The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About18 - St Andrews Church ExpansionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 18 July 26, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, iampbell (a-)city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Establishing a protocol for the upcoming public hearing for the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion project (PA2002 -265). ISSUE How should the public hearing for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church be conducted? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached hearing protocol (Exhibit No. 1) DISCUSSION On June 28, 2005, the City Council scheduled the St. Andrews public hearing for an adjourned regular meeting date of August 11, 2005 and directed staff to prepare a procedure for how the hearing might be conducted. Staff undertook the task with the goal to ensure an opportunity for everyone to be heard in an efficient manner. Staff believes the attached protocol achieves this goal. ALTERNATIVES The City Council can modify any aspect of the protocol. Prepared by: �VV James W. Campbell, Senior fanner Submitted by: Patricia L. Temple, Pla ing Director Public Hearing Protocol St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion Project (PA2002 -265) Adjourned Regular Meeting - August 11, 2005 Clerk announces application by title. II. Mayor explains the general conduct of the hearing. a) Interested speakers will be asked to fill out a speaker card. Speakers will be limited to 2 minutes per person except for a presentation by the applicant and a presentation by representatives of the joint homeowners associations. b) The audience should be admonished to respect other speaker's opinions and not to speak out, heckle, interrupt, applaud or otherwise disrupt the proceedings. c) The audience should be further warned to be seated in the available seats and not stand in any aisles or corridors. Compliance with the Fire Code is mandatory. d) The audience should be informed that the City Council will base its decisions upon the merits of the project. e) Speakers should be further admonished to not repeat prior testimony given and should be encouraged to indicate their general acceptance or agreement of prior testimony without repeating it. This will facilitate more speakers. f) During the public testimony, the Mayor will announce 3 speakers at a time so they can come forward during the preceding speaker's testimony and use two reserved seats. This should facilitate an orderly progression of speakers. g) Testimony can continue until all speakers are heard OR public testimony can be limited to a specified period of time (e.g. 2 hours). III. Presentation of the project by the applicant (limited to 20 minutes) followed by questions of the applicant by Council Members. IV. Presentation by Cliff Haven /Newport Heights neighborhood association representatives (limited to 20 minutes) followed by questions by Council Members. V. Public testimony. Each speaker will be limited to 2 minutes to allow more speakers. VI. Response by applicant (if necessary) limited to 5 minutes. VII. Discussion and deliberation of the Environmental Impact Report and the project. a) Overview by staff followed by questions of staff by Council Members. b) Discussion and deliberation by the Council on the adequacy of the EIR followed by a motion to certify the EIR, if appropriate. c) Discussion and deliberation by the Council of the overall project followed by a motion for an action. Potential actions include: approve, modify, deny or continue for further study. " RI f,EWED AFTER AGEN1) K!, "TEV' DRAFT Proposed Council Hearing Process St. Andrews Church August 9 and August 11, 2005 As Mayor, I would recommend to the City Council that the hearing of the St. Andrews Church General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Use Permit and Environmental Impact Report be conducted as follows: 1. First, we would have a hearing within a hearing to consider the Environmental Impact Report for the project, including the comments to the EIR and the responses to those comments. Our preparation for that part of the hearing will include each Councilmember reviewing the extensive administrative record generated at the Planning Commission level, which will be part of the staff report that we will be receiving. As required by the CEQA Guidelines, I will stress to the public that the only comments the law allows us to consider with respect to the EIR are those which constitute "Substantial Evidence ". Substantial Evidence is defined by CEQA and means facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts and expert opinion supported by facts. Specifically, we are directed by law to not consider argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is inaccurate or erroneous or evidence that is not credible. The reason for separating out the CEQA aspects of the hearing from the other aspects of the hearing is to create a crisp administrative record, since it is possible that if the Council were to approve the request of the applicant, litigation unfortunately might ensue. It is important that the City's handling of the CEQA process be done properly so that the public has confidence that the process was conducted as required by law. 2. The balance of the hearing would be conducted like any other land use matter that comes before the City Council, with a few minor changes designed to assure that we can move through this item and reach a conclusion at our meeting of August 11, 2005. The minor changes I would recommend would be as follows: a) The Church would be given an opportunity to present its project. I would hope this could be completed in 20 minutes. I will ask the staff to seek input from the Church to determine the amount of time they believe will be necessary. The neighborhood association representatives would be given a like amount of time to respond. b) Individual public testimony would be strictly limited to 3 minutes per person. c) No time limit would be placed on length of total public testimony. However, if the public testimony becomes unduly repetitive, the Council would reserve the right to end the public testimony at that time. This part of the public testimony may entail any information which a member of the P. LESVH WORKVNBST.4NDREWS LT --- ]- 153005,4 , public believes is relevant to the Council coming to an informed decision on the St. Andrews application. 3. After public testimony is closed, we would then discuss if the public, during the hearing, or before by written comment to the Council has raised "significant new information" as defined by CEQA that would require the Council to find that the EIR should be revised and recirculated. If not, and the Council finds the Final EIR adequate, we will certify the Final EIR. 4. Lastly, we will take action on the application, if that is the pleasure of the Council. Respectfully submitted, John Heffernan, Mayor F`FILESVH WORA`NBW ANDREWS LT-- 7- I5- 300S.&C I t. Andrew's Presbyterian Church: Public Hearing Protocols. "RIECEI`JEi3 AFTER AGE NO 7RIirTED: " 2a -os Harkless, LaVonne From: Philip Bettencourt [Philip @bettencourtplans.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:55 AM To: Mayor John Heffernan Cc: Wood, Sharon; Temple, Patty; Campbell, James, Harkless, LaVonne; 'McKitterick Gary', 'Ken Williams'; pbcourt@cox.net Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church: Public Hearing Protocols. Page 1 of Mr. Mayor, Gary McKitterick, counsel to St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, has asked me to tell tou that St. Andrew's agrees with the proposed public hearing protocols for August 11 as outlined in 1Ar. Campbell's recommendations to the City Council. hilip Bettencourt .ettencourt & ASSOciateS :eal Estate Development Planning... 0 Newport Center Drive, 5. 150 1 Jewport Beach, California 92660 N ,49- 720 -0970 -' 'ax: 721 -9921 - -' - - Cn U1 outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. :hecked by AVG anti -virus system (http: / /www.arisoft.com). /ersion: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 2/14/2005 )7/26/2005