The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNewport Beach LDS Temple (PA2001-208)o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH e PLANNING DEPARTMENT �i 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Hearing Date: Agenda Item: Staff Person: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Newport Beach LDS Temple (PA2001 -208) 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive September 5, 2002 2 James Campbell (949) 644 -3210 14 days SUMMARY: A Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the construction and operatation of a place of religious worship on an 8.6 acre site within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building in the center of the property, surrounded by 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. The request also includes consideration of a 124 -foot high steeple that would exceed the maximum allowable height of 50 feet. ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and provide direction to staff as necessary, and continue the item to October 3, 2002. APPLICANT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 50 E. North Temple Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84150 LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Bonita Canyon Dr. and Prairie Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1 of Lot Line Adjustment No. 14065 -LL & Grant Deed per Instrument No. 93- 0425720 GENERAL PLAN: Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities ZONING DISTRICT: PC -50 (Bonita Canyon Planned Community, Sub -area #7, Public /Semi Public) Current Development: Vacant land with two asphalt paved parking areas used for overflow parking for the adjacent LDS Stake Center To the north: Open s ace, San Joaquin Hills Trans ortation Corridor (SR -73) To the east: Open space, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73) To the south: Church, preschool, City sorts park, Shopping Center, residential uses To the west: Existing LDS Stake Center, residential (Bonita Canyon Village) LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 2 of 20 Introduction The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints requests approval of Use Permit and Site Plan Review applications for the construction and operation of a Temple. Pursuant to the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan, a place of religious worship requires a Use Permit and development of the site for any use requires a Site Plan Review application. Both applications require review and approval by the Newport Beach Planning Commission. The Use Permit application includes a request to allow a 123 -foot, 9 -inch steeple atop the proposed Temple to exceed the allowable height limit of 50 feet. The applicant has prepared a comprehensive set of plans for the project, which are referenced as Exhibit No. 1 and are separate full -sized drawings.. Proiect & Site Overview The project site is approximately 8.65 acres and is located at the northeast corner of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (State Route 73 or SR -73). The site is bounded by Bonita Canyon Drive to the south, the private extension of Prairie Road to the west, and open space to the north and east. The topography of the site is characterized by a moderate sloping of the site down away from the abutting roadways from approximately 195 feet in elevation to approximately 180 feet above mean sea level. The site is presently vacant and has two asphalt parking areas used for overflow parking for the adjacent Stake Center. The site was mass graded to its present condition in 1995 with the development of the Stake Center. The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building located in the center of the property, surrounded by approximately 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. The Church maintains a separate Stake Center, or "meeting house," directly adjacent to the proposed Temple site. For comparison, the proposed Temple building is approximately 40 percent, or 10,925 square feet, smaller than the existing Stake Center. The steeple on the existing Stake Center is 86 feet from the finished floor elevation of approximately 190 feet above mean seal level to its peak, and the Temple's steeple would be 123'9" from the finished floor level of 193.5 feet above mean seal level (MSL). The proposed Temple would function in concert with the adjacent Stake Center; however, operations at each facility are distinctly separate and generally do not occur simultaneously at peak capacity. The Temple and the Stake Center will share parking and will utilize the same main access road from the existing signalized intersection of Bonita Canyon Dr. and Prairie Rd. The operational characteristics of an LDS Temple are different from religious observances in other places of worship. The Temple is a place for individual worship rather than group worship, and it is closed on Sundays when the Church's regular meetinghouses are at peak utilization. In a Temple, qualified Church members participate in the Church's most sacred ceremonies including marriage (or "sealing "), instructional ceremonies followed by an informal small group gathering, and individual meditation in the Temple's largest lobby or "Celestial Room." The Temple will be open Tuesday through Saturday with hours of operation that may range from approximately 5:00 LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5,2002 Page 3 of 20 a.m. to approximately 11:00 p.m. Activities will occur throughout the day; however, it is anticipated that Friday evenings and Saturday mornings will be the busiest times for Temple activities. These functions are in contrast to the large group activities held in other Church buildings like the adjacent Stake Center. These activities include regular Sunday worship services, Sunday school classes, and other age group organizations, weekly youth activity nights, adult leadership or administrative meetings and periodic women's meetings, college student classes and activities, athletic competitions, dances, wedding receptions, and other social or physical activities. At present, the Newport Beach Stake consists of approximately 3,400 members. The proposed Temple will be constructed as a two- tiered fagade, with a single steeple at the north end of the building. The height of the first parapet is 21.5 feet; the second parapet is at 32.75 feet and 35 feet above the finished floor of the Temple on the north and south ends, respectively; and the steeple (including an angel figure) at its highest point is approximately 123.75 feet above the finished floor elevation of 193.5 feet above mean sea level. The exterior of the building will be finished with textured non - reflective light colored earth tone granite. Along the lower 30 inches of the building, the same colored polished granite will be used to provide a wainscoting effect. To further articulate the building fagade, a band of scored granite runs along the upper edge of each parapet. Within the building facade are a series of arched alcoves, some of which have art - glass and others clear windows. Atop the steeple, the statue will be finished in gold leaf. The Temple contains approximately 15,625 square feet of interior space, with 14,963 square feet on the main floor and 662.5 square feet on the lower floor, comprised of the baptistery and mechanical rooms. The overall footprint of the building is approximately 208 feet x 110 feet. Spaces within the Temple are arranged to reflect the various activities described above. Areas within the Temple facility include instructional rooms, sealing rooms, baptismal area, waiting areas, men's and women's dressing areas, storage areas, bathrooms, closets, a laundry, a serving area, and administrative offices. The proposed landscaping plan provides a variety of trees, shrubs, and vines along Bonita Canyon Drive and along the eastern and northern perimeters of the site. Additionally, clusters of landscaping will be provided in the northwest perimeter of the site to provide screening to residents of the Bonita Canyon Village development. The entry court to the north of the Temple entrance provides a landscaped courtyard extending along the perimeter of the Temple building. Rows of cypress trees will radiate outward from the Temple. Additionally, a buffer of planted pines will surround the property. Concrete pathways will provide circulation within the garden area and a connection to the adjacent Stake Center. A linear waterway connecting to an accent water feature is proposed in the western area of the garden. An approximately six foot high black tubular steel fence will enclose the active use areas of the Temple facility. This will supplement the security fence now separating the Temple site from the adjacent open space reserve area. Two access gates will be located in the garden area, and an additional access gate will be located at the interior access road. These gates will be open during regular Temple hours, and the garden area gates will be open during daylight hours on most LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5. 2002 Page 4 of 20 Sundays for use and enjoyment by members attending Sunday worship services at the Stake Center and by visiting guests. The exterior of the Temple facility is proposed to be lighted. The Temple's exterior lighting system includes the following illumination categories: landscape elements, the building fagade, the building tower, and the angel figure. Security lighting will also be provided and includes four additional illumination categories: the roadway, parking lot, pedestrian pathways and property perimeter. An ascending hierarchy of lighting levels is proposed from the lower fagade progressively upward to the angel figure at the top of the tower. All lighting fixtures will be aimed to illuminate only the landscape or architectural surfaces, thus minimizing the light trespass into adjacent properties and reducing "light pollution" into the night sky. Architectural lighting of the Temple is proposed from SAM to dawn and from dusk to 11PM. Between 11PM and SAM, no lighting of the site except for security lighting and parking lot lighting is proposed. Analysis As noted previously, The City is reviewing two applications for the proposed project: Use Permit No. 2001 -036 and Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005. These applications are required pursuant to the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan that acts similar to zoning regulations. Where the Planned Community,Development Plan is silent or does not provide sufficient guidance, the Newport Beach Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Municipal Code) is applied and where there is conflict between the PC Development Plan and the Zoning Code, the PC Development Plan takes precedence. General Plan The project site is designated Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities by the Land Use Element. This land use designation is applied to areas developed with uses that form the physical and social infrastructure of the community and are designated for educational facilities, municipal uses, hospitals, libraries and churches, among other civic - related uses. The proposed project, a place of religious worship or church, is listed as a permitted institutional use within this land use category. The General Plan has 12 general development policies which guide development and city planning. Policy A and Policy,D are generally applicable to the project, while the remaining policies are not applicable. Policy A The City shall provide for sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. The project site is designated for Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities, which allows churches. The site is in close proximity to residents of the community providing convenient access. Additionally, the site is located in close proximity to major highways (MacArthur LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 5 of 20 Blvd./Bonita CanyonDr. /SR -73) to allow safe and convenient access for visitors to the proposed project while not significantly impacting levels of traffic service as concluded by the EIR. Staff believes the project is consistent with this policy. Policy D The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. The project site does not possess any natural resources, nor does it constitute a natural landform warranting preservation due to the past grading of the site. The site is not within a designated scenic vista, and the project does not significantly block public views due to the slender design of the steeple, although it is acknowledged that the project will be highly visible from public areas. In staffs opinion, and concluded in the EIR, public views will not be blocked to an extent inconsistent with this policy. Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan Section 8 of the Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan establishes property development standards applicable to the development of the proposed project. The following table identifies each standard and how the project compares to the standard. Feature Standard Standard Project Project applied to Characteristic Compliance Project Minimum Lot Size 0.25 acres 0.25 acres 8.65 acres Yes Maximum Lot 50% 4.33 acres 0.53 acres or Yes Coverage 6.1% Maximum Height 50 feet 50 feet 123 feet, 9 No — relief Limit inches requested Minimum Site 15% 1.30 acres 5.5 acres Yes Landscaping Setbacks Front (south): 0 feet 0 feet 83 feet Yes East Side: 10 feet 10 feet 291 feet Yes West Side: 10 feet 10 feet 379 feet Yes Rear (north): 10 feet 10 feet 189 feet Yes The project complies with all development standards except for structure height, from which the applicant is seeking relief. The Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan does not specify a procedure to deviate from structure height; therefore, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provisions apply. Section 20.65.070.G stipulates that structures used for church purposes shall be exempt from the LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 6 of 20 restrictions of Chapter 20.65 (Height Limits), except that such structures exceeding 35 feet in height shall require a Use Permit. The Use Permit related to structure height is discussed below. Parking Minimum parking requirements are not specified by the Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan. Therefore, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides guidance. Section 20.66.030 establishes a parking requirement based upon seating for religious assembly. The standard is 1 parking space for every 3 seats or 1 space per 35 sq. ft. of assembly uses. The Temple has seating for 96 people for instructional sessions in addition to the Celestial Room, sealing rooms, baptismal area, waiting areas, men's and women's dressing areas, storage areas, bathrooms, closets, a laundry, a serving area, and administrative offices. The remaining assembly in addition to the instructional rooms is 4,017 sq. ft. The total parking required is 146 spaces according to the established parking requirement. The proposed project provides 152 parking spaces, and therefore, complies with applicable standards. The project parking will be used on Sundays as overflow parking for activities occurring at the adjacent Stake Center when peak usage occurs at the Stake Center. The City of Irvine required a minimum of 150 spaces to be located on the subject property as overflow for the Stake Center while approving a 70 space parking waiver. Irvine also used a more restrictive parking ratio than used by Newport Beach. The City Traffic Engineer concludes that the 152 spaces provided with the project in addition to the 227 spaces at the Stake Center, adequate parking will be available. The Temple will be closed Sunday and Monday, and shared use of the Temple parking should not prove problematic due to the differing peak uses of the two sites. Use Permit No. 2001 -036 As noted, pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan, the project requires the approval of a Use Permit for a church (or other place of religious worship). The Use Permit also includes a request to have the proposed Temple exceed the 50 -foot height limit. The findings for the approval of a Use Permit are contained within Chapter 20.91 of the Zoning Code. The following discussion is broken down into two separate sections based upon the two separate aspects of the Use Permit application: the use, and structure height. Use The mandatory findings for a use permit are: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed use is within Sub Area No. 7 of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community, which is designated for Public /Semipublic uses. The purpose of the designation is contained within the preface of the Planned Community Development Plan and states that "Sub -area 7 is designated Public /Semipublic to reflect an existing church on the property." The existing church on the property is the LDS Stake Center. An LDS Temple is consistent with the designation of the site. LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 7 of 20 2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. The project site and the operation of the proposed Temple is consistent with the General Plan as discussed previously and is consistent with the purpose of the Public/Semipublic designation of the property by the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan. The operation and maintenance of the proposed Temple is not anticipated to generate adverse impacts to the area. The site has access from a signalized intersection on a major highway, and the City's Traffic Engineer concludes that adequate off - street parking will be provided given the proposed schedule and occupancy of the Temple, taking into account shared use of the parking lot with the adjacent Stake Center. The traffic study prepared for the project concludes that no significant traffic impacts will result with the implementation of the project. The proposed Temple is located in an area with similar uses but will not contribute to traffic on Sundays when other churches in the area are more active. The busiest time for the Temple is anticipated to be Friday evenings and Saturday mornings and the weekend peak hour is 2 -3PM. Potential traffic conflicts on Saturday morning with the Bonita Canyon Sports Park are expected to be minimal. This is due to the unused capacity of the roadway and the anticipated lack of need for a majority of park users to use intersection of Prairie Road and Bonita Canyon Drive. The Traffic Engineer expects that a majority of park users will use San Miguel Drive or Mesa Verde Drive to approach the park with only Newport Coast and Irvine residents approaching the intersection of Bonita Canyon Dr. and Prairie Road. Services and activities associated with the project are primarily conducted within the proposed Temple, and therefore will not generate noise that would affect nearby residences. Exterior activities are generally limited to visitors walking the gardens or photo opportunities after marriage ceremonies. Church custom requires exterior illumination of the proposed Temple structure. According to the Church's religious practices and beliefs, Temple must be ]it when it is in use by church members who are eligible to participate in services within a Temple. Additionally, according to the applicant, eligible church members may not enter or exit the Temple in darkness. The applicant originally desired lighting of the Temple from dusk to dawn, but now proposes a reduced lighting schedule as indicated due to concerns expressed by the surrounding neighborhoods. The reduced hours correspond to the normal operating hours of the Temple. These reduced lighting hours are viewed by staff as a beneficial change, although further reduction in the hours of operation and illumination could be considered. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The proposed use is within Sub Area No. 7 of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community which is designated for Public /Semipublic uses. As noted, the use requires the approval of a Use Permit. LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 8 of 20 No specific condition related to the operation of a church or place of religious worship is contained within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan. Structure Height The finding that the Planning Commission must consider is the general finding that the height of the proposed Temple will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. Building height is measured within the Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan as the vertical distance from the finished grade adjacent to the building to the highest point of the structure. The Temple will have a two - tiered fagade, with a single steeple at the north end of the building. The height of the first parapet is 22 feet above finished grade; the second parapet is at 33.25 feet and 35.5 feet above the finished grade of the Temple on the north and south ends, respectively; and the steeple (including the statue of the angel) at its highest point is approximately 124 feet above the finished grade of 193 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Finished grade is approximately 5 -8 feet higher than the natural grade under the proposed Temple. In absolute terms, the height of the finished grade will be 193 MSL and the top of the proposed steeple and angel is 317 MSL. For comparison purposes, the adjacent Stake Center has a steeple that is 86 feet tall on a finished grade of 190 feet. Therefore the top of the Stake Center in absolute terms is 276 MSL or 41 feet lower than the Temple steeple. There are other facilities in Newport Beach with high roof top features, which can be used for comparison purposes. The steeple and cross atop St. Matthew's Church across Bonita Canyon Drive will be 75 feet in height from grade with the grade being higher than that proposed for the Temple. The 75 -foot steeple and cross has not been constructed at this time and will be constructed in a later phase of construction. The cross at St. Andrews Church in Newport Heights is 97 feet high above finished grade and the tower at Newport Harbor High School is approximately 97.5 feet high above the top of the curb at 151h Street. No other religious structure within the City is close to these heights. Additionally, the height of the LDS Temple in La Jolla, which is highly visible from Interstate 5, is 202 feet to the top of the angel and the Temple in Los Angeles is 257 feet to the top of the angel. The applicant has provided a graphic comparison of the facilities, although it::should be noted that they are substantially larger structures as well (Exhibit No. 2). The La Jolla Temple is approximately 80,000 square feet, and the Los Angeles Temple is approximately 190,000 square feet, while the proposed Newport Beach Temple will be 17,575 square feet. The closest residential use is located 600 -900 feet away from the proposed steeple within Bonita Canyon Village. The elevation of the rear yards of these closest homes averages approximately 174 MSL, approximately 20 ft. lower than the Temple site. Many residents living in the area have expressed the opinion that the height of the structure and its lighting will prove detrimental. Others have expressed the opposite viewpoint. The Temple, if LDS Temple (PA2001.208)) September 5, 2002 Page 9 of 20 approved as requested, will be the predominant structure in the area due to its height, lighting, design and mass. The applicant's stated objective is to create a distinctive Temple that is highly visible. Staff believes that a lower alternative will meet this objective, and suggested a 100 -foot high alternative for discussion purposes within the Alternatives section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Further limiting lighting hours and the steeple height could also assist in ameliorating some of the impacts on surrounding residential properties. Several comments raised the question as to why four LDS Temples have no steeples. This question was raised with the belief that steeples are not a required design feature dictated by religious beliefs. The Church's response this question is that Temples were constructed under the supervision of a past Church President with a differing vision than the current President under whose direction the proposed project has been designed. The president of the LDS Church is considered by the faithful as a prophet of God. All Temples constructed under the current President have steeples as "symbolic architectural connection with the infinite, embodying the value of upward ascendancy" (Exhibit No. 3). Structure Height - Airport Land Use Commission Consideration The project is located within 20,000 feet of John Wane Airport, and due to the height of the structure, notification of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required. The airport Environs Land Use Plan establishes two imaginary surfaces. The first is an "obstruction" surface that extends outward from both the approach and departure ends of the runways. Land uses and structure height is regulated to ensure that no hazards are created. The second imaginary surface is called the "notification" surface, which extends further outward both horizontally and vertically and from the entire runway. The horizontal limit is 20,000 feet and the project site is approximately 16,100 feet away from the runway. The elevation of the notification surface increases with distance from the airport to a limit of 200 feet above the elevation of the airport. Any structure that is proposed to be above this imaginary surface requires notification of the Airport Land Use Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration. The elevation of the imaginary notification surface at the project site is approximately 34 feet above the average grade of the site, and the building exceeds this height. The notification is required pursuant to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan and Zoning Code Section 20.65.080. Section 20.65.080 also requires ALUC consideration of the issue prior to any action on the project. This notification was accomplished and the Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the project on August 14, 2002. The Commission decided to postpone further review of the project until such time as a technical study is completed by the FAA. This study, also known as the FAA Form 7460 Determination, is expected in the next several weeks. It is not anticipated that the FAA will determine the proposed Temple to be a significant threat to air navigation; however, they might recommend hazard lighting taking the form of white light or the traditional red beacon. The authority to impose such hazard lighting rests with the Airport Land Use Commission. They do not possess the ability to alter the project by lowering the height or denying the project as the structure does not fall within a Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surface for JWA. The ALUC also indicated that they wanted to see the project after initial hearings by the Planning Commission so they could get a better idea as to the height of the project. This was LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5. 2002 Page 10 of 20 based upon the notion that hazard lighting may take different forms (if required at all) depending upon the final height of the proposed Temple. Due to the involvement and initial review of the project by the ALUC, staff believes that Section 20.66.080 has been complied with. .Lighting As noted, the applicant plans to light the proposed Temple from 5AM to dawn and dusk to I IPM, with no architectural lighting proposed outside of these hours except for security lighting of the exterior walkways and parking lot. The City has no lighting standard or restrictions on the hours of potential lighting. It is acknowledged that the site is presently dark due to its vacant status, so when the site is developed, additional lighting should be expected. Security and parking lot lighting would be no more of a nuisance with the project as opposed to any other land use. In fact, lighting attributable to these sources will likely be less with the proposed project due to the high percentage of landscaping when compared to other institutional uses that would likely have less landscaping. The cross atop St. Andrews is the most notable religious symbol in the city lighted during the evening. The City has not placed any limitation upon the hours of illumination of the cross, but St. Andrews extinguishes the lights at IOPM pursuant to a general arrangement with the nearby- residents who complained about having the cross illuminated later in the night. Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005 Per Section 8.1 of the Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan, Site Plan Review is required to develop the project site. Section 20.92 of the Zoning Code establishes 12 standards for review of Site Plan Review applications. A. Sites subject to site plan review under the provisions of this chapter shall be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain, harbor, and landscape, giving special consideration to waterfront resources and unique landforms such as coastal bluffs or other sloped areas; trees and shrubs shall not be indiscriminately destroyed: The site slopes moderately from abutting streets to the north and east toward Bonita Canyon Village and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The elevation changes from approximately 195 feet to approximately 175 feet above mean sea level. The pad elevation for the Temple proposed by the applicant is 193 feet with the finished floor being 193.5 feet. This finished floor elevation is 3.5 feet above the finished floor of the abutting Stake Center and roughly 1 foot lower than Bonita Canyon Drive approximately 340 feet from its intersection with Prairie Road. The intersection is approximately 10 feet above the proposed finished floor. The site was mass graded with the development of the adjacent Stake Center with the intention to possibly develop the site with a Temple in the future. Additional filling of the site will be necessary to achieve the grades proposed by the applicant. The site has no unique natural landforms due to the past grading of the site and no trees or landscaping. LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 11 of 20 B. Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City: The project site is situated in the northern portion of the City in an area with urban development that ranges from residential development at densities of 3.3 to 6.6 dwelling units per acre to commercial, institutional, public parks, and open space land uses. Several churches currently exist or are planned for development in the vicinity of the project site. Single - family homes in the Bonita Canyon Village development are located northwest and west of the site at approximately 620 and 900 feet, respectively. The existing LDS Church Stake Center is located west of the project site across the main entrance driveway (an extension of Prairie Road). Bonita Canyon Sports Park is approximately 200 feet south of the project site, across Bonita Canyon Drive. Saint Matthew's Church, which is currently under construction, is approximately 150 feet from the project site located at the southeast comer of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road. A developmental pre - school is located south of Bonita Canyon Drive approximately 200 feet from the project site. Further to the south of these uses is a neighborhood shopping center and residential uses within the Harbor View Knoll, Seawind, Harbor Ridge and Harbor View Hills communities. Harbor View Knoll, Seawind and Harbor Ridge are at a higher elevation than the project site, and the project will be visible from many lots that face to the north. Harbor View Knoll is approximately 600 feet from the project site and has the benefit of many mature trees that help screen the proposed Temple. Seawind is approximately 600 feet away at its closest and up to 2100 feet away. Harbor Ridge is approximately 2500 feet distant from the project site. Harbor View Hills is approximately 1200 feet at its closest point and the majority of the tract is at a lower elevation than the project. North of the project site is the Bonita Canyon Dam/Reservoir and scrub covered open space. The dam acts as a flood control retention basin and stores surface water runoff during a storm event. Further to the north and east is the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73). Beyond SR -73 within the City of Irvine are light industrial uses and residential uses are planned. Southeast of the project site are developing properties within the Newport Ridge Planned - Community recently annexed to the city. An apartment community has recently been occupied and single - family residences are being constructed, which are approximately 1500 feet and 1800 feet away from the project site. These properties are at a higher elevation than the project site, and the project will be visible from many northwest - facing residences. As noted above, the area is characterized by a mixture of residential uses, churches, a park, a preschool, a shopping center. The area does not generate a sense that is "densely" urbanized when compared to other areas of the city, in staff's opinion. The area is suburban and also has many open space areas. These open areas include the adjacent open canyon near SR -73, the park and numerous landscaped areas within medians, parkways and other setback areas. The site is bordered on two sides by open space and Bonita LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 12 of 20 Canyon Drive providing additional separation from nearby land uses. Nearby residential structures are approximately 28 -30 feet in height and are not located in close proximity to the proposed Temple. The nearby churches are large buildings comparable in size to the project although the height of the proposed steeple is not. The Temple will have significant setbacks from property lines, low lot coverage and 5.5 acres of landscaping that when combined, they assist in making the development more compatible. C. Development shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of public views, with special consideration given to views from public parks and from roadways designated as Scenic Highways and Scenic Drives in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan: The site is not within a designated scenic vista and the project does not significantly block public views due to the slender design of the steeple. It is acknowledged that the project will be highly visible from public areas. Two view simulations were prepared for the EIR from the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Views 3 and 4 show that the Temple steeple will make up a small percentage of the viewable area and not block views. Other view simulations were prepared from Bonita Canyon Drive that also show that the project will be visible, but again, the percentage of viewable area that the steeple will occupy is small and views are not blocked. Rather, the steeple becomes a prominent feature within the overall viewshed. D. Environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. No structures or landform alteration shall be permitted in environmentally sensitive areas unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impact: The site is not within a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). E. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts: The project site is not in an area of potential geologic hazard. The site is located close to the Newport Inglewood fault zone and severe ground shaking at the project site might be experienced during a major event and liquefaction is of concern. A preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted delineating grading and building techniques to ensure safety. All applicable City and State building codes and seismic design guidelines will be applied through the issuance of a building permit, which will minimize possible risks of damage during an earthquake. The study did identify that the existing crib walls that support the site to the north and east are showing signs of distress related to wall movement. The applicant has elected to avoid any potential issues with these crib walls by providing sufficient landscape setbacks from these walls in accordance with the geotechnical study thereby avoiding any geotechnical issues. F. Residential development shall be permitted in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 CNEL only where specific mitigation measures will reduce noise levels in exterior areas to less than 60 CNEL and reduce noise levels in the interior of residences to 45 LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 13 of 20 CNEL or less: The project does not involve residential uses; therefore, this standard does not apply. G. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development: The Planning, Public Works and Building Departments have reviewed the site plan for proper pedestrian and vehicle function. Consideration was also made for shared parking usage with the adjacent Stake Center. The circulation and parking layout meets or exceeds City design standards. The site plan includes several walkways within and around the gardens and a separate pedestrian crossing is provided between the proposed Temple and the Stake Center. All Departments believe that the site plan does not present any negative circulation issues with either Temple operation or shared parking usage with the Stake Center. H. Development shall be consistent with specific General Plan and applicable specific plan district policies and objectives, and shall not preclude the implementation of those policies and objectives: This finding has been discussed previously in this report, and the project is consistent with these policies and objectives. L Development shall be physically compatible with the development site, taking into consideration site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources: As noted, the site slopes from approximately 195 feet to approximately 175 feet above mean sea level. The proposed site plan will require grading to fill the site from 5 -8 feet below the Temple building. As noted previously, the proposed grade of the Temple is comparable with the existing Stake Center and Bonita Canyon Drive. The site is devoid of sensitive resources or submerged lands. The site plan includes approximately 5.5 acres of landscaped gardens and walkways that will be planted with some more mature plantings. This high percentage of landscaping and the relatively small footprint of the proposed Temple (approximately 0.4 acres) make the site plan more compatible with the open space areas that abut the site. J. When feasible, electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage areas shall be concealed: Electrical service will be provided underground and mechanical equipment will be within the building or concealed behind roof parapets and will not be visible from the ground. Trash storage areas are not specifically delineated on the plans, and the applicant intends that trash storage be accommodated within the building. K. Archaeological and historical resources shall be protected to the extent feasible: No known archaeological and historical resources are known to exist and are unlikely to exist due to the highly disturbed nature of the site from its previous grading. L. Commercial development shall not have significant adverse effects on residences in an abutting residential district: The project is not a commercial project and therefore, this standard is not directly applicable. However, the intent of this standard is to ensure that a project does not have a significant adverse impact upon surrounding residences. The LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 14 of 20 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) concludes that there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts. Area residents have expressed the opinion that the proposed project will have a significant and adverse impact upon the enjoyment of their property due to a diminishment of views and lowering of property values. No views from residential properties will be blocked, although the proposed Temple will be a feature within the view. Depending upon the location of the property, the Temple will be a smaller or larger feature. The most directly impacted residential area will be the southeasterly portion of Bonita Canyon Village. Staff believes that the visibility of the proposed Temple does not automatically make it a significant and adverse impact. Some may perceive the visual impact as beneficial. Impacts to property value are not possible to measure at this point. Changes to property value can easily be tracked, but it is much more difficult to identify a single factor, such as the proposed Temple, as the primary cause of a change in value with certainty, as many unrelated factors would affect the analysis. The applicant has submitted an article that would suggest that property values may rise as a result of Temple construction. (Exhibit No. 4). Reliaous Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA The City Attorney has prepared a memorandum that provides further information on this topic (Exhibit No. 5). Environmental Review The City contracted with LSA, Inc. (LSA) for the preparation of an Initial Study and EIR for the proposed project. The Initial Study was prepared in accordance with applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Within the Initial Study, all environmental factors contained within the Initial Study checklist were analyzed and discussed. Based upon the analysis within the Initial Study, the following environmental topics were identified as potentially affected by implementation of the proposed project and should be addressed in the DEIR: Aesthetics, Air Quality, HydrologylWater Quality, Land Use/Planning and Transportation/Circulation. The remaining issue areas were determined to be affected at either a less than significant level or that the project would have no impact and would not be discussed in the DEIR: Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology /Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation and UtilitieslService Systems. LSA then prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report in accordance with CEQA. The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2002031048) focused upon the environmental issues identified as "potentially affected." It has been previously transmitted to the Commission and is referenced as Exhibit No. 9 of this report. The DEIR was completed and circulated for a mandatory 45 -day review period that began on June 25, 2002 and concluded on August 9, 2002. The comment period was extended to allow additional comments to be received through August 16, 2002 as the Airport Land Use Commission, a responsible agency, was unable to respond within the comment period. Comments were received from one responsible agency, several public agencies and interested parties for which the City is required to prepare written responses for. These comment letters and LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 15 of 20 responses to the comments are contained in the Response to Comments Document transmitted to the Commission with this report (Exhibit No. 10). The DEIR provides a detailed description of the project and the environmental setting as well as sections on the potentially affected environmental topics. The DE1R concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact to the environment in any of these areas. A significant amount of public criticism has been voiced regarding the conclusion that the proposed Temple would not create a significant impact in the area of aesthetics, the principal issue analyzed in the EIR. The City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Element, Objective 6, addresses scenic vistas and resources in the City. The implementing policies support the provision of view parks and enhanced streetscapes along scenic highways and scenic drives. The Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach does not contain any provisions to protect private viewsheds. Only public viewsheds from public parks, State designated scenic highways, or within the Coastal Zone are afforded some protection by existing City policy. The project site is not within the Coastal Zone nor is the project site within a designated scenic vista. The significance criteria for aesthetic impacts used for this analysis are based on the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach General Plan, and Municipal Code provisions outlined above. These criteria provide that the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact if it would: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. In late January of 2001, the applicant erected a crane at the project site to simulate the height of the proposed Temple. The height and location of the top of the crane was certified by the project engineer as being within approximately 2 feet of the top of the proposed Temple. A red aircraft warning light was affixed to the top and the crane was in place for approximately 4 days and 3 nights. This event was extensively noticed by the applicant and a great number of photographs of the crane were taken by both staff and the architect for the project. Fifteen of these photographs were selected by staff to serve as the basis for the visual simulation used within the Draft Environmental Impact Report. View simulations were prepared to provide a "project opening" condition and a "ten year" condition. The project opening condition provides an illustration of the project as it will appear when the Temple is dedicated, with new landscaping planted at project completion. The ten year simulation provides an illustration of how the project will look after 10 years of landscape growth. In the majority of the view simulations prepared for the proposed project, the proposed Temple is visible within the built environment, but only a small percentage of "viewable area" will be impacted. The area most impacted would be the southeasterly section of Bonita Canyon LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 16 of 20 Village. Due to the proximity of this area, the Temple will be a more visible feature occupying a higher percentage of "viewable area" than from other vantage points. It is acknowledged in the DEIR that the Temple steeple will be visible to the surrounding community and that the new Temple will be more prominent than the existing built environment. The project site is bordered both on the west and south with similar structures, i.e., buildings with steeple elements (existing Stake Center and Saint Matthew's Church). At 123 feet 9 inches, the finished height of the steeple element will be the tallest structure in the project vicinity. However, the steeple element is not a large, bulky mass; rather, it is a relatively narrow tapered element that at its highest point is approximately 18 inches wide. The EIR concludes that the Temple and steeple will not dominate existing views. The degree of prominence to any affected views is dependent upon the location and distance of the viewer from the project site. Lighting of the Temple will increase the visibility of the structure when lit, and there is no other structure in the city to draw a clear comparison to the proposed project. Due to the proposed color and non - reflective qualities of the Temple exterior, evening lighting should not prove glaring as compared to a more white exterior. It is recognized that any issue of aesthetic impact, especially an aesthetic impact to a view, tends to be subjective. Different individuals will have different opinions about aesthetics and visual impacts. However, based on CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064 f(5) and Section 15065 h(3)), the level of significance is defined by the thresholds. The analysis in the EIR provides an objective analysis pursuant to requirements of CEQA, which focuses on an evaluation of evidence concerning the physical environment as measured against specific thresholds. Based on the significance criteria identified above, the EIR concludes that development of the Temple on the project site will result in a less than significant aesthetic impact. Traffic was also an important component of the environmental analysis. A traffic study was prepared by Urban Crossroads under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer. The study was prepared using the procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The intersection of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road was also considered in the cumulative analysis. Site access was also analyzed. No significant traffic- related impacts were predicted and no mitigation measures are required. Project Alternatives The "no project/no build" alternative would avoid all the impacts attributable to the proposed project, but would not achieve the applicant's goals. The "reduced intensity" alternative was assumed to be a Temple with a 100 -foot overall height measured from the finished floor elevation of 193.5 feet above mean sea level. Reduced lighting hours were also considered. Staff believes that any reduction in structure height or reduction in illumination hours will incrementally lessen the impacts of the proposed project; however, staff believes that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact to the environment. LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5. 2002 Page 17 of 20 Certification of the Environmental Impact Report Staff believes that the DEIR has been prepared and processed in full compliance with the CEQA implementing guidelines and that all the environmental factors and evidence have been analyzed and disclosed. Public notice of the DEIR has been provided and the DEIR has been made available for public comment. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide a forum for public input upon the adequacy of the document. If the DEIR proves adequate, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt written findings related thereto, and certify the Draft EIR as a Final Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission is not required to agree with the conclusions of the DEIR. In that case, the Commission can require additional analysis or they can select a project alternative that reduces impacts to the environment to a less than significant level. The Planning Commission cannot act to certify the EIR at this time due to the fact that the Notice of Availability of the DEIR was not posted at the County as required by CEQA. The notice is required to be posted a minimum of 30 days in advance of certification of the EIR. Staff has had a new notice posted on August 30th advising the public that the comment period on the DEIR is open for an additional 30 days expiring on September 30th. Staff will prepare responses to additional comments received during this period. Staff has also posted notice of the re- opening of the comment period in accordance with CEQA. Additional Information and Correspondence Councilmember Bromberg has generated a petition or poll of residents who live in Bonita Canyon Village. The poll was started in mid -April of this year and 106 of 124 respondents indicated that they "disapprove" of the project. Respondents included comments upon the project with their responses to the poll. The poll, results and responses are attached as Exhibit No. 6. Additional correspondence has been received by staff at various times through the processing of this application and is attached as Exhibit No. 7. The City also received a petition in opposition to the proposed project with 386 signatures. The petition identifies the height, lighting, traffic, noise, congestion and the proposed exterior color as issues and is attached as Exhibit No. 8. The cover letter with the petition indicates that more signatures are forthcoming. Recommendation After considering all the facts, plans, analysis, Draft Environmental Impact Report and comments received throughout the process, staff believes that the Use Permit and Site Plan Review should be approved. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission consider reducing the height of the proposed steeple to a level between 86 feet and 100 feet based upon compatibility with the neighborhood, including nearby churches. The 100 -foot steeple alternative was selected as it is believed that it would satisfy the project objective "To provide a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial distance." This belief is based upon an extensive field survey of the general area conducted in late January. of 2002, when a crane was installed at the site to simulate the height of the steeple. Additionally, the alternative height was LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 18 of 20 selected as it would incrementally lessen aesthetic impacts of the project due to the height.of the steeple. A 100 -foot structure will be higher than the adjacent LDS Stake Center (86 feet) making it more prominent than the adjacent Stake Center based upon height alone. The height difference of approximately 17.5 feet between the top of the Stake Center and a 100 -foot high Temple will be perceptible from Bonita Canyon Drive and SR -73. It should be acknowledged that a Temple of equal height to the Stake Center may appear visually more prominent than the Stake Center due to the difference in architectural styling, lighting and building color. It should be further acknowledged -that a Temple of equal height to the Stake Center, given the difference in architectural styling, lighting and building color, may also meet the project objective stated above. Alternative heights of 75 feet or 50 feet were rejected due to a belief that a Temple of this height would not satisfy the project objective stated above. Lowering the height of the project will reduce its visibility and visual impact, but lowering it below 86 feet, in staffs opinion, is questionable as the structure would be lower than the adjacent Stake Center, which is a subordinate building within the religious practices of the LDS Church. Reducing the height to 50 feet as has been suggested by several residents is not recommended in that the city has permitted other churches to have religious symbols (i.e. steeples and crosses) to exceed applicable height limits with several exceeding 50 feet. Many comments have been received suggesting reduced lighting or no lighting of the proposed Temple. Reducing the hours of illumination is a valid technique to increase the compatibility of the proposed Temple; however, staff believes that the lighting hours based upon the hours of operation is acceptable. Staff is hesitant to suggest limiting the hours of operation of a place of religious worship, especially when there is little external evidence of the activities other than vehicles entering and exiting the site. As noted previously in the report, the city cannot certify the EIR at this time due to the additional noticing required, and the EIR must be certified, if found adequate, prior to acting on the project. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, provide direction to staff on the preparation of findings and conditions, and continue the item to October 3, 2002. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5. 2002 Page 19 of 20 Exhibits 1. Project plans (Separate large format plans) 2. Comparison graphic of Los Angeles and La Jolla Temple and the proposed Newport Beach Temple 3. Steeples and Lighting as Religious Symbols 4. Property Value Article 5. Memorandum prepared by the City Attorney regarding RLUIPA. 6. Councilmember Bromberg's poll, results and responses. 7. Additional correspondence received. 8. Petition in opposition 9. Draft EIR (Separate Bound Volume) 10. Responses to Comments document (Separate Bound Volume) LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 20 of 20 Exhibit No. 1. Project plans Gq3 Eik c• '� �_ � Q ci z .d' K 2w K F- ._ _ ., I k q� d 9 E4k 4��—j 4 --4 — _ !w3 3k Cry n <Y I I \ II l II 3�k I I JI �I I : § 11 iL— �• I1 wG I I E II �� I I � JI m I I II II f l wk v II Ilo III IIw �jI g I I fr i!• 1 1 ag _ I 1j1 1j1 w 111 — II II I -P II 1 a s ill w IY 1 III I 11 n A- of F( Him M F3 II II Q II ZyY ii nY 4- G4§ II it OK Ili C- ..CSC.. ��Il�ll�allll a •.IIIIIIIIIIIII . CFA e� E q "III mil ua I i�lE�af1�� hc • �. aii: �� .� ail `._ =°� � nnunMg%- �illllllll�llllla �I�II © ��I IIIIIIII i � iI1111111�C:� o _IIIIIIIIilllll Z63 eL wuwreaw it n =1 I -Tru 11 11 11 -U 11 11 11 11 ail All INS wm- ' k e� @ Az �■ ■a&, . y \\ gdSl� \� � \\ \( \/ \5 \( � \ / (\ , \ ►� %3 �� %� . .. / (\ , \ Exhibit No. 2. Comparison graphic of Los Angeles and La Jolla Temple and the proposed Newport Beach Temple Q 0 ti LO N Cl) J 0 z. CO 0 O a _a O W H C z o Q N (n ►ti M N T- U Q W m I— 0 CL W Z a W 0 CL O oC IL Exhibit No. 3. Steeples and Lighting as Religious Symbols BOSTON CHICAGO FRANKFURT HAMBURG HONG KONG' LONDON LOS ANGELES MOSCOW NEW JERSEY Via Mail/Fax(949)644 -3229 Patricia Temple Planning Director 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Latham ar Watkins NEW YORK NEW VIRGINIA ATTORNEYS AT LAW ORANGE COUNTY WWW.LW.COM PARIS PECE:IVED BY SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT SILICON VALLEY CITY OF NEWP` r,EACH SINGAPORE TOKYO DEC 18 2001 WASHINGTON, D.C. December 12, 200 18191101111121112131415 6 PM F. No. 014532-0028 Re: Bonita Canyon Temple /Steeples and Lighting as Religious Symbols Dear Ms. Temple: At our meeting on November 2&, you requested a written statement of the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints regarding the religious significance of steeples and lighting on temples. Attached is the Church's official statement entitled "Temple Steeples and Lighting as Religious Symbols." While this statement has been tailored to fit the Newport Beach Temple, I am informed that its principles are uniform, at least as to temples located in the United States. In addition to finding that the erection and lighting of a steeple is an important religious symbol, we are confident that the City will also determine that this element is no threat to the health, safety or welfare of the general public. In fact, it is hard to envision any actual municipal benefit to be served by any City restriction on the height or lighting of this slender steeple. That was the effect of a very similar case, involving one of our temples, that was decided earlier this year. Enclosed is a copy of a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in Martin vs. The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jes us Christ of Latter -day Saints (May 16, 2001). That case involved the height of a steeple built in Belmont, near Boston. The court upheld a 139 -foot tower (including a 56 -foot building), despite a local zoning restriction limiting height to 60 feet or 4 stories. (I have marked certain passages that are especially pertinent here.) That decision was based on the First Amendment and a Massachusetts state law called the "Dover Amendment" which was similar to the recent federal law, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (or "RLUIPA "). The Martin case did not rely on RLUIPA, as it was enacted after the Martin case was first briefed. Our facts are even better than in the Boston case. Here, our setbacks are far greater and the steeple is even lower than in that case. Also, the nearest plaintiff there lived twice as close to the Boston Temple as the nearest Bonita Canyon resident will live to our Temple: 300 feet vs. 650 feet. As for views, the Church has designed the steeple to be so narrow as not to obstruct any significant views from neighboring properties. I also understand that our site is not within any "view corridor" or "viewpoint overlay," as designated by the City. Perhaps a few opposing neighbors may think they are aggrieved because they can actually see a tall lighted steeple from their homes. As the Martin court said: "...generally, concerns about the visual impact of a structure do not suffice to confer standing to appeal a zoning decision." If the potential injury is so minimal as to raise serious doubts about the objectors' standing even to raise a legal challenge, then City action to prevent any such injury should not amount to a "compelling governmental interest." 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SURE 2000 • COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-1925 TELEPHONE: 4714) 540 -1235 • FAX: (714) 755-8290 OC_D0054472257.2 @4#902!.DOC[W2000] IATNANI & WATMNS Patricia Temple December 12, 2001 Page 2 RLUIPA prohibits any substantial burdening of the Church's free exercise of religion (including any undue restrictions on the "use, building or conversion of real property") unless the city uses the least restrictive means to advance a compelling governmental interest. Whatever interest may exist in protecting neighbors' sentiments about what they see when they look out their windows cannot possibly meet RLUIPA's "compelling interest" test. Even under the simpler "balancing analysis" test applied in California or the `neutrality test" that was applied by the U.S. Supreme Court before RLUIPA, a neighbor's desire not to see a temple or its steeple pales in comparison to the important "free exercise" benefits that accrue to the Church and the community. Thus, restricting steeple height or temple lighting cannot satisfy any of these federal standards. The Martin case suggests that it is permissible for the zoning board to inquire about possible amendments to the proposed site or building design. During our early design stages, after meeting with the Harbor View Homes and Bonita Canyon Association boards last August, the Church's architects voluntarily amended the steeple design before taking it to the highest ecclesiastical leaders for final approval or to the City for its review. Accordingly, the steeple height has already been reduced by about 9 feet (7 %) and its overall surface was proportionately reduced by nearly 20 %. You have also asked me to describe other accommodations to neighbors' concerns that the Church has made, which include the following: (a) The initial decision to construct a temple with 17,500 square feet rather than the maximum 90,000 sq. ft. permitted by The Irvine Company or even the required minimum of 25,000 sq. ft. (about the same size as the existing Church meetinghouse). This land was acquired for a much larger building, as evidenced by the high price paid for this prime site. This excess land will result in less than 5% lot coverage and combined setbacks (front, rear and side yards) of nearly 1,000 feet; (b) Redesign of the main access road so as to curve towards the temple in an easterly direction. Now, head lights from oncoming traffic will be directed away from the nearest homes. The parking lots themselves will be terraced and obscured by landscaping, further reducing headlight glare; (c) Willingness to install more extensive and mature landscaping materials to cover more view of the temple and its lighting and ultimately some of the steeple. (Residents desiring to reduce the view still further could plant evergreens closer to their homes, with much greater effect than our more distant plantings.) Terraced gardens and mature palm and pine trees will surround the temple as well; (d) Use of textured, non - reflective exterior materials on the building itself. This material will not be "dazzling white" as some of the news articles have stated, but will more likely be a reddish -tan or other earth -tone material; and (e) Willingness to use subdued lighting and to turn off direct fagade illumination on the building after 11 pm, despite the Church's preference to keep the top part of the steeple lighted all night due to its religious symbolism. All grounds and building lighting will be strictly contained on site. Please feel free to call me if either you, Jim Campbell or Todd Weber has any further questions or needs in this matter. Thank you. go;4s4entivey of LATHAM & WATKINS oC_DOCSw72257.2 Q4 #902!.DOC(W2000] NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA STAKE THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER -DAY SAINTS OFFICIAL STATEMENT TEMPLE STEEPLES AND LIGHTING AS RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS: Newport Beach California Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints This statement is the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints regarding the following points: 1. Design Authority. Church members believe that the location and design of temples are revealed by God to the president of the Church, whom members regard as a prophet. 2. Temples As Holy Places. In our theology, temples are places of deep religious significance. The purpose of temples is to exalt and enlighten the human soul. Thus, greater emphasis is placed on the aesthetic beauty, serenity and design of temples than any other Church facility. 3. The Steeple. The temple steeple is a symbolic architectural connection with the infinite, embodying the value of upward ascendancy. It must be high enough to be visible at a distance which identifies the temple as a source of eternal blessings available to the faithful. A recent President of the Church said: "... spires are symbolic of how our lives ought to be ever moving upward toward God." 4. Illumination. Lighting of the steeple and the statue described below is also a symbol of our theology, reflecting the Savior's statement: "I am the light of the world. He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness" (John 8:12). Illumination for the Newport Beach Temple is designed to be much more subdued than for the temples in La Jolla and West Los Angeles. The steeple should be kept illuminated during all normal operating hours, which may continue as late as 11:00 pm. S. The Angel. In our theology, the statue atop the steeple represents an angelic messenger who helped to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith. It is reflective of the statement in Revelation 14:6: "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people." Wedtliefford'r. Clay n M. D. Newport Beach Stak President The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints 3 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as; 434 Mass. 141, 747 N.E.2d 131) C Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex. Arleen MARTIN & others [F'NI1 FNI. Jenny Altschuler, Margaret Boyajian, and Joyce Jones. V. The CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER -DAY SAINTS. Argued Jan. 12, 2001. Decided May 16, 2001. Neighboring landowner brought action against church to challenge decision by zoning board of appeals approving tall steeple on temple. The Superior Court Department, Middlesex County, Elizabeth M. Fahey, J., annulled the decision. Church's application for direct appeal was granted. The Supreme Judicial Court, Marshall, C.J., held that: (1) landowner had standing to challenge approval by zoning board of appeals; (2) Dover Amendment restricting zoning ordinances and by- laws concerning land or structures used for religious purposes applied to church's decision; and (3) the Amendment prohibited the restriction. Vacated and remanded. West Headnotes [1] Zoning and Planning X571 4141:571 Most Cited Cases As an abutter to property affected by decision of zoning board of appeals, landowner enjoyed a rebuttable presumption that she was a person aggrieved and entitled to appeal board's decision. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, §§ 11, 17. [21 Zoning and Planning 0571 414k571 Most Cited Cases Generally, concerns about the visual impact of a structure do not suffice to confer standing to appeal zoning decision. Page 2 [3] Action G'13 131:13 Most Cited Cases A defined protected interest may impart standing to a person whose impaired interest falls within that definition. [4] Zoning and Planning (2=571 414k571 Most Cited Cases Landowner abutting property on which church sought to build tall steeple on temple had standing to challenge approval by zoning board of appeals; zoning bylaw required consideration of visual consequences and views from developed properties, and since the landowner would be able to see the steeple from most or all of her property, she came within the scope of bylaw protection. [51 Zoning and Planning C^=76 41476 Most Cited Cases Dover Amendment restricting zoning ordinances and by -laws concerning land or structures used for religious purposes applied to church's decision to build tall steeple on temple; the structure as a whole was used for religious purposes, even if the steeple did not have an independent religious use. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 3. 161 Zoning and Planning X76 41406 Most Cited Cases Each element or section of a structure need not have an independent religious use to be protected by the Dover Amendment restricting zoning ordinances and by -laws concerning land or structures used for religious purposes; rather, the Amendment applies if the structure as a whole is used for religious purposes. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 3. [71 Constitutional Law X84.5(1) 92k84.5(1) Most Cited Cases [71 Zoning and Planning 76 41406 Most Cited Cases First Amendment prohibited judge from determining whether the inclusion of a particular architectural feature on a temple was necessary for a particular religion and, therefore, whether a tall steeple was Coin. 0 West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, 747 N.E.2d 131) necessary to the Morman religion and protected by the Dover Amendment restricting zoning ordinances and by -laws concerning land or structures used for religious purposes. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. l; M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 3. [8] Zoning and Planning G=65 414k65 Most Cited Cases Rigid application of zoning bylaw's height restrictions to church steeple would impair the character of the temple without advancing any municipal concern and, therefore, was prohibited by the Dover Amendment restricting zoning ordinances and by -laws concerning land or structures used for religious purposes, but permitting reasonable regulations concerning height; the character of the temple with its steeple encompassed both its architectural beauty, as well as its religious symbolism. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 3. [9] Zoning and Planning c&;P65 414k65 Most Cited Cases Considering only whether a zoning bylaw's height restriction prevented or diminished a temple's religious usefulness as applied to a steeple was too narrow under the Dover Amendment restricting zoning ordinances and by -laws concerning land or structures used for religious purposes, but permitting reasonable regulations. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 3. [10] Zoning and Planning (9=65 414k65 Most Cited Cases When applying the Dover Amendment that restricts zoning ordinances and by -laws concerning land or structures used for religious purposes, the trial judge should have considered whether compliance with height restrictions would have impaired the character of a church temple, while taking into account the special characteristics of its exempt use. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 3. [11] Zoning and Planning (9=76 414k76 Most Cited Cases Religious doctrine is not the defining test whether imposition of a zoning requirement will impair the character of a religious building and is prohibited by the Dover Amendment restricting zoning ordinances and by -laws concerning land or structures used for Page 3 religious purposes. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 3. * *133 *142 Arthur P. Kreiger, Cambridge, for the plaintiffs. Paul Killeen (Edward J. Naughton with him) for the defendant. James O. Fleckner & Andrew M. Fischer, Boston, for The American Jewish Congress, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Present MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, & SOSMAN, JJ. MARSHALL, C.J. May the Church of Jesus Christ of. Latter Day Saints (church) build a steeple atop its new temple on the highest hill of Belmont where the proposed steeple would rise higher than the dimensional requirements of the applicable Belmont zoning bylaw? The board of appeals of Belmont (board) said yes, but its decision was annulled by a judge in the Superior Court. The church appealed, and we granted its application for direct appellate review. [FN2] FN2. The board of appeals of Belmont also filed a notice of appeal. It did not, however, file a brief or otherwise pursue its appeal. The church's planned temple in Belmont complied with all zoning bylaws but for the height of its proposed steeple: the steeple would rise eighty - three feet above the roof of the temple, while under the applicable Belmont bylaw the church had a permitted right to build a steeple (projection) of eleven feet, two inches. On the church's application for zoning relief, the board concluded that the bylaw's projection height restriction, if applied to the steeple, would be an unreasonable regulation of a religious structure prohibited by the Dover Amendment, G.L. c. 40A § 3, second par. [FN3] We agree. We vacate the judgment of the Superior Court because it is inconsistent with that statute. FN3. General Laws c. 4C ? 3, second par., provides: "No zoning ordinance or by -law shall ... prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes ... on land owned ... by a Copr. C West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, *142, 141 N,Z.'�d 01, * *133) religious sect or denomination ... provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements." *143 I Since 1979, the church has owned a nine -acre wooded lot in Belmont. Bounded on the north by a major highway, Route 2, the lot is surrounded on the east, south, and west by single - family residences. In 1995, the president of the church, Gordon B. Hinckley, announced plans to construct a temple on the lot. The construction of a temple, which is used to perform three sacred ceremonies, is a matter of deep religious significance to the church and its members, who believe that the location and design of temples are revealed by God to the presidency of the church. The Belmont temple site is located in the single residence-A (SR -A) zoning district. Section 3.3 of the Belmont zoning bylaw allows religious uses by right in an * *134 SR -A zone. [FN41 Because of the large size of its lot, the church had the right to construct a temple of up to "60 feet or 4 stories in height" [FN51; its temple plan met that and all other zoning requirements. The permissible height of the steeple is governed, in turn, by § 4.2.2 n. 1 of the Belmont bylaw concerning uninhabited "projections." [FN61 Because the church's eighty - three foot proposed steeple, whicl *144 included at the top a ten -foot statue of the Angel Moroni, [FN71 did not comply with that bylaw, the church applied for a special permit to exceed the height limit and, alternatively, a determination that application of the bylaw's height restriction to the steeple would violate the Dover Amendment, G.L. c. 40 F 3, second par. FN4. Section 3.3 of the Belmont zoning bylaw provides that "[r]eligious or educational use[s] exempted from prohibition by [G.L. c. 40A, § 3,1" are permitted in all of Belmont's single residence zones. FN5. Section 4.2 of the Belmont zoning bylaw provides that buildings in the single residence-A (SR -A) zone of Belmont may be no more than thirty -six feet, or two and one -half stories high. However, "[glreatei height is permitted provided Page 4 the building setback from each street and lot line exceeds otherwise applicable requirements by 10 feet plus one foot for each foot of excess height, but in no case shall building height exceed 60 feet or 4 stories in height." Section 4.2.2 n. 5. The temple is set back over 300 feet from most of the surrounding lots, and no less than 165 feet from the nearest building. FN6. Section 4.2.2 n. 1 of the Belmont zoning bylaw provides that: "Chimneys, towers and other projections not used for human occupation may exceed the height limitations herein provided that ... any such projection above the building exceeding 10 feet or 20% of the building height, whichever is greater, shall be allowed by special permit only." FN7. The church presented uncontested evidence that the Angel Moroni is an important religious symbol for the church, the equivalent of a cross for other Christian -based faiths. Members believe the Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, the founder of the church. Beginning in May, 1996, and continuing over many months, the board held numerous public hearings on the church's application. On April 28, 1997, the board granted the requested relief. The board noted that the Dover Amendment requires a degree of accommodation between protected uses and matters of critical municipal concern. It found that there is "no grave municipal concern in controlling steeple height on churches," and that it was "hardly accommodating to a protected use to limit the Church to a 12 foot projection." [FN81 The board concluded that the steeple height requested by the church was reasonable "as a Dover type regulation of height." The board also concluded that the "benefits" provided by the church outweigh the burdens that could result from the steeple height, and that the height of the steeple requested by the church was reasonable "as a special permit matter." [FN91 FN8. The twelve -foot steeple refers to the steeple height that would have been allowed by right under the church's initial application. See note 22, infra. FN9. Section 7.4.2 of the Belmont zoning bylaw provides that a special permit "shall be granted only if the Special Permit Granting Authority determines that the proposal's benefits to the Town Copr. ® West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. M 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, *144, 747 N.E.2d 131, * *134) will outweigh any adverse effects for the Town." Other special permit criteria specified F 7.4.2, such as location, access, and the process to be followed, are "preferred" rather than required. The plaintiffs brought an action in the Superior Court challenging the board's decision pursuant to the Zoning Act, G.L. c. 44 ? 17. [FN10] In response the board ane * *135 the church challenged the standing of each of the plaintiffs to seek relief from the board's ruling. A judge in the Superior Court rejected that argume *14? and concluded that at least one of the plaintiffs had standing. The judge then ruled that the Dover Amendment did not apply to the church's application for zoning relief because "neither the presence nor the height" of the steeple represents a "necessary element of the Mormon [FNII] religion." She also concluded that the board had abused its discretion by issuing a special permit allowing the steeple. FN10. General Laws c. 401 t 17, provides, in pertinent part: "Any person aggrieved by a decision of the board of appeals or any special permit granting authority ... may appeal to ... the superior court department in which the land concerned is situated...." FNIL Members of the church are sometimes referred to as "Mormons" or members of the "LDS" faith. II The plaintiffs Arleen Martin, Jenny Altschuler, and Margaret Boyajian are, owners of residential properties that abut the temple site. The plaintiff Joyce Jones is the owner of residential property that "abuts a way which abuts an abutter to the church property," and resides within 300 feet of the temple. The church first challenges the judge's decision affirming the standing of all four plaintiffs to bring this action. We agree with the judge that Martin has standing, albeit on grounds somewhat different from those on which the judge relied. We therefore need not address the standing of the remaining three plaintiffs. See Save the Bay, Inc. v. Department of Pub. Wits- 366 Mass. 667, 674 -675, 322 N.E.2d 742 (1975) Murray v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 473, 476 n. 7, 494 N.E.2d 1364 (1986). [FN121 FN12. The plaintiffs also sought review of the Page 5 board's decision in the nature of certiorari pursuant to G.L. c. 24 i 4, as well as a declaratory , judgment regarding the propriety of the board's ruling pursuant to G.L. c. 2311 § 1. Review in the nature of certiorari is available only where no other remedy is available and review is necessary to correct "a substantial injury or injustice arising from the proceeding under review Walpole.v. Secretary of the Executive ice of Envd. Affairs, 405 Mass.. 67, 72, 537 N.E.2d 1244 (1989). The judge concluded that, because the claims could be reviewed under G.L. c. 4W § 17, the plaintiffs could not avail themselves of G.L. c. 249, § 4, and that declaratory relief was not appropriate for the same reason and dismissed counts II and III of the complaint. The plaintiffs filed a cross appeal challenging that aspect of the judge's decision. Because relief is available under G.L. c. 40A, § 17 , we do not reach the cross appeal. See Part III, supra. [1] As an abutter to the temple site, Martin enjoys a rebuttable. presumption that she is a "person aggrieved" under G.L *14f c. 40A f 11. See Bell v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Glouces 429 Mass. 551, 553- 554, 709 N.E.2d 815 (1999), quoting Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. Of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 721, 660 N.E.2d 369 (1996). Martin claimed that she would be adversely affected by the shadow of the steeple, as well as the steeple's visual impact. The judge found that Martin "would have a view of most, if not all, of the steeple from her back door and part of her patio, as well as a clear view from areas in her yard where she regularly gardens and landscapes "; she "also would see the spire from the front of her house." The judge pointed to the fact that the `proposed steeple was 139 feet,. [FN13] and would be built at the top of a hill in Martin's backyard. She concluded that Martin had standing because of the "extreme and unique" vjsual impact caused by the "presence of such an enormous structure looming over" Martin's property. FN 13. It is apparent that the judge was referring to the combined height of the main structure of the temple and the steeple. * *136 [2][3][41 Generally, concerns about the visual impact of a structure do not suffice to confer standing, and we are not persuaded by the judge's reasoning on this point. Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 491, 493, 540 N.E.2d 182 (1989). Copr. 0 West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, *146, 747 N.E.2d 131. * *135) ut elmont's zoning bylaw itself provides that the and should take into consideration the "[v]isual [ consequences" of any proposed structure. Subsection (1) o § 7.4.2(c) of the bylaw provides that "[vliews from public ways and developed properties 7sould be considerately treated in the site arrangement and building design." [FN141 A r defused protected interest may impart standing to a Iperson whose *147 impaired interest falls within that definition. Set Monks v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Plymouth, 37 Mass.App.Ct. 685, 688 - 689, 642 N.E.2d 314 (1994), citing Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston 324 Mass. 427, 431, 86 N.E.2d 920 (1949). Monks v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Plymouth, sul homeowners appealed from the grant of a special permit to build a communications tower. The Appeals Court held that a bylaw similar to the one at issue here [FN151 did not confer automatic standing on abutters, but the abutters could establish that they were within the legal scope of the protection created by Id at 688, 642 N.E.2d 314. In that case the abutters did so by demonstrating that the tower "would be 'clearly visible from almost every window' of their home." Id at 687, 642 N.E.2d 314. Here the judge found that the towering steeple would be visible to Martin from most, if not all, of her property, both during the day and when lit at night. [FN16] We conclude that Martin has demonstrated that she came within the scope of Belmont's bylaw protection sufficiently to confer standing on her. . [FN 171 FN14. Section 7.4.2 (special permit criteria) of the Belmont bylaw states in pertinent part: "The following shall be the basis for decisions on special permits ... Special Permits shall be granted only if the Special Permit Granting Authority determines that the proposal's benefits to the Town will outweigh any adverse effects for the Town or the vicinity, after consideration of the following preferred qualities, among other things: "(c) Visual Consequences. "(1) Views from public ways and developed properties should be considerately treated in the site arrangement and building design." FN15. The zoning bylaw at issu Monks v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of 37outh,. Mass.App.Ct. 685, 686 - 687, 642 N.E.2d 314 (1994), provided that: "No structure shall be built ... to above a height of thirty -five (35) feet ... without a special permit Page 6 from the board of appeals, after a finding by the board that ... the proposed structure will not in any way detract from the visual character or quality of the adjacent buildings, the neighborhood or the town as a whole." FN16. As a condition of the requested zoning relief, the board required that the steeple be lighted only "no later than 11 p.m., (or at whatever earlier hour all other churches in Belmont turn off all exterior lights)." FN17. The judge also found that Martin established that the steeple will affect her "by casting a shadow" over her property, which would "substantially reduce* her enjoyment of her property sufficient to confer standing. We agree with the church that the evidence of shadow from the steeple was speculative and insufficient to confer standing. III The Dover Amendment precludes the adoption of zoning ordinances or bylaws restricting the use of land for religious (and other exempt) purposes, G.L. c. 40A, § 3, second par., but authorizes "reasonable regulation[ ]" of bulk, height, yard si *141 lot area, setbacks, open space, and parking requirements. See note supra. * *1: The amendment "seeks to strike a balance between preventing local discrimination against [a religious] use ... and honoring legitimate municipal concerns that typically find expression in local zoning laws" (citation omitted) Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, 415 Mass. 753, 757, 616 N.E.2d 433 (1993). Local zoning requirements are meant to be applied uniformly. Consequently, "local officials may not grant blanket exemptions from the requirements to protected uses. Campbell v. City Council of Lynn: 415 Mass. 772, 778, 616 N.E.2d 445 (1993). But they may decide that zoning requirements concerning height and dimension should not be applied to a proposed religious use where it would unreasonably impede the protected use without appreciably advancing critical municipal goals. Set Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, supra at 757 -761, 616 N.E.2d 433. The board made a careful examination of the case law interpreting the Dover Amendment. It concluded that the first issue to be considered was "whether the ... structure is being used for a Copr. 0 West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, *148, 747 N.E.2d 131, * *137) religious purpose." The board found that it "is clearly part of Mormon theology to reflect, in their buildings, the belief of an ascension towards heaven." The board found that members of the church believe that steeples, by pointing toward heaven, "serve the purpose of lifting Mormons' eyes and thoughts towards heaven." It concluded that the steeple served a religious purpose, and that application of the Belmont bylaw regulating the height of uninhabited projections would be an unreasonable regulation of a religious use. Rejecting that analysis, the judge found that, "[w]hile a steeple may have inspirational value and may embody the Mormon value of ascendency towards heaven, that is not a matter of religious doctrine and is not in any way related to the religious use of the [ t]emple." She then determined that, because "neither the presence nor the height of the steeple atop the [tlemple represents a necessary element of the Mormon religion," it does not "aid in the Mormons' system of faith" so as to be entitled to be analyzed pursuant to the Dover Amendment. In the alternative, the judge concluded that, even if the Dover Amendment were applicable, the church "failed to carry its burden of proof" that limiting the height of tht *149 proposed steeple to eleven feet, two inches, is "unreasonable." She reached this conclusion because the church had not shown that "limiting the spire [height] would prevent or significantly impede the religious use" of the temple. The judge erred on both grounds. A [5][6] First, in deciding that the Dover Amendment was not applicable, the judge erroneously framed the question as "whether the construction of the spire atop the already existing [ t]emple [FN 181 constitutes the 'use of land or structures for religious purposes' so as to trigger a Dover Amendment analysis." The statute directs the inquiry to the use of "land" or a "structure," not the use of an element or part of a structure. See G.L. c. t 3„ second par. ( "No zoning ordinance or by -law shall ... prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes "). 5 Worcester County Christian Communications, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Spencer, 22 Mass.App.Ct. * *138 83, 87, 491 N.E.2d 634 (1986) ( "focus must be placed on the use of the structure "). To view each element, each section of a "structure," as requiring an Page 7 independent "religious" use leads to impossible results: Is a church kitchen or a church parking lot a "religious" use? We have not formulated the test so narrowly. Trustees of Tuffs College v. Medford. 415 Mass. 753, 754 -755, 616 N.E.2d 433 (1993), for example, we considered the applicability of the Dover Amendment to several construction projects proposed by an educational institution, including a multi -level parking gara It We recognized that the proposed parking garage was for an educational purpose, because it "will be located in the core ... area of Tufts' campus. Id. at 755, 616 N.E.2d 433. While the judge's inquiry may have focused on the steeple because the temple complied in all other respects with Belmont's zoning bylaws, the question under the statute is whether the structure as a *150 whole is to be used for religious purposes. [FN19] It clearly is, and just as clearly the Dover Amendment applies. FN 18. Because the proposed temple complied in all other respect with Belmont's bylaws, in June, 1998, the church obtained a building permit and began construction of the temple, including an approximately eleven foot base for the proposed steeple. Construction of the temple was complete by the time of trial. FN19. Despite the fact that the size of the temple itself was not before her, the judge found that, although the church claimed that the temple could not accommodate its intended religious uses if. it were any smaller, the portion of the interior temple space "devoted to the temple's purpose ... is a relatively small percentage." She went on to note that "[ r]ooms such as the audio - visual room, lunch room, dining room, storage, custodian /clothing drop, general office, showers, mechanical areas, multi- use, waiting and study rooms, arrival center, cold and dry storage rooms and locker rooms are purely for the convenience of [ teemple visitors [rather than] the practice of the Mormon religion...." This is the sort of particularized inquiry into the use of discrete sections of a structure serving a protected religious use that is inappropriate. [71 The judge also used an erroneous legal test to determine whether a "structure" serves a religious purpose, thereby entering an area of inquiry that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits. She correctly noted that " '[r]eligious purpose' means something in aid of a system of faith and worship," citirq Needham Pastoral Counseling Copr. 0 West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, *150, 747 N.E.2d 131, * *138) Ctr., Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Nees 29t, Mass.App.Ct. 31, 33, 557 N.E.2d 43 (1990). She then impermissibly concluded that a steeple is not "a necessary element of the Mormon religion." It is not for judges to determine whether the inclusion of a particular architectural feature is "necessary" for a particular religion. A rose window at Notre Dame Cathedral, a balcony at St. Peters Basilica, are judges to decide whether these architectural elements are "necessary" to the faith served by those buildings? The judge found, as she was compelled to do in the face of overwhelming and uncontradicted testimony, that temples "are the places where Mormons conduct their sacred ceremonies." No further inquiry as to the applicability of the Dover Amendment was warranted. 'Set Parish of the Advent v. Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Me 426 Mass. 268, 284 -285, 688 N.E.2d 923 (1997) (civil tribunals must avoid resolving matters of purely ecclesiastical nature). See : Employment Div., Dept of Human Resources of Or. v. Smit 494 U.S. 872, 887, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), and cases cited ( "[r]epeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim "). *151 B [81 As an alternative ground for denying relief, the judge determined that, even if the Dover Amendment applied, tl * *131 church failed to prove that application of the Belmont bylaw to its temple was unreasonable. We described in Trustees of Tufts College v. Medfc 415 Mass. 753, 616 N.E.2d 433 (1993), an Campbell v. City Council of Lynn 415 Mass. 772, 616 N.E.2d 445 (1993), the standards by which to analyze application of the Dover Amendment to exempt institutions. While the reasonableness of a local zoning requirement will depend on the particular facts of each case, we said that a judge should consider whether the requirement sought to be applied takes into account "the special characteristics of [the exempt] use," adding that a zoning requirement that results "in something less than nullification of a proposed [exempt] use may be unreasonable within the meaning of the Dover Amendment." Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, Page 8 supra at 758 -759 & n. 6, 616 N.E.2d 433. See Campbell v. City Council of Lynn, supra at 778, 616 N.E.2d 445. [9][10] The judge found that the church had not met its burden of proving that the height restriction was unreasonable because it had not shown "that limiting the spire to 12 [feet] would prevent or significantly impede the religious use of the [t]emple or substantially diminish or. detract from its usefulness." By considering only whether the height restriction prevented or diminished the temple's religious "usefulness," the judge's focus was again too narrow. There are several ways in which an applicant may demonstrate "unreasonableness." See, e.g Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, supri at 759 -760, 616 N.E.2d 433 (zoning requirement unreasonable if it detracts from usefulness of structure, imposes excessive costs on applicant, or impairs character of proposed structure). See alsi Rogers v. Norfolk 432 Mass. 374, 385, 734 N.E.2d 1143 (2000) ( "proof of cost of compliance is only one way" to show unreasonableness, and court must consider other aspects such as use or character of property); Campbell v. City Council of Lynn, supra at 778, 616 N.E.2d 445 (same). The judge should have considered whether compliance with Belmont's height restrictions would have impaired the character of the temple, while taking into account the special characteristics of its exempt use. [ll] *152 The judge dismissed the church's desire to build a steeple as a "purely" aesthetic issue. But matters of aesthetic and architectural beauty are among the factors to be considered in deciding whether a zoning requirement "impairs the character" of a proposed exempt it Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, supra at 757, 759 & n. 6, 616 N.E.2d 433. The "character" of the temple with itssteeple surely encompasses both its architectural beauty, as well as its religious symbolism. See Petrucci v. Board of Appeals of West 454 Mass.App.Ct. 818, 826 -827, 702 N.E.2d 47 (1998) (Dover Amendment precluded application of zoning ordinance that would "disturb the sense of the building's continuity" and ruin its "architectural integrity"). The record is replete with evidence that the steeple is integral to the specific character of the contemplated use. The church's architect based his design on an approved church prototype. There was uncontradicted testimony that the church values Copr. ® West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works l ID 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, ■152, 747 N.E.2d 131, * *139) an ascendency of space for the religious ceremonies performed in temples. The architect designed the temple to have a steeple topped by a religious symbol, a statue of the Angel Moroni, because he considered the design of a well - proportioned steeple to be part of his assignment. [FN20] There was evidence * *14( that all but three of the church's numerous temples located in countries around the world have steeples. [FN21] The Mormon religion is hardly unique in this regard: churches have long built steeples to "express elevation toward the infinite, [their] spires soaring into the heavens." J. Sallis, Stone 63 (Ind. Univ. Press 1994), and a steeple is the precise architectural feature that most often makes the public identify the building as a religious structure. The judge found that, "[w]hile a spire may have inspirational value and may embody the Mormon value of ascendancy towards heaven, that is not a matter of religious doctrine...." It is not permissible for a judge to determine what is or is not a matter of religious doctrine. Se Fortin v. *153 Roman Catholic Bishop of Worceste 416 Mass. 781, 785, 625 N.E.2d 1352 (1994). See also Fowler v. Rhode Island. 345 U.S. 67, 70, 73 S.Ct. 526, 97 L.Ed. 828 (1953) ( "no business of courts to say ... what is a religious practice or activity "). In any event, religious "doctrine" is not the defining test whether imposition of a zoning requirement will impair the character of a religious building. FN20. Because there was evidence that not all Mormon temples are topped by a figure of the Angel Moroni, the judge found the presence of the Angel Moroni "is not a matter of religious doctrine and is not in any way related to the religious use of the [ t]emple." Catholic or Protestant religious services may be conducted in buildings that do not bear an exterior sign of a cross; that would not support a finding that a cross is "not in any way related to the religious use" of the building. FN21. At the time of trial, the church had 110 temples operating or under construction worldwide. The board found, and there was no evidence to the contrary, that no municipal concern was served by controlling the steeple height of churches. It concluded that the height exemption requested by the church was reasonable in light of the function of a Page 9 Csteeple, and the importance of proportionality of steeple height to building height. Once it determined that the Dover Amendment was implicated, it was permissible for the board to consider whether something less than the original design of the steeple height was reasonable. It did so, and the church voluntarily amended its design to reduce the height of the steeple. [FN22] We agree with the boardthat a rigid application of Belmont's height restrictions for uninhabited "projections" would impair the character of the temple without advancing any municipal concern. FN22. In its initial application, the church proposed a temple that would be 94,100 square feet, fifty -eight feet high, with six steeples, the tallest of which would be 156 feet high. The church later submitted a revised plan that reduced the size of the proposed temple to 68,000 square feet, a height of fifty -six feet, and a single steeple of eighty -three feet. A Because we conclude that the height restriction imposed on uninhabited "projections" under § 4.2.2 of the Belmont bylaws may not reasonably be imposed on the church because of the Dover Amendment, we need not address whether the judge impermissibly exceeded her authority in annulling the decision of the board to issue a special permit. [FN23] We also need not consider whether the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.0 § 2000cc (2000), prohibits the application of the Belmont height limitation to the church's *154 proposed steeple. The judgment of the Superior Court is vacated. The case is remanded to th * *141 Superior Court. A new judgment is to be entered affirming the decision of the board of appeals of Belmont. FN23. The board found that the "benefits [of the church's proposed steeple] outweigh the burdens." and concluded that the height of the steeple was reasonable "(a) as a Dover type regulation of height, (b) as a special permit matter or (c) a combination of the two." So ordered. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. ® West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Exhibit No. 4. Property Value Article fournal of Real Haute FIND and Economics, 11: 319 -330 (1996) ® 1996 Mower Acadeodc Publlshm Living. Next .to. Godliness: k6s'idenitial Property Values` and Churches' Pr�euor of P.conomlu, fbdvaysfty oJNav7da, Les lbgms,4303 blaryletnd ]hsLwey, Jas 1¢aras, NV 89J5: -60D3 TERRRNCE M. CLAURETIE, PH.D. Professor ofjgna!n. (Intvsrahy of Nevada, Las %I=, 4505dferyfpnd JhrkKV, fns kgar,,NV W54-OW JITF JANSEN amdaav Avloam, rtunapormtion Comer, Unlwrety of Nevada, Jas ft-, 4503 Maoiand find-7. Lam vigor, NV 89154 -4007 Absiracr This artitle extends the analysis concerning the impact of neighborhood chuschas on arWeotial propetty values by iomestigating nearly 3,000 residential property hanacti m In Jfmdaeaon, Nava&, betwemt January 19M sent Dowmbu 1990. We find OW real property valuw decrease, at a decreasing test, as distance from a neighlwdwad chumb iactmea This result is the opposite of that meporred by Do, INUbu?, and Sbnrt In a previous etlitino of W journal. Wo bolster our findings by showing that distance from the eJta of a fume church Lea Bale or no impact on reaidehbal propeny0alitaa, Whereas distance front an'lxisdagbbufoh 13 assadIned with 1'ovcm piopesty values. Oar ovidism Weicaw that neighimhood dtotohes we amaaitka that anhame the valve of aighborhood resideodal pmpa q: Finally, we demonstrate 0W hrpsx eburches (aa - wanted by aguaro foot of lot du) WA to haw a greeter positive impact on retWordiai propetty vab". In a recent article in this journal, Do, Wilbur, and Short (1994) (hereafter referred to as DWS) reported that a church tin ooustitute a negative eztemality on residential property values much as does, a powerUne, hazardous waste dump, landffil, or nuclear waste regod- tory.l That a church should, a priori, oonstitrte a negative externality is not clear, buwever. Although DWS suggest that such items as increased traffic or the now of church bcW may produce a negative effect, churches can also be viewed as amenities, much like shop- ping centers and quality schools. It is well -kaown that where that exist desirable neigh- borhood amenities; the value of which am reflected in property prices.r in the case of churches, one could hypothesize, Jbff example, that elderiy bomeownen, religious bemuse of their temporal proximity to meeting Him or Her and loathe to drive, may place a high value on being within wa➢cwg distance to their house of worship. Other; equally appealing reasons can be offered suggestive of a positive effect on propeity values.4 If a church can be soon, a priori, equally as a positive or as a negative externality, then terrain questions arise. Why did DWS obtain the results drat they did? Would other tests In other localities prodade the Ams result? Can all churches (denominations) be seen as either negative of positive eztermlities?s Is there a difference in the relationship between church locations and property values if the sale cd the hatch occurs before oi'aftei the comtruetiou of the chtirrii buiiding7 . . SNOI.Ln'los 1NSYMOOt1 157 wo?il 0 d fi0110006SE 'ONlS9'St '15/94'3! 70 .60 'It (I831 320 CARROLL, CLAUREM AND JENSEN Tb answer these questions, we replicate the DWS study in another real estate market. Our method is different, however, in tat it seeks to answer these questions. In addition, the size of our sample is over ten times that of DWS.s Our results are quite different, as well. We look at churches of several different denoarivadoas' aid find tiiat neaily ell.' but not all, have a positive effect on property values. There are jiftrencea in the price effect of various denominations. % also find, not surprisingly, that.the're is no price elfect of distance between residential property and future church sites, before the construction of a church. That is, we intentionally divide our sample to include salea prior to, and subw quent to, construction of some neighborhood churches. We do this as an added check to ensure that our statistical results are not spurious. In the next section, we present the model and data for these tests. The third section, which presents the empirical results, is feilawed by a concluding section. L Model and data I.I. Model i Following DM, we test several versions of a standard hedonic model: L L5Pn = f(Xi!„ t, DISTuA). where LSP„ is the natural logarithm of real selling price of property I at time t, Xu, is a vector of j characteristics of property i at time t, t is a time trend, and DLSTk is the dis- tance of property i from "nuisance" k, in this case, the nearest neighborhood church, mess- wed in feet. Our sets of j characteristics embody the following: AGE = the age of the structure in years, BATHS — the number of bathrooms, BEDS ' = the number of bedrooms, FP = an indicator variable for whether the house has a fireplace; LSQFTB — the natural logarithm of the square feet of the building, LSQFTL = the natural logarithm of the square feet-of the lot, POOL — as indicator variable for whether the property has a swimming pool, ROOMS = the total number of rooms in the' building, 289014 = an indicator for the Green Valley mast r -planned community (zip code 89014), in contrast to the rest of Henderson, NV (rip code = 89015), MONTH' — the time-tread variable, equal to 0 in January 1986, and increasing by I per month. Our tests are designed to answer the questiom posed in section 1. Accorditi ft we test the model by looking at transaction prices of a, sample of houses surrounding all 32 churches in the local market of Henderson, Nevada. We include indirmors for the following multipl church denominations: Baptist 7 chawchm; Marmon (LDS): 5 churches; Catholic: 3 churches. T`he other 'l7 churches include Lutitemn, Presbyterian, Mel hodist, Assembly of God, pemecostal, ai d 'congregadons of unknown affiliation. Each church is separately identif ed by an indicator in a third variant of our model. 6 d 60L 100065£ 'ON/Sb S 1 'LS /9b S I ZO .60 'i t t It731 SNO LIfI'fOa .LNZKn30G Is 1 MOU3 RESIDENT AL mtopearrx Vntves AND CHUIEMS 321 Like DWS, we measure distance to the closest church (m feet). The address of each Prop- erty and the address of each church were eom cried to an X Y inordinate system. and the drew duact_6 "probcitY th=4 i EOW. Them tiro Compares calculated the distance from each propertyh to that closest neighborhood church. Tbis calculation was made regard- less of whether the church was constructed before or after the house was Bought; that is, soma aiatanbis are the'.s'pag betwemi a raddehdal property and a vacant future site of a :.. ,:. clturch. Disttitgtnehmg t);e'ralatioa between property values anddistaneesi6 actual or future neighborhood churches provides a very strong test of the oirisance versus amenity ef&6t, of neighborhood cbmwhes. If churches tend to locate where land is h=peasive 9 then neighboring houses would also reflect those low land prices, even before the church is built. However, if the church is truly a nuisance, then property near the future church site would .not show the Ohniuished value until after the church's construction. Similarly, if clmrcbes are amenities, property values would increase as distance from the church decreased after the church is built, but not before. L2. The dale Our dam consist of all property sales in Henderson, Nevada (zip code 89015) and dv master planned community OfOscen Valley (zip code 89014), between January 1986 and December 1990.ro This' was a period of brisk construction activity of both houses sad churebes.II Five churches in our sample were built dating this period, and four were constructed after this period. Our data allow us to determine both how neighborhood churches affect aingle- family houses, and whether distance from the church site affects housing prices before and aiha the church is built. Data ware obtained from Metrmcan, a.large eomPuWP'.Wd database of the files of Ilia Tax Assessor's office of Clark County, Nevada. The database consists of 319,451 properties, including 196,000 sing &hmily homes." We found 4,97A single -f array property sales for the period January 1986 - December 1990 in Henderson, Nevada. After eliminating observations with missing data, we obtained our statistical sam- ple of 4,858 property sales it % present descriptive statistics for time data in TWO I. We also obtained data oa 32 churches in Henderson and Green Valley from the same Melloeerm file. Twenty -two charches were constructed before 1986, four Wicre,baittbetween 1986 and 1990, and six were constricted after 1990. Churches of major denominations inchtde seven Baptist churches, five Mormon qXS) churches, and three Catholic churches. Tmble.2 shows statistics on each chum and the number of property sales closest to each church, both before and after that church was built Table 3 presents the rewire of three regressions rtin on thy'666ie iarnplei thatjis, houses bought before and alter neighborhood churches were. built. The first. regression suppresses the miliumation on religious danominabons and individual. churches. We find results con- sistent with the usual hedomc literature. Housing prices decrease with age and number Of moms; housing prices increase significantly with time (about 0 % s mouth), square fixg of the'building (elasticity - Ob), and square feet oilot size (elasticity = 0.13)- Houses with Emplaces sell for about I% more than houses withoutfir� , apd houses with 'swimming pools sell for about 7% more than houses without.- wimming pons, ceteris Pan- bus,", Houses in Orem Valley (289014.= .1) sell for about 17%nwro than houses in old Henderson (289014 = 0), v d 50L1000BSE'OM/421':SI ' L8 /2.b =SI zo.50.11 UU21) SNOI1nT05 IN3NR000 ISI WOH3 S22 CAEItOLL. CLAUASf® AND JENSEN 7rr61a z Duciptive aursdcs. ... .. ffiluie Samplc Bebre Chinch Buih . .. After C.hlmmb Built .. , . Suodad Standard Standard Mem Deviabon Mein . Devidioa Mm Dadatlon . • t- Swistic PRICE $103,213 $94A!5' 5111.760 .833,4 5 .... °$94;933 534,035 -1U:58 RPRICE $4,5M 326,971 , 592,765 325,812 SS.3r906:,,. 826.746.. _10.$8 AGE 4AS- 8.16. 2.07 4.71' 5.41, 8.97. ,12.98 BATHS '. 2.14 0.49 2.23 0.41 2.10 041 -10.11 BEDS 330 6.86 3.40 0,72` 326 0.77 - -6.2D DWANCE 2872 2932 2768 1654 $913 3293 1.67 FIREPLAC 0.90 0.57 1.07 0,46 0.84 0.60 -13.83 PP 80.30% ' 39.78% 95.10% 21.59% 74.62% 43.53% -16.56 POOL 19.4711 39.60% 26.48% 44.14% 16.78% 37.37% -8.31 ROOMS 6.13 124 6.46 LIS 6.01 1.25 =12.75 SQFTB 1741 '. 561 1956 502 1697 $76 -11.02 'SQFrL. 7700 4987 s 7377 2951 7825 '5570 1.62 289014 .63.69% 48.09`%- 93.32% 24.97% 52.31% 49.95% -29.36 789015 36.31% 48.09% 6.68% 74.97% 47.0% _ 49.95% 29.36 MONTH • 38.23 • - 16 -06 34.8 15.54 39.59. 16.05 9.28 BAPTIST 16.82% '., 37.41% 16.77 % 37.37% 16.84 % 37.43% 0.5! 6tkLC ' 19.77% 39.05% 23.96% 42.70 % 16.78% 37.37% -5.57 LDS 23.10% : 42.15% 0.00% 0.00% 31.97% 46.64% 25.45 CHACE3 4.41 " 9.11 72.55 1.36 7.08 9.40 38.09 Number 4858 1318 3510 PRICE Sales prio4 of land and buildug in current dollars APRICE Sales pricy of Lod and bw7ding in canstad dolars (1982 - 1984'- 100) AGS ' Age of amveatt BATHS Numbcrolbadrrmoms . EEDB Number of badrooma DISTANCE Dbunce tietw o property ead nemem church, in feet FJRFP ar Hinder of f4eplaum PP PP = 1 if bu0dtog has 1 or more fireplaces: PP -- 0, building has tur SRphn POOL Pool iondkx*.proof. 1, but pool; POOL - 0, does mot haft pool) ROOMS bled number of roomm in imclum SQFI'B Square feet of building SQFJL Square feet 4104.: . 2:89014 ImAkaw for zip code 39014 (Glee ViW MONTH Number of moollu d or January 1986 Out property sale closed RhlP $T Indicator for *Post chinches , CaHLC Indicemr for Catholic chinches 1DS T Wcibr for the Churdr of ksos Christ aflame Day Saida (LDS) CHACIE .Age of nrmest drinah at Ems of property bwsfer OWE < 0 mcana dsumb had not yet been bug* Ir Q I S 9 60 L 10006 9 E'ON/S V: S I '•LS /LV:SI Z0.60.11 (I H3) SNOI.Lrnos .LN3y ooc is MOH3 RESE)E TLAL PROPERPY VALUES AND CHURMBS As V 323 e O O V $ �° v�$ �° F^ e. �� °�ONi�nvan�e��mr�on�g�•N,.�goo O x tl�J • • • T {y: �V+NFp yQF �p wp'�"�p ••.r• p yH�y$ ��Opt[CYtlFN NP.,P ,FL FN P R S 4 R. ip O r Hs li. H $! n '] a Wm a �Yapx pay hq x xWpw p� Qqd� ��n N��$� e r N T d H b F b g 0�^ CJ H r� H ti .�. N N lY N N N N tFi N N H T •1 9 d 604 1 0 0069E'ON/Sb :S1 '.LS /Sb:91 30.60'11 (IEd1 SNOILMOS .LNSYMOOG ISI AOUd 324 CARR r , CLAIJUTM AND JENSEN Tabk 3. Regression teeulta; dependent 1iniable c bog of reel Sclling Price; entire sample. Vmiable Caeffident r- Staft"k codri lent rStntistic Coef melt o-54&tic Log of cmtmt 53360 70.74 5.6009 71.36 5.7506 68,,77 ME - 0.0060 -19.83 - 0.0061 -20.25 - 0.0060 -1435 'BATAS 0.0200 3.12 0.0192 2.99 0.0217 337 BEDS -0A022 -0.54 - 0.0029 -0.70 .0.0009 022 MONTH 0.0021 17.79 0.0021 17.90 0.0021 17.57 DISTANCE - 1.12£{15 -9.13 - 1222EA5 -9.67 - 1.32E-05 -9.09 DIS19Q 1.86E -10, 7.91 2.02E -10 SA3 2.21E-10 SAO FF 0.0682 11.66 0.0694 1t91 0.0600 9.99 LSQFM 0.6013 42.08 0.5979 4193 0.5787 39.63 LSQPrL 0.1298 20.87 0.1205 20.70 0.1726 10.67 POOL 0.0651 1291 0.0649 12.93 0.0646 13.03 ROOMS - 0.0159 -434 - 0.0759 -4.76 - 0.0149 -4.47 289014 0.1579 31.11 0.1610 31.01 0.1908 18.74 Baptist - 0.0142 -232 cathdie - 0.0270 -4.99 LDS 0.0125 233 chaty F - 9.1118 R2 ,;. 0.8294 0.8312 . 0.8368 Adjurtrd R2 0.8290 0.8307 0.8356 Multiple F 1962.81 1589.55 686.64 Durvw-%taon 1.87 1.88 1.91 Number 4858 4850 4858 We are most interested in the coefficients on distance and distance squared. We find that property %%Ines decrease with distance from the neighborhood church at a decreasing rate (as shown by the signifies= positive ocafficient on distance squared). Taking the partial derivative of the log of real price with respect to distance mid setting the result equal b zero allows us to solve for the distance at whirls proximity to churches has no impact on property values: �p) = -1.1 x 10 -5 + 2(1.9 x 10 -1qD = 0 -� D' L02 = 2(1.R �x L0 5 - 28,947 fact = 5AS miles." Our results are Strongly at odds with those of DWS, who found that property values in- creased with distance from the neighborhood chuck up to a distance of 850 ftL Appar- emiy, reactions of housing prices to neighborhood churches in Chula Vista, California, and Henderson, Nevada, are riot the same. Adding mdxabr variables for denominations proves inrerdstmg. Each of the dummy var- iables flu Baptist, Catholic, and Marmon (LDS) churches was statistically sig%ifiwat. Com- pared b properties near (actual or future) churches of 'btber" denominations, properties near Baptist churches sell for 1.4% leas, houses near Catholic churches sell for 2.66% less, and LDS churches sell SSr 1.3% more. Adding dummy variables for each of the 30 1 d 60L100065£'ON/Sb:SI 'SS /£4uSi Zo.60'11 (183) SN0I1MOS Imanr1000 ISI Koul RESE)ENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES AND CHURCHES 325 dnucbes with neighborhood sales;provides & significant, but small, improvement W this explanatory power of the equation'.: None of th'e' Mher coefficients are materially affected by the inclusion of church or.denominedonal indicator'imriables. Most importantly, prop- erly values decrease at a decreasing rate with distance from the neighborhood church, up to a distance of`5.5 miles.76. • Table 3 begs the question of whether ft distance from the neighborhood church reflects the amenity.vii16 of the'cburch, per k. if that distance merely measures the Alts of preexisting, chamcttris4 of church neighborhoods that predate'the church building. In Table 4, we limit our sample to 1,348 sales that occurred before the church building was erected. In contrast to Uble 3 (and Thble 5), property values are not significantly related to the distance or the squared distance from the neighborhood church. 17 Adding dummy variables for Baptist and Gstholie denominations (no LDS churches in the sample were constructed 4;. 1986) does' not affect the results, except to imply that Catholic dmrches tend tD be built in neighborhoods wild slightly lower property values. This implies that the negative relation between property values and Catholic churches predates the building of the church, which does not seem to be' the case for Baptist chluches.ts 7bblo 5 clinches the argument that neighborhood churches represent amenities that, by themselves, enhance property values. The first regression shows that, for properties bought after the neighborhood church was built, property values decrease with distance and in- crease with'tbe square of distance. Adding the indicator variahle for church denomination implies that Baptist and Catholic chinches tend to locate in neighborhoods with slightly lower average property values; the location of LDS churches appears to be indepeudCnt lbbla A Regression comas; dependent variable =log of real seising price; lamer pachaaed be km champ built. variable >.: .CoeFCicieiit %Istiaid: 6iff5cknt ,gtiiiiu 1 Cad'8cieit r3liaitic leg of constant 3.8845 26.89 3.8863 27.05 3.8584 26.57 A48 . - 0.DD40 -5.15 - 0.0042 -5.$7_ - 0.0042 -5.43 BATHS - 0.0576 -5.38 - 0.0544 -5.08 - 0.0553 -5.17 BEDS - O.0010 -0,16 - 0.0054 -0.87 - 0.0065 -1.03 MONTH • 0.0074 12.35 (1.0020 9.36 0.0020 9.41 DWANCE - 4.278 -06 -1.47 - 4.84E-06 -1.51 -4 ME-06 -1.30 DWM - 8101 &11 -0.35 - 3.86E -11 -0.16 - 6.75E -11 -039 FP - 0.0064 -0.42 - 0.0092 -0.61 - 0.0094 -0.62 LSQFfB 0.8868 36.24 0.8877 36.46 0.8933 3615 LSQFrL 0.1137 10.04 0.1147 10.18 0.1139 10.08 POOL 0.0395 5.96 0.0390 5.80 0.0384 5.72 ROOMS - 0.0309 -6.68 - 0.0306 - 6.66 - 0.0305. -6.62 289014 0.1438 9.95 0.1565 10.63 0 -0941 2.05 Baptist 0.0040 0.45 Ca"llc - 0.0294 -3.71 LIX chamb P . 6.1422 lad. 0.8249 0.8369 OA371 Adj08ted R2 D.9334_ 0.8351 0.6353 Multi*F 13.80 488.42 456.38 Diubin -Watsm 1.64 1.66 1.67 Nambc 1348 1348 1348 9 d 60L 1000696'OM/9>'S I '.LS /94'51 ?0.60'11 (183) Std0ISR90S .LNHYMD00 ISI W011A 326 CARROLL, CLAURE776 AND JENSEN Table S Reg melon rmdh; dependant variable = lug of ecal waiag price+ homes purchmed dhr ehumh WIL . Venable Coefficient hSntiatic Codlicient I- 3mtielie Caef Giant k9tetiatic Log of constant 5.9850 64.68 6- 0600 65.26 6.2038 63.50 AGE - 0.0061 -18A1 - 0.0061 -18.31 - 010060 -1628 BATHS 0.0382 5 -00 0.0380 4.98 0.0440 5.68 BFW - 0.0062 -1.22 - 0.0051 -1.00 -DAM -0.86 MONTH Q.0021 13.72 0.0023 14.68 0.11072 13.95 DISTANCE - 17DB -05 -525 - 1.338-05 ' -8.§0- 1.3605 -7.83 D57W 2.0ZE -10 7.50 2.70540 8:10 2.288.10 7.61 YP 0.0854 13.00 0.0873 13.26 00810. 12.09 LSQPTB 0.5265 30.87 0.5230 30.73. 0.4974 ,.. 28.63 LSQFIL 0.1339 18.71 0.1332 18:27 0.1316 17.11 POOL 0.0729 11.13 0.0720 11.04 0.m 10.94 ROOMS -00306 - 2.46 - 0.0118 -2:74 - 0.0093 72.15 289014 0.1660 27.34 0.1655 25.94 0.107! 17.14 Baptist - 0.0213 -3.02. c.,Md:n - 0.0297 -4.04 LDS 0.0101 1.67 Church F = 9.22 R2 .0.8272 0.8292 0.8321 Adjusted R2 0.8266 0.8255 0.8310 Multiple F 1395.13 1130.88 751.12 Dwbm -worm y 1.90 153 1.93 Number 3510 3510 3510 of property values. The set of dummy variables for the 30 churches with neighborhood Property sales in=easrs the adjusted R2 slightly, albeit significantly, bat otherwise leaves the results unmodified.. Mible 6 represents Our analog of M's tables 3 and 4, showing the relation between property values and distance from neighborhood churches, DWS showed again of approx- imately $4000 (2.2'70) of value) due to movement 850 fed away from churches. We demon' st mir a loss of nearly $4,500 (5.5 % of value) as a result of being one mile, instead of 100 cable 6. Property values and distance from neigbborhood chmeh. muoce (iwU Dimoce (miles) Pmpony value Ram d Change per 1000 feet Pmporaea of Sales 10D 0.012 $83.= - 1.1960% 0.14% 856 0.16 SM.293 - 1.1657% • 8.47% 1,320 X0.25 $81,867 - 1.1467% 2242% 1.760 0.33 $83.438 - 1.1289% 22.42% 2,640 0.50 58046 - 1.0933% 57.35% 2.910 0.35 "DAM - 1.0824% S735% 3,520 0.67 $79.886 - 1.0579% 57.35% 3,960 0.75 $79,518 - 1.0400% 76.01% 5,280 1.00 578,462 -0.9867% 8815595 7.920 1.50 576,552 - 0.8800% 85.55% a 6 d 60L100065£'ON/Sb'S1 'SS /6b!S1 20.60 -11 (1H3) SNOISII'IOS 1KBKa00G ISI KOH3 RESEDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES AND CHURCHES 327 feet, from a church. In our sample, 97.5% of property purchases were with U miles of existing churches. Assuming normality, 95%, of DWSs sample is within 1,300 fm (or one- quarter Of a mile). There is one additional equation, to fit in au attempt to reconcile our results with those of DW& Although their article did not discuss the size or other characteristics of neighbor- hood churches, It is conceivable that small churches are less intimidating to neighborhood residents than large churches are. If time and traffic an the major disruptions caused by churches,.thpii we "u.,l.d . _expect . .lhatb4Zchurche.s,.wo.ut4cTeeor esp o n _ dk y g greater werwri* w 7,.vm add,threp tqrs & gauge the 014p#.aw wg jhepoper ty valWs, the size c( the church,, and d4 ante from the church, YDW $ re cored that chor h"are nuisances, then larger churc*s aught to be gm,;w, .nuisances *an §Mwlq churches. If churches am: aw'tipsj: larger. churches should enhance property valups mom than smaller churches do, imless dkmmsbmg returns w exporiono-J. CLOT measures the Am of the nearest neighti6rhoott church lot In Oquare f!bet (seeMbIq 2),'9 posditi .z. A ive coefficient an CLOT supports the hypothesis: that churchq& are amenities,, while a negative coefficient supports thehypotbmis that ChniClICS AM lotbanCOL DCWT is the, interaction term beiw the size of the church lot and the.distance from the cburch,,while D;CLOTis the interac- tion term: between the square.of distance. and cburch lot size. Table 7 shows that CLOT I= It POSWYe Coefficient that is statistically 6igftl5cRot at the OW level. Being near the smallest church (lot size = 20,=).would increase property values by only 0.33%. Being near the largest church (square feet = 368,517) would increase property values by 6.27 %. T" I Propat5 VaIMS, dMM& tot %M, Md ftte to a� t chw& Variable Caefficica i-stuism CadEMM I-Smfisfic Los ivtat � - 6.1019 60.26 ------------ 62296 7,771, 59.13 AOR -0.0059 -14.66 -o.bm -14.43 eATHS 0.07i 6.72 6.683 6.92 BEDS -0.9078 -IA2 -6.6658 -1.07 MONTH 0.002l 1225 0.6021 12.54 MMYCE -2.34E-05 -9.40 - 2.74E -OS -3.55 DMM I38EW 6,76 4.2011-09 4,73 PP 0.0682 920 0.0684 9.50 LSQFrB 03267 29.43 0.5050 27.07 LSQFrL 0.1223 14.73 0.1224 14.74 POOL 0.070 .10.93 0.0760 10,39 ROOMS -00007 -1.88 -0.0080 -1.74 Z89014 0.1496 21.06 0.1642 2225 CLOY 1.65P07 1.43 bLCLOT -5.9513-11 -2.10 D2LCL(7r -5.71E-15 -2.24 By QM) orm Adjured Rs 0.8202 0.8234 AMIMM I003.87 921.25 Darbio-wawa am 1-8575 1.8616 Observations 2640 2640 01 d 60L I 0006SE '01vst, :S I lsz5v: S E zo .60 '1 1 ( I'd q) SN011MOS INEW1100C ISI WO'dl 328 CAMLL, CLAUMIE AND 1ENSEN Both the coefficients on DCLOT and D2CLOT are negaluve and statistically significant at the OAS levels This implies that the effect of church size on housing values declines rapidly with distance from the church. All affects doe to church size disappear at 2,309 feet (0.43 miles) 20 These results support the conclusion that neighborhood churches are amenities. 2. Conclusion Otrt findings sharply contrast with those of Do, WlIbu4 and Short (1944). Whereas thay .putport to show that ueighbwbocd rhmchrs ate nuisabcm that reduce property Values over relatively short distance,'we find that neighborhood c i=bes an amenities that enhance property values over ranch larger distances (at least one.-half raze, in contrast to DWS s limitation of 850 feet). We suspect that the smmll sire of their sample, plus the restriction of their sample to properties at a very short distance from churches, may have distorted DWS's findings.211t is possible however, that both studies accurately reflect the Motion - ship between neighborhood churches and pt*rty values in their respective commuuities. Chula Vista, California, is apparently so crammed with churches that citizens can only escape its theocratic environment by sang their homes at a discount ..Ibis gives new mean- ing to the term "moral hazard=' Henderson, Nevada, by contrast, is close to Las Vegas (sin city). Henderson residents welcome churches built on vacant lots that might otherwise Ism been the site of a neighborhood casino. Obviously, there is further research that must be conducted before this issue is wally resolved. How -are bowing value gradients 2=90 cities related to the concentration of churches WAM cities? We suspect that interesting cordrasls can be made between -Vatican City, Salt Lake City, and Mecca. Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the heVul comments of an anonymous referee. This research was made possible in part through a research grant fium First Interstate Hank brstioae for Business Leadership. All remaining errors are the responsibility of the authors. Notes 1. The Wamrorc which o0 re emiddesl support for the aegitive efad on pmpdty prices of each obr� oadegrahle prop" sea ua listed here h voluminous earl nut sefertaced out of a Concert for brevil)t 2. Vrbich We authors find. by tho wo% quite comfotdag. 3. Again. for brevnY der seeder is ter bored with a ko9k He of fdMMM which XPM that pme}mltY to quality schools is as atamity for whirl, Muse buyer am wrRt4ig to pep. 4. In der rq"y grM sg Lva V09U valleys a is t tanmea praetioe for Met susue develapms b donuts teed ue religleus groups who boiW thatches prior b she dwel9pew' eonatrucdtm dhorwac. Ilia doubtful the the dvmlcpm believe that the chaa m wM reduce the prim whwh Buy can chwee for ashideutal property. 5. would thumbs otledng telad rdy sdate or hwor services be prderred to their uaumvpWU with MW# and request serviom far etmmpldr 6. Tye DM sample Contained 409 pmpmoa sold bdvrom Iasua y 1991 and September 1992 in Crrah View, Califomle. The average ftsiumboomm in th& am& is 634.37 for% with a.steodard deviation of 360AZ feet, imptfiag that 95% of the propanles in emir sampio am within 1,355 Fcd of a church. -This Works out to 15 ehorehes per square sulle. Our den cones of 32 cbmcbav mKdisg m mee of sppraaimatatY 100 square Ewes. 1� 11 d 6 DL! OOD6S£'ON/57 :51 -.LS /05'91 20.50'11 ( IEA) SNOUnlos .LNVMDOQ Isi HOES REsweN13AL P1t0PEM VALLMS AND CHt2RCHP.S 329 7. Our dam set includes the number of fireplaces per boars, but this can imt variable was con highly mirrc- hard with building sin than is tiler- iodicatur variable.. 8. The time trend MONTH is intended to reflact the adbcta of Seems inflation and housing price bt0atbn, which do Headenon, Novada taarketmg parallel. Hmwver, addi0au of the pmcevtolump In the CPI, the ram efdLmp In the CPI fur bombe$, and the ravelling mortgage roman rate .p wend statistically 1as1gd9nan<. 9. Say, and to calmearka. parsonages, or ainno[. 10. The Lae tibgn suburb of Grace Valley we -m-mil by the city of Handomin in the early 19802. 11. Trying to iavw6gate all 196,000 housing sales far the dbot of local cburehm would have been a dauetieg . teak. Homan ontaide the Vaguer valley could be hundreds of miles from a "neighborhood" church. Obser- vadmas outside Heodeisoh and Grace Valley would have email distortions due to as Air pone base, the . >a, Vegur Sh* the 14th fasiml shpod m the comity, land fills, and other Winslow Aeonrdftqjy, we tracer our =a* m a suburb of Las Vegas, for mmy, of the same ressom as DWS nstrided their sampla to a suburb of Sm Diego. ... . 12. Both new and preowtu d homes were inrhrdat in the samplle- We include property sales baton churches wee . actually constructed to control for spurious eorrelimmi between mupedfied hazards (of which the aothan could gad a0m) and church sales. . 13. Sinprvo min cove ludedes only Another low Was hadmissing den onbullding she and amber of want. 14. To cwmpum the predee meet, subtract Due from the anti -log of the coefficient on the dummy variable: PP a m•D7 - 2 = 1.0725 - 1 = 0.0625 - 7.25% 15, The 15 [miles is a polar estimate of new affect derived from the eoeAlcicam no the &a= and distance scia" vatiablea. It is ill* that the major effect diminishes much before this paid estimate. We mm& mend tba equations by iwJudhg only hours within a given number of feet and discovered that the major Impact accua within 2,910 fed (0.55 signs) of the neighborhood church. which included 62.5 % of our sample. 16. Smcedhmace and sWarad distance mcmase segether, themnwal helpifiance ofdetance and Round distance ,mild reflect tmhimMotarlty, between those two variables. This problem is avoided by relating the log of reef homing price to the log of distance, m the mefrtciew can be interpreted m an elasticity. In die sample of 1348 o6mrvatann bedam the church visa constructed, time csstdchy of property whets with respectmdhmnos (from an futum church site) is -DD96, or about I % loo in value for each doubling of distance. Tbls tm44 chat was barely slptflmcaet with a r•statistfe of -2D4. In the cat of observations der the church was con stnrmtd, the elasticity is -DD25 with a i- amliatic of 7.67. This small negative affect or d arose prior be the church being tans000ted might be m expcetatiom effect 17. Giving chat LDS and Catholic fasiil mad to be larger than Bapdst Cuumm, this treat does std appear to reflect a neighborhood aversion to may children an Sunday monmings. 18. Became church Ids arc typically purchased plot to the comtructtnn of the chatdh buiid'mg, the she of ttm church lafidfng was know for only twit chum bes, while lot sin is ]mown for 23 churches. The sin of the church let Is a pod proxy for the number of parking spaces (reflecting traffic) and the eapaaaioa puma" of the chutoh acavides. 19. Because church lots a e typically purchased poor to the construction of the thumb building, the size of the ddierch buiding was knowv for only two chumbes, while lot site is known for 23 churches. The she of the church to is a good proxy for the number Of parking spams(a0ecang traff d) and the aspmai,u pomnlial of the church activities. 20..l.eltitg D stand fur dismoce and S for church sere, Table 7 impGn: aLBP = 1.65 % 10 -7 - 5.95 x 10 -tit D - 5.71 x 10-15 D2. U- we have .65 - 5.95 x 10'4 D - 5.71 x 10"a D2 - 0, which implies D, = 5.95 x 10 -1 - (5.95 x 10'4)2 - 4(1.65)(5.71 x 10 -8) 2(5.71 x ID-t) 1� Zt d 60L1 OOO6S£'ON/Sb S1 '1S /05:51 20.60'11 (I2id) SNOIS1170S 1N3Nf1000 ISI N0113 330 .. , cnMIL, cuvxsrlx AND 2BISSEN 21. Wbm we limited ea a Flc m the 762 pmpertiea wuhim.'1300 feat of neighborhood eiwrchW sold after 7 dte thumb vas cawpletcd. we fmmd that adfim the COMMOteot m &M= Am do coaMcievr m•dismaos sq.W wm amtiadrally dgdfitw, wie a joint RstaHstic of 1.30, which i WUm w*babiQty d.27 that both coat5eiem am gem. Dropping the dlatams: sgomad vadablea (bmstw of posslMO *ultleolliuvmtt)' wdb d,,e,we) yidaad a ,cffic,,w m dwtaooe equal to — 224B4S, whieb is I %rofieav! at tha 93% Ivsel, ow4idl tort. .. .. . Nghborhvad Cbvrchcs Wilber, and Rea! aadFwnomFU 9(2 -136. a i i t 9..1 pL £I d fi011000fiS£'OM/Sv :gl '.LS /lS °SI Z0.50 "1 I (IH3) SNoian IOS .Lmayu)DOC ISI Y¢08d Exhibit No. 5. Memorandum prepared by the City Attorney regarding RLUIPA. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO: Chair & Members of the Planning Commission FROM: City Attorney RE: Newport Beach LDS Temple Use Permit No 2001 -036 Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005 DATE: August 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to provide the members of the Planning Commission with an analysis of the impact of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) on the Commission's consideration of Use Permit Application No. 2001 -036 and Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005 (Newport Beach LDS Temple - the "Project). The Planning Department Staff report provides all the relevant information concerning the Project and our land use regulations but the following summary may be helpful to a clear understanding of the potential impact of RLUIPA. The Project proposes construction of an LDS Temple. The Temple is a structure that contains approximately 15,625, is between 32.75 and 35 feet high, and includes a steeple (topped by a statute of the Angel Moroni) that is approximately 123.75 feet above the finished floor level. The Project requires a use permit to authorize a religious use pursuant to the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan (Development Plan); a use permit authorizing the steeple to exceed 35 feet (the Zoning Code specifies 35 feet while the Development Plan has a 50 foot height limit); and a site plan review pursuant to the Development Plan. The primary issue is the impact of RLUIPA on the discretion of the Planning Commission to require reductions in the height of the steeple. DISCUSSION RLUIPA, enacted on September 22,. 2000, is the second attempt by Congress to require proof of a compelling governmental interest to justify land use decisions that substantially burden the exercise of religion.' We are aware of no case law interpreting RLUIPA that serves as precedent so our analysis is based on the language in the statute, the apparent intent of Congress, limited trial court rulings and comments from attorneys that specialize in land use law. For purposes of this memo we are assuming that RLUIPA is constitutional and is applicable to this. Project. RLUIPA is applicable to "a program or activity that receives federal financial assistance" or where the substantial burden is imposed as a result of a program pursuant to which government makes "individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.. 112 While other provisions of RLUIPA may be applicable in general terms3, the following language is most relevant to this Project: "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution - - (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. RLUIPA defines religious exercise as "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." The use, building, or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise is considered to be religious exercise. The Project clearly involves religious exercise as that term is defined in RLUIPA. The primary issue is whether a reduction in the height of the steeple or modification to proposed lighting would substantially burden the exercise of religion. RLUIPA does not define substantial burden and conflicting inferences can be drawn by reference to the legislative history and the test of the statute. Some commentators believe that the absence of any definition of "substantial burden" in RLUIPA suggests that Congress intended that term to be applied as 1 The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) - invalidated by the Supreme Court in Boerne v. Flores (521 U.S. 507) was RLUIPA's predecessor statutory scheme. 2 The City of Newport Beach receives federal financial assistance although no direct assistance is provided to the "program" that administers the Zoning Code. 3 For example, governments cannot (a) implement a land use law that treats religious assembly or institutions on less than equal terms with non - religious assemblies or institutions; (b) impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates on the basis of religion; or (3) impose /implement a land use regulation that excludes religious assemblies from, or unreasonably limits religious assemblies within, a jurisdiction. t�' it was under RFRA and cases evaluating claims that the government was violating a persons right of "free exercise." In that regard the courts evaluated the term "substantial burden" in two ways. In the context of laws that were generally applicable and neutral relative to religion, courts have stated that substantial burden involves coercing individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs, conditioning receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or denying a benefit due to conduct mandated by a religious belief. Bessard v. California Community Colleges, 867 F.Supp. 1454, 1462 (E.D. Cal. 1994). In the context of land use laws, at least one court used a three -prong balancing test - balancing the impact on the exercise of religion with the extent of the states interest in imposing the burden and the extent to which granting the permit would interfere with government's ability to achieve its objectives. Christian Gospel Church, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco 896 F.2d 1221 (9t' Cir. 1990). On the other hand, the express provisions of RLUIPA differ from RFRA and pre - RLUIPA case law in terms of the expansive definition of religious exercise. RLUIPA defines religious exercise as "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief" as well as a "use, building or conversion of real property for religious purposes." Congress also expressed the intent that RLUIPA be broadly construed in favor of religious exercise to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the statute and the Constitution.4 The Project proponent has submitted an "Official Statement" that describes the significance of the "temple steeple and lighting as religious symbols." The Official Statement declares that: (a) The "location and design of temples5 are revealed to the president of the Church; whom members regard as a prophet"; (b) Temples are places of "deep religious significance" so greater emphasis is placed on their "aesthetic beauty, serenity and design" than "any other Church facility; (c) The steeple is a "symbolic architectural connection with the infmite, embodying the value of upward ascendancy" toward God and "must be high enough to be visible at a distance—to identify "the temple as a source of eternal blessings.... "; 4 The Project proponent has the burden of proving the City's action "substantially burdens" religious exercise. Assuming the Project proponent proves that a condition or modification is a substantial burden the City is required to establish the compelling interest for doing so and that all conditions or modifications are the least restrictive means of protecting its interests. 5 We assume this includes the design of the steeple. 5 (d) Lighting of the steeple and statue is "a symbol" of the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints and reflects "the Savior's statement that "I am the light of the world. He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness." (e) The "statue atop the steeple represents an angelic messenger who helped to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith." The Project proponent has provided information relevant to the connection between their religion and the design, location and /or lighting of the temple, steeple and statue. However, aside from the source of the information relative to the "location and design of temples" and the need for the steeple and statue to be visible at a distance, the Project Proponent has not clearly articulated whether and to what extent a reduction in the proposed height of the steeple and /or conditions relative to lighting would burden their religious exercise. If the Planning Commission concludes, from the information submitted to date and /or presented at the public hearing(s), that any reduction in the height of the steeple or modification in lighting would substantially burden the exercise of religion then those Project components may not be modified unless the Planning Commission also finds that the modification "serves a compelling governmental interest" and is the least restrictive means of protecting that interest. The governmental interests in modifications to steeple height or proposed lighting are - based on information in the current record - somewhat limited. The EIR concludes that the Project will have no significant impact in any category. The adverse impact on the primary interest furthered by the height limits in the Zoning Ordinance - "to ensure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved"'- is mitigated somewhat by the distance between the steeple and the nearest residence and the slender nature of the structure. Robin Clauson Robert Burnham Exhibit No. 6. Councilmember Bromberg's poll, results and responses. Mayor '�% Tod W. Ridgeway Mayor Pro Tem Steven Bromberg Council Members Garold B. Adams Norma J. Glover John Heffernan Dennis D. O'Neil Gary L. Proctor i r.t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL April 12, 2002 RE: Mormon /LDS Temple Dear Bonita Canyon Resident (sorry for the informality): The Mormon /LDS Temple project on Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road Is planned at 17,500 square feet (about 5% or so of the lot area) and has raised concerns with a number of residents in my council district, more specifically in Bonita Canyon. You probably observed the 124' crane, which was placed at the proposed temple site for a few days by the church. The purpose was to give everyone an idea of just what 124' actually looks like, although the crane and the steeple are of course quite different.. The current application and plans submitted to the City reflect a light stone exterior surface on the building and steeple as well as lighting until 11 :00 p.m. each night. A lighting consultant has suggested. the. lighting intensity be reduced by 50% and the church has agreed. to this modification. Presently, the project is undergoing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that should describe the project and process, evaluate environmental impacts including height, lighting, and exterior color, project aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, traffic and other items required'by State and local regulations. The contents of this report will be available for the public and will be considered by the City when the public hearing before the Planning Commission is held on the Church's application for a Use Permit. At this point in time, the concerns that have been relayed to me by a number of residents in Bonita Canyon, as well as other areas of the City, in order of priority are: Steeple Height, Lighting, Exterior Building Color, and Traffic. I would like to hear from you. Therefore, I would appreciate your giving me the following input, which will assist me if and when this Issue is before the City Council. Do you: Approve or Disapprove of the project? (Please elaborate with comments — #4) City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884 www.citynewport- beach.ca.us Page 2 i 2. Do you have enough,information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional `information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important 'and. will be confidential- promise. Please:, return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport.Beach, 92660. Steve Bromberg, .Mayor Pro Tem Councilman, 5th District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644-1853 E -Mail: dandee@earthlink.net 1. Do you Approve or Disapprove of the project ?* AARnrove Disapprove 18 106 2. Do you have enough information at this time? YES NO 95 15 3. � Have you attended community meetings on this issue? YES NO 57 56 *(There are two blank ones as to approve or, disapprove) 3 STRADLING YOU*CA CAP"�jv; & RAUTH July 11, 2002 VIA MESSENGER AND EMAIL— dandee ()earthlink.net Steve Bromberg Mayor Pro Tern City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92663 -3884 Re: Mormon Temple Dear Mayor Bromberg: Thank you for your letter of April 12 concerning the architectural issues arising from the application of The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints ("LDS) for a conditional use permit to build a Temple with a 121 foot temple on Bonita Canyon Drive. I previously sent you a copy of your April 12 letter indicating my concerns. This letter elaborates on my objections to the proposed height and lighting of the Temple. I have lived at 22 Seabluff in Bonita Canyon with my wife Joan and children Natasha, Alex, and Jackson since the house was built in April 1999. Our home sits on a small promontory with the back of the house overlooking Battersea facing the toll road and UCI. The existing LDS Stakehouse and its lighted parking lot are directly visible from the back of our house and our backyard. The proposed Temple will be equally visible from all of the rooms at the back of our office and our backyard also be in plain view as well. Enclosed is a 4 x 6 inch photograph that I took from the deck on my bonus room at approximately 8 p.m. during the week the lighted crane was in place to simulate the Temple height. This picture shows the same essential view we will have of the Temple from my upstairs master bedroom, master bath, and studio, as well as my kitchen and family room downstairs, and my entire back yard. It is an understatement to say the Temple will be visible from my house. If built and lighted as planned, it will dominate the landscape and overwhelm the view, especially in the early morning hours and at night. Though the crane was topped with a single light in the enclosed photo, you can see how it stands out dramatically against the night sky. This is to A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 4200 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 64104 960 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE. SUITE 1600 TELEPHONE (415) 252 -2240 FACSIMILE (415) 262 -2255 BRUCE D. MAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 926608422 SANTA BARBARA OFFICE DIRECT DIAL: (949) 725 -4124 BMAYQSYCR.COM TELEPHONE (949) 72`e4000 SN2 OLIVE STREET SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 05101 FACSIMILE (9" 725-410D TELEPHONE (506) 564 -0065 FACSIMILE (SNS) 504 -1044 July 11, 2002 VIA MESSENGER AND EMAIL— dandee ()earthlink.net Steve Bromberg Mayor Pro Tern City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92663 -3884 Re: Mormon Temple Dear Mayor Bromberg: Thank you for your letter of April 12 concerning the architectural issues arising from the application of The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints ("LDS) for a conditional use permit to build a Temple with a 121 foot temple on Bonita Canyon Drive. I previously sent you a copy of your April 12 letter indicating my concerns. This letter elaborates on my objections to the proposed height and lighting of the Temple. I have lived at 22 Seabluff in Bonita Canyon with my wife Joan and children Natasha, Alex, and Jackson since the house was built in April 1999. Our home sits on a small promontory with the back of the house overlooking Battersea facing the toll road and UCI. The existing LDS Stakehouse and its lighted parking lot are directly visible from the back of our house and our backyard. The proposed Temple will be equally visible from all of the rooms at the back of our office and our backyard also be in plain view as well. Enclosed is a 4 x 6 inch photograph that I took from the deck on my bonus room at approximately 8 p.m. during the week the lighted crane was in place to simulate the Temple height. This picture shows the same essential view we will have of the Temple from my upstairs master bedroom, master bath, and studio, as well as my kitchen and family room downstairs, and my entire back yard. It is an understatement to say the Temple will be visible from my house. If built and lighted as planned, it will dominate the landscape and overwhelm the view, especially in the early morning hours and at night. Though the crane was topped with a single light in the enclosed photo, you can see how it stands out dramatically against the night sky. This is to Steve Bromberg July 11, 2002 Page Two because the Temple would be far and away the tallest structure in a residential neighborhood with minimal ambient lighting, which is the basis for all our objections. My house represents my life savings. I paid a premium of about $100,000 for my lot, because of the view. I paid an additional premium of about $100,000 for a bonus room above the garage with a small deck overlooking Battersea. I spent more than another $100,000 on a spa, hardscape, and landscaping in the backyard. Even using the modest assumption that 500 homes are in direct view of the site, we are talking about at least a half billion dollars in real estate that will be directly impacted. When I moved into the neighborhood, I was well aware of the LDS Stakehouse that was already built on Bonita Canyon. The Stakehouse is relatively much larger than anything in the neighborhood, and I understood that a variance had been granted for the LDS to exceed the height'limit, but the dark earth tones of the Stakehouse allowed it to blend in with Bonita Canyon. More importantly, the Stakehouse already existed, so when I made the choice to buy my house it was part of the decision. 1 also was well aware of the floodlights in the Stakehouse parking lot, which for reasons I have never understood are kept on until at least 10 pm every night, even though you will rarely see any activity at the Stakehouse on a typical night after business hours. Yet the lighting of the parking lot was called out to me when I bought the house, and even though it provides much greater illumination than the Bonita Canyon streetlights, it was there when I moved in and I accepted it as part of the price of my house. What I never imagined is that the City would allow anyone to build a structure next door to the Stakehouse of the size now proposed by the LDS, light it at 5 am and keep it lighted until 11 P.M. As the enclosed photograph shows to the naked eye, a lighted Temple will stand out in the night sky because there is nothing but relatively low level street and house lamps in the surrounding vicinity. Indeed, UCI has a small astronomical observatory located down the road on Bonita Canyon across from Tarbut V Torah. Obviously that site was selected because of the low ambient light. There is simply no legitimate reason why the City should allow any non- conforming structure of this size in a residential neighborhood, or allow it to be lighted during hours that that would overwhelm the early morning and night sky and disrupt the sleep and daily life patterns of local residents. To begin with, it is self -evident that the justification proffered by the LDS for the lighting is not based on any bona fide principle of religious belief or expression. Electric lighting did not exist when the Book of Mormon was written in the 1830'x, roughly half a century before Thomas Edison perfected incandescent lighting. Electric lighting is a purely secular concern, and neither the LDS nor any other faith can make any plausible claim that their faith dictates electric lighting of any magnitude for any hours. To the contrary, electric lighting is a particularly local concern DocsocUM5501AMM.00W / Steve Bromberg July 11, 2002 Page Three where the City's power to regulate is beyond question. Indeed, allowing a special exemption for the lighting requested by the LDS, when all the other structures (including churches) in the area coi ifonn to reasonable lighting standards, would be showing favor to a single faith, and constitute an unlawful establishment of religion and a violation of State and U.S. Constitution by the City and its officers. More precisely, allowing the LDS a special exemption as requested would (1) have no secular purpose, (2) have a primary effect that advances a religious purpose, and (3) foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion. This constitutes an unlawful establishment of religion. See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 687-88 (1971), and County of Alleahany V. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). As a homeowner suffering tangible harm, I could clearly have standing to sue on such a claim. There is no functional need for the lighting the Temple from 5 a.m. until 11 p.m., since we are told it will be used only during the day, for small groups of people. For the same reason, there is no safety concern, such as lighting to deter crime in an underground parking structure. There is no practical necessity, as with the need to light the only gas station on a stretch of lonely highway. The fact is, the proposed lighting is solely to attract attention to the structure. Anyone who has seen a Mormon Temple, such as in La Jolla, Westwood, the Oakland foothills, knows that they are not lighted to blend into the neighborhood. They are lighted to stand out. They are intended to capture the eye, rather than disappear into the night sky. This is fact, and not a swipe at Mormonism. In other words, electric lighting of the Temple is simply a form of signage, which the City has plenary power to regulate. Light pollution is a real concern, both esthetically and in terms of safety and health. This Temple will be situated in a residential neighborhood. Children (and adults) are sleeping at 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. The lighting should conform to reasonable residential hours. The issue of lighting cannot be separated from the height of the tower, which would also require a substantial departure from the established standards that have served the community so well As with the proposed lighting, the proposed height of the Temple is an arbitrary choice by the LDS, and is not dictated by any bona fide religious princfple. The recent draft Environmental Impact Report prepared and paid for by the LDS states in pertinent part: "The Temple steeple is a symbolic architectural connection with the infinite; it must be high enough to be visible at a distance that identifies the Temple as a source of the Church's highest and Docs008955010179M.0000 `9 Steve Bromberg July 11, 2002 Page Four holiest blessings." (Draft EIR dated June 2002 at page 3-8.) Taking this assertion at face value, it does not in any way dictate that the Temple steeple be 121 feet. Indeed, it proves too much: The same logic would justify a 1,200 foot steeple. Or a 50 foot steeple. More to the point, even the LDS's own draft EIR endorses the aftemative of making the steeple shorter and curtailing the lighting. Pages 5-6 of the Draft EIR state that "...Alternative 2 proposes a 100 foot high steeple and a reduction in hours of illumination for lighting of the architectural elements of the Temple facade.° No explanation is given for this 100 foot figure. It could just as logically be 50 feet. In short, even the LDS acknowledges that the Temple can be made shorter, and the lighting reduced, consistent with its own asserted religious objectives. This points the way to an obvious solution. Reduce the height of the steeple. Make it no taller than the existing LDS Stakehouse. Reduce the amount and size of the lights to a minimum, and allow them to be turned on only from dusk until a reasonable hour, such as 8 p.m. This is not only a fair and reasonable compromise, but it also avoids the grave Constitutional issues I have outlined above. Newport Beach is an exquisite oceanfront town, a resort, a Riviera. It is also a place for hquses of worship,, but the Temple as proposed by the LDS exceeds all rational standards for a residential neighborhood. I am counting on you and the other elected City officials to protect my interests as a home owner and parent. 1 do not have the wealth, personnel, and resources of the LDS to make sure the basic design parameters of our neighborhood are protected. This is where I need your help as my elected representatives. In closing, I want to emphasize that I am a deeply religious person and I respect all faiths, including the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints I have reached out to Joe Bentley and Bob Wynn to discuss these issues in a rational manner. I also have conveyed my concerns to Doug Higham, a member of the Mission Viejo LDS Stake Presidency, who happens to be a childhood friend. I also have befriended Rick and Kim Nicholson who are fine neighbors that support the Temple. I have gone out of my way to assure them that my opposition to the current plans for the Temple flows not from any ideological differences but from concern over neighborhood and property values. I welcome the Temple as a new neighbor, and I ask only that they live by the same standards as all other neighbors. Docsocre WIVA19M.000D n Steve Bromberg July 11, 2002 Page Five Very truly yours, Bruce D. May BDM:mt Enclosure cc: Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway, tridaeway(o)city newport- beach.ca.us Council Member Gary Proctor, oprocto iuveniledefenders.com Council Member Norma J. Glover, ngloverancity.newport- beach.ca.us Council Member Garold B. Adams, garold adams(&hotmail.com Mayor Pro Tern Steven Bromberg, dandeeCWearthlink.net Council Member Dennis D. O'Neil, doneil(Whewittoneil.com Council Member John Heffernan, ihff ._aol.com Planning Commission Member Shant Agajanian Planning Commission Member Anne K Gifford, anneoiffO- cs.com Planning Commission Member Steven Kiser, skiser(cDpackbell.net Planning Commission Member Michael C. Kranzley, michael.kranzleyLa-)chase.com Planning Commission Member Earl McDaniel, emcdaniel o- fullertoncb.com Planning Commission Member Edward Selich, edselichD- adelphia.net Planning Commission Member Larry Tucker, gttpP- ohill.com I _ j I i i�IIU �a4 Aa ' � K x � .G Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a �_ separate piece of paper.) "ms`sls ` - Name Address Thank you for taking the time to res tatin our identity is optional, but it is important and will be ro Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg,TZO Newpo Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. StdVe Bromberg, Mayor Pfo /rem Councilman, 5"' District V 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net �b Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have y attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No �[_ 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper'.) -,'Is e.rpz-'s,i 4I- .. {, <.:` Name Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your Identity is optional, but it is important and will be ' confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S ABlrmbe , Mayor P o em • - - -- - - - Councilman, S District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? Gtirre nfi C ortSi -rvC i* 6 5 D I n c Oil Ao'J . 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name_ Address_ Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Saz a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5 District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 1� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No _z 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.)�,y,R_ W- N01 01%r %Pr_j . Name Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Ste�e Brombe , Mayor P em Councilman, VDIsIbIct 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 0 Z1 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes X No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Address_ Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5 District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net otdeU (U - At Ir�hfi m tgh Lge v b(r�rn ad " Inkr)? JVWJ OV s� hocua (S�nc,e if evil 1 /pr�� . April 15, 2002 I & Bromberg, We object to the lighted steeple but not to the idea of having a temple. We went to the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. Driving around the area, it is obvious why the temple is designed the way it is. The purpose is to draw attention to the local center of worship of the LDS church. They are very good at placing the temple in the most visible places. The lighting insures the temple is noticed all night long. Our main problem is the build and its use is not.appropriate to a residential neighborhood. We live here because of the homogeneous blend of residential, commercial and other uses. The idea of one structure standing out from everything else, specifically designed to draw attention to itself at the expense of the community is wrong. The Newport Planning board wouldn't let any business think of asking for a special use permit to place a 12 story building on the site. Just because the builder is a religious organization we don't believe should influence the decision to abide with the existing regulations. Please vote to restrict the building to the regulated height. Tbank you, ,5 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use��a pp separate piece of paper.) Oup_- Name 4 Address � 'AZ Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5th District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 04-1. f VD Ott l� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes X No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes _Z, No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net g?r/C�S ix, Ram t j( "(�. p�0✓� � +� � G �• � + r'i ") �'S "�IV�M.0 �'� C• rC�rs\ 1yAnyC,, K S.� „J•�v ^�,QY'� � `"Jw +W�4n. ry K� �m5' r� �`. 1 "h"b� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes << If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No _ 4. other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S e Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net n X00 jfz� i- k4( +"4/- 4, Page 2 2. Do you have enough information -at this time? Yes _)( No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have ou attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) lF Thank you for taking the time to resp it is important and will be conf questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, Newport Beach, 92660. S e Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, Si District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net nd. Stating your iaentity is optional, out lential— promise. Please return your 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, j4A. L4 S XU s5w) `.. raw`( pp i Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? �_ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue. Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Q_ Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S e BrombeT, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5 District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net IN Page 2 3. 4. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No Other comments. (Please use separate piece of paper.) OLIG Thank you for taking the time to it is important and will be questionnaire to: Steve Broml Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromber , Mayor P em Councilman, S District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net available space on this letter or use as BD.% 1 to C0. 4", Ac+^t-o, a T� re. ti tv� respond. Stating your identity is optional, but confidential— promise. Please return your )erg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, �k ZIMIA 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes / No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No r 4. other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) t It but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St�erg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net yE�Z-5 I 0vMLZDY -ED 6>01`3 L`' k�kW TS 16t ICWr LIE FITS OAAT STAYED Ll�il 1 I UN IL W+�S illE 6t6t�EST 001,5ANCt ivR. f✓.t , A eJ� my r A ", lC y . — T +JAS PEA ? —" r, Go 1 xi , r GSS 16C t✓ �r' s1� St- ��iCEZS C(�,,5� -�I RL�'�tov6K i�tts L16HT W�tL Na'r" 6� wINDax'j, z FEEL -;�cSE C I✓�S� TG T�,E CuL �t -SAC. DOE STQ.E-�7T 0\),;: SC) T w CL 6E P6i t iU SEA E 6Q��Ki L16�� FP�N� Tlt� S C S D�, April 17, 2002 Steve Bromberg 620 Newport Center Drive, I lth Floor Newport Beach, California 92660 RE: Proposed Mormon Temple and Steeple in Bonita Canyon Dear Mr. Bromberg, Thank you for your solicitation of input regarding the above - referenced item. As you can see from my responses to the questions in your letter, I am unalterably opposed to the entire project. To even pretend that a 124 foot high steeple is remotely consistent with any residential area is outrageous. Certainly, I was not informed of any such structure plans so close to the Bonita Canyon development when I purchased my home here. To light such a huge eyesore at night is an additional blight. I also agree with those who are concerned about traffic. Traffic is going to be tremendously increased when the parks opposite the proposed area are open. I am opposed to the temple itself being built, let alone the steeple. If this project is thrust upon the residents in the area, I can assure you there will be wide - spread and intensive legal action. Thank you for asking for the opinion of the residents most impacted. c.3. Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes : ` No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential — promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. SAedromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net / 5P &-�e X G2v n7 dRt� /r� �tf" �lmurS �G�r fti eYh� Are J Ok "; e- t-fhllsAej_ AeR V7�0 f a-- !s y 12riPh,4t //L lAI -/7 l '4 /tee Srr(eki f 1H 11s p/a y /h �A i, Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes % No If no, what additional information would you like to see? Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Staffing your identity is optional, it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net L t,�.�n.ce:r� Q" i�a '{�t� �dc�-1�6U" l�- 'o ro � �.ft' 6'�ts cc.� r.Q (� �k- a 1 �LV-P�+J �r� � ► �n,�.nr -�.� I � scrc CS rn Av, ✓ntl�� ►��,�' fort -{a rP-Vr s c a�ns o� -�I-� d L� VyL � a- J Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. tether comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayo*Pem Councilman, 5th Dstric 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949- 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 0.ZZ� cAZQ 7a17WA4 otO_,W Ot- i ♦ v � iii i . 7v at- z1u.:9 �.�o�tL�e. ..7/u.- �c� -Lem `�a` ._C�� ✓L ,.� a� �rrLU.cly �� c ,oerzUQC�kd �a� � Q �rzoze C'o�vn�G1� OL to aVe Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No k I� no, what additional Information would yo9keeotose� 1) t 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use separate piece of paper.) 7 4 available space on this letter or use a /&- 0, Cvn[a e— 6- A*aaw Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity Is.optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S /ed�romberg; Mayor P em Councilman, 5t' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net N Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes V No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have ypu attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No r 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) 730 /7 � e / Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5th District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net a� April 17. 2002 Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg 620 Newport Center Drive 11`" Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg: I write to express my opposition to the proposed Mormon Temple as currently designed. I moved back to Orange County in 2000 after spending my first 18 years here (1970 - 1988). 1 have always enjoyed this area as one which promotes a certain level of conformity and forethought to its planning and real estate development. As a result, we live in a community which is beautiful and balances well the needs of all our community members. With an understanding of Newport Beach's stance toward development and conformity, my wife and I purchased a home in Bonita Canyon about two years ago. We were lucky to find a lot which abuts an edge of the tract and overlooks a protected area. Behind the protected area is the current Mormon Stake Center. This building is not obtrusive in its design and is not lit at night so as not to disturb us. We are happy to have this. structure "as a neighbor.' However, the proposal for the Mormon Temple is quite disturbing. Our backyard literally directly overlooks the parcel of land. If the design called for a building not as opposing and intrusive I would not be writing this letter. However, the height and brightness of the proposed design will dramatically interfere with the enjoyment of my property and severely reduce the property's value. Please do not misinterpret my desires. I have no problem with a Mormon Temple in concept. However, the height of such a structure and the lighting as proposed (even until 11 pm) is unacceptable. The variance from permitted construction is. too great. I appreciate your interest in this matter and hope you take your constituents' concerns seriously. In my opinion, this is the most important issue you face- Sin I ours, Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no what additional information would you like to see? GJl ° ff /�� %rte� �;, 57'�l 1-2.. Sa Ott 3. Have ¢ou attended9any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, il"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Stare SrombeT, Mayor P em Councilman, S District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net hl Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes i( No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No Y_ 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. e�l St e Bromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5 District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net .�a� — 0 Cv Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes _,W No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential — promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"x' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. SAeMm be r�q, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5 District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee@earthlink.net Dear Mr. Bromberg. Thank you for your interest in the future and the needs of our community. My wife and I both feel that the impact of the Mormon/LDS Temple project to be built on Bonita Canyon Drive is going to have a deep negative impact on our community, and the value of our houses. As you have mentioned in your letter, the main concerns remain: Lighting (both of the Steeple and during the holiday season), Steeple Height, Exterior Building Color and the impact on traffic. Also to be considered are the project aesthetics, whereby a structure that does not conform to the whole flow of its adjacent community (ours, Harbor view Homes, their current temple and the adjacent church) is allowed to be erected. For these reasons, and other potential negative impacts that it could have on the environment, and possibly paving the way for other ugly structure to take precedence and be built in our neighborhood, that we adamantly object to the whole project. We would deeply appreciate your taking our concerns into consideration and act accordingly. 3J Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No X If no, what additional information would you like to seee? t" 7V oc 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No X 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity Is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S Brombe r , Mayor P em Councilman, 5i DisMct 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net t , . do 7"lazo I ,u C9<lFpaH�P Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway Mayor Pro Tem Steven Bromberg Council Members Garold B. Adams Norma J. Glover John Heffernan Dennis D. O'Neil Gary L. Proctor RE: Mormon /LDS Temple CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL April 12, 2002 Dear Bonita Canyon Resident (sorry for the informality): The Mormon/LDS Temple project on Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road is planned, at 17,500 square feet (about 5% or so of the lot area) and has raised concerns with a number of residents in my council district, more specifically in Bonita Canyon. You probably observed the 124' crane, which was placed at the proposed temple site for a few days by the church. The purpose was to give everyone an idea of just what 124' actually looks like, although the crane and the steeple are of course quite different. The current application and plans submitted to the City reflect a light stone exterior surface on the building and steeple as well as lighting until 11:00 p.m. each night. A lighting consultant has suggested the lighting intensity be reduced by 50% and the church has agreed to this modification. Presently, the project is undergoing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that should describe the project and process, evaluate environmental impacts including height, lighting, and exterior color, project aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, traffic and other items required by State and local regulations. The contents of this report will be available for the public and will be considered by the City when the public hearing before the Planning Commission is held on the Church's application for a Use Permit. At this point in time, the concerns that have been relayed to me by a number of residents in Bonita Canyon, as well as other areas of the City, In order of priority are: Steeple Height, Lighting, Exterior Building Color, and Traffic. I would like to hear from you. Therefore, I would appreciate your giving me the following input, which will assist me if and when this issue is before the City Council. r 1. Do you: Approvie or Disapprove -zof the project? (Please 3� elaborate with comments — #4) C"" " City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, Californi MC www.citynewport- beach.ca.us "' 1, Page 2 Do you have enouyir ieiormadon at this time? Yes X No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you atterided any community meetings on the issue? Yes _X No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it Is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5 District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee@earthlink.net � "Z� atop, Z' �� ,6P Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments.. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S/eg�romberg, m Councilman, 5 949 - 640 -2001 Fa x: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net ,lit ULU-t—I &t a,-" Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes —L_ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. It/ t eBerg, Mayo*P-m Councilman, 5"' Distric 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net t� >tis� G�w e� �►s�pa- l t �-o 1 C�c t�o-4- 1�e tta.e C>z� a- 4ft April 22, 2002 Mr. Steve Bromberg 620 Newport Center Drive I Id' Floor .b Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Dear Mr. Bromberg: I appreciate your inquiry regarding my thoughts on the proposed temple. There are several points I feel we should consider before approval is given. I agree with the concerns previously related to you by other Bonita Canyon residents. Steeple height, lighting, exterior building color and vaffic are the top issues for the counsel to consider. The steeple height seems excessive relative to the neighborhood and I feel, would be too prominent. I think residents of other communities who are not well informed may be underestimating the impact of the lighted steeple. As for exterior building color, I have seen at least five Mormon Temples in the United States. I think all of them (based on the exterior color) would not be a fit with the general surroundings. The traffic study should play an important role in the decision. As you are aware, there are a number . of churches in the area. Since I have moved into Bonita Canyon, (2 years), the traffic flow has only increased. We should also take into account the current road widening which will result in increased traffic flow regardless of the temple. The increased flow of traffic is already affecting the properties along the main road due to noise levels. Finally, the other churches in the area have not had an issue with conforming to the requirements. Are we being fair? Are we creating additional pressures on the community as other churches seek approvals for other projects and variances? Again, I disapprove of the project I have am confidant however, the City Council will be able to reach a reasonable wintwin situation for both the church and the community. Thank you for your attention on this matter ...... ..................�1 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) 1Q-- &-"P o rvvc of fhi S }Ce p%A- eJ.ceeal Thy v ,,,)� colt 1' � �iyh�tig• Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11M Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S e Bromber, Mayor P em Councilman, 5W' 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net S�2v2 � 2: J 1�'� 7 earS (s e �n � OA�� U1 %e,j ""t otie f tCe� t,1 .gd�liiej a.a g1 d w �4S�u 0 C4 W2 Son e 4-o o J- xcAal� Gw -rend rUuite..�cn, �s�SCci4(�r ��h�. Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? , 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes X No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11t" Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Stye Bromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, S"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net pvr s'�mnl� ob (Aians ace. fo 4w, s:kceele heijh4 arm uinfre.ceder ed in hei J4 awk I5 ou4 oC scare. svf awJin A o.(- "- st 2e does naf beloa 7 orj WiN havf, a Yle �` M��,.c,� ovt ad��c,ev�� ►'��'►� . Zf- 1�1ew�r4- &.Ck al low c�e s 1 av s� eeple -b be, b�► i 4,s 4eryfle. 6'r Crcn q+,ey dart and addihwed �ttmt�s Saw, +�u�ri�-4wt' Por- ahY other G hvtck . 14 Would eo, - 6 Ferm6vi%t SCarcD OA `(M� (�rxjn ►l beuufy o( the luwr,�sca� we, fesvdiQ 11y ,� you (eGyo�re. � 41e c HVrck y Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have yo ended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 111` Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. SAdBromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5t" District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthiink.net j -7 *0 lno /rI4v 4 T r N4\X- a C_�'tKVtk h w, Loh Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes 'X— No If no; what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes iC No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Std4e Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5th District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net • cs �I !/ r? Ct J L41 �47 -2 LJ-I-e Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have yo attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Stc4e/ erg, Mayor VPem Councilman, 5W' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee@earthlink.net earthlink.net /fly cone? r� f&o � otele �'�"" Ca o4 11,9441? n -i . 'Ile*-k' . aA Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Thank you for taking it is importa questionnaire Newport Beac h the time to respond. Stating your identity is nt and will be confidential— promise. Please return your to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, lit' Floor, 192660. SA-B4romberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net i i � j Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes X No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No X 4 Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name ---- -- b�f .) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S e Bromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5th District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthiink.net r li+ ; /•l,17 r{r�zrrs ` 54. 41 nil- 6-"- '41y jar 41 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No X_ If no, what additional information would you like to see? I=.►,vj.mt,•4o_t Rc-t=rl Wig - Y&f,6c_ OuJy 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes X No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St Ae�Srom erg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5th District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1$53 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net T4 �rrrtwv.ry C#Acepil IS ft,,, 4 SF pie �terS(d . tfurtlre- S�mry ac rQ Ith � C � reSr�es<��ar K¢agitif:�rlse�, S�eePle a� GuuvraYO4 I0UJ_er. lt1 o�d�%en 6ILty( oaf 4 LOnV�ftwt Uslk �- N2i�j4.�s�N4��Dj1 4+� ate a^C_eVri91fdY pYec�a�,AU1e1 �(t, '(�5a t ia� �Smuslet &r Of4v Guwvckeu dry an,,.� -o�t`c ►.,s� /� coh.S a' � `�A r f L S'Fv ac�•r e/t S2�wti COKC4�q �S 1�4� a� We UA4-t Jrly! v 161 C1. tE:00 e�I. TG.is is +4 (e . W¢ OJSO %A*44 �''ft T.* T.OL � , TG? r e ogre �S o rat 'r c C4 er�t st 2sPQ`cca -�i Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes >_ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community gs on the Yes No - -'4 � 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) AZ.F- j1e &W Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644=1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net r � I � � • I ♦ I / • 1 1 • / /I I l l J i 1 � � � � � � I I J / IJ / • Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes 1�f No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you, attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No Vf 4. Other comments.. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. SA!Sromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5th District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net It, N4 ec t�rnmecsES. — e -�� alt 7° p��eJ tur c�;e� conccm We ace c �0. The cco i �.aece �l d0 s'r'r. 0 Sec one k�a.. se ox--We ena of ti.e F S�Ceek. 7W1% 15 w�e� �c g1ec41e is k Our TcoK} �o tcl he s o V v:eay, etc -ketnple �n Qbl1ise , St�nko is qof a kkr5e oRe b%ck- t4` is Aeac ca fesidett�'ia\ cocnsn�an��y , �Ai� 5 °thcR2C Ca" t�t�cmbec Sa�ISI -Pee' son.y .(�r -1i: rteit1&Ors kw+ kttoL.,; ne—, ::� wo,.1d soon ei�Qose d � "� sctrie s;�ry ak; o n ke c�c;c; was ro� 0.Co.wAU wen Ektc (`�locmo� a�..cek� �s gi�e� feu 9�.idr .acs �� S�ec(�ie so � cloo'-t c�cce tk, tiel�is teed is 6e. pR j,,;; l 11:oU m, :kcwe people WIN.`O�y ..,ecc too bo- l-'Aece-A b� �e ecc'%c�s pPsobabAk be by `1 ` Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes :4— No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is Important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 10, Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949- 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net F..�-r 1".iP?'aP -T is- ��rlr'AZ L�,N..TS S� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ,X_ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. wove you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes r4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) _' p n If of', s tiJOP ovC o-' 7'-1 e !rteGple (}e,51 ?y ,'s so v�uck farfee fha.� o,"�r f-j „'r� %r, yhe ctrc^a �Je 'YOU wtafce A Varl'oviLC 'rot ane group lfou 'h avef'o u% {G it for Name s y "u /�f b e -t o Co ;e Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity Is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"` Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St Ae�Srom r g, Mayor P em Councilman, 5t' District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949- 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Sl mrtnxn, Semple Subject: mormon temple Date: yton, 15 Apr 2002 21:14:58 -0700 Dear Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg: I am a Bonita Canyon resident responding to your letter dated April 12. 2002, Please forgive the e-mail in place of your questionnaire. In response to your questions: 1.) 1 do not approve of the project as planned. The steeple height will vastly exceed what code allows. This would become widely visible throughout the area, not merely from within Bonita Canyon; it would become the defining . landmark of our neighborhood. This is clearly out of keeping of the residential neighborhood we all envisioned when we moved into our homes. 2.) 1 believe i have enough information to form a valid opinion. I know the project has been planned asa pure.,. white structure with 24 hour lighting. 1, realize the church has stated they will alter these plans. I am concerned once it is built there will be a desire to revert to their original vision. 1 have seen the Mormon Temples in Salt Lake, Los Angeles and La Jolla. These are not understated structures. I have seen the current LDS structure at the adjacent site; I have absolutely no objections if they desired a low lying structure of this nature. Based on their plans they are not interested in replicating the look of the current building. 3.) 1 have not attended a community meeting on this issue. I have only heard of one community meeting, which interfered with my work schedule. I have seen reports in the Daly Plot that the community is not against the building, that only one or two people are concerned and no one vn11 show up at a meeting. Without exception everyone I have talked to in our neighborhood is against the project as it is planned. Most of them are busy professionals who will have trouble finding time to become activists. If you do.not hear from many homeowners, this does not mean they would like this property developed in this fashion. Please e-mail me in response if you do not have many responses to your letter, I will encourage my neighbors to write to you. 4.) Other comments are basically as above. This location is not appropriate for a large and prominent building of this nature and I suggest to you and other council members that this project should not be approved. Thank you for your attention. a_&- April 15, 2002 51 Of' t 4/158002 9:40 P: I o L .l Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this lime? Yes k No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes S_ No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to It is important and will be questionnaire to: Steve Broml Newport Beach, 92660. Stbe ,Mayor P em Councilman, 5 District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949- 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net �dz1/ CJ (Sp t_ respond. Stating your identity is optional, but confidential— promise. Please return your )erg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, 63 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes x No If no, what.additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes 2L No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, iii' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromber , Mayor P em Councilman, 5 District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949- 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net C ( GG� t S i Vii ►� �,(S �r,c"to� –c w it 6t Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes _�No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5th District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net -y 6 -- /G // Tilt /G -f /%1/4 ir'Trj L , 4�015- QG I' -p T A 77'/cs- 47i✓G -4 c> Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No J� If no, what additional information would you like to see? lPtAns 4e gwr--4.l 2,q/i1-0 Slcay 7 �� S7�//Y� '?6 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 1P Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 15 7ML 0 7A 5b Dear Mr. Bromberg, April 28, 2002 Thank you fot letter asking the opinion of local residents about the proposed Mormon temple. We are vehemently opposed to it The overall vision of Newport Beach should not be altered simply because the head of a church in Salt lake City requests it The existing architectural guidelines are in place for good reasons and so far they have served our city well. To give into pressure to alter them would be a tragedy. Enclosed is a computer image of how the proposed temple would look. If this picture doesn't speak clearly enough, let me offer a few more reasons why the proposed plans M O _ •1• 4,11 741 -Local residents died not spend millions dollars on their homes only to have a 12 story tower topped by a hideous gold angel blazing into a majority of their yards and windows. The potential devaluation of property is a serious concern. The Bonita Canyon development alone generates well over 3 million dollars a year in property taxes. The city should keep that in mind when making its decision. The proposed temple will obviously have a negative impact on the look and feel of this community. Loss of property value and tax revenue will soon follow. -On a recent visit to the La Jolla Temple aMormon `elder' proudly informed to us that over a quarter of a million of their tail visitors come during Christmas week alone. A frightening thought when you add that to the traffic of the existing churches along Bonita Canyon. Having such an architectural monstrosity bunt in an already busy intersection will create tranendous tmffic congestion. While we can't stop the devout 5vm visiting the temple, we can at least deter curious gawkers who are merely drawn by the outrageous proportions of the tower. -The proposed temple is unfair to the existing churches. They have built within guidelines and as a result `church row' is a dignified enhancement to our community. To allow the Mormons to be the exception to existing guidelines will threaten the personality of our city. One of the great aspects of Newport Beach are the many religions represented here and no one should overpower the others. As evidenced by this image, such an enormous building will clearly draw a great deal of attention and identify Newport Beach as a predominantly Mormon community, which it is not -To approve the existing plans would set a dangerous prec edeaL Think of the ramifications if the proposed structure is allowed. What's next? The Pope demanding a 124 -foot statue of the Virgin Mary be built on Coast Hwy? An enormous Star of David shining from a Jewish Temple? 'Would those be approved as long as they promised to curt the lights at 11 p.m.? Religious arrogance must not be allowed to interfere with the overall vision of our community. It's that simple. �h .. v 4 • rt • 131W.P. .mi I v of April 27. 2002 Dear Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg- 1 wanted to thank you for taking the time to send out the letter dated April 12, 2002 to the residents of Bonita Canyon regarding. the Mormon/LDS Temple project. My husband and I are totally opposed to the structure being built at that site for the following reasons: 1. We bought a home in an area that would be a good investment for us as well as offer a safe and quiet area for us to raise our three children. As planned, the structure will be unsightly, over height code restrictions and will not blend with the community surroundings and atmosphere. It will bring in an extraordinary amount of traffic as it will be a regional facility; certainly had it been there when we were in the process of buying our home, we would not have purchased in Bonita Canyon. I venture to guess that you would have the same opinion. 2. We are not opposed to having a church of any denomination build on that site and welcome the opportunity to see that happen as long as it is in keeping with the structures in existence and enhances the neighborhoods around the site instead of detracting both visually and with increased noise from additional traffic. 3. We have been unable to attend a community meeting on this issue; to my knowledge, there has only been one meeting and we were out of the state when that occurred. We do feel that we are informed adequately to make the decision that we are against the temple being erected there. We feel that the crane being up for a week, while a nice try at easing some fears, did not quite reflect the enormity of the structure at completion Maybe some 3 -D templates would be more appropriate to show the citizens the correct sizing of the structure; of course, I would assume the Temple committee would not want to do that as it would accurately show just how overpowering this building is going to be. Again, please realize that we are not against the Morman/LDS Temple project having a structure there for their congregation But one that will be a beacon for those to see from afar for lours on end is just not what this community is about. Should they choose to redirect their building plans and develop a building that is in sync with the community, we would be happy to support their plans. �1 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. xaSt a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5t' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthiink.net Not 0 "� �t �Arm64�� iv..6 &9po s. °� ° i ��-�r` �Yk `� �rc u .� -6 � "ik � -( �" -I -� i /vim t'W' o�.� rw¢•. W �- Q o , -.[. t -4t,.n pc.,_ i1 �t- iA �: Ca�r�ar rwv 1 tea-,.._ w "1'. '.-"� u�y '{�'M> cL... C �rR- 0.✓ : tR G%�..t.�a`�` � h-i(S[.�{ r� ' iM13� :...it G.�� Nle--34-- Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No _ If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have yo ended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or usea separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a BrombeW, Mayor P em Councilman, 5 District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee@earthiink.net '1ArZ- i 1 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No X If no what additional information woul yov like to see?_ hGt tk �OprAQQ YiSUYI A �Q VYLS �,6yM►�. �l 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Addres Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential — promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"h Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Ste , Mayor P em Councilman, 5 District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 105 Dear Mr. Bromberg: Thank you so much for taking the time to actually ASK us how we feel about our community. We were so surprised and elated to see your letter in the mail. One of the many reasons we choose to live in Newport Beach is our city's detailed attention to city planning and development. Leaders, city planners, and residents have put a lot of effort into developing a visionary plan that sculpts the overall ambiance and environment of our community. Our city is so unique in its characteristics, loved by both residents and visitors alike. Bonita Canyon and its outlying communities are very family orientated and very quiet. There is a special peacefulness that is unique in the hustle and bustle of Southern California life. Did you know that we can actually see the stars at night? The unusual ability to see the heavens is not a common feature in most Orange and LA county areas. Regrettably, the Mormon Temple project has forced us to defend our neighborhood. This enormous structure is literally being built in our backyards. In addition, the Mormon Church desires it to be pale in color and continuously lit until the late hours of the night, therefore causing it to "glow ". If the steeple is built, there is no escaping its presence. Its entire purpose is to attract attention from both near and far. I cannot express how strongly we are opposed to its construction. No organization, whether religious, corporate or private, should be permitted to construct a building that so completely dominates the area's surroundings. We hope that you and the council will consider our views. Like many constituents, we are quiet people, trusting our local government to enforce the codes and statutes our community has adopted, thus ensuring the continuity of the city and neighborhoods we love so much. Your decision will not only affect Bonita Canyon but other communities as well. If this steeple is constructed, no doubt other organizations will feel that our unique city codes are only a hurdle to surpass, not the guidelines that keep our city precious. Sincerely, Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No CZ— 6Lf—# _ If-AVE SPz)'<CC'j a^' NH►'r'?CLVC4.r 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S e Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 50' District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853. E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net vJ uy L30NLo Titej 3E �t�►� TRA-F� � c -r•+- f1 r E-ACC_ r_Fp .0 Page 2 2. Do you have enough Wormation at this time? Yes _.X,— No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes _X No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net cab alo.��.f a,Llew ., r,14 90�. i mow Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings ,on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Nam Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. le St a Bromberg, MayojPem Councilman, 5 Distric 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949- 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net ish4 cow ,� -� p�aW-4,,, :T� a►-r� 1'7 a T `- aLVJgal area.. M vfty) ---ko aNAntpo k4oy-v 'k /\ i rn�- a�- 4-9- �- .e� i►n -moo and i �� May 6, 2002 To: Steve Bromberg, Mayor Pro Tern Newport Beach From �. Re Mormon/LDS project Steve, I would like to state that we are against this proposed project. Our home backs up to the current meeting hall. When we purchased the property there was no indication that a Temple would be built. Had that been the case more thought would have been put into the decision to spend over 1 million dollars on that home. The current meeting hall does not bother us. The building blends in well with the landscape. And the new church across the street is also very unassuming. Obviously we have all seen Mormon temples and calling them a thing of beauty is matter of taste. I personally don't think that type of architecture is suitable for our neighborhood. And the 125 foot steeple is going to be quite high. When I put in my pool and back yard I set it up very open as to take advantage of the view of the hills behind us. If this project goes through I will be forced to spend additional money on my yard as we will not want to sit outside and have our main view that of a huge temple. Thank you f 4� I of 2 T)S Project Subject: Mormon/LDS Project Date: Mon 6 May 2002 21:48:31 -0700 From- To: andee @earth in c.ne By E-Mail to : dandee @earthlink.net May 6, 2002 Mr. Steve Bromberg Councilman, 5th District Dear Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg: I am a Bonita Canyon resident responding to your letter dated April 12, 2002. 1. We disapprove of the project as we understand the proposal. See discussion at i4. 2. yes, we believe we have enough information at this time. 3. Yes, we have attended a community meeting. 4. We wish to convey our strong opposition to the proposed temple and steeple adjacent to the current Church of LDS ( "CLDS ") on Bonita Canyon Road. More specifically, we advocate the denial of the related application for a conditional use permit. We are not opposed to improvement of the property in a matter that does not adversely impact the community (lights, traffic, noise, etc.), and is consistent with the general plan. However, we believe that the proposed project, replete with a steeple that is well in excess of the designated height limit, is a selfish attempt by a group to serve their particular objectives at great detriment to the local community. It is our contention that the conditional use permit should be denied for a number of reasons. By any objective perspective, the proposed project must be considered a regional use, and accordingly, is inconsistent with the plan for the neighborhood. The fact that the next closest temples for this particular faith are located in Los Angeles and La Jolla serve as a warning that we can expect visitors from significant distance. I suggest building the temple in a location prepared to serve regional demands, such as near South Coast Plaza. Very simply, a facility providing regional utility does not belong in a neighborhood. In addition, what could possibly be the basis of approval for a structure whose height is 2.5 times the permitted height? Certainly the city council would not permit signage or any other man made structure to "pollute" the sightlines of this residential community. The fact that the 73 Tollroad frames the proposed location on one side does not lessen the impact to our community. This is not just an "eye of the beholder" issue. The height limit exists for a reason: to ensure consistency in the neighborhood. The proposed addition to our neighborhood is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and must be considered offensive to anyone other than a member of the applicant group. Finally, I would.challenge anyone to stand at any corner of Bonita Canyon 5!1!2002 700 lonlu• .v fm{cct and MacArthur Blvd, looking toward the site and imagine th= proposed spire. Highly offensive and objectionable, at best. Thank you for your solicitation of input and consideration of same. Feel free to contact us if you have questions regarding our opinions as expressed here. owe J� 2 of 2 5n2002 9.00 M Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time Yes No If no, what additional information would you like 3. a you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it Is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5"' District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net CAI b, �,--- &,A 1. I �n - ��T 1� Page 2 ;."A.; 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No . If no, what additlonai information would "you like to see? ` 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is Important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Stcie Brerg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandeeC@earthlink.net G /0 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes -V-/— No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) _ Name Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is Important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S e Bromberg, MayjPern Councilman, 5 D 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee@earthlink.net �� Qom-/ � �yb �✓ �%�� , %� -�a�c. � ,..� eJ r�`A ✓ .4-.✓ � Clete -� 17'e 7'e _444 v<_ '`�� We appreciate the opportunity to express our views. My wife and I have been residents of Newport Beach since 1976. 1. Churches and other places of worship are appropriate for residential neighborhoods, but temples and cathedrals are an eyesore. 2. Temples and cathedrals across our nation are located in metropolitan, commercial districts, not in residential neighborhoods. 3. If the Iivine Company or any other company wanted to build a commercial structure of this height, and lieht it every night in a residential area, the city would reject the proposal hands down. Why isn't the city council using the same reasoning for this proposed structure? 4. The city council has always based their decisions on enhancing the beauty, safety, and esthetics of our city. Clearly, the Mormon community must be exercising extraordinary political pressure on you and the council for this proposal to get this far. 5. I strongly oppose the construction of a Mormon Temple in a Newport Beach residential community. 1� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes V/ No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paoer.l ... __ Name_ Address_ Thank you for taking the.time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but It is important and will! be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. SAdMin be rg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5t' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net so lb Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes 4 No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings or the issue? Yes NO /i �V'��c�' yrvr.Nvn ;cs97V::�t�•.w7/ a3 /coy;z n' 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a senarate niece of Daner.) .. _..._. Name us r Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Sig/ t a Bromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5 District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes )c No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes V No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) vV A'(- &a'-q a,�/,,�_ Nz _.. Ac I it questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport 6hliir Drive, W, Floo , Newport Beach, 92660. Std<ie Bromberg, Mayor P em �^C �'��g Councilman, 5"' District 949- 640 -2001 ° `� � lieu" I Fax: 949 - 6441853 � � o-o c Sv A4A4,4W E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 4 J LA- --Tn 4eAL Vic a w W W . & o tii -r,+C G�+yonl ee ti.C"VA=Lf. ,O& 1 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes V No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) -q j6 pgjEr<-t,-r A ow-U VZATe -M) Ra e-j TN1Pfil'� NtTF(1r� CttssE P�o�ci► -tlT� ra F '►DenS[+44�, M fK?*&X:rY. Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, MayojPem Councilman, 5 Distric 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 1� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yeses No _ If no, what additional information would you like to see? \ 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes v No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name_ Addres 1 Thank you for taking the time to res(iond. 5fating your'idehtity is optional, but it is important and will be con fildential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St/ed=mberg-, Mayoflern Councilman, 5"' Distric 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net �. I�e }corv�2 �Y"�4� Chvxf'cK 'in`�c� ZAA� L-aQ^nvY�vr -j PJ.oea6 C'lo't ter i ►�1�C`i t'w►�� 1nasw.r�'tas ��i. �r, ordA�' - r;e, xeey 4-Xr-1 i s C� �i�ai,`�-y C�7r�rn wc� X11 � • -.LG . SurmL np hoe, ors LiTi3e�. or lA� pr- +1-e mor4i - VIra.r -% 04r, 1� 6- 1-ho- -c- \L;i;mlA �•4R`3 P� r'�'l Y'o�e�� ,�n2, "' ,rn � 'C'1 � \ S - 'r'C� oLA r �rrr*v��n�1y Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No _�, 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a Name Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential -- promise. Please retum your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, litl' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5 District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1553 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net l 1 t leave 00 obj Ec4 ioar to fRA& S�t�ccVc — ob fv 4, e tZL(i SCu�E o S2� �a�D heC+cwDQm -e�"�. 0A Y^,e 04. *..[ c MVtaCto g i--e f u t g 1 V.0 \4 r %Ao W -t2 S z O� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Ha ou attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) _ Nance_ Address, Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your 'identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S e Bromber�, Mayor P em Councilman, 5 District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net O Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have y attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) _ NE Ad Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential — promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S/Ie=mberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5th District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net VdAe vtSt�16C , qv�- 0j 4 �� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes -�L No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes _ No 4. other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name_ Addits: Thank you for taking the time to respond. -Stating your 06hidry is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S /ed�&rom r g, MayojPem Councilman, 5°i Distric 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ZNo If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have yga" attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No V 4. Ottrer comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Thank you for taking the time to respond'. Stafrng your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Sae Bromb ,Mayor P em Councilman, S�District 949 -640 -2001 I= 949-644 -1853 &Mail: dandee @earthlink.net jr 7'0 /w/►)�ctt f /o�R` y V af/a e a.� Dear Councilman Bromberg, Thank you for your interest in my opinion as a member of the Newport Beach community and an individual that will be affected by the proposed Mormon Temple. Fast, let me say that I am not opposed to the Temple per se. If the Mormons want to build their Temple in Newport Beach that is fine. However, I do have issue with some of the variances they are requesting. Obviously, I am opposed to the height of the steeple. At 124' it will be visible to so many homes that currently enjoy a very serene, canyon view. Here again, I am not opposed to a steeple. The current steeple on the Mormon Stake House is very acceptable. I just don't want to look at a twelve story structure every time I drive down Bonita Canyon. I am also concerned about the golden statue that will adorn the steeple and the spot lights required to light the entire steeple and statue. These will definitely be imposing on the surrounding neighborhoods. It is my understanding (please see the enclosed letter to the Daily Pilot) the Mormon Temple in Mesa, AZ doesn't even have a steeple and I know the Temple in Dallas has a much shorter steeple. I was in Dallas in March and specifically drove by the Temple to look at the steeple. It appeared to be more like 60' than 124'. The Mormons are telling the Bonita Canyon residents that the height of the steeple is not negotiable. I do not know if this is true or not. Which brings my second argument to light. Newport Beach has developed a city code which results in a beautiful city. This was not an accident. Prior planners and city leaders have determined what types of buildings, landscape, etc. will best enhance our city. Careful adherence to these codes have provided the residents of Newport Beach with a very attractive city. No one, including a religious organization, should be able to fracture this beauty. Code restrictions are simply that, restrictions against unwanted aesthetics. A 124' lighted structure does not fit in the current Newport Beach environment. If the Mormon church has to have a steeple for religious purposes, then they have to build it in a location which allows 124' structures. I don't think Newport Beach is the "Mecca" of the Mormon faith. Thank you again for your time and interest in our neighborhood and our city. it -z' April 24, 2002 RE: Mormon / LDS Temple To: Fro Thank you so much for your letter of April 12, 2002 !!! My husband and I have been residents of this city for 2 years, having moved from the East Coast. We chose the City of Newport Beach for many reasons, not least of which was the obvious care that is taken in growth and development. We were advised of constraints put on development by the Irvine Company, the City ofNewport Beach, and the individual communities such as the Bonita Canyon Development. We were also advised that there could be additional building at the Mormon site and were advised of zoning restrictions (50 foot building, with steeple). This would not be much different from the existing Stake Center, which conforms to the neighborhood. When we attended the meeting at the Stake Center to see the proposed building, it was amazing to us that the new temple was meant to be quite different from the surrounding environment. For a holy religious site, the planners have done an exceptional job. As a neighboring homeowner, it is quite distressing to think of a one hundred twenty four foot tower looming over our properties, to say nothing of the use of light reflective building materials which are intended to be illuminated throughout the night. We will be confronted by this every time we enter the Mesa View entrance, every time we walk our street, anytime we head east on Bonita Canyon / Culver, or enter from that side. The tower will be visible, and its lighting most probably recognizable all night. This building will be visible from miles around, not what we had ever expected as a part of our neighborhood, nor what we believe our zoning requirements allow. I e- mailed the Planning Commissioners in February attempting to explain my position on tower height, lighting, etc. A copy of that e-mail is attached. We continue to be confused by the fact that this structure, as presented, seems to be so contrary to the zoning of Newport Beach, as depicted by: ♦ a 124 foot tower (far taller and wider than anything we would expect to be classified as a steeple), ® lighting that is to be bright and continuous, and 4Y exterior materials that are so very different than anything found in this area r To underscore these �ssuPs, we received the Newport Bea c c atep Up To the Future bmshura dated March 2002 that addresses issues including ones like this. It discusses a "Well- Designed Community" where "design principles and policies emphasize tasteful, appropriate and functional design characteristics that fit well within the community". This structure does not seem to fit into this community. It is intended, by its very nature, to be a regional center for the holiest of services. A gentleman at the Stake Center referenced that it be "architecturally significant", with an oversized steeple intended as a `Beacon to God." This seems to be quite contrary to the vision statements found within the Vision for Newport Beach. This building is not attended to conform to the neighborhood. A tower of this magnitude seems to far exceed the "steeple" exception being sought by the Church of Latter Day Saints. We look to the Planning Commission and City Council to act on this issue using, not the pressure of public relations' campaigns, but the vision of Newport Beach that assures its residents the ability to live in a city that will cot fim to "successfnUy balance our `village' character with the needs of residents, workers, and business owners" (again quoting the Step Up To The Future progress report issued March 2002). We again thank you for the effort you have taken in this matter. Additionally, I have some pathetically amateurish pictures that emphasize the effect this tower would have on our City, our neighborhood, our home and very like! that I can make available io you—, Page I of 2 ICC j: e: m: : Chairman Tucker: Thank you for reading this. Hopefully, I will be able to express my concern over the proposed building plans provided by the Church of Latter Day Saints. 1 apologize for the length, but it is a very Important situation. First I need to introduce myself. I am a resident of the City of Newport Beach, living with my family in the fairly recently annexed area known as Bonita Canyon. We moved to this area in full recognition that there may be further development of the property owned by the Mormon congregation. What we never presumed, is that there could possibly be anything built that would not be in keeping with the accepted planning regulations. For example, our home has a very minimally sloped roof, $o as to conform to regulations. This keeps us from adding phone Ones and cable to areas we would wish to. it also creates difficulties with mechanicals. But, It does allow the neighborhood to have a great "look", and it rn ink nines the visual impact of these homes to the area in general. If you look, you can see that our homes melt into the skyline. As my father always says "You have to give up something to get something." As well, our home and others in the area, have to conform to certain color restrictions. While any one of us may have made a different choice, our agreement to live within city and community guidelines provides us with a certainty that there will be a continuance of the "took", and hence the belief that we witi enhance our city and its value (both aesthetic as well as monetary). We have a Planning Commission with guidelines and restrictions to assure that the City of Newport Beach will retain its character and property will retain or improve its value. This has been applied to my home, and will hopefully be applied to all now building requests. Somehow, everything has been turned topsy-turvy with the presentation of the new Mormon Temple. All of a sudden those of us who wish to uphold the current agreed upon regulations have become obstructionists. We are now deemed to be against the Mormon Church and its desire to provide a sacred temple. How untrue that dell I do feel it is totally inappropriate for any structure to be built in a manner that stands in the face of the confomilly to which we have all agreed. That includes style, build'mg materials, color, height, lighting, etc. 1 do not have any problem with the addition of a temple. The drorry in all of these discussions is that what the Church of Latter Day Saints is attempting to erect its something that is very specifically architecturally inconsistent with our City guidelines. They want to have a burbling that its "architecturally significant" to quote their presentation at the stake center. The oversized steeple is intended as a "beacon to God" -again quoting their presentation. This hag been "ordained by the President as to design, placement and timing." It Is my belief that our City Planning Commission Is here to provide that the structures in our City meet with design, placement and timing that has been agreed upon in our City agreements. laws and regulations, not biased by the needs and wants of any group (reftious or otherwise). 1 would be glad to speak with any of you. Additionally, I have taken some video and pictures that dearly show the magnitude of the proposed temple steeple. Please consider that Ihis Is not merely the objection of one "Boni to Canyon homeowner", but the concern of a City of Newport Beach resident. It is my belief that you are hearing mostly from residents of this community because we recognize the impact of this structure. (� Wednesday, April 24, 2002 America tine. D Page 2 of ? Again, I respedfufiy wish to emphasize that white there are all sofa of religious overtones, this Is in fad another proposed btdkfirp that ought to follow the rules of conformity already agreed upon - including height, color, building materials, fightlng, traffic, ate. Again, I am not'againsr, but rather in favor of fofiowing current guldefines with a desire to maintain the architedursl xnfomdty of this community. Thank you. Wednesday, April 24,21M America Online: cab r Page 2 2. Do you have enough Information at this time? Yes -X— No If no, what additional information would you like to see? ftilwp ud&KONt'��c i aN ►'S also neCCS561 t 3. Have you attended any corn nity meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Addre Thank you ror raiang me ume-W rxsWnu. ' btffalg Y6ur ida gory is opuonai, out it is important and will be confidential- promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. SAd!BrombeT, Mayor P em Councilman, 5 District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Answer to Anril 17-1002 Questionnaire 4. Other Comments. The project is controversial because of the construction of a 124 -foot tower, which will be highly illuminated the large part of each day and night and will be seen from all directions and even beyond our community to cities outside Newport Beach. I am informed the Conditional Use Permit application for the tower indicates it will be visible from as far away as Anaheim to the north, from Tustin and north Irvine to the northeast, from Santa Ana to the north west and from the opposite side of the Newport Bay to the west. Indeed, the whole reason for the request to exceed the City's height limit is so the tower can be a beacon and to call out and bring attention to the site. This is antithetical to Newport Beach's historic and noted "village neighborhood" character. Another concern is the impact on the already taxed traffic flow. The traffic impact from the existing religious facilities in the area is significant at peak times, causing considerable congestion and necessitating additional police presence on a regular weekly basis. We also need to evaluate and plan for traffic impacts that may arise in connection with holiday or other seasonal displays. Please consider the issues that have arisen for the City of Costa Mesa since the construction of the Trinity Broadcasting project. Certainly the Mormon Church can operate at the site in harmony with its neighbors. The project should be kept on a scale that is appropriate for a predominately residential community with local parks and small retail businesses. Please do all you can to restrict the height of the tower to 50 feet or perhaps the height of the steeple on the existing Mormon Church and to limit the hours of lighting opet^ation to cootdinate with existing local activity. �y Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes X No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) _ Name Addres Thank you for taking the time to -respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S e Bromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5th District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 4•!. �a,yv�,ppYr.7 -0t$ 1�d'(� C.6�r�� rW�- -i"O T r`�• GtrLw . .1 is, 9 :+•� ii 7 %� �G.G 4 G.. V.( w: t t %+cruet. t �r vF -)o tf-v a -e .. v; a cl' Rs of f-h a b wa:.ct� ! p t. f .rte.. i �3 �y Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes Y, No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes X No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Address_ Thank you oui uamig utc umdw iw'Eiv�'iu: wuii4-yuui ujiuonal, out it is important and will be confidential — promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11i'' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S/ e , Mayor P o em Councilman, Ustrict 949 -640 72001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net WQLk1G -n'i t 4tvd- '41%L (Y1Ctrmoa /L�5 _r�Ftc�' da qq ee rrK3 Tivff r n� ow- a !-ei I dk-tq cweocL i WQLk1G -n'i t 4tvd- '41%L (Y1Ctrmoa /L�5 _r�Ftc�' da qq Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) I i Name_ I` Address_ f IIII ' Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important. and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayoej m Cou ncilman, 5th Distric 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net R� Page 2 2. Do you have enoug;: inrormation at trns time? Yes _2L No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Hav you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No W 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Addre Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Si /ed=m be rg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net tea) kw-l- ;vi / 11.1,x, U_'U4rt. � cez& C-4-1 ,•ilew��.t �zc � . 0P V r r" m ix.eat� zr, ir��SQ47?ce eta e f s /^ Ci.G( [,e)I(" v-&t i ka&u.,j Gvi 11 1st RY 10% Lo Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes ✓ No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Address_ Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S e Bromberg, Mayoje m C ouncilman, 5"' Distric 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 1 �7 dtr�r r p ipSOPC 7Zfl sL ✓dr S /d %� t*-r `fcrl/e siyhPcl� / � :SS4PS c. r-.e rs i j I -r�: Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No i< If no, what additional information would you like to see? &WA6i 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Addres Thank you for taking the time to resporid. 'Stating your @66-ity is"opfional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Stet erg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Ft-&V,,f,- a9 tl j Ar,- '(Rf� 44fUa6 ' TO C&AP L-Y (WIT-4, (tea My `r Eii°�r'(l+�Er A►{ �QoEGc' nfor tnl 5� F-5. (Z+( 4H" c5 "Tm6gau5 April 22, 2002 Dear Mr. Bromberg: This is not a religious issue. This has to do with intelligent urban planning. Where does one begin on this subject? Yes we have been to all of the meetings both Church sponsored and community organized. It's really amazing how the Church, The Planning Commission (and you ?) is focusing on lot coverage. Most of the Bonita Canyon and other Newport Beach residents I speak with agree that they would be pleased to have built what the land is zoned for, specifically a "residential care facility or school ". We would be happy with 100% lot coverage because schools and residential care facilities don't have 12 story spires or fighting until 11:00 PM. They typically do not exceed one story or max. 2 stories. I could just imagine a superbly designed residential care building conceived to enhance and "f" into our area like the one on PCH in Corona Del Mar just before Shorecliffs; now that's exceptional urban planning. Lot coverage has nothing to do with this; it is only another ploy and /or "concession" by the Church. The Mormons are proud of the fact that the purpose of the Temple "is to draw attention and to stand out". That's not the theme of our city and its architecture, which is micro - managed ably by The Irvine Co., the Planning Commission and the Council. This is not a religious issue. This has to do with intelligent urban planning. What a traffic nightmare. I trust Mayor Ridgeway has this project on his radar screen, as he seems to be very concerned with this city's ever burdening traffic. Has/ will the EIR, Planning and the Council take into consideration the Bonita Canyon Sports Park, the massive Newport Ridge development, Shady Canyon, Mariners Church, Harbor View Homes and our community etc. combined, all placing an intense stressful traffic toll on the Bonita Canyon area. Does the Planning Commission have a real understanding of the use of this Temple? The Church information states number of patrons is 150;1 am told by Mormon friends that it is 150 on every hour or the % hour during the hours of operation which they state as "app rox 5:30AM- 11:00PM ". Do they not know the hours of operation, is it 5:30 AM to 11:OOPM or not. These hours are not acceptable in a residential J� neighborhood. We as residents of our community should not be subject to and forced to live with increased traffic and activity at 5:30 AM and until 11:00 PM. The lighting issue is also a real concern. Currently there is nothing on this site. Any amount of fight in this area is going to be overwhelming if not completely screened which is not possible. It does not matter how many "lumens" it is or how much the Church has already cut back or been advised to cut back. There should be no lighting allowed on the steeple and "gilded statue" and the only building lighting should be as required by code for safety. Their current meetinghouse is not lit. What a huge impact this will have on our community and many of our residences are squarely impacted. This is not a favorable impact. We have common area walk ways and lawn areas, which will be negatively impacted as well. Will the City Planners allow Holiday lighting extravaganzas here like the Trinity Broadcasting site? this activity should be disallowed in any C.U.P. granted. Would members of the community of Newport Beach, if they lived in Bonita Canyon react much differently to this proposed project if it were adjacent to their homes? Remember it is my understanding that Church leaders approached our Board of Directors, and now they don't like the Boards professional reaction and statements. The Church and its members express simply that our Board and anyone who opposes this project are church haters and they continue to paint this as a religious issue. This is not a religious issue. This has to do with intelligent urban planning. The reaction by our Board and their handling of this issue has been exceptional in my view. I understand they have spent countess hours studying this proposal, have interfaced with Planning, had contact with Council members and have arrived of a conclusion "unanimously opposing it, as it is currently planned." The color of the structure is unappealing and does not fit into the theme of Bonita Canyon. Does it really matter what shade of pink it is? What happened to "light tan" or the warmer earth tones they once were speaking of? This can't be passed off as a Church concession from the color "white ". The church, their spokesman, and all at "the City" have repeatedly spoken of the concessions that they the Church have given. Please, when you come out of the blocks asking for all night lighting, a bright white building and originally a 143ft. or 147ft. steeple, then scale these absolutely unattainable combination of building characteristics down to what is still unacceptable, and pass it off as giving concession after concession after concession is quite unbelievable. Are the Planning Commission, and the Council really taken by this ploy? Again a Mormon fiend states that this is their typical method of maneuvering. }b� his proposed development must be scaled down to conform to the area. Any developer would get shot down immediately if they submitted a project with these characteristics located in a residential neighborhood. A structure of 12 stories in a residential neighborhood with lighting before dawn (it's dark at 5:30AM) and until 11:00 PM does not conform. The Church should be required to conform to the building code and intelligent building guidelines like everyone else. This is not a religious issue This has to do with intelligent urban planning. Mr. Bromberg I appreciate you taking the time to survey your constituents on this issue. Having an education and background in economics, business, and real estate there is no way that this proposed project will have but a negative impact on value to most of our community. Lads of conformity in a residential neighborhood does not enhance value. The President of our association stated at one of the meetings he had personally spoken to leading local realtors and heads of 3 of the powerhouse residential brokerage firms in Newport Beach, all without exception stated that this project would have a negative impact on value he reported. Everyone in Newport Beach should consider it next to their residence and truthfully ask themselves for their reaction. Maybe you should call these real estate professionals or the President of our association to find out more information. The Planning Commission should not be promoting /approving a project that could have detrimental impact on properly owner's value or one, which simply does not conform to the surrounding residential neighborhood. Nor should the city be influenced by Salt Lake or the propaganda blitz that they are sending. This is not a religious issue. Its an issue having to do with intelligent urban planning. Sincerely, A very concerned Bonita Canyon Resident l6 Steve Bromberg Mayor pro Tem Councilman, 5" District 620 Newport Center Drive, 11'" Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 20 April, 2002 Dear Mr. Bromberg: I am writing in response to your recent mailing of 12 April regarding the proposed Mormon Temple on Bonita Canyon Drive. For the record I am opposed to the construction project as it negatively impacts my view, threatens my property values, significantly contributes to ambient light pollution, will increase traffic congestion and overall decrease the quality, of life for my family and neighbors. In addition I am extremely concerned by the tactics being used by members of the Mormon faith characterizing opponents of the proposed temple as being intolerant of the Mormon faith. This form of argument is highly inflammatory and completely inappropriate. It only serves as an attempt to deflect reasonable criticism of the propsed construction. Thank you for time and attention to this matter. p7'- z; Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11t' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Ste m Councilman, S 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net -- --_� 'T r� I' by r left �)Ialv �T G V d �y 'r _ CaLJ✓L A-Nr) 5110 K'r's Ir ra" Is f6- �/7 L 64 Col v (T J % Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes X No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes X No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) We ow-r c nccmac�%� `ate. �f 7 %lia zosrhtsd,�e +tt6ta u�% /y •le /Jret�,dy f �isr I'.�.ti4 oIX&v-- r,vcyvs 75 Name 4,:.�4� • i •ca s:e� Cdr Iry :sZAU'- � Address_ • s f�.Y {ur%X¢r ekpQ.s..sii Thank yoi tity is optional but it is imp_. —... ..ease return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S Bromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.het ,b1 Page 2 t 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have mu attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No X 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) i Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your' identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St e�ber Mayor ge m Councilman, St District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee@earthlink.net amt- ©� CA+rivrYtw+l a 'r-S CA t 0_ n Ca-' tia � C 4-1 cu-i `i Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes h No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No - 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) a� arc Address ' S Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but r'jC1- t- it is important and will be confidential— promise.. Please return your +11-A questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, llt' Floor, ✓ Ur,a ✓n Newport Beach, 92660. 6�r S e Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, S"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net `0 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes _ZNo If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Thank you for taking the time to respond: Stating your idennty is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor' P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee@earthiink.net � I �r Page 2 2. K Do you have enough information at this time? Yes —Z No If no, what additional information would you like to see? , / Yes 1/ Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) /� a iyi h of .a o�I� yArli9� -lif ��'��cl bl� `ha+�i� Name +" ea7 Address Thank you fi it is imporwi n aj iv mn uc w a �cnuat —Ni Unrt�c. r�edk questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11u, Newport Beach, 92660. St Bromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5th District 949-640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee@earthlink.net Ni April 22, 2002 Steve Bromberg Mayor Pro Term City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Bromberg, Thank you for your inquiry dated April 12, 2002 regarding the Mormon /LDS Temple. As residents of Newport Beach in Bonita Canyon and business owners in Newport Beads, we are In favor of the proposed Temple. We believe the church building as proposed will add important value to the community and the surrounding areas. While we are in favor of this, I know our Bonita Canyon Board President, Steven Brombal, has come out against the Temple. We are disappointed in the Board's approach and surprised at some of Mr. Brombal's comments regarding churches in general. In an Orange County Register article on January 20, 2002, Mr. Brombal was quoted as saying "1 don? see the benefits in (living in) a dturrh neighbofhood quite frankly. There are issues with traN`ic and noise. a We don't believe our community homeowners and civic leaders share his views. There have been two official meetings for the residents of Bonita Canyon. The first one was at the current Mormon church in Bonita Canyon, and the second was at a Board member's home. At each meeting, there were less than 10% of the total homeowners in attendance to voice their concern. Therefore, it is dear that 90% of the homeowners either were in favor of the project or had no objections to it Initial comments were that the church Is a good neighbor and that the majority of homeowners were not opposed to the Temple, but there were some concerns about the height of the steeple and questions on other Issues. However, at the meeting at a Board member's home in Bonita Canyon, the presentation of Information was very "anti Temple" and contained many inaccuracies. They stated that the new Temple would be lighted twenty-four hours a day, that the building was going to be pink, and that the lighting would be similar to lighting at the Trinity Broadcasting Center off Bear Street in Costa Mesa. We are very disappointed with the approach our Board has taken. They, have stated inaccuracies to stir up negative feelings among a minority of our homeowners. When homeowners are presented the correct facts about the Temple and possible alternatives, they believe a church building is the best solution. The Bonita Canyon Board has represented themselves as a group against this project, and they, In fad not represent the Bonita Canyon communities. To date, the Board has never polled the homeowners in an effort to understand how our community feels. Most neighbors we talk G ld l to do not object to the new Temple. In addition, we have heard of no other homeowners associations stating any objection to the proposed Temple. We believe churches, schools and parks are important assets of any city or community. For our Board to come out against it purporting to represent Bonita Canyon is a misrepresentation of our homeowner's desires. We sincerely hope you and the council members approve the Mormon/LDS Temple to be built as presented. We would be happy to discuss this project with you further. The daytime office number is (949) 646 -0216, and our home number is (949) 856 -2520. Thank you, Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time ? Yes _�� No If no, what additional information would you like toe� 3. .Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No k 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) `10 W Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S /e:Brom b erg, Mayofj m Councilman, 5"' Distric 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net s ��i7' � C A a✓I /7� y'e`p/ (.�`iC�T �G �°"�'� �� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes _Z_ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name„ Address Thank you tor taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Serg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee@earthlink.net 14V� -vak -A" ,,Y 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes, No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes 1C _ No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) . Name Address Thank you for taKmg the-time to respond: Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, lit' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Sberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5u' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee@earthlink.net April 15, 2002 It has been my experience that people opposed to an issue will enthusiastically respond to an inquiry such as this. They will also attend council meetings, circulate petitions and rally to defw the project. People in favor (or with no opinion) are usually somewhat lazy about becoming active, seldom attend meetings and find themselves "too busy" to stick a .34 =msm on an envelope. Our Board is opposed to this project and sometimes they give the impression that they represent the feelings of the entire community . There are about 289 homes in Bonita Canyon. Hope6jHY you will get a good response. I would like to bet that most of those who do not respond either "approve" or have "no opinion ". f Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes —P(— No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have u attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a . senarate niece of naner.) _.. Nam, Addr Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but It is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S e Bromberg, Mayor P em Councilman, 5 District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee@earthlink.net T ob,,,,�t4c V, 0,00Uzh'^.. I sL4 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name_ Addres Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 1P Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S e Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E- Mail: dandee @earthlink.net V-A W%Q,\JQ 1� "Uld be a b164 on 1 ov\dscapQ, . 1,3t feel V Cbvkk have. Q dP. /�r�n -acv► ems- cgn c��r Y1orn -� � r I c2S ��5 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes V No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes Y No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name_ Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but It is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Ste erg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5 District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949- 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net �J Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes -4— No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes _ No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. StArrombew, Mayor P o em Councilman, SDistrict 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net -rhc,nK Wu -ror wri -linj -this fefW. Z Rva a) •Wiele is 01V -ft r�e -w{- (-60 be acne a+ 4-h& PM+ to (,Mny crrly cF 4he -rhino fm i the I'-esi Gfcn�s qr� cortr�rn�d a��'. rk 13 mce, 4x> know Lp are ak i. -ea5� Ii 4mir� +0 u,hA+ people have -b '50d - 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u'= OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CgCt FOAN�P Mayor April 12, 2002 Tod W. Ridgeway Mayor Pro Tent Steven Bromberg RE: Mormon /LDS Temple Council Members Garold B. Adams Norma J. Glover Dear Bonita Canyon Resident (sorry for the informality): John Heffernan Dennis D. O'Neil The Marmon /LDS Temple project on Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road Gary I- Proctor o is planned at 17,500 square feet (about 5% or so of the lot area) and has raised concerns with a number of residents in my council district, more specifically in Bonita Canyon. You probably observed the 124' crane, which was placed at the proposed temple site for a few days by the church. The purpose was to give everyone an idea of just what 124' actually looks like, although the crane and the steeple are of course quite different. The current application and plans submitted to the City reflect a light stone exterior surface on the building and steeple as well as lighting until 11:00 p.m. each night. A lighting consultant has suggested the lighting intensity be reduced by 50% and the church has agreed to this modification. Presently, the project is undergoing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that should describe the project and process, evaluate environmental impacts including height, lighting, and exterior color, project aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, traffic and other items required by State and local regulations. The contents of this report will be available for the public and Will be considered by the City when the public hearing before the Planning Commission is held on the Church's application for a Use Permit. At this point in time, the concerns that have been relayed to me by a number of residents in Bonita Canyon, as well as other areas of the City, in order of priority are: Steeple Height, Lighting, Exterior Building Color, and Traffic. I would like to hear from you. Therefore, I would appreciate your giving me the following input, which will assist me if and when this issue is before the City Council. 1. Do you: Approv� or Disapprove of the project? (Please elaborate with comments—#4) -(c otj 16 CU R� 61-r Ni^Idn-r i,4Mtl oC 55P 1S RDHirP -ca -ro�iF 1T is E,XGEGD 00 City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, Califorttia 92663 -3884 www.citynewport- beach.ca.us X Exhibit No. 7. Additional correspondence received. Brian and Mary Donovan 2123 Yacht Yankee Newport Beach, CA 92660 October 31, 2001 Planning Department, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Mormon Temple Dear Planning Department: PLANN NG DEPARTMENT CITY OP NElAm, -)q BEACH AM NOV J 2001 PM �i8191lO1111l21IIE13141a 8 The enclosed article from the Los Angeles Times last week describes a Mormon Temple planned for an area near ('/x mile) our house in the Sea View development that borders San Miguel. We object in the strongest possible terms to that structure. It is totally inconsistent with the area. We have seen similar structures in San Diego and in Washington D.C. and regard them as grandiose, over -blown architectural monstrosities in any setting. A building of white granite with golden statutes almost 100 feet high is obviously totally incompatible with the residential area for which this structure is proposed. When we moved to our house 22 years ago we never imagined that such an edifice, which is more appropriate in a government building or civic center setting, would be plopped down essentially in our back yard. Such a structure is not only incompatible with the residential area for which it is proposed, but also is inconsistent with the entire city of Newport Beach. There is nothing comparable in the city, and we do not say that in a complimentary way. We think the only appropriate design and one to which we would not object is similar to the current meeting house adjacent to the temple site. Anything even close to the proposed configuration is objectionable. Even if it is claimed that there is a religious reason for white granite, soaring towers, and golden statutes, such principles must give way to reasonable zoning practices and neighborhood considerations. Again, we object and are unalterably opposed to the structure proposed, or any structure consisting of massive walls of white granite or marble and 90 foot towers with golden statutes. V /6 cry truly yours, and Mary Donovan Mormons Unveil a Towering Temple By WILLIAM LOBDELL SIAIES STAFF WRITER Mormon officials released architectural renderings Tues- day of a dazzling white granite temple —with a 91 -foot tower_ in Newport Beach as plans for the 17,500- square -foot building began city review. The one -story Art Deco build- ing will be accented with arches and elaborate window artwork. Towering over the 35 -foot temple will be the 83 -foot spire topped by an 8 -foot golden statue of the angel Moroni, blowing his trum- pet to "signify the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus." "The spire is the very essence of the building itself;" said Jo- seph Bentley, an Orange County church leader. "Its whole func- tion is to symbolically raise man toward God. Without it, the whole significance of what hap- pens inside is lost." The golden angel spire is a standard feature on Mormon temples. The building will be sur- rounded by 5.5 acres of gardens. The site will be next to the church's 28,500- square -foot Newport Beach meeting house on Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road. For Mormons, the meeting house is where regular Sunday services and other events are held. The sacred templeis a bridge between heaven and Earth for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints. Cer- emonies such as weddings and baptisms take place at the tem- ple, which is off - limits to every- one but church members in good standing. Mormon official= began offi- cially meeting with city staff Tuesday and said they hope to have their project presented to planning commissioners near, the end of the year. They said they are also meeting with local homeowners groups. If the proj- ect is approved, groundbreaking could begin by spring. Until the temple opens in 1 Newport Beach, Orange' County's 45,000 Mormons will continue to drive to the much larger San Diego or Los Angeles temples for major religious cer- emonies. California has four temples, with three more— including the one in Newport Beach —on the drawing board. By favoring smaller buildings, the church has been able to build more than 90 temples in the last decade for its estimated 11 million members. •. Entrance desk' WILLIAM LOaDELL / Los Angeles Times::- Source: The Church of Jesus Christ of latter 4ay Saints PAUL D. RODRIGUEZ ( Los Angeles Tim, Campbell, James From: Terri Green [tjlgreen @home.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 8:56 AM To: JCampbel[Ccity.newpo!t- beach.ca.us Subject: Mormon Temple Notice List Jim, I visited you in your office last month regarding the Mormon Temple. You pulled the plans and were very helpful in determining heights and locations. Thank you! I had asked to be put on a notification list of the meetings regarding the temple, and am wondering now if perhaps you didn't ask for my email address. It is as above. Please add me to the list. I was also hoping that you or your staff would be able to provide height and width information of the current Mormon church - -it is a good reference for those trying to understand the impact of the proposed temple. Thanks so much! Terri Green 1 3 Page I of 1 Campbell, James From: Gregory Dillion [thedillions @earthlink.net) Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 7:33 AM To: JCampbell @city .newport- beach.ca.us Cc: jhff @aol.com Subject: Use Permit No. 2001 -036; Site Plan Review No. 2001 -05; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Ladies and Gentlemen: We wish to go on record as strongly objecting to the requested variance for the tower and spire at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. At the proposed 91 feet, it is more than 180% of the height limit at which others are allowed to build. There simply is no quid pro quo that will mitigate the effect of the enormous tower and spire. No walking gardens, no muted lighting, no calming colors, no mature landscaping will minimize the size of the tower or how out of place it would be in our neighborhood. As comparison, let's suppose that in the wake of September 11, some patriotic group or governmental agency requested a height variance to erect a golden bald eagle or replica of the Statue of Liberty atop a lighted tower of similar height. Even with the current broad -based patriotic fervor, and even though such a symbol would reflect the beliefs and feelings of the entire community, such a structure would be equally out of place and objectionable. Such a tower and spire just do not belong in a residential neighborhood. There is nothing of similar height for miles around. The spire would dwarf most buildings in Newport Center and the Airport Area and serves only to trumpet and aggrandize the beliefs of a select few in the community. We have no doubt the church members may obtain a sense of pride, and even comfort from such a structure during the limited hours each month they visit the temple to attend services and other functions. It will be those who actually live around and near the church, however (most of whom are not Mormon), who will be forced to live with and look at the monolith 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, every year from here on out. Greg and Cindy Dillion 7 Bodega Bay Drive, Corona del Mar 92625 I 12/11/2001 RECEIVED SY Stephen A. Brahs PLAN cING DEEPARTMEAN h 2208 Port Lerwick CITY O . Newport Beach, CA 92660 DEC 10 2001 949 -644 -2948 AM 71819 11211121314 IBIS Mr. Larry Tucker Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Proposed Mormon Temple Dear Mr. Tucker, I would first Ike to say that the existing Mormon Church located on Bonita Canyon Road has been a wonderful addition to our community and a very sensitive neighbor, although I do not believe the proposed 124 foot high, light granite, Art Deco Temple is at all wonderful, or sensitive to its neighbors. Since my house overlooks the proposed Temple, I attended an unveiling on December 5s' at the existing church. The concerns I have are due to the 124' height and the light exterior granite. The height restriction of 50 feet was in place before the land was purchased from the Irvine Company and it continues to be in existence in the PC Text today. My point is that the Mormon Church new this restriction before they bought the property. I recognize that the height restriction does not limit chimneys and towers, but I do not believe this exclusion was intended to allow a spire that is almost four times the height of the proposed 32 -foot building. I recognize that the existing zoning does not allow a church use, but I do believe it is the best use assuming it is responsibly developed. An architect, or a planner's first responsibility is to develop each and every property so that it is compatible with its surroundings. The proposed height and the light color is clearly not compatible with its surrounding. I hope that you, as our Planning Commissioner, utilize your authority during the "conditional use permit" process to modify the height and the color of the proposed Temple so that each and every one of us in the community can welcome and anticipate its construction, not dread it. Sincere , S ephe A. Brahs December 10, 2001 Mr. James W. Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. City of Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: Mormon Temple Dear Mr. Campbell, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OP N;7VV01PT gFq ,H AM DEC 1120 PM 71819 loll 1112,112,31415 i6 Our family and neighbors are unhappy about the proposed Mormon temple design and location. The specifics include: The height (124 feet from ground level) of the spire. This is above city limits and should not be allowed by the City as a variance. This temple is adjacent to many Newport Beach residential neighborhoods that will all be affected by this spire. It is absolutely not in keeping with anything else in the area and will reduce property values for anyone that has this in their view. 2. The proposed building is too opulent and garish in its outward appearance relative to everything else adjacent to it. A white structure with a 124 foot spire topped by a gold figure on top is ridiculous for this site. Having driven to San Diego on many occasions, I cannot help but notice the Mormon temple located off the freeway. It is absolutely out of keeping with the community and the surrounding neighborhoods. I fear the same thing for the Bonita Canyon site. The 24 hour lighting of the temple grounds is unacceptable. Not even our neighboring parks have night time lighting. Those with views will not want this temple with its looming spire obstructing their views. The above points do not include issues such as increased traffic and congestion. Please recommend this temple be built near a business center such as the airport or the Fashion Island area where this edifice will not blight a neighborhood. We need to maintain the charm and beauty of Newport Beach and manage growth responsibly. This building, as proposed, will negatively impact this City and hurt the property values of many of its residences. Thank you for your consideration. g nter 2232 Port Durness Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 - 759 -9678 0 December 10, 2001 Mr. James W. Campbell, Senior Planner RECEIVED BY Planning Department PLANNING DEPARTAAENT City of Newport Beach CITY OP N ;:W0- r,7 mr -A1,N 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 AM DEC 14 2001 PM Re: Mormon Temple 7181911011111211121314 1 1 6 6 Dear Mr. Campbell, On October 24, 2001, 1 was contacted by Ralph Martin to host a community informational meeting at my home. The meeting was held on November 19. After patiently listening to Mr. Martin, Mr. Bentley and Dr. Clayton, I have chosen to write to you regarding this project. This building is being planned in a residential neighborhood. The apparent design (shown in the October 24, 2001 L.A. Times) is definitely not in keeping with the surrounding area. A 91 -foot "spire", which in reality is 124 feet from ground level, is well over any city height limits and the light granite with a golden statue on top will significantly impact my neighborhood day and night. The lighting of the temple grounds, building and its spire is a critical issue that needs to be reviewed. This issue was discussed at my home and we were told the lighting would be mostly up lighting from the base of the structure and trees, and that the lights would be angled so as to not shine into anyone's home. Additionally, they would be turned on until 11:00 PM seven days a week. Now it is 24 hours. This is unacceptable in our neighborhood where even soccer and baseball fields are not lit. The "off white" granite, while not blinding, is not in keeping with the surrounding area and the daylight glare from the spire and flat roof will be significant even with a textured surface. The 5.5 acres of gardens cannot camouflage something this large. Someone from Salt Lake City decided the location and design for the building. It does not reflect any understanding or consideration of the community and of the surrounding area. The Mormon representatives believe that bigger and brighter is better and they do not understand why people do not want to see their beautiful "religious" icon. We do not all believe the way they do and this glaring structure will alienate many people in the area. As for increasing property values, while It may cost more for Mormons who desire to be close to the temple, the people in my neighborhood paid approximately 10% more for their unobstructed view of the Sierra Madre mountains and distant city lights. It is like buying tickets to the World Series and end up sitting with a pole between you and home plate - erected during the 7" inning stretch, during a "perfect game ". You're still at the game; you're just missing the beauty of the whole experience. The temple is mostly used for weddings, baptisms and rites of passage. Mormons have been traveling to Los Angeles and San Diego for many years. I can understand their desire for something closer. According to Mr. Bentley this was the only Orange County site considered for this temple. They looked at over twenty different locations in Riverside. There are other suitable areas in Orange County where this temple can be built without disrupting the residential neighborhoods of Newport Beach. The sketches, "photos" of what it would look like at night, photos not showing the complete view and inconsistent information regarding lighting and the height of this building are misleading the public and City officials. Please consider recommending this temple be built in another location. Sincer Peg 2240 Port Durness Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 720 -9020 Photos enclosed (2) I I .... ..... . . . . . ... ...... . ... . 0?279 Campbell, James _ From: Temple, ratty Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 3:20 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: Mormon Temple Another. - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: GTP To: kskaiden @home.com Cc: Temple, Patty Sent: 01/14/2002 2:38 PM Subject: Fw: Mormon Temple Mr. Kaiden, I am forwarding my response to an email which I received from one of your neighbors. See you at our hearing on the Mormon Temple. Very Truly Yours, Larry Tucker - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: GTP <mailto:gtp @ohill.com> To: Charlene <mailto:charhl @home.com> Cc: Temple, Patty <mailto:ptemple @city Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Mormon Temple Ms Lane, lane newport- beach.ca.us> Thank you for your email regarding the Mormon Temple proposal. As chairman of the Planning Commission, I can assure you that you will have the opportunity to publically state your views before the whole Commission when this matter comes before us. To assure that your comments are relevant to the issues over which the Commission has jurisdiction, I would recommend that you review the staff report on this matter prior to deciding what your testimony will be. That report should be available on the City's web site the Friday before the meeting at which the Temple proposal will be on the agenda. The City's web address is www. city.newport- beach.ca.us Thanks again for your concern and I look forward to seeing you at our meeting. Very Truly Yours, Larry Tucker - - - -- original Message - - - -- From: Charlene lane <mailto:charhl @home.com> To: gtp @ohill.com <mailto:gtp @ohill.com> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 4:20 PM Subject: Fw: Mormon Temple - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Charlene lane <mailto:charhl @home.com> To: gtp@ohill.com <mailto:gtp @ohill.com> Cc: Charlene Helfend Lane <mailto:charhl @home.com> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 4:19 PM Subject: Fw: Mormon Temple )b Dear Mr. Tucker. After learning of the proposed Mormon Temple architecture I find I must state my opposition to such a structure being built in our residential community. 1. It asks to build higher than the 50ft, maximum height requirement that all of the rest of the community has adhered to. Clearly they wish it to be seen everywhere in the community surrounds. In doing so it will _ be a blight to this residential planned community. Indeed if allowed wouldn't that set a precedent for other structures to follow? 2. They request such structure to be lit all night. This would be totally commercial in appearance and different from the rest of the residential community. Again demonstrating their goal to be visible and stand out from all other structures in the neighborhood. This is against all the planning for our special family oriented neighborhoods. It would cause light encroachment to many of our residents. It would be a blight in this residential community. 3. They are asking to be totally different than all the other churches being built in our residential community. Why would we allow one church over another to be so garish and stand out in their proportions and lighting? 4. They basically need a commercial area to display the grandeur, the size, the height, the lighting, as well as the amount of cars they will accommodate. 5. They are attempting to come into our community with a blatant disregard for the standards set by the Irvine Company. Standards that all the citizens and our community have understood and benefited from. 6. I have seen the Temple on Santa Monica Blvd. in Los Angeles and I know the volume and lighting and presence they intend to make. It would be very grand in a commercial area, not a residential area. And surely not our Newport Beach /Irvine area that has become a testimonial to what a planned residential community can be. I urge you to consider all the above reasons for not allowing such a structure, regardless of who would want to build it. I have not met any neighbor, friend, or fellow Bonita Canyon Association members who wants this design to blight our community. Thank you for your attention to this very important community matter. I remain, Charlene Lane 21 San Antonio Newport Beach, CA. 42660 <mailto:charhl@home.com> charhl @home.com 3 01/? ?/2002 16:40 FA% 949 474 7521 BUR. R.E. GROUP BURKE REAL ESTATE GROUP. FAX TO Newport Beach Plmmug Deparbmd FAX: d y4/-32.29 ,U Mormon Terrgrle on Bonita Carryon Drive I Give at 035 Marble Sands in Bonita Canyon. Date: MIM2 — Namber of Pager. 1 FROM FrdUmn B. Burke BURSE REAL ESTATE GROUP Fax: (949) 474 -7521 @001 My wife and I strongly object to the steeple that is proposed with the Mormon Ch arch expansion on Bonita C vvon Drava Ifthere is not already a height res&kdon aGmg `Church Row; there should be, We believe the presence of churches in the area, uulading the Mormoa Church, is a good thbtg. We also believe ttrm, in the interest of conforndiy, good taste, preservation ofro*kndallandscape views m the area andgood long termplmmixg, the height of any structure along Church Row should not exceed that which has already been allowed as a precedent In fact, we believe no structure should be allowed which exceeds the present roofhnes ofother church structures in the area We believe the proposed Merman Teagrle steeple on Bonita Canyon Drive should not be permitted We rccpecfaBy request the QyAuthordies require a redesign oftheproposed church facility to elim mate the steeple, Thank you. W.B. and Patsy Jo Burke #35 Marble Sands Newport Beach, C4 92669 Phone: 644 -4292 1805 East Garry Ave. Suite 100, Santa Ana, CA 92705 (949) 474 -7710 Fax (949) 474 - 7521,1 Pl P RECEI\JEPARTR NNING r r ,..,;!i To the Planning Commission, JAN 2 5 2402 PM This letter is being written to express my concern an8�9 +1p1�.1i�ti�ti4 +848 opposition to the proposed new mormon temple on Bonita Canyon Drive. It would obviously add more traffic to the local streets and a tall steeple would be out of place in that residential neighborhood. Please oppose the temple in the up- coming vote. Thank you for your consideration. R spe_ ctfully yours, William Cool �3 Page 1 of 2 Grp From: "David and Karen Wolf" <woffies4 @cox.net> To: <gtp@ohill.com> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 9:32 PM Subject: The Mormon Church Dear Mr. Tucker, My name is David Wolf and 1 am a resident of Newport Beach. I am sending you this message to voice my deep concerns and objections for the proposed Mormon temple. My concerns and objections are mainly in the height, lighting, and congestion (both traffic and noise) that would occur should the temple be built to the proposed dimensions. Should the height be granted it would be one of the tallest buildings in our city and even in the county. Why should the Mormon's be granted a special variance "74 feet" above what the max. allowable height. It is not fair to the residents who would have to see it from most areas of the city. In discussions with the Mormons the have told me that the height of the steeple is important to them so they can feel closer to god. If that were the case then why don't three of their other temples, located in Laie Hawaii, Alberta Canada and Mesa Arizona, have a steeple? Is a 12 story steeple conforming to the community? I understand according to the paper that instead of the lights on 2417 they have agreed to the lights be turned off at 11:00 PM. Why do they need lights on at all. To my knowledge none of the other religious structures along Church Row have lights that are on any part of the building. Why must they have them on and is it consistent with the rest of the community. Having just spent the Christmas season in Phoenix Arizona with my family, I went to the Mormon temple in Mesa. There for 7 weeks during the holiday season they put Christmas Lights on every tree and bush. The property looks similar to the Trinity Broadcasting facility in Costa Mesa. On the night that I was there were over 2000 people walking around looking at the lights and the traffic was congested for miles around. Hundreds of cars were parked where ever they could park them. I spoke to a person at the information booth there are he told me that this display and attendance happens at every temple as a way to attract visitors and recruit members. If this is correct can you only imagine what would take place if the Temple was in our city and the problems that could occur. What additional law enforcement would have to be hired and what kind of strain would that have in addition to the Boat Parade. Please do not let them have any kind of lighting on the building and on the property besides that needed for the parking lot. It is already the case that local police officers are periodically required to direct traffic on Bonita Canyon Dr., involving the well- attended Mariner's Church located in the so -far sparsely developed area to the east of the tollway overpass. Our area to the west of the 73, however, is virtually all residential, with one already heavily - trafficked neighborhood shopping comer (originally built to handle the minimal traffic of the late 1960s). Beyond the necessary denial of the CUP, the project must include reasonable mitigation of the increased adverse traffic, congestion and noise that will invariably be introduced. Among other things, reasonable restrictions must apply to evening hours usage and holiday displays, especially since the latter might be created with the intent or effect of attracting a potentially large volume of but-of -area spectator traffic. Both by its imposing design and towering nature, if allowed by Newport Beach, this largely unwanted, artificial structure will completely and forever dominate the region. This presumptuous, force -fed architecture, representing the largely out -of -state preferences and directives of persons unfamiliar with our cherished area, by its sheer immensity and illumination will affect public views from all directions, especially that towards the broad and unblemished mountain range. For all of the above reasons, we collectively implore the City of Newport Beach to carefully consider what is permanently at stake for this entire northern portion of our unique and special city. I look forward to meeting you at a Planning meeting in the near future. I would appreciate any and all comments concerning this manner. I strongly urge you to come out to the area next week (Jan. 28 through Feb. 01) to view the crane that is being put up to display the height of the steeple. 1/27/2002 Thank you for your time. i David A. Wolf 14 Seabluff Newport Beach, CA 92660 Home Phone Number 949- 721 -0309 Page .2 of 2 1/27/2002 l� Page 1 of 1 GTP From: Steven Brombal" <sbrombal0hpapts.com> To: <michael.kranzley @chase.com >; <emcdaniel @fullertoncb.com>; <edselich @adelphia.net>; <gtp @ohill.com >; <tddgeway @city.newport- beach.ca.us >; <gproctor@juvenildefenders.com>;- <nglover@city .newport- beach.ca.us >; <garold_adams @hotmail.com >; <dandee0earthlink.net>; <doneil @hewittoneil.com >; <jhff @aol.com >; <jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us >; <annegiff @cs.com >; <skiser*pacbell.net> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 3:48 PM Subject: FW: Mormon Temple and crane simulation I would like to introduce myself and invite you all into our community this week to view first hand the imposing structure proposed adjacent out residences. My name is Steven C. Brombal and I am the President of the Bonita Canyon Homeowners Association. Hopefully you all know by now that the Mormon church has agreed to place a crane with a certified height of 124 ft. simulating the height of the planned steeple on their site this week.This has come about from our vigorous opposition to the "2 days and 1 night" timeframe originally planned by the Church. We the Board of Bonita Canyon urge all of you to visit out community and view for yourselves how out of place this proposed project is for our residential community and specifically the no- compromise temple steeple height of 12 stories. You have all been called into our main gate entrance and will be given a pass for the entire week Please fee( free to come in during the evening hours as well I would be pleased to meet any of you personally in our community and encourage that as I will be able to give you a tour and access many vantage points including private yards. Our Board has passed a resolution unanimously opposing this development as proposed based upon steeple height ( are you aware not all temples have steeples ? ), increased traffic congestion, lighting, color ( Salisbury PINKM, originally light tan or white, then a darker earth tone now Salisbury Pink- which is the actual stone color) and the negative precedent being set should this CPU be granted with the height as proposed. I am following this email up with a phone call to you all. Feel to call me at the below office number or at my home 949) 719- 9109 Steven C. Brombal (949) 223 -0606 stcven@brnmbal.com ,c 1/28/2002 01/29/2002 14:06 9496448192 PATSY JO BURKE Newport Beach Planning Commission January 291° 2002 Am: Planning Commission Yesterday January 2ge we arrived back home to our Bonita Canyon Home and I was shocked at the crane representing the Mormon Church Angel Moroni! I feel strongly that there is plenty of room in this world for many religions to live together in peace. However, I do not believe in " shoving" anyone's religion into ones face. This 24 how lite gold angel is shoving another religion, "In Your Face"I! In my home there is not one front window of our house either downstairs or upstairs, nor our front door, nor the entrance and exit of our driveway that is not directly and flagrantly exposed to this angel. It is not acceptable in a close knit residential neighborhood. I do not fly my Cnces in the face of any Mormons. Hopefully the Newport Beach Planning Commission will consider and value all religious choices in their decision and not allow this one religious choice to spoil ow peaceful neighborhood. Property values. When we go to sell our house I do not want to be locked into selling to Mormons only. I believe that takes away from our freedom. Please do not allow this Angel to be placed at this location. �-� Q� P.J. Burke 35 Marble Sands Newport Beach, Ca 92660 1930 1 Page 1 of 2 U rp From: 'Michael Green" <michael @NewportSoftware.com> To: "Anne Gifford" <annegiff @cs.com >; "Steven Kiser' <skiser @pacbell.net>; "Michael Kranzley" <michael.kranzley @chase.com >; "Earl McDaniel" <emcdanielofullertoncb.com>; "Edward- 6elich" <edselich @adelphia.net>; "Larry Tucker" <gtp @ohill.com>; "Tod Ridgeway" <tidgeway @city .newport- beach.ca.us>; "Gary Proctor" < gproctor @juveniledefenders.com >; "Norma Glover" <ngiover @city .newport- beach.ca.us >; "Garold Adams" <garold_adams @hotmail.com>; "Steven Bromberg' <dandee @earthlink.neb; "Dennis ONeil" <doneil @hewittoneil.com >; "John Heffernan" <jhff@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 30,2002 11:35 AM Subject: Mormon Temple proposed steeple City Council members and Planning Commission members, My name is Michael Green. I live in the Seawind community in Newport Beach. My home is located just south of the Newport Hills shopping center. My home has a a city and mountain View to the north of my property. I am very concerned about the proposed Mormon temple which is planned to be located at 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive. The plans for the temple include a steeple which extends over 12 stories high. At the top, they plan on having a 10 foot tall gilded statue. They plan to illuminate the steeple and the statue of an angel. I am very much opposed to the planned steeple height and illumination. From the prospective of my home, the steeple will be taller than the snow covered mountains behind the steeple. The steeple will also be taller than the mountain next to UC Irvine. Rather than conforming with the neighborhood and surrounding community, the height, design, and illumination will substantially detract from the natural beauty of our community. The structure will dominate the surrounding area and look very bad. They plan to illuminate the structure at night. If they are allowed to build the steeple as planned and illuminate it, I will be subjected to an eyesore both day and night. I am opposed to any plans for illuminating the steeple regardless of its height. I can not think of any reason that a steeple should be illuminated at night in a residential neighborhood. In the January 29, 2002 edition of the Daily Pilot, a front page article stated: Looking up at a dirty - yellow crane surrounded by 8.5 acres of barren land, Weatherford Clayton inhaled before exclaiming the sight was beautiful. "I don't see the crane," he said. "I'm seeing the top of the steeple, the lighting... It'll add such an ethereal, spiritual feeling here." My viewpoint is very different from Mr. Clayton's. I see our community being ruined by a temple that is advertising its presence for miles around. I see the destruction of peaceful views of the.mountains and surrounding community. From my family room, I envision seeing an angel, day and night, suspended outside my home on top of a 11 story high perch. As I travel to and from my home, I envision seeing a structure and steeple that stick out as an eyesore to our community. The crane will be in place for another two days. I invite all of the council members and planning commission members to view the crane from my back yard. I think that it would be very beneficial if you could see the impact on our community from the viewpoint of a Newport Beach residence. Feel free to drop by any time in the next couple of days to view the crane from my yard. My address and i� 1/30/2002 phone number are listed below. i ;' •. Thank you very much for your time. I welcome any of your comments or questions. Regards, Michael Green 2214 Port Carlisle Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 - 721 -1468 Page 2 of 2 1/30/2002 I Page 1 of 1 4.i rp From: "Weatherford T. Clayton" <wtclayton @att.net> To: <gtp @ohiil.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 200211:40 PM — – Subject: L.D.S. Temple Support January 30, 2002 Dear Mr. Tucker, As a seventeen year resident of Newport Beach, I am writing in enthusiastic support of the proposed 3Mormon2 temple planned for the ;church rowz section of Bonita Canyon Road. What a wonderful reflection of diversity in our community! Houses of worship where citizens exercise their right to freedom of religion and speech symbolize one of the many very right things about our country. I am happy to lend my voice to the many who say that a building of such high quality will lend a sophistication and beauty to the area. As the hills around the 73 are developed, the lovely churches along Bonita Canyon Road lend an anchoring point to the community, giving it stability, and in its diversity, sophistication. The temple itself will cover only 5% of the lot -- leaving acres for beautifully groomed grounds. The steeple, a reflection of the the beliefs of those building the temple, will become a lovely part of the landscape as the hills fill with homes. The temple will be in view of neighbors, but will not obstruct any view, as it is placed so carefully near church, civic and commercial buildings and not near homes. Please record my wholehearted support of the proposed building. Thank you, Lisa Thomas Clayton 1607 Port Abbey Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 721 -8384 1/31/2002 Page 1 of 2 GTP t `' From: "Packer, John" <John. Packer@ Pacificlife.com> To: "Agajanian, Shant" <newportbeach ®ca.us >; "Gifford, Anne" <annegiff @cs.com >; "Kiser, Steven" <skiser @pacbell.net>; "Kranzley, Michael" <michael.kranzley @chase.com >; "McDaniel, Earl" — <emcdaniel@fullertoncb.com >; "Selich, Edward" <edselich0home.com >; 'Tucker, Larry" <gtp @ohill.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:06 AM Subject: Proposed LDS Temple Dear City Planning Commission, I have worked in Newport Beach for over 15 years and have lived here for over 10 years. During the last 10 years, I have been very active in the community. I have coached Little League, refereed AYSO Soccer, helped found in 1995 and served from 1999 to 2001 as Co -Chair of the Corona del Mar High School Foundation, served a 2 year term on the school district's Citizens Budget Committee and was active with the group (including John Heffernan) that stopped the expansion of Anderson Elementary and helped turn the "banana strip" into parkland. Currently, and for the last two years, I have been the scoutmaster of Troop 746. This troop is sponsored by the LDS church and meets at the LDS Church on Bonita Canyon. It is a community troop; most of the scouts and half the leadership are not LDS, but live in the Harbor View neighborhood. I share this background to let you know that I care deeply about the quality of life and the moral fabric of our community. I care enough to have spent hundreds of hours, every year, in community service in Newport Beach. My family and I are thrilled about the proposed temple. My youngest daughter hopes to be married in this temple. I find it difficult to express how important a temple is to our faith and worship, but let me try. Temples are one of the defining beliefs in our religion. Our faith is centered on Jesus Christ and temples are where we make our most sacred and saving covenants with Jesus Christ. Temples have a significantly higher religious purpose than our regular church meeting houses. In addition to church services, we have basketball games, dances, plays, parties and rowdy Boy Scouts in our church meeting houses. Temples are only used for sacred, saving ordinances. Big difference. Our meeting houses are built to be functional, they are seldom architectural head turners. Temples are built to last 1000 years, use only the highest quality construction materials and are always magnificent and inspiring buildings. Another big difference. Landscaping around our meeting houses is tasteful. Landscaping around temples are beautiful, manicured gardens. Get the picture? Hopefully my comparisons have been helpful. I understand that there is a vocal minority who oppose the temple. I would hope that most of this vocal minority would not be opposed if they understood the facts as to size, usage, effects on neighboring property values, lighting, landscaping and beauty. Most importantly, I would hope t 1/31/2002 Page 2 of 2 that each of you will keep an open mind and take the time to gather the facts. There are 12 points in the Scout Law. The first point is, "a Scout is Trustworthy ". Please lend some trust to an Eagle Scout and active Scoutmaster as I make you three promises: 1) The temple and surrounding gardens will be a beautiful addition to our city; 2) The temple will strengthen families and strengthen the moral fabric of our community; and 3) When the temple is completed, the opposition to the temple will be diminimous and the consensus feelings of our community toward the temple will be positive. Sincerely, John W. Packer 1951 Port Weybridge Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 -219- 3737(days) 949 - 644 -9191 (evenings) 1/31/2002 a� Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: David and Karen Wolf [wolfies4@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 9:46 PM To: jcampbell @city .newport- beach.ca.us — – Cc: hbludau@city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Thank you for your time Jim, On behalf of Mike Arrigo and the Bonita Canyon Conservancy Assoc. I would like to thank you for meeting with us last Friday. I know your time is valuable. You asked that if we wanted to be put on any mailing lists concerning the Morton Temple to let you know. We are deeply concerned and very opposed about the Steeple height, the increase in traffic and night -time lighting. Please consider this E -Mail a request to put my name on the list of any notices of any future meetings concerning the Temple. Below is my address. Thank you again for your time last week and we look forward to working with you in the future. David A. Wolf 14 Seabluff Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 - 721 -0309 03/27/2002 Campbell, James Fri+m: Ca:npbell, James Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 8:20 AM To: 'STGEORGESFIRE @aol.com' Subject: LDS Temple project Rick, No problem. I do not anticipate hearings on the LDS Temple until July as we are preparing an environmental impact report that will discuss aesthetics /visual, traffic, air quality and water quality among other topics. The fact that we are preparing an EIR is not evidence that there will or will not be an impact on the environment. You will receive notice of the availability of the EIR when it is done. Jim -- Original Message---- - From: STGEORGESFIRE @aol.com [mailto:STGEORGESFIRE @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 8:11 AM To: Jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Re: Morman Temple Jim, I appreciate your prompt response Thank you, Dr. Rick Letts 32 Marble Sands Newport Beach, CA 92660 This is my residential address. 4 Brian and Mary Donovan 2123 Yacht Yankee Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 833 -8893 December 10, 2001 Todd M. Weber Newport Beach Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Mormon Temple Dear Mr. Weber: PLANNINGEDEPARTMENT CITY D;; N;:`O PT BEACH AM DEC 12 200L - PM 71819il01111121l1213141516 Attached is my letter of even date to Mr. Bentley, regarding his November 30, 2001 letter to us responding to our objections to the proposed Mormon Temple. His letter indicates you received a copy; if you did not, please so advise and I will send you one. As our enclosed letter emphasizes, we object to the architectural choice of white granite, 90 -foot towers, 10 -foot gold statutes, and all -night lighting as being completely inconsistent with this neighborhood. In our judgment, it is not even a close call. It is as if they proposed to install the Lincoln Memorial in the middle of a quaint New England village. While the Lincoln Memorial and presumably the Mormon temple both serve worthy purposes, the middle of a residential area is not a proper location. Nor is "church row ", as Mr. Bentley refers to the area in which they propose to install this structure. There is nothing remotely approaching the almost -gaudy appearance of this Temple on "church row." It is clearly designed to stand -out and to be visible from miles around, rather than being consistent with the neighborhood. We urge that the city deny permission for a white granite structure, a steeple that exceeds city maximums, a steeple with a large gold statute, and all -night lighting. Very truly yours, ,(I Brian and Mary Donov a5 Brian and Mary Donovan 2123 Yacht Yankee Newport Beach, CA 92660 December 10, 2001 Joseph I. Bentley, Director Orange County Public Affairs Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 61 Montecito Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 -1018 Re: Temple Dear Mr. Bentley: Thank you for your letter of November 30, 2001 and its enclosures. It is a good thing that this temple is much smaller than the typical Mormon temple, but it is still a substantial structure. That fact, combined with the choice of white granite, "dazzling" or otherwise, capped with a 10 -foot gold statute on top of an 81 -foot steeple, a total of 123 -feet above floor level, leads to an inevitable conclusion that it is in no way even remotely "comparable" or consistent with the surrounding neighborhood or even the other religious facilities in the vicinity. The plan to have a light shining night and day on the steeple and statute simply exacerbates the problem. No amount of landscaping and open space can reduce the impact of such a structure in this neighborhood. Indeed, general layout as confirmed by the photograph that you enclosed indicates that the temple is designed to stand out and not to blend in or to be consistent with the area. It is difficult to understand why such a monument is needed to accommodate only 150 people! In our judgment, the, proposed design is an architectural choice, of materials and configuration including the gold statute. I see no reason why your architectural choices cannot be more consistent with the area. Obviously, there are other outside building materials that will "last indefinitely" other than white granite. And, even if it is a tenet of the Mormon religion that temples must be built of granite and have towering gold statutes (which I find hard to imagine), I am sure that you will agree that such religious requirements must bow to reasonable governmental controls. The current meeting house is the style that is compatible with this neighborhood, not the proposed structure. We must respectfully reiterate our objections. We will continue to urge the city to exercise its discretion to deny a permit for the steeple, the gold statute, the white granite building material, and the all -night lighting. In our judgment, it is not, as you say, a "strong enhancement" to the city of Newport Beach or this neighborhood. Very truly yours, Brian and Mary Donov Cc: Todd M. Weber Newport Beach Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 2 I Page 1 of 1 a rp From: "Emerling" <tomtfg @home.com> To: "larry tucker" <gtpOohill.com> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:02 AM — Subject: Mormon Tower Please do not turn Newport into a (reek town with proposed tower. The one in S. D. is enought for the state 2,1,2002 8 Huntington Court Newport Beach, CA 82860 February 1, 2002 Mr. Jim Campbell Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 t RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. CITY nc lo='A"- .--- 1 AM FEB O 4 2002 PM 7161911Ullili�lilcl8141616 Subject; Comments on the proposed Latter Day Saints' Temple on Bonita Canyon Dfire Dear Mr. Campbell: We have lived at this address for twelve years and have enjoyed every day of it. One of the principal reasons for that enjoyment has been the lovely, consistent and human -scale of the community's planning and zoning. Things were put where they fit in and not at random. There are few exceptions. This is not the case with the proposed Temple on Bonita Canyon Drive. My wife and I have observed the crane and rods depicting the points of the proposed structure and find them to be completely out of both balance and character with everything else within this community. The tower is especially out of scale and must not be approved; it will ruin so much symmetry and scale as to be unimaginable. I applaud the Latter Day Church for selecting Newport Beach for their church but feel that they should build their temple in a more suitable setting that is not in the middle of a neighborhood of homes and churches that are balanced and similarly scaled. I can't think of a single reason for approving this templelmornument in Bonita Canyon. Please reject this request for a variance in the interests of maintaining a beautiful community that respells the balance that has been so carefully achieved over the past years. Maintain our existing standards and support those who would do the same. Please give a respectful "no" to the sponsors of this project if they insist upon the need for the design dimensions of the Current structures. Respectfully, Timothy J. Ryan Page 1 of 1 GTP From: "Roger Ham" <rham @home.com> To: "Steven Kiser" <skiser0pacbell.net >; "Michael Kranzley" <michael.kranzley @chase.com >; "Larry Tucker" <gtp @ohill.com >; "Edward Selich" <edselich *adelphia.net >; "Earl McDaniel" — — <emcdan1el @fu1lertoncb.com >; "Anne Gifford" <annegiffOcs.com> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 2:52 PM Subject: Mormon Temple Steeple Dear Planning Commissioners: We are strongly opposed to the building of the 127 foot tower being proposed for the Mormon Temple to be built on Bonita Canyon Road. The developer of the Mormon Temple did erect a crane for 5 days to show the proposed height of the steeple. After seeing the crane, we believe that the height of the proposed steeple should not exceed the height of the existing steeple at the facility adjacent to this project. We have lived at 2336 Port Carlisle Place for over 12 years. During this time, we have observed strict building codes in our area to limit the height of housing and other buildings in order to maintain a low profile, aesthetically pleasing residential environment. We are strongly opposed to any variance given beyond the zoning and building codes of 50 feet in total height. We believe this steeple is inappropriate for a residential area and that any variance from this would have an adverse affect on our neighborhood, Many advertisers and advertising agencies may believe that large billboards are pleasing to all people who have to look at them, but as we know, many cities are prohibiting billboards from blighting their skylines. Just like billboards, we do not want to look at this steeple. If the Mormon church believes this steeple has to be higher that the existing steeple, then the Mormon Church should look for a new location to build this project. We have discussed this with many of our neighbors who also strongly oppose the building of. this steeple. Special interest groups created this problem when they annexed this property (the Temple site) from the City Of Irvine since Irvine has stronger controls over their building codes and does not permit variances like the proposed Mormon Temple project. We know that the Planning Commission faces many difficult decisions. However, your first concern should be to the residents of this community. Sincerely, Roger and Gayle Ham 2336 Port Carlisle Newport Beach, CA 92660 n� r :i 2/4/2002 Page 1 of 1 From: °Richard M. Kettley' <rkettleyOkettley.com> To: <gtp @ohill.com> Cc: <skiser @pacbell.net >; <emcdaniel @fullertoncb.com>; <annegiff @cs.com >; — – <michaei.kranziey @chase.com >; <edselich@home.com> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:23 PM Subject: Newport Beach Mormon Temple Dear Chairman Tucker, We appreciate all of the time and effort that you graciously give to our community. We believe that the Newport Beach Mormon Temple will greatly enhance the beauty of our city and our family looks forward to its completion. The beautifully manicured grounds will be an inspiration to people of all faiths where they can either sit and meditate or stroll in its peaceful surroundings. It is generally accepted that attending one's church or synagogue helps to strengthen the moral fiber of those who attend. We need more people of strong moral character in our city - people who will give of themselves to help others. We need good people to teach and coach our children in our schools and to sit in our governmental bodies. This Newport Beach Temple will only help make those who attend it better people. Dick and Sherry Kettley 2390 Redlands Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 rkettley@kettley.com 2/5/2002 3� Page 1 of 1 JGTP _ From: "m.colo" <m.colo @cox.net> To: "Larry Tucker" <gtp @ohill.com> Cc: "Edward Selich" <edselich @home.com >; "Michael Kranzley" <michael.kranzley @chase.com >;_ "Anne Giffford" <annegiff @cs.com >; "Earl McDaniel" <emcdaniel @fullertoncb.com>; "Steven Kiser" <skiser @pacbell.net> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 6:34 PM Subject: Temple Letter to Mayor.doc Dear Chairman Tucker, It is with respect that I write this letter to you as a concerned citizen. I am a resident of Newport Coast and have chosen to live in this area for family reasons. For the good of my family, I support the building of the Latter - Day -Saint Temple to be located on the corner of Bonita Canyon & Prairie St. in Newport Beach. I am a father of 2 children, a 5- year -old daughter who attends Newport Coast Elementary and a 3 -'/2 year old son Joshua, who will begin pre - school this year. My wife Mary Anne is 5 months pregnant with our 3`d child. We moved to Newport Coast because we feel the area offers wonderful amenities for families. Having grown up in a one parent home has instilled in me the resolve to build a united front for our children driven by husband and wife committed to teaching our children correct and guiding principles of life. This is the central purpose of this Temple. It will be a symbol and tool to assist us in strengthening our home. Regards, Mark D. Colo 5 St. Laurent Newport Coast, CA 92657 2/5/2002 T Page 1 of I Campbell, James From: Temple, Patty Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:25 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: ----- Original Message---- - From: GTP [mailto:gtp @ohill.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 3:20 PM To: Jeffrey Weitz Cc: Temple, Patty Subject: Re: Thanks for your email. Larry Tucker, Planning Commission Chair - - - -- Original Message - - -- From: Jeffrey Weitz To: gtp6ohill.com Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:53 PM Subject: Fw: ----- Original Message--- - From: Jeffrey Weitz <iweitz1993 @home.com> To: tddgeway @city.newoort- beach.ca.us < tddgeway @city.newoort- beach.ca.us> Date: Friday, February 01, 2002 9:54 PM I am a resident of Bonita Canyon and was the first person to move in on my street. My wife and two children enjoy this peaceful friendly area of Newport Beach. We are very concerned about the negative impact the proposed 123 foot lighted tower at the Mormon temple will have on Newport Beach and in particular our community. We feel the height of the structure is out of proportion to any other structure in the area and inappropriate for a residential area. It would tower over all other buildings, trees and the neighboring hillsides. No other religious or non religious structure in this area is close to the height of this proposed lighted self aggrandizing tower. Its major function is a billboard to attract attention at the expense and detriment of its surroundings. If this is allowed, how can the city deny any other religious group the variance to build their own lighted 123 foot tower? As a long time resident of Newport Beach I respectfully request that you act on its best behalf and not allow this unprecedented lighted tower to be built. - Thank you very much. Jeffrey Weitz MD p 02/05/2002 Page 1 of 2 Campbell, James From: Gregory Dillion [thedillions @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:34 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Re: Community Commentary re Mormon temple steeple It was a Works file, I don't know why it didn't work - sorry. Here it is: Let the Mormon temple rise in Newport to a conforming height In response to Mr. Everson's Community Commentary, there are more than a "handful of folks" opposed to the steeple who out of respect for their neighbors and friends of the Mormon faith have kept to the sidelines. It seems particularly troubling that neighbors would seek to single out their particular religious symbols for such extraordinary recognition and thereby divide a community. After the tragic events of September 11, shouldn't we be looking toward the things that unite us and not creating issues to divide us? Shouldn't we be trying to find an acceptable solution, instead of bullying our neighbors into accepting the equivalent of a twelve story building by the comer market? Mr. Everson says that: "The things that go on in churches and temples foster goodness in people and strengthen the fundamental relationships that give life meaning and richness. Why does it follow that the things that go ON churches and temples, or tower above them for that matter, play any part in that result? Yes, churches, temples and mosques are positive attributes of a community as are schools and homes, but only if they fit into the surrounding neighborhood. A replica of the Statue of Liberty or a golden eagle atop a similar spire would be just as inappropriate as the proposed steeple. Mr. Everson believes the steeple . will give our eye and soul a rest. Will our eyes and soul be more rested because the steeple is 120 feet high rather than 50 feet? He also claims we will be inspired and our spirits will be lifted. Would our spirits be lifted only half as much if the tower were half that height? As a final note, Mr. Everson states one can look at the data to see that churches and temples boost property values. Property values have increased over time, and do increase as a community is built out according to its plans; but there is no evidence to suggest that there is any correlation between steeple height and property value increases. In fact, judging from the comments in the grocery store the excessive height of the proposed steeple is more likely to reduce property values. In conclusion, this is not about building the Mormon temple, the community welcomes the temple. This is about erecting a gigantic steeple that is simply out of place in this neighborhood. I echo your thoughts, Mr. Everson, "bring on the churches, bring on the temples, bring on the gardens and parks, bring on the things that add real value to our community life," and if a steeple must come with those things that add real value, just bring on the steeple at a height that fits in with the neighborhood. Cindy Dillion Corona del Mar 949.759.0545 2 t{ 02/07/2002 Page 2 of 2 - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Campbell. James To: 'Gregory Dillion' Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:32 AM Subject: RE: Community Commentary re Mormon temple steeple Thank you for your message, however, the attached file was unrecognizable. I have no application that can make sense of it. Can you re -send the attachment in Word, Word Perfect or Html. You could also past the letter in an e-mail message. Jim Campbell, Senior Planner - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Gregory Dillion [ mafito :thediilions @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:43 AM To: dailypilot @latimes.com Cc: JCampbelt@city.newport- beach.ca.us; jhft @aol.com Subject: Community Commentary re Mormon temple steeple Ladies and Gentlemen: I submit the following in response to the Community Commentary of Sunday, February 3. 2002. Please do not eviscerate the response. Sincerely, Cindy Dillion Corona del Mar 949.759.0545 thedillions@earthlink.net 35 02/07/2002 DANA BIEBER 14 TIVOLI COURT NEWPORT COAST, CALIFORNIA 92657 February 9, 2002 Planning Department City of Newport Beach P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 RE: Mormon Temple — Bonita Canyon Road Thank you for putting up the crane to indicate the proposed height of the Mormon Temple steeple. What it demonstrated is that the height of the steeple would be completely out of scale with the surrounding structures and completely incompatible. What The Irvine Company has done to create a neighborhood of compatible structures — whether residential, commercial or religious — is what makes this part of the City of Newport Beach so desirable. Approving a structure of this height would be out of scale with the neighborhood, be an eyesore visible from everywhere in the vicinity and create a bad precedent for building heights. It would also open the city to religious discrimination lawsuits by allowing one religion to build a higher structure than other religions have been allowed to. Please uphold the zoning codes of the city that are applied fairly to all applicants; and require a lower height to this structure. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Dana Bieber RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OP Ni= %k- 'P-)PT BEA:.H AM FEB 1 2002 PM 'i1819110 ill 112111213141818 3� Stephen A. Brahs 2208 Port Lerwick Newport Beach, CA 92660 February 12, 2002 Mr. James Campbell Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Proposed Temple Dear Mr. Campbell, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NF:W9)'1RT TEACH AM FEB 14 2002 _PK 718 ig IN 111112111213141518 1'. Thank you, for the recent return phone call. Attached are four existing Temples that I know of that do not have a steeple. On this website there are also numerous Temples that are completed with a more congruous red brick facade and smaller towers that would fit in perfectly with the surrounding community (www.ldschurchtem lei s.com). I have also attached a picture of the Utah Temple that is beautiful and it would look great in our community. I would be very supportive if something similar to the Utah Temple was proposed. Regards, Stephen A. Brahs SAB:rh 31 Home -� Eastern Europe -�. Copenhagen Denmark Temple + Wev I Next JOI�I NNIMLl \G LIST NIAP REGION SUBMIT YOUR TWILIGHT PHOTOGRAPH CONSTRUCTION PHOTOGRAPH SUBMIT PHOTOGRAPH Copenhagen Denmark Temple As of September 1, 2001, demolition of the "Villa" is finally underway. A complaint and other obstacles delayed commencement of the project, but the issues are resolved and construction has begun. After much deliberation during the two years that followed site dedicatory services, final plans for the Copenhagen Denmark Temple were finally approved in Summer 2001, Original plans drawn for the temple had to be abandoned when designers discovered that the building's structure would not support the intended features. Plans were redrawn, and it was determined that the "Villa" and garage on site that once housed the mission office would be torn down. A replacement for the Villa had to be found before demolition could begin. Renovation is expected to last I b4 vears. The revised plans call for the baptismal font to be built under the section of vard that stretches between the temple and the villa. Only a Mass dome will be visible— matching the dome the will sit on the raised copper roof over the third floor Celestial Room in the temple. Also on the third floor will be located the Endowment Room and Sealing Room. On the main floor, patrons will enter the reception area to the recommend desk. Offices will also be located on this floor. In the basement level will be Initiatory and passage,to the Baptistry (Dmrish Avlissiolr HometJazci. The temple district is to include four stakes —two in Denmark and two Ic Annt 17N Gro1 and 24 A sper C of 3 2/7/02 1:04 PM Home + Southwest States v. Mesa Arizona Temple . P41 l Next r SCHEDULE R ADDRESSES DRIVING DIRECTIONS NIAP REGION DEDIC -ATORY PRAYER VISITORS' CENTER TWILIGHT PHOTOGRAPH DAYLIGHT WALLPAPER ivlesa Arizona Temple P E R T I N E N T D A T A `steel: Exterior Discussion and general plans for construction of a temple in Mesa were made as early as 1903 -1913. A final decision would not be reached at that time. however; due to the outbreak of World War L Pan, were put back on the drawing board in 1913 with the end of the war. The people of Arizona and the surrounding area were generous with their donations to the temple building fund. Even members of other churches donated $6.000. An excellent site near the transcontinental highway was acquired making the temple visible to thousands of tourists each year. In fact_ two hundred thousand visitors walked through the temple during a special extended open house during the fast two years of construction. E Annour 3 Qctolr Site De 28 Novi Heber., Ground 25 April Heber. Dedica+ 23 Octc Heber,, Rededi 15-161 Spence C P F �1 �1 off W/02 12:58 PM Home + Alnhabetipal Index r Cardston Alberta Temple SCHEDULE & ADDRESSES DRIVING DIRECTIONS MAP REGION DEDICATORY PRAYER ............ TWILIGHT T PHOTOOR APIS D: -\� LIGHT WALLPAPER Cardston Alberta Temple P E R T I N E N T D A T A Site: `In "" 1887, 8 acre site.laid out and given to the Church by 11 Charles Ora Card jeaderoverthe first settlement of Mormons in Canada;at,had been called the Tabernacle Block.at the time. In the mid4950s the area was increased to more than 1b acres Exterior.finrsh: White granite.quarried from a site near Kootenai Lakes in Nelson British Colombia Every stone was hand -hewn. AddntonsFave been`made of:p[ecastgranite Temple Design: Octagonal des�n wRh nu sprre— similar to N ttese rross—Aas Greclan.massiver ess a'nd a Peruwart couch of Aztec . `lnfiuence viith pyrariid silhouette Number of Rooms;. Four ordinance rooms and five sealing Total Floor Afea:: 88,562 square The Cardston .Alberta Temple was the first temple to be erected outside of the United States. In 1888. about one year after the arrival of Nformon settlers to Canada, Eider John W. Taylor of the Council of the Twelve visited them to dedicate their land as a place of habitation for the Saints. Upon doing so, he made the Following prophetic statement: "I now speak by the power of prophecy and say that upon this very spot shall be erected a Temple to the name of Israel's God and nations shall come from far and I Q � t TE Annour 27 June Site De 27 July Joseph Ground 9 Nover Da,,ie,' f Cedica 25-291 Neber� Reded! 2 July t Hugh B Rededi• 22 -24 . Gordon F I I� 217/02 12:53 PM oft La1C t1aWall ICIIIplu uup,iw �r w., eeuu¢uueaup parca.cglaaie Home .. Alphabetical Index ►; Laie Hawaii Temple + Prev I Next n SCHEDULE & ADDRESSES DRIVING DIRECTIONS MAP REGION DEDICATORY PRAYER VISITORS' CENTER TWILIGHT PHOTOGRAPH DAYLIGHT WALLPAPER Laie Hawaii Temple I P E R T 1 N E N T D A T A I Site: Formerly a 6,000 -acre plantation purchased by the Church in . 1865 as a gathering place for the Hawaiian Saints. The 11.A acres upon which the temple now stands is part of this original property. Exterior Finish: Concrete made of native crushed lava rock and coral, reinforced with. steel. it is dressed . by pneumatic stone cutting tools to produce a white cream Tinish. Temple Desigm .Suggestive. of the ancient temples found in South America— shaped like a Grecian cross�� Number of Rooms: Three ordinance � u n�ssea4ing. Total Floor Area: 47;224 square feet. Joseph F. Smith, an early missionary himself to the Hawaiian Islands, arrived in Hawaii in 1915 on official business as president of the Church. After a meeting held in Laie. he invited Elder Reed Smoot and Bishop Charles w- for an evening stroll in the nearby tropical grounds. Quite unexpectedly, he announced to the two men, "I feel impressed to dedicate this ground for the erection of a Temple to God• for a place where the peoples of the Pacific Isies can come and do their temple work .... I think now is the time to dedicate the around." Later, Elder Smoot commented. "I have FOTIEE Armour 1 Octob Site De 1 June' Joseph Dedical 27 Now Heber Rededi 13-15 . Spence C F 1 of 2/7/02 12:55 PM Home ► Utah > Vernal Utah Temple Y rrev t Nm SCHEDULE & ADDRESSES DRIVING DIRECTIONS MAP REGION DEDICATORY PR.? YER TWILIGHT 13?30TOGR_APH. SUB MIT YOUR DAYLIGHT PHOTOGRAPH Tt-hs i,A" i C Pe 14e-�4- ;C Vernal Utah Temple P E T 1 N E N i D A T A Srte:-i..6 acres Exterior Finish: "Face brick Total Floor Area: 38,771 square feet The Church did something unique in the history of temple construction when it constructed the Vernal Utah Temple. The shell of the old stake tabernacle in Vernal, Utah, was restored to its original appearance and temple facilities were built inside. This is the :first time an older building has been restored for use as a temple. (Temples to Dol the Larth. ,v. 1981. ,:5 Capyrght =02 by W ebmaster. AN rights reserved. E51 OPE TF Annour 13 Febr Grount and Sit, 13 May Gordon Dedical 2--4 No, Gordon F 2/7/02 1:24 PM ofI Subj: Newport Temple Date: 2120/02 2:40:27 PM Pacific Standard lime From: Patdcia3111 To: trdgeway @city.newport- beach.ca.us Just a note to tell you of our excitement of the coming construction of The Temple in our area. We went to the showing of the architect rendering of the Temple, the layout of the interior and the landscaping for the area. We were of impressed. Now we drive up to Los Angeles or to San Diego to attend the Temple. it is our hope you are able to OK the necessary plans so the construction can begin soon. Yours truly, Pat and Bill Russell Wt &am & Patrwta Raaw U Jlll GiMer Apt A Cana Maas, CA PSM Date a'l Copies Sent To: Mayor �uncil Member Manager ❑ Attorney ❑ RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NFWP7RT r3EA ,H AM FEB 2 7 2002 PM 71819110111112111213141516 I WMnwlry iMnieiv 9a.1M] lm�rle�amm.�pnl�lelt]�1t ew•� 0 (% T n N C l I'r rn mn n0 (� -6 m n N an mn Co (� mc- l7 r -6 Campbell, James From: Wiesinger, Barbara [BITECH/FUL] [BarbaraWiesiiiga @o�technologieu.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 9:33 AM To: 'jcampbell @city .newport- beach.ca.us' Subject: Spire /Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Dear Mr. Campbell, I wanted to write to voice my support of the city approving the spire proposed for the new Mormon temple. I do believe that it will enhance the immediate area around the temple and be a source of architectural pride as time goes on. As a member of Newport Harbor Lutheran Church, I do not have any real ties to the temple. I just believe that we need and deserve to have daily reminders of God in our lives - much like the Europeans have throughout their cities, by having a beautiful visual reminder in the form of a church spire. Regards, Barbara Wiesinger . 398 Vista Bays. Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 631 -1240 Disclaimer This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain information which may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and, in any event, delete the material from your system immediately. E -mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception and unauthorised amendment, and no liability is accepted for any such corruption, interception or amendment, or the consequences thereof. No liability or responsibility is accepted for viruses - it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). -I 1 b4�!n U vt RECEIVED BY a /lO a i PLANNING DEPARTMEN CITY OF: NF1uofIRT rtia::h . FEB 2 77 2002 1 ti l 0111i3n1121 1 1 vC#W4\z- `toy iocv- p� ci�- i-�s ��c�cst i\ o v �^rn rn� 1 C1�. o E a. C v ti O._ \o �. — ----- ... �qSl �t Uoe�b�ic� q5 CM °eo m �1 z m m c T, - m }}� }� i � l -0.. N _ OC7 v 9y � m ar co Q q5 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FENDACG W. CITY OF wpwpnRT BEACH 314 Ar cjmreA� ON rrn n '2 Inn) Comm Del Mm CA 9161S.3005 AM ' __ -' - PM 71819,10111112,112134,6,6 ��u� g°, tkQ- u _ _ ' 4 1Z n N c d N A osl oF�co❑ m Y =2 pK � rnC) OO m m Q :41VE6DIBY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NF'vo1Mr FEAGH v AM FEB 2 7 2002 PM 718191101111121112131¢16 l8 co V� r��, � —��-�r � 'fir',• ;� .Cl� � ��"' �'`�tr1 . , ju, (0 'L L` l '^~`-`.'' -- - � RECENEU�r ��] P\�N��|N��}EPARTy�B�, ~` PLANNING CITY OF � / U � � 0'----' ---'-----------------'--------~---~~---�^7-7--`'-----'-----�' -- ---�'-'---------------'----------------------�---'-7-'--------------�-- � ----��'-77--�---- --' --------- - --\r--~�-`--~~-------'-��---- - - ---�-�-'----------''------~----``-~�'-T'[~`~~^^-^-~�-~-----'-------- � ...,-~..._. v � � � � J — ------- ------ Ile - --------- �l RECEIVED BY `. .PLANNING DEPARTI IENI Memo from CITY QF N;:'V )PT �FACH — DAVID CUTLER M 13 2002 �Yjc JD 2401 PM 71819 Q � 110111112i112i3i41616 � 4 Z�g err, ate. �.- A nk -4 � 6 �- 5b M F BROWNING 508 Ventaja Newport Beach, CA 92660 August 8, 2002 Mr. James Campbell Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. City of Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell: PLANNING PECEIVED CITY OF NFtn e,1r r. F,:Fi AM AUG 13 1002 PM 7r 8r9r10r1 lr 12r1r2r3rgrSr6 I have been a resident of Newport Beach for over thirty years and care a great deal about proper development in the City. The proposed Mormon Temple is a development that will be an asset to the City in general and I support its development. It is to be built on a parcel of land which has been . owned for a number of years by the Church and I understand has been entitled for church use. The proposed temple will cover only about 5% of the site (far less than the entitlement) and will be heavily landscaped providing a park like appearance. The building itself is a relatively low profile structure again far less than permitted by the entitlement. The site is not directly adjacent to any residential areas but will of course be visible from residential communities and once built will be a beautiful landmark and addition to the community. The EIR done at the City's direction concluded that the Temple as proposed will not have any significant impact on the environment. The Temple will be in use for only five days a week (Tuesday through Saturday) and at any given time the occupancy of the Temple will only be approximately 150 people resulting very little impact on the traffic. It appears to me that the City has imposed just about every test to this project that can be addressed to a project. It seems to have met those tests with flying colors. The Mormons have built temples in many communities and they all seem to be extremely well done and received well by those communities in which they are located, including the traditional steeple. I favor the development of this Temple as it has been proposed and hope it will be promptly approved. Sincerely, r� ichael F. Brownin J� Main Identity From: "Christopher Jones" <ctjones@cox net> To: "Jim Campbell" <jcampbell@city.Newport- Sent; Friday, August 09, 2002 4:58 PM Subject: Temple Letter August 9, 2002 Mr. James Campbell City Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell: iu6' a va , y'r 1. RcCE1VED V DE4ART�aF� PLANNING H CITY Gr. faF AUu 13 2002 P�fl 7101, 101 11112-1121 My wife and I are homeowners at 904 Spring Tide Drive in Harbor Cove. Our family has been a resident of Balboa Island since 1956 at 220 Collins Ave. Newport Beach has been an important part of our lives since I can remember. My earliest memory was participating in the Boy Scout Jamboree with my brother and father in 1954. I was in attendance at the recent EQAC meeting and was disappointed with some of the comments regarding the building of the LDS Temple on Bonita Canyon. I was surprised at the apparent disregard for the EIR. As I recall, it was called "woefully inadequate ". What a slap in the face to the city council that recommended and hired these objective third -party professionals. The comments and subsequent letter by David May Esq., regarding property values was particularly amusing. Where was he coming from with his "well thought out study "? I wish a homeowner from Bonita Canyon would submit a letter or study from any neighbor of an LDS Temple where property values have decreased. In fact, values have increased. Those neighbors whose homes have a direct view of the Temple will enjoy substantial appreciation due to excellent architecture and construction. Lastly, every study I know of regarding building in Newport deals with ideally downsizing structures from acceptable zoning. The LDS Church has gone far beyond what could be legally built to a much smaller edifice. We look forward to your support of this project. It will be an important religious structure in which the city can be proud. Sincerely, Christopher T. Jones Louise R. Jones 8/9/02 Exhibit No. 8. Petition in opposition The Newport Beach Conservancy Preserving the Natural and Residential Quality of Life for our Community August 26, 2002 Mr. James Campbell, Sr. Planner Planning Commission Members City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 926633884 Re: Enclosure of first set of signed Petitions objecting to excessive height and nighttime lighting of proposed steeple at planned Mormon temple site in Newport Beach Dear Mr. Campbell: We are pleased to enclose the first set of signed Petitions in this most important matter. Based only upon the work of the initial volunteer group of eight to ten door-to- door signature gatherers, the enclosed conventional written signatures total several hundred. Additionally, enclosed electronic signatures via an independently managed web site at www.The PetitionSite.com total over one hundred. Because we well understand the danger of bad precedent, our concerned and motivated members include residents from as far away as Newport Coast, Harbor View Homes Phase 2 (near the'Geison's market and Rogers' Gardens Nursery) Irvine Terrace (on the ocean side of PCH across from Fashion Island), Balboa, and Balboa Island. Following much discussion and careful crafting, we produced the concise and pointed Petition entitled: "Residents' Objection to Issuance of Conditional Use Permit at 2300 Bonita Canyon Dr., Newport Beach." The document makes clear that our objection is not directed to the planned Mormon temple itself, but only against the .grossly excessive height and Planned nighttime lighting of the proposed steeple. And, only because some in the Latter Day Saints (LDS) community have chosen to raise the fictitious issue of "religious intolerance /bias /discrimination," it bears repeating that the Mormon stakehouse has peacefully co- existed for years at the very parcel adjacent to the planned temple site. From a variety of sources, the evidence suggests that the local and /or national LDS church has encouraged members from out of the area, including out of state, to interject pro - steeple letters (both conventional and e-mail) to city administrators and elected officials. Many would regard this as tantamount to "ballot box stuffing." Our opposition group, however, has believed from the outset that out -of -city interference is thoroughly unjustified; the very title of our Petition proves this point. We trust that such inappropriate and unethical efforts on the part of some steeple proponents will not go unnoticed by the city— and that all illegitimate letters will be summarily rejected and discarded by our municipal leaders. Simple fairness and common sense dictates that the affairs of Newport Beach must be discussed, debated and decided by those who are its officials, elected representatives and, above all, its residents. Finally, please remember that signature gathering continues by way of our subsequent teams of volunteer canvassers, and via email. We will submit these incoming materials periodically in the coming weeks. Very truly yours, Michael F. Arrigo and Kenneth A. Wong On behalf of all Petition signatories and other Newport Beach residents opposed to the excessive height and nighttime lighting of the proposed LDS steeple Enclosures The Newport Beach Conservancy (also dba The Bonita Canyon Conservancy), 1280 Bison Road, B9 -56 Newport Beach, CA 92660 www.bonitacanyonconservancy.org www.newportbeachconservancy.org n Ut Resident's Objecting to Issuance of Conditional Use Permit @2300 Bonita Canyon Dr., Newport Beach RESIDENTS' PETITION OBJECTING TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 2300 BONITA CANYON DR., NEWPORT BEACH WE the undersigned residents of Newport Beach, submit this Petition to our city's Planning Commission and City Council. Recognizing that much of our city's appeal as a residential community and the protection of our property values are rooted in the reasonable conformity of style, architecture and permitted use of neighboring properties, we are extremely concerned with the planned development and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit ( "CUP ") for the property located at 2300 Bonita Canyon Dr. Newport Beach, CA ( "Property"). The undersigned citizens of Newport Beach hereby submit to the Planning Commission and City Council their formal opposition to the planned development of the Property and appeal to our city's management to decline the approval and Issuance of the CUP in Its current form, as well as deviates from the general guidelines described below. 1. NON — CONFORMING EXCESSIVE HEIGHT OF 124 FEET The final height of the Property's building structure Including Its steeples(s) should not exceed the general 50' limitation applicable to other building structures located in the Bonita Canyon area. The current CUP applications calls for the temple steeple to rise to a height 124' above the flo& plate (approximately, TWELVE STORIES HIGH). 2. OBTRUSIVE DISPLAY LIGHTING No display lighting (as distinct from appropriate lighting for walkways, parking lots, and security) should be permitted to Illuminate any part of the building structure's exterior Including Its steeple and glided statue. Other lighting should be designed so as not to directly or Indirectly Impact views, both public and private, or intrude upon the privacy of the adjoining residential neighborhood during the evening hours. 3. TRAFFIC, NOISE, CONGESTION Proposed uses of the Property resulting In excessive traffic, nolse, or congestion of the surrounding neighborhood should be restricted. Use adversely impacting the surrounding community include, but are not limited to, business hours that extend beyond 9:00 p:m. and holiday displays that attract large volumes of spectator traffic. 4. COLOR SCHEME The building's exterior color scheme should be aesthetically pleasing to all, indistinct, and blend In with other structures In the neighboring community. We'are Informed and believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints ( "LDS Church") has chosen to use a Salisbury "pink" building material for most, If not all of the building's exterior surfaces. This choice of color does not harmonize well with the surrounding neighborhood and should be reconsidered. In conclusion, we are pleased that the LDS Church and other house of worship are located In our community. All building sites, however, should be required to conform to the current rules that govern the planned development for the Newport Beach community, and which create an expectation of conformity on the part of all residents. We believe that the requested variance establishes a bad precedent for future projects, impinges upon resident's quality of life, and otherwise Is grossly unfair to local residents. We therefore, respectfully request that this CUP be denied. RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature (Lobed w. L) yers, Z Punt Name Signature Print Name Address Date 4 Sp--W,f� A ae Address Z /a5`Ioi- Date S62 G-ot.o 64:00 c0 ►� Address z /zsJDZ Date Addres Date 7 W A;Ei2i�¢.O t�ttJP6/L�f09'4P a4426S� Address $ Rg l— Date Signature /Address x-04 9r- 66 0 f/f1 -e / /lip (� /G y/a e Print Marne Da Signature Print Name Signature tee/ )dvt /j/g ddr s Z Date Address M�� \� 6rl k \-w <6 - o� _ �a Print Name Date Signature i / Print Name J?,L 66). e(ktt-&. -.filU �7'eap�C Address G� 'Date / iJc�/ JKt c�TtutilNJ�L. � I�� Address�GG� /Z && Date RESIDENTS' PETITION U�w lliq &-r--5&,lLL ,&a Address cc,) Date /9,35, Address 6911'ele:2 Date it Signature Address Ok,170 SYO-f-Zl, /C Print Name S Atme igna �) t 1� , > ililr Print Name f >n Sri Signature 16A C jW0LkT-1 Print Name Signature vVk � I Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Signature I Date A-4tj Address Date 1-76 F 4 x )U,;4 — Address Tljtlo Z, Date l FCD 0i I Df,,5— Address 4b 1121C& Date Address Date Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date I oewVA4,qa1s Dr Addrebs Date Address Date Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date I RESIDENTS' PETITION u6JA 'k e�— Signature Addreca Print Name Date Signafure Addres Lin4a bv6.55 -- q- a -7 -6� ame Print Date Sign, ure Address p �F n'IX U/0 bp 7 -UL Print/Nam�ee Date Signature Address 4& v,Ov �� /wfl 1 L 2 Pri nt noZt Name Dat Signature Address int Name Date Signature Address Print Name Signature ,a "R sc Print Name �YVC[✓ F �etr Signature tS M+ I, it Name 4. Signature J�vFv" L--� nttqN�� ame Sign re Print Name Date Address 0 Z� S 27 o zi Address 111 y7 / z Date Address Q Date J Address ate RESIDENTS' PETITION Print Na 1 ' Signature JJ��l�jµff4 �P�In'd� VU -PI�Z Print Name 'gnature Print Vame Date Address �i.�--T.va -- Date Address Date Signature Address I / 1Iy a0 , �Dd kelo. I • -27. n7 Print Name Date Signature Address X-Z7 d�- Date H Z-1•nz Date oo �ax r IT) SPA.wl) -w Signature Address 6,10 `clF = Print Name Date 12s � &04 / z Signature Address Print Name S' Address —� Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date ( Signature Address Print Na 1 ' Signature JJ��l�jµff4 �P�In'd� VU -PI�Z Print Name 'gnature Print Vame Date Address �i.�--T.va -- Date Address Date Signature Address I / 1Iy a0 , �Dd kelo. I • -27. n7 Print Name Date Signature Address X-Z7 d�- Date H Z-1•nz Date oo �ax r IT) SPA.wl) -w Signature Address 6,10 `clF = Print Name Date 12s � &04 / z Signature Address Print Name RESIDENTS' PETITION i Signatbro Address � Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Date Address Date Address Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Print Name Signature Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name n Address Date Address Date Address Date Address Date "Z V V RESIDENTS' PETITION Print Name ICJ r 7/,, e At ress 14 %Zo2 Da Address f (-24 J� Date I Z 4 /D L Address Date �Address Date (1 11 X78 Marble &.ojs Al.& 92660 Signature Address Jul,- 6he,r6xroe� I Z30 /02 Name 5atet �%% _ AL, © AL, �d / ! Qls- Address -16 Signature 13OLLalce, /} /ko /OZ —I Print Name Date C-1 171- 4L!;61r6fL Address Signature �Qw 14, , �� Print Name�� /�/%i� $) �f / - - ^ Signature Cdr iyU►E v�M Pint aa�j O Si tat �he(�� fvnrn �I(�� Pnnt�pName �p (� I iil lYJl/ tune � Y uC Signature «l�✓1 ��.e�1 S L1,�i�. Print Name C as PcPUOrgRe Address Date Address ?sa Date RESIDENTS'PETITION D ipature Address I,/ /Z !3 y2 rr 2 /L /m Print Name —�— Date ax- ��e:e�c �1` 6 ,61u,l-/e .ScIlds Signature Address N'A Print Name Date -7—,t1&A44s Al-6 Signature Address Print Name a—JJ // Print Name gnature IPrint Name Siggnnature Ca, Print'Name aA-�t 2 Dafe Address Da* 33 Mats we SAMS N. /s Address Z /�07i Date n45 't1'e'E' �-. N. Address Date 07c� c/ -)9 PIaC. h ¢ o N . v Signature Address Name ture coN D �1 y Print Name Prtn me ature Print Name al-zlo-� - Date 25 fcgtL ±C � Address ZkDL- I Date Address v16 4o7. 7T) Date T Address / date 0 M RESIDENTS' PETITION �l Print Name n o , e i Cf/LLl tai i �✓ Signature J7n��/ �P 'nt Nam —� Signature \�J P'tNam Signature Ede � P 'nt Nam Si'oiaiure ri Name l� Signature ?KIXA 041—t, Print Name d ddress Z� Z! Oz gDate Address z lzlvz -- Dafe Address a MMU C9 -.�2 -oa. Date �, 7\ Pty Address Date Address Date �65� /1 UOF iz' ,BAy -zw Address DateDate AddMs —1O Date oZ � �e� AQr 1-cet 'Address a- 6 -pZ Date a��v, tkIddress 2A -oZ Date RESIDENTS' PETITION © �JyLT q �G 2 2 fX Signature Address r.?,y irk; rT fin/ Print Name ''.r 1 i /�/1R.1aP /VV LfAn r.L _ �J —7 Signature D-InlSP, We-i later Pri t Name Signature Date f.qS�r r y-7 A�ryiv.� sY61*1ELID j 11146 Qj G - - � ? Address 2 -n -oZ- Date COM '1 -5 F-a of `j Ale Address Print Name Date k� `J Signature �— Address R Gt�IC(' N( . `Dt t tittLi t° 2� 11 �OZ Print Name Date at� .. 0/, 2 /'&V- >C S• ture Address A,ll) �u. �u.vL�P a/�/1Z Print 'Name Date A/ 46 Adde Print N e Date AeOAFddress 2-- ature %{• Gd.4 rr /C zA,- z Print Name Date Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Name c� Address Date Address Date Address Date RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature !�/.�✓NE�/ ASS a i•/ RPyn ame d Signature Print Name Signature 7—Lz sA At' Qh/% /VE/ZGS Print Name Signature &Ae/ a Print Nam MIAKA Signature O1ipw61Pt/_:l�yl Signature Print Name -�I ANV ApAZF Address MA2. 23. ZUdZ_ Date Address y I It op Dates- yz LUhiiteha2P Address // i%•zi ate Address �f -l1-o Z Date Address 1 Ll I 1 11011 Date -F -q-z ate `a Add es o/ / %02 Date Address Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Name Date 13 RESIDENTS' PETITION Cie Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Signature 1J/ Print Name J M� Signature <3 Print Name vQ <A I, Signature Print Name Signature 4 --Fo -- Name ture Print Name/ ezr " djL-4z 61 KignaWi7� 41rint Name Address Date /Cvq"2/2/;3 Address Date Address 0— Date Address Date I q . -rtx f n b . Address Date Address Date Address � /,d a bate- - c/ 7/2� Address Date Signature Address rnut iNamc j Date r2s- Address a •,)-:2, U a- Date 4, )q RESIDENTS'PETMON Signature Address ) Print Name Date /Cl Signature f Address CIO Print Name 'Date' Signature Address ,D C �21 Print Name Date --D /�>--z -/0 '2 Signature Address Pji dul e Date Signature Addre s :j ly�— GAr 3 Print Name Date -O&M/v �v(vw Signature -Vv �y Akt�-f;, 4 not u 71- Signature Print Name Signature Addred I � L Date Date Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date 4A 15 5 \J RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature Address print Name Date Signature Address i (nr; i�i�rccSi c , 23 f-f5 �2 n.:... u.,.... Date ACC a ? c Aqrdress Gl may/ Q lT, �2 3/O z Print Name Date ® Signature Address 101 Et/&s_YA1 T#OXRS Print Name 9 Dar-tmoafbi St -t.,n Date Signature Address Print Name Date r Signature Address Date o! Address e'z —17Date e.4 Z�„�e ala3 lo4 Sj ature AddrAs Print Name Date i� RESIDENTS' PETITION 60 Signature Address M "4461 S o -oa �Fll Print Name Signature Print Name o�� f -Xilfay Signature eke ( lq-�,aw-rjey Print Name Date Address Date Address —L9 —o2 Date `J1 I�Q Q`GLLC WA i iS 1 — �9_ o!2 Signature Address (� Print Name Date ell a.9— tir /ry e" / 4 1,OX rfeLia./% . �p Signature Address J Print Name Date I] O 0 P� 43 wh;lpina1j Signatu a Address - MA rid 'l7o4 le 1 � 71 Print Name Date :�f ' qr � 1 Whi"l Signature �I AQdhts�� ttJJ a k. ChnSk„c 1loyFdnian � a� � bd- r Print Name Date tw, - q( (hiiehdi S gture Address Print Name Date Signature aphPI r of Prime Signature FLT Address i/ ?R /o2 Date Address /f &J r f o/\ Ile,, &L- Print Name Date 0 ins 0 G m RESIDENTS' PETITION 1/ Silgnat Print Name -Signature Print Na + signature 9-P fl- 0 1 /�)Al1Q 11 rint Name Signature (M I t 4o- f- tr tt% Print Name Signature n at 1 Print Name Signature 51 WA, )J' Address it l07 Date 7 Pafzn"t�s Add ess l�s��oz Date �brIll- 1p�17-�>_ qq Address OO /f;%za4 —'Date Address o / -a9 0a., Date Address /-Z-?-oz- Date 76 1/t c lv P-1N Address l- St - OZ 1- Date Address Z -+ —o2 Date Address �2 V� M;A Date 2, 2l"2 Address �.NO,.a u.4 -r'c'6 �'� �t -tiTL kikLL �\ Print , ame Date t N� wioe l l fig. -Signature Address llrri; ©a tf i e✓o5 ��'�' Print Name Date RESIDENTS' PETITION Jcd �/"_ 1 -0 Kyl Zo Ah 11)n &aC4i 92GGo J gnature Addressl IOC (;,Tre 210102- Print Name Date �- Signature �^%nn Z S Pri �--- �Signature , Ali a i,�l � Print Name Signature Print Name 5 2- 1 a Address Date Z 3 z- ate Address 2 3 Oz Date Address �2A Date Address -,g-6 - Date oP -07 -e)� Address �F G1= C �� 7-_) -oa Name Date T� �S :;nature Address C� 5-e IW,� __._ Print Name Siguanr _ r Prird ! . Si Pr INS &Its Date Address cadrs� ,_vt Mr N �tYZ66� Date Address �l !�"/0L Date f� MA lk I RESIDENTS' PETITION G �,>� Z/ 2E 4lNT 3 Signature I Address STIiyGJ ell Print Name 7611, , gn Si re 1 /ir6Lvl 114 eD.Z Print Iarne �Q ate D Nf3 CA- gL66U Signature Address Cah Py e— sr, t7— Z / 6 / Z Print Name Date oV ti 24k Signature Address Print Nam' e i TaLe /OZ Signature Address ol4t 5', A V t c7 -orlt, 2vl Print Name Date 9 ,�R6 Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name E rfl= Date Address Date Address Date ?b J y„ RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature A(C f-4,4 ti tq. -54AA C, Print Name Address Date Signature Address _ 0 � �: E,L?". moo Date Address Date Address Cam' 92601 Date Mai r!4 6. Le6 /& �f'ksf. 9d-66 3 Address - r- 0 d- Date a i f Address ey,w -,e /ke", 814au fi;- 0' Le Print Name 7 Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Date 3 p% RESIDENTS' PETITION 1 y l0 Signature Address a -2-02- Date Address 171 Rork j�an125ifLi 4fle, Date Z' 2-07- Address Print Name Date gab -Fe.-,T HeAJ /etch d1.6 Signature Address ODateP RT D `0'a -- Dat Co 2 ,fib if u cei �Ce.e. 1760 41al Malik .ok' de.I/ Signature Address o /Acid 1tq /--� / " /3d / ZI .�2J Print Name ' ate �y- Signature 0 Address `�CZY1Y777 Eu Se r /30 /ox. Print Name Date 1 ?11 1�ocT �n�eiS�`ci Signature ddress �� l o"L Print Name Dat `� t�,t_.d.d.4_�QJi �. (�i.GLP�L �a✓a- /'(�� Ca-- *�.e�tt�t. -C�l /�-[• (/Signature U Address J�n1rJ12 13. JodJeS 1 -31 -02 N e Date 5 G � i l PORT MAWUt6 1f CIA, SignKture Address bicFt rJ -Atii ( -31- o "z Print Name Date 1 y l0 Signature Address a -2-02- Date Address 171 Rork j�an125ifLi 4fle, Date Z' 2-07- Address Print Name Date gab -Fe.-,T HeAJ /etch d1.6 Signature Address ODateP RT D `0'a -- Dat Co 2 ,fib k WE RESIDENTS' PETMON r X l7A 7X IC * jam.' . fp. (� N� Address Dae oltL dk;� 11-41 Po,er- sr="k- vacs Signature Address &405 K 1 Tr?-a - Ia I o a- Print Name Date } (4AL4, GWLIt.Q94 Z121oz, �i at Address Print Name Date VQ A"Sig naturc sAddress "W L,-.c tiLtot Print Name signature 1f�1-4----A,' f=, F,,- afSAs-) (� Print Name T Signature {{�� I IOfZ 1��h� PRnq`/ ' Print Name % 1 Signature Lo,r o Print Name LAI,ftFature Narde 1 ignature DAVID JOB NS Print Name Date Address ate ;t Address �-- 9. o-. Date /6f4- y A ss /ddre / Date f1w Perms Address .,02— Date K-J VIS'iA )& MA (V . B. Address 2.-y (),IL- Date 10 d z - z -aZ Signature ddress son cfi Yl t r Ooc-r ale L Print Name Date \Q 3 I- 10 4 F e F 1 RESIDENTS' PETITION /.fJ g, /807 Signature Address !?/�o v Date Signature Print Nam Signature SuSo,� C45E M 1 • i*ature Date Address a5 ow-4 : f 86� Date�� -S�/� Address a- G Y Da a //Address Date Address Fj��1�ood en Qkt 0 6A-p bh C Date Address Z, /-1Ao(kz Date Address A14O) -- Date Address S4,'y "? Print Name - -� Da e a� RESIDENTS' PETYrION Address Print Name l4Sa S&4t-4 u Ft,D. 164 Signature Address Address Signature Address —� Date Print Name Ditto Signature Address Signature Address Signature Address Print Name Date Address Print Name Date Signature Address Signature Address Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Signature Address Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date 5 ,�S ti A 00 1 A �o lc) RESIDENTS' PETITION Z� -r 3014 C d< 0A V�o A.1, - Kl.,_ lgnature Address ,j /- u wL-7- Print Name Signature Print NoWne Signature SU2k,n�t �c�tri4K Print Name nature ` J v S V t 11 C', �1 Print Name V4� h*-�457 Signature �'"^ 11 Rmfu VAI) dAQk) Print Name , Do,-, hj-, � signature I 2d 114t. L Print Name N,,amme Signature Print Name Sigr ature U-54 AnOleio e2 Print forne SigriAtdre VX'?f�lJ -f.P P 'nt Name g:��. rgn ure Print Name 2- 14 -0Z- Date Address Date {?P„ w oH-J� 4a,'r 5'04, &, r,+ ts[cC- A dress �� ) L Date law. yDS V�}wi� L/ iJ O A dress 'L Z, D Z Dath Sa'„ &aKAL (I)m Address ' 4, 3/d 1?- Date Y ;/, 1 '' 35s: 1 IS& J%dpg a -Z ec Date 22310 -1 Address Z�: -3zo Z Date ty� �crrt n� cq¢, `7 24�6u Address �1a -7 /o z Date `f YYl W stmt -Pr. @' -cd-c�c4 Address 'i z -(,4, Date 6)2- U16+� -6 Address Date 2 RESIDENTS' PETITION i.., .. l -VT t t A , mf. 2 D.Lp 2 /3 e �lc.)Re?- NCB W-W Z- Sijnature Address tint Nam Signat � Print N,a%me A � G�dT.rt fit S' ature jul,S ( �Achdle, Print Name s Signature Q Print Name cB k-1 z note Address Z a, Address OND3I Q 2 Efate 3or Orc�,d�2 (�rn9a(o�J� Address 0%02/1 Z Dat Signature Address —qg-" a-! Print Name --7 ate Signature Address Wiliam F 01103102 Print Name Signature / Print Name A Signature � —J (1p,#Ii nmh!j/'t Print Name q Signature ` Y Print Name 7�.%+ecr to sat OI2n, 274A� Address ,2�'oz•oa- Date Address' D e i0 3 2� II/ 5 �n ^Sig azure RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature Print Name Si ature n<7y Address Date �i �UNTI,t_i�,rp�e� c-� • 1��£!•U� -��- Address i I I 11 �t�rt.1xL Date A dr /d02� T f Date 5-01-0-7, Date c. Address 90, Print Name Date Signature Address '—fl4o,-ys f4 S 3)n ��o ->- Print Name Date Z_1 �%R /G /G N P nu Jy/C/o/y Addre s %' Date q ddress alarl�� / Date Address 72- Address Pri Date t� 3 � I A J r. I F l l6 � RESIDENTS' PETITION o4 V&�11 Signature � Address (� Print Name Date YEN 11 "A(IA D9` 4/J 1. r1q . 1919 _ Signature Address P acV"rp?-I&^'l- 19k3 PORT A1CLt�n1 ai REpctr Print Name Date Date 4N30-sAi � 4,8, y2Lf�o Address a. ate Address Date Address Print Name —��— ate Si ature C[yc- tld,rhuN S P Name � gnature efCRkE 6Ara74tE Print Name {`jj� ^. /� VV (fW',Vl n� t V Signature /Vfh Kn'rl 'qe-,,4f rQP Print Name D �+. Signature Print Nam �P=�- ��4ivvu�gcc Address ' z9 /4z Date Address JIL5 l o Data In ignorl d8le- Address D e ,23 -AZ Ad ss e a9 RE5 "IDEN3'S' PETITION ' Signature Address 6lo �— //! C l mTE2 2 1 2 3 to z. Pnnt Name Date Signature Address 0..n,s \:\in 2.3 /DZ_ Print e n Signature OjRA, Q i yo�ln'Ia Y Print Name 1 g�g VU'+S +"62!9= o u a o Address z/�-5/b Date Signature Address Print Name Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name . Date Signature Address Name Date Signature Address IMM Date 3o RESIDENTS' PETITION I Address Z_Z3 -oZ Date /6 33 AAc4 g t { u> 1--2? Address P)41l tP i£E Rz 2-Z3 fl2 Print N,alne� Date azq Signature Address U Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Name Address Date Signature Address Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Date Address Date Address Date Address Date Signature Address Print Name Date o 21 RESIDENTS' PETITION &c.� I �tictc c a 7cok..; { S ;oho A .A 1 Signature Address LE Print Name Date frig-t (�a L U Signature Address ,5A in X7 F;lG Print Name Date 22 RLt (&4 Signature •',/,// / 7 Address PrintRame Date 61 pi--t &e-i Pte( Signature // C� r tea✓ Address �— 3 e Z Print Name Date /J ? S�ture Address Print Name Date 1 �.Si�l j, f -ry 222 ��Ak�/t 1, 6GQ��f t i h e v �! vtrrwrt Ltk.t I I -(4 1 -31 d Z Print Nam e Date Signature Address r f k I�n � (3 t kD nt N e 11-2 1l 1Lll� Gt �'� Date 230/ f'OfZT CA2LI5LFz Sign. ture Address ,et 2 30/ l�o�l /!s /e 9 Pn Nam ( N 3 3 1 YAk 1 t It E?lU,lld f7 gl,-L � —�✓ Signature 0�- NYru.:f� Address -L- Yt S b 414//1 Print Name 7_339 Pciar C-AAU- c.C-- PL Signature Address DAVID 'C.. Lott�titi to /A v Print Name Date �� 3a 5 LUMMIM 20 1;, I RESIDENTS' PETITION (cur¢ C r li5 Address ! -3( —ate Date Signature Address 1� i 1-31 - a 2- Print Name & at e yiffiiature Address 1146\1 113110,g -Prinf Name Date Siknature Address Q.,L�� j�� j � 3 t�o •v Print Name —� Date -.�� 2�21�1 fr'r?Y Cg2c�Sii Signature ( Address Print Name Date Signature Address he -rc-, - Girt o;�- Print Name Date )A. v. � i U Signature Address S -�Nti�t t- I =AAA1 L- 2-11102.- Print Name Date Signature Address Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date 3� 3 u u\ E Signature RESIDENTS' PETITION lgl� ?ceLt`r t4T u ?az:ar}tcn G0r Address iF Iz. jazzy 1 -3 t Print Name Date I --Print Name Signature Print Name Si a V Date a - /--o;)� Address I . _ ♦ . I l VKI Scl�o ber :t+±ign Print Name Signature L',✓ c %� � ,n ea. rep, °, Print Name Signature .0 (CI Can o P Fa Lti Print Name y Address °�— Address — 21XIo9. D'ate I 971 Pav Iq 4 5�u Address Date 1 �z tet 4f� PI: Zlz lv2 Date 3 `� RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature - J prCA ti1o� P int Name i Ale Signature Print Name a-oo / P,:>rt �� Gr- Address f— Date Ad^ G ,dries 'T�Datc ��' ?L r •r � rr � • 4.07 Print Name Date j yl AW(6 Sipature3 Address Y'h moo �� a.k 02— Print Name Date 5 5 ryt t.(�r��ra 20 71 Ptwt -P�-a V Ch c.- U Signature Address kGvtvltKtom' Ra: 6 eWS Z•5•OZ_. Print Name Date 9 (0 t Li EU(- viN� o2 Print Name Date afore Address / Print Name Date �i�� /rz 5 GO•-�- Qrar...w Signature Address Print N e / Signature low /-vain r Z sft" // Print Name t' Signs Lt-L t. Print Name �CJvT Date / n I"Q2� �/7 �Dt/CetILL Y� Address 2 /7 07. - -- Ddte f Z ( j Address at ,.b RESIDENTS' PETITION I P�13 /ow ' Signature v / Address Sle��eyr �r v,,�Gs4 zA/ oa- Print Name Date Signature Address - P r,'cio. L; y n Slo a Z18, /0 Print Name Date Signature ' Address Print Name / Date %C a 219 0 Signature j Address lnwo rli 1937 A47C� -- ,Or6,fAJ Print Name 2j Date 5 Signature Address AIL Nu.v lv (U a - 9 -0 ;7� PrintName Date c1011p- r- 6,;L, Signature S�iggnature Address A k ► 1 I U 11 tf, fort Car &4 X'n Print Naamoe,,'' Date Signature Address .j 0 Signature Fly Date Address " q ©a Date Address 2— q -c%Z Date Address iCa.✓�ly> lei% (2©raAl -nom Print Name Date l0 4 36 C RESIDENTS' PETITION caul RkUl- 64C�16AI,,-j Address z��kZ_ fQrorr� 6v dAa�!: pigotUY6 Address n Name Date / (� Si e (�A��J>7 cw e -, Print Name Date Si mre Address 1�1 Q :+t YlQ -hiq f r ti Print N Date (j i�,4 e signa4lre Address aejMb, --) 2�9 /c,z. Punt Name I Date j f r�e� M!®a -- Signature I Address, ed—) /,??/ I24� �7 Print Name Date 4 i Sp aee G1 Signature Print Name S 1 SignqLurej Kvbt�aT Csv73J12fLr Print Name l� %9 ) 1 k -T-emdL. C;r AddreW o-fiop- Date lri,o t'vrt- 1--)(. N , t3, Address 2ll0 �r Date B! AA Addre a to Dafe I'!N9 PaCr ��hLIL4t .tr�l.� �T•L� Address �- �Zja ay Date 3� S U 4 RESIDENTS' PETITION Sigta ure Address a i�-oa D. 2•tJ"C Address ICI --pw i Date Date Address Date Address .1 pkL ,IYL. - x. Print Name Date .l1►� ii, r1/ Jf1 2 -13 -0Z-. Address vi r,e Mc 0 3 /bz— Print Name Date (19")u z me last' 961 P�v Signature Address Print Name Date /8a'7 /doer 64* ;re �. Si fiiature Address Print Name Date N6 6 3� RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature 1, Print Name J a Signature jjb§ ? I IIM/In Print Name [W Pnn Ne � Signature PEJEF, R N5TRC- Print Name Cp Signature 1 �1� (�/�- (�1ili� -�, � IJ�u,�✓l�i�aCt1 C�}. Add Ci y4 �!>02. Date 2a1� t�af��uu pe Address %• t q- 02- Date Ile 6- R& &&e Alb Address w Date l57 66,Yw!� Ivy' Address Date NSU Povt A l Wvi S .dig Address a— 14 — Doo ) Date Address Go k4., Sit tE �- IS awl P , N e Date a ure Address L SW W-- Name za,!Signature W"(k,ason, Print Name Address 7-1(1102- Date r cti, i�/ t 4�Gi cs I �SSO Al-1 51qr,/h ,ye Sign a Address Print Nalic Date 170) &-- �1.�N a - (b -Qa Pa,+weS Signature Address D�a��ei t�Wdd� d -rd -oa Print Name Date k� 7 39 RESIDENTS' PETITION J'rn.,.— O� 1) 14 '1 AT S Print Name v w `�ignature rint N7e Sig(n it re Print Na MI �uc�t e Sig I- nat ��— nnPr'intN��ame l_ln-1 , Signature /�YS p�y2i /2evwcc[.L Address 2l9 /oz Date Address � - to- 02- Date poy+ 1-(-(;R In Address ►n Fr Date id Address —T ate Ad Tess Date z -i� -oy 1a3b i�ur�Ti�w Address deb X202 Date _ /� 30 �o� �! HFr,✓ Address VZ U'L Date Address 2. 1`- oz— Date Znz.i 'Pa>rP�ov�' Address I(�l`itl�ik �.I M�IM.1 Z -!f -OL Print Name Date Siguliture ( (J iAnt d� 3f�vc; ::: 1G4_ 9 t 3g Po-d-- . lam: (PJa� Address -�7 -0� Date (�39 -puy- (FFt�t�f IuL�D 2-Z7 -U2 RESIDENTS' PETITION y •? Si&ature Address Signature Wog. D Address Print Name . bate �r Signature Print Name D�-A-Ar 4 7 G' A-,e,qo"- S RQ.M1W,cL-- Address 1,015 - Fov-f- Date 7- 1616Z� Address Date Address Date Address T— Print Name Date Address CSignature d.2-- Print Name f Da (e ZQ�.,�4r�t Q.m�� ti Is45 '�- ►Zer,wt� �l .. Signature Address DIWU& -b• mar�M)U -AW ��oz Print Name ""'� Date /�c�'l�.Gt" /9415 r t )Z-AWlcr f . Signature Address �NAtD L. MACAL"A1 2/ ox Print Name Date ql (9 NO) a tt ro RESIDENTS' PETITION J K"fl {fVAJ W)XOj_ Print-Name I�SWaturc Print Name Signature Print Name Ads Print Name 44�� A. rz� Signature Cl El-&te eAM7...t9 16ILa � Print Name Date 22 No Poler.P AlESS ?4. Address Si¢M 30. 2002 Date 2a vo ?,T4 04Aea/c35' Address / /3 /A Date Address f t% j (JO— Date Address t 1p �1u-L- Date Address -.3 /_Q Z Date Address Date 21..2rt- rOoX7- �iCRN�SS i� Al" eo&r 8e-43ar. c.1— 9u6 o Address � �z WLVrrvw Pri tt Name afore Name 3( —evi Address -?I / -/7,?- Date 3/ o a-- Addres Date a-1 �(IQ 1, 72, —DZ —�?, li —{ �y 0 !6 0 IS r9 20 0 RESIDENTS' PETITION l k y luyt-Clf Pl. Signature Address 1 -31-0 Sianature /� -1hzkt Mdser� Sianahire Date zJ9d /or�r� P/. Address Date Date tL PDV- -E l IV h(7574 P �. Address 31'E /�.az Date Address ZIDO f'o ✓��YKPSS�i' Date 9 bi ature cress j7 C7s=E 22157-aR•T f+HRVJIU - O$ Print NamP Date z¢ -E / p� K/1 7--Z-oo Port- J)urrwess Si gnature Address pICI-Nct -A E - KI eC kf i-31 -OZ Print Name Date 25 I ��6Y f_'brf L�n�ss mace . N. e . Signature Address _�ARyL - 1"fs.anlGt:s �ena-tJeng �° I - 31-02 Print Name Dat �7 z6 Signature Address t v! 'k Ga le y oo Print Name Date �f3 j 3 ? C RESIDENTS' PETMON z7 Signatu� ),a 'o 0 uv Print N Signature hllfw SC.'ICIN 1Ma✓ 25 lz Print Name Date .4e.l;r Fite f/S t Rfy3% .Z - .f -o ? Address le ` f—OZ Date 7-2-vs f3rCT Dyx/,C- I A/R. 9266n Address )30$ Pori— Utarnc56 PI ND '7)-V -C Address Print Name Date 2�dE A p Signature 3! �� 9 Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Signature Print Name S Address d RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature dress Print Name Date 33 34' O 36 37 M Signature Address Print Name ignature 1�NLGc,rarLbi ��: Print Name Signature N� I J e Oc,E�r Print Name a ,23s0 Pns AffE?yZnC-497j Akjy,rcje� Address Joyfv - JUt-nl ,4-L IC 21110Z,- Print Name Date Signature 2350 Orn/! A�terol2e k/fM Sct gRGZYk ,N,g Print Name a ,23s0 Pns AffE?yZnC-497j Akjy,rcje� Address 21110Z,- Date 2350 Orn/! A�terol2e 4Z�Ga ,N,g /Address (Q/0 /Date d3,' /e1 Address z 0i o� Date ,9344 ?ett PI Vilb 9at�t Address 05 /od- Date ' �.ug fbt /Aeegc Address Date Z d ?04-.e Address Z- `1 -02 Date _ 223 ro- A�rdolen P(. Date t� Z D to -t,/ / RESIDENTS' PETITION 2 2 5e.> ?,r AUrdtw Pl- (&4e a SiL u Address rrrel I vJ. o 2- Print Name �- Date r ature tJant°i u�� 2 -ham Print Name Date I'• rt! Signature Print Name DSi.�.. Signature Print Name Signature Print Name 5 AL -A-Ai 2055 2 z�2 P,.O( A6e-Je-c� Signature Address 6&, Q,,,— 'Z (r4 (o z Print Name Data —22/Z Signature Address 130,10gri., /f Lo ff. Print Name ate a2.3q W AL oo, 01 Address a -/a - ©2 Date Address Date Address 2�.yvl Pcfr arlt,,i -1 '"r;),12 46b 2— /l-7 -02 Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Signature Address Print Name Date 11 A a I M OA L RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature Address Print ame 1916ifure PrPn , 6eloliorllo Signature ?rin-t. Name --4,L--,f c Il A rz -o It n0fti' tl,— Signature,- Pnnt nc Ny4L atuie 1-31-c-� Date Address Date Address -�-pv"`tAj� Address Arn\l S -bll Print Name Date Mq J i.so r), S Address 4? /0.)---,, Print Name Date Signature AOdoss Ahl'(11-11 In. ->-/6 /0 k- Print Name . Date 44a� Z. - — ?2// 4 -'� . Signature Address (2�7ac� c ,d--i ftVawc� Date M Address Date dress c loa 'Date 70 I 0 RESIDENTS' PETITION ME ,. 1170 ,I Owl Z:,a-eV 0,7- � Date Z 7-0 /l lfiara7 AP "2L g0 Address Print Name [ .8 Date 'Y�w,00il�/�`�tti Q�i%i�IT Signature Address )l7k z- Print Name Date Ol A '& q4A0r41�`t 14& std G(¢ G t tature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name 3 Date Address Date Address Date Address Date u �U M L RESIDENTS' PETITION A 5 `p 11 n r._T�2 S. �9!_T�R.s• Print`` Name nn nn Signature //�� Print Na�/til� 61 2IyA Signature P (df el Print Name �)� ssv 6QA Nx6Ee RA� 6p_91W bP� f Print Name Signature Fpy Print Name — /7 -0—,o— Date Address a 1 -�-o� pate p Address 1'' 40 Date Address 6 Date Address Date j-/ n,1*2- I 2`( .64 b Z- ---- zL �' ✓a,,s. Add Date , f 9 P,2 Signature Address n LcS1�4 l� —,r — i�- /— Name . �pl7ate ®� �Printt Signatuve Address /1I- l alter -5, a— /," OZ Print Name Date )/Z1 4 3o Ai9LAzzc Signature Address A 5 `p 11 n r._T�2 S. �9!_T�R.s• Print`` Name nn nn Signature //�� Print Na�/til� 61 2IyA Signature P (df el Print Name �)� ssv 6QA Nx6Ee RA� 6p_91W bP� f Print Name Signature Fpy Print Name — /7 -0—,o— Date Address a 1 -�-o� pate p Address 1'' 40 Date Address 6 Date Address Date j-/ n,1*2- I 2`( .64 b Z- ---- zL �' ✓a,,s. Add Date , f 9 P,2 A 5 R 0 to RESIDENTS'PETITION Signature Print Nam P lwoi 22 C'CKUAN Address 2 -( 7 -u Z Date Address Date Address Print Name Date / Iq l — ' I Signature Address Le e signature hint Name Lee-, Cinnoh�ro 1-17 -01- Date // lr(,'t'✓A.yi e Address 2 -/7 0 Date 7j tL Ce r L,4, i e_-s Address -)- -17 -0 z. Date / Address Date V-o /14 ?r4, Address Date Signature Address &rwjyl 17( L 4 1714L Print Name Date Signitture Address Print N me Date 56 L N lam\ 5 0 1 C\ RESIDENTS' PETITION Prin e ,v gnat re _��Pl�t�ll� ��GNoSU Print Name %7�zzo Address salt% - �� I.RKUQN /zs Address a -t8-a� Date Address eT / CQryc is, Signature Address U (h- % KAN-4 L Print Name f Date lle. CP,-,—wya I Z /2416 Signaattuur(e1 Address (� Print Name Date r i RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature Address Print ti Si G J'l 5 4 Print Name Signature e Pnn N /Uo y l �ac. /Print Name 2,26. 02 Date Address 2•Z4 Oz Date Address Date g. 2f d; Address (7* Date Name -� Address 1' Date Address Dde Signature Address Print Name Signature Print Name Date Address Date Signature Address Print Name Date 6 RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature Address M ^cL155A Ly,-i V',cKS "�1 ��Q'i . Print Name Date & Signature T Ad ress ' -idrr£ -R. 41,1' -k .2b-jay Print Name Date V 1 harnAS '� �CCaRm,gL�C �`1 T^AR01fc 54nds Address Phot Name Date 9 M `i O'\gka 9. -a -off [ / ^�) Print Name Date Signa Address C/ ,L &r-r S- Aaon - o Z Pi tN Date Simature Address % raj (; t.l, t k r- l e- -7--?--61 Print Name Date c 14Art L lE X. At a. 1sLW09E. ,-F, ✓. 91 ��7 Signature Address ' Print Name Date Address L2Z- 07�" Address 0O Z.L - off Print Name Date \fl V t C,/,---t KGCiti Sign ure Print Name �C? Ad red ss Date 53 RESIDENTS' PETITION 0 —� Signature Address Priht Name Date RN ® CZRrjr-� k� > 14A`I Signature Address 0 9 [Name Signature (A /t Print Name :SignatuT.��I`t Nam S gnature G'(]�� /f fl�rzlf�c2 nt Name Signature 7. Print Name 4 Signature J�wAH 1). sra hs v� Print Name i ature MI, Z- Z `t/ Z, Date ✓Itidtdres SGN CA <'7 ILO Date 190 tac /ff q/1yw/f Address �oz Date 32- Address -('LI9r ate 32 L� t �Q his 1 /bh 0 13 IZi Add_ -�jlGz �11 Date 5cf U l cwi q Address (3 Ids Date �z1,&iLkff A6 yzao Address z -3-0y Date ignat re A ss Print Nam6 Date 51 RESIDENTS' PETITION IZ, � Vs.C-A Signal re Address Alt i cam„ p � fDPa 3 Zmz �jj Print Name Date L"J Signature 'r V�o��xnVP tName�� Signature %. Z;;17—, Print Na e Signature 6554y SDK Print Name O Signature Print Name Si !nature •nt Name Ylt'�J`r�c.Q- A- d"Y1� -�) ry i-ir�Q Signature Saywi=reernan i -a-��l �} Print Name Signatu Avj IN L4euip Irint Name Signature 66 FIC i ml C>221()7 Date Address Date Sal EG,4 P,4Y 172. C�QM,CA Address 92425 �-1A Date �\ i�)Caj�g I )a 11 97�6-6s A A s DItte Address �r Date 1851 Pori-& rmo,-Olg NCict2-la(m Address alat►nz- Date I iSl ®n =/ at �iA¢.rimA N9 15P6.4a Address Date rr Log `(kh�Utk• Address —� ate t S A dress �D� a� dta 55 RESIDENTS' PETITION ire J,6 P - - Print N#me ..: o Signs urr Print Name Signature a/9 %n a — T'Date !f iYb-7 A�ICBIAOK /18 g--z.6k __ Add ss Hal // /0 - Date 11749 024- Man Address u po a/a to Print Name I �— ate O�,ori• �• ye�t°�S�Pi�tP_/• �3S /�a�e S�rcc� 2-i 9 O 2 p� Date 05 a97O7 - Me, G � ,, - � i atu A BSc C4J2�o� ress , CA Print Name Date ✓ S� a i sw � ¢-_ � /-77.9 '-I0 ,L, WC 1$ 00 Signature Address e 6I &V50 .2�Fl�bZ V Date Address L nPrint Name Date Signature A t tTPQC MA 14F, P nt N alp- �qature ame Print Name l� ��L 0ttLL6A�- 4er <,, to Vt C.o tr ,.� Print Name �r 'hLb q y�aLi Date ' I'7M 2 pol - S-h�&d PC Address te� AAAdr to V C C RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature (Imz, , �t Nam Signature —3 i2C W S +eeL Address Date 1-167 V/ K-fyr id/f}IUYZCL&-T�, ' Address :9-lgloz- . Date Add Ze �s /oL Date Address Address Print Name Date Address U Date Address es Dat Address Print Name Date "fin n L- F�D l�s Signature Y rint ame ^ Signature m keel br-. Gprl d 3 JP 0L Date 0 ! s a cg..o4 . (U F-7 Address 3.18 •oz� Date Jn Address Q Z� Date/ RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature v Address Syn'i u 3 -19- ()-l- - -Print Name Date Signature Address �erVNIS uS�4I 3'1z`8—)— Print Name Date Print Name Address �- Date //11 Signature �+ Ad ss 9n yt w I J t_ tvf t] rdi ii t r r kio Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Address Date Address Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date I �k�) 7 5�1 RESIDENTS' PETITION PRINT NAME /SIGNATURE: ADDRESS: Exhibit No. 9. Draft EIR (Separate Bound Volume) Exhibit No. 10, Responses to Comments (Separate Bound Volume)