�h,�..a+:.. p Q kv G/ 1 ,t +G.vZrsc-!.i •""_'. � CVV•�_ j � , ' . .�tS. :'ln ,• . b- _ ... ..•. ��'• ... �•!`.�•fa . ,y',:;. ..�p,CY . ..�-�~za.:y .. _.'l:.) :ems: .. ... .:w'_' -. ,;e(,..:e..:_• �'��� • • ,Q�-ac�►�en�-•� 3�I 1632 Lincoln Lane Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 April20, 1982 Mr. Allan Beek Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Mr. Beek; • I am a resident of Newport Beach and attend St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. I support fully the building plans that are before the Planning Commission and strongly urge your full backing of this important project. Yours very truly, E. Vernon Frost EVF/eb A-Flc�chmeyt Aqo 1632 Lincoln Lane Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 April20, 1982 / Mrs. Helen McLaughlan Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Mrs. McLaughlan: I reside in Newport Beach and attend St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. I am fully in favor of the • building plans presently before the Planning Com- mission and request your full support of this project. Yours very truly, Mrs. E. V. (Eileen) Frost EMF/ms • • April 21 , 1982 Planning Commission Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Commisioners: My husband and I have been members at St. Andrews Church for the past six years and are in favor of End 016h to support the build- ing program which is underway. Sincerely yours, • Patricia H. Ford • a s� �FFa��me� �42 Mrs Helen McLaughlan Planning Commission of Newport Beach Newport Beach , Ca . Dear Mrs McLaughlan ; We are residents of Newport Beach , and mem- bers of St Andrews Presbyterian Church . We are ask ing for your support of the new project for con- struction of a new sanctuary at St Andrews . Upon completion it will be an esthetic and architectural improvement to the community that residents will be proud of . Sincerely , Mr & Mr`s C . Pangburn • I I C.W.Panzbum 1219 19 Goldenrolde=o d Ave. ; Corm del Mee,CA 92925 j 03�.� APR i'•- �hll j! 1 1 , a s�- ^� �rf .j'ti'���1 —i.✓VCN�/V.._.�Y.:•'Z�r._�__.�__—_---._ .�V._�.__i...— ..__..._.....—.—.—�--�c4`•fSi'9);K'�vi'f• 1. .. • �_---•..��IG���/LUL• ---v/Lf'G�.�G2`Q^L-C:d_�-Url . ���C�flc�i'-C-!Z�� --.-__._ �. __(if/-C.�_ ..Cit�K( _ �-/2f .-c-�lLr r�rr�l. _�_.�C�•e-�-r�---_.._. ... .. • e,��,`„da:..Slif.lffJc%--:`�,•.•)fLa,...—._—__...—_ ._.—_.__.--_.___.—..— .�' �..._--_---_—•— �,Cf^iSifTl,�'Y^4,'�'�i��-','44:,-Y�w 6� AP R 2 21982�- ., _ - ------ - - - CAL: -----`< '/ `S !!JELL .---•-------- —•-------- - �'r,• ..'.;* _ f" ;J•n ... ..'xi:.` .,fY: .•'�ii j�:)`: ft ' H.J;�: '•'" F'✓':y. a�.1 [ 7;1:r...a a •.. :aR .�+:y: tv" n'••#>:K 1� 9c::1S'•akry+,a e.' , s,.t" �:.� ii� '��'Mi�:,IS�.;.,.n.d:.,. "�•: .oS:i•.7, � wN..,..�."es)>'y' � rnVf.. e. ,-•" . ..•tr:�":y._.. ':�: HT:",'• pi V' ._,C:;:'r..�t:';:? Tti;r:Y'w.:t;h n•.�•.a.a.,;'r?: ,{".v�li r7...or ,. )'I:. -7- ,. . , 'J•) 'i:' �ru:A 'r •: ✓cJ :,f•. r h: ..4�•�•-..�ti:%i.•rr r•:;=.i'r..��.d:•"�.;`.`.:::•.. ..,)� .. „_ .,r3;1 •:'�•: _.rs;,,C,.• .,�'i::��.�t,.:.,,;�q. ... ._yP ..riw::•,;c... . . . - f�•rn''t; ,.r. •.r. . . ATTACHMENT I - 8/9/82 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1982 Agenda Items No. 2, 3 & 4 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the. expansion of an existing church facility located in the R-1 and R-2 District. AND Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a new church sanctuary building in the R-1 and R-2 Districts which includes meeting rooms, a banquet room, classrooms, administrative offices and a kitchen facility. A -new education building is also proposed. The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the proposed sanctuary building and a building-mounted cross, to • exceed 35 feet in height; a request to waive a portion of the required on-site parking spaces for the proposed sanctuary; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND Resubdivision No. 723 (Public Hearing) Request to establish a single parcel of land for the expansion of an existing church facility, where 10 lots, a portion of one lot, and a proposed abandoned alley presently exist. LOCATION: Lots 31-35, Tract 1220; Lots 142-146, Tract 1218; a portion of Lot 171, Block 54, Irvine's Subdivision; and a 20 foot wide alley located at 600 St. Andrews Road, on property bounded by St. Andrews Road, Clay Street, and 15th Street, across from the Newport Harbor High School, in Cliff Haven. ZONE: R-1 and R-2 APPLICANT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant • I ENGINEER: Robert Bein William Frost and Associates Newport Beach a 574 TO: Planning Commission - 2. Application The St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach, has proposed several applications which would allow the construction of a new church sanctuary building which includes meeting rooms, a banquet room, classrooms, administrative offices and a kitchen facility. Additionally, a new education building is being proposed. The several requests being made in order to accomplish this are outlined below: 1) Acceptance of a Traffic Study prepared pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic Phasing Ordinance") and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Guidelines for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") , and the approval of the project based on the data contained therein for the ultimate purposes of issuances of building and grading permits. 2) Acceptance of an environmental document as having been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the "State CEQA Guidelines" and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions • on the project. 3) The approval of Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) to allow for the expansion of an existing church in a residentially zoned area, to exceed the maximum allowable church height of thirty-five (35) feet and to waive a portion of the required off-street parking. Use Permit procedures are outlined in Chapter 20.80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4) The approval of Resubdivision No. 723 to establish a single parcel of land where ten (10) lots, a portion of one (1) lot, and a proposed abandoned alley presently exist. Resubdivision procedures are outlined in Chapter 19.12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The project site is located between 15th Street, Clay Street, and St. Andrews Road in the Cliff Haven area. The site is located across the street from Newport Harbor High School. Adjacent land uses include: Newport Harbor High School to the north and northeast; Masonic Temple . and residential (primarily duplexes) to the west; and, single-family residential to the south and southeast. TO: Planning Commission - 3. • Project Description The existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church facilities are located between 15th Street, St. Andrews Road, and an alley. The proposed expansion area, between the alley and Clay Street, presently is occupied by 12 houses and duplexes. St. Andrews Church owns these homes and lots. Most of the homes have been owned by the• church for several years. The homes have been used by church employees or families being assisted by the church. The proposed project will result in removal of the 12 residences and some existing church buildings. New construction would include: a sanctuary/education/administration building, an education building, and two parking lots. Project statistics are shown on the following pages. A site plan, floor plans, elevations and a parcel map are attached. The new sanctuary/administration building will have seating for an • average of 1,100 persons, with maximum seating capacity for 1,400 persons. The average seating is based on a seatin4 area of 23.72 inches per person. Studies conducted by the church indicated that figure as the current seating utilization. The Building Code requirement is 18 inches per person, which would allow seating for 1,400 people. The sanctuary portion of the building will have a maximum height of 46 feet above ground level. The administration/classroom portion of the building will be contained in a tower with a height about 105 feet above ground level. One level of the building, about 13 feet tall, will be located below ground level. The youth rooms under the parking lot near 15th Street will also be located below ground level. The new education building will be similar in design to the existing education buildings. The new sanctuary will have a brick exterior painted an off-white/gray color to match the existing buildings. The roof will be tiled to simulate wood shake. The church anticipates an 18 to 20 month construction period that is expected to begin in the late spring of 1982. Building occupancy is anticipated in January 1984. • S� TO: Planning Commission - 4. • PROJECT STATISTICS (Square Feet) Deduct Demo- Add New (N) lition (D) or Construction Reassigned or Reassigned Percent Building Use Present Area (R) Use (R) Use Total Area Increase Worship 7,4741 8002 24,5533 32,377 235.0 Sanctuary Narthex 1,0504(R) Choir Chapel 2,2005 Fellowship 8,8506 8,8507 10,642 10,642 20.0 Music 1,0008 • 1,000(D) 3,160 3,160 216.0 Administration 5,590 1,500(0) 11,288 12,9389 131.0 2,440(R) �atlan 19,574 5,83010(D) 2115311 37,911t2 94.0 3:01413 Mechanical 3 miscellaneous --- -- 5,098 5,098 Total 44,688 17,980(D) 75,418(N) 102,126 128.5 3,490(R) 3,490(R) 'Becomes new chapel and adult classroom. 2Remove west transcept (wing). 31ncludes narthex (entrance hall) and balcony. 4East transcept to education. SBecomes adult classroom. 61ncludes fireside room and kitchen. 7Dlerenfield Nall. BPlus use of Dlerenfleld Nall as rehearsal room. 9Cholr director Included in music. Youth minister and education director Included In education areas. Includes expansion space In new bulding. 10Dlerenfield Hall. ' 'Sanctuary building, new youth building, east transcept, N.W. administration building. 12Plus multiple use of new wedding chapel. I3New education building. TO: Planning Commission - 5. Conformance with General Plan • The proposed project is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element designates the site as Low-Density Residential (between 15th Street, St. Andrews Road and the alley) and Two-Family Residential (between the alley and Clay Street) . Churches are a permitted use in residential areas. Environmental Significance in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the "State CEQA Guidelines", and City Policy K-3, an Initial Study was prepared on the project. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, the City's Environmental Affairs Committee determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration for the project was issued. . A copy of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration are attached. Zoning The project site is designated R-1 (between 15th Street, St. Andrews Road and the alley) and R-2 (between the alley and Clay Street) . These zoning designations are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. The proposed project is a permitted use in any residential district subject to the securing of a use permit. A summary of the zoning requirements, existing conditions (church only) • and the proposed project's conditions is presented in the comparison chart below: ZONING COMPARISON CHART Zoning Code Item Existing Proposed Requirements User type Religious institution, Religious Conditional R-2 residential institution use permit Height 36' existing 34' average - sanctuary new sanctuary 105' (plus 40' cross) 35' tower in admini- stration building Parking 0 onsite; use of 260 onsite, 280 at 18" street/alley park- 260 offsite in per seat (1 ing and school lot high school lot per 5 seats Setbacks in sanctuary) (1) Clay Street 20' 201+ 201 St. Andrews Rd. 4' 201+ 41 • 15th St. 4' 201+ 41 (1) The applicant's 'pp propose a minimum 20 setback for all new building construction. TO: Planning Commission - 6. • Staff Analysis TRAFFIC STUDY The applicant's have requested acceptance of a Traffic Study and approval of - the proposed project based on the data contained therein for the purposes of issuance of building and grading permits. The Traffic Study was prepared in conjunction with the Initial Study and is included therein as an appendix. The Traffic Study was prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic Phasing Ordinance") and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") . The City Traffic Engineer identified four intersections that could be impacted by the proposed project. The Traffic Study indicates that the increased project traffic would not exceed one percent of the existing, plus committed projects, plus regional growth traffic on any approach to the four intersections identified during the 2.5 peak period. The Planning Commission should therefore approve the Traffic Study with the findings indicated in the attached exhibits. • USE PERMIT NO. 822 (AMENDED) At its meeting of February 15, ' 1962, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Use Permit 822 to permit the expansion of the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church sanctuary (i.e. increasing the seating capacity of the sanctuary from 470 persons to 750 seats and other minor buildings additions) . No on-site parking spaces were required by the Planning Commission, but credit was given for 180 spaces on the property of the Newport Harbor High School to the north of the subject property across 15th Street. At the date of the granting of Use Permit No. 822, the on-site church facilities consisted of the sanctuary, a chapel, five classroom buildings, and a large fellowship-social hall. Building records on file in the Building Department also indicate that one of the classroom buildings was converted into a day care school in 1970. At its meeting of February 25, 1974, the City Council approved an amendment to Use Permit No. 822 to allow for the construction of a new church sanctuary and related church facilities; the conversion of the • existing sanctuary into multi-purpose rooms and offices; off-street parking spaces; and the acceptance of an environmental document. The amended Use Permit No. 822 was never implemented. 01 I TO: Planning Commission - 7. • The St. Andrews Presbyterian Church is now requesting an amendment to Use Permit No. 822 to permit the construction of a new church sanctuary building which includes meeting rooms, a banquet room, classrooms, administrative offices and a kitchen facility. A new education building and off-street parking are also proposed. The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the proposed sanctuary building and a building-mounted cross to exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height and a request to_ 'waive a portion of the required on-site, off-street parking for the proposed sanctuary. At a Study Session on January 21, 1982, the Planning Commission reviewed the conceptual design of the proposed project with the applicant. Based upon the discussion at the Study Session, meetings with the applicant, and discussions with other interested parties, it appears to staff that there are three (3) major issued related to the request: church membership/size, parking and structure height. Each of these are discussed on the following pages. Church Membership/Size The church presently has approximately 3,000 members. Three services and several youth school classes are offered on Sundays. Groups and • programs associated with the church include: fellowship groups, single adult groups, youth groups, several choirs, ministry classes, vacation bible school, and ABC Hotline. The church also offers pre- school classes on weekdays. At the present time, the usage of church facilities meets or exceeds capacity. The proposed new sanctuary/administration building will have seating for an average of 1,100 persons, with a maximum seating capacity of 1,400 persons. The average seating is based on a seating area of 23.72 inches per person. Studies conducted by the church indicate that figure as the current seating accommodation. The Building Code requirement is 18 inches per person, which would allow seating for 1,400 people. The major factors related to church membership/size are parking (discussed on subsequent pages) and the introduction of church facilities into the area between the alley and Clay Street. It is the opinion of staff that the expansion of church facilities into this area is a reasonable request. All proposed structures maintain a minimum twenty (20) foot setback from Clay Street and will be landscaped in an appropriate manner. If vehicular access to Clay Street were to be prohibited as suggested by the conditions of approval, and the property is developed in accordance with the • proposed plot plan, the use of this area for church facilities will be compatible with adjacent uses. TO: Planning Commission - 8. • Parking The applicant's have requested a waiver of a portion of the required on-site, off-street parking spaces for the proposed sanctuary. Presently there is no on-site, off-street parking for the existing sanctuary. Parking is now accomplished in the Newport Harbor High School parking lot, in the alley and along the public streets adjacent to the church and in the surrounding residential area. The applicant's proposes parking as indicated below: OFF-STREET PARKING ON-SITE NO. SPACES Clay St./St. Andrews Rd. corner Below-grade 77 At-grade 7,5 Future above-grade 80 Subtotal 232 Clay St./15th St. corner At-grade 44 • TOTAL ON-SITE 276 OFF-SITE Newport Harbor High School 265 TOTAL OFF-SITE 265 TOTAL OFF-STREET PARKING 541 Neither the R-1 nor the R-2 zoning district make a specific provision for church related off-street parking requirements. Section 20.30.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code though, provides that places of public assembly shall provide one parking space for each five seats. Based upon a Newport Beach Municipal Code seating capacity of 1,400, a total of 280 parking spaces are required to be provided on-site. The applicant's propose to construct at a future date, an above-grade addition to the off-street parking at the Clay Street/St. Andrews Road corner (80 spaces) . Therefore, for an interim period they would be short by 84 spaces of meeting the City requirements for on-site, off- street parking and ultimately be four (4) spaces short. The City • Traffic Engineer has also indicated that an undetermined number of spaces will be lost due to suggested conditions of approval related to site access. t TO: Planning Commission - 9, • The Newport Harbor High School parking lot presently has 265 spaces. These parking spaces have been available for church use and staff has presently no reason to believe that they will not continue to be available. As these spaces are available, it is the opinion of staff that the request to waive a portion of the required on-site, off- street parking spaces is warranted. In conjunction with the Initial Study (attached) an analysis of parking characteristics was accomplished. The analysis indicates that with or without the above-grade parking at the Clay Street/St. Andrews Road corner, on-street parking will be less than present levels for either peak or non-peak times. It is further the opinion of staff that even if all the parking demand were met on-site, that people would continue to park in either the Newport Harbor High School parking lot or on the public street. Staff has further suggested for Planning Commission consideration, that the construction of any above-grade parking at the Clay Street/ St. Andrews Road corner be phased with growth in church membership and be subject to all applicable requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Condition No. 35) . • Structure' Height Structures on the existing church site are one and two stories tall. The existing sanctuary is thirty-five feet tall. The applicant's have requested the construction of a portion of the proposed sanctuary building and a building-mounted cross which would exceed the height limit. Section 20.02.080 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that church structures used for church purposes are exempt from height limitations, except that any structure exceeding thirty-five feet in height shall require a use permit. The proposed project will have a total height of 105 feet to the top of the structure, and 145 feet to the top of the proposed cross. Elevations, sections and floor plans are attached and are included in the Initial Study which is attached. All of the proposed project, with the exception of the floors and square footage indicated below, will be less than 35 feet in height. Height Size in Sq. ft. Fourth Floor 36' 2,183 Fifth Floor 48' 1,817 Sixth Floor 60' 1,555 Mechanical 74' n/a • Top of Structure 105' _ Top of Cross 145' TO: Planning Commission - 10. • Section 20.02.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishes the below listed criteria for reviewing structures in excess of the basic height limit. While the proposed use (church) is exempt from meeting the criteria, staff has provided the Planning Commission with an analysis of the project related to the criteria to facilitate consideration of this project: 1) The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. 2) The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. • 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. It is the opinion of staff, that the proposed project meets the criteria specified under Item Nos. 1 and 4, in that without the use permit, the same amount of floor area could be contained in a lower structure covering a larger area of the site. If this were to be done, the design might result in less open space and landscaped areas and might also result in a less visually appealing development. All setbacks established by the zoning district are maintained by the proposed project. With respect to Item No. 2, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed design results in a more desirable architectural treatment of the church and provides a stronger and more visual character for the site than could have been accomplished within 35 feet. With respect to Item No. 3, it is the opinion of staff that the Planning Commission may find that the proposed structure will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing surrounding development. While no structures have space occupied at this height, the tower at Newport Harbor High School is 97 feet tall. The aesthetic and view impacts of the church tower will be comparable. The top of the tower will not be • within the normal line of sight from adjacent residences; however, it could be viewed from nearby areas if the viewer extended his line of sight upward. The visibility of the tower from a particular location will depend on distance, topography, landscaping at view location and meteorological conditions. Additionally, the proposed structure has been designed so as to locate its highest portion at the approximate center of the site. TO: Planning Commission - il. • Should the Planning Commission feel that they wish to not allow the area above thirty-five feet to be occupied (5,555 sq. ft.) , as the Newport Harbor High School tower is not occupied, then the below condition should be added to any project approval: "That no structure space above thirty-five feet from natural grade shall be used for any purpose other than mechanical equipment, vents, shafts and other uses which in the opinion of the Planning Department are of a similar nature." After a review and consideration of all information and public testimony, the Planning Commission desires to approve the amendment to the use permit, recommended findings and conditions are provided in Exhibit "A". If the Commission finds that in their opinion, approval of the use permit is not warranted, staff has provided Exhibit "B", • findings for denial of Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) . RESUBDIVISION NO. 723 The applicant's have requested the approval of Resubdivision No. 723 to establish a single parcel of land where ten (10) lots, a portion of one (1) lot, and a proposed abandoned alley presently exist. The total area of the parcel would be 3.94 acres. Resubdivision procedures are outlined in Section 19.12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The proposed map is consistent with all provisions of said section and the Newport Beach General Plan and zoning for the site. TO: Planning Commission - 12. • Recommended Action There are several actions to be taken on the proposed project. It is recommended that each action be considered in the order in which it is presented in the staff report and listed below. If the Planning Commission desires to approve the proposed project, or modify and approve the proposed project, the following actions should be taken: 1) Traffic Study: Approve the Traffic Study with the Findings indicated in Exhibit "A". 2) Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) : Approve or modify and approve the proposed project with the Findings and subject to the Conditions indicated in Exhibit "A", and any others the Planning Commission may deem appropriate. 3) Resubdivision No. 723: Approve the Resubdivision map with the Findings and subject to the Conditions indicated in Exhibit "A". If the Planning Commission desires to deny the proposed use permit, then actions 1 and 3 above, and 4 below should be taken: • 41 Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) : Deny the use permit with the Findings indicated in Exhibit "B". PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/pw attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" 1. Negative Declaration 2. Letter from Anthony & Joy Schuck dated April 2, 1982 3. Letter from Mrs. Edward W. Burke dated April 5, 1982 4. Letter from Marie W. Eggstaff dated March 28, 1982 5. Letter from Linda West dated March 29, 1982 6. Petition with 492 signatures (example) 7. Letter from Judie Carlson dated April 13, 1982 S. Letter from C.R. Carlson dated April 14, 1982 9. Letter from Cliff Haven Community Association dated • April 15, 10. Letter from C.. R R.. Carlson dated April 14, 1982 Initial Study Plot plans, floor plans, elevations, etc. �� EXHIBIT "A" • RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDY USE PERMIT NO. 822 (AMENDED) RESUBDIVISION NO. 723 APRIL 22, 1982 1) . TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS: I. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project generated traffic will be less than one percent of existing, plus committed, plus regional traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of a critical intersection. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project generated traffic will neither cause nor make • worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any "major", "primary-modified" or "primary" street. 2) . USE PERMIT •NO. 822 (AMENDED) FINDINGS: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. 3. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. • 4. The increased building height will result in more public visual open space than could be achieved by the basic height-limit. !4 TO: Planning Commission - 2. • Exhibit "A" Continued. S. The increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 6. The increase building height will -not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. 7. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. S. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 9. The Police' Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 10. That the establishment, maintenance• or operation • of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 11. The approval of Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. • 2. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. �� 15 TO: Planning Commission - 3. Exhibit "A" Continued • 3. The grading permit shall include, if required a description of haul routes access points to the site and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan if required shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region. 5. The velocity of- concentrated run-off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 6. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations • of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist based upon the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. This shall establish parameter of design for all proposed structures and also • provide recommendation for grading. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building, Department. 7. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading' or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 8. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan) . 9. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 10. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. • 11. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over-watering. 6 TO: Planning Commission - 4. Exhibit "A" Continued. • 12. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 13. The site's existing landscape plan shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program shall be modified to include the concerns of the conditions above to the maximum extend practicable. Any change(s) in said existing program as a result of this review shall be phased and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. 14. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated to be no greater than 55 Dba at the property line. 15. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said shall be attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a • qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Planning Department. 16. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 17. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 18. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 19. That all on-site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 20. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 21. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other • solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. 17 TO: Planning Commission - 5, Exhibit "A" Continued 22. All work on the site shall be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. Verification of said shall be provided to the Building and Planning Departments. 23. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 24. That prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide the Building Department and the Public Works Department with a letter from the Costa Mesa Sanitation District stating that sewer facilities will be available at the time of occupancy. 25. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. • 26. The applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. 27. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. Any parking lot lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department. 28. That no private school program for first grade and above shall be permitted on-site without a future amendment to this use permit and re-evaluation of • the Traffic Study. 29. A dust control program shall be implemented during • the construction period. .270 TO: Planning Commission - 6. Exhibit "A" Continued • 30. The angled driveways on St. Andrews Road and Clay Street shall be revised in accordance with a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. 31. The layout of the proposed parking structure shall be reviewed and revised in accordance with the requirements of the City Traffic Engineer. 32. The layout of surface and structure parking and circulation shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 33. That all applicable conditions of Resubdivision No. 723 shall be fulfilled. 34. That an off-street pick-up/drop-off area shall be provided onsite. • 35. That the above-grade level parking spaces (80 spaces) shall be phased with growth in membership/ usage in a manner approved by the City. 36. That handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a manner approved by the City. 37. That the intersection of the private drives and public streets be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 38. That all development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plans, floor plans and elevations. • 39. That there shall be no vehicular access to the site from Clay Street. � ' iq TO: Planning Commission - 7. Exhibit "A" Continued • 3) . RESUBDIVISION NO. 723 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that, their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 4. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates • sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That all unused drive depressions be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. 4. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record the parcel map or obtain a • building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. ao TO: Planning Commission - 8. Exhibit "A" Continued • S. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on-site improvements prior to recording of the parcel map. 6. That the on-site storm drain system connect to the 15th Street storm drain. 7. That the existing 8 inch sewer main from Snug Harbor, running thru the development, be re-routed down Clay Street and connected to the 15th Street sewer. 8. That the existing 8 inch sewer main from Pirate Road, running thru the development be re-routed down Clay Street to the St. Andrews Street sewer. 9. And that all of the above improvements be designed by a registered engineer using City standards. All modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. That the existing sewer easements located between • lots 143 and 144 of Tract 1212 and between lots 33 and 34 of Tract 1220 be abandoned. 11. That a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed along the Clay Street and 15th Street frontages, with access ramps at the intersections of Clay Street and 15th Street, St. Andrews Road and 15th Street, and Clay Street and St. Andrews Road. 12. That the existing 20-foot alley located between St. Andrews Road and 15th Street be vacated prior to issuance of any building permits and that the existing alley approaches be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. That the existing sewer and water mains located in the alley be abandoned in a method satisfactory to the Public Works Department and the Utilities Department unless utilized as private services. 13. That all unused driveway depressions be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk and deteriorated curb and gutter be reconstructed along the Clay Street, 15th Street and St. Andrews Road frontages. • 14. That street lights be installed with spacing to be approved by the Public Works Department on 15th Street, St. Andrews Road and Clay Street. +i �� Y • EXHIBIT " O F RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OR DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 822 (AMENDED) USE PERMIT NO. 822 (AMENDED) FINDINGS: 1. That not withstanding any previous approval of Use Permit No. 822, the expansion of the church between the alley and Clay Street is not desirable. 2. That in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach, the visual character of the subject property and surrounding residential area would be altered so as to have a less desirable and appealing nature. 3. That not withstanding any previous approval of Use Permit No. . 822, the expansion of the church without all required off-site parking is not • reasonable. 4. That the increased building height, in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach, does not result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building. 5. That occupying portions of the proposed project above the average height of the existing on-site sanctuary is not in keeping with the primary land use of the neighborhood. 6. That the occupied portions of the proposed project above the average height of the existing on-site sanctuary could be relocated on-site through the re-design of the proposed project. 7. That the proposal to occupy portions of the project above the average height of the existing sanctuary increases the bulk of the vertical dimensions of the structure. • a1 NEGATIVE DECLARATION T : Secretary for Resources FROM: City' Planning gof NDepartment rt Beach Sacramento, Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 d Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana. CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Master Plan of Facilities - St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Located between 15th Street, Clay Street and St. Andrews Road in PROJECT LOCATION: the Cliff Haven area -of Newport Beach. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study. DING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the.proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not .have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached Initial • Study. INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA E RECEIVED FOR FILING: Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator h Date: April 12, 1982 d ��u I\r[•M� N9.y ANTHONY G. and JOY D. SCHUCK 333 Snug Harbor Rd. <: Newport Beach, California 92663 (t' APR6 1982�- �u A ril 2 1982 i:; 0" r P . Ir \ �i�,fl";'- ';.'1.H Ire Newport Beach Planning Commission x Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. " Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention of Mrs. Helen McLaughlin, Chairman We have made Cliff Haven our home for twenty-four years. We bought our house on Snug Harbor Road because we liked the character of a small , quiet , family-oriented neighborhood with good schools and a warm, intimate community church. Now, we feel we are in jeopardy because of the overpower- ing plans of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. So , we are joining with our neighbors in voicing our protest . Over the years , we have witnessed the ever increasing en- croahment of St . Andrew ' s burgeoning membership on to our residential streets . The church has definitely outgrown its site and location. We are appalled that conditions can only worsen if the capacity of the church is doubled. It is no longer a community church. A short while back, it was Wo ted the fifth largest Presbyterian church in the United ates . It may still be ; in any case , it is still in the p ten and draws from areas far outside of the communities of Cliff Haven, Newport Heights and the immediate environs. Upon inquiry by telephone , we were told by a spokesman for the church that the adult membership as of February, 1982 is 2, 965 exclusive of children under the age of si;cteen. He also stated the "on site" parking would .accommodate 200 cars. To extrapolate future traffic and congestion con- ditions , consider 2, 965 members , seating for 1 , 400, 200 parking spaces , 2 driveway entrances , and all the streets surrounding the church, with the exception a strip of frontage on 15th Street , are residential. This condition is not necessarily a result of Sunday serv- ices . For example , at the time of St . Andrews annual rummage sale in May, the streets are parked solid for several blocks around . Last June 22, 1982, 500 women attended a "Seminar for Women" . When I walked from my house to the church, I observed that several driveways were blocked, including my own. (The Harbor High School parking lot was not available on those days) . Regarding the esthetics of the proposed architecture, we sha our neighbors ' feelings that the 105 foot tower wou �damage the character of our area. The enormous white doe soaring to the height of a six or seven story ilding is far from compatible with any other structures in the area. The concept indicates it as an overpowering visual block to the short streets that end at Clay Street . 2 Newport Beach Planning Commission April 2, 1982 Attention of Mrs. Helen McLaughlin, Chairman • A spokesman at the Newport Beach Building Department said that the great height of the tower is primarily for identifi- cation. He quoted the architect 'as saying, "The church doesn ' t want to be called 'the church across from the school ' . " This leads us to surmise there may be an element of ostentatious aggrandizement in the expansion plans. We want you to know that we once cherished the church as a warm and intimate friend of the neighborhood. If this plan is permitted to develop, we can only regard St . Andrews Church as a monstrous blight . We urge your commission to give serious consideration to the feelings of the residents who would be forced to live with it . Very truly yours , (' S A. G chi k r6y D. Schuck • • AYrAv ++iuC 1J� 5- Mu. Edward W. Bwche 401 Snug Nanbon Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Monday, 4/5/82 Selen McLaughlin, Chairman Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, CA Dear Ms McLaughlin, I am quite concerned about the new buildings and remodeling of old ones that the St. Andrews church is planning. It will add a great deal of traffic and noise to this neighborhood----that's bad: : We are quiet people. It will change the community atmosphere due to the high-rise structure they are planning. If the design could be held to the legal 35 feet, and elminate the proposed parking garage, that would be of great help. We want Cliff Haven to remain a Haven! r of Sincerely, Ev-t.,iment APR7 1982►' 11 ` CiT1+CF kF.%IJP r aFACH, CAUF. �v • �-y- .iL��CJ-� �JL/U--LC / .�� `2/�YL� -71c:,� /C%77 cz y' cL IL p J ? x,'Lv✓1 G� Ln L ' ?� � �LLr Y%i.a Y'L b �.�r .� qL G�CAZ GI�..0 eL L,Lw tJ ��V"✓2C .� `/,�r.�y2Gy �y!')tx.. 7�[.k• l7L/G• i.a`�_� wC' �/�L� _/�.-C'J!•-r7 cL -'C. , r-f a.'1 Lc:� �IL LLI lid � 64T J f :r L 7 MgR2 cc 8c d / 5 March 29 , 1982 Mr. Jerry King Planning Commissioner City Hall Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. King: As has probably already been brought to your attention, the Newport Heights' residents have been stunned by the proposal of St. Andrews Church. The lack of' .consideration for our community is equally shocking to us. • The plans to make St. Andrews so large takes it out of the calss of a community church. Its size and scope certainly do not belong in so small a community as ours, especially. with no major access roads, not to mention the parking and traffic congestion. To so totally overbuild the site with a 105' office building t atop the sanctuary shows total disregard for our community. If this is allowed, it makes one wonder who else can get ' away with a similar project in the midst of a residential community. Sincerely, Linda West �-- LW:ckPR F C-: 1.i, r MAR311982A r O'� Q OCClnchiTKNI �""' �' i OH-NH PETITION TO RETAIN THE PRESENT USAGE AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS OF THE SAINT ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PARCEL We the undersigned, being property owners and/or residents of the areas of Newport Beach known as Cliff Haven and Newport Heights and having been informed of the expansion plans of St. Andrews Presbyterian city of Newport Beach as follows: Church,do hereby petition the _____..._ . _—.--•_---•- - That any further development of the church property be done in strict compliance to the thirty five foot height limitation as provided in ordinance number 1454 of the City of Newport Beach. Further, that any such development be required to provide adequate on site parking at grade level or, sub-grade leve�pnly. / - ! DATE NAME i� ADDRESS ; i t. . 2. f . _ct L �3 4. 5. i f` 6. 6 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12, 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. • 18. 19. 20. VkTCfK�MrNT ?Jo ��,o��i� i9�z � � ����> �. ,� �� -� � ti � �� � - �� � y���� .,e�a���, > �C ,Gat �-�-�// �� � �. a�-z -30 o _ Cu • 3 i GYYat LJM.�✓4 v],eK Q.4 6LI� J�. /l�H,•�z�✓r Uwu�,l, a:,��c«,,-c,., wr.7��i `�- � -",y�y/ cu d� u.1a4J Q ,,t cQa u ns h2c b/ AlYI4.,L,..Q v cc—j / n41Q ow�L� r. �rrn.v�0 A-o.�.i[ w:!✓ �r+afie out RGLGa-.� Lte- O Wl Lt.YiCeI„n;/ •{� lC r� 7'v� r � o�g 2 Goli f f Ilaven G9ommmunity .{-association P. O. Box 1332, Newport Beach, California 92663 April 15, 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Gentlemen: At a meeting of the Board of Directors of The Cliff Haven Community Association on April 7, 1982, the following resolution was adopted by the Board of Directors: Be it resolved that The Cliff Haven Community Association, representing the homeowners of the Cliff Haven area, oppose the proposed expansion plans of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. Our opposition centers on the following major areas: i 1 . The height of the proposed structure would have a negative effect on the existing skyline and the mass of the structure is not consistent within this residential community; • 11 . The proposed structure is essentially an office building which the developers are attempting to disguise as a church steeple and is inconsistent with the legal zoning requirements of this community; 111 . The increase in the capacity of members that this structure would allow would create excessive traffic flow through an area that has long experienced a traffic flow problem to and from Pacific Coast Highway. Over the years, this Association has spent considerable time and effort to decrease this traffic flow and allowing a structure of this type would undo many of these constructive efforts. Based on the foregoing, The Cliff Haven Community Association requests that the Newport Beach Planning Commission categorically deny the issuance of the requested permit. Sincerely yours, Peter J. endron President PJG:bh 1$ NO J -.a- LL ' rLCLM.�dC 6�Y O °Z "�- '/�Zs✓ir^�`!/Grf/�/ (/A/'�.%' �,�w� •�/J't-�'wtiwny, �✓.Q. rtt.�/ �,.A� • �w�lc 'off 1�*Q c Cc JrM J Yi�t� C�v.,.1.� s " W �.1 in Tvr •��u,E_a,.�. 1 r`e ,p�'�ke:,� j c..�Jl"� a... o,.�tt• r.� �.v��r �Ua.�� � � •�i,.•!Ge!' owt ,,duef ..�,7i` �: f�,....J2a� Ftiee,.✓.� . // QA MGtY /a lr (� civ K 'fd BfGt , ��(.tw,ae e.�-c�� u.a b /Ce./ _ ^�l•L ,� dh,.,2„� ,,,�/lN.,;..,�L.n,� Aj A�o w4 0-7 �LOw • ST. ANDREW�; PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH WO ST. ANDREVA ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CALFORNN CONBIIt.TNQ ARCHITECT ARCMICT C. EDWARD WARE ASSOCIATES INC. IRWN i ASSOCIATES All 415 Y BOULEVARD 16400 PACIFIC COAST HWY. ROCKFORD, LLN05 61107 HLNTNGTON BEACH, CA 92649 PF"CT DATA EXIBTM PROPOSED 1. USER TYPE R 2 R 2 p�Mp 1IY1��AL USE PERMIT, (RESIDENTIAL) (RELIGIOUS NSTTTUTIOW YYARDSTIDN OF REQUIRED 2. BMDNO AREA 44,688 102,126 3. NO OF PARKNO 0 ON-SITE 196 ON-SITE 2855AAT, 18g'�PER g SEAT BPRCE$ L�OF STR HIGEET/ALLEY/AFL 2655 HIGH SCHOOL LOT SANCTUARIO SEAT 4. BUE.DNQ HEIDHT 3WAAAgXISTNG SANCTUARY) RY 35'- ALLOWABLE 105 MAXF" - ADMM57RATION BUILDING S. NO.OF S�T$/ 544 1426 AT 18' PER SEAT OC A $ (SANCTUARY) 1160 AT 22' PER SEAT (SANCTUARY) �cps _ a s • ww '�jr • � ' � � J • v n ♦{�� .-,'i..�.a�.Wit,. a .u.�.,�,. CHOIR . .� 1111. CTUARY l,lr „1„1,Ih : , lltrtl1�13tonf:. � • . R i 12 H.C. Spaces e � TODDLERS 1p NARTnEX CRIBS FIRSI FLOOR PLAN umary of AreasIIHi,lli �1111�1,.� .0 SF • 113'-0' ALL 01• � ktp CLRM (42) \2.5',4 CLRM (42 x 27, y =' INTERNS 22' x 27' CLRM (40) o ROOM A (150) 11 ' x 2 25' x 24' o 34' x 4$' � CLRM (50) fi+ OFFI 26` x 27' _ 16' 1 z OFFI CEI� _ 12' x/11 „u o KI C N w 28 x x 38 .�. LA--; c - o 16 0 „y BA'r QUET SEA IN 440 a ROOM B (150) 0„ ''" " 55 tables of 8 34' x 48' �^ FELLOWSHIP ALL - ORGANIST 9' x 12' ,sf, ,O OBEY, y0 \. 1800 S.F. 41-0' MUSIC DIR. 2' -6' 3 -6 17' x 12' 40' -0" ASS'T. DI 10' x 12' LOWER LEVEL PLAN CHOIR REHEARSAL ROOM Summary of Areas 24' x 52' Fellowship & Lobby 10,642 SF (100) �S Education 5,544 d Music 3,160 ° Mechanical & Misc. _5,098 f'TAI 74,444 SF • 173'- ERALL • 'o uwo � s ' CLRM (30) l 22' x 18' �O w a x M CLRM (35) 19' x 22' BALCONY 338 N W1 �13 0 1811 f20 M (35) x 22' LRM (35) 19' x 22' CLRM (35) 19' x 22' � ' o Y o¢ SECOND FLOOR PLAN EDUCATION DIR. 14' x 14' Stonmary of Areas o ASS'T. DIR. - Worship (Balcony & Bridges) 6,155 SF ABC HELPLINE 12' x 14' Education 3,682 CO 12' x 14' Adi, in. & Circulati6n 1 ,594 MEETING ROOM/CHAPD , 7U' x29' 1 OBBY 14LCONY 15' x 12' \' 7' 22' EMT .. -. BALC Y 40-6" � 1 x ' a 4 • SIXTH FLOOR PLAN T Total Area: 1 ,555 SF ® qq �d SECRETARIES (3 ,� Zr 14' x 25' BALC RECEPTI M0 14' x 22' 25' x 12' i SENIOR PASTOR,- - 22' x 29' ° 31 '-O" • FIFTH FLOOR PLAN °4 ASS'T. MIN. Total Area: 1 ,817 SF ® + tr RECEPTION °� 7q, 15' x 12' ° ° _6 73 >G SECRETARIES (3) OFFICE - 14' x 30' \ °`� 12' x 13'-61, • FOURTH fFLQQR PLAN BUS• ADMI Total Area: 2, 8fi3 SF °� 12' x 13' J ° BOOKKEEPER W ° 12' x 13'-6" RECEPTION 13 ° ASS'T. MIN. 12' x 17' 12' x 13'-6" �d OFFICE - CONFERENCE -(10) 12' x 13'-6" 12' x 13'-6" s •THIRD FLOOR PLAN Tn+al area: 7,416 SF P Y-AXIS • ,�,ae o f V ' � • Ir I IF 1 I MECIIANI L MI RM ICHAPE SEN10R PAST R \ 1 \ y ADMINIS RATJVE OFF' CE X-AXIS HEIGHT LIMIT ADMINIS RAT VE OFF CE I� CLASSRO OFFIC S f.RADE 1 BOOKSTORE hLASSR cv ;c: If"'ate • CLASSRO , "FELLOM•HIP HA L I • I 136' -411 1911 18'-01, 9'-01, • _ Min. Min. IONGITUDINAL SECTION THRU ADMIN.• SLOG. �s i i ! o.d.� 61 J co 5 X OFF7 ES — r HEIGHT Z OFFI ES Ln 2_ Ls OFFICES wd .,. o I _T Z CD _ X _ .Kd I GRADE I BOOKSTO ' NARTHEX SANCTUARY �• N M M c PRINT ROOM ,LOBBY FELL HIP HALL MIN. TRANSVERSE SECTION 27'-0" M!"�- Top of Cross, - t `s a +..+tea - t- x 6+r, w — 4 M1 M1'91f61lU _—.—_ — -- - --- - - - HEIGHT LIMIT 06- z , � �I�s �EEEEEUEHUDDUBBBB BBa o �o GRADE va 'vE i � N _- WEST ELEVATION 5-' �TM6 m X DDDDDDDDDDD per - r - - - — — — DDDDDDDUDDDDsI 3 � „ DDDDDDDDDDDI�II 2wou GRADE i � f NORTH ELEVATION . i Ilex. Bldg Ht. - � FM 4 ... 5 .o. _q3 CA 0 0 -o= r X r r 2 r I r GRADE gll 1 1 - --L-. ---' ' IyAF- 'Ym� ------`-----------L-- '---- ----------'-----^-----------------------�'--ad EAST ELEVATION 9'S 6 Top of Cross -- -- - - - _ — H 6HT LIMIT 3 � 0 0 - � GRADEPN N Q a Y i ------------ M v r SOUTH ELEVATION cA. Ib rN � - - 10 , aim jr 28' x 29' x 21(30) (30) � ...... J15' x 20'1 _ 1 ti 8 „ ��w s► _ 120' x.20CV . i QUAD ONE 8 .o.. " �„ Playground = 1 ' x 20 } 0 r57 ' rn COV9®VWI�^ ® e .. 5' x 20' , . - F(30) o ® 4. 29' x 19' ® -n-' 9' 0 32' x 19' r (35 - -- ------------------ - 3 QUAD ONE PLAN .� 7 SUMMARY OF AREAS - - _ — - - . Building 3 2,380 SF . Building 4 1 ,900 SF Building 10(new) 3,014 SF S -- S + gz� a TyTy. r ��r Y,t• a .}ql- Tf' . T, t aV: T s l r F , Ei ' r r! c+� y _: J ~�M's'� � K'Y w���}`t,tK Ky`•.. �� y�a� y, .. _ xj ,+3y,c �� •!'„�'�.� t yr.\i�: a 1 .P L Y,�� � Y' 1=! ir.r .Yra 1i •V' t � _. s •man. � t 4 Y: L 7 ..-x �5� \.. iYY.V Y �iYs+.�� F�_ ♦W M�+���'} ry}Y I ♦ �' {/yam ! �� I—, � � ".14 � � /.fc' �� '}.�y '� t p■ I, }�9 1111 �K ■K'yyyy Fy p■�„I/� �� �4'J:1� 1 „� 1 f �� �I e"F� .1 s s + t �' '•��� � �I�.AS �� ��b �'f�+ S'l,11/�I n �A ��Y � Y X �� �.e�..}�yF.,i, y,� p Y ,� `L�y � +�y��L.. s r s-. t �.h.• � - _. 'A..