Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS031_ST. ANDREWS PRESBY. CHURCH 3 OF 3 I INIIIII IIII III IIIII II�III IIIII IIII� IIII III IIII ,soa, • Y REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CHURCH DEVELOPMENT ' ST. ANDREWS ROAD BETWEEN 15TH AND CLAY STREETS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA FOR THE ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH • (OUR JOB NO. ADE-82082) r,�VL i. �+ 1'S it '�gg2 10 c;; �,\, c� Et i• pR r, tY MR III • ' LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES consulting geotechnical engineers, 711 n. alvarado st., los angeles, ca. 90026, (213) 413-3550 MINOR April 26, 1982 Irwin & Associates 16400 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 205 Huntington Beach, California 92649 (Our Job No. ADE-82082) Attention: Mr. Robert R. Stowell Gentlemen: Our "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Church Development, St. Andrews Road between 15th and Clay Streets, Newport Beach, California, for the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church" is herewith submitted. The scope of the investigation was planned in collaboration with Mr. Robert Stowell. We were advised of the structural features of the proposed buildings by Bole & Wilson, Structural Engineers, and the results of our investigation and preliminary recommendations were discussed with them. With respect to geologic and seismic hazards, .'the site is con- sidered as safe as any within the general area. Based on the geologic findings, no faults are known to exist within the site; accordingly, the possibility of surface rupture of the site due to faulting is remote. Although the site could be subject to violent ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake, this hazard is common to Southern Cali- fornia and the effects of the shaking can be minimized by ,proper struc- tural design and proper construction. ' The natural soils beneath the site consist of clay, silt, and sand; shale was encountered in two of the borings at depths of 40 and 41 feet below the existing grade. The natural soils are firm and dense, 1 and the proposed sanctuary/education/administration building may be supported on spread footings established in the firm and dense natural soils at the planned basement level. If the grading recommendations are followed, the proposed education building may be supported on spread Irwin & Associates April 26', 1982 Page 2 (Our Job No. ADE-82082) footings established in either properly compacted fill or the underlying natural soils. The upper clay soils are 'expansive, and a layer of relatively non-expansive and predominantly granular soils is recommended beneath concrete slabs on grade. ' Recommendations for the design of foundations and walls below grade, for excavating, for floor slab support, and for design of asphal- tic paving are presented in the report. The results of our ground motion studies for dynamic analyses are also presented. Respectfully submitted, LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSSSOOCCj�IIATES by ?James L. Van Beveren, R.C.E. 17785 Project Engineer by a�� 6J06d0? ' Glenn A. Brown, C.E.G. 3 Direpta. of Geological Services by J. D. i kgard, .C.E. 10441 Executive Vice President JK-'VB-GB/pa (5 copies submitted) ' cc: (1) Bole & Wilson M 1 ' 1 1 1 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION iPROPOSED CHURCH DEVELOPMENT ST. ANDREWS ROAD BETWEEN 1 15TH AND CLAY STREETS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA FOR THE ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (OUR -JOB NO. ADE-82082) I� i M ■. N ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Text Page No. 1 Scope ------------=--------------------------------- 1 Structural Considerations -------------------------- 2 ' Site Conditions ------------------------------------ 3 SoilConditions ------------------------------------ 3 ' Geology ---'---------------------------------------- 4 General ----------------------------------------- 4 Geologic Materials ------------------------------ 4 Ground Slater ------------------------------------ 5 Geologic Hazards ----__-�-=_____'_�==_=�=__=__= 5 Fault Conditions - 6 Seismicity ------------------------------------ 7 ' Ground Failure ------------------------------- 7 Subsidence --------------------------------- 7 Landsliding - 7 Flooding, Tsunamis and Seiches --------------- 8 Recommendations ------------------------------------ 8 Foundations -------=------------------------------ B ' General ----------------------------- B Bearing Value - Firm Natural Soils ----------- 8 Bearing Value - Compacted Fill or Natural Soils 9 Settlement ---------------•-------------------- 10 Lateral Loads -------------------------------- 10 Ultimate Values ----=------------------------- 10 Footing Observation -------------------------- 11 Dynamic Characteristics ------------------------- 71 Response Spectra ----------------------------- 11 Characteristic Site Period ------------------ 12 Excavation and Slopes --------------------------- 14 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ' Text Page No. Recommendations (continued) Walls Below Grade ------------------------------- 14 Grading ----------------------------------------- 15 ' Clearing and Site Preparation ---------------- 15 Excavation ----------------------------------- 17 ' Moisture Conditioning ---------------- - 17 Subgrade Preparation ------------------------ 17 ' Compaction ----------------------------------- is Material for Fill ---------------------------- 18 Grading Observation__________________________ 19 Floor Slab Support - 19 Paving ------------------------------------------ 20 Plates - Plate Nos. PlotPlan -------------=---------------------------- 1 ' Regional Geology ---------------=------------------- 2 Local Geology -------------------------------------- 3 ' Regional Seismicity_______________________________ 4 Response Spectra -- 5-A through 5-C ' TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Appendix A - Explorations and Laboratory Tests ' Text Page No. Exploration ---------------------------------------- A-1 's Laboratory Tests ------------------------------------ A-2 ' Plates Plate No. Log of Boring --------------------------------------- A-1.1 through A-1.6 ' Unified Soil Classification-System_________________ A-2 Direct Shear Test Data - A-3 Consolidation Test Data ----------------------------- A-4.1 and A-4.2 ' Expansion Index Text Data -----------------=---------- A-5 Sulfate Content Test Data -_=______���=__^=__^___=== A-6 , Stabilometer Test Results - A-7 ' Appendix B - Geologic and Seismic Data Text Page No. General --------------------------- -------------- B-1 ' Faults ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- B-1 Ground Shaking -- B-7 References ------------------------------------------ B-g Tables ' B-1. Criteria for Classification of Faults with Regard to Seismic Activity - B-2 ' B-2. Major Named Faults Considered to be Active in Southern California ---------- -- B-3 B-3. Major Named Faults Considered to be Potentially Active in Southern California ------------ -- B-4 B-4. Magnitude and Duration of Strong Shaking -- B-7 e • ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' (Continued) ' Appendix C Downhole Seismic Survey, Seismicity, and Ground Motion Studies Text Page No. ' Downhole Seismic Survey ----------------------------- C-1 Seismicity C-1 ' Ground Motion Studies --------------------------�--- C-2 General -- C-2 ' Postulated Design Earthquakes -------------------- C-3 Estimated Peak Ground Motion Values ------------- C-5 Response Spectra --------------------------------- C-6 References ------------------------------------------ C-S ' Tables ' C-1. Computer Printout of Earthquakes--------------- Following Appendix C C-2. Postulated Design Earthquakes - C-5 ' Plates Plate No. Downhole Seismic Survey ----------------------------- C-1 Recurrence Curve ------------------------------------ C-2 ' Estimated Probability of Earthquake Occurrence ------ C-3 ADE-82082 Page 1 SCOPE ' This report presents the results of our geotechnical investi— gation performed to provide design criteria for the subject proposed ' development. The locations of the proposed buildings and the locations of our. exploration borings are shown on Plate 1, Plot Plan. ' This investigation was authorized, to determine the static physical characteristics of the soils at selected locations and to ' provide recommendations for earthwork procedures•, for foundation and subterranean wall design, for floor slab support, and for surface paving requirements. In addition, a fault hazard and seismicity evaluation of ' the site was to be performed. Also, the dynamic characteristics of the site were to be evaluated to develop response spectra for use in seismic structural analyses of the proposed development. Our investigation ' included a review of published and unpublished soil and geologic data with regard to the identification and delineation of any hazardous ' features that may be present on the property or in the vicinity. The recommendations contained herein are based on the results of ' our field explorations and laboratory tests, the engineering analyses based thereon, and on the geologic and ground motion studies. The results of the field explorations and laboratory tests are presented in Appendix A of this report. The geologic and seismic reference data are presented in Appendix B. The ground motion studies are presented in ' Appendix C. Our professional services have been performed using that degree Of' care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by ADE-82082 Page 2 N reputable geotechnical engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as ' to the professional advice included in this report. This report has ' been prepared for the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church and their design consultants to be used solely in the design of the proposed development. ' The report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or other ' uses. STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS ' The proposed development will consist of a two- to six-story ' sanctuary/education/administration building, a one-story education building, and two surface parking areas. The proposed sanctuary/ education/administration building will be underlain by one level of subterranean construction which will extend beyond the building in plan. A basement is not planned beneath the education building. The buildings are shown in plan on Plate 1. . The proposed sanctuary/education/administration building will be ' of steel frame construction with reinforced concrete walls below grade. Maximum column loads will be on the order of 500 kips. Within the portion of the basement which extends beyond the main building, column ' loads will be on the order of 120 kips and wall loads will be about 7 kips per lineal foot. ' The proposed education building will be of wood frame construc- tion. Maximum column loads will be on the order of 20 kips, and maximum wall loads will be on the order of lk kips per lineal foot. ADE-82082 Page 3 I The subterranean level beneath the sanctuary/education/adminis- tration building will be established at Elevation 65, which will require ' excavation approximately 15 feet deep. The ground floor of the educa- tion building will be established at approximately Elevation 80, which is about the existing grade. ' SITE CONDITIONS Part of the site is occupied by existing church facilities, and ' part is occupied by existing residences; there are appurtenant paved and ' planted areas. Some of the buildings may contain basements. Although not observed, there may be existing cesspools on the site. The removal ' of the existing foundations and underground utilities will result in disturbance of the upper soils. SOIL CONDITIONS Evidence of existing fill (debris, etc.) was not encountered in the exploration borings. Existing fill could occur between boring ' locations due to prior construction. The natural soils beneath the site consist of clay, silt, and ' sand. Shale was encountered in two of the borings at depths of 40 and 41 feet below the existing grade. The natural overburden soils are firm and dense; the underlying shale is very firm. The clay soils are expansive and would swell and shrink with changes in moisture content. Water was encountered above the shale in two of the borings at ' depths of 35 and 373� feet below the existing grade. Tests to determine the soluble sulfate content of the ,soi]s were performed. The test-results indicate that the soils do not contain tADE-82082 Page 4 O ' significant amounts of sulfate to be harmful to normal portland cement concrete. The test results are presented in Appendix A. ' GEOLOGY ' GENERAL . The site is situated on Newport Mesa, about 1'h miles from the ' Pacific Ocean and 1/2 mile west of Newport Bay at an elevation of about 80 feet above sea level (USGS datum) . Newport Mesa is one of several ' physiographic features that comprise the Orange County Coastal Plain. The hills and mesas of the Newport Area are separated from each other by gaps which were incised into the late Pleistocene land surface. Two ' such features are Santa Ana gap which is occupied by the Santa Ana River northwest of Newport Mesa and Upper Newport Bay which separates Newport Mesa from the San Joaquin Hills to the east. The site is located about ' one-half mile southeast of the West Newport Oil Field. The site is near the southern end of the Los Angeles Basin, a structural depression which ' contains a great thickness of sedimentary rocks. The site is shown in relation to regional geologic features on ' Plate 2, Regional Geology. The relationship of the subject property to local geologic features is shown on Plate 3, Local Geology. The site is shown in relation to major fault zones on Plate 4, Regional Seismicity. ' GEOLOGIC MATERIALS The site is underlain by marine terrace materials composed of ' interbedded clay, silt, and sand. These materials are typical of the poorly indurated materials that blanket the mesas of the Orange County ADE-82082 Page 5 Coastal Plain. The terrace deposits are about 40 feet thick beneath the site, and are underlain by shale of the Miocene Age Monterey Formation. Monterey Formation rocks are exposed in the bluffs at the south ' and west edges of Newport Mesa. The Monterey Formation, together with other underlying Tertiary age sedimentary rocks, are estimated to be ' about 14,000 feet thick beneath Newport Mesa and are underlain by igne- ous and metamorphic basement complex rocks. GROUND WATER ' The site is located outside the main ground water basin of the Orange County Coastal Plain. Small amounts of perched water are present ' locally within the terrace deposits capping Newport Mesa. The underly- ing shale is considered to be non-water bearing, although due to the proximity of the site to the Pacific Ocean, the shale may be saturated ' at or near sea level elevation. Slight water seepage was encountered in two of our six borings ' - at depths of 35 and 3715 feet below ground surface and is considered to be perched on the surface of the shale. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ' The geologic hazards at the site are essentially limited to those caused by earthquakes. The major damage from earthquakes is the ' result of violent shaking from earthquake waves; damage due to actual displacement or fault movement beneath a structure is much less fre- quent. The violent shaking would occur not only immediately adjacent to the earthquake epicenter, but within areas for many miles in all direc- tions. ' ADE-82082 Page 6 ' Fault Conditions The numerous faults in Southern California are categorized as ' active, potentially active, and inactive. Detailed information con- cerning the faults in the area is presented in Tables B-1, B-2, and B-3 in Appendix B. ' The nearest active fault to the site is the North Branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault located about 1.1 miles south of the site. The tNewport-Inglewood Fault is divided into a North Branch and a South ' Branch. Several other faults such as the Bolsa Fairview, Yorktown, Adams Avenue and Indianapolis Faults are known to be present. These ' faults along with the North and South Branches comprise the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone in Orange County. The locations of these faults - are shown on Plate 2. ' Other active faults in the Orange County area are the Whittier Fault, located 21 miles north-northeast of the site and the Elsinore ' Fault, 23 miles to the northeast. The potentially active fault nearest the site is the Pelican ' Hill Fault, located about 2.8 miles east of the site. The potentially ' active Norwalk and Palos Verdes Faults are located 17 miles north and 21 miles west-northwest of the site, respectively. No faults or fault associated features were observed on or adjacent to the site during our field reconnaissance on April 2, 1982. ' No faults are known to exist beneath the site and the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. In our opinion, there is very ADE-82082 Page 7 ' little probability of surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site. Seismicity ' The epicenters of earthquakes with magnitudes equal to or greater than 4.0 within a radius-of 100 kilometers of the site are shown in Table C-1 in Appendix C. Other pertinent information regarding these earthquakes is also shown in Table C-1. The historic seismic record indicates that 273 earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 and greater occurred between 1932 and 1978 within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of the site. The location of the site in relation to the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone indicates that the immediate area may be exposed to greater than normal seismic risk for the Orange County Coastal Plain. Ground Failure Due to the depth to the ground water surface and the nature of the underlying soils, the subject property would not be subject to ground failure such as ground cracking, lurching, liquefaction, or seismic differential settlement. Subsidence The site is not located in an area of known ground subsidence due to the extraction of fluids. Accordingly, the potential for subsi- dence occurring beneath the site is considered remote. Landsliding The property is not on or in the path of any existing or pot en- tial landslide. ADE-82082 Page 8 Flooding, Tsunamis and S_eiches The site is not within a flood prone area according to the Newport Beach Seismic Safety Element (1912) . As the site is located one-half mile from Newport Bay and 13� miles from the Pacific Ocean at an Elevation of about 80 feet above sea level, the risk of damage from earthquake induced sea waves called tsunamis need not be considered. ' The site is not located downslope of any large bodies of water that would adversely affect the site in the event of earthquake induced failure or seiches (oscillations in a body of water. due to earthquake shaking) . RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS General The natural soils beneath the site are firm and dense, and the proposed sanctuary/education/administration building may be supported on spread footings established in the firm and dense natural soils at the planned basement level. If the grading recommendations presented in a following section are followed, the proposed education building may be supported on spread footings established in either properly compacted fill or the underlying natural soils. Bearing Value - Firm Natural Soils Spread footings carried at least one foot into the underlying firm and dense natural soils, and to a depth of at least two feet below the adjacent basement floor level may be designed to impose a net dead ` ADE-82082 Page 9 plus live load pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot. A one-third increase in the bearing value may be used for wind or seismic loads. Since the recommended bearing value is a net value, the weight of the concrete within the footings may be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot, and the weight of soil backfill may be neglected when computing the ' imposed downward foundation loadings. Bearing Value - Compacted Fill or Natural Soils Footings for the education building established in properly compacted fill or the upper natural soils may be designed to impose a ' net dead plus live load pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot. A one-third increase in the bearing value may be used for wind or seismic loads. Exterior footings should extend to a depth of at least 2;J feet below the adjacent final grade; interior footings may be established at a depth of two feet below the adjacent floor level. Since the recom- mended bearing value is a net value, the weight of the concrete within the footings may be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot, and the weight of soil backfill may be neglected when computing the imposed downward foundation loadings. While the actual bearing value of the fill will depend on the material used and the compaction methods employed, the quoted bearing value should be applicable if acceptable soils are used and are com- pacted as recommended. The bearing value of the fill should be con- firmed after completion of the grading. ADE-82082 Page 10 Settlement The settlement of the proposed sanctuary/education/administra- tion building, supported on spread footings in the firm natural soils in ' the manner recommended, will be on the order of one-half inch. The settlement of the education building, supported on footings in the upper natural soils or properly compacted fill, will be less than one-fourth inch. Lateral Loads Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction and by the pas- sive resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be used between footings or the floor slabs and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of the natural soils or properly compacted fill may be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot. A one-third increase in the passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. The frictional resistance and the passive resistance of the soils may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. 1 Ultimate Values The recommended bearing value and lateral load design.values are for use with loadings determined by a conventional working stress design. When considering an ultimate design approach, the recommended design values may be multiplied by the following factors: FEW ' ADE-82082 Page 11 e Design Item Ultimate Design Fa'ctor Bearing Value 3.0 ' Passive Pressure 1.75 Coefficient of Friction 1.25 ' In no event, however, should foundation sizes be less than those re- quired for dead plus live loads when using the working stress design values. Footing Observation To verify the presence of satisfactory soils at design eleva- tions, all footing excavations should be observed by personnel of our firm. Footings should be deepened if necessary to reach satisfactory supporting soils. The upper clay soils are expansive, and the soils should not be allowed to dry out and crack before pouring. Footing backf.ill and utility trench backfill within the building areas should be mechanically compacted; flooding should not be per- mitted. DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS Response Spectra To determine the response of the proposed structures to ground vibrations generated during earthquakes, response spectra were devel- oped. The analysis performed to develop such data is described in Appendix C. Site-matched response spectra were developed based on a consideration of the statistically derived shapes by various investi- gators (References 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Appendix C) . Response spectra are ' ADE-82082 Page 12 ' presented for the postulated earthquakes for structural damping values of 2%, 5%, and 10%. Each response spectrum represents the maximum hori- zontal response of a single-degree-of-freedom structure to the predicted ' ground motion at the ground surface resulting from a given earthquake. The response spectra for the postulated earthquakes are presented on Plates 5-A through 5-C, Response. Spectra.. Characteristic Site Period ' The evaluation of the characteristic site period, Ts, is neces- sary to determine the coefficient of site-structure resonance, S, in accordance with Section 2312 of the 1979 edition of the Uniform Building Code. The characteristic period of the site was evaluated following the procedures suggested in the Uniform Building Code Standard' No. 23-1 contained in the 1979 edition of the Uniform Building Code Standards. The site period determination requires the knowledge of the shear wave velocities of the various soil deposits underlying the site. The shear ' wave velocity values for the soils underlying this site were determined based on the results of a downhole seismic survey. The details and the ' results of the survey are presented in Appendix C. The average shear wave velocities that were utilized in the determination of the site period are presented on the following page for ' two geotechnical profiles that are judged to reflect a possible range of depths below the foundation level at which the shear wave velocity is 2,500 feet per second or greater. ' ADE-82082 Page 13 " Profile A ' Depth Below Shear Wave ' Foundation Level* Layer Thickness Velocity (Feet) (Feet) (Ft./Sec.) 0 - 5 5 710 5 - 26 21 1060 26 - 55 29 1400 55 85 30 2000** 85+ - 2500** Profile B Depth Below Shear Wave Foundation Level* Layer Thickness Velocity ' (Feet) (Feet) (Ft./Sec.) 0 - 5 5 710 5 - 26 21 1060 ' 26 - 55 29 1400 55 - 85 -30 1400** 85 - 135 50 2000** 135+ - 2500** ' *Foundation level assumed to be at a depth of 15 feet below existing grade. **Extrapolated for depths greater than 70 feet below existing grade; based ' - on "Correlations of Seismic Velocity with Depth in Southern California" by Campbell, Chieruzzi, Duke and Lew (UCLA Technical Report No. UCLA-ENG-7965, October 1979) . ' Based on two methods of analysis (equivalent single-layer method ' and multi-layer method) , the characteristic period of the site, Ts, for the two profiles was determined to range from 0.3 to 0.5 seconds. A ' value of 0.5 may be used for Ts, in determining the site-structure resonance coefficient, S. (A value of 0.5 seconds is the minimum per- mitted by Code.) 1 � . ' ADE-82082 Page 14 ' EXCAVATION AND SLOPES Excavation approximately 15 feet deep will be required for the ' subterranean level. Where the necessary space is available, temporary unsurcharged excavations may be sloped back at 3/4:1 (horizontal to vertical) in lieu of using shoring. All applicable requirements of the California Construction and General Industry Safety Orders, the Occupa- tional Safety and Health Act of 1970, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Where sloped embankments are used, the tops of the slopes should ' be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads within five feet of ' the tops of the slopes. If the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are suggested along the tops of the slopes where necessary to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. The soils in the cut slopes ' should be inspected during excavation by our personnel so that modifica- tions of the slopes can be made if variations in the soil conditions occur. ' WALLS BELOW GRADE For design of walls below grade, where the surface of the ' retained earth is level, it may be assumed that the soils will exert an ' active lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 30 pounds per cubic foot. All required backfill should be mechanically compacted, in layers not more than eight inches thick, to at least 90Z of the maximum ' ADE-82082 Page 15 ' density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-70 method of compac- tion. Proper compaction of the backfill will be necessary to minimize ' settlement of the backfill and to minimize settlement of overlying walks ' and slabs. The clay soils are expansive and will be difficult to compact in confined areas. Accordingly, we suggest that these soils not ' be used for backfill. The backfill soils should consist of relatively non-expansive soils. ' Even at 90% compaction, some settlement may occur within the backfill. Accordingly, we suggest that any utility lines partially supported on the backfill and entering the building be designed to ' accept differential settlement, particularly at the points of entry to the building. If the backfill is placed and compacted as recommended, and ' normal provisions are taken to minimize infiltration of surface water into the backfill, walls below grade need not be designed to resist ' hydrostatic pressures. However, we recommend that a drain line be installed at the base of the walls. The drain line should consist of ' four-inch-diameter perforated pipe embedded in filter gravel. ' GRADING Clearing and Site Preparation The existing slabs, foundations-and utilities should be removed, and the site should be cleared of all obstructions including any surface debris. The cleared materials should be removed from the site. There may be existing cesspools on the site. Any existing cess- pools should be cleaned of unsuitable deposits and properly backfilled. ' ADE-82082 Page 16 ' The recommended procedure for backfilling cesspools will depend on the location of the cesspools with respect to the buildings. In the case of ' cesspools within the building areas, we recommend that the cesspools be ' cleaned of any loose material and that any wood planking or brick lining be removed to a depth of five feet below the proposed floor level, or ' deeper if necessary to remove fill or soft materials outside the lining. The cesspools should be backfilled to within two feet of footing bottoms ' with lean concrete or pea gravel; ,the remaining backfill should consist ' of earth fill compacted as recommended below. If the cesspools are located within footing areas in the sanctuary/education/administration building, where a relatively- high bearing value is to be used, the lean concrete should extend to the same elevation as the bottom of the footing. (Depending on the location of the cesspool with respect to the ' footing, it may be necessary to over-excavate the natural soils beneath the footing and backfill with lean concrete to provide a more uniform ' thickness of lean concrete beneath the footing.) in non-building areas, we suggest that the cesspools be cleaned of loose materials and ' filled with clean sand flooded into place to within two feet of subgrade ' level; the remaining backfill should consist of earth fill compacted as recommended below. The above recommendations concerning backfill of ' cesspools are intended as a general guide. It is anticipated that situations may occur that will require special consideration. This ' should be handled in the field during the grading operations. ' ADE-82082 Page 17 M � ' Excavation After the site has been properly cleared and stripped, any ' existing fill soils and disturbed natural soils should be excavated. ' Next, the natural soils within the education building and beneath adja- cent concrete walks and slabs at grade should be excavated to a depth of at least 1'h feet below the final grade (subgrade level) . This excava- tion is recommended beneath any concrete slabs or concrete paving at ' grade. However over-excavation of the natural soils will not be re- quired in the basement area or in areas to be paved with asphaltic paving except for any badly disturbed deposits. After excavating as ' recommended, the exposed soils should be' carefully inspected and further excavation performed if necessary to remove any deposits which would not be suitable for foundation, floor slab, or paving support. Moisture Conditioning_ After excavating as recommended, the moisture content of the ' soils should be determined, and the soils slowly and uniformly moistened as necessary to bring the soils to a uniformly moist condition. The ' moisture content of the clay soils should be brought to about 3% over ' optimum moisture content to a depth of six inches. The moisture content of the subgrade should be checked and approved prior to placing the ' required fill. Subgrade Preparation After-moistening as required, the exposed soils should be rolled with heavy compaction equipment. The upper six inches of exposed ' ADE-82082 Page 18 ' natural soils should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-70 method of compaction. ' Depending on the moisture content, it may be necessary to allow the ' surface to dry slightly before compacting. Compaction ' After compacting the exposed natural soils, the required fill should be placed in loose lifts not more than eight inches in thickness and compacted to at least 90%. It is recommended that the moisture content of the on-site clay soils at the time of compaction be brought to between 2% and 4% over optimum moisture content. The relatively ' non-expansive and predominantly granular soils should be compacted at a moisture content varying no more than 2% below or above optimum moisture content. Material for Fill ' The on-site soils, less any debris or organic, matter, may be ' used in the required fills. Due to their expansive characteristics, however, the clay soils should not be used within III feet of the sub- ' grade level within the building area. The upper 1'k feet of fill should consist of relatively non-expansive and predominantly granular soil. The expansion index of this material should be less than 35, and no more ' than 50% should pass a No. 200 sieve. The material should contain sufficient fines so as to result in a compacted fill which will not rut under construction traffic and which will be stable in shallow trenches; also, sufficient fines are recommended so that the resulting fill will ADE-82082 Page 19 o • be relatively impermeable thus minimizing the possible flow of surface water beneath the building. ' Grading Observation The excavation of the upper soils and the compaction of all fill should, be observed and tested by our firm. Imported fill material should be approved prior to importing. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT The building floor slab may be supported on grade. As previ- ously recommended, at least the upper 1k feet of fill beneath the education building floor slab and beneath adjacent concrete slabs and ' walks should consist of relatively non-expansive and predominantly granular soils. The soils at the planned basement level are not con- sidered expansive, and the layer of select material will not be neces- sary beneath the basement floor slab; any soils disturbed or over- excavated in the basement area should be.-properly compacted. ' - If vinyl or other moisture-sensitive floor covering is planned, we suggest that the floor slabs be supported on a four-inch-thick layer ' of gravel (may be considered part of the select fill) or on an imperme- able membrane as a capillary break. The suggested gradation for the gravel layer would be as follows: ' Sieve Size Percent Passing 3/4" 90 - 100 ' No. 4 0 - 10 No. 100 0 - 3 M ADE-82082 Page 20 ' If a membrane is used, a low-slump concrete should be used to minimize possible curling of the slabs. The concrete should be allowed to cure ' properly before placing vinyl or other moisture-sensitive floor covering. PAVING ' To provide support for asphaltic paving, the subgrade soils should be prepared as recommended in the previous section on Grading. All existing fill and disturbed natural soils should be excavated, and ' all required fill should be compacted to at least 90%. Proper compac- tion of the pavement subgrade soils will be important for the per- ' formance of the paving. The preparation of the parking area subgrade should be done immediately prior to the placement of the base course. Proper drainage of the paved areas should be provided since this will reduce moisture infiltration into the subgrade and increase the life of the paving. ' A stabilometer test was performed for us on one sample of the ' on-site soils by the Smith-Emery Company. The test'results, which indicate an "R" value of less than 5, are presented in the attached ' Appendix. Assuming that the paving subgrade will consist of the.on-site ' soils, compacted to at least 90% as recommended, parking areas subject ' to automobile traffic (assumed Traffic Index of 4) may be paved with three inches of asphaltic paving and four inches of base course placed on the compacted subgrade. Driveways and areas subject to light truck traffic (assumed Traffic Index of 5) may be paved with three inches of t ' ADE-82082 Page 21 asphaltic paving and eight inches of base course placed on the compacted subgrade. Careful inspection is recommended to verify that the recom— mended thicknesses- or greater are achieved and that proper construction procedures are used. ' The base course should meet the specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base as defined in Section 26 of the State of California, Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications, dated January, 1981. The base course should be compacted to at least 95%. t -000- t ' t 1 f S i � i q PROPOSED/ LIMITS OF J' 0p SUBTERRNEAN R PARKING DEVELOPMENT BFE= 65 7s NN .t AsM a. i VY _ �� '4 3.��yy��rrY,'y''yyy�,,,�s,•is�J•-%Wt"0.� t�i yyint�- ^� ' \y� 6 � BORING LOCATION �i H �'- ���,�'?";t3• 1=`° � \. B O R I N G NUMBER = ' 2 EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED BUILDING B.M.FOR SOR,ELEV S. EDUCATION PROPOSED F.F•E.=BO.zs PARKING BUILDING NOTE : EXISTING BUILDINGS IN + AREA TO BE DEVELOPED NOT SHOWN NIOO ROAD ST, ANDREWS P L O T PLAN bSCALE: I = 601 r~q REFERENCES SITE PLAN ( UNDATED) BY C. EDWARD WARE ASSOCIATES , INC. ~' 0 LOROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE f ' 1 'I'•. i s 1 - _� _..fir___--_� _____•__ _...__�11- --r p .- .,.r_..• _•v/•.. . ......... .. �r; SAN ` __ >-t -! -_--_ __ _______ _____ I 111 ._. _ __...... ..._. ..__ C4oPMaY ` ' 4VE ' QI ;�;----�� .. a 9 ____ _..__ _ _.. ORANGE I t _ ff 7•� � ftNiVEH',' GARDEN I ® ,l y •��, y'- %q`° 5 TA6 • aN F SRpV ? ]f ISI 9LVD p - /." �• ' GROVE REE"Y GARDEN f � T56. —� A� { '.. sI( % A Son �_ __ .t � '' ;'�� �� 3mc _ .•,. � �I `G10`,\ t U S NAVAL•-., WEAPONS II I /',:�5, ,• / %%j !� �. '. --- •-- -- {- STATION . 9 WESTMINSTER -- -,a ' A. ; I SEAL , BEACH a� Oal \ ` .__.__` NOING y I (VE + 2 h $ANAA TUSTIN: ' `SEAL err_ •v ', /,, / . BAY M� --- _ _ _ .._ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ __ _ _________________ a 90 L__ I � •l�:yi: , i .q_ QVI \ \ _ mi OfaE ARN R Y 90 `.` r 'I BOLS CNICA �io .G -.-.\-Z .. _._ _•___ .. _._.__. _ (` _ .._ h" ,:% .at!.i;J"h �H.•a�"G. ESP F I o lAV' Oat E 1 o t• . .i. ri%'yL% '':,/:y A;. � 3� oo NUNTINGTON I - - L BEACH 7 TS6 WIN _ MESA LEGEND '• W T66 \ I (T-,i _ (�`9• ' p ..p to ro. ,L .LL •._-__ \ -EE. //f •• IRVINE O .roo. r¢,•.. \ \ w, •.40 I o "Cg4 eY.-. O 4•� `i i m:° .cprsoL p.+<o: .rn \\ \ m, ,4Ms m F4/q P --- < . _ - - /'IAARwE ICO aTI pr ApAM V/ .rp H0 a ¢ e4 p4" __ * AI EL STORO N- �• ' !/" , tpL.p � ^� � a<ne,a,,.ee o<.o,`,3•rp o3own `\ `rOL PO4/ `" -q& m \\(T. RO i•• Qtu /. oe.puv /. ® s<e¢oxsoup.+m s, s•"p.e..ru \ � '•, R •,S I�;• ' . ¢ ` �3 / y _ - ._ _ � QVI �/ ji, •. ec LpuLi,+mo.0 a+o.r Qal Qfu — \ " _ � •Qal � � i •i. a Qt�. N eorn"ae.n ey.ya re:<i:..ti a.rpcoxcie.<..+m HUNTING TO Qal ,'1T. _ i.NEWPORT MESA �• Ion /•/•, �rTL\;- t�• 'BE ' I •••+,>vc In-s+or< +-p.,cr xm.cJ.. ...e p.-"< N .. "..+..p ...o. .........r<L,an w.c` , \\ •. ••Q, \ ' / T 1 pp %%; i' / � } s. ,,, %�ol•Jcexe.ro. •e•.c«ere w,.a a.e..e,ao '•'1'0 ..: _ Qfnt O f` I Y(< G/� "<3,r .."...o.,r ."t �'•h +Dd$"�"A I" __ 'ry, Q1V \� S�N��aN>s�c'r, � ' ME S' E Qtm ` i,• RESEA"/O/R " : b w •a•w+.+ao,n4uJews.+z _. w,.v LA"p c .,cL o..eei< Qal!j; 1 : r s >V ®y •w•:o.a.......aflLon�e p.o..�ii..o<.iec�.....ra ttT +EWPo ' f' ri���� � 1 /y /f�.i% Y i', EL TORO: f,. „r��=ice f e BA / a7 \ I to Qtm �'/ ;'• ,', % // - - ___ /''' ` __. _._ •_ .__.._ - C4 ®c .u..a.3.o.,+o eop<... \\\ a _ I• .A y% .0 9�%f/f� ii'/rr" '/,',.r"•'/i,�i -�a // iso' -I- :yv4,.Jra NE wPo / 41 woim,e Gn BEACN Q01 I : T, Q L. T 6 S �`` //. 9Zi��,SfflrY({y�i \ {/ _ �'s(( —� x •✓ TTS _\](I n {;-1I I ( S 1(I� ' Q1a O p. Vtl fit. • KAOCI. •-Ce f03 CC„�.u`L• 'Afy�,�.'�(, �- I ( �f� • I w.V ei .av.•.<.. O...x,.eLis . // %�, t(w, �•,`�� I Y' I I01 YY < J` W{ ........... TN w p„Jr[ c.arrnx o,e, ..rpiz,.+,•p„ 0 W � � ++[saoeJ.-r,eeeLa'J"e.4••r•••r een. BIT C W LOc.I�•eirp,r+u„x[••O.Lu,.f y. ' ' ' • ' ,t„ 7 ®COI,O.O,+[p,[O u<r,•,..<�•t �� / 1 � {,�,I I xpK•+wC.cG.I rC,O[.t'a•J[.• •x I t rC, W I BASE MAP REFERENCE - i DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES PROGRESS a�' REGIONAL." REPORT AND GROUND WATER GEOLOGY OF THE /LAGUNd �,� BEACH ; - G L O LOG ! A, COASTAL PLAIN OF ORANGE COUNTY , 1967 , MODIFIED-ACCORDING TO ; C.D,K Ge GEOLOGIC \�\\ MAP OF CALIFORNIA SAN BERNARDINO SHEET `\•'�ii '� r_ 1969 AND SANTA ANA SHEET 1966 \\ } rfif PLATE 2 •jar �� _�' r .s If y„ ,. -? i^/ n^. .,, Vr, (� ,�,f • • s r. '"*-1• f '�' M1rk ^} + tile' .,N .r 4WJ i�I i O ' �i •err £�h ry,I •rt» ^4 -.r y Qr "� f rH ■ t a V 1' �'N i�• r - 'j! l))illl� 'y^ ':' 1� ," '(•)�Q :� 1 p'q, V'��� . .,7 i �,LA,r{t � ..��� iw ." , y .y, "r 1 ; �•.IP �' ,it�t . '`! 'J.fr... ' Y � �`�n '9!)�". Y A.a.4+1•�r�. �l Y. k.. 4 2 4 ..1 t .`S q ���"' re r ,•n< 'i3y/e �� `rlinr •,5. li.;� Parr 4!` p :,. ,i a' 2� arro Y 1'n)4 1L�' fir' iI� / :r S'^ •;, J '/ '.i•.r -.-r jr �Y f,fir,i�'r '�'aA ! /y ..�I . �; :"ry `d,' '�• Y `S '\ 9" ltl v rd �: rti`�•; t t 1 ,,Sig �♦f 01 of Al" t ( M yrZO ~ Il •^ P.Ml 7 j F r r�„ra - A17,,ti I .r i! rradw • Isola s ` 1 rr >'• 95�, C " L Park , �:• ' / ' `' '�a �rn� _ (`° 1. 5lllle I1t. of ,lI hrgln Harbor \J _ `i� / q r r • r J i NFkq fn,, mrUnry �Qnh� . NEWPOR"�, 33 .,. O "'rr •Qd) enroll !I _ Parking A, a\ s.Ar?gr rti �' . 1 Rpr j Collins •, d' r.&�^,st. 'roP .. W A Vi,3 4 ara Rn eayBL' AdH F S . New �, .,;• -,s c�� Q b_: ,_-'� Balboa tr°�I BA -``••�. -.'lib..«r• w A u REFERENCE: BASE MAP UIl8.GlIs. NEWPORT 10 Q 4� HOLOCENE ALLUVIUM BEACH 7:5T QUADRANGLE (1965) GEOLOGY MODIFIED FROM C.D.M.G, SPECIAL m REPORT 15 (1973) AND GEOLOGIC SEISMIC Q b JiOLOCENE BEACH DEPOSITS STUDY FOR NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN (1972) q Qt PLEISTOCENE TERRACE,DEPOSITS, Q _ TG MIOCENE CAPISTRANO FORMATION FTC Tm • MIOCENE MONTEREY FORMATION ?� Fault, dashed and questioned 0 • '2000 40.00 where uncertain —————— «Geologic contact SCALE IN' FEET LOCAL GEOLOGY LL tLeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE 3 1 �7 AAM L U I$ O l l5►DWIS aeife0 MIS _ �r< 1J .� Mit `c. j + `°v,,yr .:` '� cz /J] -J ��� '\� �•- a�A+tO tN^'n '4�•—�Ysa2 a ,+- �♦Y<r -.e.w-ro 5 A \ Tr I V $ no2 a +.�.N ! E :R If AR D I N O Mat lase 1916—__. —_—��___� - 5 A MST' MAR / -A�' +�o` boa Cr yl a.vrc.�. d f \% V13 ilea ew��•°+wE •� 4 i 4t<`'- \e♦b.<L,e`•i . •{.y `ty� vn< h•1Or ,,,�� Y E N T U• R A �3 19r+ ?its \ 1 c ♦s E`{� \ :.vat; ,nu11`i :iucr • qy L 0 S•i AA/N 6 E L E SA i�6U. VENTVRAQ,'C .: •• ! J•.:.• 1 �__°N°�Ay-r+�W I •r nor lixuct� �vO�P Yr.+ri r I M4] ' i 1e5 b-: y'L „ o `' 4Y.a ` WI&S o [---' —i Gam' H0.41Y9T, m sr^�4a}T 11p 19zG �� �s�-- ...... • YrGvnM',p♦ -'•i:r_..e a...r�•i'•,1Y11{j` fRllpE 1� eM.nK+ ram l��_ ..... rw.N..�hN✓ I'•`' -•'-••.:.:-�•: '. ,- 51,�� ANGELES 'i- � cu!I-. rxur , f O I ( ..'- Ye � J ♦`1 1923 ', 9r'i+1 S iIDNG l Y'rr4 r63 ° \-` \t C to R A N G E h ♦4e R I Y -E R S I D E f- I .' -':•.:::; 't.1en ) nar+E ; ri+ nsa % 4, . SITE ` n , l% ��_ _ I ' � ' ------ — — — a....sw<.+/ I ` • Y J+ r L. \� srZA a •sa _ -I Tire /foa 1 �• i .• v/.nw r\ 1910 —`� h i Sea > ..a;.:.... ` rat• rJC ro. 7 ( rwp •L + .. •':+:1't:.•tl: �AN 1Y"ASSOCIATgN aF ENGINEERING GEOlDGiST! I»4 `_1973 f - A ♦ti.S 01`.� i-0 q� 'FfF { --- - I - 41 E0YETCaJ `G \ IN3 194t ``�` I' „r. lase 19 2 Mis d' 121• Ito• m MAJOR EARTHQUAKES AND RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULTS Goo Cp�!FORNiA_ F IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION ---BAJA cff auFoawA { EXPLANATION' ,w; ,. 1923 ACTIVE FAULTS EARTHQUAKE LOCATIONS O ';`+x.'.•:.• i � u5z 4 N Approximate eplunlrol area of ealhquakes that %11 rei —- occurred 1769.1933 Magnitudes rot reci I :e 1N lelol length of fault zone that breaks Holocene deposits by instruments prior to 1906 weft estimated nay + or Mat ha;had susmm activity \ + ry m Y Ilia+ damage reports assigned r,Intensify ise ly ' rsa ty �� Ihbddled Mefwh sole)or geate,Marsmat:ly :•: Fault se ment with surface rupture during an historic equnicient to Richter M 6 0 31 macerate"earthil ' -r \ e1,e { R• '¢ 9 9 (1857)vat 7mo,t W arc gram earthquake { earthquake, a with aselsmlc Dolt creep, 1:+ (1857)ree retooled m the 164•Year period _. _-.____ _ ----�•- —� i9l4 m F769-1933 1 \ 1 to lit 7.1 O 19sz Earthquake eplcehters once 1933, plotted from I ENSENAa4 ' IN improved astrumi 29 moderate"and three \� 195e O Holocene vokonlc activity motor eorMquakes Jere recorded in the 40-year (Amboy,Pisgah,Cara Prieto red Salim Bales) perod 1933-1973 19s6 `yai \ r e,1 Q 1956 s« u+K, YK,e.Y, V1a[ler rpr ror,ea.,•.a.nx,.m.n a w] 1 I ++Y, rss GULF \ [Y</n lApbklrdl xn<n{kl A+ Sr4 M{ n a i 1 1+'j1,1 R,. ••1w++a<w oMN 1w1Wrn0N1•.rYe eM ro 1kla_ II •"` < Ya•aU h4, nlx!u4 M+ R11AWma i ..,toieu. •sh,hee.ua.71.1 IYa4ea0 OF Y(t dal the Coma w Umfine 01 N4efoMCeobgf.Can/omro 0.ymiw CAL I FORNIA d J Prafa mt.]ew puanned and npblunedOf RwBukri/16-1 19641- uYc6an+han oeleIn{of MY S<abg•ta/and Se/]mchip W SuCNres of Airvma, I. C.F R1m+K, 111 Fk--1a7 Si f ft*rf 11935 l; me me W,' /.41/ar,p 66 11. REGIONAL SEISMICITY 1 LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES i PLATE 4 1 400 400 200 200 I 100 100 _ �� y } •� • •f 80 = r t' 80 60 60 ° _.N 40 40 _ 20I <{ i4 10 N. T 4 � , i � rr 1, ,.fi ru'l''' _ 4 a) 2r y �p06 - t`vse }\'r * *A k 2 1� y ` .6 � ° .i 6 41 �� x 03 { Ky Jy •trA-1 i'/i l0 2 X `'�2�b° `X x`Y�, %fir y � 2 NM Y2-V e y (• / .'Jt� x%iRx;�, 00 _V S .f,.`..FY— ' Ge�PS y, K yY• .'P�i • _%4 yirv— �LYA,,je � Ja-f m • I.01 .02 .04 .06 .1 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 8 10 1 Period ( sec. y RESPONSE SPECTRA MAXIMUM CREDIBLE DISTANT EARTHQUAKE "A" 1 San Andreas Fault, Mag. = 8.3; Dist. = 51 Miles 1 LEROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE 5-A M400 400 .t\ 200 200 A`x 100 100 ' B0 - - 80 tx 60 0° ;. -� x 60 40 40 = N 20 X m . ]. \ A 20 ID Tx ' �' ,' 'X ,c.. -°••i• f7. a4Olr 10 8 f ,�, i. '•f ( 10 8 'Z 6 y, \ -iT,. ' r -.{ _ r "'jr}• Y •Y .� r 6 ^y , i N CL y_; {:c'Y_ ,:. :r t'. }� -s�- ^i•-,-,y g oo,' * _"p w6 Y' '�rY r' - Os q� {� ,i---` S. I .1 ; I .6 'G '>. o "off I Y rs 'co p .2 x Q�BOO'' .a.{(F�X-. ' o".O, A ' I • i-�1--.�.�,`i..,.,.• .2 ' � Oster xx + l - 0�� /•Y % Y {A.��-y��♦ F r'r co .01 .02 .04 .06 .I .2 .4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 8 10 Period ( sec, ) RESPONSE SPECTRA MAXIMUM CREDIBLE LOCAL EARTHQUAKE "B" ' Newport-Inglewood Fault: Mag. = 7.0; Dist. = 1.1 Miles ' LEROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE 5-B 400 400 1200 200 'SI 1 4 ' r� .♦~ /11 IX 100 n 100 60 a ' 40 - - 40 \ \� C C a ' /• i i f v 10 - f / I�" t i 10 ?+ ti p V `' r .8 w O 8 > r r 6 N 2 r . )( r'g % 2 'N a ` •y -\ \ r4 - ` � _ f Q4 -Y+ '9S My` - 'jj 1+ �, J / Y w 6 0 4 y oo }� r o o 'CD Q 2 2 7 C .01 .02 .04 .06 .I .2 .4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 8 10 ' Period (sec.) y RESPONSE SPECTRA MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKE "C" ' Newport-Inglewood Fault: Mag. = 6.6; Dist, = 1.1 Miles (Design Life = 50 years; estimated probability of occurrence = 50 to 60%) ' LEROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE 5-C M s� APPENDIX A ADE-82082 Page A-1 , APPENDIX A ' EXPLORATIONS The soil conditions beneath the site of the proposed buildings ' were explored by drilling four borings. Boring I was drilled to a depth of 39;i. feet below the existing grade using 20-inch-diameter bucket-type drilling equipment; the boring was then extended to a depth of 72 feet below the existing grade using 5-inch-diameter rotary wash-type drilling ' equipment. Borings 2, 3, and 4 were drilled to depths of 41, 50, and 15 feet, respectively, using the bucket-type drilling equipment. Caving of the boring walls occurred in Borings 1 and 2 as indicated on the boring logs; casing or drilling mud was not used to extend the bucket borings to the depths drilled. Drilling mud was used with the rotary wash-type equipment to prevent caving. Borings 5 and 6, located in the.proposed parking areas, were drilled to a depth of approximately 5 feat. The borings were drilled using 20-inch-diameter bucket-type drilling equipment. Upon the completion of Boring 1, a 2-inch-diameter PVC pipe was installed in the boring, and pea gravel backfill was placed around the ' outside of the pipe. A downhole seismic survey was subsequently per- formed in this boring as discussed in Appendix C. The soils encountered were logged by our field technician, and both undisturbed and loose samples were obtained for laboratory inspec- tion and testing. The logs of the borings are presented on Plates A-1.1 through A-1.6; the depths at which undisturbed samples were obtained are ' ADE-82082 Page A-2 ' indicated to the left of the boring logs. The energy required to drive the sampler twelve inches is indicated on the logs. The overburden soils are classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described on Plate A-2. LABORATORY TESTS ' The field moisture content and dry density of the soils encoun- tered were determined by performing tests on the undisturbed samples. ' The results of the tests are shown to the left of the boring logs. Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed • samples to determine 'the strength of the soils. The tests were per- formed at field and increased moisture contents and at various surcharge pressures. The yield-point values determined from the direct shear tests are presented on Plate A-3, Direct Shear Test Data. Confined consolidation tests were performed on four undisturbed samples to determine the compressibility of the soils. Water was added to one of the samples during the tests to illustrate the effect of mois= tune on the compressibility. The results of the tests are presented on ' Plates A-4.1 and A-4.2, Consolidation Test Data. ' The expansion index of the soils was determined by testing one remolded sample in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard •� No. 29-2 method. The results of the test are presented on Plate A-5, Expansion Index Test Data. FEW ADE-82082 Page A-3 N ' Tests to determine the sulfate content of the soils were per- formed on five samples. The results of the tests are presented on Plate ,1 A-6, Sulfate Content Test Data. To provide information for paving design, a stabilometer test ' ("R" value test) was performed on a sample of the upper soils. The test was performed for us by the Smith-Emery Company. The results of the test are presented on Plate A-7. 1 -000- ' BORING I 2 ` Q7� h��� � DATE DRILLED: March 29 to 31 , 1932 y`a`�<) Qy EQUIPMENT USED. 20"-Diameter Bucket to 391z1 �o o` �� 5"-Diameter Rotary Wash to 72' 'F0 °i, ELEVATION 80.3* w 80 - C 2" Asphaltic Paving - 4" Base Course a SILTY CLAY - brown ' Ww w W 15.2 117 6 F CL SANDY CLAY - brown o a 75 - 5 14.5 117 5 ML SANDY SILT - light brown Z y a= o SM SILTY SAND - fine, light greyish-broom U O 10.0 100 5 " SP SAND - fine, light brown o z w 70 10 m� 5.9 98 8 a I ' V LL= O.o 15 3.8 107 13 65 4Wz CL SILTY CLAY - light brownish-grey x FW I 16.5 107 8 Layer of fine Sand as w Layer of Silty Sand N 60 20 32.8 87 5 Light grey NN Iw J a �a xw 55 25 i 16.4 i 98 I 13 SAND - fine, light grey \ _ir I I ! Layers of Silty Sand w N m, I III F N O 50 30 I Fzo 9.2I 95 i 7 o U1 z N m a3 U. 8 45 . 35 Brown N z 23.? 100 24 m N N o~ Dark greyish-brown o w (BUCKET BORING TERMINATED DUE TO HEAVY a I 40 CAVING) V =o (CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PLATE) Z LOG OF BORING Z LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE A-l.la BORING I ( CONTINUED) ti�'y�4, � �,� DATE DRILLED: March 29 to 31, 1982 ,R,Q ��`n`jQ�u �a �Qy EQUIPMENT USED 20"-Diameter Bucket to 39 ' 5"-Diameter Rotary Wash to 72' QF w 40 - 27.5 91 17 a N SHALE - bedded, highly fractured, brown w w� �F r o z a 35 45 Ln 36.7 82 114 z zo — 3�: Dark grey ■`711 0 o I J o c9W 30 50 NOTE: BUCKET BORING - Water encountered z x 41.6 76 ; 12 at 35'. Water level measured at 37' o )) at completion of drilling and at 34Y Em + Ma I 20 minutes later. Heavy caving and N� sloughing below 34k' .� LU o I I ROTARY WASH BORING - Drilling mud a t 55 j used in drilling process. Flushed I N z 25 ' 44.31 73 ! 16 ! mud from hole. Set 72' of 2"-diameter B F o I I I PVC pipe for downhole seismic survey. Uj Backfilled annular space with pea a i i i gravel. Water level not established. CD 60 W N� 120 38.31 79 !16 a> i o ! o� t rrwi15 65 x Q ( I 40.9 76 �13 oLU I ' yw W m H o0 10 i 70 58.7 62 19 orw- (ROTARY WASH BORING TERMINATED DUE TO o a DIFFICULT DRILLING) LU LL ' O 75 yZ " f0 N N LL - 0 . o 0 U W 0 WZ LOG OF BORING N_ z Z LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE A-l.lb �> BORING 2 h 0 DATE DRILLED: March 29, 1982 �2e EQUIPMENT USED. 20"-Diameter BllCtCet /Qv ti p O� •� OQ,` p `� h ELEVATION 82.3 o" 2" Asphaltic Paving - 6" Base Course a 13.3 119 2 CL SILTY CLAY - brown ■ w 80 I Few layers of Sandy Silt `Q■ ?�P 13.6 120 6 ' a a w ML SANDY SILT - light brown z z 0 75 16.2 106 3 Brownish-grey o° c a 10 ' z w 1�� SILTY SAND - fine, light greyish-brown' 0ma70 20.0 90 6SP SAND - fine, light brown U �z I Layer of Sandy Clay, grey and brown a a I 15 `az Layer of Silty Clay, some Sand, grey and wp B F U 65 841 brown a Q 17.91 108I 5 -SILTY SAND - fine, light greyish-brown J N I 20 _ �- I CL SILTY CLAY - some layers of Sandy Silt, grey N _ �23.8 102 5 a b 160 Z F i SP SAND - fine, light grey w� 1 25 Layer of Sandy Silt, grey z =N !21.5 951 5 o j55 Layer of Silty Sand, fine, greyish-brown =w ' Nm 1 oo ) 30 ' ;7, 1 19.7 � 97 , 9 ; z� � , ti o 1 ! 50 Few gravel Q; I ! I NOTE: Water seepage encountered at a 35 depth of 37Y . Water level N z 3.3 100 9 measured at 37;1' at completion of 7(n �' drilling and 10 minutes later. 45 Heavy caving and sloughing below 0 � yW a 40 Pieces of Shale =0 31.6 88 10 wZ LOG OF BORING z z LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE A-1.2 ' BORING 3 GATE DRILLED: March 30, 1982 lt' AAe �=h �' EQUIPMENT USED 20't-Diameter Bucket ELEVATION 83,8 W CL SANDY SILT - brown 4�/ a SILTY CLAY - brown Ow W M 14.8 118 5 CL SANDY CLAY - brown 1 ~ 80 ' o a 5 16.9 109 2 ML SANDY SILT - greyish-brown Z N q Z oP I i SM SILTY SAND - fine, light brown o 0 1 75 j 6.1 104 5 J 1 o ir w 110 Sp SAND - fine, light brown Z_ I o a ; ( 23.9I 97 6 IITT Layer of Clayey Silt, few cementations, f m Q N• light greyish-brown LL z ; 70 a t 15 CL SILTY CLAY - few cementations, grey in w o ` SM SILTY SAND - fine, light brown B F ! 24.61 101 5 Layer of Silty Clay, grey J:D 651 co t 20 32.1 90 5 CL SILTY CLAY - grey Z N N w J a �W SP SAND - fine, light grey Z 60 WW 25 W w (CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PLATE) xa za ;w O� ow N m EW. N Z� FD E W ZZ Oq cr W X 00 LL j0 N Z CDD- LL- 0 W J Q U x wZ LOG OF BORING 0 Z LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE A-1.3a ' BORING 3 ( CONTINUED) h 2 ` �4,,�� DATE DRILLED: March 30, 1982 tip° •t ..�Q�? tiJ b �`� °• EQUIPMENT USED. 20"-Diameter Bucket o ti �`° o� •�4 oe` y ' W 3.9 107 11 o Vi W '1 '• w_f ~ 55 z oQ r 3 a m I ( 3.8 99 I 10 z I ; j �o ' 'i o0l 50 - i � zLU z 35 12.9i 113 lli &o m° I i CL SILTY CLAY - greyish-brown fm ( U �j u o 45 a L 1 40 SHALE - bedded, fractured, jointed, grey z I to dark brown i o I I ( Dark grey 8 �ul I I >? i 40 �O.1 i 77 8 co 45 I 45 = m N W � �w I o z Q 35 CC wW z 50 = NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. m zw ow =W � m W m C Z 0O O_ !- O W zZ N UO Q K W� U; m Z m N m F U. - O o OQ U W O '. WZ LOG OF BORING N O 2 LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE A-1.3b BORING 4 ` o� �� ! h t, ��`� v DATE DRILLED: March 31, 1982 t 1§ �`� a �2a EQUIPMENT USED 161-Diameter Bucket P / A Q �� O W C Qv A. v O + co oho O� 0��� ELEVATION $0-0 PSL SANDY SILT - brown ~ 16.3 109 2 ' o w CL SILTY CLAY - brown wE_ ~ 15.3 118 7 oa 75 5 Layer of Sandy Silt, greyish-brown z zz 16.2 116 8 az Layer of Silty Sand, fine, brown g o 20.4 106 6 ' U0 J 0 ow 70 10 SM SILTY SAND - fine, patches of Silt, light 16.2 104 10 r o o I I gTey °'v Sp SAND - fine, some fines, light grey U f E: ALL a o 65 15 18.3 10 Wz NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. x8 B aU a w r¢ ZZJ 7 OfD In N W J�f a a w O > za wg (rw w xw Q zW oa: yw w N m Zo o� Bo Btu zZ OQ wo: u3 iL m cr mz m en w— O O W J Q U W 0 wZ LOG OF BORING - o z LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE A-1.4 BORING 5 tV �'• a k ,� �. ���� „ DATE DRILLED: March 30, 1982 tiJ�a`� EQUIPMENT USED. 20"-Diameter Bucket ELEVATION 80.6 80 MLI SANDY SILT - brown 22.2 100 < 1 CL SILTY CLAY - brown Ow w� 12.2 118 6 CL SANDY CLAY - brown o c 75 5 7.5 107 I 3 : sM SILTY SAND - fine, light brown aN = NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. ZO o3 UO 1 O J K 10- 0 70 Z S �O O f _ m m a yp H 3 in 15 wz xo B Fw U $J NjN O m 2I = N N W J a w O > 6a w~ xw w xw a. Zw O� =w N m w N ZO H F O O w 2Z OQ wx U< co y z m N N a F W— O O W J Q U W� wZ LOG OF BORING - o Z LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE A-1.5 ' BORING 6 �Pv �� DATE DRILLED. March 30, 1982 M 45 tiJ a` �5� o y 20"-Diameter Bucket y \ O o Q EQUIPMENT USED. y �00 ELEVATION 82.8 ' CL SILTY CLAY - brown a 16.8 96 <1 ' Ow W 80 13.5 116 8 F 771 SANDY CLAY - streaks of alkali, cementations, brown Za ' 5 13.6 118 6 Z o I I NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. of 75 - I I I o (D W I 10 0o i l mF a U 70 LL z Z UO_ WF 15 0.I; N z =0 Ld U LL r¢ ZZJ U) ON m S W N J LJ a Q W WW gz W W W zW il � Zw OW =W N m W N pD H O ZOO W Ld LL O) K H NZ (D N N F lL - O O W rc V W wZ LOG OF BORING - o E z LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE A-1.6 MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP TYPICAL NAMES SYMBOLS ' b 0-fi GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, CLEAN O'd;Da little or no fines. e . GRAVELS (Little or no fines j o e; Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, GRAVELS og a GP little or no fines. =g o (More than 50%of coarse fraction is LARGER than the GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mlxtur6s. No.a sieve size) GRAVELS WITH FINES COARSE (of fines) amt. GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures. GRAINED of floes) SOILS (More than 5R of Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or material is LARGER SW no fines, than No.200 sieve CLEAN SANDS size) (Little or no fines) Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little SP SANDS or no fines More than 50% of coarse fraction is SMALLER than the SM Silty sands, sand-slit mixtures. No.a sieve size) SANDS WITH FINES (Appreciable amt.of fines) SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures. Inorganic silts and very fine sands,rock flour, ML silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity. SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (Liquid limit LESS than 50) CL gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean Clays. FINE OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low ' GRAINED plasticity. SOILS (More than 50%of Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous material is SMALLER MH fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts, than No.200 sieve size) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit GREATER than 50) CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fat clays. OH. Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peal and other highly organic soils. BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of group symbols. P A R T I C L E S I Z E L I M I T S SAND GRAVEL i 1 SILT OR CLAY COBBLES I BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE I NO.200 N0.90 NO.10 NOA '/q in. 3N. (12in.) U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 4 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM O Reference: ly The Unified Sod Classification System,Corps of III , Engineers, U.S. Army Technical Memorandum No 3-357, Vol.I, March,1953. (Revised April, 1960) LEROY CRANDALL AND AiSSOCIATES PLATE A-2 . SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot 00 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 N301 •14 2@3 O 0O O u 3@5 1@20 1000 0 cn • 3C�25 BORING NUMBER & SAMPLE DEPTH (FT) a� = n 2000 N 02@3 0 O a c 1@20 p 3000 W 2 0 @ I I � �3@ 1 4 IQII 3@25 U ° 3@5 W d 4000 w VALUES USED Q IN ANALYSES U 5000 Cr t Z) N 6000 KEY . • Tests at field moisture content co A O Tests at increased moisture content DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA ' LEROY CRANDALL 8i ASSOCIATES PLATE A- 3 LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT FO.40.5 0.6 0.70.80.91.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.08.0 ' 0 Boring 3 at 11' CLAYEY SILT a 0.01 ' Boring 1 at 11' SAND ,+ U Z 0.02 o \Y u W a ,w N W a v 0.03 Z \\ Z Z 0.04 O � Q O_ ¢ J 0 0 z 0.05 '00 O 'a 0.06 '00 c" 0.07 i NOTE: Water added to sample from Boring 3 after consolidation a under a load of 3.6 kips per square foot. The other o sample tested at field moisture content. ' CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA ' LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE A-4.1 LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT ' 00.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0.01 \ Boring 4 at 3' = SILTY CLAY ' Z 0.02 T1 0 a Boring 3 at 20' a SILTY CLAY = 0.03 3 Z -- 2 4 Z 0.04 _O x C 0 J O Z 0.05 ' O m t 0.06 N 0.07 NOTE: Samples tested at field moisture content. CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA ' LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE A-4.2 BORING NUMBER 5 at 'k' to 3' AND SAMPLE DEPTH : ' SOIL TYPE : SILTY CLAY CONFINING PRESSURE : 144 ( LBS./SO. FT. ) a INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT : 12.0 ( %) FINAL MOISTURE CONTENT : 30.7 DRY DENSITY : 102 ( LBS./CU. FT. ) rn EXPANSION INDEX : 109 TEST METHOD : UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARD NO. 29-2, EXPANSION INDEX TEST. N co k - EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA C O LL ' LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE A-5 BORING NTRIBER SOLUBLE a AND SULFATE CONTENT SAMPLE DEPTH (PPM) I at 5' 184 1 at 14' 69 1 2 at 7' 206 3 at 14' 213 4 at I' <50 ' Test Method: ASTM Designation D-516-B w co SULFATE CONTENT TEST DATA O LL ' LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE A-6 rvd-1 �. ' C -H EMISTS TESTING IN SPKCTIO N • ENGINEERS SMITH-EMERY COMPANY An Independent Commercial NOW EaBontorr Established 1010 MR File NO. 8030 Date Received 4/06/82 ' Lab No. 82-205 Date of Report Project A-82082 Type Matrl. Charge LE ROY CRANDALL & ASSOCIATES 'Boring No. 6 Depth 0' - 3' T.I. 4.0 Assumed •Gf 1.0 Assumed "R" VALUE DETERMINATION Remarks: Dry Wt. As Received Mold Water Added M Size Wt. % Ret'd. $ PassIg. Net Wet Wt. 1} & Water 1 3/4 acle Pressure 1/2.age Pressure (Corr.) Exudation Press. 9 3/8 4 Height Total Mold Gross Wt. D Wt Mold Tare ,� Used* Corr.%Pass. Corr.%Ret M Mold Net Wet Wt. Defl. by Exp. Press. 0 1 " 3/4 G. E. by Exp. Press. Stab. @ 80 PSI (1000) v 3/8 Stab. @ 160 PSI (2000) , 4 Total Turns Displacement v Dry Wt. � % X � Total R-Value (Uncorrected) 5R Size Wt. Ret. Pass. Pass.4 % Pass R-Value (Corrected) 8 G.E.. by Stab. 16 G.E. b Ex an. 30 Mold Net D Wt. 50 " Densi 100 R-value exudatical pressure 200 R-value expansion pressure LESS THAN 5 Dry Wt. *For R-Value Batching R-value at E ilibrium #4 When 108 Rock PLATE A-7 i N APPENDIX B 1 1 1 ' ADE-82082 Page B-1 APPENDIX B ' GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC DATA ' GENERAL ' The geologic-seismic studies included a field reconnaissance on and adjacent to the site on April 2, 1982, as well as office analysis of ' published and unpublished literature pertinent to the study area. The City of Newport Beach General Plan, 1972, was reviewed as a part of our ' literature analysis. This Appendix presents additional background information regard- ing faults and ground shaking. tFAULTS The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The criteria for these major groups, as established by the Association of Engineering Geologists t00973) , are presented in Table B-1. Table B-2 presents a listing of active faults in Southern California with the distance in miles between the site and the nearest point on the fault, and the maximum credible ' earthquake that is likely to occur on the fault. Table B-3 presents a similar listing of potentially active faults. ' Active Faults Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone: The active fault nearest the site is the North Branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located about 1.1 miles south of the site. The position of the actual fault trace through the Newport Peninsula has not been firmly established; however., the 1 ADE-82082 Page B-2 ' TABLE B-1 CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FAULTS WITH ' REGARD TO SEISMIC ACTIVITY (From Association of Engineering Geologists, ' Geology and Earthquake Hazards, 1973) A. Active Faults: . (See Table B-2) ' These faults are those which have shown historical activity. This category includes such faults as the San Andreas, San Jacinto, and Newport-Inglewood. ' B. Potentially Active Faults: (See Table B-3) These faults are those, based on available data, along which no known historical ground surface ruptures or earthquakes have occurred. These ' faults, however, show strong indications of geologically recent activity. Potentially active faults can be placed in two subgroups that are based on the boldness or sharpness of their topographic features and the esti- mates related to recency of activity. These subgroups are: 1. Subgroup One - High Potential a. Offsets affecting the Holocene deposits (age less than 10 - ' 11,000 years) . b. A ground water barrier or anomaly occurring along the fault ' within the Holocene deposits. c. Earthquake epicenters (generally from small earthquakes occurring close. to the fault). ' d. Strong geomorphic expression of fault origin features (e.g. faceted spurs, offset xidges or stream valleys or similar features, especially where Holocene topography ' appears to have been modified) . 2. Subgroup Two - Low Potential ' This subgroup is the same as 1-a, b, or d above, with the excep- tion that the indications of fault movement can be only determined in Pleistocene deposits (less than 1,000,000 years ago) . C.' Inactive Faults: These faults are without recognized Holocene or Pleistocene offset or activity. ADE-82082 Page B-3 ' TABLE B-2 MAJOR NAMED FAULTS CONSIDERED TO BE ACTIVE (a) IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Dote of Maximum Distance Fault Latest Major Credible From Site Direction (in alphabetical order) Activity Earthquake (Miles) From Site ' Big Pine 1852 7.5 (b) 104 NW Coyote Creek 1968 7.2 (c) 80 E Elsinore 1910 7.5 (b) 23 NE Garlock (d) 7.75(b) 99 NNW Malibu Coast 1973 7.0 (c) 46 NW Manix 1947 6.25(b) ill NE More Ranch (d) 7.5 (b) 125 WNW Newport-Inglewood 1933 7.0 (b) 1.1 S San Andreas Zone 1857 8.25(b) 51 NE San Fernando Zone 1971 6.5 (b) 50 NW San Jacinto Zone 1968 7.5 (b) 47 ' NE ' Superstition Hills 1951 7.0 (b) 125 ESE White Wolf ' 1952 7.75(b) 115 NNW Whittier 1929 (?) ' 7.1• (c) 21 NNE (a) Historic movement (1769 present) . (b) Greensfelder, C.D.M.G. Map Sheet 23, 1974. (c) Mark (1977) Length-Magnitude relationship. (d) Intermittent creep. ' ADE-82082 Page B-4 ' TABLE B-3 MAJOR NAMED FAULTS CONSIDERED TO BE POTENTIALLY ACTIVE (a) ' IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Maximum Distance Fault Credible From Site Direction (in alphabetical order)_ Earthquake (miles) From Site Calico-Newberry 7.25(b) 107 NE ' Charnock 6.6 (c) 34 NW *Chino 6.7 (c) 28 NE Cucamonga 6.5 (b) 38 NE *Duarte 6.3 (c) 35 N ' E1 Modeno 6.5 (c) 15 N Helendale 7.5 (b) 78 NE ' Northridge Hills 6.5 (b) 54 NW Norwalk 6.4 (c) 17 N Oakridge 7.5 (b) 75 NW *Overland 6.2 (c) 37 NW Ozena 7.3 (c) 110 NW Palos Verdes 7.0 (b) 21 WNW Pelican Hill 6.3 (c) 2.8 E Pinto Mountain 7.5 (b) 80 ENE ' Raymond 6.6 (c) 37 NNW San Cayetano 6.75(c) 45 NW *San Gabriel 7.5 (c) 43 N ' *San Jose 6.5 (c) 30 NNE Santa Cruz Island 7.2 (c) 90 WNW Santa Monica-Hollywood 6.8 (c) 40 NNW ' Santa Susana 6.5 (b) 59 NNW Santa Ynez 7.5 (b) 87 NW Sierra Madre 7.5 (b) 36 N ' Sierra Nevada 8.25(b) 115 �- N *Verdugo 6.8 (c) 42 NNW ' (a) Pleistocene deposits disrupted. (b) Greensfelder, C.D.M.G. Map Sheet 23, 1974. (c) Mark (1977) Length-Magnitude relationship. * Low Potential per A.E.G. definition. ' ADE-82082 Page B-5 ' Newport Beach General Plan (1972) projects the fault passing about 1.1 mile south of the site, as shown on Plate 3. ' The several branches of the Newport-Inglewood Fault located in Orange County include the North and South Branches and the Bolsa-Fairview, Yorktown, Adams Avenue and Indianapolis Faults, and are shown on Plate 2. ' Available information on the North Branch and other faults of the Newport-Inglewood system indicates that there has been no displace- ment of the Holocene age Talbert aquifer underlying Santa Ana Gap which is estimated to be less than 10,000 years old. The Pleistocene and older formations have been affected by the Newport-Inglewood system. ' The 1933 Long Beach earthquake originated on the Newport-Inglewood system. There is some evidence in Bolas and Sunset Gaps farther to the northwest that Holocene deposits have been disturbed by movement on the ' North and South Branches of the Newport-Inglewood fault system. Whittier Fault: The Whittier Fault is.a southeast trending ' fault along the south edge of the Puente Hills 21 miles north-northwest of the site. The 1929 Whittier earthquake may have originated on this ' fault although some geologists believe that movement on the Norwalk ' Fault was the cause. Elsinore Fault: The Elsinore fault is located on the northeast side of the Santa Ana Mountains. Several earthquakes have originated along this fault system. The largest was in 1910 with a magnitude of ' about 6.0. The Elsinore Fault is about 23 miles northeast of the site. ' ADE-82082 Page B-6 M III San Andreas Fault: The San Andreas Fault is the best known and most significant fault in California. The San Andreas Fault is located on the south side of the San Bernardino Mountains. This fault is about ' 51 miles northeast of the site at the nearest point on the fault. Potentially Active Faults ' Pelican Hill Fault: The Pelican Hill Fault is a probable branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone located about 2.8 miles east of the ' site. A branch of the fault has displaced higher marine terrace deposits ' in the San Joaquin Hills, indicating upper Pleistocene or younger activ- ity. Holocene activity has not been established, therefore the fault is ' considered potentially active. Norwalk Fault: The Norwalk Fault does not have any surface expression. This fault offsets lower Pleistocene and older deposits near the mouth of the Santa Ana Canyon about 17 miles north of the site. E1 Modeno Fault: The E1 Modeno Fault is located about 15 miles ' north of the site. The fault is a steeply dipping normal fault about 9 miles in length which has about 2,000 feet of uplift on its eastern tside. Movement on the fault has been inferred during Holocene time, ' suggesting the fault is active; however, further study is needed to confirm this. ' Inactive Faults Shady Canyon Fault: The Shady Canyon Fault is located about 5!� ' miles northeast of the property. The California Division of Mines and Geology (1974, 1976a) show that the youngest rocks cut by the fault are tADE-82082 Page B-7 ' middle Miocene in age. The California Division of Mines and Geology ' (1976a) do suggest that a lineament in the topographic expression of the ' marine terrace might be due to the fault. However, no other publica- tions consider the Shady Canyon Fault potentially active. Until more definite information is developed, we will consider the Shady Canyon ' Fault to be inactive. GROUND SHAKING ' Movements on any of the above described active and potentially active faults could cause ground shaking at the site. The relationship between the magnitude of an earthquake and the duration of strong shak- ing that results has been investigated by Bolt (1973) . The relationship is set forth in Table B-4. The period of •strong shaking is defined as that time period when the acceleration of the ground due to seismic ' waves is greater than 0.05g. ' TABLE B-4 BRACKETED DURATION AS A FUNCTION OF MAGNITUDE AND DISTANCE TO SOURCE (after Bolt, 1973) Bracketed Duration (seconds) ----- Distance to MaSnitude Source (km) 5.5 6.0 6.5 T 7.5 8.0 _— 8.5 10 8 12 19 26 31 —34 35 25 4 9 15 24 28 30 32 50 2 3 10• 22 26 28 29 75 1 1 5 10 14 16 17 100 0 0 1 A 5 6 7 ' 125 0 0 1 2 2 3 3 150 0 0 0 ' 1 . 2 2 3 175 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 200 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 ADE-82082 Page B-8 ' REFERENCES Association of Engineering Geologists, 1973, Geology and Earthquake Hazards, Planners Guide to the Seismic Safety Element. Bolt, B.A. , 1973, "Duration of Strong Ground Motion" in Proceedings, Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. California Department of Water Resources, 1967a, Hydrologic Data - 1965, Volume V - Southern California, Appendix C - Ground Water ' Measurements, Bull. No. 130-65. California Department of Water Resources, 1967b, Progress Report on ' Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Plain of Orange County. California Department of Water Resources, 1977, Hydrologic Data - 1975, ' Volume V - Southern California, Bull. No. 130-75. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1973a, Geo-Environmental Maps of Orange County, California, Preliminary Report 15, by P.K. Morton, R.V. Miller and D.L. Fife. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1973b, Urban Geology: Master ' Plan for California, Bulletin 198. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974; Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the San Juan Capistrano 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Special Report 112, by P.K. Morton, W. J. Edgington, and D.L. Fife. - ' California Division of Mines and Geology, 1976a, Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the South Half of the Tustin Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Special Report 126, by R.V. Miller and S.S. Tan. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1976b, Geology and Engineering ' Aspects of the Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, Cali- fornia, Special Report 127, by S.S. Tan and W.J. Edgington. City of Newport Beach General Plan, 1972, Geologic-Seismic Studies, Phase I, by Woodward-McNeill and Associates. ' ADE-82082 Page B-9 ' Greensfelder, R.W. , 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earth- quakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. iMark, R.K. , 1977, Application of Linear Statistical Models of Earthquake Magnitude Versus Fault Length in Estimating Maximum Expectable Earthquakes: Geology, Vol. 5, No. 2 pp. 464-466. Orange County General Plan Safety Element, 1975, Environmental Manage- ment Agency. U.S. Geological Survey, 1956, Ground-Water Geology of the Coastal Zone, Long Beach-Santa Ana Area, California, Water-Supply Paper 1109, ' by J.F. Poland, A.M. Piper and others. U.S. Geological Survey, 1965, Newport Beach 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map. -000- W II ' APPENDIX C ' ADE-82082 Page C-1 ' APPENDIX C DOWNHOLE SEISMIC SURVEY After completion of drilling, and after installing the PVC pipe ' and placing gravel backfill in Boring 1, a downhole seismic survey was performed in this boring to determine the propagation velocities of the ' compressional waves (P-waves) and shear waves (S-waves) . A borehole seismometer, connected with cable to an amplifier and ' recorder, was lowered to the bottom of the boring. A wooden plank was placed adjacent to the boring and weighted down with the front wheels of a vehicle. The S-wades were generated by horizontally striking the end ' of the plank with a sledge hammer; the P-waves were generated by verti- cally striking the top of the plank. _ The S-waves and P-waves were de- tected by the three orthogonal geophones of the borehole seismometer. ' When the measurements were completed at a given depth, the seismometer was raised to a higher level and a new set of measurements was taken. ' The times of first arrivals of the S-waves and P-waves were determined from the recordings and were plotted versus distance from the source on a travel time curve which is presented on Plate C-1, Downhole Seismic Survey. The propagation velocities were computed and are presented on Plate C-1. ' SEISMICITY The seismicity of the region surrounding the site was determined ' from a computer search of a magnetic tape catalog of earthquakes. The catalog of earthquakes included those compiled by the California Insti- tute of Technology for the period 1932 to 1978 and those earthquakes for W 6Z ADE-82082 Page C-2 the period 1812 to 1931 compiled by Richter and the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) . Table C-1 is a computer ' printout of the earthquakes (Table C-1 is presented at the end of this ' Appendix) . The search for earthquakes that occurred within 100 kilo- meters of the site indicates that 273 earthquakes of Richter magnitude ' 4.0 and greater occurred between 1932 and 1978; four earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or greater occurred between 1906 and 1931, and one earth- quake of magnitude 7.0 or greater occurred between 1812 and 1905. The information listed for each earthquake found in Table C-1 includes date and time in Greenwich Civil Time (GCT) , location of the ' epicenter in latitude and longitude, quality of epicentral determination (Q) , depth in kilometers, and magnitude. . . Where a depth of 0.0 is given, the solution was based on an assumed 16-kilometer focal depth. The explanation of the letter code for the quality factor of the data is presented on the first page of the table. GROUND MOTION STUDIES GENERAL ' In the development of response spectra, procedures were used which consider the effects of local soil and geologic conditions. These site dependent procedures reflect the current state-of-the-art and are ' presented in the literature of earthquake-resistant design(it. 2, 39 49 7)*; they are widely accepted by consulting engineers and regulatory *Numbers in parentheses refer to references summarized in a subsequent section entitled References. ADE-82082 Page C-3 Iagencies in the United States and other countries. The predicted response of the deposits underlying- the site and ' the influence of local soil and geologic conditions during earthquakes were based on statistical results of several comprehensive studies(1, 2, ' 3, 4) of site-dependent spectra developed from actual time-histories ' recorded by strong motion instruments located in various parts of the world. Several postulated design earthquakes were selected for study' ' based on the characteristics of the faults presented in Tables B-2 and B-3 of Appendix B. The peak ground motions generated at the site by the selected earthquakes were estimated from available empirical relation- ships(2, 4, 5) . The selection of appropriate response spectral values and spectral shapes was based on several recent studies(1, 2, 3, 4). ' The dynamic characteristics of the deposits underlying the site were estimated from the results of the downhole. seismic survey, the logs of borings, and static test data presented in this report, and from dynamic test data available from various sources. Details regarding the ground motion studies are presented in the following sections. POSTULATED DESIGN EARTHQUAKES ' The causative faults were selected from the list of faults pre- sented in Tables B-2 and B-3 as the most significant faults along which earthquakes are expected to generate motions affecting the site. Postu- lated design earthquakes were selected in accordance with the seismic ADE-82082 Page C-4 criteria set forth in the "Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary"(6) by the Structural Engineers Association of California. ' Those criteria have been interpreted as follows: 1. Structures shall resist moderate earthquakes with a low' probability of structural damage. 2. Structures shall resist major earthquakes, of the intensity of severity of the strongest experienced in California, with a low probability of collapse, but with some structural as well as non-structural damage. Accordingly, the major and moderate earthquakes were interpreted as the ' maximum credible earthquake and the maximum probable earthquake, respec- tively, that may be generated along the causative faults. The maximum credible earthquake constitutes the maximum earthquake that appears to be reasonably capable of occurring under the conditions of the presently known geological framework; the probability of such an earthquake occur- ring during the lifetime of the subject development is low. The maxi- mum probable earthquake constitutes an earthquake that is highly likely to occur during the design life of the development. Two maximum credible earthquakes and one maximum probable earth- quake were selected. The descriptions of these earthquakes are presented in Table C-2, Postulated Design Earthquakes. The maximum probable local earthquake was arbitrarily defined as a 50-year earthquake; this selec- tion was based on Plate C-2, Recurrence Curve. ADE-82082 Page C-5 TABLE C-2 �= ' POSTULATED DESIGN EARTHQUAKES ' Distance From Estimated Fault to Site Design Earthquake Fault Magnitude (Miles) Maximum Credible: A San Andreas 8.3 51 B Newport-Inglewood 7.0 1.1 ' Maximum Probable: ' C Newport-Inglewood 6.6 1.1 The recurrence curve on Plate C-2 was developed on the basis of the seismicity of an area having a -radius of 100 kilometers. The application of the Poisson probability law to the resulting recurrence curve, as shown Plate C-3, Estimated Probability of Earthquake Occur- fence, provides an-estimate of the probability of earthquake activity that may affect the site. The probability of at least one occurrence of ra 50-year earthquake within the search radius would be approximately 50% to 60%. The probability value is based on the assumption that the seismic risk is equal throughout the search area; in addition, an earthquake of a given magnitude is assumed to occur on the nearest fault to the site capable of generating that level of earthquake. iESTIMATED PEAK GROUND MOTION VALUES The site dependent procedure used herein based on the statisti- cal analysis approach consists of estimating the peak ground motion values (acceleration, velocity, and displacement) anticipated at the ADE-82082 Page C-6 M site, and applying-structural amplification factors to these values to obtain the spectral bounds for each desired value of structural damping. ' The ground motion values have been found to vary with the magnitude of earthquake and distance of the site from the source of energy release(l, 2, 4, 5) . ' The peak ground accelerations for. the subject site and postulated design earthquakes are based on the studies by Seed, at al(1, 2, 5) , who analyzed 104 site-matched strong motion records and developed average response spectra for four broad site classifications: rock, stiff soil, deep cohesionless soil, and soft to medium soil deposits. Based on a ' review of the results of the boring logs, do-vmhole seismic survey, and static laboratory tests, this site is classified as being a stiff soils site. The peak ground motion values for velocity and displacement are based on the attenuation equations of Trifunac(4) The equations were statistically determined from the analysis of over 370 site-matched strong motion records. (Because of the non-linear behavior of maximum acceleration in the vicinity of strong earthquakes, the equations of Trifunac which have been described as characteristically linear were not used to estimate maximum ground acceleration.) RESPONSE SPECTRA The ,ground motion values described above provided a basis by which site-dependent response spectra were computed by the technique presented by 11ohraz(3) . For each of four site classes, Mohraz presents ADE-82082 Page C-7 damping-dependent amplification factors by which the ground motion values are multiplied to obtain spectral bounds. These bounds represent constant values of spectral acceleration, velocity, and displacement. The transition from the domain of constant spectral acceleration to constant ground acceleration at short periods is assumed to take place ' between structural periods of 0.05 and 0.17 seconds. Mean values for the amplification factors were used to develop response spectra for structural damping of 2%, 5%, and 10%. It has been found that for moderate sized earthquakes, peak rground accelerations are typically on the order of 30% to 40% higher than. the sustained level of ground acceleration(8) for distances less than about 20 miles (32 km) . It is our opinion that the reduction factor should also be dependent upon duration of strong shaking. Based on the accepted practice that a design response spectrum should reflect ' this sustained level of motion rather than the absolute peak, the ' spectra were reduced by factors of 0%, 30%,' and 40% for Earthquakes "A", "B", and "C", respectively. Response spectra based on the consideration of the above factors were developed for structural damping values of 2%, 5%, and 10%, and are ' presented on Plates 5-A through 5-C, Response Spectra. ADE-82082 Page C-8 REFERENCES (1) Seed•, H.B. ; Ugas, C. ; and Lysmer, J. , "Site-Dependent Spectra for Earthquake-Resistant Design", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 66, No. 1, February, 1976. (2) Seed, H.B.; Murarka, R. ; Lysmer, J. ; and Idriss, I.M. , ' "Relationships between Maximum Acceleration, Maximum Velocity, Distance from Source and Local Site Conditions for Moderately Strong Earth- quakes", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 66, ' No. 4, August, 1976. (3) Mohraz, Bijan, A Study of Earthquake Response Spectra for Different Geologic Conditions", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of ' America, Volume 66, No. 3, June, 1976. (4) Trifunac, M.D. , "Preliminary Analysis of the Peaks of. Strong Ground Motion - Dependence of Peaks on Earthquake Magnitude, Epi- central Distance, and Recording Site Conditions", Bulletin of the Seis- mological Society of America, Volume 66, No. 1, February 1976. (5) Schnabel, P.B. ; and Seed, H.B. , "Acceleration in Rock for Earthquakes in the Western United States", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vo. 63, No. 2, April, 1973. (6) Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Seis- mology Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of California, ' 1980. (7) Shannon & Wilson, Inc. and Agbabian-Jacobsen Associates, ' "Procedures for Evaluation of Vibratory Ground Motions of Soil Deposits at Nuclear Power Plant Sites", U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1975. ' (8) Ploessel, M.R. ; and Slosson, S.E. , "Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes", California Geology, September, 1974. ' -000- r i m go m m m s ■� TABLE C-1 - - - - - -^ (Sheet I of 15) - - - - - - - --- - - LIST-OF -HISTORIC -EARTHQUAKES OF MAGNITUDE 4.0 -OR GREATER - - - -- ------ - -- -- --- - GREATER WITHIN 100 KM OF THE SITE (CAL TECH DATA 1932-1978) YEAR MONTH DAY HR MIN SEC LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DISTANCE_ DEPTH MAGNITUDE 1432 11 1 4 45 0 34. 00 N 117.25 W E 74 0.0 4.0 1933 3 11 1 54 8 33.62 N 117.97 %1 A 6 0.0 6.3 ----- - - - 1933 - 3 11 2 - - 4 - -0 - -33.75 N - 118.08 41 - C - 21 - 0.0 - 4. 9 - 1933 3 11 2 5 0 33. 75 N 118. 08 W C 21 0.0 4.3 1933 3 11 2 9 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 5. 0 1933 3 11 2 10 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.6 -- - 1933 - 3 11 2 -11 - - 0 - - 33. 75 N 118. 08 1.1 C -' 21 - 0.0 - - 4.4 -- -'- -- 1933 3 11 2 16 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4. 8 1933 3 11 2 17 0 33. 60 N 118.00 W E 9 0.0 4.5 1933 3 11 2 22 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 4. 0 1933 - 3 11 - 2 -27 - - 0 - - 33.75 N 118.08 W C - -- 21 0. 0 - 4.6 - - -" 1633 3 11 2 30 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 5. 1 1933 3 11 2 31 0 33.60 N 118.00 at E 9 0. 0 4.4 1933 3 11 2 52 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0 .0 4.0 - - •-- - - 2L333 - 3 -- 11 - -- - 2 - - 57 -- - 0 - - - 33.75 N 118.08 W C _--- 21 - 0.0 - "-- 4.2 -- - ""-- 1933 3 11 2 58 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4. 0 1933 3 11 2 59 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.6 1.333 3 11 3 5 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 4.2 1+333 - 3 - 11 -- - 3 - 9 - 0 - - 33.75 N 118.06 W C - - 21 --' - 0. 0 - 4.4 1933 3 11 3 11 0 . 33.7S N IIS. 08 W C 21 0.0 4.2 - 1933 3 11 3 23 , 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 5. 0 193-3 3 11 3 36 0 33.75 N 118.03 W C 21 0.0 4.0 1933 3 11 - - 3 39 - 0 - --.33. 75 N 118.08 101 C -- 21 - 0.0 - '-- 4.0 1933 3. 11 3 47 0 33.75 N 118.08 IN C 21 0.0 4. 1 1933 3 11 4 36 0 33. 75 N 118.0i3 W C 21 0 .0 4.6 1933 3 11 4 39 0 33.75 N 118.03 W C 21 0. 0 4.9 1933 - 3 - 11 - -- --4 - -40----- 0 - ­ 33.75 N 118.08 W - - C - -- 21 0.0 -- 4. 7 '- - --- _ - 1933 3 11 5 10 22 33. 70 N 118.07 W C 17 0.0 5. 1 1933 3 11 5 13 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.7 -� NOTE: 0 IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION A = SPECIALLY INVESTIGATED 9 = EPICENTER PROBABLY WITHIN 5 KNi, ORIGIN TIME TO NEAREST SECUND -- - - - --' -- --- "- C = EPICENTER PROBABLY NITHIN 15 KM, ORIGIN TIME TC A FEW SECONDS D = EPICENTER NOT KNOWN WITHIN 15 KM, ROUGH LUCATIUN E EPICENTER ROUGHLY LCCATED, ACCURACY LESS THAN "D" P = PRELIMINAPY - - - - - - -' - - - ---- -- - -------- -- '--'--'--I TABLE C-1 (Sheet 2 of 15) _ YEAR MONTH DAY HR MIN SEC LATITUDE LONGITUDE O DISTANCE: DEPTH MAGNITUOL 1933 3 11 5 15 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0 .0 4.0 1933 3 11 5 18 4 33.57 N 117.98 W C 9 0.0 5.2 1933 3 11 5 21 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 4.4 1933 3 11 5 -24 - O - -- 33. 75 N 118. 08 W C - -21 - - 0.0 - 4.2 -- " - 1d33 3 11 5 53 0 33.75 N 118.03 W C 21 0. 0 4. 0 1933 3 . 11 5 55 0 .33. 75 N 118.09 W C 21 0 .0 4.0 1933 3 I i 6 11 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.4 1933 3 11 0 18 - 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C - 21 0.0 4. 2 - - IY33 3 11 6 29 O 33. 85 N 119.27 W C 42 - 0.0. 4.4 1v33 3 11 6 35 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 4.2 1933 3- it 6 58 3 33.68 N 118.05 W C 15 0.0 5. 5 - L933 3 11 7 -51 - - 0 -- - 33. 75 N 118. 08 W C - - 21 0.0 - 4.2 1933 3 11 7 59 0 33.75 N 118.OG W C 21 0. 0 4. 1 1933 3 11 8 8 0 33. 75 N 118.03 W C 21 0.0 4.5 1933 3 11 8 32 0 33. 75 N 118.08 I'll C 21 0.0 4. 2 -- 1933 3 11 8 37 - O - 33.75 N 118.08 W C - - 21 - 0.0 -- 4. 0 - 1933 3 it 8 54 57 33. 70 N 119.07 W C 17 0.0 5. 1 1933 3 11 9 10 0 33. 75 N 118.08 V! C 21 0. 0 5. 1 1933 3 11 9 11 0 33. 75 N 119.08 W C 21 0.0 4.4 - '1433 - 3 11 9 26 - 0 - 33. 75 N 118. 08 W C - 21 - 0.0 - -- 4. 1 - -- - - - - 1333 3 11 10 25 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4. 0 '1933 3 11 10 45 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.0 1933 3 11 11 0 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 4.0 1933 3 11 11 - 4 - 0 - - 33. 75 N 118. 13 1•. C - 25 - ' 0.0 4. 6 - 1933 3 11 11 29 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.0 1933 3 11 11 38 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 4. 0 1933 3 11 11 41 O 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.2 - - --- - - 1933 - - 3 It - 11 -47 - - 0- - - 33. 75 N 118.08 W C - - 21 0.0 4.4 ' - '-- - - - 1933 3 11 12 50 O 33.68 N 118.05 W C 15 0.0 4. 4 1933 3 11 13 SO 0 33. 73 N 118.10 W C 21 0.0 4.4 1933 3 11 13 57 O 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 4. 0 1933 3 11 1'4 25 0 - - 33.85 N 118.27 W C - -42 - 0.0 - 5. 0 '- 1933 3 It 14 47 0 33.73 N 118. 10 W C 21 0.0 4.4 I933 3 11 14 57 O 33.88 N 118.32 V1 C 48 0.0 4.9 1933 3 11 i5 9 0 33. 73 N 118.10 11 C 21 0.0 4.4 - - 1.333 3 11 - - 15 47 --- 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C - 21 0. 0 -' - 4. 0 - _-- - - ' 1933 3 11 16 53 0 33. 75 N 118.08 Yi C 21 0.0 4. 8 1933 11 19 - 44 0 33. 75 N 1.1e.08 W C 21 0.0 4.0 1933 3 11 19 56 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.2 -- 1933 3 11 22 0 - 0 - - 33. 75 N 11 8.08 W C - 21 0 .0 - 4.4 - -- ' - 1933 3 11 22 31 0 33. 75 N 118.03 W C 21 0.0 4.4 1933 3 11 22 32 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4. 1 1333 3 11 22 40 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.4 Mir M M M M M M Mbl= M M TABLE C-1 - - - -- - - - - (Sheet 3 of 15)- YEAR MONTH DAY HR MIN SEC LATITUDE LONGITUDE O DISTANCE- DEPTH " .MAGNITUDE 193-9 3 11 23 5 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.2 1933 3 12 0 27 O 33.75 N 118.09 W C 21 0. 0 4.4 1933 3 12 0 34 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.0 - 1933 - 3 12 4 48 - 0 - 33. 75 N 118.03 W C 21 0.0 4.0 - 1933 3 12 5 46 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 4.4 _ 1933 3 12. 6 1 0 33.75 N 118.08 w C 21 0.0 4.2 1933 3 12 6 16 0 33. 75 N 118. 08 '.' C 21 0.0 4.6 -- - - - 1933 3 12 - - - - 7 -40 - - 0 - -- 33.75 N 118.08 W C - -- 21 - - 0.0 - - 4. 2 -- 1933 3 12 8 35 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.2 IY33 3 12 15 2 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 4.2 1733 3 12 16 51 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4. 0 1933 3 12 17 3P, - 0 - 33. 75 N 118.08 W C - 21 0.0 - 4.5 -- -- --- - 1933 3 12 18 25 0 33.75 N 118.08 'Al C 21 0. 0 4. 1 1933 3 12 21 28 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4. 1 1933 3 12 23 54 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.5 -- - - 1933 - 3 13 3 --43 - 0 - 33.75 N 118.08 W - C - - 21 - - 0.0 - -- 4. 1 - 1933 3 13 4 32 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.7 1933 3 13 6 17 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 4.0 1933 3 13 13 18 28 33.75 N 118.06 k C 21 0.0 S.3 ---- - - •1'933 - 3 - 13 15 -32 - -- 0 - - - 33. 75 N 118.03 W C - --- 21 - - -' 0.0 - --- 4. 1 - - -- ' - 1d33 3 13 19 29 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 4.2 1933 3 14 0 36 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0 .0 4.2 1333 3 14 12 19 0 :33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.5 1933 3 14 19 1 - 50 - - 33.6? N 118.02 ve C - - 10 - - - 0.9 -- - 5. 1 --- -'--- - - ---- 1933 3 14 22 42 0 . 33. 75 N 118.03 1.11 C 21 0.0 4. 1 !933 3 IS 2 8 0 33.75 N 118.03 W C 21 0.0 4. 1 1933 3 15 4 32 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4. 1 - -- 1933 - 3 15 5 40 - - 0- • 33.75 N 118.08 W C - - - 21 - - - 0. 0 - -- - 4.2 - ---'-'---- 1933 3• 15 11 13 32 33.62 N 118.02 W C 10 0.0 4.9 1933 3 16 14 56 0 33. 75 N 118. 08 W C 21 0.0 4.0 1933 3 16 15 29 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4. 2 ---- 1933 - 3 - 16 - 15- 30 ---- 0-- -- 33.75 N 118.03 W C - - 21 -- 0 .0 •- -- 4. 1 --- - - - - -- 1933 3 17 16 51 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4. 1 1933 3 18 20 52 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 4. 2 1933 3 19 21 23 0 33. 79 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4.2 _---- - -- 1933 -- 3 20 13 -- 58 - - 0- - 33.75. -N 118.08 W - C - 21 -- - - 0. 0 -- -- - 4. 1 1933 3 21 3 26 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4. 1 1433 3 23 8 40 0 33. 75 N i18. 08 it C 21 0.0 4. 1 1933 3 23 18 31 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0.0 4. 1 -- - 1933 3 25 13 46 - - 0 33. 75 N 118.08 W C -- - 21 - - 0.0 - - 4. 1 -- - - - I'+33 3 30 12 25 0 33. 75 N 118.09 v! C 21 0. 0 4.4 1';033 3 31 10 49 0 33.75 N 118 .03 W C 21 0.0 4. 1 1933 4 1 6 42 0 33.75 N 118. 03 W C - 21 0.0 4.? 1433 4 - 2 9 0 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C - 21 - 0. 0 - 4. 0 - -- ' - - TABLE C-1 - - - - - - --- -- - (Sheet 4 of 15) YEAR MONTH DAY HR MIN SEC LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DISTANCE DEPTH MAGNITUDE 1933 4 2 15 36 0 33.75 N 118.08 W C 21 0. 0 4. 0 - 1933 5 16 20 58 55 33.75 N 118.17 W C 28 0.0 4.0 1933 8 4 4 17 48 33. 75 N 118. 18 W C 29 0.0 4.0 --- -- - - 1933 10 - . 2 9 -- 10 - -18 - - .33.78 N 118. 13 W - A ' - 27 ' - 0.0 - '� 5. 4 -- - - - -' 1933 10 2 13 26 1 .33. 62 N IIP.02 W C 10 0 .0 4.0 1933 30 25 7 0 46 33.95 N 118. 13 W C 42 0. 0 4. 3 1333 11 13 21 28 0 33.87 N 118.20 to C 39 0.0 4.0 -- ---- - i'-033 11 - 20 - 10 -- 32 -- - 0-- 33. 76 N 118. 13 W - 8 - 27 - - 0.0 - - - 4.0 - - -'-- 1934 1 9 14 10 0 34. 10 N 117.68 W A 57 0.0 4.5 1934 1 18 2 14 0 34. 10 N 117.C8 W A 57 0 .0 4.0 1934 1 20 21 17 0 33.62 N . 118. 12 4 B 19 0.0 4.5 1934 - 4 17 18 - - 33 '- - 0 - - - 33. 57 N 117.68 •H C - 9 0.0 - 4. 0 1934 10 17 9 38 0 33. 63 N 11P..40 W B 45 0 .0 4.0 1934 11 16 21 26 0 33.75 N 118.00 W B 17 0. 0 4. 0 1935 6 7 16 33 0 33.27 N 117.02 W B 91 0 .0 4.0 --' - 1935 -- 6 - 19 11 - 17 '- - 0 ' - - 33. 72 N 117.52 ''d - B - - 38 - - 0. 0 - - 4. 0 ---- 1935 7 13 10 54 17 34.2.0 N 117.90 'W A 64 0.0 4.7 1935 9 3 6 47 0 34. 03 N 117.32 W O 71 0.0 4.5 1y35 11 4 3 55 0 33.50 N 116.92 W 6 93 0.0 4.5 - -- - 1'335 12 25 17 --15 - - 0 - 33.60 N 119.02 W P. - --- 10 0.0 - - 4.5 - '- 1-)36 2 23 22 20 43 34. 13 N 117.34 W A 77 0.0 4.5 1936 2 26 9 33 28 34. 14 N 117.34 W A 78 0.0 4. 0 1?36 7 29 14 22 53 33.45 N 116.90 W C 96 0.0 4.0 -- - - 1 j36 - a - - 22 - 5 -21 - - 0 -, - 33.77 N 117.82 :J B - --- 19 -' -` 0. 0 _ 4. 0 --'-- 1937 1 15 18 35 47 . 33.56 N 118.0b W B 15 0.0 4.0 1937 3 19 1 23 38 34. 11 N 117. 43 W A 70 0.0 4.0 1937 7 7 11 12 0 33.57 N 117.98 W B 9 0.0 4. 0 1937 - 9 1 13 43 - 8 .34.21 N 117.53 W A - 74 - - - 0.0 - 4.5 - 1937 9- 1 16 35 34 34. 18 N 117.55 W A 71 0. 0 4.5 1937 9 13 22 14 40 33.04 N 118.73 W C 100 0.0 4.0 1938 5 21 9 44 0 33. 62 N 119. 03 W H 11 0.0 4.0 -- I938 5 31 8 -34 55 33.70 N 117.51 W 8 - 38 0.0 - - - e.5 - - - 193P. 6 16 5 59 17 33. 46 N 116.94 W 8 95 0.0 4.0 1936 7 5 18 6 56 33. 68 N 117.55 W A 34 0.0 4.5 1938 8 6 22. 0 55 33.72 N 117.51 W B 39 0.0 4. 0 -- -- -- 1933 8 31 3 18 14 - - 33. 76, N 118.25 W A - 35 - 0.0 - - 4.5 '-- 1938 11 29 19 21 16 33.90 N 118.43 W A 57 0. 0 4. 0 1938 12 7 3 38 0 34. 00 N 118.42 W 8 63 0.0 4.0 1939 12 27 10 9 29 34. 13 N 117.52 W 8 67 0.0 4.0 - - 1939 4 3 2 50 45 - 34.04 N 117.23 'H A - 78 -- 0.0 - - 4. 0 - 1939 11 4 21 41 0 33. 77 N 118. 12 W 8 26 0 .0 4.0 1939 11 7 18 52 P 34.00 N 117.28 W A 72 0. 0 4.7 1939 1.2 27 19 28 49 33.78 N 118.20 W A 32 0.0 4.7 1940 1 13 7 - 49 - 7 33. 78 N 118. 13 11 +J-' -- 27 0.0 -- 4.0 TABLE C-1 (Sheet 5•of 15) YEAR MONTH DAY HR MIN SEC LATITUDE 1_ONGITUDE O DISTANCE DEPTH MAGNITUDE 1940 2 8 16 56 17 33. 70 N 118. 07 '4 B 17 0.0 4.0 194LO 2 11 19 24 10 33.98 N 118.30 11 B 54 0.0 4. 0 1940 2 19 12 6 ' 56 34. 02 N 117.05 I'l A 91 0.0 4.6 1940 4 IB 18 43 44 34. 03 N 117. 35 W A 69 0.0 - 4.4. '-- - 1940 6 5 8 27 27 33.83 N 117.40 W B 53 0.0 4. 0 1940 7 20 4 1 13 33. 70 N 11P.07 W P, 17 0 .0 4.0 1940 10 11 5 57 12 3.3.77 N 118.45 W A 53 0. 0 4. 7 1`j40 10 12 0 -24 - 0 - 33. 78 N 118.42• P: fl 51 0 .0 4.0 -- 1940 10 14 20 51 11 :33. 78 N lle. 42 W B 51 0.0 4.0 . 1940 it 1 7 25 3 33.78 N 118.42 W B 51 0.0 4. 0 1940' 11 1 20 0 4b 33.63 N 118.20 W B 27 0 .0 4. 0 - 1940 11 2 2 58 - - 26 - 33. 78 N 118.42 it B '-' 51 0. 0 -- 4. 0 " - -- 1941 1 30 1 34 47 33.97 N 118.05 W A 41 0.0 4. 1 1941 3 22 8 22 40 33. 52 N 118. 10 W B 21 0.0 4.0 1941 3 25 23 43 41 34.22 N 117.47 W B 78 0. 0 4. 0 - - - - - 1941 4 11 1 - PO - 24 -- -- 33.95 N 117.58 W B - -- 48 0 .0 - 4.0 1941 10 22 6 57 19 33. 82 N 118.22 W A 36 0.0 4. 9 1,?41 11 14 8 41 36 33.78 N 118.25 w A 36 0.0 5. 4 134? 1 24 21 41 48 32. 80 N 117.a3 W B 91 0.0 4.0 1942 4 16 7 28 33 33.37 N 118. 15 W C - - 36 0.0 - 4. 0 -- -- - " - 1943 2 23 9 21 12 32.85 N 117'.48 W C 94 0 .0 4.0 1943 10 24 0 29 21 33. 93 N 117. 37 W C 61 0. 0 4.0 1944 6 19 0 3 33 33.87 N 118.22 W B 40 0.0 4.5 - - 1944 6 19 ' 3 - - 6 - 7 - •33. 87 N 118.22 W C - 40 ' " -' 0.0 - 4:4 "- 1946 2 24 6 7 52 34.40 N 117.,80 'd C 87 0. 0 4. 1 1d48 3 1 8 12 1.3 34. 17 N 117.53 W B 70 0 .0 4.7 1948 to 3 2 46 28 34. 18 N 11 7.58 19 A 69 0.0 4..0 -- 1950 1 11 21 41 - .35 - - 33.94 N 118.20 tl A -- - 45 - -- 0.0 -- 4. 1 - -- '-� 1951 9 22 8 22 39 34. 12 N 117.34 W A 77 0 .0 4.3 1951 12 26 0 46 54 32.82 N 118.35 W B 98 0.0 5. 9 1•d52 2 13 15 13 37 32.37 N 116.25 W C 89 0 .0 4.7 -- 19 52 2 17 12 - - 36 - - 58-- - 34. 00 N 117. 27 W A - _ - 73 -' 0.0 4.51')54 10 26 16 22 26 '33.73 N 117.47 'd B 43 0.0 4. 1 1955 5 15 17 3 26 34. 12 N 117.46 W A 68 0.0 4.0 1956 1 3 0 25 49 33. 72 N 117. 50 w B 40 0. 0 4.7 1960 6 28 20 - 0 48 34. 12 N 117.47 el - A - 69 0.0 - 4. 1 1961 10 4 2 21 32 33. 85 N 117. 75 W B 30 0.0 4. 1 1"j61 10 20 19 49 51 33.65 N 117.99 w B 8 0.0 4.3 1d61 LO 20 20 7 14 33. 66 N 117.98 W B 8 0 .0 4.0 - - - - 1961 10 20 21 42- 41 33. 67 N 117.98 W O - - 9 - 0.0 4. 0 -' - -- " - 1•d61 10 20 22 35 34 33.67 N 118.01 W B 11 0.0 4. 1 1•'161 it 20 S 53 35 33. 65 N 117.y9 11 B 10 0.0 4.0 1962 4 27 9 12 32 33. 74 N 117.19 W B 68 0.0 4. 1 1'>93 9 14 ' 3 51 tb 33. 54 N 118.34 W H 41 0.0 - 4.2 TABLE C-1 - - - - - - - (Sheet 6 of 15) YEAR MONTH DAY HR MIN SECLATITUDE LONGITUDE 0 DISTANCE DEPTH MAGNITUDE 1463 9 23 14 41 53 33. 71 N 116.92 W B 92 0.0 5.0 1964 8 30 22 57 37 34. 27 N 118.44 'i1 R 87 0. 0 4. 0 1965 1 1 8 4 18 34. 14 N 117.52 W B 68 0.0 4. 4 1905 - 4 - 15 - 20 - -- 8--- 33 - -- 34. 13 N 117.43 W - - B - -- - 72 - - 0.0 - - 4.5 - -- --- 1967 1 8 7 37 30 33.63 N 118.47 W B 52 0. 0 4. 0 1':)67 1 8 7 38 5 33.66 N 118.41 W C 47 0.0 4.0 1-y67 6 15 4 58 6 34. 00 N 117.97 W B 43 0.0 4. 1 --- -- - - 1969 - 5 - 5 - - - lb - --- 2 - -10 -- - - 34.30 N 117.57 Vl - - 6 - - - 82 - -- 0.0 - -- - 4. 4 ---- -- - - -- 1969 10 27 13 16 2 33.55 N 117.81 W B 12 0.0 4.5 1970 9 12 14 10 11 34.27 N 117.52 W A 81 0. 0 4. 1 1970 9 12 14 30 53 34.27 N 117.54 Vi A 80 0.0 5.4 - - 1970 - 9 13 4 -47 49 - - 34. 28 N 117.55 W A - - 80 0.9 - 4.4 -- - 1971 2 9 14 0 42 34.41 N 118.40 V! 8 99 0.0 6. 4 1971 2 9 14 1 8 34. 41 N 118.40 W 0 99 0 .0 5.8 1971 2 9 14 1 33 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 0. 0 4.2 - - - 1971 2 9 14 - 1 -- 40 -- 34.41 N 118.40 W 0 - - 99 0.0 - - 4. 1 -- 1971 2 9 14 1 50 34.41 N 118.40 W D - 99 0.0 4.5 1971 2 9 14 1 54 34.41 N 118.40 W 0 99 0. 0 4. 2 1971 2 9 14 1 59 34. 41 N 118.40 W D 99 0.0 4. 1 1971 2 9 14 - 2 - 3 -- - 34.41 N 118. 40 W 0 - 99 0.0 - - 4. 1 - - - - - 1971 2 9 14 2 30 34.41 N 118.40 W 0 99 0.0 4. 3 1971 2 9 14 2 31 34.41 N 118.40 W 0 99 0.0 4.7 1971 2 9 14 2 44 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 0. 0 5.3 1971 2 9 14 - - 3 25 - 34.41 N 113.40 W D - - 99 - 0 .0 - -- 4.4 - -- -- - 1971 2 9 14 3 46 .34. 41 N I18. 40 W D 99 0.0 4. 1 1971 2 9 14 4 7 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 0.0 4. 1 1971 2 9 14 4 34 34.41 N 113.40 'W C 99 0 .0 4.2 1971 2 9 14 -- 4 - 39 - -34.41 N 118.40 V: D - 99 0. 0 - 4. 1 - 1971 2- 9 14 4 44 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 0 .0 4. 1 1971 2 9 14 4 46 34.41 N 118. 40 W 0 99 0.0 4.2 1971 2 9 14 5 41 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 0.0 4. 1 -- - -- 1971 - 2 9 - - 14 -- 5 - 50 - 34.41 N 118.40 W D - 99 --- -0.0 -- - -- 4. 1 - - --- 1.971 2 9 14 7 10 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 0. 0 4. 0 1471 2 9 14 7 30 34.41 N 118.40 W 0 99 0 .0 4.0 1971 2 9 14 7 45 34.41 N 118. 40 W D 99 0.0 4.5 - -- -- - - 1971 2 9 14 - 8 -- 4 - - - 34.41• N 118.40 W D - 99 - - 0.0 - - 4. 0 - --- -�- 1971 2 9 14 8 7 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 0.0 4.2 1971 2 9 14 8 38 34.41 N 118.40 U D 99 0. 0 4.5 1971 2 9 14 8 53 34.41 N 118.40 W D 99 0.0 4.6 -- - 1971 2 9 14 - 10 21 - 34.36 N 118. 31 W e -- 90 - - 0.0 - - 4.7 - - --' - 1971 2 9 14 10 28 34.41 N 118.40 %1 D 99 0. 0 5.3 1971 2 9 14 16 13 34.34 N 118.33 W C 89 0 .0 4. 1 1'371 °' 9 14 19 50 34.36 N 1i8.41 W R - 94 0. 0 4. 0 11i71 2 9 14 39 t8 .34.39 N 118.30 W C 95 0-.0 4.0 - r -m m m TABLE C-1 - (Sheet 7 of 15) - - - - '- - - YEAR MOMTH JAY HR MIN SEC LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DISTANCE DEPTH MAGNITUDE 1971 2 9 14 43 47 34.31 N 118.45 W 8 91 0.0 E. 2 1971 2 9 15 58 21 34. 33 N 118.33 W' 8 88 0 .0 4.8 1971 2 10 3 12 12 34.37 N 118.30 W B 91 0. 0 4. 0 1971 2 10 5 6 36 -- 34.41 N 118.33 W A - 96 0.0 - 4.3 - - - -- 1971 2 10 11 31 3b 34. 38 N 118.45 4t A 98 0.0 4.2 1971 2 10 13 49 54 34.40 N 118.42 W A 99 0. 0 4. 3 1•d71 2 10 14 35 27 34. 36 N 118.49 W A 98 0 .0 4.2 1='' li L 10 17 38 55 - 34.40 N 118.37 W A -- 96 0.0 4.2 - - -"- 1971 2 21 5 50 53 34.40 N 118.44 W A 100 0.0 4. 7 1y71 2 21 7 15 12 34. 39 N 118.43 W A 98 0.0 4.5 I971 3 7 1 33 41 34.35 N 1.18.46 W A 9b 0. 0 4.5 1971 3 25 22 54 -- 10 -- -- 34. 36 N 118.47 W A - - 97 0 .0 4.2 - -- 1971 3 30 8 54 4.3 34.30 N 118.46 W A 91 0.0 4. 1 1971 3 31 14 52 23 34.29 N 118.51 'H A 93 0.0 4. 6 1971 4 2 5 40 25 34. 26 N 118.53 W A 93 0.0 4.0 1971 4 15 - i1 - 14 32 - 34. 26 N 11 8.58 'W 8 - 94 - - 0. 0 4.2 ' - 1971 4 25 14 48 7 34.37 N 118.31 W B 91 0 .0 4.0 1.371 6 21 lb 1 8 .14.27 N 1I8. 53 'W B 92 0.0 4.0 1971 6 22 10 41 19 33.75 N 117.48 W B 42 0. 0 4. 2 1'974 6 14 14 45 -55 - - 34. 43 N 118.37 W A - 99 0 .0 4.2 1975 1 12 21 22 15 32.76 N 117.99 W C 96 0. 0 4. 8 1976 1 1 17 20 13 33.96 N 117.69 W A 38 0.0 4.2 1976 10 18 17 2.7 53 32. 76 N 117.91 W P 95 0.0 4.2 1477 8 12 2 -1 9 - 2b - - - 34.38 N 118.46 W B - 99 - 0. 0 - 4. 5 - 1978 8 11 0 47 30 , 34. 16 N 117.44 W B 74 0.0 4.0 r mb s� TABLE C-1 (Sheet & of 15) # # # S E A R C H O F E A R T H Q U A K E D A T A F I L E 1 SITE: ADE-82082 SAINT ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH COORDINATES CF SITE . .. . . .... . 33.62 N 117.91 W - - - DISTANCE PER DEGREE . .. . . 110.9 KM-N 92.8 KM-;,* -' - MAGNITUDE LIMITS .. .. . . . . .. .. ..... . . . . 4.0 - 8.5 TEMPURAL LIMITS . .. .. . .. . . . .. .. . .. . . 1932 - 1978 - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - SEARCH RADIUS (KM) .. ... . . . .. .. ... . .. . . . . . 100 NUMOER OF -YEARS CF •DATA . .. .. ... . . . .. . . . . . . 47 - - --- - - - - •- - - -- NUMRER OF EARTHQUAKES IN FILE ... .. . . . .. . . 2578 NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN AREA . . .. . . . . . .. • -- 273 - - - -- -- --- -- - - ---- - # # # T T r * L E R 0 Y C R A N D A L L A N D A S S C C I A T E S I L 0 S A N G E L F_ S - - - --- - - TABLE C-1 (Sheet 9 of 15) LIST OF HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES GF MAGNITUDE 6.0 - OR GREATER WITHIN 100 KM OF THE SITE (RICHTER DATA 1906-1931 ) YEAR MONTH DAY HR 91IN SEC LATITUDE LONGITUDE Q DISTANCE DEPTH MAGNITUDE 1907 9 20 1 54 0 34.20 N 117. 10 W D 99 0.0 6.0 1'910 5 15 15 47 0 33.70 N 117.40 W D 48 0. 0 6. 0 - 1'31d 4 21 22 - -32 25 - 33. 75 N 117,00 W O 86 0.0 6.8 - 1923 7 23 7 30 26 34. 00 N 117. 25 W D 74 0.0. 6.3 TABLE C-1 (Sheet 10 of 15) # # # # S E A R C H O F E A R T H 0 U A K E D A T A F I L E 2 # # # # SITE : ADE-82082 SAINT ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH COORDINATES OF SITE . .. .. .. .. . 33. 62 N 117.91 WH DISTANCE PER DEGREE . .. . . 110.9 KM-N 92.8 KM-W ' MAGNITUDE LIMITS .. .. .... . . .. ... ... . . . 0. 0 - 8.5 - - TEMPORAL LIMITS . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. . . 1906 - 1931 _ - - SEARCH RADIUS (KM) ... . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . . . 100 NUMBER OF YEARS OF DATA . .. .. ..... . . . . . ... . 26 NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN FILE . ... . . . . .. . . 35 NUMBER- OF EARTHQUAKES IN AREA . . .. . . . . ... . " 4 - - - - -- -- - - -"' # # # # L E R O Y C R A N D A L L A N 0 A S S O C I A T E S L 0 S A N G E L E S - " ' TABLE C-1 - -- - - — - -- — (Sheet 11 of 15) --- - - -- - - - - LIST OF HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES OF MAGNITUDE 7.0 OR - - - -- - - -- - - — GREATER wITHIN 100 KM CF THE SIT'= (NOAA/CJMG DATA 1812-1905) YEAR MONTH DAY HP MIN SEC LATITUDE LONGITUDE a DISTANCE DEPTH MAGNITUDE" le90 2 . 9 4 6 0 34.00 N 117.50 W D 57 0.0 7. 0 m TABLE C-1 _ (Sheet 12 of 15) # # # S E A R C H O F E A R T H 0 U A K E D A T A F I L E 3 # # # # T SITE : ADE-82082 SAINT ANDREWS PRESBYTEkIAN CHURCH COORDINATES OF SITE . . .. . .. .. . 33.62 N 117.91 1; DISTANCE PER DEGREE . . . . . 110.9 KM-N 92. 8 KM-W - - - -- - - - "' MAGNITUDE LINITS .. .. ... . .. .. .. . .. . . . . 7.0 - 8.5 TEMPORAL LIMITS . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . . 1812 - 1905 -'-' - --- '-- -- - - -'-' "- ` SEARCH RADIUS ( MAJ .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . 100 ' NUMBEP OF YEAkS CF 'DATA . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . .. . - 94 - - - - - NUMBEk CF EARTHQUAKES IN FILE . ... . . . . . . . . 9 NUP40ER OF EARTHQUAKES IN AREA . .... . . . . .. . . 1 - -- - ' -' # # # # * L E R O Y C R A M 0 A L L A N D A S S O C I A T E S L 0 S A N G E L E S - - - - - - - sm mbm m m m m m m 1V TABLE C-1 (Sheet 13 of 15) S U M M A R Y O F E A R T H Q U A K E S E A R C H NUMBER OF HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES WITHIN 100 KM RADIUS OF SITE MAGNITUDE RANGE NUMBER - - - - -' - 4.0 4.5 - - 194 - -'-- - - -- --- -- ..-- -- - --- 4 .5 - 5.0 56 -' - -- - -- 5 .0 - 5.5 " _ - 16 '- - - - - - - -- --' -- 5.5 - 6.0 5 --- - - - 6.0 6.5 - - - - - 5 - - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- 6.5 - 7.0 I - 7.0 7.5 - -- 1 .- - - - - -- - - - 7.5 - 8.0 0 8.0 — 8.5 0 - - # # # = L F R O Y C R A N C A L L - - A N D A S S O C I A -T E S - -- % %'-# * #- --- -- -•-" L n S A N G E L E S - TABLE C-1 (Sheet 14 of 15) * # r a C O M P U T A T I O N O F R" E C U k R E N C E C U R V E L O G N = A - B M - BIN MAGNITUDE_ - RANGE NO/YR ( N) - - - - - - -- - - - -_- - - 1 4. 00 4.00 - 8.50 5 .85 2 4.50 4.50 - 8.50 1 .73 3 5.00 5. 00 - F3.50 . 535 4 5. 50 5.50 - 8.50 . 195 5 6.00 6.00 - 8.50 .882E-01 6 6.50 6.50 - 8.50 . 197E-01 NU 7 7.00 7.00 - 8.50 .599E-02 NU 8 7.50 7.50 - 8.50 . 0 9 8.00 8.00 - 8.50 . 0 A = 1 .017 B = 0.5348 (NORMALIZED) - ---- - -- ----- --- -- - - - - --A = 4 .385 '- d = 0.9185 SIGMA .697F_-01 -- - r r # L. E R O Y C R A N C A L L A N D A S S O C I A T E S L 0 S A N G E L E S TABLE C-1 (Sheet 15 of 15) _ $ # # # # C 0 M P U T A T I 0 N O F D E S I G N M A G N I T U D E # at # # C O N S T A N T A R E A TABLE OF D£SIGN MAGNITUDES RISK RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) •DESIGN MAGNITUDE DESIGN LIFE (YEARS ) 25 50 75 100 25 50 75 t00 0.01 . . 2487 _ 4974 7462 9949 . . 8.16 8.30 8.36 8.39 0.05 . . 487 974 1462 1949 . . 7.62 7. 88 8.01 8. 10 0.10 . . 237 474 711 94S . . 7.32 7. 61 7.77 7.87 0.20 . . 112 224 336 448 . . 6.99 7.30 7.47 7 .59 0.30 . . 70 140 210 280 . . 6.77 7. 09 7. 27 7.39 0 .50 .. 36 72 108 144 . . 6.46 6. 79 6.97 7. 10 0.70 . . 20 41 62 • 83 . . 6.21 6.53 6.72 6 .85 0.90 . . 10 21 - 32 43 . . 5.90 6.23 6. 42 6. 55 MMIN = 4.00 MMAX = 8.50 MU = 5. 15 BETA = 2.115 # # # # # L E R 0 Y C R A N D A L L A N D A S 5 C C I A T E S # # # # L C S A N G E L E S - 1_3 31VId - S31VIOOSSV (3NV IIVONV6:) A0891 , A3AdnS 0IWS13s 3 -10HNM00 1333 NI 30NV1S1a I3AV81 001 06 08 OL 09 09 Ob 0£ OZ OI O 0 O Oc'\ m 10'O ro O / v i p / `y Z0.0 A /v p L9Z / iv N O 11 0 3 S j D —"' £O'O < 0009 m � r 1��1�1Y � I � / /✓� --I 71 n = 3 a313WOWS13S _'—f---- --t--------- --- - ti0'O m -----�---'— ' P1 I / i =1 i I p n N 10, 90'0 308nos � /v i Orviaoe �/ ' I / / LO'0 / ('03S/'ld ) J.1100-13A NOIltl9tldpad--� / 3AVM-d o o—o 0 0091 ' / 3AVM-S —p— p—p—.p— OIL : 13H 80'O I - I 101000 ' 273 EVENTS M > 4 100 Km SEARCH RADIUS 1932 — 1978 11000 �— 1 N I Q 1 } 100 14 O I ; EST.UOES 3 EARTHQUAKES _ EST.HAG: 8,0 TO 6.5 BETWEEN ^ 1906 AND 1931 (L ' N Al 10 I�--- t----- — — - — a Q o Q � 1 W " ti INCLUDES O AP IL 8 I \ EST. MAG.•6.8 a. 74 KM DIST.• KM W m 0.1 — z FEB. 9 , 1890 EST. HAG? 7.0 DI ST.• STKM 0.01 00 au tj 0.001 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MAGNITUDE, M • RECURRENCE CURVE M III O REPRESENTS SINGLE EVENT, AND THEREFORE HAS BEEN DISCOUNTED IN PREDICTION. ' LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE C -2 ' w o 1.0 _ U) w � w J ' a 0.8 O DESIGN LIFE OF Z STRUCTURE IN YEARS � 0.6 U zs ' v5 U. 00 U O 50 ' I � 0.4 J m a: a '3 m 0 d 0.2 0 w - a d � W 0 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 ce MAGNITUDE H p N co lu ESTIMATED PROBABILITY w OF EARTHQUAKE OCCURRENCE rg LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES PLATE C - 3 t ' *AfNT ANQR8WO' PM*WlSy T`AIIWAk'*.' 1 SCHEMATIC DESIGN ' ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ' 600 ST. ANDREW'S ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 .. ' JANUARY 15, 1982 C. EDWARD WARE ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTS 415 "Y" BOULEVARD ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS 61107 1 . ' IRWIN 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTS 16400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SUITE 205 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 94629 . . � " , t ' �'v i. ,;{t.Ci1M1 :y_;?j��t��iE'{nT1',ti:.Ij,+ " ^, `•t'' f' l�l A'•.k,�.i I��F ,..y ^Y .SJ •'l�Y/��SL•� �P { r ) •��lcy}f h~ k•�1� I: 'SIN.• #��>:fr teak. �. r.�c. Y4+ kk� -y� ' w� ` i. S '� ' fi _ . .. - y Y yy r �M •1Sw Y ,�T�T J -f� Y.4..i.Ma�i4.sni2lW(J s..�W�.�.... ..• - •. «a ♦ �� � '�, ur / • OOdO'O Ql Lam, • �� pQ�v GGG �O • � pA / a"{�"00M room taalz n � gyp, VV J torv1�: Z V� wwloar � - NA0�7 arcxw Ct..M1004 noiuo. � �•� Ranww.1uu J�awol.�.r 1_ 09 LOWER FLOOR PLAN �, 91Srv*terian Gbutck 0 { 10 f0 xwanw.e.wra« . cmwuo wow uw[rmawalnw�i iowoo uw i 1 AT D �� ..w v 1 o0 1 O - 00 .w v W � 1 cl 1 � O ®® QIMP, w ° coo Q o°O xwl�c ttwssnoou °JOO SG cAndrews Fwsl"Lf1 ' -- `Presbyterian ChurdL O 6 10 20 CFDYIYO WNE ASSOCNT6.c./ApIIEC14 'i �O4 u.M q ,v,m000p �000a n ' ryY•�,10 a�wnw i .ucwrc q O ! O WCpry U111M0 � u M' / ODDObO 00�00� ` ODOO�O ' a�rnar aA.wppY W oop� r r . q r ^�it 000 \ 00 00 � 00 ♦♦ \\ wtan 1 • secow FLOOR PLAN ��, ,��..� GftesbBrian I"L..T1 7t t Eu Eat,w.v / PETEAT 011 rtM' ':. 6MRLL 11414E '' ELLCONY-. OJ® ^SIXTH FLOOR PLAN 00 E 10 R0 ®®m EE KF V S 1R oa E.1 : FIFTH FLOOR PLAN o®w � • Y Ida' �pJ VV4U� iUME UFFICE ,,Q�`",� FOURTH FLOOR PLAN SEG . a�°° Y� {9 �BOORREE➢fM E 1[i St c`lndrev* `Presbyterian Church �� o°„ RSSET M v6 E0 GCE�R�.WRRE.sE004TE3.c.REO.,EOIs rc � COIF/OTRiE Ell • • THM FLOOR PLAN • _ cusanaaY L L L L L I' t srau� w«rwa� ,nwm m�nwmvxw. arm wssgoY TRANSVERSE SECTION T RU SANCTUARY st c`/lndrews r5 10 20 `Ptesbyterian G'hurck CmWAIOMYE ASSOO�IESc..Y1P(RR! mamvwce �r v�vsrrn wawtvrt meEes rice � a�ssaoous Jul r ILOONNG�RU V&SECTION MM TOWER G C IQ 2U 8t c54ndrew� 9'resbyterian Church ��- � : �-- � '-� - --�-��-III:-� -■�--1�-�� _17r A -, [i•at3;,^,�'�^' .v.i✓, :�'c,J�.�.lr,-�i _' - v ,. _ � � " �q� ♦- - n _ .: `.;;�jr:S` 'yh;��,�,:• ut:'�q,� .'-i r.ir. ..-j• 1 _ •, ., � ' .;-�� 'r,i�'t`.l''�(?•*?' .y ih, •` _ ;lei �tc' I. �t:- =,tI .,_ , �;`,in r - itl �.-�i? >• 'rt.' .,i ;�' - .i,;:;�.y 11tit: -,,1• <:4 .l 't. .:� ..l ..� .�,i,�!f 1• ..< „a•�'L,i'` .• '- ^l - �. �M1- \• - r.i" L� .,� .it <x.AF1 - F, � ,b` ♦P n�. ,',°: .•t,(45 '.. '�;• .:,`. ',J,•.,.,i•.. . -t ".':Cr� "^""""ttt „H try'. , .;.C:k.;_�`�v�i'yk ' 3X f' si''' •:c'!".:I:�..F• _ . , rl; •'�w .,.'.` ,,+.' °• '� r� a t'r.� ^{!t:rS.P.:.:p.i „ _ - ., ,3P, n :,E_t'"'; i f, �.;i1C:e<t - X lt.t_ . '•` ' F 1.y.<• Y -t.b „ . ;, 7 {{ .ryy r'3":•._ :t;�>:- a .pr. , ;sip. i". �i.A �t'� ,., %.•.A. "iN `L t'•.'l y `?i;4 t' '' t,- "L T -'•'y' t�( Q' ':r- ;" r.! .�.".'ri,�:,,, 3 'y sf.gg'N.-�.+r: �t •-} ,:..J"' t lip, e; �''' -SFyy, ;: y.w4`•a'et ri!`:i.;i'�• •i.�y` ;•I , ••{' -';�'t`'` ''�.• 7'jrh `+- :.;' "� f p`E:a`=' 'a`. ..M a ` x�._..�L^ "rt. � .Ir6,�!1'r,{::' r.'a` _,1'( g.i': . ` =' 4.�. .*„ \I. .+ „r,•7 y�� t ri .;�w '.l..gyp.,, a`.M::i ;�''i���! shy , to ,.' �`�,�:'•i:�ro:i .ti��� t ' 1 a. � 4�1 , ;Gl,."^''• !••p''S.yab:�.3. .*t,�l.lti�v�8yt� `�;�t".$ t'* t .I �.� r ... i °14f Y ''f, :}rr�r•'1 ay,•r}: i4;X .„Mefr{ 1.�;. .Il` ,.-; •. /, � .,�. i. i�}.r%:; :,a. tiJ}' «�I ,1�,) i35 M1r"h y�""�'-Y•.,v9 !•r .a. �• .. .i;• ( ,I', . �. 1 ✓M,?b•` �t,Aw IIr;.L.v t}' n{i 1• :.i,lt� \. I!^' r�;.,f<T,,• •t.7 zh': q.fct-:' "k d;.0-. r' !(:• ,3+''J„ ' • ) ` ,P"t�ilY �i t. 11.,,''h`YB �,.; X{,1., al, y,t. . ri;', j-0i,: r T. .�, •{Y�,I r.�o" \i av: j�-: s r'ro.^ti.r �4 !:"I .1 Te fr r • i ',y,}f } '« '';'j..,: f;l,'- .l••' ttr:}'It k.}f .'4.•, 4 f:.:" 7 2,7a{ •,,7;• ')1 3P}::a: Mt'rt"'r' '',�, �` �; 1s? , .;��,+�v. °,'' -a�.i;,�::•r,.`° •;+:tA3.c f a. ` t s^' _: t 4• r.e:Y 7, . ,f'.':'^Y�Y,,3S'n3,. ;to'. :^i• i t1.`�fr 4f t t1�'y�F,y: fi;. •".'.::'- _•lri si• 't;.la}. 1.':-::�.a 'i. ,� r �8(.j•..i:',.^, . -.> t?.'..♦ —,a.. ,i1',a..a.'S�:fe lh y jl�,. !t. t„ 1 r�'t `,iT•, i 11 .,I ,.4'✓, ��V{y. r� a,tLL NSt�•{ t�''^,A3li..la�!t'i^ � ``T'(� } ''N s`a r.•, `e T7.d a11i.,j;:.l'jYa✓5 r•f, )ri. � '' .P `{ { ',�L'o- :@•,:i` F.y<fii' aC-ail.,i.A�.a..<d'I:{1 r�•.; tad, ., ':` i Ile tv ;6,� ^�+``.•it:�i"J,,.�r$i.A.f-K �4,':11'°ii J it , 'r •h: L �'.`,�' .; i =,l. Y..:1`}".. y, +ar j`�-t 1, ,LLB'' •.4i' .i i, ae~�}'!:Y,.$ �.�,'-'v��.���•.'zy,a-t,.. ,R t d`:•46-t, � ...\• a , s �'1 ' K'•tF- - - °}'y' ia'J'°I�r: 'c.�r a`.!'`, '._ 1 + � ��Y' AA 4 o•. C , 't ij •-'~?e`PCny!•t xt 'r�-'"'r'a'I`' ,I;p.'. 4y..r'.�. , 1 1 i �Ci yi h }- ytti.. f 7\+.y�•�y.�s J;is �i '4. ilk. .�K•i`�r r{ JI Si[�y+�v}Fyn"{ } �,fa-"'R.l?,} .»_' •Y7 `i s•Y. 1 -# - .,,� � r r'.-.ir�- ' �'_ ���.v';,�: ' �>.•Z�,. t , .r: j a `ir'k:H . 1 f4{J� ..��,• • ' •.� <`y - , { :r.'.ii 4,i' •i-•Y.�t ���.an4t9 =-n \'{.`.f�?,t."ij.,tit #F 1 5. 1� �•bF43j>j�t��". n, 1��q . .a.,3� .•`y.+� 4.<'"y: _.' •'�,�.,.'1.�"�;r v.... t' + a•.�'?• Sp s.¢, 9... X. t �J¢}t+ 'J�nY4�S';N:. ,t h.• 1'.'y :�� "s_.i�,�;b x�.� �T ,�, '�'J n'}'Q 4iYat. ,,�': 'Y .�, .�1.f r ;. r.iy{1'e','- g'F'.• Y� ai•+�.'�� r,.r�'Z�E�-1:�'}^' .` ; , �, �-} ) �i-t.°xn'1'i;.p:�'l li t�p'�.�•.�h '��r""i i`�. z._a}�- ?�`n{r` .r*�s - .,d��,`, � I " { -,. . '• �::{ny,S. sF,�%.� ':�-• �1�' r : 5 Y=- i ` +:"r ;i+`�•i,�A a1,�,..t...yy;}., } y:f{.-�..y_`.�,._�H 4,,. �n.�,�"' .�`^ Pf' •i ,+ :iC-4��'�.,1 ,• ''" S. r ' +�s „�v.p:. J �t i4' - * '.,F`+eF..`r}�. 'Q ;7 F St5# ri`t�i.�t.wrYi�''-.,«',R'�,`:* k,*.i1 � S+`•; r:;;., 1 } 1�Y� ',lY-,.j.:`•.3 :y :9r�'. 't 1 i {r=cY�, J,� '�. `y�(,aa Ft�y�''��',. ..r -'ct.,ur 6s;A a r.__,i•.�.� `S ;nah_l 1 pb c#.' �!.' rr�'4..' •'Alf'; ,q..t, vf. . t'..�['• -r•- ''S,�i 'r�„t w �3', +Gr..' {F�S� $ik�'+' •}, r� •�ihy. 1��1, ..'��. ._ + t.-�.4��.,�,.y��- .+.»'. t. M.���sF't`cw�i`�'-y i:' -:t +`r•3tti/'r`A�C,{iii x, ' .+r ')�;p ft"1,it7: y�P �:*9 2 'aa+:•s'i ���:.�'ri*,�r2: K'�h''�t a�•�'•' „r�4.y�.�: rk �7A� ,d?;t s.. i'�Pr'? I 4 y.�j'GI �k z yyr..•,,.�• , i. 1 7 wr,A i. t YTwan_. . •.4a. }g' ,a�?,�;r�4;� t�:�,�'��`,� .e. y._... : �x� '(C . •Eq:fj"�.t."' k�.•�t:, i Yry ,t:..,!r .a"fs y,� � ,;y�yit.•.:y ' � ,',.t clt�e,'.��ix»rl� S- ` ,h.,! :}�t ��?di:`•i,F,•:.�. `P z"'a:P•?'.tY.+.k,Ca• !". -, - �t>,;;t' af.�:(.z''"-.it.:,e.1i , v'�:� .1C ti'.:1;' Y.n�• c n ' �ff ,� 4 �f8p :!Y ie >!. ,,�•f s ?, � .•;,;:?Y"{iH;..,h Y 4-tt di"• '}'4:E,�"rI� , �y'^ t -_•} i•_P"t-?�'lslf`'�of,' " , . a t=,u'y?,l,..rc�.�, ` 3�':yx.:.•;'f��`.�:xs,iN Qrf',:.. i�'� � �•"}r,i'S, °} i'6 ♦ .�1•Ipt.. As O' k..• 4K' N,-'S. i S'�,1�`yy: � _ n y}..�� 'i,;i �Y~""�,iti: ss8�.1..,f+1 fy' �j�•, 1; �'� '>�, "' J"A' �`y. ..) . .:Y'^`li t�' rtf"�•'K.� tX nll[_ l.1;:{:+'- .o?n ;�1y. - !4� :I 1 •.�� t {1 t•��i 44'9' tl. �..y� I.'(iiy!• cFy'tAr'..,y?•;Y,`: #1.y';C•. 'f, a,Sx-=.,) j �as�;:>'ltr;.,,�,,,sir:-:`'g1�Ly `�4 `�'s�:y� �t�.°}t! 7: '-1'.�M'• I 4 i^ J ,! 1J i y ST. ANDREW'S DEDUCT ADD PRESBYTERIAN Present + TOTAL AREA % CHURCH Area Demolition or New Construction Increase New ort Beach CA Re-assigned Use or Re-Assi ned Use WORSHIP Sanctuary ) 7,350 800 21 ,500 . 27,000 180 Narthex ) (becomes new Cha- (remove west-trans (incl . Narthex & Choir ) •pel & adult cept) Balcony) classroom 1 ,050 (east transcept to Education) Chapel 2,200 (becomes adult classroom FELLOWSHIP 8,850 8,850. 10,300 10,300 •16 (incl . Fireside (Dierenfield Hall ) Rm. & Kitchen MUSIC 1 ,000 1 ,000 2,550 2,550 155 (Plus use of Fel- lowship Hall as rehearsal room ADMINISTRATION 5,600 4,000 11 ,300 . 12,900 130 . Choir Dir. incl .. in Mu is . Youth Min's & Educ.Dir incl . in Educ. areas . Incl . expansion space in new building EDUCATION 19,600 5,830 10,900 27,850 42 (Dierenfield Hall) (Sanctuary Bldg. ) plus multiple use of: 3,200 . New Wedding Chapel (new Education . East transcept Bldg. ) . ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE AND INFORMATION The following information was transmitted to the City Council by the Planning Department and City Clerk related to the project. • N= •Jp4L'i'Gy�.^ ACE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 10 } , :- yV J COUNCILMAN PAUL L. HUMMEL y .147ow �r. (714) 675-0748 `Tyq�Tm ; August 17, 1982 Mayor Heather and Members of the Newport Beach City Council: Our recent direction for action on the proposed expansion of Saint Andrews Church leaves me with an uneasy feeling that the needs of neither party will be satisfied by the City' s directive. Reducing further the size of the facility will- diminish the ability of the Church to carry out its goals. On the other hand, C anything less than a major reduction in its size will seriously affect the neighborhood. Therefore, I am proposing another course • of action which might please both sides and benefit the entire city. Burdened as we have been with day-to-day business, we have over- looked one solution which, in my opinion, could satisfy both the- Church and its neighbors. The solution is to find an appropriate site for the expanded facility. In another location, the Church could expand to function at its maximum capacity and efficiency. Such an expansion of Saint Andrews Church could provide a resource to serve both the Church' s members and the entire community and gain the support of its present neighbors. An important Council function is to act upon land use matters for the benefit of the community. I believe this function provides us with the opportunity to be the catalyst for a variable solution that benefits all parties. The Church has made an unsuccessful attempt to obtain land at the Castaways site. It is unclear to me whether the Church' s inability to obtain the site stemmed from financial or planning problems. In either case, the Council has not attempted to stimulate a plan that would make the site availa- ble to the Church. It is my understanding that The Irvine Company has proposed new land use plans for the Castaways site and has written an environ- mental document in support of the Company' s plans. Is it not City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 P.O. Box 1768 • Mayor Heather and Members of the City Council Page Two C . within our purview to approve the development plan with a condi- tion that it include a church site? Or might we, the City Council, consider introducing a General Plan Amendment of our own to accom- modate Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church at the Castaways site? In light of the current furor over leaseholds, my proposal might provide The Irvine Company an excellent opportunity to brighten its tarnished image. Furthermore, providing a site for Saint Andrews Church might furnish such tax advantages for the Company that my proposal would appeal to its owners. With your involvement, I look forward to a constructive solution to this problem. Very truly yours, • PAUL L. HUMMEL, Councilman . Sixth District PLH/jmb C itCOUNOL A6ENDA3 7 i9W Nor �kui I-,7al 9' Ldk�r 3 RUB;.18 l9gr ;mow CIyQto p N .may. �d� :�:=��,.,::=:,:: �, � � •• �:, �.. :�.,�:.. •" .ice ah-� 11 .�1 .All� t �� ,?QxG7n•I�/ � �ifi�P/ fir/ /V/U 1wlA✓/ /6(•(i(/ i� ��W CZA Q �. II is M".3_ August 16, 1982 „ p, VC� !N (OI AGENDA City• Newport Veach CA P ���E, OK � Cif • . . � RE: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church ru Dear Members: My husband and I moved from Newport Beach to San Clemente in 1980, at which time, we were newly married, in our middle years. I had been a member of St. Andrews Church since 1971, but wished to continue my membership there. It is, a long drive, but to us, well worth it. The only thing is, if we are running a bit late, or even arrive at the time the service is about to start, we have trouble finding a seat, if at all. We have a tremendous membership, and, of course, everyone wants a seat. And, little wonder, as it is the most inspiring, beautiful service I have suer been fortunate enough to attend. I have attended many church servi- ces across the country. Our Ministers are the finest and the most dedi- •, cated people we could find. It is truly beyond my comprehension why anyone would oppose the building program of this wonderful institution! St Andrews needs more space to accom modate the ever growing attendance, and needed parking spaces. If the opponents of this expansion program would only attend one of the three services (2 in summer), they would quickly comprehend the need for the expansion, and also, may even be inspired to attend our church weekly. If they. would stop to consider where our country would be without such a place of instruction and inspiration for our young people, much less, f\� :he more maturry, there would be no question as to whether or not any re- quest would be granted. Newport Beach is indeed fortunate to have such a church as St. Andrews and other places of worship. It speaks well for . the city. After all, this is the United States of America, not a country like Russia, which fears allowing such places of worship. Thank God for our faith, and the faith of our fathers. City Council . August 16, 1982 Page 2 I do not wish to be emotional, but as factual as I can be to satisfy our reasons for expansion, but I would like to emphasise that there is nothing in this world more rejuvenating and refreshing as a visit to St. Andrews on Sunday morning. Isn't this what we need for the health And well-being of our people? Even those who disagree with our doctrine, must agree that the church is trying to deal with grave and numerous problems, and is doing a wonderful job of it. Its influence is only for good of all. May God guide your conscience in your decisions regarding our church. usnk you sincerely for reading my letter. Mrs. Charles D. Thompson // + fv (f/x ttzwl Mr. Charles D. Thompson 156 Mira Velero San Clemente, CA 92672 ro No �:> s MRS. CHARLBS WICKEIT t\ NFk��nl�e&jC C 309 EAST BAY FRONT,BALBOA ISLAND,CALIFORNIA 92662it " : 9 AUGA:::.: 14, 19z 2 G 18198?.0 •-u;v� �aMLe iietz nee a--,c yovnca ;e76e'4; ClTi�f1VFQ �10 . AwSana aru. ,•.' uJie ac£Lve memiea.� v C q SairJinr..eu' %neoJ yt'ezLa,z Chcuzch, i the 6vL%t. a,ze vppv4ea ;to the vg-endtn? hetiR ana plan v/ Ae ner, pzvpo4ea: Saar--LaV T owez 1 ;J huwJarzd i 4 a .e&i zea :IrzcUiect and .in LnJuzy ;to ,ie "Cz.•:L4;6iaa" zuiU rzv# p-t6Ji:w-t&y .jpeah a-a&q&6 AL4 - evert. ;6�w he Acu wo^hen.' wiA anv.thez ri :chiiect zdw in aJAo a ne,76ez vl oan c'aea ch - .in aeve Cvpi n; a dxtrdzy plan tyLL add v� ant. 4v Lve� .tieae Parry pevu.Lew. The 3ci.&in, CarnnL;6tee ha4 been peejeritea wi_.f/z ;&Leae a Uema& p.La'74. Gaz heavj aze heave wi;dz- :Ehe cvntJwvez4y Aa;c j4 •" azude-i, Theze aze nany '.'embew who /eeL as we a'v - Jut au he4i;6aie �o ".line-tp" ana auwe /zea. o[2z �e :Eo -&e AC e aria 4ezvice 01 ouz 6eau;ELLY rlvmc7. Groz heuz.t4 and pzavez4 arze with. you - ;69 lwpeTu.uii cv^zp.•orra:4e ana uz zv^ze zcay; 4o hea.0 size iebzi6Je wouncw ghat arze ',e,&,. rnaae •ie;ueea t'?t.e Cluv:cA ant. !lvmevwnew. In Cvc.i& Lan concena- �,��. C No. 5 ,Z OF "RECENED MER .P PP,ATED"' NE'Npn'T BEACH,4�9 AUG 19 i982 " j ip RECEIVED r3 V CLERK % Mrs.Ruth Silvey 275 E. 18th Street,#42 Costa Mesa,CA 9262T, i Z7, r/ � n f ,i j/ -�//"\� G •��f/,-f,'z`/mac-, "'77MED AFTER AGENDA PRMTED'". August 18, 1982 C1TY GP City Of Newport Beach 9 NEVNPONT BEACH, 9 City Council QAU.• 3300 Newport Blvd. AUG 2 G 19II2 3' 10 Newport Beach 92663 RECEIVED Dear Council members , CITY CLERK 1/ This letter is to express our strong sup the Saint Andrews church proposed building plans. As Newport Heights residents and long time Newport Beach citizens we feel that the plan is compatible with the surrounding area, and will lessen, not contribute , to traffic and parking problems. Certainly nothing could contribute more to our community than an active, growing church . St. Andrews has long provided important spiritual support and concrete helpline programs for many members of the total community. • , • Since the withdrawal of the Castaways site by the Irvine Company the congregation has had no other choice than to build on the existing property. It is sad to see a congregation turned away from worship because there isn't enough room in the sanctury despite three services. We hope you will give the project your support at the next hearing. Sincerely, Mr. and rs. Andrew Kalanz 445 San Bernardino Avenue Newport Beach, Ca 92663 631-0443 • ---- -- -- - - August 18, 1982 "RECOgg Jgrra Nwport Beach City Council 300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Councilparsons: As a resident of Newport Beach and a member of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, I am vitally concerned with the proposed building program currently before you for your decision. \V\- NE' My fiancee and I attended the August 9 City Council meeting, an b =A� f. 9 we both had the following comments on the issue of parking, _ E which those opposing the plans seem to bring up ad nauseam• AEG 319�z as 1 ) There is no evidence that St. Andrew's will ever be use of the Harbor High parking lot on Sunday mornings, regardless of whether a formal agreement is signed or not. I have been a member of St. Andrew's for almost 12 years, and a resident of the community for an additional 15, and I do not recall any time when the Harbor High parking lot was not available. I maintain that there is no historical foundation for their argument. 2) If, hypothetically, the use of the Harbor High parking lot were denied, it seems that the residents opposed to the • expansion would be cutting their own throats by not welcoming St. Andrew's to move ahead with the program, which includes 200+ spaces of on-site parking. Is it better to have virtually no on-site parking (present condition) , or 200+ spaces of on-site parking (proposed future condition)? If anything, the impact on the neighborhood will be a decrease in on-street parking, at least for the foreseeable future. 3) Hasn't an acceptable traffic study already been done? The opposition always seems to be more vocal in any endeavor which involves change, particularly to the area in which people live. This member of the usually silent majority would like to register with you his approval of St. Andrew's plans. I urge your support. Thank you. Respectfully yours, William R. Franklin 6 Dover Drive ewport Beach, California 92660 P.S. As an aside, who was it that said you can't please all the people all the time (especially when you're in politics)? MEM 8 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. Sinc rely yours, STEVEN DOBBIE President SD/jf COUNCIL AGE DA NO !oi f aAu;C, 13� /9irL 0 oy 7? ,tq�.auv y ^• 9246 3 330o yZ&� &W4 Itut .70 /I 7�ttKir� 7�vo / Iv A&r, �t�at v�,a.�i►�� /, 500 �u.a�oCv � �vrrll fn dir ui v 76 .lj yVov�i,�,a�., o Ocl L2 Li0OG coo ° . @s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH <1FORN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2137 .February 10 , 1982 Mr. Carl Irwin , President Irwin and Associates , AIA 16400 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach , 'California 92649 Dear Carl'- , Enclosed are some figures developed by the survey crew in our Public Works Department regarding the • height of the tower at the Harbor High School . Please let me know how these figures compare with the information that you generate . Sincerely, . M S D . HEWICKER lan ing Director JDH/kk Enclosure • City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 , Mailing Address : P . O . Box 1768 N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACHOUBLN 0 DEPARTMENT TO: i/Ir1J ��cal G �1Z ^�• t .Date ROM: F>/!? ! 1✓ti 1G Q SUBJECT: ��.0 GC_J� � i�yn�"r�!-ria.v r'�� /� �iscc��-��� 2e"' 7'� /i '� G,•,�T G,!Tr.,o - le--x-er7,J /c' 77/t'i�' /Y1�7j5rJh slc^.t.T /�rf�'c7' F'/J�r7rt 72 /99' .p.CG�/D7 !�SY• rT"�., 2�2t/� Copies to- Signe PUT IT IN WRITING . . . . . . WRITTEN MESSAGES SAVE TIME AND AVOID ERRORS CV G�01 co 2 0! R t notes `��:g<< 16 3 YC� • 01EP�N. �1 0 \� NUJ?CA�1F• \9 `� � Q � ^ P VVVA___ \ � � • \; N i 1 f t II \ I;o EDWARD F. ELLISON 1212SANDCASTLE DRIVE . CORONA DEL MAR,CALIFORNIA 92625 Aug. 1, 1982 .n� Planning Commission �! y � • 45'� City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Blvd. , Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Subject : Expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian facilities. Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission: We respectfully request your attention to this very serious matter. We have been members of St. Andrews Pres. Church for over 15 years. In that time we have seen it grow and become a significant part of the community. Relations have always been excellent with the surrounding neighbors and the Chltrch has gone that extra mile to keep it that way. It is always difficult to make changes and it is hard . for some of the local people to accept the fact that a church, lil�e a business, must grow and meet the needs of the community or die. Some of the objections to this new development have been petty and short sighted. We hope these people will not prevail as they get caught up in there emotions. The Church is making every effort to reach a satisfactory compromise, but as you know, it is impossible to make everyone happy. No church can exist and contribute to the community under conditions of bad local relationships. Our only hope is that you will look at this problem objectively and rise above the unreasonable objections of a few local residents. Sincerely, No A3 �l 0 Y� it w� c GROWING% i� GROWINGGr�o � TO THE MEMBERS OF ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH: Your neighbors of Cliff Haven are in direct opposition to the current construction plans of St. Andrews. It is our feeling that most of the members of St. Andrews are not aware of the impact on our community that these plans will have. So we are taking this method to bring our case before each St. Andrews member. Please read on: DO YOU REALIZE that the plans call for a 6 story occupied tower 85 feet high? That is higher than the new 6 story building at 17th and Irvine. DO YOU REALIZE that the plans call for a wall, 27' from Clay Street, (.the back of the sanctuary) that is 46 feet high? That is just four feet less than the Balboa Bay Club! DO YOU REALIZE that the new development will bring about 850 to 900 cars per service to our area? DO YOU REALIZE that the plans call for only 128 on-site parking spaces and do you know that St. Andrews is dependent upon the High School for 265 spaces. The short fall is obvious. DO YOU REALIZE that should St. Andrews lose the privilege of the High School Parking due to legal action or other pressures, that some of your members will have to park more than a half mile away, not to mention the total congestion of our area. DO YOU REALIZE that the people of Cliff Haven have been polled twice and each time have, by an outstanding majority, expressed overwhelming opposition to the St. Andrews plans. DO YOU REALIZE that the Cliff Haven Association is not against St. Andrews' develop- ment of their property, in fact we welcome it. We just don't want high rise in our residential area and we feel that St. Andrews should do all that is possible to provide their own on-site parking without an unsightly parking structure. DO YOU REALIZE that St. Andrews does not hold clear title to all the property they are trying to build on and they are ignoring the CC&R's that govern the property. DO YOU REALIZE that there is a way the Church can expand and still remain sensitive to the desires of the neighbors? We want your development to be compatible with our residential area. Your present plans certainly are not. We are told that the Presbyterian Church is a model of • democracy and so we appeal to each of you -- don't do this to your neighbors! Let your Session know that this is not what you want to do to your Cliff Haven friends. CLIFF HAVEN ASSOCIATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 23, 1982 TO: City Manager FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Use Permit No. 822-Amended Since Monday morning, September 20, 1982, this office has received several complaints and inquiries regarding signs which have been posted on the front lawns of homes in the neighborhood bordering St. Andrews Church. These signs demonstrate the community's concern with. the church project and advocate a position of growth with reason (see attached newspaper clipping from the Daily Pilot) . • I have informed the people with whom I have talked that the signs are illegal and are not permitted under the city's zoning ordinance. In addition I have tried to contact Mr. Gendron, the Community Association President; however, he has not returned my calls. This Department has not made any effort to physically remove the signs inasmuch as we did not wish to create any additional controversy where substantial controversy already exists. Also, I have made no- attempt to inform the Community Association or the individual parties involved that they are in violation of their own CC&R's, which specifically prohibit signs of any character other than ordinary "for sale," ".for rent" or "open for inspection" signs which do not exceed four square feet. b,D. HEWICKE Plann ng Director JDH/kk Attachment xc: Mayor Pro Tem Hart Council Member Maurer t^ .� -� ..{ _ aj 'i; •- - -k1..:".i�a >,:.lr - f. . 7�•t i. ,a•[, !i y,.':e. .. i�-':��•! •a.'• iz�.! 'f :•^a•` h �3 k.'" `- .r• ..i, y . 'i' r +y. -hit'•'.:' t. .d t s• D- { !.-"rfvj' '? j a �', . •y. ':?*;..., :�1 -iiiiit -'E •.r,. r.�';:1:`- Ei:i i2 ;fi,r,, .'{ c'ry'•r ti 1 . jit^s+`. J' ;;> ,3 :''e 7:-7`., - t:d ;t fE ;;„t.6 ;? :" , f��.• +; ,Ii '� � is i'0.•< - ' .�`. tw ,C; $ ':' , ,ts-.=. .,.- _�' .- . ,. ,e it t,.: / •1 �i� i' •'.'k ��a:.'i:;' 1•yP �'i'.: `i' L�'',.M,:i„" r. �• ( _ � ,.. ''i' 1 rti,z ?h' 'r:ri •�i r +.� _ `'i2d>'•:At• t.e . . 4?+. '=� I• iiy .. ,L� :w'T,'";:1tyiT: :.Lji•.� �F{E i+ .4'<' Ly`[l - ' AyC, ' . �;•+ ' " - i'St,• • G, h!=:.� ' rS.-.,..?;: ryE -, a*' .1" 3' •F r ',}'x�•l ''' i�:`[.:�.,, - Lisl'• •i:'r;°:a;J,i ;x•Y:f'd ,Jr _ ,.sr,1 ,,r.-, a e, •� .L;,"a• 7- .� i. , - fit,, g�i;yat ;, ;i �, ii i�Lq�r °#j- S- �,Y,•:r1 Ci,'.3e'. !,.�w•?. ,�,..A AS' ,r.x: 'i. _ »t, pit�- `-n. _,ri^,, , ,�S,y�Ff� . 'i-; (.:'• 7r1• ;'r•.�' •"1:'�„y! ,t, h,. - - [s "i1.rr'� fi ;z., ,r?P •_<` t -r x: "-'•'} ;t' `d.a o" .,i.'r':jam-- t.,.�.. '`• i 1 - c .,,-. :" .`r- :4' ;`'y,'- ' .�. .. .r„r'ti yr - r' S• t i t s {L �^{.".:�• <� r�- • gpp 'S r'�' ){ _ - :tsl ,!i==, '�.�fPr:�,i l:.. fy4-':--'..;h,`•j+--�'i •1 ) , *'C3 � 'nh - 35�. ,- .I,¢ ,&F_ri .v:'i}•:;%: :,'i �= tn'•., a�. `Si i•:.(:`hr' 't; 3.;'�- Y, '1,i4 + :V yi *'.fit, •t .`':.� - -�.e c, ..t" -,.py�s i.<fl;.�' ? ;3 i�r .p.,..t't.+`,.irk'.•:.r''�,�',''v,93 �i%..j 25, r- .£�2•_ •r y-• t{� '�, ,-�•.rt - r`.,^ .,yt,{�, _ '�-�i._� V,i�.'c:f:^-Sl- w' 4Si:' 4• 'S'i � -•ta �r a' .".+_ � - i.�F -• s ., i.;-y'.-:Y'', •�d,"-``t �q�L -,t•, _ 1,a �_� _ } " . .:fir-'`$i+•a• , _ ._5i _:f - :1:: ' ... . . a <�,.: •vitk: ', *' - ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT - September 21, 1982 K ,v'+.+,l�,t.�r� 4 i ?''s, L'•k'.. `L+'^CGS'. '.kSr�1•';,f,,:t R,4fT=a�,i'.'Zt9-,.1 . - i �S, :l�`45 ^ ,`<: � r' u°.``'• .�}p fibs " rt-++:Yam,2 "�i , SV;, no< .l">'��}}G��{fit;. `�,,. tfi r��`�;Y ,r,, �r�i' k`Y•a t� ✓ri / 2 TE.��.:5:, 'ha Ven ' ' 'y Sssi,'{�i•: y�ts�� k � fi, 3 .r �\�v R C'�if%T��,•ri"ivLh d%`M� Vf` ,e,:'��[[,,,, R '�:•. '�' 4'Fi'�S, . , Y,l ;r*1�✓;.w +;.Kes �.'?mrr%'ii.pfCir:Ne'i 'lg,}f. , y' I -St: Andrew s plan draws neighbors' ire •t .J':!• f •:'t�'S',x""+ , g , ....,•+.k#::�,::e,�n• ';:, A'1:Gdl.`. `t�` r "' i, l{;, 'i.7 l�L-• •+= :G+�rji' :"t - '; 'iPyfati �7�Sfr7x.}' '.By STBVE MARBLE I ->'r , •1. on the expansion. when — she ,•"l;Ne;i?Ne lam; {:;� v'' '_r"„dists '�',n%SUr:�'T �Kuu�lt,7 almo Dour Pilot st.0 £ y S ; .,.:7•iar,•; ysr$'L.L?, +,-,,,.f,:L�+�,'a. „:j x:"y-' said—there really wasn't. ;A? ...attending tl St. Andrew's ' ., - member Rober and chairman t Curtis, a church rSty PresbytewaChurch for nHe-:• Andrew's ttherLbuilding coin'«ells. ,RRaaii t 1l.' :c•.' .•',r'•: •. �"it�v`S.:i ivx'_'`-r-1,'�-`x;.'-:,=`:�•:` `+ty.�`,'' „�' 'year's.He was married there.He--: retorted that the resident+'d.nus Y are ust so much nonsense tM1,,,•„•4,,,. ��.ti .tr•ss.•?sr( , v f}T., s. even lives in a house owned b j the church. - -_'y Gurus said the church na+gone yc ' v �E -}..;.;" ,•.I�l t:•:$?•;,74'?..tis`#:y. 7c�l�fc6{F,, a@'�7.i :�,ft.'.`-,{'i,: •.Y ' ' But Hicks claims the New rt _ �•.. ::,�...E.;;:,rts;.uf'(.lst.,. r= i Po out o! us waY [o acconumxluly t:•:, ;+..,^; t-., „P,;jyY^,¢•kt -'r^� Beach church has gone too far _ _ residents ond, al one point,' }, agreed to scale down the planned t . k„ _ 4- 9: :•j",.{, ,+���. - {„ ,ji now,breaking the very rules it is - :-.. g p .T •} - ��'';,i:: -� :'r ia't+fs •e.. i .}••,- .supposed to stand for. - : _ sanctuary from 105 to 85 feat. ' " •€" `'-� - S t' 't"r� is y-' .>j. ••We ve had no choice but to ' yv, '."•X .s +: , y •.• _. -^sf'ti a �-r{{,,,f,,'-.7•"i'.;5^ Ay He suggests St:Andrew's has.. ?i=; _ •, S •+ F , .�y "a'(-.`o-,ey^ Y't; ,^(• f :• one outo""' of its wa to alienate his r '" listen;'he said "They've been no o ,.fl ix„v�;.j_ - ^ e'E': •I''"�• i ( r Y <',i - loud we couldn't hd but hslen. y . m ', , 1� f Win-••• - _atS '' �_s :" ! Xr :friends and neighbors in the •, 1+:, :;; - P ,.. ...j CltHhaven community with a- K, jj11 ! We have been and we remain•� ,.',hd e :r - •/• ll � sensitive to their demands." - - ix'• molt(-million dollar expansion u �" .- '•'••,%%=.-:" d s +"' �y - .. ":'; But,said Curtis, Lite in their y�:,�'y-i.i. Plan. •• - •• • - have one overboard in [hair Y Y. • �rP'£v S{ -^ JS . %d'• Hicks says St Andrew's has led .: Willi g •]p� 2'nam 'G' < fi`��•'• *f. r a s _ < . demands and have put together a A au P,' i.•;; +' - r "+y�. +!«'r +i'-✓'j't.,. a virtual "blitzkrieg" through - ., •�":f } t'• ;,7+^ ••the quiet, residential',' •• •ir} r1t, • "stick campaign" to dixred,[the a�'`:�• C , I E>1 •a �, t •-•i neighborhood near Newport_y :'S" �+3 ��� church they (the residents) . t•• +^t..=r, y d ,,, ,Harbor High School. • . M1. -+�''`�'�? J'a- _ . a reallywant;' he s.iid,"ts for St. A•" 'i ,tp� V•,1, - `1 �.,p ._ yj . ',� �' •n The church and many of its. • •`^' : Andew's to move out of the �t a: .y( f''al .: .v •+, neighbors for months have been f neighborhood:' w v 1W1 s y J /L " ' "f locked m a heated battle over • •Signs6 P ' of ' .;}.•��,%J�.. J=d ;;r .rgy, .� .c'O k;r'. •T j•{ • - 1. Peter Chaven. omen president er r^''r' a 4.• s.- +t ..af;,,, y' • -3 plans to construct an 89•foot t;+.s r t( • $ S:M „, ssr =i Lhe Cliff haven homeowner RfS `�� I ��...,,,,,,, � 'i•, d `- t • , ., .aanetuary on the church grounds.' to underscore their group.said St.Andrew's ha+lung ' ,+ a• disenchantment with church •q;/�r. •`+, ..< R- J'; ._ ; i; The church says its current been a goad neighbor. lie sa,d -sanctuary is too small and that s leaders and their building plans. residents ore not opposed to the • .Jy -- {.sr pP •- Barbara Whitford, a= + , �.s" worshi ers often are turned church's eNpanding, so long as =4.^+_ 5„ SZ L YL `4 •'+ ty,�tj -awaY• ;spokesperson for the residents• it's done within reawn. ` v f 1�Y " lie said the church should brick r.. <,,E:`rL if _ ' 4 1• 7i ,,tt" <•. per• _ sreportedly between the two than sincere the church o[being resolve Negotiations 6 with the city'' 35-loot height y wttf ;.- (, j � -�.,, qa6 >"� C, p •; a, es reportedly have broken he , than sincere p trying to resolve �y s _ •+ 'j��' �(" ,,, N" q., , ,' with both sides blaming the ; the bitter dispute. , then or ore r now site where other.Th t spat is scheduled to .,- • - there is more room. yE,. pel,yPilai Photo Or a,MrtE Ko.hlar i- P She said threatened residents Gend ion said that if the e:•'• ' come before the City Council .i have been threatened with council approves the budding Newport 13cach residents brought a carnival attnosphere to a press rs • • next week. ., ""political clout" b church Tq:;rferenee where: they untlerseored concern with expansion plans. ; Mondayevening. Cliffhaven P Y plan for e n chinch, reto sidents 6• have held out falsechurchhopeaden wouldhaganst the Zity anddca 1residents staged a press : have held out false hope that lawsuit against (till city and St.- ,tly Otte OI' (� nCighbors=St-Andrew s Presbyterian Church.- ;; .�" ,:�;, ence-turned-protest rally there was room for negotiations - Andrew's. • ~ t tl' •`A'�` Y.v :1-` ii'v i yam$). T. .,t,r �').. Y,..yi _ rh'.fir' .e'Y�i•' r.YrY r. - 1 _ _ (,y.�v.%.r�`:nf.�.l•" •v�:`N.. r:��:ry}l'a' . •'.4) .'t..' .(..:Y i:T+'n• S.Y._. -"lnrl�::::✓%/•i rr' In "S`Y.r�•'i'i..-• M�.. .�r.:�iCi -]4�4 :i{IL ivt-:� .J'....»„•rr) o; •i / , A.� ».^•,+5?�..:.,,il:.e.�rim�A,�,i.y:.LyS,•i..�v ��'r mot, - )J3:� -:'tj;^s,: w5•w :•% 1...:.f_ ,= , •:'<�.: :li r 1 i ni{ 'A. )s� .ti'+,^'�1 r.7i _'_ .i r• v 2:_ +d. �F.r.:•^.y�•• "•'l' - v'1° Y°t' r:F':. .�. iA'':' ','y �%�"; +,t, i.'n:if- .fv �Y'• ,.S'y :.{L`:�• - .,�.. ..>~r: ,.:e:�..r;,.. .i. ••+=' n�.- .,r r,{-:.,"-;:hY,�,.:.<'C:;::�,.r_,,e.�rF, ^r'•'•,'. _ .n.r. J[:•:�i%i t+.iY n',•:.Jre .:n' SK=• t.r:.'`1,`Lx':'a's - •aat.i:: _ r,Y4'- :}v:` ,.d ,a •=f� i5"' �A• ;rF+ s f`s`• , '?i }.. ;.v. a .h hi:",`J c !?' ••1'�=•.t s:.�. �:F:S l�!"'R. •'fy':• o- acv^`a, , 'r`I:? %.S g�•%:'..,,,r+.i. A- •v.•'.. a;,Cs "4:r5', b .Y,y`. '{°.w ` x' tT•:1 :;i'��i n..� h. .� .t �'' '--` a+':".«i�"(f,: �:r, ..t1....,.r.:+' sy ,�•>.'`lr 'rah, ''�:Ar-+%r;J„' -.}.,iin'<.r.by'"' >''' 1' 11j ticks�°:, y...-F.^�\'F,\.�J�<Y.:.J::°-ii;r`.�1 i21i,y"L t'L:.,.s.a.r.�.„i•'.f.;.s.„nn Yr;y:�':-><�.�'ft.-T.:.^.;"•;�'C.e>'':x iy.-�^:ja'N':nr•'t•�,^:Yh;ar `„`..'.i+.2n:.o-4.�a•:T.,C.�^..'?ua"?.%•✓.�''i�.: .�n�Z:�&:'1,'$•a-:r• . r•,+,r::'i7-"�:.�r•:t',>r.•,3 rrt-•.^r,'..r`rfit`•i:;}G`x.+, 51Fnl-'p v`5..'N. cP0n e1Jf, - `: .:' am PRIKiED": Jb—L- 4=_a`rtA.caw',c`y/A:-`.e:�};,Y"��<'✓i'): %•ays�.�.'-.. _.S:T:' C�T1`9 i'• s' `.,::,r:- S NEWPORTBEACH, �: i �AtiE. SEP 24198200 - 14{"•+�I ��} '� >" t:4i Yr�:«ij °:�,..^�-,!::•�i�,l:y S,v�.ty'J,r"'1 i"� � _t�)�•`,,,V.L. ,:� ,a'ttF e;:>.(,;w•�+. :.y:.: _s:. :y,°{{'7�, a`".n September 2 982 RECEIVED `�b Cooper .;t:,` ;Y�y.C4a�5i:$s•Sv:Cf�t`v'C'.ir"5.;; "Y i�:;ri'' ;'! CITY CLERK � 8Si9nal Rood ',__�,,., nH�,•„i;: ;,.�,: , ::r:_:;_,•;.%s:.,r}^: ':;� i� ewport Beach Calif.92663 k:M 1."•Y•i:.^v i�,-��w ` a`r�t1.�.y-+s_c •s •r' �. 1714) 642-6401 ^t4'=Sirµi:[.F'.'•i' J,11 s•�� _afi�:'fn�'a'n .`:• 1444 .1.. ir:,;�,'a.-..a;: .;,: .,; •• ,c ::a;.i.S;,•:•" ' ..,.:.•:,.•. ..`;�"" Dear City Council Member: ' .'w�rr�;is�;�,,;;;;•.;,,;F4-F.;^;> ,•?a�-;ery;�,Y.,- ..;ry;1" ; The Planning Commission and City Council recently .tif w'y+`"• .+_>,';%EN„'a'%a `=} ,-• ••; ;"4 ':r-: ,; ndown-zonedn residential property on St. Andrews '4F•'V.;:':>«i Y�"jf.�•ri .,r t.�, rr _��:; ';:;:;,:',-;;r;,,,,:�',;:.;,;�;;�• =.�r~;'k� " �•x '';`Y,`.'::•, Road in Cliff Haven from R3 to R2. This action �'>`��`"`"huh=jrrs:)+);!.y��,r? `j;'jp,�!;• z�:'i };i:t'�'�`''•':r'' _ was initiated by the City of Newport Beach. I "1�• ;;;.j ;.cr believe one of the reasons given by the city for ..' �''lyr .1rj,••'�;j�';�''A•~''„''", �r',}I this action was the lack of adequate on-street parking for R3 dpvelopment. .. •i;''n _••.�'_'i>'i,:c.'rr:'•n,L." -':°.iA:�•:i%�i,, r Those of us who live in Cliff Haven deserve the same concern of the City Council regarding the proposed expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian a,,..... ; ',•; ;� �w Church. I am not opposed to the growth of the -14J�.`; . ' ' 3,±1' _,S W;�T2' r-; ;;"• v, church---the church is doing a great job, and ',,-' M for it to grow is only natural. I am'opposed to its current plans for growth in Cliff Haven. _•5,:.' .'''' `•'?;-F;�;';`"•::'j'r°�'r �,:,i;;;;:-` " I hope that you will be able to accept the point of view that to deny the church permission to build its proposed structure in Cliff Haven is •-'!•`' - '' ;: ;, not a vote against the church, but a vote in , •'.;; ;. «,.';;;"„•„-- favor of maintaining the character of the Cliff Haven community (not unlike"downzoningn from R3 to R2). i " Sincerely, nYr rr. ':.�•r'1Yff' •F. - •f , -at• -.f x),,,� E`,'�`•1?,'?� �'rYS Is i.),w37.T:{�4r es ft .,t%`TS�1m errn,t'an �nrrh� ��, 430 Pirate Road, nR r Q M aoLlnM Iltl�M w Newport Beach, . Calif. 92663. September 22nd 1982. City Clerk, City Hall, i N P- 3300 Newport Boulevard, 6 .� 1 P.O. Box 1?68, 4 CT Newport Beach, Calif. 92663. Dear Sir, Q Qn I am very disturbed to learn that St. Andrews Church intends to go ahead and apply for permission to build their new massive development at the original revised height of 85 ft, with total disregard to the overwhelming majority view of our community that this project is far too ambitious for this residential neighborhood and is certainly not in keeping with our area. I would like to therefore, once again, place on record my opposition to this new • project proposed by St. Andrews Church. Apart from the unacceptable height and mass of the building, the intended on-site parking is quite inadequate for the amount of people who will be attending this church, taking into account that it is not only the congregation who will require parking spaces but also those attending classes, the fellowship hall and the relevant staff. We have previously enjoyed good relations with St. Andrews, who now want to disrupt the lives of the families in our neighborhood. How does the church expect local residents to put up with years of noise and disruption of our community while this development is underway? If the church 14UST expand in this area, it must be developed in keeping with the surrounding community. After all, this IS a residential area NOT a business district. Before making your decision at the next council meeting, I URGE YOU - please consider the feelings of the people in our community. • Yours faithfully, Pamela V. Green. No AI ���cr�F� AF?�Jt ��ElIDA PRAItED": �� • 430 Pirate Road, Newport Beach, Calif. 92663. September 22nd 1982. City Clerk, .. City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, CIA rn P.o0 sox 1768, 8 ��CI to ?$::� New Beach, rl� w T Z Calif. 92663. L RCS N S Dear Sir, fn Q St. Andrews Church Proposed Expansion I again implore you to consider the consequences of the above proposals before • this project gets completely out of control. You are already well acquainted with the many objections such as the impossible parking plans and the sheer mass of the building; you must also be aware of the local CC & R regulations and your relevant environmental responsibilities. There are several residents in this neighborhood who are too shy to voice their objections but who are VERY worried about possible disruption of this area by parked vehicles and construction traffic. Yours faithfully, I �JI � I I. . W. P. Davies. P.S. The quotation by spokesman Robert Curtis which appeared in the Daily Pilot this week about the residents' claims as being "so much nonsense" does seem to • express the negative attitude of St. Andrews Church. r \j j�j `V "T":PFNFfw P.FTFR ARENDJ PRINTED � r . •.Y a /F�asl¢n�c�a�v y .ter.✓ wGr��• J�Q�y� �u��--P -�-�y�'!���,I_7�C.Ga✓--P� �10 /.Uo-y�-t.� G*Jv/ bNJJ Ox� it elm I _ I , I l_ • ' Septembe , T A9 { ;� Co Newport Beach City Council L h v ' 3300 Newport Blvd. ry Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 9' / As a member of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church I have become increasingly alarmed at the breakdown of communication; both with church members and with neighbors in the surrounding community, on the subject of the church' s expansion. We are all TOTALLY uninformed as to what the church will present at the City Council meeting on Monday. It seems to be a deep, dark secret. . . There is great opposition within the church to the building plans, much of it because of the massive amount of money which will be spent on buildings that may be more extravagant than necessary. Many members of St. Andrews feel unable to speak out because they don't want to oppose their church. • The neighbors are being viewed by St. Andrews as being attackers of the church. This is just not so: : The Cliff Haven Community supports the church and its programs, and a reasonable building program. It is very important that the issue of on-site parking be solved BEFORE the vote on Monday night. This is not a side issue, but the Building Committee has never been willing to address this problem. Is it so unsolvable?? Please consider these problems before you vote on Monday night. 06 Pirate Road Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 �, i Err E; rs 17012 Edgewater Lane C Huntington Beach California Sept. 21 , 1982 �� o Members of the City Council Newport Beach, California Dear Members: As the subject of the St. Andrew's Building Program comes before you again, I find I must write to you one more time. And since I do come from Huntington Beach, you may feel that my opinion is not relevant, but I must tell you that my husband and I drive a long way to find a church of the caliber of St. Andrew's. We wish we could find one in our own city. We feel that St. Andrew' s not only gives us the spiritual renewal we need each week, but it offers many other activities as well . Many of these activities are ones that would interest members of the community. • At the lost meeting of your council that I attended, one of the members mentioned something about the side effects to the city. Personally my husband and I did not spend much time in Newport Beach before we became members of St. Andrew's Church. Now we spend quite a bit of time in your city not only attending church and the church activities but going to places of entertainment as well as shopping. St . Andrew' s Church is an asset to your community, and I want you to know that my husband and I ;both support it and its building program. Sincerely yours , Patricia H. Ford • a1 •z J � 415 Pirate Road ARFo Amn PAOITM . Newport Beach, Ca. September 22, 1982 Newport City Council 6 City Hall ^ +� 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 frn � i Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 L �a Gentlemen: We have the feeling that our message regarding the proposed St. Andrews build- ing plans are not being heard or'acted upon. As a Cliffhaven resident living within fifty yards of the proposed structure I object to: 1. The proposed height 2. The proposed mass 3. The lack of parking I .would accept any building plan that met the same restrictions that I would face if I wanted to "Make an Architectural Statement% However, with my neighbors, I have agreed to compromise, but we have been put • in a position.of negotiating down from 105 feet .instead of up from the neigh- borhood limit. We are being ignored on "Mass" and "Parking". We.appreciate . the growth but a bucket will 'only hold so much water. Perhaps St. Andrews has-outgrown-their present site. Maybe they should take their much flaunted building fund, .add to it by selling-the present site, and buy . an adequate piece of property where they don't have to crowd their neighbors. If. their growth continues they will have to consider the alternative. (But maybe they can just crowd me out of- my home by then.) Please consider this seemingly trite, but most appropriate question: "How would You like to look out your window at a Forty-Six Foot Wall?" I_have to question the stated good will of.the church when they ignore the overwhelming opposition of their neighbors. Sincerely, oe6j� ' Richard H. Moore 415 Pirate Rd. Newport Beach, Ca. Mao. 1 9— MWMMM� QOGEI� E.RII,EY,D,D.c�. _ �IRkCE11ED AMRAGENDA PRINTED": _ 1 1441 Avocado Avenue Suite 508 � ' R�etipcH' Newport Beach,California 92660 ,i 'i I'I ' 9 NEW r 1\E• �� 1982-• •-. Telephone(714)640-5680 (Residence) „ 1022 East Balboa Blvd. Balboa, California 92661 September 24 , 1982 , { Newport Beach City `Council l4iI 3,300 NewportBlva. I ; ,. ! ] Newport Beach, "CaliforniaJr I' 'De,a•rll Ci ty ICounciY ,Members':; ' I'! I r!1.1, !' 1''i, '!� Ili �, j .•��I'� 'I,�: . .i ' !�' :,� � I' lil IF I 'am icjrit'ing to support St. Andrews Church request for a zone 4� II variln,ae ,and ,building permit. II have followed this project from I it' s inception and feel • that the architectural planning committee .,. has ' 1) I worked closely with the architect and city planning commission i to comply within existing regulations , 2) Designed a structure that 'd'I•'' ' i ! I will have -minimum community impact and at the same time fill it' s (St. ' And'rews)• growth needs. 3) Has been cooperative and conciliatory with the 'Homeowners in an effort to resolve the Homeowners proposed "! expansion.' 'I The C'liffhaven Homeowners have not negotiated in good faith, I , They have ''repeatedly stated that with height lowering and parking ' concessions they would approve the project, and then when compromise {has been offered have backed off and posed additional objections . Under the 'present restriction requested by )the Homeowners the 25 year existing structure would not be permited to be built, It is apparent that no, plan would be acceptable by the Cliffhaven Homeowners Association. ! I , I realize the half truthed aggressive public compaign has been disruptive to you and to the community. I appeal to you to examine the fact that this has been planned and approved by the planning commissions and is within the variance guidelines provided you by statue . I urge you to support St . Andrews petition for their Building Program. Since el , Roger E Riley , D .D , S . c. c.^Don Strauss , Councilman Distric One k' ,1GEROA PAN" ALL, Michael S. Smith 910 NOTTINGHAM ROAD NEWFURT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 W 1 0) ''emu i°•'(!ley �!i"J.'+!< r -4n�t.QG�, //✓V 10 ;_ { September 23, 1982 9 �4; ;iitpl `` Newport Beach City Council :=w City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 ;•,;fie,�;:,;;, ..;•; :; Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my support for the St. Andrews ` f Church expansion plan. I have lived in Newport Beach all my life and have been %'....... t'-". ` ::;fi:; ;;,c a member of St. Andrews for many years . The expansion of the church facilities is something that has been badly needed for quite a long time. It will be of great beneifit to the members of St-. Andrews and to the en- tire Christian communnity. The homeowners in the area have valid concerns regard- ing the expansion but I feel St. Andrews has demen- strated a genuine willingness to compromize to meet the demands of the homeowners. Even to the extent of '1. • '. .; '`'•, : lowering their height requirements to 46 feet. # £ As one of some 860 families who have pledged financial support for this much needed expansion, I strongly urge the members of the City Council to vote in favor of St. Andrews Church. Very ruly yours , WMdichae1</1# I: 11M, i- ,,: - N "RECEIVED AFTER ABERDA PR14TEB � MARGARET HILLS INC. • 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 j r ♦ SUITE 460 ' '((��(eGN• : (714)6"4241 September 231 1 Newport Beach City Council S19$Z (- Newport Beach City Hall _• S�Q V�0 �) 3300 Newport Boulevard . Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gentlemen: As long time residents of Newport Beach and members of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, we are concerned with the lack of progress being made in St. Andrew's attempt to receive permission to build a desperately needed new sanctuary and related facilities. As you are aware, this process was delayed seven weeks at the planning commission level (where a compromise plan was finally approved) and an additional five weeks at the city council level. The last delay, which was supposed to be used by the church and Cliff Haven representatives to hammer out another compromise, appears to have been used instead by Cliff Haven as a staging time to mount a well-organized political campaign designed to completely throw out existing St. Andrew's plans. • In our opinion, this demonstrates bad faith on their part. I urge you to support a rapid approval of the church's application for the following reasons: 1. The expanded facility is greatly needed to serve the Newport Beach Christian community. 2. The technical aspects of the plans were approved (and encouraged) by the city's staff and by the planning commission by a 6-0, 4-2, 6-0 vote. 3. of the 915 pledging St. Andrew's families, approximately 724 have pledged in excess of $6,200,000 to the building fund. This statistic puts to rest any question regarding meaningful opposition to the plans within the church itself. This number is also significantly greater than the 100 or so Cliff Haven families opposed to the plans. In fact, the pro and con ratio of vitally concerned residents is at least 5 to 1 in favor of the project even after adjusting St. Andrew's figures for non-residents. 4. The Cliff Haven representatives have not demonstrated a willingness to reach a reasonable compromise. 5. The church has spent in excess of $135,000 for architectural plans to date. These plans will have to be scrapped if Cliff Haven prevails. Such a result would be a tragic waste of funds entrusted for God's work. For the above reasons, your support is prayerfully requested and would be greatly • appreciated. Sincerely, Larry T. Smith Margie L. Smith CO cj , crrr nPIVEVIP I FA CH ,. 9 SF,o2,3 "r98zw^ 72 Sept.21 ,1982 • Derr yriieakier ,c City Council Members . s lW- 1�er eing sent to you to voice my opinion as ;• . one whdb• Gins he expansion presented b St An- drew's ex Y . - drew's Presbyterian Church. ,( In the late 1960's the church had close to 4.400:members. . •- V yet there was no need to expand.Today the papers quoted church ' :. `A ,,• .a '�. Officials as saying they have a "burgeoning membership of 2900� So what id the need for expansion? They say they have many programs,which is fine, But because, they want these programs doesnot mean that we the residents ,of the area should have to suffer and be forced to accept the outlandish pl*hns proposed that would overshadow our comfortable neigtiborhoo'-.. community setting. "Insure domestic tranquility" and"Promote• the general are two phrases in the Preamble to the Constitution. In -his,aria ,Ih' Yir�"4�i;4 '+ui¢'rc. e•- 4 it is up to the City Council to see to it our ConstItutl aaa]yt"ri h $ ,�. _;...... • are not infringed upon. ,•r�,l•'•`: `mot-��.`'L yy 4.4"';''',:.(�+i =';f As a member of the neighborhood I feel that the churcH building anything on its property must abide by the C.C: ,dc'-: ,as� 4,5 ;,,F:,�: t'; 0:1 i'J,tri ' the community. They state that no structure shall exceed!, ei��,��a� 4,�.;.,r,uu ,,.�•�5 r.:. :� ..A•`eM i• i�b fy�i11,,�'lK�b.N�lg'i.rt more that two(2) stories(26-28 feet) . There can be no exp�pi9rµ9;,, �,,• M! ti4 to this: Why should the church be permitted to 'do something: thati� k, �i. no homeowner can do with his/her own property In closing, I wish• to make note of a statement made, •, f r "'F?��''• Uq alt Apr':t9 f: Wendell Holmes, Jr. , Associate Justice of the Supreme Court'(19b2r: '"' 'i:"' 1932) . Who once wrote in one, of his decisions that the 'right of:�the''t;•:'? ; A individual comes before the right of any group or organizaion7x;�C<;V' ;"•! ru� f As an individual I want my rights protected and it is your. duyy ;4"``' see to it that my rights are not violated. Your duty is clear. As duly elected authorities of phis•. c, fri ,'�5„�* and its residents I expect that each of you shall cast A rin,•i on the churches proposed expansion* +,?. ,.,.k, :r.;s, ;5 �, ,fit;,':�:�:�;a„$ Thank You for your time. S St? • Sincerely Yours, _ .'• !'' i 'a M, 41N, �i NEIoV C�ry nF N►=�. 9 SFp �. zE Sept.2l1,1982 . -" tS$zr,, 12 Dear nay xa He,�.• 1her4 „3rld y Council Members , Mfg F This 1Qtter' �'1•s j� p; sent to you to voice my opinion as one who is a/�ih�•8 t} e proposed expansion presented by St. An- drew's Presbyterian Church. In the late 1960's the church had close to 4400 members , yet there was no need to expand.Today the papers quoted -church officials as saying they have a "burgeoning membership of' 29004 " " So what is the need for expansion? They say they have many programs ,which is fine, But because they want these programs doesnot mean that we the residents' of thy_': .`,• . ci r area should have to suffer and be forced to accept the outlandish' , , -,,,, .,', plhns proposed that would overshadow our comfortable neighborhoo'd.,,�"I", "'; ." community setting. r ' 54. •, "Insure domestic tranquility" and"Promote the general welfare" are two phrases in the Preamble to the Constitution. In this case, it is up to the City Council to see to it our Constitutional rights are not infringed upon. • As a member of the neighborhood I feel 'that the church in ,xt• =i;u: ` `t building anything on its property must abide by the C.C. & R. 's "o ;,;, •.•i the community, They state that no structure shall exceed in height more that two(2) stories(26-28 feet) . There can be no exceptions ;'• ,' to this. Why should the church be permitted to -do something that' no homeowner can do with his/her own property? In closing, I wish to make note of a statement made •b'y Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. , Associate Justice of the Supreme Court•(1902-+°G. '.+-' , ... t. 1932) . Who once wrote in one of his decisions that the right` of .the ', individual comes before the right of any group or organ izationrt ^i f`;�,•';; , yy i�..: tE As an individual I want my rights protected and it is you- •4upy,Vo'; ;;` '•^ see to it that my rights are not violated. " , , •" ,,•.v ;,1;? : "'';:. your duty is clear. As duly elea.ted authorities of this a"ity; t .; ::°+'" •• and its residents I expect that each of you shall cast a noot , " :' r ° on the churchAs proposed expansion. ° " . ;• ;;-,,' `�� Thank You for your time. Sincerely Yours , j' .`..y ia:�A P� �%Iry � M1 n. /JAMES F.BLAUER 418 PIRATE ROAD NECWCpPORT BEACH,CAL Ky 9,Wu ,Y.•''fy,.L No•0 10 AIEPAR�?�u1C11, tc6t' e ; °,4 �.h�1ltl� �{}� Sept.21 .1982 9. bF.,o .,.-..?De.-tr yor , e the4t pity Council Members, is I�e�ing sent to you to voice my opinion as t4w, one wh his:against -thy proposed expansion presented by St. An- � drevr's Pr sbjrterian Church. . In the late 1960's the church had close to 4400 members, yet there was no need to expand.Today the papers quoted church, officials as saying they have a "burgeoning membership of 29001 " So what, is the need for expansion? They say they have many programs,which is fine, But because they want these programs doesnot mean that we the residents of) the area should have to suffer and be forced to accept the outlan`d'ish plans proposed that would overshadow our comfortable neighborhood community setting. "Insure domestic tranquility" and"Promote the general welfare" are two phrases in the Preamble to the Constitution. In this case 1t is up to the City Council to see to it our. Constitutional rights are not infringed upon. • As a member of the neighborhood I feel that the church building anything on its property must abide by the C.C. & R. 's: of' the community. They state that no structure shall exceed in height more that two(2) stories(26-28 feet) . There can be no exceptions to this: Why should the church be permitted- to do something that . . •. `. no homeowner can do with his/her own property? In closing, I wish to make note of a statement made by Oliver., , . w Wendell Holmes, Jr. . Associate Justice of the Supreme .Court(1'902,'-'. ' 1932) . Who once wrote in one of his decisions that the right 'of -the individual comes before the right of any group or As to individual I want my rights protected and it is your d4y •to . see to it that my rights are not violated-. Your duty is clear. As duly elected authorities of this eit'y' and its residents I expect that each of you shall cast a no Vote on the church0s proposed expansion. Thank You for your time. : • Sincerely Yours . •;.:, ,'t; '„ ,-;�T;,:,�Y-�• i � ciAn� yY�i YJt,M�nyyW � ''\\ �f.wY��'W 1, ^I`• .�) �Ti.�f Y .5• tJe .2$ CHARLES C. PALMER 1701 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 PHONE 646-8800 it. • "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED . September 22, 1982 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Public FEARING ON "St. Andrews Presbyterian Church" Dear Council Members: Mrs. Palmer and I are again writing to you in our continued support of the proposed new construction of Church facilities as approved by the City Planning Commission. We would especially like to thank Councilpersons Evelyn Hart and Philip Mauer for their efforts to negotiate a solution between the Church and the Homeowners Association. As members of the Church, the community and the Homeowners Association we are concerned with such a completely negative attitude as expressed at the Homeowners Association meeting that • was held on September 7, 1982; the Public Relations attack on the "CHURCH" on Sunday September 19, 1982 by pamphlets and signs and the Association "Press Conference" that was held on September 20, 1982. By their actions , one would think that this small group of perennial descentors are against "GOD" and the improvement of our community! It is our opinion that the RECORD of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church stands on its own merits. The "CHURCH" and its friends have been a continuing force for good in our community for over thirty years------The "CHURCH" will continue to be present and will continue doing M good works long after we are gone. We know that the "Political Decision" , that is ,your responsibility to make, is a very difficult decision. In 'the best interest of all the City of Newport Beach, we urge your approval of the Plans that are before you. Sincerely, Charles and Marie Palmer • CC: Daily Pilot The Register N,.29 - "It? APPROVED, NOT EFFECTIVF r r' I UNTIL 15 DAYS AFTER DATE USE PERMIT APPLICATION N0.—�� OF APPROVAL Ord, No, 635 CITY OF NENPORT BEACH DATE INSTRUCTIONS: (Read Carefully.) The applicant or his legal representative must be present at all public hearings. Fill out this application completely. It must be accompanied by four copies of a plot plan to scale, and with correct dimensions, showing in detail all boundaries, existing buildings, proposed alterations and additions. The applicant must sign conditions of Use Permit, if any, within thirty days after approval. Applica- tion shall be revoked if not used within eighteen months from date of approval. ..Mr,..!r�- a;C ,yExt�::.;:;: t -'ms,•^.s',: ' - L. SC Andrew's Presbyterian Church 600 St. Andrews Ad. Applicant Address Involved ' - - 2. LOT For. 171 BLOCK 54 SECTION TRACT Irvine Sub ZONE R-1 AIM. 3. DATE OF HEARING February 15, 1962 TIME 8:00 P.M. -� 4. Application is hereby made for a Use Permit from Section 9105.1(b) to permit:_ -- '` An addition to the Sanctuary to facilitate the following: ;'-�_,.,-c.: ?°:•.';",= 1 Increase seating capacity by approximately 230 ' • -, 2 Enlargement of existing Lounge 3 Addition of new Pastor's Study and counselling room There are sheets attached to and made a part of this application, I hereby certify C ` that the foregoing statements, maps, drawings, plans and specifications attached hereto are true and correct. I£ approved this Use Permit will not adversely affect persons resid or wo in the neighborhood. I further consent to any permit issued in re: ante t b i null and void in the event they are not true and correct. . • 4 lee .G/�.P�dY f r. Sy Si natur ng& oif Applicant Hom dress Phone �.•,--,=•�,..� xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx�ona�xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx�0000cxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.•c:aooaowcax .y.;. . • X%XXX]Pt]C%:f%%XXXXX%%%XXXXXXXr]C%�CK%X%%%%%]-•%%%xXXXXXX%]CNXX%%]C�[XXX%%%X%%%X%]pG:(%X%X%%)C'[%%%TX% /` •- . .- FOR DEPARTMENTAL USE ONLY PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION -fn accord—with section applicant subject torequirements of all governmental agenciasyhaving jurisdiction and the above J • subject to the following: The undersigned hereby agrees to all the above conditions. 'c;v`�.''r`•NOSY'("?"^±w�5dx"'�.W*'ndin+ffa"'at�•^•:+'� Signature of Grantee m X%%XX%X%%%%X%X1OCx]O[X%IIXXX%X%%XXX%XXXXXXXXXXX%X%%XX%X%%X%%XX%][XXXX%X%XXXXX%%X%XXX%XX%%%XXX ' XX%%XXXX%]WCX%x%xX]C]OIXXxX1IX%%%%%X]CC%%%1WIXXX%X%XX%%}IXX%X%X%%XXX%X %%X ' • - - xxx FINDINGS OF PLANNING COMMISSION.- Upon a review of the evidence on file and testimony pre- ' sented at the meeting the Commission found and determined that, under the circumstances of the particular case the granting of this use permit would not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace morals comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the - neighborhood and therefore recommended approval. EZffiED7F DENIED- , APPROVED- By City Planning Commission APPROVED- By the City Council on the ----— on the 15 day of February 19 62. day of 19 _ Ray Y. Copel n, Secretary Margery Schrouder, City Clerk `•. ' ;,'`,•-' - Newport Beach City Planning Commission Newport Beach, California :5Y �•`;�u6'T['�y3'�:z7ri,.vMr Y''o•:.m5'i4-5::�•..M� ' `/�� .y/�,`/.,� �. �( / �1, „ • .. _ i _ � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMISSIONERS o ' J •.,rc= r,�i>t;1. ,.'F,,ti-,,;., -.(,��;�h� .: � Commissioner Clark asked to be excused from the rostrum. _ V-683 ' .CULVER, Donald L. 2029 Miramar, Balboa Lot 21 Block G Tract 318 Zone R-1 DENIED Applicant requests permission to have a garage 19' in Motion x depth instead of required 20' inside measurement. Second x '', ;•>�':. ; ' \ All Ayes Ccmmissioner'Clark returned to the rostrum. 7. • ,�;+;•. ,' - ,: v-684 CHRISTENSEN, Gana V.. 316 Goldenrod, Cd2t por. Lot 18 8 Lot 20 B 'ock 234 Corona del Mar Zone R- APPROVED Applicant requests permission to waive the side yard • - setbacks on both sides of the'lot line that is common to Motion x Lots 1S and 20. Block 234, Coroo\del Mar, for the pur- Second x pose of constructing 3 dwelling units on two R-2 lots. All Ayes USE PERMITS `"•'"”'f`Y;+�',•�Y: cxc";; :, , 't ":''"` UP-821 OUR LADY QUEEN OF ANGELS PARISH North of� ., betty en ?g_T aGx.;.:•: ,. ram . , •- ,i �.,„,,, :-,, the continuation APPROVED Marguerite and Narei su .,, rz,;,.^F,,,;hxr;v' ;,3t� rv�a•.n,+ Par. Blocks 93 @ 96 Irvine's Subdivision Zone "U" Applicant requests permission to construct a pariah • . j plant consisting of a church, hall, school, rectory • and convent. Approved (1) in accordance with plot plan. (2) Narcissu Motion j:•;;,.�r.%:,," <='1,i•_�y Avenue to be improved and dedicated to the City of Second x Newport Beach up to the access of the on-site parking All Ayes lot. '•, - •ems:•: >`m:;tit;:�'•rj,.{;sc� UP-822 ST. ANDREN'8 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 600 St. Andrews Road Su Par. Lot 171 Block 54 Irvine's Subdivision Zone R-1 APPROVED Applicant requests permission to make an addition to the n.:r, ;:i5:;a;.,yr%;;,1.'z;ytf;e' 7:,`,-,.�i;,';•:,,; ;;(v.; Sanctuary (1) to increase the seating capacity by approx. irately 280. (2) Enlarge existing lounge. (3) Additiot Motion x of new Pastor's study and counselling room. Second x All Ayes •;V:i+,":�nLTM'iµkj.�ky�?5v�:o` ,'nSjL'f•;i,ij:' i Up- 23 KELLER, Edwin & Margares. 107 "A" Street, Balboa . ., Par. Lot- 15 5 16 Bl. 12 Balboa Tract Zone C-1 APPROVED pl_licant requests permission to construct a 3 story Single-family dwelling with garage on ground floor and living quarters o\fl and 3rd floors in a C-1 District. -- Approved, subject to the following conditions: Motion x _. 1. That no fence be erected within`5'=f the alley. All Ayes Second '• _ 2. That the property be limited to a aingle f`\y residence. ` - 3. That the building be limited to 3 stories in height. . //- Page 2. r ' / WEWP02 T'.BEAGH HIGH SCN oo L. PAKKING L2iT j I PA2KIWG FoZ •180 \CAZS 4 +'•-c•.' ``+`.'y�` ,..,� �' MEW ADDITIONS i '•� � ,.ITO SANCTUARY '{ I 9=o"NIOH ,•l� f \\\ f�F[W G•OGRap¢ � �p _ I 60'_O j I CNAP[L �� •�\\ \\ •JIiTA�[ gvG[ • I � e I Cbii¢0145 � �, / // - `� —_ —� � 1 I• LVC4L � � �AROCN Si0[A63 A L.LOY I u .S + i -i Jb•.S'.'.'4=: r.lv� .�. � I � � � CLA44RceMi Qvv C'//'// ���;',.�.^,e' •,,X`,-. _ . •� HAVEN 1 i �.6+ / \+ ''~.- • - PL.. ..io'v,`,•`a'".FYx?:-r::{.S::r,5a�.;:'.d.;.,:.•...._,v,E::•r'+'c —_ — 1 ` Y aQ / v /. m I :1 ` GRap6 9TpµG r¢4U(GIiT, SAINT ANDREWS_P2ESBYTE_21AW CHUR_C_-H NfiWP02T B SAC H, CAt.. _e -------------------- w�}t'_.+:Lii t-.�pis'y,�v4.r�,'..�.:Q rY-,`JJ+��Jk�3`C� ✓ t •• • ��1: .:�";ih��.�.h-1-`'WL4i'�;�!`•Y r�c]!j�•w�y'h;,�Ya.4Y'.iSj � ' r USE PERMIT APPLICATION //,jrENyeD/ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C �� / Application Re Fee: $150.00 Department of Community Development Zoning and Ordinance Administration Division •"• • ••• 3300 Newport Boulevard Phone (714) 673-2110 "t'z ; AppliCdnt (Print) ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Phone 646-7147 - ` ' x-n:.,; �;- .: ..- •-,y .,+ y�i A-, Mailing Address 600 St, Andrew's Road, Newport Beach Property Owner St. Andrew's Church Phone 646-7147 "•; +'.;;?,;; Mailing Address Same as above „ :L; Address of Property Involved 600 St. Andrew's Road Purpose of Application (describe fully) Request for approval of modification of existing Con i >.ona Use Permit ;#822--granted February 15, 1962. For details - see attached sheet. ' Y_x.••. t.11. • ` Zone R-1/R-2 Present Use church - pre-school -•',''' "-;-1 "'""'.• Legal Description of Property Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet) ,.�y,;2„�,,,e'�,%'?dgYISIE. •n:yTMf3Th'^n'r' Portion Lot 171, Blk. 54, Irvine Subdivision ' . . Tarr 1220 T.ots 31 32 33 -- Lots 34 35 private ownership: not included ` Trn,r 1218 T.nre 142 143 144 145 146 I OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT '• " ` ' '"`� _ (I) $Si:P� KENNETH W. FOWLER-ST ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH '�� `'• `'' depose and say that I am we are the owners of the property ies involved in this application. (I) (We) further certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my) (our) knowledge and belief. /// r -•'r.•-3.. z;'<";;,:� ;•-F-+ •1 ' Signature(s) ST- NJTIRF.L]' P$F HRECEIVED!�i, TREA9ff' ` NOTE: An agent may sign for the oweer if written authorizat o fronL.the <�record owner is filed with the application. L Na7vr L ^�' "''s '• :^';" bS>% 0r;c:'"i DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE • „ - Date Filed /a- 7 - / _') Fee Pd. /.So= Receipt No. '7 o q " Hearing Date - 3 --7 9'� Publication Date Posting Date Mail Date ..• �. P. C. Action 2 �,^_„<. (•'- ��•-. ��-�; �,. r. �'(�1 /f*r/ ,7+YLa • '� Date I- z, • -7 jl Appeal `4��=1:al o.� <�+la�f•.� I�//�7y C. C. Hearing �t2a7 ;/ C. C. Action '�ncr.✓�»c.A n-nnn . a.s - _ 2,,i.. i.. 'N .fcl n.v.,✓_t%/'.rc Date Pr .:'T.?3iyCr J?::`:Se�.i'+•'.-::^sir;a.'r<w•.n�k �� 1 `�.-�I,I It -1' 8z vli __ -:� <- <; • Cttt' OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING �. Place: Council Chambers Mo Time: 7:30 P.1`2.ROLL CALL Date: February 25, 1974 INDEX ._ Present xxxxxxx Roll Call. � Motion x The reading of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of '004 t�Ti ??.„x+.�'' Ayes x x x x x x x February 11, 1974 was waived, and said Minutes were approved as written and ordered filed. J""'`-^4' r'"`''•� "''"'�"`"'�i'''"'`^'="'`� Motion x The'neading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under _ •- Ayes xxxxxxN consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor McInnis opened the ntinued public hearing Lido Isle regarding request of the Lido Isle,CommunityComm Association fora 25-year renewal of its beach lease Assoc agreement from 1976 to 2001. •�: :"{ , ,,y�.�5 ..:Jx ::_, �-__•.; Motion x The hearing was closed. ��'"".,.�sa--'•� Ayes x x x x x x x Motion x As the legal opinion had not yet been received from -•C t- .< L;-,-- ti.Imo'=• Ayes xxxxxxx the City's legal consultant, the matter was tabled. ^iW�<n-�t•.�?�;Fra{2�t.�?k�t`�,"6`�r�as�k-. - 2. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing regarding St.An- the appeal of the St_ Andrew's Presbyter=an Church drew's objecting to Condition No. 2 imposed by the Planning Appeal Commission on Use Permit No. 822_(Amended). The ` • _ Planning Commission granted amendment to a "•,;,„-, ,- }^ previously approved use permit to construct a new =� church sanctuary and related church facilities, con- verting the existing sanctuary into multi-purpose rooms and offices and providing additional off-street parking spaces, with certain conditions; one being '•"`4' '_ " Condition No. 2 which requires construction of the two on-site parking lots to coincide with the development of the new sanctuary and requires that provision be made for the balance of the off-site parking spaces; Use Permit 822 (Amended) for property at 600 St. Andrews Road on the southeast corner of 15th Street and St. Andrews Road in Cliffhaven, portion of Lot 171, Block 54, zoned R-1 and R-2. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. A letter was received after the agenda was printed from Thomas L. Woodruff, attorney for applicant, stating reasons for the objection to Condition No. 2 and suggesting an amendment thereto. Councilman Dostal left the Council table due to a conflict of interest. -;..� Volume 28 - Page 51 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 9 a • 9 ROLL CALL 9Cm9NZ�`(N9( �• February 25, 1974 INDEX Thomas L. Woodruff, attorney representing St. Motion x Andrew's Presbyterian Church, addressed the Council w», ;� Ayes x x x x x x and was granted an additional five minutes for his :n7.{•,<.P:r,+;i;,s'tiF,:+%1+.;= ;'.; v✓'w',�^y;;F.0 Absent x presentation. John McKerren and Dr. Miller addressed the Council in favor of amending Condition 2. • - George West and Ralph Whitford addressed the Council opposing the parking lots. Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined no Ayes x x x x x x one else desired to be heard. •"' `%` Absent x Motion x Mayor Pro Tetn Rogers made a motion to approve the amendment to Condition No. 2. ^';r i•.k,:+: ?",,;;-. g;5;,=rni;"rKr+ Motion x The hearing was reopened. Ayes xxxxx x Absent x .�M '^'''-s".r� 7 :';:''-"';.%a .•'i= Attorney Tom Woodruff affirmed that the Church would ":"•:'_: , +'-.,.�.°; be willing to post the property. Motion x The hearing was reclosed. Ayes xxxxx x Absent ;•I Councilman Kynla suggested an amendment to_provide for posting the property, which.amendment was accepted by Mayor Pro Tem Rogers. _ Ayes xxxxx x A vote was_taken on Mayor,Pro Tern Rogers' amended _ Absent x motion; the decision of the Planning Commission was '•, overruled,. and Condition IVo__2 imposed on Use --• - Permit No. 822 was amended. ,- Councilman Dostal returned to the Council table. • 3. Mayor McInnis opened the rehearing of the appeal of Carden -• ., p,C - Carden Hall School from the decision of the Planning Hall' Commission granting Use Permit No. 1699 which / Appeal/ allows the construction of an automotive repair facility UP 1699 in the M-1-A District, located at 925 West ikteenth Street on the south side of West Sixteenth Street, west of Monrovia Avenue in the West Newport light manu- facturing area, Letters urging approval of J'- ulius Paldi's request for Use Permit No. 1699 were presented from the _ following: D/. J. McKinney, Werner Escher, Mrs. G. • _ M. Wayne,-;v r. and Mrs. Robert Cunningham, Mrs. i Volume 28 - Page 52 STEWART,WOODRUFF 8 FRAZEE _ -i.,jr~-»�- •,��Fa"`,., ATTORNEYS AT LAW 9TCeM CR C .....STC�PT 401 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WCST,SUITE SSO AwIP CGwC>I• � rpowws L.w000wurE SAh7A ANA,CALIFORNIA 9D01 • _ _ _ �; PICMARD O rRASCC February 22, 1974 ' The Honorable Mayor and ' -aSt{i�i. •,'�'.d*M i`' `,�` �rS Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach -%•---�-�-- 3300 Newport Boulevard !� Z Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church is the holder of CUP 822 granted .'K.` ,;,,� •,,:,�.;,.,x"";.;�- by the City of Newport Beach on February 15, 1962. 'The present - - - - •�4" -':". application before you on appeal is for a modification of that Conditional Use Permit. Specifically, the application requests approval of a master plan of development for all the ultimate improvements on the Church owned properties bounded by 15th Street, St. Andrews Place and Clay Street. On January 3, 1974, the Planning Commission approved the modifi- cation application subject to ten conditions. The appeal is ,.�}, +'.•-r.• �� ,'-''�'-".'�� directed solely to Condition No. 2 as all others are acceptable •'::'a.:•F;;itP;g,r.•r,1:.a . -r;xu ,, to the Church. We have submitted to the Council for their consideration (as we did to the Planning Commission) the nine page master plan yhy¢;•S;r�S,r_, ,g brochure prepared by our architects, William Blurock & Partners, ,' '• together with a twenty-three g y- page report of charts and research pertaining to Church growth, construction phasing and parking. •.:�tS:��.y;,,3d;;ti;+,7r h!-^Fm•,�. ^�.:y It is the intended purpose of this document to supplement the - other reports with reference to, the issue of vehicular parking. We will be prepared at the time of the appeal hearing to respond to any inquiries by the Council pertaining to other subjects of our plan. , Condition No. 2 of the Planning Commission approval provides: -• "That the construction of the 1,200 seat Banc- . - tuary shall not begin until the construction of the two on-site parking lots consisting of approximately 147 parking spaces will coincide • ' with the development of the new sanctuary and •r „'An�iGK�fi-YJ.S?4wVl+'�AT��'(S'::,Z ,.. �'F;.a:•.?•y a^..:"F rio4•'SC:Lad`'e,52x1:'v;�..�!"_: .. .. - . . .. ... - - __ • ..byy....�y,. . ....�...y.) ���.-,,;Q «i'!'�Vt•.^n*•„•�,r+a[�"��Tj {'.i�htiG•"?"+-N"W4 •4'•q-.:i4,'-1�y:n w --a ..ay. .. r 1.'r .... J•:. t .. .. .. - .. W�.�'.-1^R�t'LiC2"�,'�^j�131•I^r�+�,'R lel �nl �.f'.- r - r .. .i.- .. .r • ! n•.. 1 r ..1- •.. .. •. . .. .. - �`-•is-�%:.:r�x%,�.�' - The Honorable Mayor and -. Members of.the City Council .; •,_�;;- „;:'-,;rn`.Li,-:w-`%- February 22, 1974 Page Two a�;%>;?e`:•:�G,^�: '„�' .^- i' r'''ra%>iz` that applicant provide an arrangement for off-site parking for the balance of the off- site parking spaces satisfactory to the •- - - Department of Community Development." • � RELEVANT FACTS ;�;?::,;r ;;�r:�;tiyiks;,r2��,z� ^:.>,• Maximum capacity of present sanctuary 630 and chapel 100 Average maximum attendance (1973) 700 Present on-site parking spaces 15 t' ,•;,',� -;,,`;.,• - Present off-site, off street parking spaces 268 Maximum capacity - new sanctuary 1,200 C • '%-`. •.- - Code required parking spaces (new - . -• -- - sanctuary) 240* - %"'"•"'?° f '`)''`,�' Ultimate on-site parking spaces 162 .Ultimate off-site, off street parking spaces 268 • -- Total off street parking 430 w i�;.< :h;< �.7'r^_1lYSanr::4^1r:'•Jiri•:1:. • - We fully recognize that on street parking spaces are not con- sidered legal spaces to satisfy code requirements. However, we cannot help but emphasize the fact that in addition to the _ - off street spaces there are 147 on street spaces adjacent to the Church properties for use during the extremely limited _ - number of hours of maximum use for Church activities. We stress four points for consideration: .\ 1. While the new sanctuary is planned for 1,200 • seats, its total occupancy would rarely, if ever, occur. Church membership growth studies •• '�` '-"• *Based on the most intense use of the property being sanctuary �i-..5',./}^;,}„ '; aa"•.+.; ,g �.t services. One space for each five seats. •''1'ky+Yn��4�LiS .G i�4 �vrtis:L • .:r.'.it���'..'�.3��b.�?'?t':.l'x`tie�':�:!<�t�.:{':kh?",a=77''•:�'` r M,4.F.»�,>f+•'�^'Ys.,{a"a'.Y'i"',�,vn_=.y1`.".�'.:v•,v'N �np..�';':...f;�a;,�._ti:1. av'-T.:: .. . ... n ._ v , , ., , .- - ,. ,. . . . . A`;`'c�;•^'� •„• The Honorable Mayor and *;� .. • Members of the City council February 22, 1974 Page Three `'•-::,�f4.,�4:,4•„ki reflect a steady but nominal growth in the -''--''"'"''"-^'`'`�•'""'- - years ahead resulting in only a slight change in the intensity of use from what is the actual - experience today. •�.��b'�frci3,+�t�•`,+�"'�'=az�pri�}�«<� 2. Street parking alone will satisfy over one- 3, a, . • -- _'•'• =_ half the required parking spaces. . 3. The present use was approved based upon the • Newport High School lot being available to _ park 180 vehicles. In the past two years the • " School lot has been revamped to accommodate 268 vehicles. This alone is twenty-eight more ' than the code requirement of spaces. There is no reasonable basis to believe the School use will terminate at any time before the Church use and no reason to believe the parking spaces _ will not continue to be available. 4. Immediately upon clearing legal deed restric- tions of, the Church owned eight lots fronting Clay Street, the property will be developed into additional on-site parking spaces for 147 vehicles. This will be done in accordance with the Blurock plan and the conditions of approval. REASONS FOR OBJECTION TO CONDITION NO. 2 1. It requires that the Church construct the 147 „_,.;y;._.,�.a_,•- ,; ;� space parking lot and have an arrangement for the use of the 268 space School District lot before construction of the sanctuary. 2. The application before you is a master plan of development in phases. •. - 3. Financing for a Church program is dependent upon a long range building fund drive by its members as compared with the ordinary investment con- ' - struction financing. No personal commitments •— .� - will be made by members until plans are definite for the entire program. iiwi_'.^l:'.•'.Mu:�etif•_'.•�:{:yC;•Sr[r'_�Jve�4�d-._�.:3 �•. :. .:j-..r-.:.`x^4�175t',y`r7.5^+�4i'F'::�3+! .w. ..: _;-.r .:.,. .. - .. _ ., <'_F:$�•�^-.'.u.�+.U*r'=I+='�:�:'�'�,`._t. `�i}."°r,�, '".cam^YF'(y:+'S"•i�1`,'u_fi,r;y'_.cx:..:r.`.:•_• , � .., - . .,_.. :,.s . . - .... ,. .. ,. ..,"_-t.•' The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ` February 22, 1974 Page Four ., :;:,e':;%r`+T';33'.'=; ��y;:nc,•.9 °;k�.'p»;�t 4. There are serious legal obstacles to the _ - removal of deed restrictions on the clay ' Street properties. If Condition No. 2 1,. 1• _ remains, the funding program will be unable to + --°'$'%3'' ,`� '`a+.," rt, .�,!•- < o£ move ossibleforward len th all le aluntil proceedingsculmination .: yiMsiw,;>x.�,smolm..- 4;•yrxwgs ,�; - Ile strongly urge you to affirm the decision of the Planning. , Commission approving the master plan of development subject to changing Condition No. 2 to read: "In the event applicant is precluded from use of the Newport Harbor High School parking lot :;..,;.:;: ••. - �''<',+ prior to construction of the new sanctuary, no building permit shall be issued for said sanctuary '•'�`'` """.: unless applicant simultaneously provides the 147 s^"t •, - vehicle parking spaces shown on the approved i,i,,tzrl >;;•:;;':::;`' master plan as fronting on Clay Street." Ve truly yours, azl Thomas L. Woodruff TLW:ab ••;�Yi.: .:+"-y'r�G�x•'.t"e`w`.:nYSi;'air.��',`.FMy`'�$ r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Variance No. Use Permit No. 822 Amendment ::o. ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Name of Appellant 600 St. Andrews Road, Newport Beach, California 646-7147 Address Phone ...,f:hs:3T�5.k•,::hSY..e'.7�"',w::.wv<;Afl'nr�',..r.'(.fl Appealing Planning Commission decision of (date of meeting) January 3 1974 regarding application of (if same as Appellant, write Same) Same - for (description of application filed with Planning Commission)Request to amend a pre- ' viously approved use permit in order to permit the construction of a new churc ;•.� 'sanctuary and related church facilities; the conversion of the existing sanctuary into multi-purpose rooms and offices; and additional o street parking spaces; and the acceptance or an Environmental Document. Reasons for Appeal: Objection to Condition No. 2 of the approval, to wit: That "�" '`•"`"' ",`�•"'� - the construction of the 1,200 seat sanctuary shall not begin until constructic of the on site parking lots, consisting of approximately 147 parking spaces will coincide with the development of the new sanctuary and that applicant rovide an arrangement for off site parking for the balance of the off site parking spaces, sates actory to t e Department o Community Deve opmen FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -- Date Appeal'filed and Administrative Fee "• received: �r M Igzz. Publlp hearing set for 7:30 P.M. Signature of Appellant at -.• .,:i,^ ;•.":M1.,.'•.• - ( �$.. 1971• THOMAS L. WOODRUFF Re • - .. City Clery Comn,vrEO rn, �6 4m. " • _ cc: Appellant _ 8 2 7197 — ��'• • n . . Planning NEWpORiOF $ Zy'• `=• �'' �� File - • • (Complete and distribute after public hearing) COUNCIL ACTION •- .- _ ... . ,. , Awnd ant of Condition No. ^< approved as xegmstad by iopnUarnt. *f yaw .'1•n' ..;._t:.,Y;:.d.9.'.;<:a; ¢3-u,rf' -:Y•;•yam:,:- cc: Appellant / t'/ eZeL Z�a•R 2-27-74 '• Planning ✓ City Clerk Date Use Permit Appeal Fee $75.00 - Sec 20.46.070 Municipal Code Variance Appeal Fee $75.00 - Sec 20.48.060 Municipal Code Zoning Amendment Appeal Fee $75.00 - Sec 20.54.050 Municipal Code "�.a'Biq.\tiTu;�•+Sia;V',Sk;R:+r'a:Hdslj,••w,�� - ' r ti.:'.�..,'✓.�^.^W'rv-0:^�i i3 City Council Meeting February 25, 1974 • Y` Agenda Item No. D-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 20, 1974 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Use Permit No 822 (Amended)(Public Hearing)(Appeal) Request to amend a previously approved use permit ' in order to permit the construction of a new church ;it;;. ;vi.;t•^',<;;u; ;;:° ;,. sanctuary and related church facilities; the conver- r. ki•:%x;::;?'- "'J lion of the existing sanctuary into multi-purpose rooms and offices; and additional off-street park- 'w'-`' ',; ing spaces; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. LOCATION: Portion of Lot 171 , Block 54, Irvine's Subdivision; Lots 31 , 32, and 33, Tract 1220; and Lots 142 through 146, located at 600 St. Andrews Road, on the south- east corner of 15th Street and St. Andrews Road in •�;`•,;,;rT� Cl iffhaven. a • ZONES: R-1 , R-2 •,.•;w.;. ;_w,,.. . _,•; ;//r.;,p•,:; ,'v;: APPLICANT: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach r OWNER: Same as Applicant %1-!) APPELLANT: Same as Applicant • - Recommendation At its meeting of January 3, 1974, the Planning Commission recom- mended approval (6 Ayes, 1 Abstention) of Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) to permit the construction of a new sanctuary and related church facilities for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, as well as to permit the remodeling of the existing church complex and to provide additional off-street parking spaces, subject to the ten conditions of approval as- indicated in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes of January 3, 1974. .gip q �y7 It was the feeling of the Commission that the proposed development would accommodate the expanding needs of the church and would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood so long as sufficient parking was provided to coincide with the various stages of the Church's Master Plan. As reflected in the proposed plans, the park- ing facilities will ultimately include 147 on-site parking spaces,..- as well as the use of the Newport Harbor High School parking lot across 15th Street from the subject property, consisting of 268 park- . ing spaces. The problem of parking was discussed at great length by the Planning Commission and staff, and it was determined that the existing on-site parking was inadequate by any applicable standards. It was also apparent that the Newport-Mesa School District would not provide ( 1 TO: City Council - 2. the applicant with an exclusive right to use the high school lot, although the District has allowed the parking lot to be used by the church on Sundays and when it would not conflict with school activities. In an effort to alleviate the parking problems in conjunction with the proposed construction of the church facilities, Condition No. 2 was changed by the Planning Commission to read as follows: 2. That the construction of the 1 ,200 seat sanctuary shall not begin until the construction of the two on-site parking lots consisting of approximately 147 parking spaces will coincide with the develop- ment of the new sanctuary and that applicant provide an arrangement for off-site parking for the balance of the off-site parking spaces satisfactory to the .':` i • '., V Department of Community Development. - - The applicant now objects to Condition No. 2 as imposed by the Plan- "` `^' ''• �''=:^-`•''% •'"' ` ' ning Commission and is appealing the Commission's requirement to the City Council . Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director .�*c+k ay WIL ,IAM R. LAYCO K Senior Planner WRL/kk Attachments: Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated 1/3/74 :-? =.?•^-,'x ¢? To Council Members Only: J: Staff Report dated 1/2/74 r ; {9^.'''• ,;i:r: ': Vicinity Map . Memo from Environmental Affairs Committee Negative Declaration Church Master Plan \�^,'..:✓"•••.,y:^.9J/t�'v?yd ti.fi�.�,.i i�'l�-'1�yhy'MMkCI .•u'.•Ji.T\4,�,r� t.:.4C�Fo�4:(':<ny'iy�+gC'f]hi r '" P+.k`ix"e;:r-'4�`,! \:# ... .. . ._ •• .. .......". . . .. . •. --•.-_ COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NFWPORT LACH n P V r •�%`+ ^''"' - - m m£_ 2 ^` Z ` MINUTES -`'�•- =Y '���,=='> '�' a CALL January 3, 1974 INDEX F;x ; y 9. That this approval shall be for a two year period; any request for extension to be acted '�•,t•: - upon by the Modifications Committee. 10. The ation and design of the drive entrance `•�Y''"` �'���'''^''• on Baysic rive shall be approved by the Traffic Engine • '„ ',;�:'•'�' ,,.., 11 . The location and design o igns and land- .�;�,•c; , ,:._ '°• scaping shall be approved by raffi'c AskEngineer to ensure that there will dequate �• " """ sight visibility entering and leaving the development. • (Commissioner Heather stepped down from the dais and ' 'y• p " :,;--. i "f.'�-c abstained from deliberation in connection with :.' Item B-8 as she is an active member of St. Andrews _ _ - Church, serves on the Board of Deacons and is philosophically close to the application. .'``',,',_,-'._�,4,.�.' _•.!.4 Item B-8 y. - r•"` Request to amend a previously approved use permit USE - in order to permit the construction of a new PERMIT church sanctuary and related church facilities; 822 the conversion of the existing sanctuary into h1ENDED multi-purpose rooms and offices; and additional •,,. ;ike: ; .,;,yy,�c' ,'f�; offstreet parking spaces; and the acceptance of APPROVED „ - - an Environmental Document. C ND� I- 1TON-RELY „r, ;.;.;a-•r's�J3xT:;'��{" r;Y.,.?:Ic..; Location: Portion of Lot 171 , Block 54, _ Irvine's Subdivision; Lots 31 , 32, and 33, Tract 1220; and Lots 142 through 146, located at 600 St. Andrews Road, on the southeast corner of 15th Street and St. Andre vs Road in Cliffhaven. • Zones: R-1 , R-2 Applicant: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Planning Commission discussed parking and the Newport-Mesa Unified School District policy 7410 relative to use of school facilities. ��yk "y,G^'c`hh�+`•S.5'a..,i:•-�:.,�...asF.ctd.Fv.Y? Page 22. r :e�`�r„r��z«T'w_��::>,: •'ti:'.;=c�,�r;;=7r'i: -:n:=.a::n`ri^;-.- ..�y:.'s_ ,- _ •. ... .. .. _ .. .'. . .. .. ,.. :�- ._. -. ... s . .i.^fNN FR'3s.,1.7�*.w:�tl;w.A;h'e..i,:s,.^,x�k •._ .. _ _ .. .. .. -.. • +l COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT L,CACH vmn� v po m m <T£ m n m MINUTES =��•^ "_�•. " -•.•- � "-"�""; ROLL CALL m January 3, 1974 INDEX ' - Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. ' Sam Downing, Planning Manager for St. Andrews Church, appeared before the Planning Commission • - "�``" and commented on the" project and the concept of , '• the master plan which has been presented for consideration. F,7,,j;;r�, t; �,�,;,;aay I John McMurray with William Blurock & Associate , - appeared before the Planning Commission and ( reviewed the plot plans and elevations, including •..r.�:a�..:in=n t.�iY u�Nn,a ...+.1.r:4 the adjacent properties and uses thereof. He also reviewed the parking and access, and answered questions in connection therewith. • • IDr. John Miller, Chairman of the Long Range Plan- ning Committee for St. Andrews Church, appeared before the Commission and answered questions relative to the use of the church facilities during the week. Tom Woodruff, Attorney for St. Andrews Church, appeared before the Planning ,Commission to discuss the legal aspects of the project which consists of - - _ deed restrictions on the 8 lots fronting Clay Street; parking requirements of the City; and " ``""' "'--""`- _ •'� ` •' parking arrangements with the School District. He concurred with the conditions as recommended by the staff but advised that condition No. 2 (a) was not possible because of the policy of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District pertaining to' use of school facilities. He commented on condi- tion No. 8 and stated there was no objection. As to condition No. 10, he requested that the use permit be granted for a period of at least five years and that the permit remain active as long as construction on a portion of the approved plan ; was commenced within that time. He discussed and • � answered questions relative to usage of the . � facilities, parking_, and the legal problems involved in the use of the property on Clay Street for proposed parking lots. .� Miles Chard, owner of property on Clay Street • located between the property proposed for use as parking lots, appeared before the Planning Commis- sion in opposition to the proposed parking lots. . _„ Doug Chard appeared before the Planning Commission • .. in opposition to the parking lots being located next to his home_ '�s.;,;ria�, .-i.;i:,;,l. 'r.:- z'7•-_ ::;, Page 23. :3x;':a!�,F6.'',�µ:�o>�;�;F•,":"';�s:ji':ti�,'".`:tio,:_.,n;,i:i: .�5.{:.�........,z.-4r:.n .. .... -.a.v,: .:t.r ... . . .. .. . ... . . ..- -... .... .... COMMISSIONERS ( CITY OF NEWPORT brACH am„ Y I 'p m . m n ,a., ' -. j.� .�.-•',r�' ro mom£ MINUTES :'',••I' -''`i� ROLL CALL '}' P P P January 3, 1974 INDEX ,i There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. The problem of parking was discussed at great - -.r, ,., ::c_::,,x:,:,a:rr;:_:.:r•.J, ,,;rir length by the Planning Commission and staff which brought out the Fact that on-site parking was _ ' inadequate by any applicable standards. It was lalso clear that the School District would not -; provide the applicant with an agreement for off- / r MYf�oR" site parking which' is normally required-although the parking was available for use by the church. Planning Commission suggested changes in the recommended conditions in an attempt to alleviate . . • '• :`.' `' the parking problems involved. �• _ _ Motion X Following discussion, Planning Commission approved Ayes X X X X X X the amendment to Use Permit No. 822 subject to the Abstain X following conditions: 1. That development be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plans. 2. That the construction of the 1 ,200 seat sanctuary shall not begin until the construc- tion of the two on-site parking lots consistin of approximately 147 parking spaces will coincide with the development of the new sanctuary and that applicant provide an arrangement for off- site parking for the balance of the off-site parking spaces satisfactory to the Department of Community Development. ^Y 3. That the design of all new structures, includ- ing elevations be approved by the Director of Community Development. 4. That landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation. All landscaped areas shall be continuously maintained. 5. The on-site parking areas shall be screened from the public right-of-way and adjacent residential homes by the utilization of walls or fencing or mounding or landscape planting o • - any combination thereof subject to the approva ����•-- of the Department of Community Development. 6. All building, landscaping, parking area and service area illumination shall be directed _ away from adjacent properties, and in no case ' aON shall lighting standards or fixtures outside Page 24. .•,'sTR:M:Y`�-.'x:+i�y�'%%k•u,"'.j<iY,��._.Ty Lw..�`'ZW '<c'S.u- n?.n.•o¢_. �:txn;d•YI?+"•:}'�Y4,'vax,-,;;--y.� � .:�,:.:i:...:._ .. .-.., .. , . .. . .. . s r:1i�;�t,u'^3,i i^�•&ice,�.; ;,;,k:kir�w`ri^:,i� . :.... -., . . .-. - . . .. 'COMMISSIONERS ( 'CITY OF NEWPORT tcACH O > a Z 4 MINUTES ~• .�:;,,',.• _ ROLL CALL January 3, 1974 INDEX • •• ' • - the buildings be installed above a height of twelve feet.- =;. .cr>>: °•:, ;i:•ek . ;r ";''W , 7. All signs shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 8. That the location and design of the access ,: •,,.,. ' s Y points to the offstreet parking areas shalt be approved by the Community Development Departmen •�• ��=*-�` :�='-�`%�- and the Public Works Department. However, no access driveways shall be permitted on Clay Street. 9. A resubdivision application shalt be processed and a parcel map filed when the residential lots are converted into offstreet parking lots. 10. That this use permit become void if constructio _..�:'.,r;,,.e"••'••�-;•_;:•.=:: :,,t;,': is not commenced within five (5) years. `�s;,�;»:`,,; %`�,;. ii;=' "•�''`„". Motion X There beingno further business, Planning Commissio 9 :cu -.,�;',: :a-:+,;...,; ; ,;;;,,; All Ayes adjourned the meeting. Time: 12:40 A.M. ter `- - JOSEPH ROSENER, JR. , Secretary • Planning Commission -a.��,•, .•^"c>`?u;:,'-'�;fn;y !a;r..:4�::,t;:r,'„? City of Newport Beach .i. ' rk•k' zol Page 25. .Rnnw r Planning Commission Meeting Jan. 3, 1974 Item No. B-8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 2, 1974 .:' Aso . '•� T0: Planning Commission `,�AiYr { Tuti,,£,.,ti. „Ys,�}sr"• ,n FROM: Department of Community Development .. SUBJECT: Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit : .,: ;;,,_,;k,$.; ; ', ,,".'• in order to permit the construction of a new church sanctuary and related church facilities; the convey- _ . . _ •_.. _ . .-i,,,;•. sion of the existing sanctuary into multi-purpose +';"?', `.';, "',::C•� '; ;• ?, :` ' rooms and offices; additional- .;.::—k.u'_";.�..•,-,.::u.•rr•:�;:e:::-< . ces; an offstreet parking _ spaces; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. LOCATION: Portion of Lot 171 , Block 54, Irvine's Subdivision; Lots 31 , 32, and 33, Tract 1220; and Lots 142 through ;::i• ;^„ 146, located at 600 St. Andrews Road, on the southeast corner of 15th Street and St. Andrews Road in Cliff- haven. :�� - ZONES: R-1 , R-2 APPLICANT: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach " .•*.. '. = naaz.:e7 • OWNER: Same as Applicant Applicatiod This application requests approval to amend Use Permit No. 822 so as to allow the construction of a new sanctuary; the remodeling of the existing sanctuary and fellowship hall ; and the improvement of church-owned properties for on-site vehicular parking. Planning ; _;.•;;_;,; Commission procedures are outlined in Section 20.08.080 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Environmental Significance This project has been reviewed by the Environmental Affairs Committee and it has been determined that it will not have any significant 1 environmental impact. A Negative Declaration has been proposed and is attached for Commission review. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use :?. :gl•• ,?;"se!xn•;•�2;�}s : .a.iY9K,::yap:,,•:c.:q- The existing St. Andrew's Church facilities, single family dwellings and duplexes are presently located on the subject property. To the North, across 15th Street, is Newport Harbor High School ; to the East, across Clay Street, ar0 single family dwellings; to the South, are two single family dwellings on the North side of Clay Street, and across Clay Street, single family dwellings; and to the West, across St. Andrews Road, are multiple-family dwellings, a school of Russian ballet, and a Masonic Temple (Seafaring Lodge No. 708). . •'''^ '�'•. <;K."g<. Item No. B-8 ':l"N\:Y�l?•.^�,,,..Fi�.Y ei�s�k�i.F.'.':;w:.,riwF� r TO: Planning Commission - 2. Background 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. increas- ing the seating capacity of the sanctuary from 470 persons to 750 seats and other minor building 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. --i-s,y"ni'"',iti;;,avFf'•',t:v `>•:'?:%."3'--�`;3.":'�'""`` At the date of the granting of Use Permit No. 822, the on-site - -. . church facilities consisted of the sanctuary, a chapel , five class- room buildings, and a large fellowship-social hall . Building records on file in the Community Development Department ;•.;.,':, .y..,;, ';, ? >:+,,r: also indicate that one of the classroom buildings was converted '•$'.r; into a day care school in 1970. Analysis The proposed amendment to Use Permit No. 822 is to obtain approval in concept of a five year Master Plan of Development for the church facility as follows: Phase I a. Removal of 3 existing classroom buildings. b. Construction of a new 1 ,200 seat sanctuary on the -• `.•�•t �" ^`T-' '•" ' .site of the 3 existing classrooms. c. Conversion of the existing 750 seat sanctuary into multi-purpose rooms and offices with the addition of 4 small rooms as a second floor, d. Addition of a second floor to the existing fellow- ship hall for classroom purposes. =• - ., --'�' - e. Continuation of 15-27 existing parking spaces on-site. -` f. Continuation of 261 existing parking spaces on the " Newport Beach High School site. Through redesign an increase over the 180 spaces presently required by Use Permit No. 822. • •,.-may;.,�;;_,�;.,,,,E,-;, - •,-,„ Phase II and Phase III The applicant presently owns eight of the ten R-2 lots front- ing on Clay Street to the South of the existing church facil- ities. Phase II and Phase III of the Master Plan of Develop- ment indicates that the existing single family dwellings and duplexes will be removed from the site, and will be replaced with parking lots accomodating 93 and 54 vehicles respectively. The proposed development would also consist of the installation of walls, landscaping, lighting and walks , and the abandonment of the 20 foot wide alley between the church buildings and residential lots. Declaration of Restrictions, recorded on the eight R-2 lots I - in 1947 and 1948, require that the properties shall be used i •• for residential purposes only. However, the applicant is � . attempting to resolve the legal issue of whether the Church, as owners of the residential lots, can remove the dwellings and • - use the property in question for vehicular parking purposes. yzc.l r^,. � Item No. 6-B :et�`,.SrT,•4"u1,T,k:a' '•c.._. ..�Wvr�aST.:"._y.( T0: Planning Commission 3. Offstreet Parking As indicated in the attached Negative Declaration of the applicant (i .e. charts and Research of Growth, Construction Phasing, and Parking for St. Andrew's Church), the Newport Harbor High School parking lot has been redesigned and expanded to increase the capa- city from 180 to 268 parking spaces, and that "the Church and the -,, yy_- - �,^ �• w...-,�• City can reasonably rely upon the continued use of the school park- ing lot during the times of maximum church use." wav ,ri '`y , ;- ,,r•�}s?;�.�awk-=..;E As reflected in the proposed plans, the parking therefore available to the St. Andrew's Church facility consists of: 1 . 268 spaces directly across l5th Street at Newport Harbor High School - - _ 2. 15 on-site (currently) spaces 3. 147 on street spaces adjacent to the applicant's •..,;.,,_�.r;,.:}, ,. �- properties (only 43 of which are immediately adjacent to the site) 4. 147 on-site spaces on applicant's Clay Street _ properties (to be• constructed in the future). 677 - Total . It should be mentioned that the Municipal Code requires 240 offstreet parking spaces for the proposed 1 ,200 seat sanctuary (i .e. one space er five seats Inconsider on-streetthe parking�inassembl ca'lculatIngathe numbertofdoes spacestpro- vided. Height Limit The property is zoned R-1 and is in the 24/28 height limitation dis- trict. However, the height ordinance provides an exception which allows churches to be constructed up to 35 feet. No detailed eleva- tions for the proposed sanctuary have been prepared. Recommendation Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will accommo- date the expanding needs of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, and will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood if sufficient , parking facilities are available. Therefore, staff feels that the applicant should receive written authorization from the Newport-Mesa Unified School District for the use of the Newport Harbor High School parking lot or that the proposed on-site parking spaces be constructed prior to the completion of the new 1 ,200 seat sanctuary. Staff recommends approval of Use Permit No. 822 (Amended), subject to the following conditions: . ..,CX;+'%1:'-tia:..r:Gab,.'raj' H^:�?,.:•s'�.'::i�l 1 . That development be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plans. 2. That the construction of the 1 ,200 seat sanctuary shall not begin until: a. A written authorization is given to St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church by the Newport-Mesa Unified School District for the use of the 268 space parking lot on the Newport Harbor High School • property, or b. The construction of the two on-site parking lots consisting of approximately 147 parking spaces will coincide with the development of the new sanctuary. 7'..� -P` •i t-:i;crs�.,.}-'- Item No. B=8 .•••:j.�:ti:5-i :y�?:+;r:vi4:�a�;y�:c.3f}��G'?�y�=7� r ' T0: Planning Commission - 4. 3. That the design of all new structures, including ele- vations be approved by the Director of Community Development. 4. That landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted ........:... ._„__,.... to and approved by the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation. All landscaped areas shall be continuously maintained. • _ ,,a4,;;,y_,�,•-�,, 5. The on-site parking areas shall be screened from the public fencing rorhmounding or landscapeZplanting orlanyocombin- ation thereof. 6. All building, landscaping, parking area and service area •: ,.. •,.,. .'=:. .�- '•'+-`;- - illumination shall be directed away from adjacent proper- .;, ,:__ ; ,; :-. ties, and in no case shall lighting standards or fixtures outside the buildings be installed above a height of twelve feet. 7. All signs shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. °' "•w _'r "'' ':' ''" 8. That the location and, design of the access points to the ^•: c• ' :' offstreet parking areas shall be approved by the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department. However, no access driveways shall be permitted on Clay ` •`•''`,z4`"'-"" - Street. 9. A resubdivision application shall be processed and a parcel map filed when the residential lots are converted Adlk into offstreet T y•,�• � '� parking lots. 10. That this use permit become void if not exercised within k-^ three years. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR •;,.!R�• ,_ ~�`'�„.,,�, A By '/i/�UG/Llrl/ J1f FGcto�. �r &Z,ry1"=='• �';,;,"_ 11l1am R. Laycock, T Senior Planner Attachments: Vicinity Map Negative Declaration and Staff Memo Church Master Plan ? wwntvanem x4"^% Item No. B-8 y vY v'i:5aL1.�.'Y.'�+�i��'4,'�4`?��.4C_."N f..'.l�F^2�� •. if L -P J ` R•a T ` ` P.i ' a P1 I � r,.R•3 i P y,3r3 P1 P\v:b .,A �T iR i.k}-,'�".Sk•'.�'.r.•Gt',=;�Y:r :;fi� :�id`:7 h �M P'1 1 ` wr V' P.1 4r Ir.•i=, . R•3 1 • R terra aLA P' Po P nam R•!N<S �� KI R' KAP ✓'p A ° ir N - es.o:i s w✓:'�fw1e rf.s .e..,.`r.:':u`.dN / iA.I.Hr Mr..n.Mr.J/ingi \ ' 9MfIf.h 4 a99i DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA M1- ABRICYLTUR6 a31D[XVAL P-a uuulPLe ProloexiuL R_I SLVGL[[AMILT RLSIDWIIIL <_I co.. a 0.-E BUPL[% R[IOM",AL 0 [ 0[H[RAL COYN[AGAL • SGI£ OF RE[ PIER. °13TS Y.PL[RVILY PL9WNAL Y-1 YYNIADNRIND CDNBIXIND DISTPIDTS Q YMCLISBIXfD �I IXT MMIT[ a4 " "y .vtY'en[it:;'.:'f�i�+�'!•ay.''.SIa YlI}inn.-'+"nv4.:i F�i''1 vZ`Tr.xYi�.1' �,wNF:a -J.Cw�,ifii �5.1�,•.','?v..*� .,"1':,V,uY`,ef••+.'_++.-�.�:Jel '.'T:.�i::.. .• ... .. _ ,. :.t ' .... ... .. ... iY .«:.i�znki`�✓!�fi'a."..aua%ri"y�ZCu�f:5�p'!: .. - . _ .. . . .. ., .,. CITY OF NE'WPORT BEACIA ' -, _ r``a,zl.•y�.'-r. 1 1 1�fjj°PO l ,' a= :` 'r''`-`t;; ..-..-:`��; °�,':;r`-.,Y=:- - :\.1-=��==:•tT CALIFORNIA s�sw 70, 'oa city Hau P.'• 3900 Newport£Iva. June 7, 1973 ,,y`... :,:�f'�S"'_��'•� �r«.iffy `.:,'i••-a,_ Mr. Robert I. Hench, AIR William Blurock & Partners • 1550 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, California 92625 Dear Mr. Hench: ' - ""' • ' " In response to your inquiry of May 31 , 1973, regarding the ''•` `" ' 'M.'J planning for St. Andrews Church, the followingcomments are : - -wi..':a'�{.ti•i4�� _ _ Siw'''r-''�,r.'r'� offered. 1 . Your request would be processed as an amendment :,r: .,• to the existing use permit. This procedure would involve a public hearing before the Planning Commission and would require notification by mail of all property owners within 300 ft. Forms may be obtained from Bill Laycock. 2. Church structures may exceed a height of thirty- five feet subject to the securing of a use permit in each case. If your proposal is to include a building which exceeds the height limit, this fact should be made a part of the application. The recommendation of the staff will depend upon the =: r .;w.•c_».�.:.;•F:•r,,;a•Mr,:rr specific eci s� , _-, ,=�...•,•,•.{;:• p merits of the request. 3. Parking on the adjoining high school site and perimeter on-street parking should be illustrated - - - - for the purposes of demonstrating that off-site and on-street parking is available. This parking reservoir, and the concept of joint use of parking facilities, will be recognized. However, I do not feel that we can allow full credit for these facil- ities, and the church should make every effort to • provide as much future parking on site as possible. The adjoining church-owned properties should be included in the use permit, and the intent to use these properties for future parking lots should be clearly stated on the site plan. M UP ON ♦:i:N:Rv"i7d,4:ti. iYj:`M--Gr^'''.s�a"vZtii:'S�ill:;:: .ran. "�4 +^•}3?w'•`<,rc.:Y:fSS,u'"ipS•�:�n�t;;i.'.:_ •-.. .... .r .. .i .. . . - i'��''.�',�!'�A%;,y+�rF3"�%'h�•'-f.`-2C,�"_�;ei."kn-�*fC$r,•.e4h'w ')5^�-:s.+Y^.^-".fi.rSS*yYc:or tr"._ ...... . .. ..•e.. ,. .. -;i:tip-.. .. - - •- ... •-tiT�>;rTtiT}Y'.^,''i^R4M"en:"i•-;:YY�:1�`'+:ln.;'.'k� } .. .. ///. TO: Mr. Robert I. Hench - 2. h. Parking will be based on a requirement of one space for each five occupants in the main sanctuary. '' .'^ '. •• Occupancy will be based on one person for each fixed theater-type seat or each eighteen inches of pew. In areas where folding chairs and loose seating are "t` ""'` ` '' `' °''•' contemplated, occupancy will be based on one person for each seven square feet. -�,;,�.•• Jy,..^•.;;%„'�' `x- *�ct: � S. The impact of your project on the environment can only be determined after 'we have had an opportunity to review the entire proposal . However, from the preliminary information you have furnished to date, r -^p;; ',","r,r;r_.;.;, ,:;.:ya„ it would appear that an Environmental Impact Report f would not be required. 6. Application to the South Coast Regional Conservation Commission can only be made after you have received "approval in concept from the City. " We are enclos- :"�j ;;j; - ing the forms you have requested; however, they should not be used until such time as you have received approval for the use permit. Inquiries regarding .the South Coast Regional Commission should be directed . ;. to Bob Lenard of this office. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director .•�?:!'�,+wr�;,�a-s; �-v;r;:o:.T;y��^.:. By J\n .O.t� �J. �•1/ '; • —CA D. HE4II CKER A 1.stant Director JUH/kk Enclosures • - CC: Sam Downing P.O. Box 1536 Newport Beach, CA. 92663 .x'hr"x2-0i,'ty«'-j.�..,�y4`vy a`Cnr-,;s.:+,�=:ux+.«:.•ti'.,� axtto• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 2, 1974 TO: Planning Commission a;�'t�n•�.iw:rrF•?s`I.,7Lr.,Y:'>�$.,f7�n^M�:''T y'.°Cntl;4�v FROM: Environmental Affairs Committee SUBJECT: Amendment to Use Permit No. 822 The Environmental Affairs Committee has reviewed this application and feels that the proposed expansion of the existing church .,. facilities will not create any significant adverse environmental impacts provided that adequate conditions are placed on the amended Use Permit. The Committee was particularly concerned with the following: " :�"',c:;;�^:;"„ _ _ :,:: _•:�.,. 1. Parking. The Committee feels that adequate parking should be provided prior to the construction of the '+'3 '% y 3t• S^': i?: .' new sanctuary. This could be provided either on-site or in the existing school lot provided that satisfactory :...-.`., evidence that this lot will continue to be available is provided. However, the Committee feels that the resolution of the parking problem is more properly a concern of the Use Permit review than environmental review. 2. Traffic & Circulation. 'The Committee feels that in order to minimize any additional traffic impact on the surround- ing residential streets, access to the proposed parking ' r' •:°M '= `; *=v` -°fY?5}t? areas should be limited to the existing alley and that no access should be allowed from Clay Street. Respectfully submitted, y ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE By William R. Foley SMy::,i::�leifa`,,:a.7�:,•ry4��nz,:`ai';i;a�; WRF/sh Ot '.i,:pr`tic"�'rt;3.wY`:.-'4.r„`>•^.i+:eir"4`+•�'#'�._'� :n:.a • M1M� ;. City Council Meeting February 25 1974 - Agenda Item No. D-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH _.. February 20, 1974 T0: City Council `" 'b4'°°"`"-4'Yt '•"" %1'-' - `` '""t'"`-"'�_.. FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Use Permit No. 822 (Amended)(Public Hearing (Appeal) — ^',_a ',4' ?''• Request to amend a previously approved use permit in order to _;;., _4?�� ,• „_ permit the construction of a new church _. .�,_,, __ ,1_,m• sanctuary -and related church facilities; the conver- `«-z -r •-e Sion of the existing sanctuary into multi-purpose rooms and offices; and additional off-street park- ing spaces; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. LOCATION: Portion of Lot 171 , Block 54, Irvine's Subdivision; Lots 31 , 32, and 33, Tract 1220,; and Lots 142 through " is ••._, F c3� •sr :' r`: +t`Fe 146, located at 600 St. Andrews Road, on the south- east corner of 15th Street and St. Andrews Road in Cl iffhaven. ZONES: R-1 , R-2 _ APPLICANT: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach .,�•,;•;•.,1prpr,+c,�c.;y`- <';,F;• :n;=�vr�z-io: OWNER: ' 1; ,•• , N Same as Applicant APPELLANT: Same as Applicant • •• "' •' ''�•` •""'- ""'`"` Recommendation `'��'-;I,.!'S irk�� .•^«�..,y:,�,;>':-•�: At its meeting of January 3, 1974, the Planning Commission recom- mended approval (6 Ayes, 1 Abstention) of Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) to permit:";;:.; facilitiesthe forcStstruction Andrew'soPresbyteriantChurchndasewelldas to church permit the remodeling of the existing church complex and to provide additional off-street parking spaces, subject to the ten conditions of approval minutes as' IndicofeJanuar the 3attac4ed excerpt of the Planning Commission It was the feeling of the Commission that the proposed development would accommodate the expanding needs of the church and would not `0t9krYY �Mo7 be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood so long as sufficient parking was provided to coincide with the various stages of the Chuurch's Master Plan. As reflected in the proposed plans, the park- :r;-y�:_ :.tee :.;mMrcn re4;y;• Ing facilities will ultimately include 147 on-site " as well as the use of the Newport Harbor High School spaces'... across 15th Street from the subject property, consistPngkofg268tpark- ing spaces. The problem of parking was discussed at great length by the Planning Commission and staff, and it was determined that the existing on-site parking was inadequate by any applicable standards. It was also apparent that the Newport Mesa School District would not provide F54;y�:..`M�''•'-��+i'•"h'�Y�Y�f+VYf�'ti.SMi`-�'J>'2•-. ., .. .-. , Miy r .?ldr„PG;•aa.v un+ic'4'�,'��.-•..:�c;2�:`a.��%-w'y `� TO: City Council - 2. the applicant with an exclusive right to use the high school lot, although the District has allowed the parking lot to be used by the church on Sundays and when ft would not conflict with school activities. In an effort to alleviate the parking problems in conjunction with the proposed construction of the church facilities, Condition No. 2 .•*2�Wie:!'es`;«n�.y.'�;r.•.'Le�.c.n: , •, ...,;;, ,,wn was changed by the Planning Commission to read as follows: 2. That the construction of the 1 ,200 seat sanctuary shall not begin until the construction of the two _ on-site parking lots consisting of approximately 147 parking spaces will coincide with the develop- ment of the new sanctuary and that applicant provide "" `"� �: = =•-`" ' an arrangement for off-site parking for the balance of the off-site parking spaces satisfactory to the r+ =" Department of Community Development. 'i;w.�"-�•'- •`_�'."�'• ^=• - The applicant now objects to Condition No. 2 as imposed by the Plan- ning Commission and is appealing the Commission's requirement to the City Council . Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By 24_4��541 WIL-IAM R. LAYCO K Senior Planner WRL/kk .y •_• Attachments: Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated 1/3/74 r• To Council Members Only: - Staff Report dated 1/2/74 Vicinity Map l Memo from Environmental Affairs Committee ! Negative Declaration Church Master Plan 'yz�'tk.>_n.-,t�.;rr,:.r;^,9ttaa•:2a;ik:.ia;n. • . I C:i,�','�^�^•�,.Kjy.\'i:A:�`Cf .�'(Sei.V i•9i�Y.v,�'.p3 - 14R.b. �. - I -• .- •Y(.s.�1..by.` -h- - r •WrKb1--a ` tcr� C'•kj Planning Commission Meeting Jan. 3, 1974 Item No. B-8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 2, 1974 T0: Planning Commission -•.<,,; ;;.%M.:.;t ;%yff?!?c??M_r+ -,Y..�+���;+�� '+'S FROM: Department of Community Development '-"`-,:� .•,`�� " SUBJECT: Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) (Public Hearing) .w-.• , '• Request to amend a previously approved use permit in order to permit the construction of a new church sanctuary and related church facilities; the conver- :,-;r;�.,�. Sion of the.existing sanctuary into multi-purpose '<;=��:n": 'a'.�'_�n`�`==s"•+`�*;`_.;'1 rooms and offices; and additional offstreet parking f•" - '^=°` = spaces; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. LOCATION: Portion of Lot 171 , Block 54, Irvine's Subdivision; Lots 31 , 32, and 33, Tract 1220; and Lots 142 through 146, located at 600 St. Andrews Road, on the southeast corner of 15th Street and St. Andrews Road in Cliff- haven. ,s —W Wl i+wl ZONES: R-1 , R-2 APPLICANT: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach �:•: dijt'-:':`_ '-'•: '• ;;to-. OWNER: Same as Applicant Application ? This application requests approval to amend Use Permit No. 822 so as to allow the construction of a new sanctuary; the remodeling of the existing sanctuary and fellowship hall ; and the ,improvement of church-owned properties for on-site vehicular parking. Planning ' `" - Commission procedures are outlined in Section 20.08.080 of the + .�'--:'•, - Newport Beach Municipal Code. Environmental Significance This project has been reviewed by the Environmental Affairs Committee and it has been determined that it will not have any significant environmental impact. A Negative Declaration has been proposed and , ;-•"' s. is attached for Commission review. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use The existing St. Andrew's Church facilities, single family dwellings and duplexes are presently located on the subject property. To the North, across 75th Street, is Newport Harbor High School ; to the East, across Clay Street, are single family dwellings; to the South, are two single family dwellings on the North side of Clay Street, and across Clay Street, single family dwellings; and to the West, across St. Andrews Road, are multiple-family dwellings , a school of Russian ballet, and a Masonic Temple (Seafaring Lodge No. 708) . * r"w?& ..''`'rvi ? •y :. Item No. B-8 r TO: Planning Commission 2. Background 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. increas- ing the seating capacity of the sanctuary from 470 persons to 750 seats and other minor building additions). No on-site parking •h`vra" ^.f?`t� ni ,z� .r>:° 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. .i^.D!2�i,y�TSL7Y':>J°1,vv`ti;'oYL i4t7+`,ti«..J.•tik`vo�U'ii),i At the date of the granting of Use Permit No. 822, the on-site church facilities consisted of the sanctuary, a chapel , five class- room buildings, and a large fellowship-social hall . •,,.,,�:.;•' _ Building records on file in the Community Development Department also indicate that one of the classroom buildings was converted. ; ;; `• into a day care school in 1970. - Analysis • The proposed amendment to Use .Permit No. 822 is to obtain approval in concept of a five year Master Plan of Development for the church facility as follows: Phase I •.; a. Removal of 3 existing classroom buildings. ;�.• _ b. Construction of a new 1 ,200 seat sanctuary on the • '` site of the 3 existing classrooms. c. Conversion of the existing 750 seat sanctuary into multi-purpose rooms and offices with the addition of 4 small rooms as a second floor., d. Addition of a second floor to the existing fellow- ship hall for classroom purposes. e. Continuation of 15-21 existing parking spaces on-site. f. Continuation of 261 existing parking spaces on the Newport Beach High School site. Through redesign an increase over the 180 spaces presently required by Use Permit No. 822. Phase II and Phase III The applicant presently owns eight of the ten R-2 lots front- ing on Clay Street to the South of the existing church facil- ities. Phase II and Phase III of the Master Plan of Develop- ment indicates that the existing single family dwellings and duplexes will be removed from the site, and will be replaced with parking lots accomodating 93 and 54 vehicles respectively. The proposed development would also consist of the installation of walls, landscaping, lighting and walks, and the abandonment of the 20 foot wide alley between the church buildings and residential lots. Declaration of Restrictions, recorded on the eight R-2 lots _ - in 1947 and 1948, require that the properties shall be used for residential purposes only. However, the applicant is attempting to resolve the legal issue of whether the Church, as owners of the residential lots, can remove the dwellings and • use the property in question for vehicular parking purposes. •�rsj;w:�^'.t.:.;;h.'i;.;•A�.y..:t;R��a,i k�:-;„yt Item No. 8-8 T0: Planning Commission 3. Offstreet Parking As indicated in the attached Negative Declaration of the applicant (i.e. charts and Research of Growth, Construction Phasing, and Parking for St. Andrew's Church) , the Newport Harbor High School parking lot has been redesigned and expanded to increase the capa- city from 180 to 268 parking spaces, and that "the Church and the City can reasonably rely upon the continued use of the school park- ing lot during the times of maximum church use. " As reflected in the proposed plans, the parking therefore available to the St. Andrew's Church facility consists of: 1 . 268 spaces directly across 15th Street at Newport Harbor High School .'= 2. 15 on-site (currently) spaces 3. 147 on street spaces adjacent to the applicant's %' "' ''•^; " • properties (only 43 of which are immediately A•Hp,vx e.,,.�^,.•;�;-rz`;rJ� adjacent to the site) 4. 147 on-site spaces on -applicant's Clay Street properties (to be constructed in the future). 677 - Total. It should be mentioned that the Municipal Code requires 240 offstreet ,,.�,,- -y,, •_,;, ,.._..f, . ,;:; ,_,. ,,F parking spaces for the proposed 1 ,200 seat sanctuary (I.e. one space •+,unC�yta�J,�; 4?'e: 'i�3wI?: 'wg� per five seats in the public assembly area *The City does not consider on-street parking in calculating the number of spaces pro- vided. Height Limit The property is zoned R-1 and is in the 24/28 height limitation dis- trict. However, the height ordinance provides an exception which allows churches to be constructed up to 35 feet. No detailed eleva- tions for the proposed sanctuary have been prepared. Recommendation Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will accommo- date the expanding needs of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, and --,.- will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood if sufficient f° '•ri:hr ' "^":"-">x'^d+ "«'+ parking facilities are available. Therefore, staff feels that the applicant should receive written authorization from the Newport-Mesa Unified School District for the use of the Newport Harbor High School parking lot or that the proposed on-site parking spaces be constructed xm?aaimeix? _ -?.M z�rR prior to the completion of the new 1 ,200 seat sanctuary. Staff recommends approval of Use Permit No. 822 (Amended), subject to the following conditions: 1 . That development be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plans. 2. That the construction of the 1 ,200 seat sanctuary shall not begin until : a. A written authorization is given to St. Andrew's .. Presbyterian Church by the Newport-Mesa Unified School District for the use of the 268 space parking lot on the Newport Harbor High School • property, or b. The construction of the two on-site parking lots consisting of approximately 147 parking spaces will coincide with the development of the new • ' ' sanctuary. W Item No. B-8 `Y.Tt{r'"r1V.':K:•.'a'C�f"A ne;!?v':Mv"Xf,) .:n\ - ,.•y) TO: Planning Commission 4. 3. That the design of all new structures, including ele- vations be approved by the Director of Community •, �_ Development. 4. That landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Parks, Beaches and •-,- .,; ^- ;`4'2 x�w Recreation. All landscaped areas shall be continuously r„s ,,« maintained. 5. The on-site parking areas shall be screened from the public right-of-way by the utilization of walls or fencing or mounding or landscape planting or any combin- ation thereof. 6. All building, landscaping, parking area and service area illu•:; !,r;-, j;; r 'r,","% . v ;z' 4 r- proper- ties, on shall e directed n nocaseshalllighting stand.adjacent c t standards u xtres ,r-_ ,.^`" = outside the buildings be installed above a height of "rrm''.cM1!:.•} '.c'n"p,^;''v�,�wy"a..`:^::,��}�• 't•r'::. '.'•.r twelve feet. 7. All signs shall be approved by the, Director of Community Development. 8. That the' location and design of the access points to the ,,,f ,.,,. <r• ..-sv,a,, .,! wrr, F5 offstreet parking areas shall be approved by the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department. However, no access driveways shall be permitted on Clay Street. 9. A resubdivision application shall be processed and a Atz- --" parcel map filed when the residential lots are converted into offstreet parking lots. -ems.{nl+n_4rch;t.N.iiy`��,n�,v�yw,•n,,+`,�;�.Y��Bw 10. That this use permit become void if not exercised within three years. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR William R. Laycock � Senior Planner s? .. WRL:jb Attachments: Vicinity Map Negative Declaration and Staff Memo gy01 Church Master Plan �,NVM;sF,!?w�1���Ii+:":'IXC w'•L,:{'.-.bWC=JL�IMCK • Item No. B-8 I CHUIZO PITY NfA 2C�8OF•ps1TL SC,H=L RdN�ImGAR 4a4 a I ; a ' I I I I ' I I I Cofyl tN 5514IF- N H IGH 5CHOOL SITE hu. r Crzcs�twrr� • Fo-awt X� � _ �• � ��t�� rv..wf,Pnw ��'rl. PIW�a�ry 1� s i 546 ,fir rt,�•,�.� �r ��o ' r CN SITS P.,RKIIJG r RJww 15 ON s7TZ�,l✓T 14-7 N°T 1ro2 u55- F�;Z.SQT 0 See . ✓J I EO CPPSITE� SFP�C.ES ! 1 CHURC+t GWNED / �� •\ ��I� � r % 1 I o a wru- i � 'f;.t. or+NGkrx+iP� __ ���Nx'rW'�jNnbn�'x0., \.?o Y -_'�` ' �cC�RL4L 1vE zm �.f �• I � r ay fh . IJC4ffW (5' HtsFt kLgX•1� c ' •-SMIfi.UED _- -_ Olt 5T A�%P.1v5 1D-- ----- r PN,+� V-ANPZ ARS INv7cA-rEVt�SNiun! 'CUS TU EXISTING CsVEN� rr[cA.-In Ns 1r9 �= t �i �VCe�•�G�IhIG TO }}d�E _.�i .• .�.�. •on i__ _�_ ��... � .. --�`~-` __. '\ � .. s ter• hWIMUIA \\\ I ja'Low t vEL / 06• ;,1 '^ / / `~ IN'7 fAtzN o 5�C_ an _Ip _ _d G:.ttR� f%lKN'Ib i \.fit°• •� -1i-��r• — A-o i i i �"• , f�� J}: �\ �.:ri4 1 I 'I tHG�f i pwN t N ' N u' c I \I � CHUMH oftao f y I I \ 1 - i 1 e - ST•-'A 9W5---#tfk+D— `��ri45>i X ANCI Z ,d fw/CAT259 A5 5W:t V flilE TO EA15TN O- C4vrKt4N r CW01-rICN5 AND FZ-STFIGTIONS 4-r ��r N t Gtf . �Yk{MQ 193Vi' �!JC�S\C{ZINs✓ `f0 d l it�`t .LS�fJ. - 1 J ' t. rr J10 am, i ` ciry 0;' Zo T 5FACH, NSWPUFCALIF. E» �•CY {��5 2 aT � '/�Jl t '�'i+'i -,+'.•^�'i�ti�:ey:���: alilyn C ,ly .•a � • AAA{,/' /"i"" wELF! �i.�/f• �l!�.�'I(,��t/``�/f./ly.W '` �+� ' . ;:. :. � � �%f���/�,Q� ���/f��//��j /i ate/fG-(i,/V- � �/j � o-y.-... a• ..A1. vJ'tFv r•..'t r'�•t• .lT�. ra -. .r+3:„�1SYl: .i.M-:,Yf. --.y}r r1 ?.n(n.Jeia'a•r ;:�;. ,y. •m"/-': ...a,y 4 r�rr."' 4-'a'� f! �v' .k-"-'^ ! v� s :`4�r' a,,r. dd'rt G,d.• �n'i.,,� ���, .:'�' a �•n.�:. .r�'•pll .a� Jaritr •�i w���wr�' :u5?`i�`�ra,P+�,� �2 1 L � �y-.:., A �. ,�5',lr;���Fr tC..` {f+ +s .,y: .' yy�{,���'' .. :..x��^}_akt.'{"trri�"-.. .ati�:v`.�.;c'n 7f^;��� ri �:. .'-,<: ;!'� .�`����t�.;;G;,.c�+'�';'yYi'�...(�"�y'71� � "'d-N'j}3.1;,;, !�..:���• (• ,. ^�;,i'y.v n '1"�.. ?l`S r�-F:;,. !r a`.:m N, l 1v c,,r�r. ;t7.'+,'ViL'µ.,., wrRb.�ah��` r ,•�-i a�PYn" a..�.�?:iw:Rf`'`t'G ..'. :f`rrR.. .�. -.°' - .:3 ..y:».:r_+;.t.'r.�`iX - L.:h::.ayo % :.ate=,:...«r:-:i;s.'.-�.'J..•^::r:,�,:;.--.,..._x,. - ..c:iw.:. :.<:-:'•�.•:.-r:iiC.E4Gy-"..1; ..;t ';:ibr,w_v�y3.i5f,z`'}3:_S. t�i.f^i:.'.a:✓:�3�%raaFh{dss..a;�x?r.c..t�so-.rr��-a+r:''�;:a-.r-^.::. ��� J�•., r...y.:.e.s.-,�: .'a-{,4;n;�;E::,.l?'d.:.`i.:_.t.. rw:.7r.�<. D%-n pt IL 'z:�vsrS;d�.�,{) - "`��G/ •�iQ/ ��4i� _`.�sl/ ;'•.t'4i?;:h�r56ryd'M`is.tl•,Mi3;td�. ;. rn C�%�!/ �'"t'�-C.G-eJ �'�K� �� �; �•y.,.•�•�c'7,'.�G"��^Fa'sF�Yyf{�� Cr"ti ',y.. .-p�• .*CR':r.�y:N... _ i�yarc}kG"y�'Hy, ,•Y '.'3:".u<d+�^+,c'�`V�ir'^F;,,-k?•ti;j .i..yy�..t,r• ,r`.'ei••,y,+..ru. r-'t-W s.-�,i t.ii oc*.v,^ ':•ti7ar'S`i'tFa' '^I �-y'•2'• ,'Sr 7„t ..•i'.' a',zrr=�'3"'r° d`,fl .,Lase ':r..sY: •�i•.4'.'}h i. •r4lii;F m'7.'pte• i - i8�:r�=t s-o MOM rA+ '" �4.�, �r't�r` r S di:". Yyr. i ,rtc.73'+Gvu y{ ;�•txwyrv^'r .vv • t. s.,_ .c.(1•. ' -.* .c %•::k;+ry :>S,; ��i;.r'•..`;..� •dit;':C<.;t;: .;!co- rye":�.= .°,tb.Cn_ tiCE:iif,^,' :.{`.Y}•:"y.:"r�_,r:7` .e6d:wc''�C%Ci ''+�e:�.t,•,;nr � i�'(�.""-.a.•'.c•''r?>�'mY' tif fc,.f.��A.eQa•�...fipS'r 1'P- ,y�'�r .sr ]"�,�:.,G . .•,,v"s:".��..-:�..: ,-.t:. "",,:.f 2•r `�'�% r.._�. aJ ... � `:: ...'x5 i?``.. .rs.,�.: .' �:: �:'n -c:.�vf,�.&.,� :r!ya.^�%i�ii.�,vit..� D. V. SKILLING June 22 , 1982 mrs . Debra Allen Planning Commissioner City of Newport Beach au? ? { 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 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 ;;;.,. ,;.•,.,.r 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. yst� Thank you for your interest and consideration. Best regards. Sincerely yours , D. V. Skilling aiay w;nWald, �YIQi QQ n Ul�tw(�of r (�uCG �.� • . - . ga(.a(a s Sze 10 ,. ern°OF � �� NNJFORT BE l/ ;+•rc;Y+ate .o i ia;- E." :t':' .�.r, ':.`: •.�.� - is� r:a:-!'•',-Y•. ., - •-'+:- ��+M. - . .. ', � • ,XJ9'&'��d. O'trP/!. �I�IL ry�P�W— �42� ,; A 741tf " U YLL n�,� - - 1/7 Gykt ' hL Y is 1"• v\I r•. •.ice •` .fir. y.�.. .\� � • • r r :.. _.- v .... •IG/A A/l !• Y� � C{/^11�, V� W •�^' 'vim ✓l /����`�^� '�y-- �r �t,r�v!ry•,��Rrq. 1�Q� LO F RECEIVED Planning Der.artment z `JUN241982s- Crrr of ' 511PORi BEACH., •� eciro�� dc�' h1(.c'� C 5 Q SEW PORT e� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • U P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663.3884 C'9</FO PN�P April 30, 1982 Robert J. Craig 418 Snug Harbor Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: St. Andrews Church Expansion Dear Mr. Craig: The City of Newport Beach has received your letter of April 13, 1982, related to the proposed expansion of St. Andrews Church. Copies of this letter were forewarded to the Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission. The Newport Beach Planning Commission held a public hearing on the church on Thursday, April 22, 1982, public testimony was taken and the proposed expansion continued to the Commission meeting of Thursday, June 24, 1982. Should you wish to provide additional testimony related to the request you may do so in writing or at the continued public hearing. • If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator FT:tn • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach ro No• 35 ` RECEIvED PIANN L)E q h1ENT -- JUN2 s 1982;�, cirr o,_ 8 NEWPu,dl'LEACH, CALIF. ti 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. Since ply, jleov/1✓ Stan Henline 230 Kings Place Newport Beach, California No •3 (,* THE APPRAISAL OFFICES OF PAUL G. KLOSTER RECEIVED Z INCORPORATED PLANNING 17632 Irvine Blvd. DEPARTMENT • Suite PAUL G. KLOSTER MAI,SRPA Tustin, CA 92660 JUiJ 2 � 9982„ 714/731-6921 lC�ITY0, VPO �. NE� .:i eEl.CN, CALI: June 24, 1982 0 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 apprasing 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. Sincerely, �/ 114 � k" 49—Z Paul G. Kloster, MAI/SRPA • Resident of Newport Heights Newport Beach, CA PGKmm 1 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 nottrue. 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 coming 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 /. 2 the applicant (page36 LSA report) and averaging the two ratios 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. +r Using 1100 seatin17 capacity @ 1.6 per person / vehicle"would be 688 spaces required. Again using St. Andrews own figuveayfrom page 36, on Dec. 20 i 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 a capacity of approx. 750 yy " @ 9/ gie T/ 407 • 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 plus 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 thechoir. 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 taith 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 develop,emt make up for a shortage of required parking spaces on an off sate location 3 that the development didn't own or control by some written agree- ment. In this case the developer is claiming a major portion of the • 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 exhst •,as it would probably be .. o 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 Iroject in this manner. In summary: I strongly urge the commission to .look at the reality of this issue. Most of the attenders 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 spacdsfiw red into the total requirement for staff, study 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. ,. • Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission, Please let me say is-- I am not "against everything, " I am speaking out to aid, I hope, the process • of good planning. The Cliff Haven /Newport Heights area is in a great metamorphosis., One only has to drive around our streets to see house after house being completely rebuilt. Cliff Haven and the Heights are is and$ 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 to you 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 figures: 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. •St. Marks 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 Parking requirements are based upon the "Public Assembly" category. A church service certainly is not a public assembly--it is non-secular in • nature 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 hope 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 @ 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 �cr�fs,cy rr��eePi,Q�« Less small lot 44 541 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 is 748 seating capacity. Thus it can be seen that"his 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 agp- • licant. Ladies and Gentlemen of the commission, there is something that I wish to publicly get off my chest, so if I may take just a bit more of your time. 3 _ In the early 19601s, I was an elder in St. Andrews. I was appointed Chairman of the Building Committee that subsequently constructed the trans- gee s , Stewart Lounge and the minister's study as as addition to the existing sanctuary. In our talks with the city at that time, the Planning Depot 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 SHuitTFRc c . to the parking! In fact the City did require# that we provide a letter from the school giving their permission to use the school parking wizen 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 seemed to fall on deaf ears. I have no documentation to support the • above nor do I know of what documentation the City m§ry have, but I do present this to the best of my recollection. eel 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 honored 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 "" "" """"" Mariners Church 600 seats 290 "" """""" St. Andrews Church 1100/1400 seats ' 128 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. • I "RECEIVED AFTER MENDA PRKB": �� y r . OPENING STATEMENT The primary reason for this press conference to'�� V publicly state the position of the Cliff Haven Associ and to clarify any areas where the press may need additional information. It should first be clearly understood that we do not -oppose the church, its programs, nor its mission to the community. Our position has been the' same since before the first planning commission meeting: 1. no occupied space above 35 feet with a reasonable steeple arrangement. 2. provide adequate on-site parking. What we are asking for is that the church, as a good citizen stay within the laws of our city and our community. Our CC&R' s state that we shall have no structures above two stories in our community. The city code states that in a R-1 community there shall be no structures above 28 feet, except for churches which may go to 35 feet. The, 35 feet was given to churches to allow for a reasonable steeple arrangement. • The city code states that churches should provide one parking place for each five seats in a public assembly area. This facility at completion will hold between 3, 000 and 4, 000 people. We are not asking the church to give up their rights, we are asking the church to honor ours and stay within the laws that have been established to protect out citizens. -2- COPY OF HISTORY 1950 Ground Broken 1954 450 Seat sanctuary completed 1957 Fellowship Hall Youth Chapel r 1958 Grace Memorial Chapel 1962 February 15 : Use Permit #822 1. Increase seating by 286 2. Enlarge existing lounge 3. Add Pastor' s study - counselling APPROVED: 1973 December 7 Request for modification of existing conditional • Use Permit #822 1974 February 25 Conditional Use Permit #822 amended 1,200 seat sanctuary Social Hall Parking 1982 June Planning Commission C.U.P. #822 amended Re: Subdivision Traffic study Approved conditionally 1982 August • City Council HISTORY OF OUR COMMUNITY EFFORTS MY NAME IS GEORGE WEST AND MY WIFE AND I LIVE JUST 5 DOORS DOWN THE STREET HERE AT 412 SNUG HARBOR ROAD- WE'VE RESIDED THERE FOR 16 YEARS, I USED TO ATTEND ST. ANDREWS, AND EXCEPT FOR SOME EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC AND S0I4E RATHER ERRATIC VEHICLE MANUEVEAS CAUSED BY THE POPULARITY OF THE CHURCH, THEY HAVE BEEN GOOD NEIGHBbRS. MY ASSIGNMENT TODAY IS TOO FILL YOU IN ON THE EVENTS THAT HAVE :< •. TAKEN PLACE SINCE THE CHURCH FIRST MADE AVAILABLE TO AMENDED USE UNITY THE PLANS THEY D EVELOPED IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THEIR PERMIT -#r822 FILING . FEB. 31 1989 A GENERAL MEETING OF THE CLIFF HAVEN COMMUNITY ASSN. WAS HELD, AND AT THAT MEETING A MEMBER OF -THE CHURCH' S BUILDING COMMITTEE BRIEFED THE ASSEI4BLY OF THEIR PROPOSED PLANS. :. MAR. 89 1982 : AT THE• CHURCH' S INVITATION, A' NUMBER OF THE CLIFF • RESENTATION AT THE CHURCH FOR'THE HAVEN RESIDENTS ATTENDED A P PURPOSE OF LEARNING SOME OF THE DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION. THE PROGRAM CONSISTED OF A SLIDE PRESENTATION, ACHE SOMEWHAT ALE 140DEL ISPLAY, AND A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD. THE LATTER BE ANTS LEAVING MIDWAY THROUGH THE PROGRAM HEATED, WITH SEVERAL ATTEND :. WHEN IT BEGAN TO APPEAR THAT THE CHURCH WAS NOT HOSTING THE EVENT TO SOLICIT APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, BUT WERE SIMPLY TELLING US WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO , REGARDLESS OF OUR OBJECTIONS. THEIR r PROPOSED EXPANSION PLANS CALLED FOR A 105 FOOT OCCUPIED ADMINIS- TRATION STRUCTURE THEY REFERRED TO AS THE "STEEPLE$ A NEW . SEATING MORE THAN DOUBLE THE CURRENT SANCTUARY SANCTUARY CAPABLE-Or CAPACITY, AND NUMEROUS CLASSROOMS,AND MEETING HALLS, AND SOME . TOKEN ON-SITE PARKING. " APRIL 1, 1982 : C.,MMENCING THE FIRST WEEK Of• APRIL, VARIOUS INDIVID- UA S Or '17 CIRCULATED A PETITION, SAMPLES OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU WHICH PROPOSED THAT THE CHURCH SHOULD ADHERE TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT APPLICABLE TO ALL OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE NEIGH- BORHOOD, AND SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ON-SITE PARKING ADEQUATE FOR THE INCREASED SEATING CAPACITY OF THE" SANCTUARY. ` 492 SIGNATURES APPEARED ON THAT PETITION, AND WHILE THE ,NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT STATES THAT FIVE OF .THOSE SIGNA- . I ' TURES WERE OF PERSONS NOT RESIDING IN NEWPORT BEACH, THE PETITION DID STATE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS AND/OR RESIDENTS WERE ELIGIBLE TO SIGN. IN OTHER WORDS, SOME OUT-OF-TOWN LANDLORDS HAD TENANTS LIVING IN* NEWPORT BEACH WHO WERE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL. I ! DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE MAP OF THE CLIFF HAVEN AREA.ALONE, ON WHICH THE RESIDENTS OR LANDLORDS PREMISES MARKED IN RED INDICATE THOSE AGAINST THE CHURCH' S EXPANSION ACCORDING TO THE PETITION. APRIL 22, 1982t AT A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE NEWPORT { j BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CHURCH PRESENTED THEIR PROPOSAL . AND THE CLIFF HAVEN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, LED BY PRESIDENT PETER. GENDRON, PRESENTED THE RESULTS OF THE PETITION AND OTHER -ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO CONTINUE THE ITEM , WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPLICANT THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER BE SCALED DOWN. THE ITEM WAS RESCHEDULED FOR, JUNE 24. APRIL 1982 : THE CLIFF HAVEN COMMUNITY ASSN. AGAIN POLLED THE RESIDENTS, THIS TIME IN THE FORM OF A QUESTIONNAIRE MAILING AND I RECEIVED BETTER THAN A 45% RESPONSE IN WHICH THE RESPONDENTS OVERWHELMINGLY CONFIRMED THE ORIGINAL SENTIMENTS FO THE PETITION SIGNORS . PAGE 3 JUNE 24, 1982 : AFTER ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS', IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSAL, AND THE PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND OTHER ARGUIEN'.PS• BY RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY AGAINST THE PROPOSAL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 4 TO 2 IN• FAVOR OF THE NEW PROPOSAL WHICH REDUCED THE TOWER HEIGHT BY 20 FEET' AND WHICH ADDED NO, ADDITIONAL ON-SITE PARKING. ` I AUGUST 9, 1982 : AT THE REQUEST OF MAYOR-PRO-TEM, EVELYN HART, THE MATTER WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COUNCIL, AND AFTER A LENGTHY PRESENTATION BY THE CHURCH, AND SHORTENED ARGUMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, IT WAS PROPOSED BY COUNCILMAN MAURER AND SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED BY THE COUNCIL THAT A NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE ATTEMPT TO- RESOLVE THE MATTER IN ORDER. TO AVOID A COUNCIL DECISION AS IT WAS SUCH A CONTROVERSIAL ITEM. DURING THE NEXT MONTH, NUMEROUS MEETINGS WERE HELD BETWEEN THE NEGOTIATING TEAMS FROM THE ASSOCIATION, THE • CHURCH, AND THE TWO MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WHO VOLUNTEERED TO ASSIST IN REACHING A COMPROMISE. SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 : ON THE MOTION OF MAYOR-PRO-TEM HART, THE CITY COUNCIL MOVED TO POSTPONE THE ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING (SEPTEMBER 27 ) AS IT APPEARED THAT PROGRESS WAS BEING MADE TOWARD A WORKABLE COMPROMISE. SEPTEMBER 14, 1982 : IN A MORNING MEETING OF THE NEGOTIATING TEAMS, THE CHURCH ADVISED THAT THEY WERE NOT WILLING TO CONTINUE FURTHER WITH NEGOTIATIONS, AND THAT THEY WERE PREPARING TO COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL ON THE TWENTY SEVENTH WITH THEIR PROPOSAL AND REQUEST A VOTE ON THE MATTER. TO RETAIN THE PRESENT USAGE AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS OF' THE SAINT ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PARCEL j 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 clone 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-giatle revel oniy. NAME . /ADD'/RESS DATE/ 1. ��II .LitZ, 11t,,- �e/�.,, jICIL- II X�� •� /I[.Li i JT �rG`C 1_/�� /L• / � cry/ '�1.��'%. 2. r- r d � ''�'� ��...aS.��•.,t^-.� ���-•c .�1:.1 t t�< '�x y� ���� T/•;�CJ�. 4. l��i"1?c"Z�.� ) 7J � 4 r. c�[,c r�L,.,�.4. Lc�r,-.... ����.�t• y ... 6. ( r �•. ` 4 w ��r��..,, t-� N,�t�?;�z 1"act'; i 9. 10. — 11. ' 12. 13. 14. 15. 17. 19. _ • 20. 21. --- -- — — - — 10 µay �..5 X,i�f.�o�•seq iy �' .35��>SS,'a' k� ^^ Tf Cliff Haven Association 3rd, which represents th- nearly 400 homes and ape ..ments in Cliff Haven, 8 has supported the position that was expressed by you in the petition which was circulated in April , regarding the proposed church expansion. • The church's building committee has reevaluated its plans, in light of the Planning Commissions action, and the Association Board is anxious to update the feelings of the entire community, i The following questionaire is essential for guiding us in upcoming meetings with the church and ultimately back at the Planning Commission. j Take a moment NOW to answer the questions. . . . . . . . . . Tear off the card and return it to us imediately. . . and PLEASE support us at the Planning Commission. . . ' r City Hall - ,DUNE 24th - 7:3Opm Thanks' , YES NO 1. The church has revised the proposed - height From 105, to 85'.Is this acceptabq 2. Should St. Andrews ,conform to the r ' , - existing height limitation (351) for `h�jj1' ' their new sancuary? , 3. Would you allow a height variance? r • 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 accept, in our community? (exist ng 544) S. Comments Y lgna re , WS `1 1. The church has revised the proposed L� rVf height from 105' to 851.Is this acceptable? c 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 Ly'D 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) 6. Comments fi ign. ur a /J r . G ` "THE C.C. & R. j 1 THE CONDITIONS, CONVENANTS, AND RESTRICTIONS WERE PLACED ON TRACTS • 1218 AND 1220 KNOWN AS CLIFF HAVEN ON APRIL 2, 1948 BY THE DEVELOPERS. WE HAVE PREPARED FOR YOU A COPY OF THE C.C. & R. ON EACH TRACT WITH c EMPHASIS ON VARIOUS AREAS FOR YOUR EASY READING. r OUR CONCERN IS THE WORDING OF BUILDING HEIGHT AS STATED IN PARAGRAPHS 21 3, 5, AND 6. IN SUMMATION, THE HEIGHT LIMIT IS TWO STORIES UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, WHICH IS 28 FEET. THE C.C. & R. CAN BE CHANGED OR ADDED TO AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 28. e ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, IN 1979 , ADDED AN ADDITIONAL USE AS STATED IN THE "DECLARATION" ON PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH 3, AND READS AS FOLLOWS: "LOT 31, 32, 33, 34, AND 35 IN TRACT 1220 AND •LOT 1421 •143, 144, 145, AND 146 OF TRACT 1218 AS. HEREIN DESCRIBED, IN ADDITION TO • PRESENTLY PERMISSABLE USES , MAY ALSO BE USED FOR THE FUTHERANCE OF CHURCH AND RELIGIOUS GOALS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, PARKING FACILITIES AND LANDSCAPING IN CONJUNCTION HEREWITH AND FOR ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES REASONABLY CONNECTED THEREWITH. " IT SHOULD BE NOTED THEY DID NOT CHANGE THE HEIGHT LIMITATION. ' WHAT IS HAPPENING, ST. ANDREWS NEVER ANTICIPATED THE USE OF THESE TEN LOTS FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN PARKING. NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO PUT AN 85 FOOT HIGH BUILDING ON PROPERTY RESTRICTED TO A 28 FOOT HEIGHT, THEY WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. JOE GALLANT Jo ' � IN EARLY JULY I PHONED EVELYN HART, OUR REPRESENTATIVE ON THE CITY COUNCIL, TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO THE ST. ANDREWS BUILDING • PROJECT. MRS. HART ADVISED ME TO DEVELOP SOME FACTS WHICH WOULD HELP THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS UNDERSTAND WHY I OPPOSE THIS PROJECT. SO, FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES, I CONDUCTED A POLL OF ALL OF THE CHURCHES LISTED IN THE YELLOW PAGES WITH A NEWPORT BEACH ADDRESS. I UNDERSTAND ST. ANDREWS IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH WITH A SEATING CAPACITY OF ABOUT 1,360 PERSONS-HERE IS A LIST OF THE 14 CHURCHES IN NEWPORT BEACH WHICH SPECIFIES THE SEATING CAPACITY OF EACH CHURCH: SEE LIST ATTACHED THE AVERAGE SEATING CAPACITY OF A NEWPORT BEACH CHURCH CALCULATES TO BE 366 PERSONS. FROM THIS SIMPLE COMPARISON ONE CAN EASILY SEE WHY • WE NEIGHBORS OBJECT: ST. ANDREWS IS PROPOSING TO BUILD A CHURCH WHICH WILL SEAT 1,000 MORE PEOPLE THAN THE AVERAGE CHURCH IN OUR CITY. . .AND THEY WANT, TO BUILD IT IN THE CENTER OF THIS QUIET RESIDENTIAL AREA. WE DON'T OBJECT TO A MODERATE EXPANSION BUT THIS IS TOO AMBITIOUS FOR THIS AREA. A BUILDING EXPANSION AS SUBSTANTIAL AS ST. ANDREWS PLANS BELONGS IN ANOTHER LOCATION SUCH AS THE FASHION ISLAND.AREA WHERE THE SIZE WILL BLEND NICELY WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURES. THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES TO THE CURRENT PLANS WHICH ARE MORE THAN ACCEPTABLE TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. .',THESE PLANS STILL ALLOW FOR GROWTH AND I HOPE OUR CITY COUNCIL WILL HELP GUIDE THE CHURCH AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TOWARDS AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION. ROB CRAIG • • 1. . Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church 1441 West Balboa Boulevard 673-3775 Capacity: 350 seats 2. Our Lady Queen of the Angels Catholic Church 2046 Mar Vista Drive 644-0200 Capacity: 550 seats f 3. Harbor Christian Church 2401 Irvine Avenue 645-5781 Capacity: 250 seats 4. Christian Science Church 3303 Via Lido 673-1340 Capacity: 300 seats 5. Plymouth Congregational Church 3262 Broad 642-2740 Capacity: 2b0 seats 6• St. James Episcopal Church 3209 Via Lido 675-0210 Capacity: 250 seats 7• St. Micheal and All Angels Church • 3233 Pacific View Drive 644-0463 Capacity: 250 seats 8. Mariners Church 1000 Bison •Avenue 640-6010 Capacity: 700 seats 9. Lutheran Church of the Master 2900 Pacific View Drive 759-1030 Capacity: 350 seats 10. Newport Harbor Lutheran Church 798 Dover Road 548-3631 Capacity: 350 seats 11. St. Mark Presbyterian Church 2100 Mar Vista Drive 644-1341 Capacity: 300 seats 13. Christ Church by the Sea, United Methodist 1400 W. Balboa 673-3805 Capacity: 250 seats 14. St. Andrews Presbyterian Church 15th and Clay 631-2880 Capacity: 670 seats �5 . Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 801 Dover Drive 642-8288 Capacity: not available I� Our neighborhood was shocked when we were •presented the expansion plans for St. ANdrews Church, for •the first time, in February. SInce that time we have found ourselves spending a lot of time and money • to oppose those plans. The point I 've been asked to make,- is that besides the "What" of the plan - that is, the height, size and parking problems - the NEIGHBORHOOD has also been schocked by the "HOW" - the approach the church representatives have taken to try to get their plan approved. First - The church leadership did not consult the neighborhood prior to making their plans. We have never expected or wanted to del their church for them, but we do think it would have only been reasonable to get community input in the early stages. Second - the church leadership did not communicate in a clear and complete manner with their congregation. The Building Committ was given a vote of approval by 00% of less than 4 of their membership for the expansion, but there still remains a great deal of internal .confusion about the true impact it will have our community. 'Whereas, we have polled our membership throught this issue. Third - We 've been threatened with "political clout", we've •been tpld to Dut pur money where pur mouth is, and we 've got millions", and we have been told that they "haven't spent $100,00 on architect fees to be told 'no"'. • Our approach has been that the issue should be decided on its merits , on fairness and within the Citys own zoning codes and policies. The church should not be exempt and in fact is NOT exempt from those same codes and policies. Fourth - the whole approach to negotiations by tlta church seems less than sincere. They should be negotiating UP, we should not be put in the position of havein�to negotiate DOWN. We have been asked :o address only height and our repeated efforts •to include parking and massin the discussion were put aside. And, finally, last Tuesday, after the CIty Council had voted to extend us more time, just the night before, our negotiations were ended by the church representatives, If the Rev. John Huffman has stated to us that he "dosen't want to disrupt our neighborhood" , why have the church representatives taken this insensitive approach? We can't answer this for the church, but it does appear that one facto irk their early decisions was advice from My' Planning staff that led them to believe that •the height, mass and parking would be acceptable. We are NOT opposed to growth - but we favor GROWTH WITH REASON. • Barbara ?•ihitford CLOSING STATEMENT It is the opinion of this association that St. Andrews is attempting th accomplish "too much on too little property" . If their programs dictate the need for this size and capacity then they should explore other designs which would be compatable with our • 'i�'�wp''�'4°"Soy: community. ' There are alternatives to the current design: ;N•%,y ' "' '',;_- 1. They could move their facility to a larger site. 2. Between 1973 and 1979 a local architect, ";; ;;,_, ; F ti,:• William Blurock, presented a plan for a 1200 seat facility which would accomadate the churchs .needs, was within the height limit and provided • the necessary parking to be within all of the laws of this city. Copies of this plan are available for your review. 3. They could alter their current design by reducing the height and mass , moving the building back from Clay Street and use the Clay street property for parking, as was orignally intended when thay asked our homeowners to sign a petetion to add to our CC&R' s for church related purposes. My final point is one that concerns the ethics of a ck ie Heather. J - ' lw omen and may or, r con ci Y ou r -3- . . At the City Council meeting of Feb. 25 , 1974 Council- man Milan Dostal " left the council table due to a conflict of interest" when confronted with use permit 822, St. Andrews church requesting modifications to a previously approved 1200 seat sanctuary. Councilman Dostal was a member of St. Andrews at the time and thereby set a precedent for use permit 822. . . At the Planning Commission meeting of Jan. ' 3, 1974 Commissioner Jackie Heather - and I quote: Commissioner Heather stepped down from the dais and abstained from deliberation in connection with' jItem B-8 as she is an active member of St. Andrews ( Church , serves on the Board of Deacons and is philosophically close to the application . At the City Council meeting of Aug. 9, 1982 Mayor • Heather' s opening remarks were that she was "biased towards the church, but she felt she could be objective in this matter of property" . The minutes of the meeting indicate the following: In response to Mayor Heather's inquiry regardir..g a possible conflict of interest inasmuch as she is a member of St. Andrews Church, the City Attorney advised that, in his opinion, the Mayor could participate in this matter; there would not be a conflict of interest; and said participation would not taint any decision of the City Council. The Mayor stated that she has not pledged any monies towards the 'Church building fund and has "divorced" herself as.much as possible as to the decision making as a member of the Church, so that she could still fulfill her City function and represent the City fairly. =4- • I believe certain questions need to be asked of our Mayor: 1. Was there not a precedent set in 1974 by both Councilman Dostal 'and Commissioner Heather when they both stepped dorm because they were members . of St. Andrews? 2. What has changed between 1974 and 1982? Is not a conflict of interest still a conflict of interest? 3. If the Mayor is "biased towards St. Andrews" then how can she also be objective? Bias certainly taints objectivity. It is this Associtaions position that Mayor Heather 9 ' should do the ethical and responsiable thing for this City, and uphold the high standards set for our City Council by once again stepping down on use permit 822 - • St. Andrews. -5- L� Rc 17 e 4 —� R,� r{.�oti::'"!.j i - ]f {`•,I' oaw isf1° i R-3 ^ * •A1yf t \ a•s p,•I 4° � d a 3 t 3 c, oo �—'—C'— • ? PLAt Ilo• JCN r/.I,.� � Cee/A � ` f• 2 'o P, P \ \ r e \ G A � o R•t � ,,o sG f A-P-H *% Mn..V INt.f� nwfnr..r P< G: .JvJ .I G a R %Ir+Gs 6 R- ;�a g. .''• R./ Q ref G-I•r1 °0' ♦ J Q J,,ter ^ ,r na°M I>L I/% .[.w/-J/l/••�n.M•••/JJ! H �J .L IO.%nJ 4nM•binlf((W/N/1hu.rIIIIIJJ/M1• �� ` 0n> -n/r.-J/6 M! .nJ.w< vw•l•�ew ��—, U U f � o•i n.nn •ue.a wn`lv��i nl`+i'i�uw of Aia� •(;1 ...ores. :u:p;:r uu r.aui"un'.'Pn•°.i ri n'a'.i, ' DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA R-A AGRIOULTURAL P:SIOLMIAI R-f MULTIPLE RES10011AL R_t SINGLE PANM1T RCSICCNTIAL E-t LICHT WNNCRCIAL • R-R DUPLEX RESIGENML C-R OCNCRLL CORR[RC4L SEAL[ °> PELT R-3 04STL•MUOPLE FAMILY RMDDaUL M-t MMUFAOTWINO OR°AO 702 NAP NO 7-t` ��_ - y, O° Dm1mNING 0ISTIUGTS L� uNCLLSSRICO p INTLRN[PIATL Fee e,IPTs ---_ _- - �. •..a.,z•..� CITY OF NENPORT BEACH( ri r June 14 , 1979 • T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Amendment No. 534 Public Hearin r Request to consider amendinga Potion Districting Map No. 21 fromthe Rr3District to the R-1 District, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. LOCATION : Lots 36 through 46, Tract No. 1220, located at 300 through 424 St. Andrews Road, on the easterly side of St. Andrews. Road -bett•�een Clay Street and Cliff Drive in Cliff Haven. INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach Appl�on The Planning Commission reflect existing single initiated this. 2one change in order to family residential development on the easterly side of At. Andrews Road between Clay Street and Cliff Drive. Amendment procedures are outlined the tl in Chapter 20.84 of ewport Beach Municipal Code. • Environmental Si nificance After an initial study, it has been determined that this project will not have any significant environmental impact, and a negative declaration has been prepared and is attached for Commission review. Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan now designates the site for "Multi-Family Residential " uses . Single family 'residential development is consistent with this designation , however, the City may wish to amend the Land Use Element and Residential Growth Element of t this amendment is approved. he General Plan if Property ary Surrou� � "' one and t�, _ story singe so) ect north , across property in question vacant property • To the Cliff Drive, the Prop s and vacananPd to the South, across St Andrews ramilt' dwelling east, and to the west, across Horace Clay single to .the a lexes and the are single family dwfamily9residential comp • Road , are multiple- Ensign Middle School site. Backay d the Planning Commd that wouen lddhave of May 10, 1979 , one parcel of land At its meeting 627 to create of the Resubdivision No, five unit resdeterminationominium construction of a It was the ermi would not permitted the St- Andrews Road. uses along the complex at 418 I residential uses ' sing Clay Street Commission that the propose( .Anrews Road and between be consistent with the existng easterly side of St- and Cliff Drive• public hearing for ty in gtestion ;t< On May 24> 1979 , the Commission initiated• a P • June .21 , .1979 to ContheeR rezoning itrict- proper the R-3 District to 4„ Anal sis and Recommendation site to the R-1 District into conformance with the single family The proposed reclassification of the ro erties in the zoning to maintain the ment that now exists on the P would bring the Commission residentiallfe1tlis the desire of the area, Amendment No.' question - existing residential character of be approved. DEPARTPtENT OFOIRECTORTY DEVELOPMENT , • R. V . NOGAN, 8y k j R. Lock Senior Planner WRL/dlt vicinity Map tion Attachments: Negative Declara '."'w•;i`.f;T n. / NEGATIVC DECLARATION C rr•inr;v fUr Rosources FROM: Community Development Department r•11111 tenth Street City of Newport Beach ' •n,rnmPnLt), CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard • u f o r.l r Newport Beach, CA 92663 v1, f the Board Supervisors 1'. 0. Box 687 Sdnt8 And. CA 9270? J NAME OF PROJECT: Amendment No. 534 PROJECT LOCATION: See Project Description PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to Districting Map No. 21 so as to reclassify from the R-3 District to the R-1 District certain properties located at 300 thru 424 St. Andrews Road, on the east side of St. Andrews between Clay Street and Cliff Drive in the City of Newport Beach. FINDING: 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: r None INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA WlaDATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Fred co Environmental Coordinator Date: June 14, 1979 cLRY SrREEr C ` b6tB0• � �i iF m l • ki> 25 4 I Iab AO � ' SB r/4'.,6 h O .� • 'ti//ivz' .'B(34 P. " Y r 22 v COR,qL PLACE 4 0 5 - ! 100. 20 29 �'-- q * 28 41 p se N 26 N N @ 3 16 r2B.2 44 49 /2R•9G' Q 12 15 • y i3i oS' 45 48 �2s.69, 'F6 47 (4, H 13 i bo' 1 NO. 1220 • ten' IrL.:S _ CL 1F DRIVE . F• cgardln presented Pletic� g he Pe°P°sal fromrom the City Man )tlon °f t � Ayes x the Cit mainder of the Prompter for alter Tele cable sYstePter corn_ �6) PromPter Resolution n m within appCOyjPron9 ne 9601, amend' hempteC Corpora°f°Pletion gchesolufion No. 8614 Of comp, toncil to On'ntnd declari�ul t for Tele_ 1 g the IZ'960 " 5. on schedule no further intent of A letter no adoptedtime extensions from t Council som�nishe Writing to Y Health Pla � appoint gin nt . . es x Presented. to the Assembl reConfirmatlo ning Or He The appointment of Y f DelegateS was (183 Cncl lth presentative Mr. Harr 0) natnc!!s°Assembl rangnd illlCou t nniE oham a Ys a ;: Cou Ora e Cit the staff was 1 of Dele y Health Iter- - writing of such dlrnflyd to ates LY sthenfirmed ng teco mation.otif • H. Councilain :; _„y`•; x CONSENT CALENDAR: The hose itepwing actin s were ms re taken as Indicated 1. except Por Pt for LACES FOR INTRODU AugU13'1d979hand set foCTION; 'Public h (a earin g on rOPOORDI Sed A Ordinance No. 1815, —__ BEACH HIVACMEN THE CITY being A fiISTRICTING MAP G--A PORT EWPORT Districtivla gDSO'ICT`CE0---3 ST21•T0oECLASSIFY (0-1815) P RICT ROAD FIPAND "'OUGH P424' ST.OPEI�TY LOCATED (2330) j 54 MENTAL DOCUE PIING "THE ANDREWS New' a rBeac t InitlafedgbENDMENTNVIRNO. Port l Community Deyelopme t Dreaortthfr mltyth f P rtment) e Volume 31 _ page 197 - • • ' i ' • t r . .,:..^�.. �:e� '?' ��•.'��`,`X7.i;C,.4aa. _' •_- ff"°'•-^F-,<�e',\u:..r+. ji�a^r'?il?�.j5.}L a .' •'ti ..�. ">C.,��y.Wr_.4£ _�. ._.: �,:(iii�i��iJa.•:SP'lnt._..•.^^ 1f�'. .Vt<Sti� ..M•� ... _ Agenda I .� No. D-3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • August 7 , 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Amendment No . 534 Request to consider amending a portion of District- ing Map No. 21 from the R-3 -District to the R-2 District, and the acceptance of an Eh.viron- mental Document. LOCATION: Lots 36 through 46, Tract No. 1220; located at 300 through 424 St. Andrews Road, on the east- erly side of St. Andrews Road between Clay Street . and Cliff• Drive in Cliffhaven. INITIATED BY : The City o.f Newport Beach, Application The Planning Commission initiated this zone change in order to reflect • the single-family residential development which exists on the east- erly side o'f St. Andrews Road between Clay Street and Cliff Drive. At the Planning Commission meeting of June 21 , 1979, the Commission ' took action to recommend an R-2 zoning as opposed to the R-1 zoning which was initially proposed. Amendment procedures are outlined in Chapter 20. 84 of, the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Suggested Action , Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, accept the Environmental Document . and adopt Ordinance No. amending Districting Map No. 21 . Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of June 21 , 1979, the Planning Commission voted (6 Ayes , 1 No) to recommend the approval of Amendment No. 534 to the City Council . Attached for the information and review of the City Council are copies of the Planning Commission staff report, Negative Declara- tion and an excerpt of the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director • by AF D. TE •lICKER tant Director - Planning JDH/kk ti-U1I5NUMBNT NU. 534) ' c r ' The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES • ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The following described real property in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, Lots 36 through 46, Tract No. 1220, located at 300 through 424 St. Andrews Road, on the easterly side of ,St. Andrews Road between Clay Street and Cliff Drive in Cliff Haven, ' as shown on Districting Map No. 21, referred to in Section 20. 06. 030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and by such reference made a part of Title 20 of said Code, is hereby rezoned from the R-3 District to the R-2 District, and said Districting Map No. 21 is hereby amended to show this zoning. SECTION 2. The Director of the Community Development • Department of the City of Newport Beach ishereby instructed and directed to change Districting Map No. 21 to show the zoning change described in Section 1 hereof, and as said Districting Map shall have been so amended, the same shall be in full force and effect and be a part of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 3. The negative declaration prepared for said reclassification of property is hereby accepted by the City Council. SECTION 4 . This ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. hh� • s r This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting" • of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 17 day of /tee ' 1979, and was adopted on the &Al dayof i , 1979, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCILMEN ` NOES, COUNCILMEN ABSENT COUNCILMEN Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • 7 ttovember 2 , 1979 WILLIAM BLUROCY R PARTNERS -- • Architects and -Planners ?� 2300 Newport Boulevard wittiam biurock s ,artnens Newport Beach, CA 92663 architects planners PROBABLE COSTS STUDY for for the ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTER1AIN CHURCH RESOURCES GROUP ` TASK n1 : STUDY PROBABLE COSTS BASED ON PROPOSALS FROM THE "ST. ANDREWS MASTER PLAN" COMPLETED 1., 1973. Demolish existing church office wing and adjacent one story crib thru Lhree (3 ) year old classrooms , construct a new 1500 seat sanctuary with balcony and complete usable basement for choir practice , robing rooms , multipurpose meeting rooms , flower room, mechanical equipment , etc. Include capability for future multi- media audio/visual presentations , and a 46 rank pipe organ . Dur- ing sanctuary construction , house church offices temporarily in rented mobile facility on church owned property at the corner -of 'P1 15th Street and Clay Street . j Remodel existing 10 ,000 sq . ft. sanctuary for use as church admin- • istrati.ve offices , libraries , work spaces , youth group , upper grade classrooms and general assembly spaces . Include developing a second level in the old sanctuary space . Demolish ( 5 ) five adjacent houses along Clay Street and develop parking for (93) nineth-three cars . Demolish (3 ) three adjacent. houses at West end of Clay Street and construct additional Christian Education facilities and a gymnasium for basketball and volleyball . PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS : H 1 . That the C and R' s rL.stricting the property use to residential be waived to allow construction of parking or other church s uses . 2. That the City of Newport Beach will not consider this facility to increase adjacent traffic by more than 1".• , or waive the requirement as a resul -: of location or Sunday morning use. - 4 * That the e.xisC ng )roperty is' not withi ( :he Coastal Commission 02 6 jurisdiction. *4.' That the parking ratio is ( 1 ) one parking space per (5) five - • 18" pew seats in. the sanctuary only. S. That a legal document be exchanged allowing St. Andrews use of the 268 high school parking spaces (an existing 1962 Use Permit #1822 approved 180' offsite spaces on adjoining school property) . 6. That all construction would be done at one time. r 7. That construction would - start by January 1 , 1981. PARKI14G CALCULATIONS: High School site 268 spaces 5 Church owned lots on Clay Street 93 spaces r 361 x 5 pew seats 1805 max seating allowable PEW SEATING " Study 1500 seats (1375 comfortable seating @ 20" per seat) • The 1973 study indicated 1?00 seats. A 1500 seat sanctuary could be built on the existing site provided the plan included a balcony an,! basement. ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS: (Assume January ' 19 1 costs ) 1. Land Costs not included ' 2. Design Fees , Architects , Engineers Acoustical, Sound and A/U Consultants etc. Permits , etc . @10o $ •570 ,000. 00 3. Utility connections 20,000 .00 4. Site demolition and preparation, site drainage , etc. 32 ,000 . 00 * Per telephone conversation to Newport Reach Planner, Mel Hoge , October 31 , 1979 . 2 - 5. Site work: a. General , including landscaping $ 40 ,000.00 b. Parking - 93 x 600 86,000.00 • 6. Building Construction: a. Sanctuary: 1. Basement spaces - 15,000 sq.ft. 940,000.00 2. Sanctuary 15 ,000 sq.ft. i9800,000.0O 3. Balcony 9,000 sq.ft. 800v000.00 4. Organ 48 ranks @3500 168 ,000.00 5. Pews — 1500 @ $90.00 135,000.00 6. Sound and recording system 100,000.00 7. Furnishings 75,000.00 8. Artwork - stained glass, etc. 100,000.00 9. Elevator 32,000.00 TOTAL $4,150,000.00 7. Remodel Old Sanctuary: a. 10,000 sq. ft. rehab. 400t000.60 b. Add second level 200,000.00 ' 600,000.00 8. Gymnasium and Adult Christian Education Facilities (equivalent to a 1/3 area increase) 15,000 sq . ft. including site development 1 ,000,000.00 9. Contingencies @ 10% 500 ,000.00 ' 10. TOTAL PROBABLE COST BID JANUARY 1981 $6, 968, 000.00 (Assume middle quali * y similar to prosent) 11 . Nigher quality would require a budget of from $7 .250 ,000.00 to $7, 500 ,000.00 - 3 a� TASK #2 " STUDY PROBABLE COSTS OF RELOCATING ST. ANDREWS TO A NE14 10 ACRE FLAT SITE ON DOVER DRIVE IN NEWPORT BEACH . THE SITE IS KNOWN AS • THE "CASTAWAYS" SITE. BUILD A 1500 SEAT SANCTUARY AND INCREASE OTHER FACILITIES BY 1/3. i PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS: 1. That the City of Newport Beach will not -_onsider th ` s facility to increase adjacent traffic by more than 1% , or waive the requirements as a result of its location or Sunday morning use. j *2. That the property is within the Coastal Zone. 3. That a "use permit" would be granted by the City .of Newport Beach -and the Coastal Commi :- ,-ion. *4. That parking must be provided at a ratio of one space per 3 18" pew seats for the main sanctuary only. 5. That another organization can be found to purchase the existing facilities. 6. That all construction would be done at one time. i 7. That construction would start by January 1 , 1981 . • PARKING CALCULATIONS: 1500 seats-4-3 = 500 cars 500 cars 100 per acre = 5 acres for parking I 'PEW SEATING• ! 2500 legal seats will provide about 1375 comfortable seats , (2011 ) j Assume about 500 seats in a balcony. 1 No basement. , ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS: { ssume January 1981 costs) 1 . Land costs not included 2. Design Fees , Architects , Engineers , Acoustical , Sound and A/V Consultants , permits , Coastal Commission , etc . @ 10% $ 327 ,000.00 * Information from Marie Rossette , Orange County • Guidelines Coastal Commission , Long Beach , California „ 4 a � 3, :: i;ility connec ions 450000. 00 4 . Site preparation , grading and drainage 55,000.00 • 5. Site Work: a. General , including landscaping and sprinklers, walks, planters, site lighting , etc. $ 200t000.00 b. Parking 500 cars @500 including ` lighting , landscape and sprinklers 250,000.00 TOTAL c 450,000.00 6. Building Construction: a. Sanctuary: 1 . Nave, 15,000 sq.ft. 1 ,800,Oo0.00 2. Ancillary one story areas 15,000 sq. ft. 940,000.00 3. Balcony @ 9,000 sq.ft. 8001,000.00 4. Organ » 48* ranks @ 3500 168 ,000.00 • 5. Pews 1500 @ $90.00 '135 ,000 .00 6. Sound ari recording system 100,o00.00 7. Furnishings 75 ,000.00 8 . ArtwoPk, stained glas., , etc. 100 *000.00 9. Elevat;ir 32 ,000.00 TOTAL $4, 1505000.00 7. Other Areas: Christian Education, chapels , kitchen , multi—purpose rooms offices , .libraries, work rooms , etc. Existing Brea not including ' sanctuary 35,000 sq.ft. Add 1/3 acre 11 ,700 sq.ft. New facilities & gymnasium 46 ,700 sq. ft. Assume average cost of $70000fsq .ft. 31270 ,,000.00 5 30 8. Contingency � 10% � 3300000.00 9. TOTAL PROBABLE COST BID JANUARY 1981 $ 7,750,000.00 (Assume a middle quality similar to present) 10. Higher quality would require a budget of from $8 ,000,000.00 to $8 ,500,000.00 PLANNING BY: Robert I . Hench, AIA 6 o . CD co 4. yco rossnu rot aronout•\\i`-'��` LA 1 1 f 9 i \ .1 •} \\r% r,r lar[ac.0 wcc 4r�.,[ uw• 6 'jam. r 'n -��. \ . ` �/• <. y,:., a G' ,e' 'a.rccwc[ � r-• .. ........� -i 6;+rrnw.0 Wti 7 .t� •�•`sf�-'-� t u[n[otnenw,.vra __ } %�8�� ��Tn N.a+ Pt 'e,.e•.) Kt,W•[n i 1 [xrrjxaay,-...��.-�.. urn iwcnge uuwG � d L• 6 —�i�: �. �\�, cPf=R"/N4 ram•• tASwv \ - } ' / ' /�� � 1 �/(' •NGW uw,671'w'TiW 2404'S v �v�l ��.•�` anwo-er rvz+v.4a 27 iv ' {cr,naw[roa SITE PLAN a ue [a r �C.t:NWARN WAitF.ASSUCIATFS�. AHCI(ITECTS�� CIA9'ES AIA ISTII ANllit}:IY SI'IiFJI1Y7't:HiAN CiIUitC - •�L ..�......,.�.• u.,..,,t,,...,..ge .......... u...•.m�•...u....... ...,...+. a.... 91 �v 1 �\• a `.Q'=VL 6EVATIJN-DOTTED . 1 1 \ 1 _ 1 ostasv i --_----_J ----------------------- I 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 " ! 1 1 1 'ORx1YAL FiEYAiK7tt -DOTTID�. : 1\\ 1 \ 1 g85-O'lAVC EI.D6.F(T: —� /' ' �2`♦` � t,1C?71l EL£VA71Qi ;,„Ij,.,,"° '" : 1 1 Ij .i' -- 1 1 1 ' CCLNT1 FiEVATR<Y " " " ' C.EDWARD WARE ASSMAM T.AMUMTS I rawm&ASSOaAIW A[A &S.MUMS PRE$DYTERtAN CHURCI[ 1"' ' t t / l / t I MAX f I O.HT. 4 / I / i _9t1�'-0_79P OF CROSS -_ �� .................. .................. ................................................ I< � 4 l �},�y ORA- -r ' Alr z.DG H4 1 � I \\ EAST ELEVATIOK c�a.10c-=3° HUM 0 > 1� — I n. •�.,SiJff}'U.t 19p' f GRADE .... _ ______________ WEST ELEVATION ' • t G FgWARD WARE ASSOCIATPS.-.ARCIIITF.CTq I���;F IRNIY A AS50CIAT:c t Al er . t 'ToP or ooss 1 A ti _ i .,_,_ � .,,. oFMES a :A�:V, .._. ,,.�`T l WAR BANC'NARY -_ T" SJ3 �R�„ Ii>aq� k / ;.1 1 ,. J n I BOOfCSTORG • � � f , � ' CLAY STREET z I§ . FEILo ty.AssA4X)!,19 L 4 PfiM AM 1 15 TRANBVFRsc sCCT1on tee . i15'-0"TOP OF CROSS ' i 05'—V MAX OLDQ HT. �% •'I.♦ . I I I ' AI MEC IANICA I 62'y_ 5 :`C MEETINO/C P, ♦♦`` Y . t S S SENIOR PASTUR y I -- -'---- ---------------- p M:FIISTERLAL �q_ ,w RUSE ESS OFfICE3 OFFICES/CL'�SSROOM3 ' 4- 1f y'-p'i— 1 - CRd RK/TODDLERS DOOKSTORG CIASS(i00MS i I A CLA FELLOWSHIP H LL2=00' 10•—LONC[RJDUAL SECTION DIRU ADMN.ELM 11IC.EDWARD WARE,,ASSOCIATES,..ARCRITF.CTR i� IRWIN h AS9 IATF.9 AIA ST.ANDREWS PRTS➢PfERIAN CNURCIi F •� � • •• �_ CHURCH IN USA \( Membersiup statistics, based on figures as of December .311 1971 just rel eased' nationwide by the General Asserebly of the United Presbyterian Church in the USA reveals that ST., ANDR"-115 of .Newport Beach ranks number sip_ in the nation. During the church year, St. Andrbw's moved from 7th to 6th place. St: Andrew's is among the few Presbyterian churches' across- the country with a substantial increase in membership: In the 1971 church year 196 new members were . received, the largest increase of any of the ' first twenty USA churcim. s. In fact, among the first twenty churohes according -co size. ten experieuu-u all y21ereabe ui membersnip ana lea a decrease. The second largest membership inerc;ase was also in a California church:' Arcadia Presbyterian, which ranks 17th in the nation. The largest Presbyterian church in the denomination is Village Church, situated just outside Kansas City, ILansas, with a membership of 62598. Four of the 20 largest churchsare •located in Calif ornia; ' Hollywood Presbyterian with 4,99G members ; Si. Andrew's o£' Newport Beach, 4006• first Presbyterian Church of San Diego, 32544 ; -and Arcadia Presbyterian Church with 3,134. •It has been estimated that by the end of 1972 St. Andrew's will have a membership of over 4,100 and a similar increase in 1973" which will be the Silver Anniversary year. The church was officially organized in April of 1948, , meeting in the library of Newliort Harbor High School, moving across the street from the school onto 2j acres of land And into the first blzi.lding of the present million dollar complex in March of 1950. Dr. Charles H. Dierenfield has been the Senior Pastor since- February 1960. • 3 Progressive Steps to Implement Parking: The applicant is the present owner, in fee , of Lots 142 , thru 146 inclusive, Tract Number 1218 and Lots 31 thru 33 inclusive , Tract 1220. Lots 34 and 35 , Tract Number 1220 (located between • the afore mentioned lots ) are not owned by the Church although attempts at acquisition have been and will continue to be made by the church. On April 2 , 1947 a Declaration of Restrictions was recorded upon all lots in Tract 1218 (1 to 148 inclusive) by the Irvine Company and the then new owners , Mr. and Mrs . Earl Stanley. A virtually identical Declaration of Restrictions was recorded . upon Lots 2 to 71 inclusive , Tract Number 1220 , on January 28 , 1948 by the same parties . These declarations provide that the properties shall be used for residential purposes but they fail to indicate expressly whether vehicular parking can be the primary or exclusive use upon any of the restricted lots. Quite obviously this creates a legal issue of determining if the Church , as owner, can delete the residences , and simply use the land for vehicular parking pur- poses . The issue is fundamental to the Church as well as the city 'and all efforts are being made to resolve this legal uncer- tainty at the earliest possible date. Among the possible means of resolving the issue are the followinc 1. Obtain -the requisite number of signatures of lot owners within the tracts , agreeing to an amendment- or waiver of • the Declaration . The Title Insurance Company has assisted in this p roceedure . 2. Initate legal proceeding to obtain a judicial determination of the meaning of the Declaration. 3. Initate proceeding• under the State Sub-Division Land Exclusion Act to remove the Church owned properties from Tracts 1218 and 1220 respectively , thus possibly removing the restrictions from these lots . A. First American Title Insurance Company letter listing requirements in order to obtain their insurance to build dated December 29 , 1972 . B. Title Company letter dated July 16 , 1973 , approving form of proposed midifications to deed restrictions . C. Copy of " Declaration" as submitted to property owners Tract 1218 , dated September 1 , 1972 . 9. ';� .q\' •sK i ..C'.w'+.^ i:l `ter, "'� .:,tik�:tiw�aw r '¢ .:q:•• s S 7 _. :• :5 "`? :...:: �';f;"-n1L� ;i•; %'.r, •:=';�,. ::�': .:;r.. ..v a f`'�'TM>,isw.�:r�; r .c . d _-zr .n_ x' c^.;s "8`•:;?';: .:4, °a."'' TRAFFIC AND PARKING PLAN ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH The proposed Master Plan of Development of St. Andrew's Church is submitted to the City of Newport Beach r Planning Commission for approval in concept. Specifically, request is made to modify the existing approved CUP No. 822 to authorize the remodeling of Fellowship Hall and the existing sanctuary; the construction of a new sanctuary and the improve- ment of Church owned properties for on-site vehicular parking. The Master Plan has been submitted to the Environmental Affairs Committee which granted approval and the issuance of" a negative declaration under the Environment Impact Guidelines. However, the Committee took special note of parking require- , ments and available facilities for satisfying them. The Committee further determined that if adequate assurances were given to provide required parking, no adverse environ- ' • mental impact would exist. This report is submitted to outline the total parking program proposed by the applicant. The Newport Beach zoning ordinance does NOT include specific numerical parking requirements for churches. However, the Planning Department staff relies upon reference to parking requirements for places of public assembly to determine the needs for churches. This requirement is: one parking space for each five seats. Furthermore, the City zoning ordinance provides for the waiver of or reduction in off street parking requirements when the building site is subject to two or more uses and the ma:;imum parking requirements for such uses do not occur simultaneously. • 17 7.LIU Ll-vyv.•..,• - -- 3� varied uses including a sanctuary, chapel, classrooms, meeting rooms and offices. Quite obviously the maximum use will be of the sanctuary on Sunday mornings. During • that time, the other uses will be virtually non-existent or only incidental. Based upon the maximum use being the Sunday sanctuary services, and the new sanctuary being designed for a 1,200 seat capacity, the parking requirement would be 240 spaces. As reflected in the proposed plans, the parking available to the applicant consists of: 1. 268 spaces directly across 15th Street at Newport Harbor High School 2. 15 on-site• (currently) spaces 3. 147 on street spaces adjacent to the applicant's properties 4. 147 on-site spaces on applicant's Clay Street properties. 577 The present use was approved by the Planning commission • on February 15, 1962 with no on-site parking but giving credit for 180 spaces on the High School property as well as recog- nizing the quantity of adjacent street' parking. in the recent past the High School parking lot has been redesigned and expanded to increase the capacity from 180 to 268 spaces. ; Because of the obvious long range use as a high school, the Church' and the City can reasonably' rely upon the continued . use of the School parking lot during the times of maximum Church use. Xt is recognized that on street parking spaces are not included in the calculations of approved parking. However, • -.er :.,.: ;+r-..c=;•-.. .- �.v�.:aY.:,:? ?n`.!,'j:Y�Y;:x:;,,��2r?��'w'i,�,`eF.;`wn:?;:zy 3•:3=:rY�,'.-;:v ;$:�'_^:?Yn;`'a jT�.'S',?:.`q':,N.,� the availability of I'll Curu j app13(( ant's properties must not be disreyarded or even minimized from a practical aspect. Furthermore, these spaces are generally available during the week for miscellaneous • Church activities. With a two hour time limitation, the High School students are nearly always precluded from using them. See attached Newport Mesa Unified School District statement of policy, "General Use of School Facilities", parking facilities. Which has allowed joint.use of school p 5 The applicant presently owns -eight of the ten lots facing Clay Street between .15th Street and St. Andrew's Road. ,I ` The lots presently are improved with duplexes and the issue of a Declaration of Deed Restrictions has been commented upon „ above. Phase II and III calls for the Church to remove the t parking lots to accommodate 93 and 54 duplexes and construc yehicics respectively. At the time of construction of these lots, it is proposed to request abandonment of the alley except as may be required to serve the two lots remaining • in private ownership. E • i 791omas %I,druff, Attorney 19 . • - •- w.ASh•:.fr��ti S�: l C�ENERAL USE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES I - Preamble Statement • g rounds a ui ment and y_,, The Board of Education exercises control over buildin s, g . 9 P have been provided by the community for school use. It is other property whichprper the the intent of the Board o the ucation to conductof assure thatsuitable educati nal p og a hfor�thehas control will be used for me, the Board recognizes that there are pupils of the District. At the same ti additional community interests and programs operating for the general good of that may be facilitated by. the use of District property. the community organizations the , Board's desire to cooperate with the agencies, org ests and programs by making District facilities available to promoting such inter them. Policy Statement <r d encourages the use of District facilities The Board of Education authorizes an a f the educat onal gram when such use for purposes ° with he educational program otf the District and when such does not interfere use is in compliance subdivisions i hpertinent thereof and of thesNewporgtUMe an Unifiedf School California an District . First Reading Accepted: 12/12/67 Policy Adopted: 1/2/68 20 ' TO . L���-,.r-d�'{'P`z!,•>r" slx.�u�a�s" fE.� •v�/�{�, �,t �R___._ �__ A*.:•:, 1� - - '1� �� •�- ;r�?� .� . . . 1. k�-- -• , • /� . '�'t�t�• ' I fi �'CHL�L�'•.l:flti�� 2Cc81 471 r• r y 1N.cIMVM �- s \ i-;�" ' \\\ '\\' \ . .•`\ � `cam • i • � ��,` :•� Lew t.s'GL / 'e •� ,� �J H � � , ` ' All cs¢ 11,14 Na 'AAA .I�1 •rt r '� \ :�=:t�l`\ -\ ".!//��� -�{` A. �}�1.. yam/ A. A . r n7 Jt • ! / - 1 i ./ !�/r'*ftSIr, Z arty Ott AFM INo1Ct,TI�% _ ST- hY�6 9LE ' ) e W*sT C }}ND ssvrrz 1GTfONS Cr x - ceurcr� 15 crr„�svr:.y E,VCr-&t'CXIN6e T'C 44A%,E r< ' CT eHLjRCq OWNSO w •tom !� _ � /. ��` -f:.i.Y �.� wwt�iP ~�Y l0.� `.2a i ' ' WaR`4L vE i 10 Low 1KTl NSRY � / - - (5, Ni6t!•fM•X•1`�-� t S1t1�.G5p /J - J 97 ZANP A lh:7C.ST�0,4� Gua Gus -TO ENr5?lkk9 CAIO1, uT Gt•,vcr-rIGN: f +4ND f�57 �f^rlCNS C� Fz:--C-ni7 wr;?4Th �.:��>z=�',► �'.>���.�5ir.�'� : �;� •QI�..,� '1� cN��N rscc;�.r+�ti-ny 1 ➢ECLARATIONI OF RESTRICTIONS • THIS DECLARATION MADE THIS 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 1947, BY EARL W. STANLEY AND MILDRED STANLEY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, HEREINAFTER CALLED THE "DECLARANT", BY AND WITH THE APPROVAL AND CONCURRENCE OF TIIE IRVINE COMPANY, A CORPORATION. HERE- INAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'COMPANY, - , , • •• ^. - WITNESSETH: i ••��: : WHEREAS, DECLAR{NT IS THE"ER OF LOTS I TO 148, INCLUSIVE. OF TRACT NJ. 1218, AS SHOWN 04 A RAP RECORDED It; ^: 'DOO< 37, PAGES 47, 46 AND 49 OF'415CELLAN;EOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA., AND i-• . +�' WHEREAS, DECLARANT DESIRES TO SUBJECT SAID FROPERY TO THE FOLLOWING COVENANTS, CO;.DITIOi:S AND RES inICCION•S AS •a�"'• _ IISREINAFTE4 SET FORTH. AS A GENERAL PUN ED% THE USE. OCCUPANCY AND IMPROVEMENT,THEREOF; AND , ' WHEREAS, IN THE DEED CONVEYING SAID REAL PROPERTY TO DECIARA4T, THE C04PANY RESERVED TIIE RIGHT TO APPROVE AMID~.•; ..*i -JOIN WITH DECLA{ANT IN THIS,DECIARAT10N OF COVENANTS CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS,, . '•9: 1 ;,,� . :•:• .. " :..•;..; .•.,-•.fir;:,,=: 'I' Y HOW THEREFORE. DECLARANT, JOINED IN AND APPROVED BY THE COMPANY, DOES HEREBY DECLARE AND II(POSE-UPON SAID PROP=`'_:�•,: i,.�'9 • EITY AND EACH AND EVERY LOT THEREIN, AS A CE14ERAL PUN FOR THE USE, OCCUPANCY AND IMPROVEMENT TFVEREOF,•TIIE COVENANTS,-': CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, WHICH (A) SMALL APPLY TO AND BIND THE DECLARANT AS AND WHILE THE,ORltNE.4 . ^'"+•� OF EACH OR ANY OF SAID LOTS AND ALSO EACH AND EVERY FUTURE OWNER OF EACH, EVERY AND ANY OF SAID LOTS, (B) SIE L.L'INUR£ 70.• '�•'�:;-{;} THE BENEFIT OF THE DECLARANT, AND THE COMPANY, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND'ASSIGNS AND OF EACH AND EVERY PUTURE,�W,'f••'..'e:. OWNER OF EACH, 'EVERYOR-ANY OF SAID LOTS, CC) SNALLJLUN WITH AND BE BINDING UPON THE LAND, AND (D) MAY DE ElIFORCED'EY DECLARANT, AND/OR BYTHE COMPANY, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, AND/OR BY ANY FUTURE OWNER OF EACF(. EVERY i, iA'•`+"'`" OR ANY OF SAID LOLSNAND SAID LOTS AND EACH OF THEM SHALL BE HELD AND CONVEYED UPON AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS;•COVC=;.;�:',''y`•(: LIMITS AND RESTRICTICNS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH. •• o-'. ' 'i;(',:,'.(,;.�,•7: •, v•.y,;. 'THE WCRD "LOT" OR BUILDING SITE' AS USED HEREIN SHALL BE DEEMED AND-CONSTRUED TO REFER TO ANY'NUIflEREO PARCEL'•'.'•;%%•.'. SHa',CH ON SAID :LAP OF TRACT 40. 1218, OR WHILE HELD LN THE SANE OWNERSHIP, SHALL BE DEEMED AND CONSTRUED TO REe^FaT TO (A)•?'j:1' y+. T7HO OR MORE ADJOINING PARCELS HAVING A COMMON SIDE LINE OR SIDE LINES, (B) ALL OF ONE SUCH PARCEL AND A PORTION OR PCRTTONS, ' :OF ADJOINING PARCELS HAVING A COMMON 5I13E LINE OR SIDE LINES, AND (C) CONTIGUOUS PORTIONS OF TOO PARCELS FRONTTIliG'ON'TkiE'.'`.•:`\7ti''��, %. '•` %t,SANE STREET 480 HAVING A TOTAL FRONTAGE EQUAL TOOK GREATER THAYTHE ORIGINAL FRONTAGE OF EITHER OF SAID PARCELS. •:• (:'' '1^•� {'- •• •t SAID COVENANTS, CONDITIONS,AND RESTRICTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS, TO-WITi •-, •: :i.•T,; 'iu�:'th•1 °^rh%t .I.' THAT NO PART OF SAID REALTY OR ANY•LOt OR BUILDING SITE IN SAID TRACT SHALL EVER AT ANY TLMd BE LSE • '•'OCCUPIED OR BE PERMITTED TO BE USED OR OCCUPIED BY ANY PERSON OTHER THAN ONE WHO IS ENTIRELY OF THE WHITE-OR CADCASSIAIt -:.,RACE, EXCEPT IN TIIE CAPACITY OF DOMESTIC SERVAUCS OR EMPLOYEES OF'THE OCCUPANT THEREOF, 7. ,:•::: ;;i:f z ••, 2. THAT ALL OF THE LOTS OR BUILDING SITES IN SAID TRACT, WITH•THE EXCEPTION1 OF LOTS 147 AND 148, SHALL DE USED.;Ij+`."r•'t= • "' •"•FOR'RESTOENTIAL PURPOSES EXCLUSIVELY. NO BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES OILER THAN ONE PRIVATE ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, NOT TO .•,• ";.H';;:M1': y •j• ,EXCEED.TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT, TOGETHER WITH CUSTOMARY OUTBUILDINGS; INCLUDING A PRIVATE CARACE; HHICI{'GARAGE, HOWEVe.t.M1Y,;,.?=�!:`•'! . BE INCORPORATED IN AND MADE A PANT OF THE RESIDENCE BUILDING, SHALL BE ERECTED, MAINTAINED, OR PERHITTED 0. AYY LOT'OR •'•%J BUILDING SITE IH SAID TRA1 T, WITH TIIE EXCEPTION OF LOPS 142 TO 148. BOTH INCLUSIVE. NO STRUCTURE; DWELLING,' SEP.VANTSI 1� <'•:i�"��:.-T -QUARTERS, OR OUTBUILDINGS, PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY, SHALL EVER BE ERECTED, MAINTAINED OR PERMITTED UPON; SAID TRACT, OR'AHY':•` :;N • •LOT OR BUILDING SITE THEREOF, AND USED FOR RESIDENCE PURPOSES OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, PRIOR TO 7HE ERECTICII'j=,''.' ' AND COMPLETION; OF THE MIN RESIDENCE THEREON. UO TENT OR TRAILER SHALL EVER BE ERECTED OS BE USED OR OCCUPIED'FOR$ES LDELICE PURPOSES OR ANY OTHER PURPOSE ON ANY BUILDING SITE IN SAID TRACT. ALL BUILDINGS ERECTED, !!AIlR'AINED OR PERMIITTED y.v •` {.`•, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF NEW MATERIAL, AND NO BUILDING OR OTHER STRUCTURE WHATSOEVER ERECTED ELSEWHERE SHALL BE MOVED OR. BE;'.'•.,,-.z+ PERMITTED TO 09 MOVED THEREON WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PMHISS20N OF TIIE,ARCHITECTU.RAL COMMITTEE HEREINAFTER-REFERRED 70,.,',; i; "ii'�^t1• 7.•'THAT LOTS 142 TO 146, BOTH INCLUSIVE, OF SAID TRACT, NAY BE US EDFOR DUPLEX RESIDENT(,\L•',INCO;IE PROPERTY:v. , �'�! ;; ;�•,n 4. THAT LOTS 147 AND 148 OF SAID TRACT MAY BE USED FOR PARKS, RECREATIONIAL, BUSINESS,•RESIDENNTIAL; 08 ANY•OTHER,'•' �'•'" i AWFUL PURPOSE EXCEPT TRAILEN CAMPS, CIRCUSES, OR ANY OTHER USE THAT MIGHT CREATE NOISE;-DISTURBANCES, OR.ANY NUISANCE; P:,-;,'.'..j PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO STRUCTURE OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER SHALL DE•ERECTED„MAINTAINED, OR PER- '•• =';; HITTED UPON; EITHER OF SAID LOTS UNLESS THE SAME HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL'COMMITTEE IN THE MATTE{ HEREIN ,;,"•.' ' • PROVIDED. : 3. THAT'SAID OUTBUILDINGS•TH.AT MAY PROVIDE LIVING QUARTERS SHALL BE USED 04LY AND EXCLUSIVELY BY THE FAMILY, . . 'RESIDING IN SAID ONE PRIVATE ONE-FA`:ILY RESIDENCE AND BY PERSONS 1,110 ARE EMPLOYED AS DIN ESTIC SERVANTS BY OR WHO ARE TEMPORARILY NON-PAYING GUESTS OF SAID FAMILY. 6, THAT EACH SUCH RESIDENCE•DUILDING ERECTED ON LOTS I TO 141, BOTH INCLUSIVE, OF SAID TRACT, SMALL, IF A •• ONE-STORY STRUCTURE, CONTAIN RIOT LESS THAN 1.000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA AND SHALL, IF MORE THAN A'OHE-STORY STRUCTURE, ? CONTAIN AT LEAST 1,250 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA, OF WHICH AT LEAST 800 SQUARE FEET SHALL BE ON THE FIRST FLCCR. SUCH FLGO:t AREA SHALL BE DEEN:ED TO INCLUDE THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF THE RESIDENCE PROPER, MEASURED FROM THE OUTER SURFACES OF ., EXTERIOR WALLS, INCLUDING CHIMNEYS, BUT EXCLUDING THE AREA OF DASENIENTS, CELLARS, OPEN PORCHES. PATIOS AND ENTREES, AND ' ANY GARAGE CONSTITUTING A:N INTEGRAL PART THE RESIDENCE STRUCTURE. • oonelnuud - UUTBUItDi:l05 OR GARAGES SHALL HOT BE MORE DLQ1 ONE-STORY IN HEIGHT IV APPUIITFNAUT TO A ONE- ILL NOT BE MORE THAN TWD-STORIES Ill IIEIGIIT IF APPURTENANT TO A TT70-STO.TY RESIDE\C£, A:9 SHALL Cllt TURAL DESIGN AND EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND FINISII TO TIME RESIDENCE TO WHICH IT I5 APPURTE!tAGT.�. !• ',�,I -- •- 'i ES E OR BUILDING OR OTHER STRUCTURE EXCLUSIVE OF WALLS AND FENCES, OR ANY PART THEREOF, SAVE '�• •-,;I _ `,j''�;;'? S OF A RESIDENCE EXTENDING t10 FURTHER THAN TIIIRTY-SIX (36) INCHES BEYOND THE SET BACK LINE01 ;`.sy {' _ •;;,:. • r . UNCOVERED PORCH OR TERRACE CONNECTED TOA RESIDENCE STRUCTURE W11I61 HAS NO FRONT OR SIDE IN .,.I, ICLOSINC MEMBERS, GLASS OR OTHERWISE, AlID TIME FLOOR OF WHICH IS NO HIGHER THAtI TIME LEVEL OF TIME ;IDEUCE, AND THE DESCENDING STEPS FROM SUCH POTCH OR TERRACE AND BUTTRESSES ON EACH SIDE OF SUCH ••r' ,.',f••^ :. ERECTED, MAINTAINED, LOCATED OR PERMITTED UPON OR OVER; ",'• - _ „- .: 1D 28, BOTH INCLUSIVE, OF SAID TRACT, 0% ANY OF'THEM, NEARER THAN 10 FEET TO THE FRONT PROPERTY •;y; AT TIME CLOSEST POINT N SAID LINE; .. �•:x .: ^;: _ ,; CO 19, BOTH ItICLUS IVE, AND LOTS 29 TO 146, BOTH INCLUSIVE, OR ANY OF TIIEMI NEARER THAN 20 FEET N••„ -„ ;.t {;,•••:..-.n.. S THEREOF, MEASURED AT THE CLOSEST POINT TO SAID LINE. - �•'?�+' ` �;t�• '�y' rIN ikp 'j+,�.^i- RESIDENCE OR•BUILOING 0% PORTE COCHERE, PORTICO, OR OTHER STRUCTURE (EXCLUSIVE OF WALLS AND FENCES),., _•,4i: AVE AND EXCEPT ES, STEPS, ROOF OVERHA!ID, OR CHIMNEY OF A RESIDENCE EXTENDING NOT FURTHER THAN 24•INCHES INTO'CR >-.- ;-.,`` .,, ._.,......a t��.f}i.J�;.Jr'c\!y,��•:I:.: REATED SIDE LINE SET BACKS, SIALLBE MAINTAINED, LOCATED OR PERMITTED UPON CR OVER LOGS 1 N 146 n Y flUILDIhG SITE OF SAID TRACT, D TRACT, OR ANY OF THEM, NEA! THAU 5 FEET TO ANY SIDE LINE OF AN 1�R +..+ �..•� _ 1.,• TO ANY POINT IN ANY SIDE STREET PROPERTY LINE OF ANY CORNER LOT. - +- �'•: !' ARCHITECTURAL CO!DRTTEE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT FROM TIME TO TIME TIME TO ESTABLISH REAR BUILDING LINES -`7,` _ :•-(, -• J0. BOTH INCLUSIVE, WHEN THE OWNER THEREOF DESIRES TO BUILD UPON TIME SAME, AND AFTER SAID REAR .EH ESTABLISHED 05 ANY SAID LOT Olt BUILDING SITE, No RESIDENCE, BUILDING, OUTBUILDING, GARAGE' OR FENCE. HE DGE OR PUNTING SHALL BE PLACED, ERECTED OR MAINTAINED ON Tile AREA OF ANY'SA1D BUILDING ,ID HE REAR BUILDING LINE AND THE REAR LOT LINE OF SAID LOT OR BUILDIFO SITE, UNLESS THE -,.,� ;..,�' �• f \.. 7 IN WRITING BY SAID ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE. THE ARCHITECTURAL COICIITTEE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT :i A:iO DESIGN OF ANY RESIDENCE, OUTBUILDING, GARAGE, OR OTHER STRUCTURE, WALL, FENCE; HEDGE OR -•'-;t=,,. NAS7CE THEREOF IS..' OR MAINTAINED BEYOND SAID REAR BUILDING LINE IF THE ERECTIO`A-AND MAINTE � %,;:t,F - •• - IITELfURAL COWITTEE, Wn ECH COMMITTEE SHALL BE THE SOLE JUDGE IN EACH PARTICULAR CASE; IT BEING:^• 'St ION TO PREVENT TIME OBSTRUCTION OF OCEAN OR BAY VIEWS FROM SAID LOTS OR'BUILDING SITES.,.; '?��^•ar'` - 7. T , FENCES AND HEDGES, SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION. THAT NO NAL[.,'PENCE CS HEDGE ••:i ;:-;L•I;�, - ,',,,, -• . 9TAItMED, OR PUNTED BETWEEN THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND TIME MINIMUM FRONT RESIDENCE SETBACK LINESAT A IIEIGIIT GREATER THAN THREE (3) FEET ABOVE TIME FINISHED GRADED SURFACE OF THE GROUND UPON, -r y., o-: ;i - -• - •Lr:.. .-..ii� CATED UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY APPROVED IN WRITIt7C BY THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE. +:- r.i _;;.• ., - WALL, FENCE, OR HEDGE SHALL BE ERECTED, MAINTAINED OR PLANTED TO THE REAR OF 'DIE MIUIMIM SE OF LOTS I TO 18. BOTH INCLUSIVE, AND LOTS 31 N 146, BOTH INCLUSIVE, OR O THEN!, A T K;_+ •' EVE FEET SIX INCHES (5' 6") ABOVE TIME FINISHED SURFACE OF TILE GROUND UPON WHICH H THE stile FOR ANY REASON IT IS UNCERTAIN ;MICA ARE TILE TRONT, SIDE OR REAR LIIIES OF ANY OUItDING SITE O4 •:- ,+ „.,y _' _ •: +=,+, +, , . • .f;: :TOVIDED TIIEREFOA, THE ARCHITECTURAL CCMLMITTEE SHALL IN ALL CASES (EXCEPT WTIERE SUCH L1NE5 T.'.7D RE- "^•r 1,: ty ;?,�a EEN DETERMINED HEREIN) DETMIRHINE MAT ARE TO BE DEEMED SUCH LINES AND RESTRICTED ARE.AS•AND THE •• r'f-.w .TECTURAL COMMITTEE IN RESPECT THERETO SHALL BE•FINAL. • .• •.: •` :):�•r` . i •0 BUILDING, FENCE, WALL OR OTHER STRUCTURE SHALL BE ERECTED, CONSTRUCTED, ALTERED OR rLAINTAIN ED , 7: r .tee. ,,•• ••• +`• -• ',•,,x;: IUY LOT OR BUILDING SITE UNLESS TWO COHPLETE SETS OF BUILDING PUNS THEREFOR At10 TKO COMPLETE •- ' _ :S FOR THE ERECTION THEREOF, INCLUDING THE EXTERIOR COL03 SCHEME, TOGETHER WITH A BLOCK OR - - •• • THE EXACT LOGSI0:7 TNEREOr- ON THE LOT OR BUILDING SITE, SHALL NAVE BEEN SUBMLTTED N AND- ,Y THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, AND A COPY OF SUCH PUNS AND SPECIFICATIONS. COLOR SCHEME, 'f� ,N AS FINALLY APPROVED BY SAID ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE SHALL BE DEPOSITED FOR PERPANEI7T (TEE. SUCH PUNS, SPECIFICATIONS, COLOR SCHEMES, AND BLOCK 0% PLOT PLAN SHALL BE SUSMITTEO COMMITTEE IN WRITING FOR APPROVAL OVER TIME SIGNATURE. OF THE OJNER OF THE LOT OR BUILDING ,. BUILDING, FENCE, WALL OR OTHER STRUCTLRE IS TO BE ERECTED, OR OVER THE SIGNATURE OF HIS - f. THE APPROVAL OF SAID PLANS AND SPc-CIFIGTIGNS, COLOR SCHEMES, AND ➢LOCK AND PLOT PLAN ONLY BECAUSE OF THEIR NOMCIXIPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE SPECIFIED CONDITIO!7S CONTAINED IIEREitI, , MITTEE DISSATISFACTION HERS OF STRUCTURE ON THE ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING SITE,7 THE COLOR DSCIEMi FINISH, DE Alto LO- ST N, TURE.SIIAPE, HEIGHT, STYLE OR APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE 0:1 ALTERED STRUCTURE, TILE Iti TIME RIND, PITCH, OR TYPE OF ROOF PROPOSED TO BE PLACED THEREON, OR BECAUSE. OF ITS REASOR- WITH ANY OR ALL ILATTERS OR THINGS WHICH 1:1 THE REASONABLE JU G:IENT 1OF THE CCMMITTEE WOULD RENDF.I1, Aft INHARNOHIOUS 0.1 OUT OF KEEPING WITH THE STRUCTURES ERECTED ON OTHER LOTS OR BUILDING SITES IN - contlnond �, .:.r+: •.):'�;)I , :t '1=!�.�i'.�tr .:;��5:�rc1x3tgYS1�!gAe3'•li; MILCH ID RE ED TO BE DIATE VICINITY OF THE M1u`��CROVE TItEVLOCATiUX\OF DRYI CUA\DiSFHVtCESYARDS AS WELL ASERECTED-THE IHETY9 tTAKE4 20LS:IIELO E SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO A FR04 VILLA. IF AFTER SUCH PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN SO APPROVED'THE BUILDING.LDItiG, PENCE, NAIL ID Ofllkit E SHALL DE ALTkREO, ERECTED OR HAIlTAllIEO ON ANY BUILDING SITE, O'CIIEI6JISE TIIAII AS APPROVED D'! TIIE SAID CMNITi EE,' .•,::Al E SHALL ERECTLRE AND MIItILiNA?ICE SMALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEV USDCRTAKEII WITHOUT Til£ APPROVAL OF SAID CJlCIiTTEE ItIG�i OBTAINED AS REQUIRED 6Y THIS OECIAR\TI0:1. . ' ;, TIIE SAGE SRALL BE PROSECUTED TO COMPLETION NiTfl REASONABLE 10. THAT AFTEM1 TIIE GOHNENCEMEGC OF 111E CONSTRUCTION OF ANY BOIIDINCS, OUTBUIID TFGS, PRIVATE H GARAGES. STRCT- ,�i'= '•.. .LACES OR HALLS PERHITTEU HEREBY TO BE CONSTRUCTED, ;% :E AI:D ACCORDLtIG T PLANS AND SP£CIFIGTIOS$ APPROVED BY THE A8ClIITECTURAL COlMITTEE AS fIEREIN SET FOR1Mf. NO � :E SIALL LTIEN COMPLETED BE IN ARY NAN:IF.R OCCUPIED L':tTIL HAD£ TO CO?IDLY NITII THE /DNDITIONS HEREIN SET FORTH AND. .....: 11REHElfTS HEREOF THEItEUNTO APPERTAItIINC. - : ' " ' 16. ,THAT THE 2N'CERIOt HALLS ANO CEILING OF AHY GARAGE ERECTED OR HAINCAIMED 011 ANY OUIIDAND THE SITE IWSDOORS F Ulf TRACT, AIAGE IS ATTACHED TO AND iS AS ItiTECPdL PAR SII/.LL iR ERYI?.STEREDLOR f2NL5HE0.IiD7 SUCNOTitERIN,V7AER AS Tf1EOARU�TECTUIRAL_.;+,•�_ ,- ,,.• •THE. STREET IN FRONT OF SAID BULLDPNG•SITE. •)i•'V,t. ••' - EE SMALL APPROVE. .. " -, ..•�s +tyry SHALL BE COMPOSED OF THREE (D) INDIVIDUALS; ONE ;. +. M1 17• THAT SAID ARCHITECTURAL CO:CiITTEE HERE'" REFERRED T, •• OF WHICH SIALL 8E APPOINTED BY DECLARANT, ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, AND ONE MEMBER SMALL BE THE BY THE y;•---� :, ITS SUCCESSORS OR POINTED HE TNO MEMBERS SO APPOINCED SHALL APPOINT THE HARD MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, AND.^�. ` 1AYI TY.E RIGHT TO BEHOVE SUCH MEMBER OR TO FILL ANY VACANCY IN SUCH MEMBERSHIP. SAID ARCHITECTLAAL COMMITTEE CEE . i. TAKED BY A MAJORITY T1IEAEOF AtiO THE MEMBERS OF SAID COMMITTEE HAY ACT WITHOUT A HEETLlIC. DECLARANT AND THE COMPANY J VS-, SNAIL HAVE ALL THE UCHME RIGHTS OFAND DUTIES AS HEREIN SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH. ANY ACTION BY SAID COICLLTTE � dESPECTlVE SUCCESSORS Oft ASSIGNS, SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT AT ANY TIRE TO REMOVE AVY MEPIBE@ OF SAID INABILITY SO APPOINT *-# '•'rx,�.-'.�IA• '• EACH, ANO TO FILL ANY VACANCY CAUSED DY SUCH REMOVAL OR BY THE DEATH, RESIGNATION OR ANY OILIER:INA67LITY T ACT(OF --••:r'•T - .», ItBER SO APPOINTED BY EACH. ' ' -H.:�q...'•T-" - ' '• 'DEctA!L%NT AND/01 THE COMPXIY HAY ASSIGN AtID TRANSFER ALL OF THEIR OR RIGHASSOCIATION ACID POWERS W I611 TECTU•REA CONTROL':;�•, , I OR. `YO1tTr;ESi C! HlE"9ER5 OF THE COMVITTEE HEREUNDER TO ANY CORPORATIUK OR ASSOCIATION NON OR NHIEfI MAY HEREAFTER {E•; :�:r�t•'.' .2E0, A. LTHICH SHALL ASSUME THE DUTIES OF DECLARANT AKD/OR THE COMPANY HEREUNDER, AND UPON SUCH CORPORATION, ,ZED, EYIDENCIKC ITS CONSENT Iti WRITING TO ACCEPT THE SANE AND TO AS' SUCH DUTIES IT SHALL HAVE THE SAME RICH Sf •. moo' i AND DUTIES AS ARE GIVEN TO THE,DECLARANT At7D/OR THE COMPANY HEREIN. '• 'lit'. :..ti .'� :-••.i'-' �. 'j8• S'OULD A VACANCY OCCUR TINASAID CO! NE{NEHEMBERST UPILLESAIDTtv �VACANCY St OWITIINCTIHIRTY�(]0) DAYS AFTEftOR WIR CSUCFi - iSORS OR ASSIGNS AFORESAID FAIL ki•.•� :; ^, ± L'PS HEN SUCH VACANCY SHALL BE FILLED BY THE OTHER WHOM THEY HEY HAY MEMBERS ASSIGNED THEIR RIGHTS OFUARCHIT CT 3AL'.';,l 1f i''•r', ^'!:r`y,..,,',y,�,N 'T OCC , R T11E CC::?A:LY AND/CT THE CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION TO OL, OR OF APFOINMENT TO THE COM`II�iCEATO D0150ACY�ANYI LOT =IERL TO So PINiSAID TRACT.TTFEIEHaANDOINI7IHATLL \EVENTE�TH¢ERICfiT 't,'L,'.. '(y f f, H THIRTY (3O) DAYS AFTER WRITTEN h kLL 701NTI:M J.IO REMOVING MEMBERS OF TOI O:IERYOT ARCHITECTURAL OF LRIETHIEREORENOC IT Ef1OlRIEEUeBY BILE ORRS OF DH0,N6 O'NSRS:ill D"ji.:� •�• ACH LOT SMALL Be ENTITLED ,y;<:j+.•`%$L:C.,+d .pC EBS nAY ACT BY A MAJORITY OF SUCH L.OT OWNERS, EITHER AT A llr.ETLNC OE SUCH OdNERS OR IN t,RIT2NG'NITitOUT'A'.`;.'`,:?tpV- 'y /�''. •.F- :~ ' ( 19. It: THE EVENT SUCH AN ARCNITECTUI�AL COMMITTEE FAILS TO APPROVE Gt DLSAPPRO'JE SAID PIT F •SPECIFIGTIOVS, t SCfI£1£ CR 1; THE OR PLOT CH A WITHIN THIRTY (70) DAYS AFTER THE SAME HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO IT FOR APFROVAL� TfIF21 ' '; Api-it0'/AL WILL HOT 6E REQUIRED, F'dOVIDINC THE DESIGN AND LOCATION ON THE BUILDI!'C+ SITE CONFORM TO.AND BE INtARMQ�YtL 1 , •S SIMILAR STPUC 11RES IN THE TRACT AND CONFORM TO ALL OF THE OTHER GO t.'DITIONS HEREOF. „ t 20. NO'LTIIIiC HE CONTAINED SMALL BE CONSTRUED T, OR SHALL OPERATE TO, EMPO'•1ER ANY $UCH Co. N OT}i!R,•,`�,„%',js ER THEREOF, OR ANY OWNER OF At7Y IOC. LOTS OR BUILDING SITE 1N SAID TRACT: OR ANY CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION TO NH04 ' •,.• ER TH5 OF DECLARANT ACID/OR TIIE CC::PAiIY NAY'HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED, ASSIGNED, DELEGATED OR SET OVER, AS HEREIN LTER, hOF DRI2E THE VIOLATAND/OR OF, BREACH, OR TO VIOLATE OR FALL TO CONFWH T, .ANT CONDITIONS,--RESTRICTION.' MOVISION ;OVEtiAtiT OF WHATSOEVER NATURE ELSLWHERE IN.THIS IRiTRUMENT EXPRESSED. t, .7 • t ••.c, •'r � re ,, 21. TAUT NEITHER DECLARANT tiOR THE COHPANy NOR SAID ARCHITECTUAAt. COlR1LTTEE OR ANY SPECIEMEMBER THEREOF SHALL 86',:4•::::?� ?O:ISIBLE FOR STRUCTITHEURAL OR OTHER DEFECTS OF AlIY KIND OR MATURE F1IATSOEVER IN SAID PLANS OR SPECIFIC.1'CI0:15•tiQR'IN.• BUILDING OR OTHER STRUCTURE ERECTED IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH. ..':.' i a 22. THAT SAID PROPERTY £HALL NOT NOR SHALL ANY PART THEREOF BE USED FOR THE PURPOS OF EXPLONIliG FORt,TAKING. , R£FRCH OR I'ROOUCIN0 THEREON, OIL, GAS OR HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES. < . a •r ' .23. THAT 110 HORSES, CATTLE, HOGS, COWS, COATS, SHEEP, RABBITS, Qt OTHER AtiIlALE PHEASANTS RD MARYDrift-R• OUSEHBIRDS j.'•' BRED OR RAISED THEREON FOR_ - L OR POULTRY BE RAISED, KEPT OR PEHVITCE[? UP ANY BUILDING SITE OR ANY PART HEREOF, EXCEPT THAT QTDItIARY tiOL'S EHOLD . S WHICH DO NOT CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE MAY BE KEPT THEREON, PROVIDED THEY ARE HCIC I:EPC, , , ,• - YERCIAL PURPOSES OR IN,UHREASONABL: NUMBERS. , continued - , • 'TRACT NO. 1218 - 1H RCOA 1515, PAGE 98, 0. R. " fig•: - - . . ' : . . . . ' . . . . . , ' •;+. . ; :�; • 24. THAT 110 SIGNS OF ANY CHARACTER SILALL BE PLACED OR MAINTAINED ON ANY BUILDING SITE Ili SAID TRACT PRIOR' TO THE ERECTION'OF A RESIDENCE TIIERE04 AND 110 SIGN OF ANY CHARACTER, OTHER THAN THE ONE ORDINARY "FOR SALE", "FOR RENT OR "OPeN'FOR INSPECTLOti", SIGN FOUR (4) SQUARE FEET, OR LESS, Ili AREA, SHALL BE PLACED OR MLAINTAINED ON SAID PRE:MS ' AFTER THE ERECTION OF A RESIDENCE THEREON WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF DECLARANT OR ITS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT; •AND IN THE EVENT ANY SIGNN OR SIGHS SHALL BE PLACED OR MAINTAINED UPON ANY BUILDING SITE IN VLOIATI0:7 OF THESE RESTRICT- ✓, IC:IS, DECLARAUT OS ITS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT MAY. AND IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO ENTER UPON SAID FREYISES AND BEHOVE ANY' " AND ALL SUCH UNAUTHORIZED SIGNS WLTtIOUT BEING LIABLE TO PROSECTION TtiEREF07. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THESE CO:tOIT[0 iS- ': -�•: "SHALL OPERATE TO PROHIBIT DECLARANT OR ITS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT FROM MAINTAINING UPON%.t1Y LOT Ol'LOTS IN SAID TRACT•';, SUITABLE ADVERTISING SIGHS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING THE DEVELOPMENT, SALE AND H\tIAGEIEtii' OF,PROPERTY.It7 SA 1D TRACT, NOR FROM R%INTAINING SALES OFFICE FOR SUCH PURPOSE. •. - '°�• - 25. THAT 110 TRADE, BUSINESS, OR PROFESSION OF ANY SORT SMALL BE CARRIED ON UPON ANY LOT OR,BULLDIt:G SITF. : • .. .. ...._ _ _ .. _. . . .. —F:CCEPF'LO L7:SNU f4B'AS-IIEREINAOOVE FkOVIDEd� NOR SHALL ANYTHING BE CONE OR�1L\ItTCAINED ON ANY LOT OR BUILUItNC•STTE r � •�?':- INCLUDING LOTS 147 AND 148 6HICP. MAY BE OR BECOME AN ANNOY:NCE O.l'NUIS@ICE TO THE NEICH30RHOJD, THAT NO LOt [it SAID TRACT NOR ANY PORTION OFANY LOT, OR ANY OF THEM, OFYSAID.TRACT, SHALL BE USED ItI i+y"4 '••:'N T CONJUNCTION WITH ANY LAND ADJOINING SAID LOT TO THE REAR WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF,THE ARCHITECTURAL C0:1HITTEE ' �! FIRSTNCTION WID-AJDYOBTAIHED.•—^---...•-.— —...__�__-.__..... ..._ ....- ...._.. .._.._..,.- _ _.....,.,. _ - ___ 27. THAT THE DETERINATION BY ANY COURT THAT ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS 01 IRO•VISIONS OF - ----THIS`OECLARATLON ARE ILLEGAL OR INVALID, OR SHOULD ANY ONE OR MORE-OF THE'COVM%tTTS, CONDITICUS al"RESTRICTIONS 0:,7111S 'DECLARATION BECOME UNENFORCIBLE FROM ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER, SUCH ILLEGALITY, INVALIDITY OR,"UNEtNFORCIBILTIY SHALL IN NO= + '• WISE AFFECT OR RENDER ILLEGAL, INVALID OR VNENFORCIBLE ANY OF THE OTHER CONDITIOS5, RESTRIGTIC7S Gel FAdVISIONS OF THIS' ...-_ DELL\RATION, SLAT EACH AND ALL OF SUCH OTHER COtIDITAMN IIESTRICTLONS OR P:tOVISiCtIS,HEREOF 11,OT}:ITiSTNIDING SUC(I ILLEGALIT(� _;_: INVALIDITY 03 aE04CI0ILITY STALL tNEYERTNELESS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. , �.;: ,:'rk•. � '•':'•+ '%• •--28:=TdAT-•EACN At10 ALL OF THE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTI0:1S SET FORTH AND CO;iTAINEO IN PARACIUF:4- •7;,i.. NU:I➢&lED 1 HEREOF SHALL BE PERPETUAL AND BINDING FOREVER. THAT EACH AND ALL Or THE COVENANTS: CONDITIONS AND REi TRLC7 IONS HEREIN EXPRESSED (EXCEPT THOSE EXPRESSED IN SAID PARAGRAPH 1 WHICH ARE PERPETUAL) SMALL CONTINUE AND BE III FULL '• 1=� FO:ICE AND -eFFECT TO AND INCLUDING JANUARY 1, 1970, AND SHALL AS THEN IN FORCE BF. CO:tTIlIUED AUTOHATTCALLY AN WITHOUT. .L1l,' :ZA FU:lT1ER'NO7ICE eRO:{ TIAT•TINE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN (10) YEARS AND THEREAFTER FOR SUCCESSIVE PERIODS 076TEN (10) YEARS,• ' •• r:i •••EACH WITHOUT LIMITATION UNLESS WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1970�'OR WITHIN SIX ,(G) liO:YTlIS.PRIOR TO THE ; %"h EXPIP,ATIO:i OF ANY SUCCESSIVE TEti-YEAR PERIOD THEREAFTER, A WRITTEN AGREEMENT EXECUTED•BY THE THEN RECORD O.iNERS:OF HOSE ' a„ S THAN 03L•-BALE IN ARLi OF SAID TRACT THEN SUBJECT TO THIS DECLARATION, EXCLUSIVE OF STREETS, PdRKS,,Aib,OPEti'SP.ACES, DE�r 'PLACED CY RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF 01ARCE COUNTY BY THE TERMS OF WHICH AGREEMENT• ANY OF SAID C07Z!AUTS,-COSUITLONS OR RESTRICTIOtNS ARE CHANGEDi MODIFIED OR EXTINGUISHED IN WHOLE OR IN PART AS TO ALL C;°ANY'PAAST "• ° p; ,• OF 'THE PROFERTY THEN SUBJECT THERETO IN THE MANNER AND TO THE EXTENT THEREIN PROVIDED. Iti THE EVENT THAT ANY-SUCH WRITTEN,_' t!t ACRSE�EtiT OR Cti.A1NGE 07 M.00IFICAT1bY BE DULY EXECUTED AND RECORDED, THE ORIGINAL COLDITIONS,,RESTRICTIONS, PRO.7ISICt15'*,' % '•'=`• AIU) CHARGES AS THEREIN MODIFIED. SHALL CONTINUE IN FORCE FOR SUCCESSIVE PERIODS-OF TEN (10) YEARS EACH UNLESS AND UNTIL FURTHER, CWAti;ED, MODIFIED OR EXTINGUISHED IN THE MANLIER HEREIN PROVIDED. '' -'•• ' 1 " "::,:',': '"° ' - ,• 24. THAT A BREACH OR VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE COVEN;kSITS, CONDITLO:iS CR REiTRLCTLONS NEREIli-COIL\INED UPON 036::?+,:.•;•+, y • ' IN RESPECT OF LOTS OR BUILDING SITES, OR ANY OF THEM, SHALL'CAUSE 'THE LOC OR LOTS OR BUILDING SITE OR BUILDING SITE3•i; UPON OR IN RE'aPEC3 OF WHICH THE YIOLATIOtI OCCURS TO REVERT TO TIIE DECLAlIIl1T, ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, WHO SHA,L4 'THE RIGHT OF TEIEDIATE 1 E-ENTRY UPON SAID REALTY Ili THE EVENT OF ANY SUCH VIOLATION OR•BREACH. +;_'!�• - '. ," 1"1'; '•+"'N L 30.- TAT THE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS HEREIN CO:TAIN9D ARE A PART OF A G-ccNERAL PLA4'FOS'TILE-lil-';:3•'j:y'y: PRUVEHEITT OF SAID TRACT, LOTS AND ➢UILDING'SLTES AND EACH AND ALL THEREFORE IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF SAID TRACT'AND.:'>'•„� ', .EACH AND EVERY LOT' AND BUILDING SITE. THEREIN AND SHALL INURE TO AND PASS WITH SAID TRACT, AND EACH'AND EVERY L� AND •,^' • " °'X •, tlUILOING SITE THEREIN CONTAINED, AND ARE HEREBY IMPOSED UPON SAID PROPERTY COVERED BY'THIS OEC[AlATION AS HUTU.(L EQOITp•,�,;,' .;';f __ __.-AOLZ SERVITUDES•IN FAVOR OF SAID PROPERTY AND E(CH LOT AND BUILDING SITE THEREIN AND AS TO THE'OWNER 0?, At LOa' • ING SITE OF SAID TRACT, SAID COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SHALL BE AND COtISTITUTE'COVENANTS RUN,tKC WITH LAND FOR TIIE BEtIEFIT•OF ALL THE LOTS AND BUILDIVO SITES 14 SAID TRACT, AND RESPECTIVE OWNERS THE= .'TFELR fIEIRS, �FX=: :�'tt,,• ° ',• ECITORS, ADMINISTRATORS, DEVISEES, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, AND THE BREACH OR VI0IATIOt1 OF THE SAH"c'OR THE CONTINUATION OF%' ;:J�•:;y ANY SUCH VIOLATIONI MAY BE ENJOINED, ABATED OR REMEDIED BY SAID DECLARANT OR BY THE COMPANY; OR THEIR REESPECTIVE SUCCi550RS III INTEREST OR BY ANY SUCH OWNER OR OWt1ERS, PROVIDING TIAT THE FAILURE BY DECLARANT, DY THE COMPANY OR TIZIR'SUCCESSOIS I11 INTEREST OR BY ANY SUCH OWNER OR OWNERS TO ENFORCE ANY OF SUCH CONDITIONS, FHOVISIONS.,flFbTRICTI0N5 OR CILARGES fiEREIN -• • CO:ITAINED SHALL 11; ILO EVENT BE DEEHED A WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO DO SO THEREAFTER. ;:i : 5 Y:• j 31. THAT A VIOLATION OF ANY OF SAID COVENANTS, CONDITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS, M ANY RE-ENTRY BY REASON OF,SU[H '-�j: BREACH OR VIOLATION THEREOF SHALL NOT DEFEAT OR RENDER INVALID THE LIEN OF ANY MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST WADE IN'COOD•FAI, ' - AMID FOR VALUE AS TO SAID REALTY OR'ANY PART,THEREOF, BUT SAID CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND C1Ui4GFS SHALL 3E , • BINDRIG UPON AND EFFECTIVE AGAINST EVERY SUBSEQUCHT OWNER OF SAID REALTY CLAIMING TITLE UNDER OR THROUGH A SALE 0A FORE CLOSURE OF ANY SUCH HORTCAGE OR DEED OF TRUST. - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE HEREUNTO SET THEIR HANDS THIS 2tND, DAY OF APRIL, 1947. EARL W. STAHt EY • MILDRED STANLEY DECLARANT ' •11 _ t rl'1�•'Ct•. .Tt1. 1 1 ..��• r• ICJ r✓ / ��� ' ' * �•F.: \ '• !''I-i.i.ef,3 ' �� I /L1 /l tilt r l •f. •: :'..`: i • � •- .�' - .•tea. '•+...::5� -.P =.� OX 13450Pe 1579 r I NR1v lt'^^.l4 Srf t_.u•.t-••.v•c}...ew.:��. f' ' SIM • f rTuz a a.rr tors vTrr two CS) 2t3:{J.-:a�=OR. P- „r:• I' a>i e^.rrurc•.t soar ug: on>_sat turux\t: •+ca LEE/L 6➢A\'CH Ccior&e:• z . tl>•y-y-v:c �C C L A 8 A?2 0 Y . � 733S R'eCL0.:A^.CY to cad¢ and raeurad Lneo thLa� day of 1•n 19� � - ,• t and La „•a., r .. by:Sldcud SexloT (Sw Hlldmd Stanley Path) aed Lloyds 9—�4 Ca11a:1a, u Trustee under Cho rtlll of feel A. Staley, Donauad. _ ,•t f • tl L T!7 L S S E T 8 - - i- •,i j.t.„ `� rl ' • >_"_.15, 1tLidsd Seaaley Caw Mildred Seminy Path) a3 to rat tn&I:id.•i 2/2 ietanar, red tha Lla/da Ncn: California, m Truetee vadar the C111 of - •t{.S+" Sail➢. Stszley, D¢naaaod, as to a undivided 1/2 Interest. Charataaftcc o^rrn--•rr.1Y raf¢rred tom ^4pun^), are the aveessaoro in Interest em, ^� p•.,: �i' ;: !" It -�� 1• . D �. a+ tee Faldara of thn rLrhta of the rtat—' Cacl racCa) m'tefa tux—A C/j �r .,. y''� �r^.•.',t in tl=a ta. of that wrt.W doc�-at,catitl¢d^Oa¢larrn n cs `` atl of 8tcl 1 - •!f :•rt r�f�F+..•„ )'tf • to mto:lad !n H'oda 3614, pt5a 1 of rho Offielal➢eeorda of said Orr,-.ram• Ca'=•7, Stan of California, as, cuCh Doeleraticn,of Saatrictima rol:ecs to f" +:�.�r"'t;, •fr• rl' L`^_s La. 7270 m r1•wa no Y^p recorded in Leak 78, PaCaa 49 and SO eE A -•, , t)-�•':'::•!:r,;c.§ , , Paeorda ofCountry. \ - •L, .. 1•+'- .:i'.' ^�T"a:{'f. N_p O:m 8e Ca1lfoala, and �.•{: 3 '*oars" at. ti'a euemanors to fetemse to. m3 she toldcn we f '�',: ��eff;;}!'•..^.,y: •• Cho rlgt`_s at. Earl V. Staley and ttlldmd Setel:7, sad are the heldars of ♦•. t •1 c• �t.i:ly YF+i• Clv riµe of tha orlP�ve2 Daelaeent(e), ea mfarenead 3a the tar> of that .-r1a darer entitled"Dtelnr t2 C P- a .,•_C ie a an o .•a rietitras m recorded W 1 2 !-'r� i • 1,17, 1,➢mk 7515, Pa3o 90 of rho O ficlnl Saeorda of cold OraSa GrT. _ y!.r'r�'�•. . _ ' State,of Catiforale, to ouch Daelscnetea of Restrictions rvlatea to traG 7 e i-.� •��� :�"=•"• 4. nl.n.:L Us. 3210 mec.`.e n as Yq seo:ded in➢ock 37, Pa:en 47, 66 and 49 eP -.. ..••- , ?•• ;`.•i; :.:,q,;i ILI I,'c•1� `Y'e�7.laewa Nxa, 8neard2 at Orer3¢ County, C11.fonia, and " ' _r :•.'t:•.. It • 6._T'CT6i, ^Qrcan" nra the amace in [oe oteple of teanniv real p_=frrq - !' �' '• !":� •„s-"• lorcr¢d Li said Tract 710. 3218 to ahara a Na7 tacordad in Look 37, payer-s. 47, �! _ ��t•��i•?;. ,Y.:%. and 49 of Yiae¢llanaou Nampa, Records of OrmBa County, Caltforela, ae` .. ^"+•:•: T•:.:•• r•+• <+w!.L. Td.R.'.AS, ^Cmau" have bean i¢f¢msd that the Se. Aadrnv's PcaaS?-er1a , �ui ru+ a:-t . . Cba of%1 •7ort Beach, asCw the ura of lots 31, 32 sad 33 of aald=cac Ya••-tl 32:N, and Lots 142t 147, 344, 145 and 146 of ^a1S Tract 3238, m har=m 1 "w t-actibed, daatro to usa such•cerl propsrcy, 1n addlelGo io praiactl:ptr� adea3 r,,e lo mae,'Eoha furch"r�tto of chores and to Esioua Soals,•t-c+- -3.t=a?rw - r• ,>�S.'�•.n:�-•'�'1,., •T�•�n f n� n.....Ta••rr �i;: �� e • 1 _ , I�� '�� 'a!AS ..a .'i(�'•':f,.C:•i•:.�':.. ie .fit fi stc 13450 Pc 1580 _R ;''• ;,Mx� : yydaeaPSaS ,i �' ., .� • arr..aeaa. P?aja'p" r• 14 ran v1�S}was s<tivitiaa isacwnDl7 ecmoeced tDosoea, c°d F C7 ' 2ca<,y,bag A?dLc1o¢al uSea <o $atd Loco 31. 32 D ,•p`,; axh Arai=a=°r° old to 14T. 147. 1L4, co taj, 14 sad 35 of oa1B-Trect•2220 ill ''.•�: ,•' T--'Ing v karma ry<tlbad an aecoptabla to nr+". !ot pad in camidaratloa aE the P .,} z>3 for skv ba:aEtc of the Pc°F°tty Lnrvlrabova dcaeribad, w tha ,,,at of their LAtarosta in a0rnc• CO ief°tan<ad ceapactiva .:a '.•r-:n.-�+ ad their rlyhto to tha toraia •`+atrirye� L+..at�' t+ 142. 143. 144i of d Tract i7e. 1220 and to .. i .,. .,r,.•. r::_v 34 and 35 aF,9t1 tesa¢t1Y . ' p '•1.. ,„ - �:c.. additioA top .. 1 '?•>";-". .`r'-� n b+nL^ dtaeslbed. 1n roli¢ev° . t- .ti`•.,>+r+: k ae Ts•� 2:16 be road far eha !¢rtDaraaea of ehutth rad rn s, ,. rxa.a.a1oO t,tdL-6a. atrvecurw. Volain6 fetS11e1+a pad :!�..�a','•-. cot 13,s1te4 to vidae taasooabl7 y. ;••{;at,'T•'n:r..v. - '='• !CD essd for all otbar act} .. :-.'�i. 4,,._ •-Win. <v6a:aca rl..oic+6 - oi Ca ._'atleo,aDa11 ha a It Sa .�.i ICI ='ey�l-_.1-^ca tD1a elm stata of California �< t to a litr5la la+cf tDa said udanlC+ad haraint : •• " - �•.,•ti;;-n,`,t.; W$ ' d th.-t L'h:p Tdcter" �• 144. 145 Sad 146 oe paid Tract t o£Then 143. 143. It.. :J.'r. (•�(t :. y rr.La]eti of paid Tract 1220 ! . r' I;a`r rY.',<•.'•.iv `tk4,r4'��1'.',y'r >; �' ,: fs�� d, r lara 31. 32. 13. 34 and ]5 —n` 145 ro^•lad La 14T. 1L3. 145. :i :3:•r'ccaa-.. edtl both eha land pB d Taee 31. 32. 33. 34 and f .. 't•"a ';�,Gy�` ran 1T12f as hamSo Lavcsibei r' - G7 ariod ' ••. ld Tr..ct$o. 12TD n Dania teacribad. durip6 °°7'P rsali bCaE1e ped Da biadia6 u•Pw each auc<aealva ovaar. soh ea deacrib+d haraio, and •:i•. '•-•.' �fv �1•?. a. +�pet•Sm o! eha vad throw-h pay, olaat of tfio ':'1"•i %+ +"�ti li °q ar eatlt7!s,'1_B w1 Lsatt.•IC Chesvin dari xtty Sazu'7 av daoeritad kscoiu. w-+co am thA Pace of eb. undaral5°ed, shall bta f and u d ig - :.� A^e3s- " a°°1¢na of tha u+dac°1{vod _ } -•i cEic of tba con-at"haLca, po<caepoca pv1/ 145 sad ,, .. ,. cE t� tar^•^••+a°o d°a<elbed tot' 147, 147, 144. , - <,.:f!' ^•}••• ♦.fit M S'F../YYIM`:.ir�jr�yµfn-iirv.Jl.�TI'S •l,�'1^L3� U • -.•.S�• '' .' 1 1 . r�. " I stt13450rs1581 ,�.l. `•".:. _ is�.- "e'C'�t�:T:��ellyN�:Y Si 3:. 13a 34 enil 35 0! enld Trs [q: :'.: "•. j , . i'' •Tixci Sa. `l-..ut TaY-+ ;'ty ' , rf 03 ,, it-w1~ :y. '• :.,=;;�r ti':�,� __ - I' •• ,• ' �� tLa bill of 'i ..$•5+2 Ri., `-:•^«' . L1/lx%'w�'+ .A/% /r ' A'Y{. ••1 .1`�:Y� r '•:i 2lI',i.�; '": t-f32,,," :i:yi•.«P•; .-ii.:i_r.:wt.r:�.: • . .. .. . . .•%'.•t'.` .�,.F �i.. ,:It�.. . :'•• :5•y" �.}{� Ki�.,T`�,�,5iGA, g:u�t,.n��i'�'�SEw;�roU=7;% I ' .r• •.i •"J' .i`"J^.1i •�i, :•:•�- :.51':'.p .: �5,'1� fCot IN lar �tL�t-75—...a...^.. ....,a-J-.w....i,u»wr. _ � A: :•: '' ;.• :•• 'Id•.t.a:',; ; � . IV :;r.i•.v�...e r>,u:.�xrw.,. �rsar3c - ��'V1.•,~:,:•'„',':".� •� '••,• ?,' .'.., .rLT.TGY_TEQ 6tT'Ti>-.rT+env`• w,r..,..-..r+r n...w+.r.•v,""a. _ ` LJ:};. •'• �'' ,r � ' ____ .. F?fir^ _ •'ii„r ,i'L ..�Y+r ary G•u•'r.r 4i^4n.1.1S:a I. • .smrc'ptei;•+'C5,}�^'rrr.,- ' ,:F.xx'>'�x:tr ry HEIGHT LIMITS 20.02.035-20.02.040 • 700.00' along said parallel line;thence westerly in a direct line to it point on a line 150.00 feet south of Sta. 19 as established per Superior Court Case No. 20436, said line being parallel with the centerline of East Coast Highway; thence westerly along said parallel line to a natural contour line having an elevation of 25 feet above Mean Sea Level; thence westerly and southerly along said• contour line having an elevation of 25.00 feet above Mean Sea Level to the centerline of East Coast Highway;thence continuing southerly and easterly along said contour line to the centerline of Jamboree Road; thence southerly and easterly along the centerline of Jamboree Road to the centerline of Bayside Drive; thence southeasterly along the centerline of Bayside Drive to the centerline of Bayside Place; thence southwesterly along the centerline of Bayside Place to a natural contour line having an elevation of 25.00 feet above Mean Sea Level;thence southerly and easterly along said contour line to the southerly boundary line of Tract No. 1116; thence southerly along said boundary line of Tract No. 1116 and along the southerly boundary line of Tract No. 3357 to the easterly city boundary of Newport Beach,as established per Annexation No. 68;thence southwesterly, westerly and northeasterly along the city boundary of Newport Beach to the Point of Beginning. D. 32/50 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONE. In the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall be 32 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 32 feet up to a maximum of 50 feet after the adoption of a Planned Community District, or after the adoption of a Specific Area Plan, or after the approval of a Use Permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all Zone Districts other than R-A,R-1, R 1.5, R-2, R 3 and R 4 which have boundaries not falling within the area above described as the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, or within the High-Rise Height Limitation Zone. E. HIGH-RISE HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONE. In the High-Rise Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall not exceed 375 feet. (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.02.035 Planned Community Districts. In each Planned Community District established subsequent to the adoption of Chapter 20.02, the height limits shall be established as part of the Planned Community Development Plan; provided, however, that in no event shall the development exceed the height limits permitted in the height limitation zones as set forth under Section 20.02.030 and as designated below: A. 24/28 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONE. (1) Upper Newport Bay Planned Community as established by Ordinance No. 1537 adopted December 17, 1973 (Amendment No. 409). (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). •'20.02.040 Planning Commission or City Council Review. The Planning Commission or City Council in approving any Planned Community District, any Specific Area Plan, or in granting any Use Permit for structures in excess 415 (Newport Beach 10.15-79) 53 C: 20.02.050 PLANNING AND ZONING of the basic height limit in any zone shall find that each of the following four points have been complied with: (a) The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover,'and the treatment of all setback and open Areas. • > • . r , : (b) The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of t} a area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. (c) The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. (d) The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the Use Permit. (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.02.050. Existing Structures and Permits. A. Structures which were in existence or under construction on the effective date of this ordinance, and which do not conform to these regulations may be continued or altered; provided, that the changes do not result in a greater nonconformity than was existing. B. Structures for which building permits have been issued or for which use permits have been issued, on the effective date of this ordinance, and which do not conform to these regulations,may be constructed according to • the approved plans. C. Proposed structures within a Planned Community District adopted prior to the effective date of this ordinance may be constructed in accordance with the height limits contained within the Planned Community Text; provided, however, that a Use Permit shall be required for any structure which exceeds the height limits established by this Chapter. D. The use permit application fee shall be waived for any single family home in the R 1 District which is replacing a structure which was in existence on the effective date of this Chapter. E. Structures on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place which were in existence or under construction on the effective date of this ordinance may be changed provided such change does not result in a roof height above curb which is higher than 16.23 feet and provided further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone. New structures may be constructed on vacant building sites subject to the same criteria. F. Structures on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar, which were in existence or under construction on the effective date of this ordinance may be changed provided such change does not result in a roof height above top of curb and provided further that the roof height does not (Newport Beach I0-IS-79) 416 • GENERAL CONTROLS —COMMERCIAL 20.30.035 • B. NONCONFORMING USES. The provisions of Chapter 20.83 entitled "NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES" shall not be applicable to structures and uses which are nonconforming only because they do not comply with the parking requirements set forth in Subsection A above, but instead the following regulations shall be controlling: (1) EXISTING USES AND STRUCTURES. The lawful use of land or buildings or both in commercial zoning districts which do not meet the parking requirements set forth in Subsection A above, which use was in existence on the effective date of this Section, may be continued or changed to a use requiring the same or less on-site parking without compliance with said requirements. (2) REMODELING, REPAIRS OR ALTERATIONS. Any nonconforming building may be repaired, altered or remodeled without complying with the parking requirements set forth in Subsection A of this Section. (3) ENLARGEMENT. Whenever a nonconforming building or use is enlarged by more than ten percent (10%) of its original gross area in any one-year period, the property on wWcli it is located shall be made to comply " with the parking requirements of Subsection A of this Section unless a waiver or reduction of said requirment is authorized by use permit.When the enlargement of an existing building or use constitutes less than ten percent. (10%) of its original gross area, the required parking shall be based only upon ( the added gross area. (4) RESTORATION OF DAMAGED OR DESTROYED BUILDING. A nonconforming building wholly on partially damaged or destroyed by fire, • explosion, earthquake, Act of God, or other act beyond the control of the owner or person in possession may be restored without the necessity of complying with the requirements of Section 20.30.030, provided that all of the following conditions are met: a. The restoration work is commenced within twelve months after the damage or destruction occurs; b. The building after restoration does not exceed its original gross floor area as it existed prior to the damage or destruction;and c. The use of the building is not changed to a use which requires more parking than the original use as it existed prior to the damage or destruction. (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.30.035" "H" Combining District. The following regulations shall apply in all Commercial Districts with which are combined "H" Districts,in addition to the regulations hereinbefore specified therefor, and shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.30;provided, however, that if any of the regulations specified in Subsection A and Subsection B below differ from any of the corresponding regulations specified in this Section for any district with which is combined an "H" District, then in such case the provisions of Subsections A and B shall govern. A. USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be permitted in "-H" 449 (Newport Beach 4•1 S•76) • 55 20.30.035 PLANNING AND ZONING Districts: • All uses permitted in the respective districts with which the "-H" i District is combined, subject to approval as to design of buildings and design and location of parking lot; except, however, as provided in Sections 20.30.035(B.) and 20.30.035 (C.). B. OFF-STREET PARKING 'REQUIRED — SCHEDULE. Off-street parking on the building site, • or with City Council approval upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, on a separate lot from the building site or sites, shall be required in all districts with which the "-H" District is combined, according to the following formula: (1) Retail Stores: One parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area, and one loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. • • I . '(2) Office Buildings (except where portion is used as a medical or dental office): One parking space for each 250 square feet of net floor area, except as provided in Section 20.30.035(C.). ;,:.(3) Wholesale and Industry: One parking space for each 2,000 square feet of gross floor area and one loading space for each 10,000 square feet of ,gross floor area,but in no event shall there be less than 10 parking spaces for each such establishment. (4) Restaurants: One space for each 40 square feet of net public area. "Net Public Area" shall be defined as the total area of the restaurant including patios, balconies, and any outdoor areas capable of being used for the purpose of serving food or beverages, with the exception of kitchens, restrooms, offices pertaining to the restaurant only, and food and beverage service or storage areas. • Based on the following considerations, the Planning Commission may increase or decrease the parking requirement for a restaurant within the range of one space for each 30 to 50 square feet of net public area: I. The Physical Design characteristics of the restaurant. (a) The portion of net public area designated for dining, cocktails, or dancing. (b) The number of tables or seats, and their arrangement. (c) Other areas that should logically be excluded from the determination of net public area. (d) The parking lot design, including the use of small car spaces, tandem,and valet parking. (e) Availability of guest dock space for boats. II. The location of the restaurant. (a) In relation to other uses and the waterfront. (b) Availability of off-site parking nearby. (c) Amount of walk-in trade. (d) Parking problems in the area.at times of peak demand. III. The operational characteristics of the restaurant. (a) Beer, wine, or full service bar. (b) The use of live entertainment. (Newport Beach 4"IS-76) 450 • GENERAL CONTROLS — COMMERCIAL 20.30.035 (c) The hours of operation. If during the review of the Use Permit, the Planning Commission uses any of the preceding considerations as a basis for raising or lowering a restaurants parking requirement, the substance of such considerations shall become conditions of the Use Permit and a change to any of these conditions will require an amendment to the Use Permit. When an amendment to the Use Permit is required, the Planning Commission may increase or decrease parking requirements within the ranges noted above. (5).Public Assembly: One parking space for each five seats. (6) Theaters: One parking space for each five seats. (7) Hotels: One parking space for each two guest rooms. (8) Hospitals: One, parking space for each bed, and in addition one parking P employee. arkin space for each resident doctor and one for each em to ee. (9) Clinics: One parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area, plus P lus one additional space for each doctor and one for each employee. to ee. (10) Motels: One parking space for each guest unit. (11) Medical and Dental Office Buildings: One parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. C. PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS BASED ON • SIZE OF PARKING POOL. The parking requirement for office buildings, as specified in Section 20.30.035(B)(2) may be modified in accordance with the following schedule: 1. For the first 125,000 sq. ft., parking shall be provided at one space per 250 sq. ft. of net floor area. 2. For the next 300,000 sq. ft,, parking shall be provided at one space per 300 sq. ft.of net floor area. • 3. Any additional floor area, parking shall be provided at one space per 350 sq. ft. of net floor area. For pools based on more than 425,000 sq. ft. of net floor area, the Planning Commission may modify the parking formula by Use Permit,based on a demonstrated formula. D. OFF-STREET PARKING ON SEPARATE LOT. The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not approve off-street parking on a separate lot from the building site or sites unless: (1) Such lot is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed use or uses on the building site or sites. (2) Parking on such lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. (3) Such lot and the building site are in the same ownership, or the P owners of the building sites have a common ownership in such lot and the owner or owners are entitled to the immediate possession and use thereof (ownership of the off-site lot must be ownership in fee or a leasehold interest of a duration adequate to serve all proposed uses on the building site or sites). (4) The owner or owners and the City, upon the approval of the City Council, execute a written instrument or instruments, approved as to form 451 (Newport Beach 9.80) 57 20.3L040 PLANNING AND ZONING and content by the City Attorney, providing for the maintenance of the required off-street parking on such lot for the duration of the proposed use or uses on the building site or sites. Should a change in use or additional use be proposed, the off-street parking regulations applicable at the time shall apply. Such instruments shall be recorded in the office of the County Re- corder and copies thereof filed with the Department of Community Develop- ment. r '(5) A fee as established }iy resolution of the City Council is deposited With City for the administrative costs of processing such requests for off- street parking on a separate lot. P E. BUILDING LOCATION. In case no building line is established by the Street and Highway Plan of the Master Plan or by the provisions of this Chapter for the street on which any building will front, in any district with which an '-H" District is combined, no such building shall be erected, : constructed, moved or structurally altered, so that the same shall be closer to the line of such street than a distance to provide adequate space for the traffic movements and the standing of vehicles which will be incidental to the use of such building. Such distance to be designated by the Planning Comil fission as a part of the action on plans submitted with the application for a permit -for such building, as provided in Chapter 20.30. (Ord. 1850 § 1, 1980;Ord. 1663 § 1, 1976;Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.30.040 "Z" Combining District. The following regulations shall apply in all Commercial Districts with which are combined "Z" Districts, in { addition to the regulations hereinbefore ;specified therefor, provided, however, that if any of the regulations specified in the "Z" District differ . from any of the corresponding regulations specified in this Section for any District with which is combined the "Z" District, then and in such case the provisions of the "Z" District shall govern. A. USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be permitted in "-Z" Districts: All uses permitted in the respective districts with which the "-Z" District is combined, subject to approval as to design of building and design and location of parking lot; except, however, as provided in Subsections B and C below. B. OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIRED — SCHEDULE. Off-street parking, on the building site, or on a separate lot from the building site or sites with City Council approval on recommendation of the Planning Commission, shall be required in all districts with which the"-Z" District is combined, according to the following formula: (1) Retail and Wholesale Stores: One parking space for each 350 square feet of gross floor area, and one loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. (2) Office Buildings (except where any portion is used as a medical or dental office): One parking space for each 350 square feet of net floor area. ` (3) Restaurants: One space for each 40 square feet of net public area.. (Newport Beach 9-80) 452 • •• -:, •.. - _ -. - _ . _ . . , .' .. • , • . , . . - ill „ cit AGENDA PREED NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. SEP 241982 geptember 2 982 RECEIVED b Cooper = a a /" a':, :m., .,,e r•. i-.,, , ',.• CITY CLERK:?•e i, 18 Si0nal Road a ewport Beacb,Calif.92663 ''•' - '- q•� (714) 642-6401 ,.si•'i.' '.tom'auk,,eati'-:-.'y:.,sf�'n'•`faifYf,»rS�'c?^:;V,�;�a'-�-ti'iGirTw» wy) � ..r Dear City Council Member: The Planning Commission and City Council recently "down-zoned" residential property on St. Andrews Road in Cliff Haven from R3 to R2. This action "•; •• was initiated by the City of Newport Beach. I believe one of the reasons given by the city for this action was the lack of adequate on-street parking for R3 dovelopment. • Those of us who live in Cliff Haven deserve the same concern of the City Council regarding the proposed expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. I am not opposed to the growth of the ;•;,;.;:,;;. church---the church is doing a great job, and for it to grow is only natural. I am'opposed to its current plans for growth in Cliff Haven. I hope that you will be able to accept the point ' +S?t ?Snwf"xr'�? ifr7q ? of view that to deny the church permission to build its proposed structure in Cliff Haven is not a vote against the church, but a vote in- ;c,x;:; ;„w°•h ;:. :; ;i ; ,;:_a, :;;;, ,_' Y<-x favor of maintaining the character of the Cliff " Haven community (not unlike"downzoning" from R3 to R2) . i Sincerely, .,ti,y:�. ,K. J�'Z=9fi�!in� k};, cj"`{•npx_u, � ram.;. �'�:. Y.rr;:•z rC�ar:�a 'crt• Y 5 f,M;is+vKe. ..�.,.ma� ,,, ,y.. .?'y'9-.r;5-:✓. ��;}Z. ^�' k-.. 4�Z'�, hw, •,ij�*` G�• �'�'�,a-. +n1 rr `+,..,. �..�.tl `n x ,� .,wa M•';+w.r.:�•-•;o`n(: a'+h:��•t' ,1�v�)c.: .� .. :e _ 2x`ti::x � .K£,•^,Y�'.. sir.- �`..r,FN. w, �._':._y,.:.v. s:�.. ..9''-.�j�y✓'J,rncyy:r.�1,e,L..a,�,-.•n...S,�T;y:.... Lr Yav, -- a.. •-.rii:.i •''r'.'.''i-w�1 F'.."" -.a:J:•. "..,. ,� - ,"N,:e; _ �,:5• <o....`r{i -•u;=••h"r�J�• 5.re.i' .o vy�c'v�:V_.,�y. -.',1,.;F•. ..,�t.,,1:::,�-n,�. ;;.Cy:' �.;�; T(Pr�.,:�c• ,;iL"s3n;5R: +..,.9 .•,:.ii.,���.`°✓L.f,b'`',i,.rC:-C'r:y'".h4' �i Fat.•-,.r�«:::ti.'.:roT"k'o.y,.\•i;�ti:�;f@bi- '„�'1,,,••+�".;3. ;5.. .. .. ....... :, . „ .:.:. , .H':2:.. .,..-,.S?..;�,. - ,. ... , ..,r 8k 5-xi.v't":hw•;'h1 /:......1..t.. , b.¢17.'•"•x'•"" . - C ' 430 Pirate Road, "RECEND AMR MM ►1 IR . � Newport Beach, Calif. 92663. September 22nd 1982. City Clerk, I City Hall, g 3300 Newport Boulevard, - c3_G d s5',' n x • P.O. Box 1768, 8 = 2 Newport Beach, Calif. 92663. rtr L •s;� m s Dear Sir, I am very disturbed to learn that St. Andrews Church intends to go ahead and apply for permission to build their new massive development at the original revised heiglt of 85 ft, with 'total disregard to the overwhelming majority view of our community that this project is far too ambitious for this residential neighborhood and is certainly not in keeping with our area. I would like to therefore, once again, place on record my opposition to this new • project proposed by St. Andrews Church. Apart from the unacceptable height and mass of the building, the intended on-site parking is quite inadequate for the amount of people who will be attending this church, taking into account that it is not only the congregation who will require parking spaces but also those attending classes, the fellowship hall and the relevant staff. We have previously enjoyed good relations with St. Andrews, who now want to disrupt the lives of the families in our neighborhood. How does the church expect local residents to put up with years of noise and disruption of our community while this development is underway? If the church 24UST expand in this area, it must be developed in keeping with the surrounding community. After all, this IS a residential area NOT a business district. Before making your decision at the next council meeting, I URGE YOU - please consider the feelings of the people in our community. • Yours faithfully, Pamela V. Green. ��qrr TR FTFR ARERAA PRWB'P: • 430 Pirate Road, Newport Beach, Calif. 92663. September 22nd 1982. City Clerk, ..- City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, 6 (A z =;rn P.O. Box 1768, 8 � Newport Beach, w 2 Calif. 92663. Dear Sir, Cn St. Andrews Church Proposed Expansion I again implore you to consider the consequences of the above proposals before this project gets completely out of control. You are already well acquainted with the many objections such as the impossible parking plans and the sheer mass of the building; you must also be aware of the local CC & R regulations and your relevant environmental responsibilities.' There are several residents in this neighborhood who are too shy to voice their objections but who are VERY worried about possible disruption of this area by parked vehicles and construction traffic. Yours faithfully,,; -� W. P. Davies. P.S. The quotation by spokesman Robert Curtis which appeared in the Daily Pilot this week about the residentst claims as being 'tso much nonsenset' does seem to • express the negative attitude of St. Andrews Church. :s C : ,,errrNFn 'FrFq Aw0,4 PRINTED": D -1 _ UI CJ (,:. f aelaJ luh w erc�,_ ti_G�c 4/L _ly c a/mac Q. E i • I .. E 1 I� � rrr ^ s N. t ,PED WE ,R&c��tA �ROdT�Pi . CJ co x �� Septembe Ali Jr co Newport Beach City Council L o w 3300 Newport Blvd, r� _s Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 As a member of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church I have become increasingly alarmed at the breakdown of communication, both with church members and with neighbors in the surrounding community, on the subject of the church' s expansion. We are all TOTALLY uninformed as to what the church will present at the City Council meeting on Monday. It seems to be a deep, dark secret. . . There is great opposition within the church to the building plans, much of it because of the massive amount of money which will be spent on buildings that may be more extravagant than necessary. Many members of St. Andrews feel unable to speak out because they don't want to oppose their church. The neighbors are being viewed by St. Andrews . as being attackers of the church. This is just not so: : The Cliff Haven Community supports the church and its programs, and a reasonable building program. It is very important that the issue of on-site parking be solved BEFORE the vote on Monday night. This is not a side issue , but the Building Committee has never been willing to address this problem. Is it so unsolvable?? Please consider these problems before you vote on Monday night. 1ew06 Pirate Road port Beach, Calif. 92663 • acgcq pgFR't1A PPlC1 ,_ • , t4 ` •n 17012 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach Qp 5 California N Sept. 21 , 1982 0 c9� Members of the City Council Newport Beach, California Dear Members : As the subject of the St. Andrew's Building Program comes before you again, I find I must write to you one more time. And since I do come from Huntington Beach , you may feel that my opinion is not relevant , but I must tell you that my husband and I drive a long way to find a church of the caliber of St. Andrew' s , we wish we could find one in our own city.. We feel that St. Andrew' s not only gives us the spiritual renewal we need each week, but it offers many other activities as well. Many of these activities are ones that would interest members of the community. • At the last meeting of your council that I attended, one of the members mentioned something about the side effects to the city. Personally my husband and I did not spend much time in Newport Beach before we became members of St. Andrew' s Church. Now we spend quite a bit of time in your city not only attending church and the church activities but going to places of entertainment as well as shopping. St. Andrew' s Church is an asset to your community, and I want you to know that my husband and I both support it and its building program. Sincerely yours , Patricia H. Ford • 415 Pirate Road "RFI 400A PRIM D"��.,�L Newport Beach, Ca. September 22, 1982 N Newport City Council 6 3 15�o 0�f City Hall � y% 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 r i Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 L Gentlemen: We have the feeling that our message regarding the proposed St. Andrews build- ing plans are not being heard or'acted upon. As a Cliffhaven resident living within fifty yards of the proposed structure I object to: 1. The proposed height 2. The proposed mass 3. The lack of parking I would accept any building plan that met the same restrictions that I would face if I wanted to "Make an Architectural Statement% However, with my neighbors, I have agreed to compromise, but we.have been put in a position.of negotiating down from 105 feet instead of up from the neigh- borhood limit. We are being ignored on "Mass" and "Parking". We.appreciate. the growth but a bucket will only hold so much water. Perhaps St. Andrews has-outgrown-their present site. Maybe they should take their much flaunted building fund, .add to it by selling-the present site, and buy . an adequate piece of property where they don't have to crowd their neighbors. If. their growth continues they.will have to consider the alternative. (But maybe they can just crowd me out of my home by then.) Please consider this seemingly trite, but most appropriate question: "How. would You like to look out your window at a Forty-Six Foot Wall?" I_have to question the stated good will of.the church when they ignore the overwhelming opposition of their neighbors. Sincerely, Richard H. Moore 415 Pirate Rd. Newport Beach, Ca. • c c- OGEIz>a.RI I EY,D.D.S. "RECEIVED JMR ASENDA PRWED • r- 1441 Avocado Avenue quite 508 C1SV DF CH. i EwpoRA Newport Beach.CaliEornia 92660 9 S�p` �g82• ' Telephone(714)640-5680 QECEIva Cu >> (Residence) G1lY t' 1022 East Balboa Blvd. Balboa , California 92661 September 24, 1982 Newport Beach City Council , 3300, Newport Blvd. Newport Beach , California Dear City Coilncil Members : I am writing to support St. Andrews Church request for a zone variance and building permit. I have followed this project from it ' s inception and feel that the architectural planning committee has i) worked closely with the architect and city planning commission to comply within existing regulations , 2) Designed a structure that • will have minimum community impact and at the same time fill it' s (St. Andrews) growth needs. 3) Has been cooperative and conciliatory with the Homeowners in an effort to resolve the Homeowners proposed expansion. The Cliffhaven Homeowners have not negotiated in good faith, : They have repeatedly stated that with height lowering and parking concessions they would approve the project, and then when compromise ,has been offered have backed off and posed additional objections . Under the present restriction requested byjthe Homeowners the 25 year • existing structure would not be permited to be built. It is apparent ,. that no plan would be acceptable by the Cliffhaven Homeowners , Association. � I realize the half truthed aggressive public compaign has been disruptive to you and to the community . I appeal to you to examine the fact that this has been planned and approved by the planning commissions and is within the variance guidelines provided you by statue . I urge you to support St. Andrews petition for their Building Program. Since el , 'e, /• i - Roger E Riley, D .D,S . c. c. Don Strauss , Councilman Distric One II 'a.;.:" .tN D'.•� Michael S. Smith 910 NOTTINGHAM ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 CD Ro September 23, 1982 coFe��C��a Ce lZ Newport Beach City Council City Hall - w_ 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my support for the St. Andrews Church expansion plan. _. I have lived in Newport Beach all my life and have been a member of St. Andrews for many years . The expansion of the church facilities is something that has been badly needed for quite a long time. It will be of great beneifit to the members of St. Andrews and to the en- tire Christian communnity. The homeowners in the area have valid concerns regard- ing the expansion but I feel St. Andrews has demen- strated a genuine willingness to compromize to meet the demands 'o£ the homeowners. Even to the extent of lowering their height requirements to 46 feet. As one of some 860 families who have pledged financial support for this much needed expansion, I strongly urge the members of the City Council to vote in favor of St. Andrews Church. Very truly yours , . Michael S. Smith RfCEIYED PFfER MARGARET H[LLS, INC. • 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE III NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 � 1( SUITE 460 �"• r--Co \ ggg� t4OF�CN �� (714)644-024I September 23, 1 Newport Beach City Council S NO- Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 � Gentlemen: As long time residents of Newport Beach and members of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, we are concerned with the lack of progress being made in St. Andrew's attempt 'to receive permission to build a desperately needed new sanctuary and related facilities. As you are aware, ♦this process was delayed seven weeks at the planning commission level (where a compromise plan was finally approved) and an additional five weeks at the city council level. The last delay, which was supposed to be used by the church and Cliff Haven representatives to hammer out another compromise, appears to have been used instead by Cliff Haven as a staging time to mount a well-organized political campaign designed to completely throw out existing St. Andrew's plans. • In our opinion, this demonstrates bad faith on their part. I urge you to support a rapid approval of the church's application for the following reasons: 1. The expanded facility is greatly needed to serve the Newport Beach Christian community. 2. The technical aspects of the plans were approved (and encouraged) by the city's staff and by the planning commission by a 6-0, 4-2, 6-0 vote. 3. Of the 915 pledging St. Andrew's families, approximately 724 have pledged in excess of $6,200,000 to the building fund. This statistic puts to rest any question regarding meaningful opposition to the plans within the church itself. This number is also significantly greater than the 100 or so Cliff Haven families opposed to the plans. In fact, the pro and con ratio of vitally concerned residents is at least 5 to 1 in favor of the project even after adjusting St. Andrew's figures for non-residents. 4. The Cliff Haven representatives have not demonstrated a willingness to reach a reasonable compromise. 5. The church has spent in excess of $135,000 for architectural plans to date. These plans will have to be scrapped if Cliff Haven prevails. Such a result would be a tragic waste of funds entrusted for God's work. For the above reasons, your support is prayerfully requested and would be greatly appreciated. • Sincerely, Larry'T th Margie L. Smith Simm PffF.it meJYL'Fi rR��9. .c.amreex•,N •. - . 9 S_ sJ98 � 2 Sept.21 .1982 Dea n r©r, Hea'ther City Council Members , r • 3 L �As llet�te�( if xi r�j eing sent to you to voice my opinion as one wh6 ' s gec' the proposed expansion presented by St. An- drew's Presbyterian Church. In the late 19604s the church had close to 4400 metbers. . ':• '' yet there was no need to expand.Today the papers quoted church ;:. '"`• `.:"` ,`:r"� officials as saying they have a "burgeoning membership of 29001'.0." So what is the need for expansion? ^;P<.�;' They say they have many programs,which is fine, But because- ' - .'. they want these programs doesnot mean that we the residents of the a T area should have to suffer and be forced to accept the outlandish' •{ ' <k plbns proposed that would overshadow our comfortable neighborhood^;,z , "'-: ff community setting. :',� <� a;" ••Jl ' -i . "Insure domestic tranquility" and"Promote• 'the general' wel1-,,ar'e*7-,'. •�•• °• ��.>.�ryr. Vic, . „ , ;,,. are two phrases in the Preamble to the Constitution. In phis 6a§g:' Tt r'. i, 61R.�y.,Nwjh.,'yl i •r•.• h it is up to the City Council to see to it our ConstitutiWI ona'1•'irigli ';:. are not infringed upon. • As a member of the neighborhood I feel that the chur`,ah3-ifua 41 + �• •' ; ' ' y. � building anything on its property must abide by the C.C:,, 's; .}4$' ? y' •. y'g,. 11 the community. They state that no structure shall exceed,,• more that two(2) stories(26-28 feet) . There can be no eXO6pQ1o�XK.Q_.A to this: Why should the church be permitted to 'do someth1R ;th*t r ; no homeowner can do with his/her own property* � ", �' •,; <�; r:,�:"�r�r'„?.,Y• •4 ' " 'J,�V)�7�'�i',yt{t.'t}'•'1}WlC t�.�ph In closing. I wish to make note of b�q _ a statement made ,.0,�i � ';1"�?� ;,;„;7� Wendell Holmes, Jr. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court'(19b2 * 1932) . Who once wrote in one of his decisions that the 'right :of_•., kle`"i• *?• ,?s.. individual comes before the right of any group or oraanizatioii�t;tgp\i«y"r ,'-:; As an individual I want my rights protected and it 1s yourr duyb-'t,' •.„ :f^Fh MK,•' see to it that my rights are not violated. • Your duty is clear. As duly elected authorities of T,his,• o;, ;�F.- , and its residents I expect that each of you shall cast a 3ib •, ,o p t;.f ' a on the churches proposed expansion. ' '}�i5 �;i�-•. `�.\off..,.:�v?,b Thank You for your time. Sincerely Yours , ,,ti. ,.,ry'• .i' y"yj( " way1} 4Ft ye. i • ` i� tY n7• -N..• Y't•{ /I�����%�•vf/ �`�.•3iY'.`Fi µ;I'�l�`++-`Al,.�tt�i`X k • e f 4,5:•'t�i'' •v 0) r;1. T + 14] ,1•:i� r�, ` e�a 1` r 's9tl CI{ 1 +at��JL'i3 Sept.21.1982 9• oc:oo<: . , , �JF-:r yor 41eath6r,and(� Oity Council Members , �ds'/,'getter is Uednp sent to you to voice my opinion as one whb,is against i-Ehe proposed expansion presented by St. An- drew's Pr sbyterian Church. ' . In the late 1960's the church had close to 4400 members , yet there was no need to expand.Today the papers quoted church officials as saying they have a "burgeoning membership of 29001 " So what, id the need for expansion? They say they have many programs ,which is fine.. But because they want these programs doesnot mean that we the residents of� the area should have to suffer and be forced to accept the outlandish plans proposed that would overshadow our comfortable neighborhood community 'setting. "Insure domestic tranquility" and"Promote the general welfare" are two phrases in the Preamble to the Constitution. In this case it is up to the City Council to see to it our Constitutional rights are not infringed upon. • As a member of the neighborhood I feel that the church building anything on its property must abide by the C.C. & R. 's. of the community. They state that no structure shall exceed in. height more that two(2) stories(26-28 feet) . There can be no exceptions to this, Why should the church be permitted• to do something that no homeowner can do with his/her own property? In closing, I wish to make note of a statement made by. Oliver., '... ' Wendell Holmes , Jr. , Associate Justice of the Supreme .Court(19•02 1932) , Who once wrote in one of his decisions that the right of the ' x .;N;4 individual comes before the right of any group or organizatiozrl;In,:,`";. ,.. 'r•',•; As an individual I want my rights protected and it is your 44�, to: see to it that my rights are not violated. Your duty is clear. As duly elected authorities of this duty and its residents I expect that each of you shall cast a no Vote on the churchA s proposed expansion. :`.'•: Thank You for your time. • Sincerely Yours , • a.•a y {{ d, i • 4F141P Ury f �A AN `•.�.,{fi. �1f. `I 2]i 'Y 9 nfTA 'MUM f� ij�:M Y i�L+�'�i7 • Sept.21 1{ 98212 De-tir K�uf Heath„er'-and y Council Members , Thit letter i>s p�Ing sent to you to voice my opinion, as one who is a aifisl � he proposed expansion presented by St. An- drew's Presbyterian Church. In the late 1960's the church had close to 4400 members , yet there was no need to expand.Today the papers quoted church officials as saying they have a "burgeoning membership of` 29004 " So what is the need for expansion? They say they have many programs ,which is fine. But because : they want these programs doesnot mean that we the residents of tttg; ' P area should have to suffer and be forced to accept the outlandish' • plhns proposed that would overshadow our comfortable neighborhoo3, ,' ' '`t •" community setting. "Insure domestic tranquility" and"Promote the general welfare" % are two phrases in the Preamble to the Constitution. In this case, it is up to the City Council to see to it our Constitutional rights [ are not infringed upon. • As a member of the neighborhood I feel that the church irn rye`•`;;.., '`'. ,;,-� building anything on its property must abide by the C.C. & R. the community. They state that no structure shall exceed in height �_ . •r.;, more that two(2) stories(26-28 feet) . There can be no exceptions ; ; ; tip; to this; Why should the church be permitted to -do something that; no homeowner cxr1 do with his/her own property.? )•,, , j•1^'„_ e{ In closing, I wish to make note of a statement made::by Olive's ,;, ."° `•.," 4 Wendell Holmes, Jr. , Associate Justice of the Supreme Co ux't:(190Zk`':f. ' ,•.'} 1932) . Who once wrote in one of his decisions that the r1ght°"of'.lhe ., , individual comes before the right of any croup or organizationY,1�' fin; As an individual I want my rights protected and it is yOUE' �IUPY'•{ djk ,,,•f'•{ '� see to it that my rights are not violated. ?,"'.r , �r " ' t "•; Your duty is clear. As duly eleested authorities of this,'•al. ;ty ;°. ; f •>' ifot and its residents I expect that each of you shall cast a no a',,+. �... •.- • . + t} on the churches proposed expansion* Thank You for your time. " ,.'t '''.,:, t•'•i'yry: A Sincerely Yours , ' .y•-'Y.It.. ,TAMES F.BLAUER •s,:•:,, u wLAat 418 PIRATE ROAD ",,.a"'�3g• NEWPORT BEACH,CALc �•P.� ` n , f CHARLES C. PALMER 1701 KINGS ROAD f NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 PHONE 046-8800 fl, • "RECEIVED LIFTER AGENDA PROM . - September 22, 1982 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Public HEARING ON "St. Andrews Presbyterian Church" Dear Council Members: Mrs. Palmer and I are again writing to you in our continued support of the proposed new construction of Church facilities as approved by the City Planning Commission. Wd would especially like to thank Councilpersons Evelyn Hart and Philip Mauer for their efforts to negotiate a solution between the Church and the Homeowners Association. As members of the Church, the community and the Homeowners Association we are concerned with such a completely negative attitude as expressed at the Homeowners Association meeting that • was held on September 7, 1982; the Public Relations attack on the "CHURCH" on Sunday September 19, 1982 by pamphlets and signs and the Association "Press Conference" that was held on September 20, 1982 . By their actions , one would think that this small group of perennial descentors are against "GOD" and the improvement of our community! It is our opinion that the RECORD of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church stands on its own merits. The "CHURCH" and its friends have been a continuing force for good in our community for over thirty years------The "CHURCH" will continue to be present and will continue doing MW good works long after we are gone . We know that the "Political Decision" , that is ,your responsibility to make , is a very difficult decision. In';the best interest of all the City of Newport Beach, we urge your approval of the Plans that are before you. Sincerely, Charles and Marie Palmer • CC: Daily Pilot The Register CITY COUNCIL September 16, 1982 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 4 have been expanded. A ta)ger percentage o4 .the membmhip i6 attending ehuteh .in three woAsh.ip 6ervice6 on Sunday. Pte6ent 6aciZit e,6 ate .inadequate and overeAowded. There i6. a mi6coneeption .that St. AndAew6 .i.6 a very weaethy church with mort o6 it6 pwLi6hionet6 coming 4rom Big Canyon and Lido Izte. ThE6 .ins 6impty not.6o. We remember the 6mate beg.inning6 o6 thi.6 congregation .in June o4 1948. Fox quite a time we met .in the tibAaAy o6 the high 6ehoot and a 4ine eoopexattve attitude hats been maintained with. the 6ehoo.e 6yztem, including arrangement's 4or•parh.i.ng, which 6houed continue. The St. AndAew6 membership ha6 a taAge percentage o6 member6 who have modest ineomea and who have given 6acri.4ieiatty to euppoht the building program. We 6ubmit that .it i6 un6aZt and uncaring to wa6te the Ae6owcce-6 o6 the ehutch on needle66 atchitecttuwX. xev.i.6.i;ons, 6tudie6, and unneees6ary buxeauc atie tequ.iAement6. 4. WHAT'S IN IT FOR'THE'NEIGHBORS? OuA neighbox6 wiZ.Z bene.6.it in many way6,' including church goers u6ing on-z i to pathing 6aci,Zities, which wiZZ greatly, atteviate 6tAeet pathi.ng in the a&ea. The new con.6tAuction witt eauze minimum disruption to the ti4e o4 the community because .it Witt be i6otated in one 6ee4-contained city block. The pxeaent .amaze 6anetuaty wilt be retained and wiZZ allow uiorship 6ervieea t6 continue with minimum disruption during conztruction. ' The new mazter. plan hats been ptepared by one o4 the moat capab.Ze atchitectufLat 6irm6 in the countAy, Edward WaAe A66oeiate6. Every e54oxt ha6 been made to provide a plan which will be ke6ponsive to: A. The program needs o4 the church congregation, in term6 o4 wor6hip, Cht.istian education, 4eUowship, and admini6tration; B. The 6uggestion6 o6 the Ptanning Commission a6 expre66ed at the pubti.c hearing-6 which we attended; and C. The concerns o4 the neighbox6. The end xe6uZt should be a beauti6ue church development which wile be Aeeognized by the City and the neighbox6 a6 a distinct a66et REVISED AND UPDATED > HENRY K. SWENERTON C`1}}��UN � AGENDA 1106 W. OCEAN FRONT • NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92661 •• PHONE(714)673-8395 September 16, 1982 J e'' � It SEP 27 1982 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By the CITY COUNCIL 3300 west Newport Bouteva cCITY OF NEW IM. I AM I °° Newport Beach, Ca2i6ornia 92663 Subject: PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF ST. ANDREllS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH September 27, 1982, BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL HONORABLE MAYOR JACKIE HEATHER AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COUNCIL. Does any member ob the City Councie.wish to bace the eteetonate with a neeord o{ having voted to ebbectLvety cAippte the middton ob one ob the S most outstanding Pnesbytenian chdnches .in .the nation? The members ob St. Andnew6 have been much .in prayer as the time approaches bon the vote which wilt decide whether the church wit have adequate • baeiP.iti m to ewucy out .its v.Ptat work. Congregations ob aCC baithd .in this area have been contacted to en i6t the.uc prayers and support. A Resotution signed by tuetve ehdrehes and synagogues had been presented to the City Council. Oven many years since its bounding .in 1948, St. Andrews has baced a d ib'b.icu.2t uphitt dtnuggte to obtain pnopeAty and bac i, ties to accomodate ,its needs. We ace bam.i-&x with this history since we are eharten members ob St. Andrews and have owned property at the above address .in Newport since 1939. We ace not speaking .in any o64.ic%a2 capacity ban the ehuneh. However, we beCieve that we can be hetp6u.2 to the Codnci2 .in addresd.ing the .issues. 1. RECONCILING AND RESOLVING•DTFFI•CULTIES'WITH'THE'NEIGHBORS. Fottowing the pubtie hearing on August 9, 1982, ,in a spt kit ob goodwiet and with. a &inceAe deduce to obtain agreement, the ,tep)Lmentatives ob the church began meetings with Mayon Pro-tem Evetyn Hart and Couneitman Ph.it Mauer and the representatives ob the CZi.bb Haven Community Association. It is our understanding that the Ctibb Haven nepnesentative6 have temai.ned eomptete2y CITY COUNCIL September 16, 7982 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 2 adamant and intltactab& .in th.eiA poziti.on. They in6i,6t upon .the status quo. They beCieve that they have the 6uppott o6 M6. Haxt and thete6ote there .i.6 no .incentive to teach agreement. The church .i6 very dfstxessed .that M6. Hatt doe6 not appear to recognize that 6he .i6 teptesenting aft o6 the• ci izen6, .incZuding St. Andrews Chuteh, which i.6 within her constituency. We axe eextain that behind the high no.ize leveC there cute many neighbot6 .in the CRi6j Haven area who .6uppoht the position of the church and cute expte6zing .indignation over the Iota Py unxeasonable and uneooperati.ve attitude o4 the A66oeiation. One 6uch person, who i6 a xeeogni.zed thought leader, .is Harvey L. Cleman6 o6 725 St. Jame.6 Road (Telephone 646-8110). Mr. .C.2eman6 i6 the Lay Leader o4 Cht i6t Chuxeh By The Sea-Methodi6t. The Councit should teeognize .that .ijj the .impa66e continues -and the 6dtuati.on becOme6 even mate poZiti.cized and polaluzed, it IwiU be neeesbaxy ,Sot the • Council to bite the buUet and make a dec z ion in an atmosphere o6 extxeme tension and emotion. Ms. Hart could be .the key to a disjerent tesuit. She and Counc tman ,Phi2 Mauer ate 6utCy awaxe that the ehutch, at eonzidetable expen6e, .time, and e649 t ha6 revised .its axch.iteetuta2 plans to u4teet close to a 30% reduction -.in the mass o4 .the ptopo6ed new baiCding and a lowering o4 the steeple by some twenty $eet. Changes have been made .in the orientation o4 the sanetuaxy, and many special 6tudiu have been made to te6pond to the 6ugge6tion6 of the City and .the ne.ighbots. The ehuteh remains open to constructive propozaZs got improvement o6 the de6.ign. 2. WHAT'ABOUT"THE "HUGE'HIGH'RISE'CHURCH" "WHICH'WILL ALLEGEDLY OVERSHADOW•THE NEIGHBORHOOD? Cehtai.nQy -it's a "high tie" church. The .6anctuaty, by it6 very natwte, should have a soaAi.ng, .in6pitationat ehaAaeter. We have v.ib.ited and studied cchutehe6 and cathedtaZ6 att oven much oS the western world. I have served as Chaihman os the Buitd.ing Committee CITY COUNCIL September. 16, 1982 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 3 bon the La Canada/FEintkr dge PAesbyte&Lan Church where the highest point ob the sanctuary At&es to a height ob 125 beet. That ehweeh .is butet .in a rezidentiae Mock. It has been tta&Wonae bon eentuA,ies that churches and cathedAatz ate toeated in res.identiae areas. A church shoued .cook tike a house ob worship. FoAm shoutd 'bottow bunetion, There have been Aeekeess and ijftespons.ib.ee statements Aegatding .the size•and height ob the 6ttuctAe on Clay Street, It it owe undenstandi.ng that the ovvmU average wa t height is. 34 beet, with the h.tghest point being 46 beet. There .is an appropA,i.ate setback and there wiU be tandscap.ing to sobten the e46eet. The church deb.iwitety wi,ee not oveuhadow the community. With much ebboAt and zac&i 4 ice the church has acquuced an entue bZoek, which, although smatt, wiU avoid any ,ineua ions ,into, oA direet contiguous intetbaee with Ae6.identiae patcets, as in the past. The neighbors wile have the bubbeA ob a butt city sfiteet . s epaAa ti:ng them bAom the ehuAch, 3. " 'WHAT'ABOUT'THE'"CRYSTAL''CATHEDRAL" THAT'ST: ANDREWS WANTS 'TO 'BUILD? St. Andrews has no ptans boA a quantum .ineAea6e .in ,its membership. There aAe numerous PAesbyterian ehuAehes .in OAange County, .inceuding the .ceeentey bounded ehuAch .in IAvine. It .t6 tAue that St. Andrews is tecogn.ized as one ob the treading eongtegations .in its denomination and is setv�ng the community with a wide Aange ob programs which addre6z some ob the most seA,ious. pAobtem6 abb.Picting om society, The SenioA PastoA, DA. John Hubbman, JA., came to St, Andrews bAom the hi&to,uic and inituentiae Fi&6t PAe6byter.ian Church ob P.ittsbuAgh. He is Recognized as one ob the gAeat m.ini,6tens and 'eceQ.esdazticae teaders in this. countAy. Newport Beach needs this ,ehuAch, and Newport Beach needs John Hubbman and his excellent stabb. It .is ceeaA that we cannot attract and Retain such exee tent people without the toots and ptogAams and Mick and mottak which ate es4entiae to the success ob any .institution. Since John Hubbman came to the ehwceh bouA years ago, the ptogAam6 to seAve the broad community CITY COUNCIL September 16, 1982 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 5 6rom an aesthetic and 6unctLonat standpoint, rt ihoutd be a source o6 pAide and aati644ctton,' It 6houtd enhance the ktue o6 the property .in the aAea. The new church 4aci, tti ea 'w,6a eomptement and suppoxt the e56orrts q6 the 4chbot4• to strengthen .the vague systems o6 ouA- youth.. 5. " 'WHY'CAN'T"ST: "ANDREWS'h10VE'.SOMEWHERE ELSE"SUCH'AS'CASTAWAYS 'PROPERTY? The• Castaway,s properrty .is no tongeA a vLabte option 60A St; Andrews. SenioA Pastor..Iohn Hu66man, at the pubtie hearing on'Augu6t 9, exptained that the pose.ibitZty o6 uti tz.Lng the Castaways property had been exptored- thoroughty. The unimproved &eat estate ds, ban .too expensive at this time, and the Land has been withdAcwh by the Irvine Company, Veny subs.t4ntia.0 sums have been expended to prepare master ptans utiti.z.i.ng .the existing St. Andrew4 .Road property, As .the Councle is aware, the d.466.icutt probtems • associated with raia.ing -6unds and obtaining membership appro.vat had to be 6aced by the ehuAch-.in a period o6"extreme 'econom4e tuwrmait and recession. F.inatey, tet us remtnd the Couneie that St. Andrews has a tong tAadttion o6. aommun.ity teadenship. For exampte, Hoag Hosp.itat PAesbytenian was deveeoped and nurtuAed w.iih, teadeuhtp 6Aom St. Andrews, We arse grate6ut to each member o6 the Councie 6o1L .6envtng the community .in your vitae rote .in such dib6.icutt times. We pray that the Couneie wilt recognize that wondec6ut things are happening at St. Andrews and many tives arse being changed. We urge you to give the church a chance to continue .its normae and reazonabte growth in the zevrv.ic.e o6 ouA Lord. Yours Ae6peat6way, HKS/hsn j N��QpJh\�`� P W�, NN September 21, 1982 ��N2 Gti yor Heather and Members of the City Council: Cu N There seem to be a number of different assessments of the parking needs and availability relative to the proposed Saint Andrew's project. There should be no disagreement. . . the demands and proposed solutions can easily be reduced to relatively firm numbers which the Council can utilize in making it's decision. The proposed sanctuary is to seat '1200. 'While the Municipal Code is silent as to the required parking for a church, the requirement for theaters and places of public assembly is 1 on-site parking place for each 5 seats. Thus the proposed sanctuary, if considered a place. of public assembly would require 240 on-site spaces. As an alternative to the on-site requirement s developer may substitute a written off-site parking agreement with an adjacent property owner. This seems to be where most of the discussions end regarding parking. Actually this is only the beginning. t • Saint Andrew's own data indicate that they have a vehicle occupancy of not 5 persons per car but rather only 1.75 on the average. For 1200 seats, 686 cars. During the morning services there are also an average of 4 adult Church School classes of approximately 20 persons each. At 1.75 per car; 45 cars. No mention has been made of the support staff such as the assistant ministers , Church School teachers, large choir, director, organist, book store and office personnel, but these 100 people require at least 57 cars. The present sanctuary and chapel are to remainfat least in part. If these were to be used for overflow seating, these two buildings could generate the need for between 200 and 300 more parking spaces. In summary, Saint Andrew's own data show a need for 788 parking spaces, not including the "overflow" areas. Even if one uses the City's unrealistically high 5 persons per car, the need is for .276 on-site parking spaces. e• i The foregoing is not conjecture. It is not emotional anti-church. It IS fact. Saint Andrew's members travel to and from by automobile. . . .at the rate of 1.75 persons per car. The Council must uphold the laws of the City and as a minimum require 276 spaces on-site. The unwritten permistive use of the Harbor High lot could be used to help make up for the difference between 1.75 and 5, the . difference between 788cars and 276 cars. Since the lot can accommodate 265 cars , that still leaves nearly 250 cars on the adjacent residential streets. Should the Council decide to approve this project, the following conditions would have to be included if there is to be even minimum compliance with the City's regulations: 1. That a minimum of 276 on-site parking spaces be provided.' 2. That there be no occupancy permitted of the • present sanctuary and/or chapei concurrently with the new sanctuary. 3. That, in order to prevent parking overlap, there be a minimum of 1 hour between the and of one Sunday service and the beginning of the next. 4. That the Parcel Map required for the re-subdivision include the dedication of access rights along the entire Clay Street frontage. Very truly yours , G. P. Duni n, Jr. 336 snug Harbor Road Newport Beach, CA • . t 1 ' 0 . ! . Au. Swan 11hcOonald .�. ' !0 ?o aC Si. geoAge U T Nempont Beach, Ca. 92660 Sepieff6ea !9, /982 Newport Beach;Cita Council 3300 Newport Beach BG Naepont Beach, Ca. 92660 Oeaa &nbe44 o� sae Councl , I am a 2eaident o� New%onf Beach, and a membelle. o� Si. AnAw�4 %aeaby;6eUan Church. I am encly. ing fo,% your. ne9LV a Ne¢ #hat uru placed on my cane • wind.i-e. d Ai 4 monnincg. Apex necadinrg i t caae:id i y I am conAderbi you wL U come 1,o the flame conclusion I die' I can nod for Ae AA o� me unders#and dwi the pnoblen .i a. They /wive compared as #o various bui ldi qA in #owz foe wiat neadon #hey do not fate. Given pan� a#aii iiw Aat-tke-unfounded, and".o,i tua;iiond #bait have nod and pzobaUe wLU w;t occur. Si. Andnewrs ha4 given the homeowners many conceeaions, but Aey have og.eaed mine in netunn io my hiwatledge. I hope Ae Council uV U newgm3;e Ai4 obo#lzuction fn abet it i4 and 9=Li Si. 'Andnew�.o negueo# Sri build a bi yyea and bettea faci Li try wLA w Zch ;to 4eave th.e conminity. St.nceae,Ly i 11". Bruce lracgonal& u\ GROWI G GROWING; GROWING►� TO THE MEMBERS OF ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH: Your neighbors of Cliff Haven are in direct opposition to the current construction plans of St. Andrews. It is our feeling that most of the members of St. Andrews are not aware of the impact on our community that these plans will have. So we are taking this method to bring our case before each St. Andrews member. Please read on: DO YOU REALIZE that the plans call for a 6 story occupied tower 85 feet high? That is higher than the new 6 story building at 17th and Irvine. DO YOU REALIZE that the plans call for a wall, 27' from Clay Street, (.the back of the sanctuary) that is 46 feet high? That is just four feet less than the Balboa Bay Club! DO YOU REALIZE that the new development will bring about 850 to 900 cars per service to our area? • DO YOU REALIZE that the plans call for only 128 on-site parking spaces and do you know that St. Andrews is dependent upon the High School for 265 spaces. The short fall is obvious. DO YOU REALIZE that should St. Andrews lose the privilege of the High School Parking due to legal action or other pressures, that some of your members will have to park more than a half mile away, not to mention the total congestion of our area. DO YOU REALIZE that the people of Cliff Haven have been polled twice and each time have, by an outstanding majority, expressed overwhelming opposition to the St. Andrews plans. DO YOU REALIZE that the Cliff Haven Association is not against St. Andrews' develop- ment of their property, in fact we welcome it. We just don't want high rise in our residential area and we feel that St. Andrews should do all that is possible to provide their own on-site parking without an unsightly parking structure. DO YOU REALIZE that St. Andrews does not hold clear title to all the property they are trying to build on and they are ignoring the CC&R's that govern the property. DO YOU REALIZE that there is a way the Church can expand and still remain sensitive to the desires of the neighbors? We want your development to be compatible with our residential area. Your present plans certainly are not. We are told that the Presbyterian Church is a model of democracy and so we appeal to each of you -- don't do this to your neighbors! Let your Session know that this is not what you want to do to your Cliff Haven friends. CLIFF HAVEN ASSOCIATION w„r/l^'Vi/((/" �✓`�Kyn/ C V CnJ ' n W �,.G sCi111yy��.,,AGENDA s CITY OF j �NEWPORT BEACH, ;A:iF. 9 CITY RECEIVED ERK A>>���T� E -. Date — COP ' SENTTO: � c2u� ayor Imen q Cg�ncier aorn ❑ Attorney Q ❑ Bldg. Dir. p GenGsnSery Dir. aPB & RDir. ❑ Planning Dir. ❑ Police Chief • GLGGe �' ❑ P.W. Dir i ❑ Other ANTHONY G. 1i JOY D. SCIIUCK 333 Snug Harbor Rd. Newport Deach, Calif. 92663 4g� V� September 10, 1982 ph CWOF WEWPORT MEP -1 4 7g$2 t, C Mayor Jacqueline E. Heatherand ti \ RECEIVED LIB Newport Beach City Council CITY CLERK City Hall, 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members : This letter is to reaffirm our strenuous objections to the expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church on itsypresent site . It seems reasonable to assume that you have been adequately apprised of the deleterious effect the expansion would have on the surrounding residential community. The letters, petitions and speeches of the Cliff Haven Homeowners Association members have • presented substantial statistics as well as our feelings about the irrevocable blight such a dispro- portionate edifice and increased membership would inflict on the residents now and for many genera- tions to come. We have been aware of an emotional element in the justifying of the church' s desires by the citing of the religious benefits provided by the church programs. With all due respect, this is not, and should not be , the issue. The issue remains : too much edifice , too many memberp, too much traffic, too many cars, too much imposition on the residents because of too small a site. We respectfully appeal to our Newport Beach City Council to reject St. Andrews Church' s pending Date [ -�7-j17— expansion plans. COPIES SENTTO 0-Mayor since ely, ❑Councilmen Manager 0 Attorney A. G. S uck ❑ Bldg. Dir. D GenSery Dir. • �d-�f ��GGGc% n PB & R Dir. Joy D. Schucic (7 Planning Dir. O Police Chief ❑ P.W. Dir ❑ other 9` ��-A • 17 September 1982 S' CITY op 0 NEWPOPT BEACH . COOkI� A CA;iF. NO SEP 2 11982 8. c. RECEIVED j Cirr r,I The Newport Ensign 2721 E. Coast highway Corona del liar, CA 92625 Gentlemen: After reading: your article in the September 15, 1982 edition entitled "St. Andrew's Church Continued by Council" I felt the need to respond to the letter exerpt by Henry and Eloise Swenerton, Where is it engraved in granite Meat a church of worship looks like? Is a blockhouse used to congregate and worship the Lord any less a church than the Sistine Chapel? It seems that the people inside should have the "soaring and inspirational character" and not necessarily the building they are housed in. The problem with the church tower cannot be resolved by "a buffer of a full city street separating (the residents) from -the church." A full • city street does little to hide a misplaced 85' eyesore in a residential community. The congregation attending St. Andrew's Church should attempt to get closer to God in their hearts; and not by a tower. Meat difference does it make to the congregation what the design of the church is as long as it blends into the existing neighborhood and fulfills the space requirements of the church? Especially since the majority of the people see it for a few minutes before and after services, and then leave the area to go home. Consideration should be given ,to the contiguous residents and the visual incursion created by the interface of such a large structure with no . historical or community significance. Perhaps the Swenertons feel a need to view the tower from their oceanfront home. Very truly yours, 4 Monica ifazur 518 Signal Road Newport Beach i Enclosure • cc: Newport Beach City Council -Newport Beach Mayor St. Andrew's Church J WEDNESDAY, SEPTE 4BER 15, 19$2• • a. • yr„ T ,C .Y-�+-.+.�.•iw'rr^xy r.m, �,n�(1 %A'en71^'rT•��'e—ii�;S:'LrT1�:rttL'n."3! • G'w'Wad,•�`�•W�''-1.L'i-.�"AeF'++. bi.L+"/� - �l �n'""1 F'� is e« n• b Ia"��;yo-o t^+;qn�vy.�.`J. ".iS i.t+�r.;•. ^1�;l rxY zi 1..5"T Fibti.-T�:yl 4i•�p n:✓:u2,•s• .:3 VYA"vs9 `....x:it2>t �3qa� by Robert Frank Maurer said he would not com- When referring to the St. An- ment more specifically until an drew's Presbyterian Church ex- agreement has been made. pansion plan, it seems that tired "We have had elation and ' cliche about the wheels of pro- quite a bit of progress being gress churning slow is worth made towards an agreement on another listen. both sides," Maurer said. t Once again, the Newport Meanwhile, letters from the Beach City Council voted congregation and the communi- '. unanimously in favor of postpon- ty are still being writ to city T ing any decision on the con- hall. troversy until its Sept. 27 ses- G. C. Jack of Kings Place sion. wrote the following in a letter to j The plan, which would allow the council dated Sept. 1: the-church to erect an 85-foot "Since most of the controversy - tower containing some small seems to be over the height of rooms, has been the pinnacle of the main structure or tower, and t discontent for some St. Andrew's since the functions proposed for neighbors. the upper floors of that building But relations are slowly im- do not seem too crucial to the use of the new sanctuary, could proving, according to coun- cilman Phil Maurer, who mo- not those functions be ac- s t • tiored for the extension. Maurer commodated by f h esingl the is coordinator for a six-member height of some of die single andu committee of representatives two-story sections of the cons- a 'from the'council•, the church' • "OlexT, and the neighborhood, 'which And, in a letter of Aug. 31, .k has beer. working towards a church members Henry and compromise all can live with. Eloise Swenerton wrote:"Cer- s "I would much rather have tainly it's a 'high•rise' church. 9 received a month-long delay, The sanctuary, by it's very ' but I'm hoping that something nature, should have a soaring, will come from this," he said. inspirational character...A -i �,ad,._;,• ...,. .�.i•.•=•�^'-�""'•'•• `"" --church should look like a house-0 of worship, not a blockhouse... With much effort and sacrifice the church has aquired an en- f tire block, which, although - small, will avoid any incursions into, or direct contiguous inter- face with residential parcels,as; in the past. ' "The neighbors," they con- cluded, "will have the buffer of a full city street seeerating them. from the church.'.' . . Through the years, St. An• ; drew's has bought several homes on the north side of Clay Street, in anticipation of the expaiisioA., : Cliffhaven residents;h'owever,;. • have said the size of the tower not proper for a residential . t neighborhood and that addi. , tional cars drawn to the church ' would cause major traffic and " t parking problems. ,:;7: John Baylis 2215 windward Lane "RECENED AFTER AGENDA PRNMP% fl-- ti Newport Beach, CA 92660 C��1F• �. l0 SEp01982 September 9, 1982 RECEIVEa �� CIYV f�.ERN. ti Mayor Jackie Heather and Councilmembers Dear Mayor. and Councilmembers: Reference: 'St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church I first visited Newport Beach as a boy in 1936 . The thought that someday I would become a resident never crossed my mind then. As I remember, the water tasted terrible but the amuse- ment park was an attraction--to me at least. Now the amusement park is to be replaced by a large struc- ture--an attraction more in keeping with the 19801s. OK! • It is my earnest hope you will also approve the use permit for a new sanctuary for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. This will be a far more worthwhile attraction for Newport Beach. Sincerely, s ohn By-�]fis • ,RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRIKTEDrr::_ N:ty rypt6Cy • s vil(1F. ' 8 SfPIGQ 19, 2 CICFj�fD s September 91 1982 Bob Cooper T y 418 Signal Read ` C���K . Newport Beach,Calif.92663 0141642-6461 N 1 Dear City Council Member: Along with about ninety of my neighbors, I attended a meeting this week to discuss the proposed plans for St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. There seemed to be a consensus on several issues: 1. The church is doing a wonderful job, and has been a good neighbor. 2. The church needs to comply with city requirements for on—site' p;�rking---this means about 275 park— ing spaces exclusive of the high school lot. 3. In order to maintain the quality of life and the character of the neighborhood, the church needs to comply with the height limit stipula— tions of the Cliff Haven CC and Rs (two stories) since the church is in Cliff Haven. 4. In 1979 the chruch received approval from at • least 50% of the property owners in Cliff Haven to changd the use of the property on Clny Street from $$residential" to frchurch-related purposes". Although their petition referred to "church- related purposes"" what they talked about -ex- elusively and showedidrawings of was PARKING ONLY (not a huge structure) on ALL of the Clay Street property. If the church feels that they are unable to comply with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach .and the CC and Rs of Cliff Haven, they might need -to reevaluate their needs or consider acquiring a site which is large enough~to allow them to grow without being incompatible- with a residential area. Sincerely, 1 "RE£OM AFTER AGODA PRIRTED": 1 �-=--- 'Al, e SEP September 1 1982 P , 0 , Td C4 �K 4 The Honorable Jackie E. Heather s Mayor of Newport Beach and the ti Fellow Members of the City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 For more than three decades, Newport Beach and the surrounding communities have benefited from the leadership, the programs, and the ministry of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church of Newport Beach. The church has outgrown its present facilities and seeks to enlarge its physical plant to keep pace with the needs of this community. All of us, by our signatures below, urge you to support the building plans of St. Andrew's, and to con- firm the approval of these plans already voted by your Planning Commission. nea _tom - t ��eac �1' deax. fm.— c'� L-diylw,�C/ l I �9Ai.L S,t, rya+. l//cA � 5i,•�r�JTt D�viNG��,sca2lcCkH24N Above signatures are members of the Newport Mesa Irvine Interfaith Council. • &ECEt4ED AFTER AGENDA PROM19-` �NEW4CR5 4EP� '�� l SEP B CHRIST CHURCH BY THE SEA 1400 West Balboa Boulevard till CLOY' Robert B.Shepard, Jr., Pastor°` ...... Newport Beach,California 92661 0 (714)673-3805 September 9, 1982 Mayor Jackie Heather and the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Heather and Members of the City Council: As a resident of Newport Heights for the past nine years, and as a religious leader in our community, I am concerned about the feelings of ill will that exist in our community over the proposed plan by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church to improve its property. I have tried to become informed on the issues by talking with members of the city council, residents, and members and staff of the Church. The concerns about increased floor space and seating capacity, as well as parking, I believe are exaggerated out of proportion. The present facilities are already crowded, and increased space will simply allow those who are there to spread out more. The • concern about the height limitations I understand better, but careful thought leads me to support the position of the Church. For whom does the Church exist? For its members, of course, but also for the community! Historically the Church has founded and supported universities, hospitals, and other charitable institutions throughout our country. Hoag Memorial .Presbyterian Hospital is a case in point. *The very presence of a church or temple in the community, including its physical visibility, re— minds us of the spiritual values, religious principles, and moral worth, which the Church inculcates in the community by its very presence. What better and larger symbol should occupy a place in our community? I urge S*ou, the members of our city council, to give St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church a favorable vote. Respectfully yours, Robert B. Shepard, Jr. • "RECEW ARM A6g9DA PRtNiM19: '- CITY OF EWKq1 BEACH, 418 Snug Harbor 9 SEP9 1982� t Newport Beach, CA. ✓Y y9�s �z RECEIVED CITY CLERK September 8,1982 W - Dear Mayor Heather, and Members of the City Council: I am writing this letter to express my absolute opposition to the proposed expansion of St. Andrews Church. I oppose this project objectively from the standpoint that they are currently not in compliance with our CCR codes in both height rest- rictions and provision of adequate on site parking, These codes were ,designed to protect our community from overbuilding and Wete not meant to be set aside for the benefit of ANY special interest group or project. I depend on you the Council to realize the reasoning and laws behind these codes -- 't'hd •Coundil should support us by asking St, Andrews to follow these guidelines without having to procure the services of an. . attorney to ensure compliance. I also strongly object to Mayor Heather's decision to vote regarding this matter because of her close, long standing relationship with this Church, In review of the City Council minutes taken 1/3/74, page 22 regarding St. Andrews USE PERMIT 8221 . "Commissioner Heather stepped down from the dias and abstained from deliberation in connection with Item B-8 as she is an active member of St. Andrews Chu4ch, serves on the Board of Deacons and is philosophically close to the application". I propose to make this City Council decision a fair one. Mayor Heather should again abstain from voting based on her continued close philosophical association with St. Andrews which will eliminate any further question of a bias vote. Sincerely,, • Thomas E. Cullis R.P.T. cc: Council Members cgi oe�cti, 3 "RECEND AFTER ADERDA PUB": iiO oy - -��� e f war=- pie- ��f=��-t-��u���-• .����` �r - - -44 - ,:r;� n- Sri b —, - _ — - - - - - — - tke - -- - -r� -� --•�c s�s- - , _�-�-- - - sue)-r,�,1T, "^tGEi7cD h-7EA A4Ei��?A . f 63 ;y ��1�4 �•.�I� /IYx.Q.2 /W/7LG��Ilt�f[y®,,•4���,i;_aI�r/� �(1 �M/J yy�/f i�`_ �2rLOTiKy ��"-`.' .Ci2C��- �ir�G� •�'`"_'K �' �/ ��ir; �p• lam- °� tic2 -��— O.r.�-,e. �� jo 1'11&f �� /Gt6U�c%-mac ,G�2%�2e1�� .�?�'.i cL'l.L �2G/leG�`' •�`'`Z, f,�u�ri ..fn� -�LrT�i , . ����� �� rG�G� �2�2e�Bu. �CvL<�G.z� /kvt�/L • i� • September 10, 1982 Mayor Jackie Heather and Members of the Newport $� 1992 3 Beach City Council t 6;> C?TV fI.RK 4 Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Z a Newport Beach, Calif 92663 We hope you will approve the building plans of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church.. The two-story apartment building directly across St. Andrews Road from the church is ours, and we approve the church's plans to enlarge their facility providing there is • sufficient off street parking. Our property is TR 1718 Lot 6 and is probably more directly effected by the church's activities than any other property, and we feel comfortable that the church will continue to do what is right for this area. J HAROLD F. MUIVANEY �/ : a . ti LILLIAN A. MULVANEY Harold and Lillian Mulvaney 1400 Haven Place • Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 "AECEAIED AFTER AGENDA PAINTED": . N`-0 s HEVt��•qryOF . EACH �9 • _ SEP 9 1982 s t0 �- C/TyCElVED C1cRK �l ti 664, - � ,��- • s� cl bNal, t,e�G'H �c llv �— � SEP 131982 a RECEIVE • v. CiTY 0 S NEWPORT BE 14, z5'ZL, Cam`" a SEP 3 1982 :.�'ue rf ..+i«. ..,.-txN 1I••6sP"L..SyI �2.� '� / f�O Z RECEIVED ::':. .':.': - : •:x:,;.r ' CITY CLERK �:r�` " �! £ zs► ti l A�:v.: , ;,:;.^:'(:^:Gfi:u,:i¢>'k:y,�5t?'�:t»�%�'j.:;;•;r:'.�?;1z7:v:ar =` 'f/'� Jc�/Y1'L//Yj� ��'�`/�`��.�,� �dGrioell . t✓GdL2"fi �/h'� d-lGr've-cirxo�/.L.GV'/L�7/GL� " _ . . . ..,i_pr'..:":,;_'�•::.;• � w /fi6GfiL2C.ly,v 07i " /`�Y'G ,Gfr� ��'`?�iGL .OTti .-4�iL'i/ .�C�•G72vrrir...ryvc�� iv ?'-:.:�C�C=,n•+b`��C�1i�k'��vT.•��e�YuSa�".��'�`�'+;�1�? "�.:5; F�`/}/sC, �'2LL[d/�� ,6�/Y�nJc!/l/� //�'�' �/�/�'vlJ✓salILG2J ' . � - . "•.. ✓iG'/t/'�✓.tPi./ . �il-�- /' •C�i/ �.OZfiL � /�47n/1-iuso2c� •• , ' -:'.. .. /.2'1�'�,2 2 ti.62s.CF�• '�u ' �-mil .�2c/7£C�?' ✓� • . •• LJw ���G� � �LL� ��j�tCGItG •�y/��GC4G !�- 2,/1l�ZCnGL' 2�{,� �f�!-c.GcG• 2 w ,!h2t✓�yl �LG'�L't�!'. .,c iG�EGI/L, O / z Y• °7aa'f �+, �r2s 1fhi:.:' ^t'�h'i4. ,/�/yV'�jfQG`C+ /�Y!/fL�7!/, �-iI �i61 /ll�G• :�� �rv ,6rv�,•d�,,{�,.�"'i�'�'�i'"y� .xz.' i2�„ry',�i /�y)J//J�, � / /f��� f�////J'�./ /f/�///J� ��/J.��I{`t(ft �/ '11� ��Y i'•'Sm�. .^l._ `���4:1(YF j�...'Y: /isv'i✓✓ � � �i`.✓i-✓G �""✓% /.i-✓— ��V.�IWi(/li��r ri',, r ' ' ,•r t'`.•. .. ...a. t^M1, v •'In-':: , ,,.. .+. .1. ... r, . . . r 1 rv. h Syd..;x;:- M... -:4,..i..:; L iG�LfGW ..fir '/ • -e%'' �id' .f/72v.,!L.f/7JZtCLL yy .^w%�%3�.�'k^'�r�.•,se��r•''.+�a �;k�4�b`','`�T'�'.2�sF<RY"wra;�a4�.'9f'� ' . � ` .;>,xn �•. � • ' ' - -'•. \.`.•:-. ,:-.-•�.:.', /__i'"`�^/(/ %T�C� /-dn' o4ahcG /�r.6fi .!!/t- aaCl�i -"t% 1:1i%'^�;,- ;.E=�:M?n';�•l'%+?'V?_:�sR;tiu�rF'�?�?�,:tT��•£: T / ••• _ _ ' • :•';,-�;,.�; tLi cL •Gil �/ -LGGav .z'" /Jzp�C �ivLt/ ,ih2Qa�vCGL�- �� �� ..�:. •. � -�" �� • .. •4'-:, •�i7.lN�W�.t�n i4e�!yvit-��t ��� /�/jam/ �1G�< -.�'��i .�/.�.�. ,.�/ ,G+"� c, qn, .Zoo,, rra2ri! - - . �,.et� /l/v/C/LCIl.:1G�I ,o�c� /1/.cif: 9G:b:•d �•�•_�'s:iir,�,•.i�,�:?.t��nzei�;'.�;�sS��i��.?�_'Jy.'?.,,;,�''�;`;�?Sii???��.i`�;,:F r Y2�/ /(/ify h�(.e�' �•'JdA��l t /LGLCLI/�GL!-`t� �!f�i L.'7'� • .6'1� LddGi'IU .GOZc.l Otto � " t—x� . �'`i IrL�lL /J2�-L'%�`0'L1LdTi✓'L', iGY �v£�RGLi�(/! (/�-�rn�'mG�'i� r / c /I ' - .. =O/�•�G /�42���i i(iydZllL/.�G»t.�� AND .�QCLlCGrc . ' . - �/Lt2' /l�m.G� ��.% i//dLr,. �. !c�Iir•(� .�d71�C�1!' Gera' 4 F n� ., Vim, :J�+r,.,:,�ria4Kr .is��"-.,rr4c'�''�-Y+`•`-^3rC*-".r r$__3 OUNCIL AGE,? Date COP] SENTTO: ayor NfN�p��Op ❑ Coan �aCl (1R5• n orn6�, "„sY- 4198 � Fb ( h ❑ PB & R flir. ❑ Planning Dir. ❑,P.,lice Chief �-� °121ata3 [a.H.if Dir U'pt�,�r `r7sl Z� 352 `V10EOzta, og E. 14 p� �A doiEa cMsaa, ealtf oz is 92L#P* The City Council September 11 1982 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Dear members of the City Council: 2 most sincerely hope that at the next meeting of the council, you will approve the plans of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church to build a new sanctuary. We are Pisd.Y much in need of a larger building and more parking facilities, so your approval of the plans•will be appreciated by thousands of members and visitors. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Date COPIES SENTTO: XCan cilmen r" �. ger p Attorney 9 n� rrnn � 'A ❑ Bldg. Dir. m -o ❑ GenSery Dir. �• -ec-, ❑ PB & R Dir. - C".) ❑ Planning Dir. M in m ty;,• ❑ Police Chief N �� ❑ P.W. Dir q �� ❑ Other \, • 43,/98� N ArTer Frvc DAYS P.srunN TO CITY OF 19 a 12 U "EVtPORT BEACH, C7-� CALIF. AUG2419820' S ry p RECEIVED y r , - Date Cp SENTTO: mayor. C cilmen anager - ❑Attorney O Bldg. Dir. ❑GenSery Dir. ❑ PB & A Dir. ❑ Planning Ctk. ❑ Police Met p P.W. Dir ❑ Other j• .A I^ ,�, ,• � J/ ICJ � W T CIF <g NEWP!AORLIF EACH, 9 • [ � Cc C%�. I AUG 2619$2"b nRtCEfVED 10 CLERK, w C'4TUCIL AGENDA NO � Dats - arc @pies SENT TO: "a�aY [p C �nciinen ana9er �� ! ❑ Attorney ❑ Dldg. Mr. titi Ci�Ci ��ic ❑Gen r. p &PB R Di�ir. o Plan ❑ Police Ghiet CI P.W. Dir • -� � � ❑ Other • c ti3U�dCg� ACE�IDA AL - • �2u �3, i98� rpRyOFAt If33 00 g s ilk o9ZaJt� /.YLc�rrt-�•u�oi �. f� .�.Qv /� y�}''- "mil`! w z Date • •�J c� C 0,RES SENT70: t � or ❑ oancilmen manager �(J.L . = ❑ Attorney �> v ❑ Bldg. Dir. ❑GenSery Dir. ❑ pB & RDir. ❑ planning Dir. ❑ police chief ❑ P.W. Dir 0 other • COUNCIL AGU4 HENRY K. SWENERTON e7� 1106 W. OCEAN FRONT �w NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92661 o; PHONE 17141673-8396 9 u '��1'r �2 . t CITY COUNCIL �c 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 W. Newport Blvd. , N Newport Beach, Ca. , 92663 Subjects PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH September 13, 1982 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL HONORABLE MAYOR JACKIE HEATHER AND LADIE^a AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COUNCIL, t Does any member of the City Council wish to face the electorate with a record of having voted to effectively cripple the mission of one of the most outstanding churches • in the nation? The members of St. Andrews have been much in prayer as the time approaches for the vital vote Which will decide whether the church will have adequate facilities -to carry out its vital work. Congregations of all faiths in this area have been contacted to enlist their prayers and support. Over many years since its founding in 1948 St. Andrews has faced a difficult uphill struggle to obtain property and brick and mortar to accomodate its needs. We are familar with this history since we are charter members of St. Andrews and have owned property at the above address in Newport since 1939. We are not speaking in any official capacity for the church. However, we believe that we can be helpful to the Council in addressing the issues. 1. Reconciling and resolving difficulties_with the neighbors. Following the public hearing on August 9 , 1982, in a spirit of goodwill, and ith a sincere desire to obtain agreement , O I �o d d c._ >QOL Cn ' � o Lm�c�•` o � -a, �v OJ � � 0�ayCi'maroo3t G.O cc LU❑ ❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑ ❑ c' „ 2 • 'the representatives of the church began meetings with Mayor Pro-- tem Evelyn Hart and Councilman Phil Mauer and the representatives of the Cliff Haven Community Association. It is our understand- ing that the Cliff Haven representatives have remained completely adamant and intractable in their position. They insist upon the status quo. They believe that they have the support of Ms. Hart and therefore there is no incentive to reach agreement. The church is very distressed that Ms. Hart does not appear to recog- nize that she is representing all of the citizens, including St. Andrews Church, which is within her constituency. We are certain that behind the high noise level there are many neighbors in the Cliff Haven area who support the position of the church and are expressing indignation over the totally unreasonable and uncooperative attitude of. the Association. One such person, who is a recognized thought leader, is Harvey L. Clemans of 725 St. James Road (telephone 64.6-8110) . Mr. Clemans is the Lay Leader of Christ Church By The Sea-Methodist. • The Council should recognize that if b1te impasse continues and the situation becomes even more politicized and polarized it will be necessary for the Council to bite the bullet and make a decision in an atmosphere of extreme tension and emotion. Ms. Hart could be the key to a different result. She and Councilman Phil Mauer are fully aware that the church, at considerable expense , time and effort has revised its architectural plans to reflect close to a 30/' reduction in the mass of the proposed new building and a lowering of the steeple by some twenty feet. Changes have been made in the orientation of the sanctuary and many special studies have been made to respond to the suggestions of the City and the neighbors. 2. What about the "huge high rise church" which will allegedly overshadow the neighborhood? Certainly it 's a "high rise" church. The sanctuary, by its very nature should have a soaring, inspirational character. We have C3 I • visited and studied churcPP and cathedrals all over the western. world. I have served as Chairman of the Building Committee for the La Canada/Flintridge Presbyterian Church where the highest point of the sanctuary rises to a height of 125 feet. That church is built in a residential block. It has been traditional for centuries that churches and cathedrals are located in residential areas . A church should look like a house of worship, not a blockhouse. There have been reckless and irresponsible statements regarding the height of the structure on Clay Street. It is our understanding that the overall average wall height is 34 feet, with the highest point being 46 feet. There is an appropriate setback and there will be landscaping to soften the effect. The church definitely will not overshadow the community. With much effort and sacrifice the church has acquired an entire block, which, although small , will avoid any incursions into, or direct contiguous interface with resi- dential parcels, as in the past. The neighbors will have the • buffer of a full city street separating them from the church. 3. What about the "crystal cathedral" that St. Andrews wants to build? St. Andrews has no plans fora quantum increase in its member- ship. There are numerous Presbyterian churches in Orange County, including the recently founded church in Irvine. It is true that St. Andrews is recognized as one of the leading congregations in its denomination and is serving the community with a wide range of programs which address some of the most serious problems afflicting our society. The Senior Pastor, Dr. John Huffman Jr. came to St. Andrews from the historic and influential First Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh. He is recognized as one of the great ministers and ecclesiastical leaders in this country. Newport Beach needs this church and Newport Beach needs John Huffman and his excellent staff. It is clear that we cannot attract and retain such excellent people without the tools and • jz C 4. • and programs and brick and mortar which are essential to the . success of any institution. Since John Huffman came to the church four years ago the programs to serve the broad community have been expanded. A larger percentage of the membership is attending church in three worship services on Sunday. There is a misconception that St. Andrews is a very wealthy church with lots of "clout" and with most of its parishioners coming from Big Canyon and Lido Isle. This is simply not so. We remember the small beginnings of this congregation in June of 1948. For quite a time we met in the library of the high school and a fine cooperative attitude has been maintained with the school system, including arrangements for parking, which should continue. The St. Andrews membership has a large percentage of members , who have modest incomes and who have given sacrificially to support the building program. We submit that it is unfair and uncaring to waste the resources of the church on needless • architectural revisions, studies and unnecessary bureaucratic requirements. 4. What 's in it for the neighbors? Our neighbors will benefit in many ways, including church goers using on4site parking facilities which will greatly alleviate street parking in the area. The new construction will cause minimum disruption to the life of the community because it will be isolated in one self-contained city block. The present small sanctuary will be retained and will allow worship services to continuit without change. The new master plan has been prepared by one of the most capable architectural firms in the country, Edward Ware Associates. Every effort has been made to provide a plan which will be responsive tos A. The program needs of the church congregation, in terms of worship, Christian education, fellowship and administrations C . C 5 • B. The suggestions of the Planning Commission as expressed at the public hearings which we attended; C. The concerns of the neighbors. The end result should be a beautiful church development which will be recognized by the City and -the neighbors as a distinct asset from an aesthetic and functional standpoint. It should be a source of pride and satisfaction. The new church facilities will complement and support the efforts of the schools to strengthen the value systems of our youth. 5. Why can 't St. Andrews move somewhere else like the Casta- ways property? The Castaways property is no longer a viable option for St. Andrews. Senior Pastor John Huffman, at the public hearing on August 9, explained that the possibility of utilizing the Castaways property had been explored thoroughly. The unimproved • real estate is far too expensive at this time and the land has been withdrawn by the Irvine Company. Very substantial sums have been expended to prepare master plans utilizing the existing St. Andrews Road property. As the Council is aware, the difficult problems associated with raising funds and obtaining membership approval had to be faced by the church in a period of extreme economic turmoil and recession. Finally, let us remind the Council that St. Andrews has a long tradition of community leadership. For example , Hoag Hospital Presbyterian was developed and nutured with leadership from St. Andrews. We are grateful to each member of the Council for serving the community in your vital role in such difficult times. We pray that the Council will recognize that wonderful things are happening at St. Andrews and many lives are being changed. PP g g g We urge you to give the church a chance to continue its normal and reasonable growth in the service of our Lord. • Yours respectfu ly, � "1dc��IC � `� CITY 0 • SEW, BEACH SEP 9 �AL!f. S CITyCCEL/vre 47 ram: ,� � - ✓n�4 llz. ��w—�.f a��.e-- �a-�:�. - � AL at • C� c ..d, C2 !:^itLdeS;,x;:,N(✓',7+' ,�(h1/iuil?a�Gx t�!^:,�,!-'�a �(2G' • NEW 0'RT or Sep-LV 7 g82a h�i v i scs - - HGrL( k WC II' ado _ 0 o - - Ob c,P x -n -- - C-\ ' Vic= (,-JU. r6 +v Tali c-0 O u n— - - fie. ulnz _ ... t MalissaMitchell f� --- ---- ---- -------- _ - 1308Mariners Dr. . . Newport Beach, CA 92660 A U DR E Y Z O O K I NTERIOR DESIGN A°, DA September 4 , 1982 Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Council Members : Since writing to you on July 29th, the St. Andrew's matter has not been resolved. As a long time resi- dent, registered voter and member of St. Andrew' s Presbyterian Church, I am very interested in your decisions and our future. It seems to me that St. Andrew's Church, Newport Harbor High School and the Masonic Temple are long established in the neighborhood and their presence does not suggest a surrounding R-1 residential area. Since there are apartments and condominiums nearby, • perhaps the balance of the adjacent area should be rezoned to R-2 and R-3 making these properties more valuable and the occupants more agreeable to the needs of the established, public institutions . I also believe that we are all interested in cur- tailing crime and violence .and promoting good moral conduct. A growing church in the immediate vicin- ity of the high school can be a very positive in- fluence. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Very�t'ruully'�y-`ouur Audrey Zook �/ ' (Mrs . Hard B. ook) /az • HAROLD B. ZOOK ARCHITECT, A. I. A. 2515 E. COAST HIGHWAY • CORONA DEL MAR, CALIF. 92625 • (714) 675.0710 (714) 673.7099 • "7TEWED AFTER AGENDA PR4D TED'" ���-�� August 18, 1982 ti CITY Oc City Of Newport Beach S NEwpORTBEACN, 9 City Council C,Au". - 3300 Newport Blvd. t, AUG k 31982' i0 Newport Beach 92663 � Dear Council members , CITY Cuta 7� ti is \ This letter is to express our strong sup the Saint Andrews church proposed building plans. As Newport Heights residents and long time Newport Beach citizens we feel that the plan is compatible with the surrounding area, and will lessen , not contribute , to traffic and parking problems. Certainly nothing could contribute more to our community than an active, growing church. St. Andrews has long provided important spiritual support and concrete helpline programs for many members of the total community. • Since the withdrawal of the Castaways site by the Irvine Company the congregation has had no other choice than to build on the existing property. It is sad to see a congregation turned away from worship because there isn't enough room in the sanctury despite three services. We hope you will give the project your support at the next hearing. Sincerely, Mr. and rs. Andrew Kalanz 445 San Bernardino Avenue Newport Beach, Ca 92663 631-0443 IIII • August 18, 1982 "RECENED ffTR ADEMDA PRt O": kewport Beach City Council 300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Councilpersons: As a resident of Newport Beach and a member of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, I am vitally concerned with the proposed NO building program currently before you for your decision. My fiancee and I attended the August 9 City Council meeting, an b 'Attfu 9 we both had the following comments on the issue of parking, - G 319 a which those opposing the plans seem to bring up ad nauseam: Z 1 ) There is no evidence that St. Andrew's will ever be denied t ^ use of the Harbor High parking lot on Sunday mornings, ` >> regardless of whether a formal agreement is signed or not. I have been a member of St. Andrew's for almost 12 years, and a resident of the community for an additional 15, and I do not recall any time when the Harbor High parking lot was not available. I maintain that there is no historical Youndation for their argument. 2) If, hypothetically, the use of the Harbor High parking lot were denied, it seems that the residents opposed to the . expansion would be cutting their own throats by not welcoming St. Andrew's to move ahead with the program, which includes 200+ spaces of on—site parking. Is it better to have virtually no on—site parking (present condition) , or 200+ spaces of on—site parking (proposed future condition)? I£ anything, the impact on the neighborhood will be a decrease in on—street parking, at least for.the foreseeable future. 3) Hasn't an acceptable traffic study already been done? The opposition always seems to be more vocal in any endeavor which involves change, particularly to the area in which people live. This member of the usually silent majority would like to register with you his approval of St. Andrew's plans. I urge your support. Thank you. Respectfully yours, William R. Franklin 6 Dover Drive ewport Beach, California 92660 P.S. As an aside, who was it that said you can't please all the people all the time (especially when you're in politics)? , � m g , CITY Of , CENED t �� PMINTELDtt. NE'Nrn�T BEACH, "9 t AUG 191982� p RECEIVED . j� Mrs.Ruth Silvey - 275 E. 18th Street,#42 Costa Mesa,CA 9262P.: /61 j���'��-c�,�G=lam 1,".�i "^ '�•"p��!'(� � � August 16 1982 r,- e 6, z�nsaCH' ' MEND • a��;..� 1z. � �Z 19 City Council Ay" ' Newport Beach, CA G`�� • RE: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Dear Members: My husband and I moved from Newport Beach to San Clemente in 1980, at which time, we were newly married, in our middle years. I had been a member of St. Andrews Church since 1971, but wished to continue my membership there. It is a long drive, but to us, well worth it. The only thing is, if we are running a bit late, or even arrive at the time the service is about to start, we have trouble finding a seat, if at all. We have a tremendous membership, and, of course, everyone wants a seat. And, little wonder, as it is the most inspiring, beautiful service I have ever been fortunate enough to attend. I have attended many church servi- r • ces across the country. Our Ministers are the finest and the most dedi- cated psople we could find. It is truly beyond my comprehension why anyone would oppose the building program of this wonderful institution! St Andrews needs more space to accom modate the ever growing attendance, and needed parking spaces. If the opponents of this expansion program would only attend one of the three services (2 in summer), they would quickly comprehend the need for the expansion, and also, may even be inspired to attend our church weeklp; If they would stop to consider where our country would be without such a place of instruction and inspiration for our young people, much less, the more mature, there would be no question as to whether or not any re- quest would be granted. Newport Beach is indeed fortunate to have such a church as St. Andrews and other4places of worship. It speaks well for • the city. After all, this is the United States of America, not a country like Russia, which fears allowing such places of worship. Thank God for our faith, and the faith of our fathers. City Council August 16, 1982 Page 2 I do not wish to be emotional, but as factual as I can be to satisfy our reasons for expansion, but I would like to emphasise that there is nothing in this world more rejuvenating and refreshing as a visit to St. Andrews on Sunday morning. Isn1t this what we need for the health and well-being of our people? Even those who disagree with our doctrine, must agree that the church is trying to deal with grave and numerous problems, and is doing a wonderful job of it. Its influence is only for good of all. May God guide your conscience in your decisions regarding our church. Thank you sincerely for reading my letter. Mrs. Charles D, Thompson Mr. Charles D. Thompaon 156 Mira Velero San Clemente, CA 92672 10Ciry OF aSa •. s � LAIRS. CHARLBS WICKEW N WP'n?r L AT g 309 EAST BAY FRONT,BALBOA ISLAND,CALIFORNIA 92662 AI i "IF. �Cy1 9 �t /4, 1982 8 1 d 19 9 82 w "'ayo•z oachie /r'ea#hez anti Counca ';emiev�; `� CfT CEfyFO ��� z d�qK ""y hLv�6and ana ? a:te acEive merraien� v�: Sairz ;inc:ze<u d lne4/yen6an Chuach, rv� !Da 6oA aze oppozea 4v Ae o#-enain,; he ,)U ana p.(an of Ae nOu pzo fx»ect SC4QC zza Z y Touree If v h m and .i.4 a :etu ea ;12clzr tech arzd in oe "CIL-zi4.z<riznrr aLU nod pz6JLaa,LLy. .6peah a atlur.6 A&d - even ;Ow Ae ,� wo% ith hed w anv&e-,z A/z& l iecE who Ld a,(Ijo a meWbe2 o f owz c/zzuzch - .in aevelopi-ny a &fr.Ldy p. an -ALok act�p4;64 ana .do.(ve4 Aeae nany pao:�Aw4. The 3)aUVLa; CormnL;Uee hao teen pze-jervLa wi. A Aeae aJ-�e/ma#e 01124. OuA hean;64 ane heavy w.i to the corL6aove-4y ;had -in 3ein azimed, Theae ane nany. "tem/ev4 who wee-( as we ao - bui cL,(.( • hwd;7;�a ;to IlAae-u.pl' and auzde ,zeaL a'rLwrs e ;�o :the 4e ana 'de-vice o� ow, 6eau;6 ( C/uuzch. Owz hearz;64 and pzayez4 ane wiA you - v hope/U-UY cowpwru.4e ana -irL .60ne L;ay :60 /zea,( Sze ;6enz6.Ce wounoA Au-i ane ieirL� rrgae 6e, een t'ie Cn'wzcA and //orreownez4. In CiU i&Uan concerLa- t OW ULM i ?2 ? No m.Y tfac LGl. 9a6s `� �' I 77 61 �z� � t}c�7yjAle,- f' G7 ' �-�' , �� J�� {/ I�/Y✓vr r- r s �a ^MIS ED AFTER ARE10A PRIWiE6"; August 9. 1982 NF�yPORry9 Jacqueline E. Heather, Mayor and �� 4U� alf'e �ACy Members of the Newport Beach City Council V City Hall �oj�,�%�j, 1900,e6 ;4 Post Office Box 1768 e k , fp Newport Beach, California 92663 r . S Re: St, Andrews Presbyterian Church ti Proposed Expansion Dear Mayor and City Council Members : My family and I..are­ad mantly opposed to the- planned recon- struction of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. I have been a resident of Newport Beach nearly all of my life; therefore, I have seen the changes that have taken place to the City of Newport Beach. Despite the rapid growth that brought about the conjestion and -has erased the "small town" environment, I chose to • raise my children here because the city planners seemed to be in tune with the Newport of old (i.e. residential separate and apart from commercial ) . As a community church St. Andrews has fit into the neighbor- hood nicely. Two of my children have attended pre-school there and one was a member of a St. Andrews sponsored Boy Scout Troop. The proposed new church with its multi-story tower and enlarged grounds is totally non-residential, non- asthetic, commercial, a creator of traffic and conjection and simply out of place. We do not live in Garden Grove; we live in a residential neighborhood of Newport Beach. Sincerely �U GAY AND RANDALL MC ILWAIN Resident, Newport Heights Gay and Randall Mcllwain 518 Riverside Avenue Newport Beach, California 92663 • c.. ;'�ECflliEb TER AGENDA PAINTED": =°" COP I Cojg0. • �� � eaE1Q, ELAINE A. ENGLAND � �� Ug'hti Des i u�ok�ultatToan2 .. i Au ast '6, 1982 Dear;l•'r. , Councilmembers: , :j I 'am!lrritin;; 'to lyou re ardiri;; the Oxparision projected;at St. Andrew's Church. As Members of St. Andrews we are embarrassed at the heavy-handed.„riminer in which the ttbuildumg committee" perceives they are the "chosen" ones. We =ive� on thi borne_^ ,oi,Snw,1 arbor and Clay Streets. ; It O fendrl me to contemplate v Jnon-vieir out my front door and livin; room vi.nµclra. View lines On amchiteC aural rende:iings seem to =.11dicdte we loot{ Up Oi�].� •emd, if we loot: high enough' we wont t seel any'thiri offensive. Perha.,rs I aln remiss in not directing ' it MY sights to iihe,iheavens, but,it' does: seem perilous to never adjust Our eyes to u oluld level lest we stub our 'toe and stwab_.e. j n ' It see:cs an iiicrediules dispr�._ity to level the newest, stimcture, i)ierenl:i.eld lial, crhile retaimq t?ie building uz^l ortenly the Lost heavily teruii ce-infested. This i lo;;ic esca,leN •_ae: Is there a .concb-rted •ef.�ort 'to re:love from sht ald meaory 9.11 references ',to, Dr. Cha^les Dierenfiel•l, whose r:,inir+t-jrf did more for the � I ul')11:tll 'and Good will ,Of 'St. 'Andrews than anyoile�? u 2n order -to accor ddat-8 A:o"alotuaiy as grandiose as the I'm-,aitbee proposes.; it p would have been more ,expedient' spatially, econorsically and geographically to �I have,;bel'ected 'an;'open space with no immediate neighboia. :13.9 acres;, are simply not edegnate for, this ]rind of expansion. The Crystal,Cathedral had the fore- siuht -to' surroulid their .fioilicy with, immense parhin;, space.) The premise of 3 people, per car is invalid. A, personal tally 'rcrc our corner view ovor an ,e:r— tended period, reveals that one' car in ci�;_it c�^._ies -,lore than two people and, that forty percent of -the cars car:cT ''one person only. Let us r•ai_ntain our neighborhooG., please. Wo ?:.:e disinclined to laFalt destruction and construction vehicles clo„din„ our two lane streets for t11e I19CC't two yearn. This will be a .aomm--ental diz:mption of the very -reason we each cmieeto Cliff Haven-- Peace and (:uiet. Sincerely, 435 Snug Harbor Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 •Telephone: 714-646-2626 "#tCEIYED AFTER AGENDA PRMM? 4, 19O n s crrr, �s Civ COwrci C NEWPORT%E iCy Ci;ty Nau AUG6 3300 Neupaat Boa&vand _ RFCF 19$z Neupact Beach, C44. 92663 CITY P!% Dean Cowrc.t Mwheu: 9 an a n=beA o f St Andum Chuxch and a�tt 4oAV to zV krat 4u= tke baddul p han been Znbwduced to the Conpwp; mj 9 an veV wdwpN ataV wVA hundnvrla 4 at". • We Gibe ouic ChwuJz the ww Lt 44.. and connvt aee a .q.w&4gw touwA 85 Aeet .in the ain as a won44- du.Le cm&ibation to Newpact Beach. 9t .w agcunat the pning xeatiuctw" and ce&&udy uu.0 nat help the pwdurrg Aa=tim.. truck 44 �= mono ZTactwW 166W. u nkXee 1710 CF�ru[teatich bane Ne�epact Beach, Cae4. 9aZo C "WEPIED PRERAGENDA PRINTED'°:Z,Z2...w • 501 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 August 4, 1982 Hon.layor Heather and Members of the City Council— City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mayor heather and Members of the City Counckl: My son is a member of the Boy Choir at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church; my daughter has benefited from the classes in pre—adole— cent development; I have taught classes at the Vacation Bible School there. As a member of the Cliff Haven Homeowners Association, I have always found that the church and its members have been coopbrative and helpful neighbors. It is with these feelings that I find myself opposing the expansion plans proposed by my good neighbor, St. Andrews Church. I do not oppose the expansion; I understand their need for more space. I do oppose the specific plan they have chosen. It is architecturally inconsistent with the existing residential • ;neighborhood. It is too massive for. the size of the lot. Its plan for occupied space above the 35' height limitation is excessive; excessive by an additional 50' , which does not include the cross on top of that. I understand that churches are only required to obtain a use permit to excede the height limitation. This permit is not for an ordinary steeple, however. It is for office space. It is for an office building for the church. That fact must be separated from the fact that it is St. Andrews, the good neighbor and the church,that is making the request. Would any other builder be able to even make such- a request? St. Andrews is a community church in a residential neighborhood. There are many other such churches throughout Newport Beach. A possibility of establishing a precedent here should not be over— looked. The last issue is that of parking. The church is, including an informal and positive, cooperative agreement to use the Newport Harbor High School' s parking lot. I see no problem here, except that that parking must not used as the leverage to allow the church to achieve approval of a plan that is onposed by an overwhelming majority of the neighborhood. I hope that you will ask that the church go back to the drawing board, meet with its neighbors, and come up with a plan that is • within the limitations that apply to all. Sincer ly yours, Linda Scheck NEWFU,S BEACH 1 {10&0-VIER AGINA P ". 9 CA.+f. AUG9 198, 1z 5 > CITY�CLERK August 6, 1982 Jacqueline E. Heather, Mayor and Members of the Newport Beach City Council City Hall Post Office Box 1.768 Newport Beach, California 92663 Re : Proposed Expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Dear Mayor and City Council Members: I strongly oppose the high-rise aspect of the proposed expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church as it is totally inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood both in height and design. Furthermore, said . expansion would be an intrusion on the privacy of many residents immediately adjacent to the subject expansion; would increase traffic substantially, thus crowding residential surface streets and hindering local resident traffic flow; • would have an increased negative impact on the safety of pedestrians, particularly children; would increase both the problem of adequate, official off-street parking and already over-crowded on-street parking; and would blight the resi- dential area in question with an unsightly high-rise office building all to accommodate existing and future church members many of whom do not even live in the City of Newport Beach let alone the residential area in question. I am hopeful that the religious goals of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church will not be overshadowed by its business goals. Once again I am urging you to restrict the expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church to the existing height limita- tion and to any and all other city restrictions, limitations, codes, etc, which may apply to the expansion of churches or any other business. SiPLIE"A. y, HO DOUBLE Resident, Cliff Haven Hollie A. Double • 507 Kings Place Newport Beach, California 92663 „ a'JEp AFTER AGENDA FUTED Xcwport crest HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 201 Intrepid Street ��. Newport Beach,California 92663 1 NFya��l y pF 2 August 1982 0 �JU� nex `gCy ,9 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUCIL: N Consistent with the viewpoint we have communicated previously to you and the Planning Commission, we urge denial of the request by St. Andrew's Church to exceed the height limitation. Upholding the existing zoning regulations and following the city's General Plan seems essential to us to preserve the re- sidential character of our city. Only where it can be demonstrated there are sufficient reasons for granting exceptions should exceptions be approved. We believe no such necessity exists in this instance. • We support the Cliff Haven Community Association in the concerns they have regarding this project and request the neighborhood's zoning restrictions be upheld. Cordially, FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Burrill Catanach Managing Agent CC: Cliff Haven Community Assoc. ( mm„. "RECi�1�D AFT€R AMU PR August 7, 1982 of NEW ORT BEACN, '.11 9 AUG'09 1982'REC 12 Jacqueline E. Heather, iTY CLERK Mayor and Z Members of the Newport Beach City Council C1T'f City Ha11 Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Proposed Expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Dear Mayor and City Council Members : I, the undersigned resident of Cliff Haven, object to the high-rise expansion as proposed by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. I strongly oppose the high-rise aspect of this proposed expansion as it is totally inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood both in height and design. Further- more, said expansion would be an intrusion on the privacy of • many residents immediately adjacent to the subject expansion. Other serious concerns are: 1. Increased traffic. Traffic is already very heavy on sur- rounding sur ace streets and is a hindrance to local traffic as a result of church activities; 2. Safety of pedestrians, particularly children. Many children' s actiities are involuntarily eliminated as a result of church traffic, i.e. bicycle riding, skating, excursions to the high school, or excursions requiring travel through the neighborhood in which the church exists; 3. Lack of adequate, official off-street parking provided by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Currently the church is using and relying on the continued and exclusive use of the high school parking facilities without the benefit of any formal agreement allowing its use by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church; 4. Any biases of members of the Newport Beach City Council who may be associated with St Andrews Presbyterian Church. As there appeared to be biases on the Planning Commission when the vote was taken on the expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian 2 . Church, it would be more equitable if any members of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church who are currently members of the Newport Beach City Council would abstain from voting on the expansion issue. It appears that a great number of those people attending St. Andrews Presbyterian Church do not reside in the City of Newport Beach let alone the Cliff Haven/Newport Heights area. St. Andrews Presbyterian Church is proposing to increase neigh- borhood traffic, blight the residential area in question with an unsightly high-rise office building, and utilize parking facilities of Newport Harbor High School which the church does not have formal permission to use all to accommodate a growth concept which the church seems to be pursuing (bigness is best ) and to accommodate many non-taxpaying church members who do not even reside in the City of Newport Beach. I am hopeful that the religious goals of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church will not be overshadowed by its business goals. Once again I am urging you to restrict the expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church to the existing height limitation and to any and all other city restrictions, limitations, codes, etc. which may apply to the expansion of churches or any other business. DENNIS W. DOUBLE Cliff Haven Resident Dennis W. Double 507 Kings Place Newport Beach, California 92663 "RECOO AHER AGENDA �c U 2GG�LT/1' Lr t�c� FRANK CAUDELL Realtor Co«nsclor • � '7,,`c,• /.� �•y./(1��k!✓J,gZ.C� C MR. and Mrs. F. E. CAUDELL�TREET ll50-35 Whittier 92627 Costa Mesa, Ca• 92627 \ NF e>ryO 4 f WpAR BFACy 9 10 l/ o ��=' mod �������� � •��,2� D •v�`-e Tc/G�✓ v G = ps � c��-��� �' /���,�-n�'`��7��-e�� � ,fir-�Z' ��✓f�c���`�i �/, s August 3, 1982 'RZip 4011, s 18 City Council of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mayor Heather and Members of the Council, . My family has owned property in Newport Beach since 1947. I person- ally have been a property owner since 1952 and a permanent resident here since 1964. Therefore, my concerns are and have always been in the best interests of our community as a whole. As a member of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, I am in full support of their building plans which are to be presented to you at your meet- ing on Monday evening, August 9, 1982. Over the years, it has been my observation that a growing, vital church is indeed a valuable asset to its community at large. Since St. Andrew's definitely comes under this category, it is understandable that never and expanded facilities are badly needed. ' • I shall very much appreciate your giving your most understanding and thoughtful consideration to this matter. Very truly yours ice M. Pomeroy (Mrs. Leason F., Jr.) 405 Fernleaf Avenue Corona del Mar, California 92625 '•: .:;,;�•'.'.. za:a tli16i1 I:��UI� �,4tr 's• - -• JIM HUNTER •�;,• 1209 EAST BALBOA BOULEVARD BALBOA,CALIFORNIA 92661 .{rrNDA August 5, 1982 �� City Council Newport Beach, California Dear Council Members: I am a resident of Newport Beach and a member of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. _ I have carefully reviewed the plans for the new sanctuary and for the expanded service to the community which would result from that endeavor. It is my opinion that the changes con- templated both in their program and building facility will benefit the community far more than any negatives that might result from the construction. The architecture is outstanding and the church's present staff is doing a tremendous job in increasing their efforts in the area of single persons in Newport Beach. I , therefore, urge your approval of our building plans. 4E . y yours, ter vk, "^SPEWED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED": Edgar R. Barton 1156 North Rutland Road ti Newport Beach, California 92660 "OF August 5, 1982 NE' Mayor Pro-Tem Evelyn Hart , ti AU 10 and City Council Members, G 1982r► City of Newport Beach, Ca, R•CEfVE� r � � >> Dear i•iayor and Council Members: i cr CLERK f I am writing support 'pport of the at, p-ndrevr s Church plans approved by the City Planning Commission. Mile I have been a member of the church for only 13 years, I have been active in many of the chief Com- mittees, including the House & Grounds which has the jurisdiction over all the property, including the portion on Clay Street, Recently I was member of a special committee that studied the demographics of the entire church and the community which included all of Newport Beach, 'Ye know as fact that the net membership gain in the past 4 ,years is less than 400 total, which makes it obvious that the neighborhood is not about to be over- run with a huge influx of people at the church. The surve-V also showed that the average Sunday attendance, was less than 1400 total in the past 4 years, l'Jhereas vie have for ,years had to have 3 services per Sunday, the proposed new structure will mak_e. it possible to have only two, lessening the strain on the Staff, As to traffic and parking, the neighborhood has for well over 20 years tolerated street parking every Sunday, The proposed off street parking will relieve , that situatie considerably though the residents have not objected/qhe past parking situation. Knowing the true facts I heartily endorse the new plan and recommend your acceptance off it. Yo !{ very tru7 y e EdgR. Barton �_ C . "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRDITED . -�- • 2339 Arbutus Newport Beach, CA 92660 August 5 , 1982190� 11 Mayor Jackie Heather Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach n� 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 The Honorable Mayor and City Councilmen: This letter is written in support of the Newport Beach Planning Commission approval granting St. Andrews Presbyterian Church the opportunity to redevelop its site on 15th Street in accordance with the plans which have been submitted. As you know, Monday night , August 9, the City Council will be asked to affirm or deny the Planning Commissions decision. It is my opinion that the questions of zoning, height limit and parking were adequately discussed during the Planning Commission hearing and the rights of the Homeowners in the • neighborhood who seem to object with St. Andrew' s development were carefully protected and their objections heard. St. Andrew' s Building Committee has carefully and thoughtfully considered the homeowners suggestions and to the extent possible, incorporated the valid suggestions into the Church' s planning process. Newport Beach, of course, has many amenities, including its strong and active churches. Such a church belongs in a residential neighborhood environment. I am a member of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, but as a resident of Newport Beach I respectfully request your affirmative support of the Planning Commission' s decision. Yours very truly, jo��n W. Watts • C C � "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PROM": '2� rAUG Y Of IFEACH,1982�IVED rfTk• c �c �� Ae � f , Paul Ryckoff "RECSVEC.., fER AGENDA PRPRDif: \)--L- 1200 South Bay Front Balboa Island, California 92662 (714) 673-3111 • 9 CRY(OFF S N EW m'i 10 b� AUG 9 1982" RECEIVED, » r1N r AK August 9, 1982 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Newport Beach, California 92663 2 have been asked to state the intent of the council in setting the current height limit for churches. The intent of the council at that time was that any exclusion or variance to exceed the height limit was for steeples, and that construction otherwise should comply with the limit established to comply with neighborhood constraints. Sincerely, • A U D ,R E Y Z O O K • INTERIOR DESIGN S C ` y it d`W• +�jo - July 29 , 1982 Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 ' Dear Council Members : As a registered voter and. long time resident of this area, I would like to encourage each of you to approve the plans , as submitted, for the enlargement and improvement of St. Andrew' s • Presbyterian Church. I believe that the proposed improvements will enhance the surrounding area and be a benefit to Newport Beach in general. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Very truly yours , Audrey Zoos (Mrs. Harold B. ook) /az • I HAROLD B. ZOOK ARCHITECT, A. I. A. 2515 E. COAST HIGHWAY • CORONA DEL MAR, CALIF. 92625 • (714) 675-0710 (714) 673-7099 (714) 548-4326 ' 'c Telex: 67-8401 TAB IRIN •: __.; .;;:'_'_., JOHN L. THOUSAND n a^P19 �'p ANyp}�� ... 1600 LINCOLN LANEW>j��•♦yj,�:, i"LrnVE/ • - NEW70RT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660, U.S.A ���.�•_ A 2 L9 S, ftF; r Mrs. Loren W. Heather City Council AUg3 1 ' City of Newport Beach l4pi h3h8z 3300 Newport Boulevard N • �'F�', �, �� Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mrs. Heather: Reference is made to the application by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church for the construction of a new sanctuary. We have been residents of Newport Beach since 1958, and have always observed St. Andrews to have a very positive influence on the community as a whole. • . " It has been very evident that the proximity of the church to Newport Harbor High School , from which all four of our children graduated, had a strong positive effect upon the behavior of the students. Demographic studies have shown by and large that a ;,:_ ._: .n• " viable church increases the value and desirability of the "N neighborhood in which it is located. It is my observation that this has been very true in the case of St. Andrews. I urge your wholehearted support, and that of the entire Council of the City of Newport Beach, in the approval of the plan for upgrading and expansion. The need is there, and if not a viable church, what else? Possibly redevelopment into ' the much requested high density, low cost housing project, should St. Andrews be forced to move elsewhere. Resp ctfull hn L. Thousand S f/T'i '• ,. Y 621--- ---denrod Ave. , AU 611,10rona del Mar, CA 92625 t, AEA ]98z�, Jluly 31, 1982 • Newport Beach City Counci C0TYCtFI J 3300 W. Newport Blvd. , x Newport Beach, CA 92663 Vic' Subject: Proposed new Church y and Master Plan, St. Andrew' s Presbyterian Church Hon. Mayor and Council Members: By way of introduction, we are Dorothy and Ralph Hilmer, residents of Corona del Mar and members of St. Andrew' s Presbyterian for over 21 years. We urge the City, Council to acc2pj the recommendations of the City Planning Commis- sion which has considered and approved the proposals and plans as redrawn and submitted to the hearing held on Thursday, June 24, 1982. These 'revised plans reflect a compromise specifically to cooperate and appease the objections of a few local residents who criticised the height of the building, and the increased traffic/parking problem anticipated from the membership growth expected. These revised plans reflect a nearly 30% reduction in the mass of the building and a lowering of the height of the steeple by some 20 feet. This was accomplished by a massive effort on the part of the architects who did everything possible to satisfy •the criticism from persons present who live in the adjacent residences. St. Andrew's membership has grossly outgrown the present sanctuary and facility as witnessed by the need for three Sunday morning worship services, and duplicate Church School 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 mornings as well as space for growth. The offices and multitude of classrooms in the new building can accommodate the present needs as well as future growth activities. The church leadership has foreseen this problem of accommo- dating membership and traffic/parking growth so has bought all ten residences facing on Clay Street over the past ten years, and now owns the entire block. The alley can now be abandoned to permit optimum use of the land. The plans call for the multi-story Sanctuary building to be located close to the existing buildings with the balance of all the avail- able space to be saved for parking. The architects have been keenly aware of the fact that there are residences located directly across the street. They planned elaborate landscaping with these neighbors in mind. • C: -2- c The end result should enhance rather than detract from the neighborhood appearance and in the general upgrading of the • land value of the area. The appearance of trees and well- maintained shrubbery will be far better than the otherwise stark area of parking and blank concrete walls. We realize that the traffic/parking problem will peak on Sunday mornings but this will last only until noon. The balance of the week will probably be no worse than the normal' Newport Harbor High School traffic which the community has been experiencing for many years. St. Andrew' s membership has been a "good neighbor" of the community for over 25 years and aims to continue to be of service to the community as well as our own members. The architects have studied the needs of all our present acti- vities and have evolved plans that seem to "fit the• need" of our growth problems. We personally are most anxious to get the "plans" implemented and relieve our over-crowded condition as soon as possible. We urge the City Council to favorably consider these revised plans. We desperately need these new larger facilities and trust you will allow the "Sanctuary and Master Plan" to proceed. Respectfully submitted, J e SAL(� yy St. X,11& tb s re's yterian Church • 600 ST.ANDREWS RD. NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92663 • PHONE 631-2880 August 2, 1982 N c9 NE4y rfT!GF s' ?r.• b AUG 3. 198Z s, Mrs. Jackie Heather �,/TFC�IbFp. Newport Beach City Council 4, V CfE$({ 'x 3300 West Newport Boulevard wP c' Newport Beach California 92663 Newp , Dear Mrs. Heather: 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 council. 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 August 1 to express their support of the revised plans by signing the enclosed petition. Sincerely, Sid Lindmark President Illuminators SL:ff Enclosure OUR MINISTRY Dr.John A. Huffman,Jr. The Rev.William L. Flanagan Dr.John A.Huffman,Sr. • The Rev. Lydia M.Sarandan Dr.Charles B.Friesen The Rev.Stephen T.Murray Mrs.Evelyn M.Caudell Mrs.Carolyn W.Baylis �Q ST.( ..DREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH August 1, 1982 • i We, as participants of the Illuminators, desire to expre fi ourAY6pgor for the revised plans of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church before a NeOp, t Q4, Cit Council . 1� Printed Name 8 Signature Address 2y �-- 5 /7Lr ?/0/ a e.Z/- e -i 92 fnGo ao3� � na 2 S 9a LIP Czv^v� bkuf 3>�l 13�Y�b . 61�wPl3PwL cf SsGG� r/oa/2 Anne M"41/6 EI"dl II�� ek l ernraK a-&, //-s 2` 9 AW S7 evt>a "let' 5'11E227 6,,45S '! lw aoo , C� kW7 � O h'ar/an B `rorr�rl ES�V mil/ / VogN v Jv AaLd '6 3//92- C409A us 02. cSo, /�'Gu.vra-1 C/� -/,C 9-7 707 .L. 7A J. Vu 5 aaoi C14V St. • �� /V r��t L�c<�/ Cam, gz6c3 -e�a�dine L. Nac4 SZ/ Firl/a>�i� /t✓c. NBw�N�f 4neil, d. ri26G3 OA � 1 7 ST.0 •,DREW'S PRESBYTERIAN 'CHURCH August 1, 1982 • We, as participants of the Illuminators, desire to express our support for the revised plans of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church before the Newport Beach City Council . Printed Name & Signature Address - E . CfI2oL V� AjCa.4 v//dez ©) �Ph�EG Qu eJ Sa�a�wU C CM 762 2�G� C. go CJ � NEWe�r;, G`Ty GLERK^ ��� Gl�ei ayu�e i„ • Jn-G/r��-�=-�i.,... 1�- �c�h-[•c,ci:2_.�)'�Le.G1�.;/fie/-�`�= I y�., C/ri' I t ;, • Ili �,� 9 9G2 lg i2 tG��rtcv /y�`g2i �/f�.1., pcte�,��._ �C....��G-Z.�,¢�.,C-ELK-�te�%J •-C..,/ � C�i•cc�zc�J ��� � U-)jcL; .1 � c qq ¢¢yy�Pyy''• RIM y%fI(jj�Q j v�1Y l'1 P3 �4RI LY O4 tiEWP CAUf• L pUG 2 1982� t 0 C111 GL_N;t .mac I �1~ a e 4 cz, A ' -4t"a &I,— .Z�, /l,.ecw.q„�. , G�.e'�/'.Lta..,_„� h[+t.71cr,✓ Bi/i~,;...�,L. MRS MILDRED C NELSON 011 N BAY FRONT BALBOA ISLAND CA 02002 I c9 CITY OF at f t` AlGhNDA NEWPORT BEACH, �Z is — f CALIF. 12 AUG'On IS2 I July 30, 1982 RECEIVED CITY CLERX Members of the City Council ��• City of Newport Beach, California. Mrs . Ingles and myself would like to add our input to the discussion now underway relative to the building proposal of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, which we favor. As some of the members of the council may know, my wife and'I have long favored a go-slow program of city growth. We have felt that the measure of the area is best consituted in a pattern of growth consistent with qualities of residential life which is found here. This church has historically been supportive of the community. Its members have been actively involved in the affairs of government, education, commerce, social concern and the business of simply living in the Newport area. Furthermore, this Church and its congregation will continue to be supportive of their community regardless of your decision in this matter.. However, to deny this very active church the tools to continue to • do the job needed would be to emasculate those opportunities available for Christian service to this community. As Newport Beach moves into the period of time prior to the year 2, 000, it is vital that St Andrews Presbyterian Church be physically as well as spiritually prepared to meet some of the needs of this community. We are talking about counseling, support programs for all ages and more complete ministerial and lay programs that can only be met by an enlargement of the church plant. As we see indications of retrenchment of public programs, ' offered by government, we can anticipate the need for expansion of programs offered by institutions such as St. Andrews . We can hope that you will approve the proposal as submitted. very si ely, George In ,,7 Mary Ing es 125 E. Bay Front Balboa Island, Ca. , 92662 • Copy to : Mr. Philip Maurer 325 Diamond, Balboa Island 92662, Ca. • COUNCIL MEMIDA s CITY OF 6 NEWPORT f;EACN, C�V rti .. / £ JUL 271982 _9 RECEIVED Z CITY MRS.I ATKINSON , 2062 VISTA CANYON , NF.WPnRT.ARArN rA1. Date COPIES SENTTa Mayor n linen anager ❑Attorney ❑ Bldg. Dir. ❑ GenSery Dir. ❑ PB & RDir. • ❑ Planning Dir. ❑ Police Chief ❑ P.W. Dir ❑ Other -212-rIgah I� FRANK R. HERMAN, M.G. 910 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 duly 23 , 1982 §,\ -CITI, np NEW 44CH, y i# JUL 281982► 10 City Council HECEIVEU City Hall CITY CLEAT( >> 3300 Newport Blvd. P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach. Ca. 92663 Dear Council Members: raj*.'''?Srs_4"'•;'x,3'.'-,a�v+'.:7'�: • We have been members of St. Andrews Presb:yteiian Church since its early days. We and our children were fortunate to grow in such a Christian atmosphere. We would like others to be as fortunate. To do this the church must expand. As you knowp all alternatives even to relocating have been considered. The only feasible one is to enlarge at the present location. As members of St. Andrews and Cliff Haven Association we feel that in the long ran the best interest of the • community lies with a strong. growing Christian Church. Sincerelyp Date SENTTO: Cp cilmen q anager Cl Attorney ❑ Bldg. Dir. ❑ GenSery Dir. ❑ PB & RDir. ❑ Planning Dir. ❑ Police Chief ❑ P.W. Dir ---�� ❑ Other 6 F€sue 54i• y +.L Y tiSilri\:Y.1in �.-�N�{.�Of•aM::It:n%YG u��1 .n•r+..'pY:ti.�'f)�(?ys s�cnli.Y..{�.�; .:ih..{/p A :'yvr; �ZKnLnT a Yh: �Yf�. l{`f.Ii'E�'".fi�`9"•�'Yi' `��iw�il'i... ,•.� ....� _ .}.. _t. .. - if..r,af._ I;':;-•,... . ..1^�=a+'+'•.j'N) ,...:..'W,. •Futi•+<..�-_":•""•R}'..n'i?�+�'.: July 26, 1982 i The Newport City Council Newport Beach, Ca. 9260o Gentlemen: As a member of St. Ard rewts Presbyterian Church of Newport Beach, I respectfully request that you approve the plans to construct a new sanctuary. This will relieve the present parking problems, which are tragic every Sunday during the year with the exception of the summer months. Both the parking situation and the lack of space in our present sanctuary call for your kind consideration. Thank you. Sincerely, • bliss Pearl Oberlin 352 Victoria, Apt. 14 Costa hIesa, Ca. 92627 iy- ✓u Date ' COP SENTTO: "aff 0 Cmfncilmen anager ❑ Attorney ❑ Bldg. Dir. ❑GenSery Dir. 0pB & RDir. 13 Planning Dir. O Police Chief p p.W. Dir ❑ Other ROBERT L.CURTIS � 10 MONTANAS SUD • .. IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92715 s CITY OF HEfYpr.;f 3z.AC4f �iLiii July 22, 1982 JUL 227982 .1 ClTyca+�En To: Members of the City Council and t Honorable Mayor of Newport Beach It is indeed an honor to be serving as the Chairman of the Building Planning Committee of the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church of Newport Beach. From this vantage point, I strongly urge that you vote approval of the plans placed before the City of Newport Beach by St. Andrew' s. May I also urge you to accept the open invi- tation to individually visit St. Andrew' s at your convenience prior to the 'scheduled hearing on August 9, 1982. I feel that it could be helpful in your considerations to have viewed the floor plan drawings, artists renderings, and scale model of the proposed redevelopment. Knowledgeable members of the church • can be available to assist with any questions. St. Andrew' s continues to be a growing and a popular church. We have simply outgrown our exist- : ' , ing sanctuary, classrooms, meeting rooms, and office spaces. We need to enlarge our facilities if we are to serve the 'existing and future needs of persons in this area interested in sharing in the ministry and the work of St. Andrew's . We recognize that we are �.'.'• j faced with limited land area with which to work. We have retained the nationally recognized firm of archi- tects headed by C. Edward Ware to work with us, and we feel that they have developed a magnificent plan • adapted to the site, and mhich can yet serve the pro- gram needs of the church. We have tried to be sensitive and responsive to the concerns of our neighbors. We feel certain that the proposed plans, when completed, will see " St. Andrew' s still an acknowledged physical credit in the community. Your favorable vote will speed us in our preparation as we seek to continue serving this area in the future. Thank you! Sincerei yoursim 'Sh`0¢r'•� �h"r� C3 C:J U I G C]C7 L:. O.Lt,p 013 -::f.ii�`,jfL.it'F'wMf3t w�L•`:,W,`n4•SYi�C:J�°:a:`..•4"-' til'+SNi:G.y tr}'J.."R:Y.i�'f+''.y'',�'•N'�Y':!h".:1�'11a`'Yix ].7f'.'�"?5::;�Sy��:,.,.ii+,�:yt�4•(yM,r s�N a•s: ,.v '� V,•.,h' . 'l." .�. ... .{ 3. ,. ... , .. . - .- .r .]• ..-'i'N� j.. "� :)..'�14:'t.s:;?r-''S�+ '^:•'3,. rRi�q' d•::.".'aty i.r• `. NEws ' OUN(I AQWA f• 1982'� ,• PLO. �',I/AU G 2 1750 Whittier Ave. , Space 35 RECEIVED Costa Mesa, Ca. 92627 0 /, CITY CLER'W c' July 30, 1982 To: Members of th GC1`i�x' and the Honorable Mayor o ort Beach While not a resident now of Newport Beach, I wish to urge you to support on August 9, 1982, the plans of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church which include an application to amend the conditional use permit, and for re- subdivision, and for a traffic study and circulation plan. Our family home was in Cliff Haven from 1951 to 1967 and S have been a member and employed by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church for 30 years. In those 30 years I have seen the membership, the program and the physical plant grow. 10 years ago when we began a serious study to try and solve our need for more worship, program and parking space, we had a staff of 25. We now have a staff of 41. Our active, participating families have increased so that in order to continue our total program and properly house our staff, it is imperative that we increase the physical plant and parking area. Numerous plans have been considered and the present plan was presented and was approved by the City Planning Commission on June 24, 1982. i . Parking will be greatly facilitated with on-site parking for all the many affairs that are held during the week. Sunday parking has been heavy for the last 20 years and because of the drawing power of this church's ministry, it will continue to be heavy. Our proposed plans and revisions have been studied and changed over this last year and now present a solution that will enable us to continue the strong ministry of this church to"all ages in the Harbor Area. Cliff Haven and Newport Heights areas will be the recipients of the many areas of ministry offered by St. Andrew's in which many residents take an active part. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, �acua� Evelyn Meggy) Caudell cc Mayor and City Council, City of Newport Beach • 17 Dear City Council Members and Mayor, e I am a member of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church of Newport Beach . • (D so employed there three mornings a week as a pre-school s C(lq%'Pc I was married and baptized in St. Andrews and am an t , 9 ticipant in a covenant group meeting weekly . As dearly { _ my church, I am opposed to the present designs for re- JULd182 )j Jelin nd enlarging the church. ,JTYT� ome to all the planning commission hearings concerning the ,r 1�1; Me, lopment plans and listened intently to the information presented. The Cliff Haven residents have presented valid and substantial evidence showing the inadequate parking provisions provided in the new plan. This problem exists even now and is a nusiance to the surrounding community. They have been promised in years past by the church itself to eleviate this problem before undertaking further development. This provision by the church to the people of the neighborhood was presented by Mr. Courtney , at theslast planning commission meeting. He read reports from the 70s of this promise and yet still nothing has been done. The city council at that time recognized the growing problem and demanded a solution. •.The new, parking provisions are • far inadequate and continue to igno7e the problems of the nearby neighbors. I am also concerned,on a personal level , about the split level parking structure that the church says they will allow Harbor and other groups to use as needed. What about the young children of Cliff Haven and Newport Heights who could be fascinated by such a structure. . .how will they be keptout. This aspect of the desigh does not seem sar;e in a residential neighborhood. - I feel that the new revised plan is far too large in volume and design for a neighborhood church. St. Andrews was designed as a neighborhood church and reflected this in its design and more recent enlargements. I feel the new desigh reflects a regional church which is not appropriate in size or design for a residential neighborhood. The citizens of Cliff Haven and Newport Heights have overwhelmingly stated that this structure is too massive and we don ' t want it . I have to wonder if this were anything but a church , an office building, a condominium etc. would you allow it to so seriously exceed the parking and height specifications set by the city. These • laws were established to protect the residents of Newport Beach from the very thing the church is proposing. . . . . .overdevelopment of an area. Please understand that I am behind the growth of St. Andrews and in favor, if necessary , of a new building. But, as a resident of nearby • Newport Heights , I feel I must support my neighbors in Cliff Haven and say how very surprised I was when the Planning Commission voted in favor of this plan. I urge you to review the facts, the details of the olan, ( Not just its size and volume) and the figures Presented. Sincerely, Marcia L. Maze 427 Fullerton Ave. Newport Beach , Calif. , 92663 COMES SENTTQ VrM yor t 153 U01uncilmen • Manager ❑Attorney ❑ Bldg. Dir. o GenSery Dir. 0 PB ' Dir. anning Dir. ❑ Police Chief ❑ P.W. Dir ❑ Other • �= C• July 10, 194 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NEWPORT BEACH: No. Please consider the home owners of Cliff Haven and Newport Heigt hts who object to an 85 foot office building being proposed for our residential area. By Dr. Huffman's admission, only 19 persons will be working in that massive structure. Dr. Huffman stated he wanted to make xdtnia � a a "statement" in the community. Now really, does it take a structure 85 feet high to accomplish that? _:::?:,:•,::: baa rs I have been a member of St. Andrews for 14 years and a Presbyterian for 50 years. As a member, I strongly oppose the 85 foot height. If approved, we will have to live with that the rest of our lives and in no way does it conform with the area. Sadly, many of the members who oppose this project are leav- ing the church. What is happening is that new people are attend- ing who come from all surrounding areas outside of Newport Beach. Those areas all have Presbyterian churches. Isn't it reasonable that they support their community churches. Seriously think - is your obligation to people of Irvine, •' "''" " ` 't Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Laguna, or to the property owners of Cliff Haven and Newport Beach who will be so vitally affected? WE ARE PERMANENT - THEY ARE TRANSIENT. The picture could change if Dr. Huffman moves on, and we 1 would be faced with living with that massive structure for the f rest of our lives. The church has an adequate plan submitted by a local architect that conforms to the height limit and parking requirements. It is not imperative that the 85 foot tower be -built. Bear in mind - WE ARE NOT AGAINST THE CHURCH ENLARGING. We are against the tower that would be as high as the new office building on 17th and Irvine. It is also imperative that the church provide adequate parking on their property. I urge a "NO" vote on this request. . � � i9 1� Fie W. Eggstaff L/J NEWP ITY OF `�;Snug Harbor Road S : 7 RUACy Newport Beach, Ca. AUG 3 1982 au :'• RECEIVED �ITY,PJ 8t '.)mas R, Parker Z Arline J. Parker 636 St. James Rd, Newport Beach, Ca, • 92663 Jackie Heather, Mayor ya John Cox Coumnt Paul Hummela. Philip Maurer Ruthelyn Plummer Donald Strauss Dear Mayor Heather and Council Members, As follows our letter to Evelyn Hart mailed June 29, 1932. We are still very concerned about this project, Evelyn Hart, City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Evelyn Hart, As residentt of Cliff Haven for the last 20 years we are shocked by the Planning Commissions approval of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church project, It is our belief that this project is a gross over use of a small parcel of property. We feel this will cause tremendous impact on our residential area, The Planning Commission hearing packet contained a growth chart and we wonder why there seems to be such a difference in membership • and attendance, It seems that in 1976 there where 4030 members and in 1982 membership is 2690. The church was able to get along with the present facility in 1976, (Chart from hearing enclosed) We know how very busy you are but had to let you 'know how we felt about this project. Sincerely, Aa44611�-- Tom Parker Arline Parker RFCFIvEL S JUL 201992 go �t �p �'h'of e r w Qeach pert 12 w � N • July 180 1982 wo, JUG ors City To Mayer Jacqueline Heather and members of the City uncf�SR On Thursday June24th, I attended and participated in Commission meeting in Newport Beach where the proposed Saint Andrews Church expansion was on the agenda. I was absolutely stunned at the end of the evening when all three points : Use permit, Traffic Study and re-Subdivision were approved. The Cliff Haven Association presentation and appeal to block the expansion OR NEGOTIATE a compromise, fell on deaf ears. There was no apparent desire to satisfy any of the wishes of the over-whelming majority of homeowners who live in the area surrounding the church. After one St. Andrews advocate addressed our neighborhood (R-1) as an industrial area; after City Staff explained that a parking structure which would include - underground parking, "slightly" above grade level parking and an additional upper level ("in the future was necessary but would not be offensive; after the architect and the Minister explained that an 85' occupied structure was necessary only as a "statement"; after one church member told us to "put your money where your mouth is, and we°ve (the church) got millions"; and after their attorney told us that there might be some inconvenience due to traffic ingress and egress on Clay Street; the Planning Commission approved it all: Their vote seemed to have been pre-determined. There appeared to be a total disregard for the residents of Cliff Haven. This is where the impact is going to be felt. Our appeals were noteven acknowledged (with the exception of Debra Allen and Allen Beek). For the church to force an $.6sue that is dividing their congregation, and that is unifying our community against the proposed project, seers ill-advised, at best. Hopefully our setback is only temporary. Now :that this matter has reached the City Council for considerations, surely the LEGAL aspects of height limitations (excluding of course, exemptions for bell towers or crosses) and adequate on-site parking (excluding the use of the Hi h School parking facilities to Justify such an extreme expansion and the LOGICAL aspects of realizing that possibly the church expansion, as envisioned by the Building Committee acid the architects, has outgrown the neighborhood and should seek to put this proposed structure elsewhere - will give you enough cause to deny the requested Use permit. Thank you for taking the time to read this and thank you for your understanding that we do wish to continue being good neighbors. The problem is simple - the church is trying to put too large a facility on too small�� a el of land. The solution is simple also - DON'T, �,v' / Si cerely, g6V mil! Barbara Jean Whitford 406 Snug Harbor Rd. Z yv Newport Beach, CA 92663 To rn 3= �. N� t.9 8-9 �a.,�.�' -- '" c`�w ❑ ❑ c, �n pan COUNCIL,,AGE DA CITY CL€M ' -.�«,.:� -�--o—,-✓ .—�'�—tee. 4 Date cal 44& roc'9SENTM lmenw� yor, '�� % OyAhanager ❑Attorney ❑ Bldg. Dir. ❑GenSery Dir. _ / j- . c,L - 4% � U pP6 & RDif. >- Planning Dir. Police Chief- r z4e ec2 -71 kX--, /% S NEVIPO K Y OF /. i BEACH, 9 ✓c: JUL -�41r. r t 2819824b 10 R C EO Cl ry CLEAJ( I l �'Y/I /� LIi�:) p � �N/J✓1../�U��f j.%�ti%ILL 1 F`\j I , III-Mr. &Mrs.Francis W.Brown 2037 Vista CaJon Newport Beach,CA 02660 Date �l co syor- SENTTD: a ❑ Go Elmen ranauer ❑ Attorney C7 Bldg. Dir. CI GenSery Dir. OPB & RDir. ❑ Planning Dir. 13 Police Chief • O P.W. Dir ❑ Other ; HENRY K. SWENERTON 1 106 W. OCEAN FRONT. COMM ACLIADA NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92661 PHONE 17141673-8395 July 13, 19 '� ~ CITY COt1NCIL 9 ORj 6FA 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 W. Newport Blvd. , RECE1��� Newport Beach, Ca. , 92663 • ti Subjects Public Hearing In The Matter Of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Scheduled For ,lugust 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 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 Date which address some of the most serious problems afflicting COP ES SENTTO: Aayor our society. Newport Beach needs this church. ❑ Councilmen 2. The revised architectural plans which have been prepared p-ganager ❑ Attorney by C. Edward Ware Associates, one of the most able church ppi�g' D ' • architectural firms in the country,* ')rD1r. y, are responsive s ❑ p"-R Dir. 9-pianning Dir. ❑ police Chief o P.W. Dir D Other 7 J 11 )- 2 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% 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 non-profit hospitals and a school board, I • 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, • • CHARLES C. PALMER S 1701 KINGS ROAD CiiY OF NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 NEWPORi PHONE 646-6600 n 2cACH� � - August 3, 1982 £ AUG4 1982- RECEIVE9 t, 2 CI rY CLEOI( ,1 '. City Council City of Newport Beach 91 :aui.d��� 3300 West Newport Beach, CA 92663 No- 0-y Re: Public.. Hearing on "ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH" Dear Council Members: This letter is in support of the building project that is being proposed by St: Andrew's Presbyterian Church. We the undersigned have been members of this community for over thirty ,years. We have lived on Kings Road in the Cliff Haven Community for over twenty years. We are members of the Cliff Haven Home Owners Association and we are' members of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. The mission of any CHURCH is to serve GOD and the Community, both local and world wide . This service is through "PEOPLE" . The "PEOPLE" of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church have served • both the CHURCH and the COMMUNITY in ever so many ways----in CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP and in service to the COMMUNITY in just about any endeavor you could name---Spiritual , Educational, Medical , Legal, and Political to just name a few. As our City of Newport Beach has grown over the last thirty years , St. Andrew's Presbyterian- Church also has grown in size and stature. The membership of St. Andrew's is bringing to you revised plans for a building project that will take care of the needs of the CHURCH into the future. We are aware of the oppostion to the revised plans that are before you. A majority of the membership of St. Andrew's have voted both with their votIt and their pledges to proceed with the building program. As you deliberate on this question, please keep upper most in your minds just what St. Andrew' s Presbyterian Church and its-membershipihave..meant to the well being of our City. Please weigh carefully the motovation of the oppostion to this proposal. Yours truly, �44.4 Kl�" 4. Charles and Marie Palmer 33,0 ze • gg NoA6--w �� rosy ?Yleoct��CA� lCAZlN 3O�AGE DA l • sr ?� • 1 L D01 cRcvn.� A X �"p'� 3=9, 9a663 1S V August 2, 1982 tin,y S Jackie Heather, Mayor BUG City Council Members 3300 Newport Blvd. 2 elf �98ZQ 9 Newport Beach, Calif- Dear Jackie and Members of the City Council, l 1� we are in favor of the-building program at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and support the present architectural plans for the following reasons: St. Andrew's presently needs, and has needed for the past 15 years, a larger sanctuary, more classrooms and more office space. Ground space is limited and in order to accommodate all the above plus on sight parking and still have space for children to play and adults to- gather outside between services, it is necessary to build up. St. Andrew's bought the property for the existing church in 1948 and began • building by 1950. The high schoolwas the only other structure in the area, the housing development did not start until 1952. Since St. Andrew's was ere before the houses, it is certianly not a guest in the community, and i, has been and will continue to be an asset to the community. Any church that is committed to the teachings of Jesus Christ is an asset, and is also co=,mitted to growth. The in Cliff Haven and Newport Heights is unique, just as the .=posed new building at St. Andrew's is unique . The neighborhoods are a beautiful blend of several different designs, the homeowners have been allowed to be creative and original with their designs and so should St. Andrew's. The simple lines, the color, and the texture of the new building will blend well with the existing buildings and when the landscaping is completed S' . Andrew's will be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood, probably causing the property values to increase . • We respectfully request your support for the St. Andrew's building plans. Sincerely yours EDWARD F. ELLISON 1212 SANDCASTLE DRIV • CORONA DEL MAR,CALIFO CITY OF b NEWPORT BEACH, Aug. 1, 1982 CALIR Planning Commission AUG4 1982" City of Nei-Tort Beach RECEIVEp 3300 W. Newport Blvd. , CITY CLERK Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Subject : Expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian facilities. Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission: We respectfully request your attention to this very serious matter. We have been members of St. Andrews Pres. Church for over 15 years. In that time we have seen' it grow and become a significant part of the community. Relations have always been excellent with the surrounding neighbors and the CJ1Wch has gone that extra mile to keep it that way. • It is always difficult to make changes 'and it is hard for some of the local people to accept the fact that a church, life a business, must grow and meet the needs of the community or die. Some of the objections to this new development have been petty and short sighted. We hope these people will not prevail as they get caught up in there emotions. The Church is making every effort to reach a satisfactory compromise, but as you know, it is impossible to make everyone happy. No church can exist and contribute to the community under conditions of bad local relationships. Our only hope is that you will look at this problem objectively and rise above the unreasonable objections of a few local residents. Sincerely, • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER COUNCIL AGENDA August 9, 1982 No , • TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager 4�� Q � SUBJECT: PROPOSED INCREASE IN ANIMAL SHELTER RATES AUG 198z Background By the pCIVI COUNCIL In September 1979 the City entered into an agreemm ��t�h"WmT )ZSACH Newport Harbor Animal Hospital, 125 Mesa Drive, Costa Mesa, for the provision of animal shelter services. The current rates for these services were approved on January• 12, 1981. In a letter, dated July 9, 1982 (Att. 1) , it is requested that various shelter rates and charges be increased. Discussion Following is a breakdown of existing and proposed rates: Service Existing Proposed Daily Board Charge $ 5. 50 $ 6. 00 • Euthanasia $ 5.50 $ 6. 00 Rabies Vaccination $ 9. 00 $ 10. 00 - Emergency Treatment $ 40. 00 $ 43. 00 Monthly Clerical Expenses $225. 00 $240. 00 Attachment 2 is a memorandum from the Police Department which recommends approval of the subject increases. The Department feels, given the amount of time which has elapsed since the last increase, that the proposed adjustments are fair, reasonable and reflective of increased operating costs. This office is in concurrence with the Police Department on this matter. Recommendation' It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed increases in Animal Shelter rates. at'�."ta / )Y��. ROBERT L. WYNN City Manager • RLW;GJB;nun Attachments Oary U.ourge.U.V.M PHONE 714-631.1030 Robert K.Cartm.D.V M. ATr CHMENT 1 Tim Donnelly,D.V,M Peter W.Bluch.D.V M Alice Reichel.D.V.M. Newport Harbor Animal Hosp' °D DIV.OF PET MEDICAL SERVICES LTD. • 126 MESA ADRIIIV�EE 00TAMYS;C JL5g2627 9 RECEIVED 10 Gerry Bolint 1�J�SL s JUL 3, 21982 ► 11 Assistant City Manager Mayor City of Newport Beach city of Newport 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 'Dear Mr. Bolint, N We request to amend the Animal Control Agreement dated January 12, 1981; To increase various rates and charges for Newport Beach Animal Shelter services. Said rates to become effective upon acceptance by the City Council. ., Changes as follows; 1: Paragraph 5 ; Daily boarding charges to be increased to $6.00 per day; 2. Paragraph 7 ; Euthanasia (to humanely destroy) of un- claimed animals to be increased to $6,00 per animal, with the disposal fee of $3.00 to remain' as such. 3. Paragraph 8 ; The fee for a Rabies Vaccination to be . increased to $10,00, This fee to be collected from the owner or any other person claiming the animal. 4. Paragraph 9 ; The maximum charge to- the city for Emergency Treatment of injured animals to be increased to $43.00 per animal as necessary. 5. Paragraph 10 The charge to defray clerical and other operating costs, increased to $240.00 per month. We will be waiting for a reply concerning t is proposal. Sincerely, • �e prn� '� Gary Burge, VM 3 l C 2ACHMENT 2 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT July 19 , 1982 TO : Gerry Bolint, Assistant to the City Manager FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RATE INCREASE-ANIMAL SHELTER This is to recommend approval of the proposed animal shelter rate increases . The present contract establishing rates was executed on January 12 , 1981 ; the proposed increases are fully consistant with increased operating expenses since that date. No other agency in the Harbor area utilizes the animal shelter arrangement that Newport Beach does ; they are either City operat- ed or contraced out through Orange County. It is , therefore, impossible to survey comparable rates/services . The proposed rates are substantially below private party rates , however, and should be approved as requested . �/. AA14_51ee � Charles R. Gross Chief of Police C . C � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u i e� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK c�<«olax (714) 640-2251 February 11, 1981 TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR FROM: City Clerk SUBJECT: Contract No. 2116 Description of Contract Amendment to -Animal Control Agreement Effective date of Contract January 12,, 1981 • -Authorized by Resolution No. 9958 , adopted on Jan 12, 1981 Contract with Newport Harbor Animal Hospital-Dr. Gary Burge Adress 125 Mesa Dr. Costa Mesa, CA .92627 Amount of Contract see contract Panda E. Andersen City Clerk WEA:bf City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 P0RT�V ( � . F : k CITY OF NEW k-URT BEACH • u� Pr-14I1:0 iR � OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK (714) 640-2251 February 11, 1981 + Dr. Gary Burge Newport Harbor Animal Hospital , _ 125 Mesa Drive Costa Mesa, California 92627 ' Dear Dr. Burge: Enclosed is a copy for your records of the fully executed Amendment to the Animal Control Agreement. The subject price increases were approved by the Newport Beach City • • Council on January 12, 1981 by Resolution 9958. WANDA E. ANDERSEN City Clerk WA:da Encl. cc. Gerry Bolint, Assistant to the City Manager Finance Department • City Flail • 3300 Ncivport Boulevard, Newport Beach. California 92663 '170 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER ;y<7FOAy� (714) 640-2153 January 14, 1981 Dr. Gary Burge Newport Harbor Animal Hospital 125 Mesa Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 •Dear Dr. Burge: Enclosed .please find an Amendment to the Animal Control Agreement which incorporates the price increases you requested in your letter of December 19, 1980. The • subject price increases were approved-by the Newport Beach City Council on January 12, 1981. It would be appreciated if you would sign the enclosed Amendment Agreement and return it to Ms. Wanda Andersen, the Newport Beach City Clerk, at your earliest convenience. After the Amendment Agreement has been fully executed, you will be sent a copy for your records. S ' cperely, G Y J B I*5T A s' sta .t to the City Manager GJB/jmbi Enclosu'4e �. �'xc: City Clerk City Hall • 3300-Newport Boulevard, Newport Bcach, California 92663 LAW OFFICES OF 9 f,`'`'�� • �� -� • MICHAEL C. GERING S AUG �i•' 4040 MAC ARTHUR BLVD. • SUITE 303 01982 s. it P.O. BOX 8678 hiayor NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 0 C11Yo1 NeY1aart 7� Beach MICHAEL C.GERING CV J LE PHONE STERLING A.SMITH IV (714)975.1022 August 5 , 1982 HAND DELIVERED To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Newport ,Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 RE: Expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Facility Ladies and Gentlemen: This office is retained by the Cliff Haven Community Association ("the Association") in respect to the application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church ("Church") to • expand the church facilities in the area between 15th Street, Clay Street and St. Andrews Road, Newport Beach, California ("Expansion") . Our client and most of its members vigorously oppose the Expansion contemplated by the Church. This letter is to emphasize the Association' s objections and urge the City Council ("Council") to deny the Church' s application at this time. On April 22, 1982 , a public hearing was held before the Newport Beach Planning Commission ("Commission") to review and evaluate the Church' s request for approval of the Expansion, including grant of Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) to allow construction of a 105 foot tower and a waiver of the required on-site parking requirements imposed by Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20 .30 .035 . Based upon Planning Department Staff reports, letters to the Commission by concerned citizens in the area surrounding the Church and upon testimony presented at the hearing, the Commission was not inclined to grant Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) based upon the "Findings" set forth on Exhibit "B" to the April 22 staff report. Nevertheless, the Commission' s decision regarding the Expansion was postponed until June 24 , 1982 , to permit the Church to respond to the issues raised at the meeting. • On June 24 , 1982 , another public hearing on the matter was held before the Commission. Based upon revisions in the LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. GERING To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 5 , 1982 Page -2- design of the Expansion, including a reduction in the square footage of occupied space on certain floors of the tower and a 20 foot reduction in its height, the Commission recommended that the Expansion be approved and that Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) be granted to the Church subject to the Conditions and pursuant to the Findings attached to the June 24 minutes. The Association and most of its members do not feel that the Findings of the Commission at the April 22 hearing have been substantially affected by revisions in .the proposed design of the Expansion so as to mitigate its adverse impact upon surrounding residential areas. Furthermore, the parking issues raised by the Expansion are not and cannot be _ resolved by simply imposing Conditions 37-39 upon the Church. Their objections to the Expansion are summarized below. I • 1. PARKING: Perhaps the most substantial adverse effect of the Expansion upon the surrounding neighborhood is the inability of street parking to accomodate the significant increase in the number of automobiles that will require parking in order to attend services and other Church activities. The Association submits that the revised application by the Church . containing estimates of future attendance at Church activities does not take into account the increase in the number of Church members who will attend youth group meetings, Church seminars, weddings, luncheons -and other related activities since the Church estimates are predicated only upon those attending services in the sanctuary. Although the Church will argue that any unanticipated parking needs from attendance at these activities or from other causes may be accomodated through use of the Newport Harbor High School ("High School") parking lots, the Association and others believe it unwise for the Church, the Commission or the Council to rely upon the indefinite availability of the school lots as a basis for granting the Church Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) at this time. Furthermore, the imposition by the Commission and the Council of Conditions 37 , 38 and 39 is not a realistic resolution of the parking issues. • The revised application submitted by the Church proposes that certain subterranean and at grade level parking be • LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. GERING To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 5 , 1982 Page -3- constructed some time in the future in order to accomodate the anticipated increase in Church membership. Mr. Carl Irwin of Irwin & Associates, an architect for the Expansion, stated during the June 24 hearing that it will be between three and five years before the Church' s Sunday attendance capacity will .require the parking spaces which •would become available upon completion of the subterranean and at grade parking structure. Mr. Irwin further indicated that during this period the Church can develop alternate plans for use of the High School parking lots and the rescheduling of Churqh .activities in order to resolve any parking difficulties. Basically, Mr. Irwin suggested that future parking issues be resolved at a' later date, either by construction of the proposed parking structure or as may be required by the Commission and Council. The Commission is apparently willing to go along with a "wait and see" approach to solving- the parking problems • which will arise as Church attendance increases. Condition 38 requires the Church to monitor attendance and report to the Commission semi-annually concerning attendance figures and parking demands. The Condition also requires the Church to monitor usage of the High School and on-site/off-street parking areas. It seems clear that the Commission and the Church are placing undue reliance upon the continued availability of the High School parking lots to alleviate the heavy burdens on street parking which would otherwise occur. It should be pointed out in this regard that no provision whatever has been made by the Church for resolution of the huge parking problem which will arise if the High School parking lots become unavailable for any reason. Obviously, once the Expansion has been completed, the options available to residents in the surrounding area in this event would be severely limited. The fact that this contingency has not been adequately considered is evident from the provisions of Condition 39, which reads as follows: "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. " It would appear that neither the Church nor the Commission LAW OFFICES OF • MICHAEL C. GERING To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 5 , 1982 Page -4- has arrived at a solution to the parking difficulties which will result if the Church loses the privilege of parking in the High School parking lots. The Association submits that grant by the Commission and Council of the requested use permit without resolving this potential problem in advance would be unwise ,indeed. 2. CHURCH TOWER: The Association believes that construction of the tower contemplated by the Expansion remains totally inappropriate for the residential character of the - surrounding neighborhood despite its 20 - foot reduction in height from 105 feet to 85 feet. The presence of a structure substantially similar to that of a high-rise office building can only have an overpowering effect upon the neighborhood. The Association wishes to point out that the April 22 staff report "Findings" regarding the use permit (Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 • and 7) properly focused upon the negative characteristics of the tower in noting that the "increased building height" does not result in a more desireable architectural treatment of the building and "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. " The 20 foot reduction in the height of the tower and a slight reduction in the occupied square footage of the upper floors of the Expansion would not appear to have any significant effect upon the large bulk of the Vertical dimensions thereof or upon its adverse impact upon the view, light and air which would otherwise be enjoyed by many of the residences in its immediate vicinity. During the June 24 hearing, Mr. C. Edward Ware, of C. Edward Ware Associates, Inc. , Architects, was asked whether the proposed tower was required to make "a statement for the Church and is required for office space. " Mr. Ware replied 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. " The Association wonders whether Mr. Ware should have more appropriately replied that it is an important and worthy structure to the members of the Church in light of the widespread opposition to the tower by neighborhood residents. • Dr. Huffman, a Church official, noted during the June 24 hearing that the proposed project was "only" one third of • LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. GERING To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 5 , 1982 Page -5- the volume and mass of the Crystal Cathedral. The Association does not believe that the neighborhood surrounding the Church ever intended to pattern itself after the environment of the Garden Grove area. In fact, the Association submits that the Cliff Haven area should remain a special residential community with every effort being made to maintain its quiet, noncommercial character. 3 . OTHER OBJECTIONS: Clearly, the primary justification for the Expansion is to allow the Church to accomodate what they . anticipate to be a significant increase in their membership. In fact, the Church estimates that its Sunday attendance in the sanctuary will increase to 1900 , thirty-three percent (33%) more than the number currently attending its services. Obviously, an Expansion of this magnitude can only result in a measurable increase in traffic, noise, trash and other • inconveniences in the neighborhood, the degree of which cannot be predicted with accuracy. As is well known to the Church, the Commission and to the Council, a significant proportion of the residences in the area are occupied by school children who will be using the streets and crosswalks during daylight hours each day of the week. The Association is justifiably . concerned that the ability of parents to allow their children to play in the area will be significantly curtailed . due to increased traffic and the frustation of Church members who are unable to park their Vehicles within easy walking distance to the Church. The Association has not considered and does not now consider the Expansion to be a religious issue. The construction contemplated should be dealt with by the Commission and the Council in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code and be evaluated with the practicality and sensitivity that the Commission and Council have shown in the past. The Association submits that the Commission and Council should be particularly concerned with the parking issues which will arise upon completion of the Expansion in light of the possibility that the Newport Harbor High School parking lots will become unavailable to the Church at some future time. Finally, the Association finds it difficult to • LAW OFFICES OF • MICHAEL C. GERING To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 5 , 1982 Page -6- understand the necessity of an 85 foot tower for the Expansion. Surely there are other methods of accomodating the estimated increase in Church attendance. Respectfullyf'submitted, MIC��l GE3t NG MCG/smb . cc: Mr. Peter J. Gendron • • LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. GERING • 4040 MAC ARTHUR BLVD. • SUITE 303 P.O. BOX 8678 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 MICHAEL C.GERING TELEPHONE STERLING A.SMITH (714)975.1022 July 13, 1982 Board of Trustees Newport-Mesa Unified School District 1601 Sixteenth Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Execution of "License Agreement for Parking" with Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church. Ladies and Gentlemen: This office is retained by the Cliff Haven Community Association in respect to the intention • of Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church ("Church") to , construct a church facility in the area between 15th Street, Clay Street and • St. Andrews Road, Newport Beach, California ("Facility") . We understand that the Newport-Mesa Unified School District ("School District") may assist the Church in fulfillment of the parking requirements of applicable City ordinances for construction of the Facility by permitting Church members to utilize the Newport Harbor High School ("High School") parking lots. We believe that grant by the School District of a license to the Church to utilize such parking would be constitutionally invalid on several grounds. Our conclusion in this regard is based on the following facts: (1) In order for the Church to obtain the permits required to construct the Facility, the Church must provide one parking space for every five members of the congregation which will utilize the Facility. (2) During public hearings before the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, testimony and _ traffic studies indicated that the Church was unable to provide sufficient on-site parking as required by Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20 .30.035. However, the Commission was inclined to grant the Church the necessary permits based upon the stated willingness of the School District to provide approximately 265 parking spaces on the High School • grounds. • LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. GERING Board of Trustees July 13, 1982 Page 2 (3) The School District may enter into a "License Agreement for Parking" ("License Agreement" ) which would permit the Church to use the High School parking lots free of charge on an indefinite basis. However, it. has denied the requests of other local organizations to use the parking lots at the Hig1f School after school hours. Based upon the above facts, the School District, should it grant the Church use of the off-site parking at the High . School, will be in violation of the provisions of the United States and California Constitutions by imper- missibly fostering religion and denying other groups wishing to utilize the High School parking facilities equal protection of the laws. Although an extended discussion of these issues is inappropriate at this time, a brief discussion of these legal grounds is set forth below. • A. The License proposed to be granted to the Church by the School District violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 4 of the California Constitution in tending to establish religion. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, provides in pertinent part that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " Article 1 , Section 4 of the California Constitution also provides in pertinent part that "the Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" ("the Establishment Clauses") . These constitutional prohibitions are aimed at all official actions, are not restricted to legislatures and would include the action contemplated by the School District should it sign the License Agreement as requested by the Church (See, Columbus Board of Education v. Penick 443 U.S. 449 (1979) ) . The purpose of the Establishment Clauses quoted above is to ensure a separation between Church and State. These constitutional prohibitions outlaw all formal relationships between government and religion, maintaining . "a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. GERING Board of Trustees July 13 , 1982 Page 3 forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion" (See, Abington School District v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203 (1963) ; Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947) ; Johnson v. Huntington Beach Union High School District 68 Cal. App. 3d 113 (1977) ) . In order to determine whether these constitutional provisions have been violated, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971) , that each of the following requirements must be satisfied: * (i) The government policy must have a secular legislative purpose; (ii) Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and E • (iii) The policy must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Our application of these principles to the facts set forth above leads to the inescapable conclusion that the primary effect of the license to be granted by the School District would be to advance the religious goals of the Church by allowing the Church to obtain the permits necessary to build the Facility. Furthermore, the intended action of the School District would undoubtedly foster an excessive government entanglement with religion due to the use of tax-supported property by the Church membership; thereby indirectly supporting the Church with state funds and benefits. We believe that the license . which may be granted to the Church by the School District would violate the obligation of all government officials to remain neutral in respect to religious affairs and is exactly the kind of assistance that the aforesaid Establishment Clauses were intended to prohibit. B. The proposed license to be granted to the Church by the School District is in violation of Article 16 , Section 5 , of the California Constitution. Article 16 , Section 5 , of the California Constitution provides as follows: • "Neither the Legislature nor any county, city and county, township, school district, or other • LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. GERING Board of Trustees July 13, 1982 Page 4 municipal corporation, shall - ever make an appropriation, or pay from any public fund whatever, or grant anything to or in aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or' sectarian purpose, or help to support or sustain any school, college, university, hospital, or other institution controlled by any religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any city, city and county, town or other municipal corporation for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever; provided, that nothing in the section shall prevent the Legislature granting aid pursuant to Section 3 of Article 16 . " The above-quoted constitutional provision . prohibits more than the appropriation or payment of public funds to support sectarian institutions. It bans any aid or involvement, whatever its form, which effectively promotes religious purposes. (See, Fox V. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal. 3d 806 (1978) , Johnson v. Huntington Beach Union High School District 68 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1977) ) . Obviously, the action contemplated by the School District would be a violation of the terms of Article 16 , Section 5 , of the California Constitution. C. The license proposed to be granted to the Church by the School District, in conjunction with its previous denial of permission to other groups to utilize the High School parking lots, constitutes invidious discrim- ination against such other groups and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides in pertinent part that "no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" ("Equal Protection Clause") . This means that rules promulgated or action taken by a governmental unit should apply even-handedly to all persons within its jurisdiction. . If a governmental unit adopts a rule or implements action which has a special impact on less than all persons subject to its jurisdiction, the question of LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. GERING Board of Trustees July 13 , 1982 Page 5 whether the Equal Protection Clause has been violated arises (See, New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer 440 U.S. 568 (1979) ) . Although a governmental unit may distinguish between its citizens, such distinctions must not be arbitrary and must be made in order to achieve -a legitimate state purpose. (See, Widmar v. Clark 50 U.S.L.W. 4062 (1981) ; Avery v. Midland County, Texas 390 U.S. 474 (1968) ) . We understand that the School District previously denied groups other than religious organizations use to the High School parking lots. Should the School District grant such use to the Church, a serious question arises of whether these other groups have been denied equal protection of the _ law and are the objects of illegal and invidious discrim- ination. Furthermore, the action contemplated by the School District would appear to favor only members of the Church. This is clearly an impermissible objective of government in preferring religious goals over the interests of other local organizations. The School District is undoubtedly considering lending what its trustees believe to be innocuous assistance to the Church by giving it a revokable right to use the High School parking lots as may be required by Church members. However, the Church must make other off-site parking arrangements since the School District cannot enter into the License Agreement with the Church without violating the bonstitutional prohibitions discussed herein. In the expectation that further action by this office regarding this matter will not be necessary, I am Very truly ;SNG s, MICHA L' C. MCG/SAS/smb cc. Mr. Peter J. Gendron