Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - St Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion - PA2002-265 - Supplemental CorrespondenceCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK LaVonne M. Harkless. MMC This is the oath of office given to each of the Council Members as required by Article XX, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of California. I have personally sworn in each of the seated Council Members so I can attest to the fact that they have all taken this oath. I, do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. LaVonne M. Harkless, MMC City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Oftice Box 1768 • Newport Beach. California 92658 -8915 Tele.ohone: 19491644 -3005 Fax: M441 944 -303Q . www rir„ ,� Section 405. Powers Vested in the City Council. Page 1 of 1 CHARTER Article IV Qty Council Section 405. Powers Vested in the City Council. All owers of the City shall be vested in the City Council except as otherwise provided in this Charter. Article 11 Powers of City Section 200. Powers. II have the power to make and enforce all to such restrictions and Charter and in the Constitution of the State of California. It shall also have the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, privileges, or procedures, heretofore or hereafter established, granted or prescribed by any law of the State, by this Charter, or by other lawful authority, or which a municipal corporation might or could exercise, or act pursuant to, under the Constitution of the State of California. The enumeration in this Charter of any particular power shall not be held to be exclusive of, or any limitation upon, the generality of the foregoing provisions. Title 20 PLANNING AND ZONING' Chapter 20:01 GENERAL PROVISIONS 20.01.030 Effect and Intent. When interpreting and applying the provisions of this Code it shall be held to represent the minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health safety, comfort convenience and general welfare. It is not intended by the adoption of this Code to repeal or in any way to impair or interfere with any existing provision of law of the City, or any rules, regulations or permits previously adopted or issued or which shall be adopted or issued pursuant to law relating to the erection, construction, establishment, moving, alteration or enlargement of any legal building or improvement; nor is it intended by this Code to interfere with or annul any easement, covenant, or other agreement between parties; provided, however, that in cases in which this Code imposes greater restrictions than are imposed or required by other easements, covenants or agreements, than in such cases the provisions of this Code shall control. (Ord. 97- 09 Exh. A (part), 1997) 0 Vd Date: August 11, 2005 R '05 AUG i 1 ? 5 :02 ,,,l DF Tni CITY i:L_ , Cl =•; a' BEACH To: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax number: (949) 644 -3229 e -mail: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" �1 x-11 -ff From: Joann Lombardo, Comprehensive Planning Services Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion FINAL EIR, SCH: 2003081065 Thank you for providing notice regarding the scheduled August 11, 2005 City Council hearing on the above referenced project. However, as noted in previous memoranda from my office to the City (dated 4- 26 -04, 7- 24 -04, 3- 30 -05), the project EIR contains a number of deficiencies that remain unaddressed. These deficiencies should be addressed prior to the City Council acting on the EIR or the project. These deficiencies include the following: Construction Air Quality Impacts: According to the California Air Resources Board approved URBEMIS 2002 air quality model, project construction would continue to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for reactive organic gases. (Reactive organic gases are regulated by the state and federal clean air acts; they consist of hydrogen and carbon.) This analysis was run using the recommended default settings for the South Coast Air Quality Management District when running the URBEMIS2002 air quality model. There is no speculation involved when default settings are used. Further, unavoidable significant adverse affects on sensitive receptors (i.e., adjacent students and residents) would occur as the prolonged construction creates heavy emissions of dust and pollutants. The EIR must P 0 Box 15592 Newport Beach CA 92659 Tel: 949 650 3206 Fax: 949 548 6981 e-mail: joann@jalcps.com Memorandum 8/11/05 James Campbell, City of Newport Beach Page 2 of 2 revise the air quality analysis and include all calculations within the EIR document. Similarly, the EIR must revise the traffic and noise analyses to account for the impacts of the extended construction period on the neighborhood and schools. Substantial Change in Proiect: A key mitigation measure specified in the EIR limits concurrent uses within the Church to a maximum occupancy of 1,387 persons. The parking, traffic and air quality calculations prepared for the EIR are linked to this maximum occupancy assumption. Any condition of approval that allows a greater occupancy at the church than the 1,387 persons is not addressed by the project EIR, and would require re- evaluation and recirculation of the EIR. As specified in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, any change that increases the size of a project or that lessens or nullifies a mitigation measure, requires recirculation of the EIR. cc: Don Krotee, Newport Heights Improvement Association Page 2 of 2 10 August, 2005 To: Newport Beach City Council Honorable Mayor John Heffernan P.O Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 "RECEIV D AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:",` 1 0 05 ;1UG 1 12 :Z6 { From: Mr. Ray Palmer and Mrs. Margaret Palmer Subject: ST. ANDREWS CHURCH BUILDING PLANS Dear Honorable Mayor John Heffernan, We are in favor of the St. Andrews Church building plans. We hope you will vote yes at the August 11 City Council Meeting. My wife and I have been home owners in Cliff Haven since 1951 and members of St. Andrews Church since 1953. We have watched the community grow from a sleepy uncongested area with over 50% vacant lots to almost 100% homes that cover the area with many second generation larger homes. The Newport Harbor High School has grown from having a few student drivers in 1951 to many hundreds of drivers today every weekday. The two hour city parking restriction has resulted in the kids running between classes to move their cars to avoid tickets. The Church has grown from a few hundred people and now has stabilized the past few years at about 4200 members. All of this growth has caused severe Cliff Haven traffic and parking congestion every day of the week. During this same period, we have seen the market value of our homes increase at an unbelievable rate. The church and schools have contributed in making this a great place to live and raise our children. We still live here by choice and feel the increase in traffic is only a -2- small price to pay to live in such a great neighborhood. We have come to know many of the neighbors over the years. It breaks our hearts to find some of these fine neighbors so strongly against the church plans. Following are the key issues we understand that concern the neighbors about the church and its plans. The Chuch wishes to be a good neighbor and has altered their plans in many ways to help meet these concerns. BUILDING AREA Responding to the Planning Commission's request to work with the neighbors, the church has reduced its original plans from 35,000 square feet by 40% to under 22,000 square feet. Note that the additional area does not add even one seat to the church sanctuary nor does it add significantly to the foot print areas of the current buildings. The added structure should have only minimal effect on total church attendance. This fact tells us that the church would add very little in total traffic and parking in the area. The added space would include a Family Youth Center with a soundproof gymnasium, an underground parking area, computer and study rooms, meeting rooms, extra toilets, hallways, stairs and storage rooms. The church expects to add only about 5 people to its total service staff as a result of the building plan. In addition, the Church would eliminate the parking exit onto Clay Street to discourage parking on that side of the church. There has been proposed adding a 6 foot wall structure along the Clay Street, to lesson noise, and including landscaping between the wall and the street to beautify the area. -3- SUNDAY TRAFFIC AND STREET PARKING The Church has asked its people when driving to church to avoid streets such as Kings Place, Signal Road, Pirate Road, Snug Harbor, and Clay Street for both driving and parking as far as possible. Major taffic from the Pacific Coast Highway direction has been routed away from entry up Cliff Drive to go up Dover, around the High School on 16th street and back to 15th street and enter from there. My wife and I walk from St. James Place along 15th street every Sunday and see a dramatic reduction in traffic along 15th street. Usually, only one or two cars pass us, and frequently none. The church congregation and staff are trying to be good neighbors. SOUND PROOF FAMILYOUTH CENTER The Family Youth Center has as its heart a sound proof gymnasium and meeting center. It is aimed at getting the kids off the streets and giving them a place to play basketball or ping pong, work in a computer room, a reading or quiet game room. This would allow the kids to play, year round, indoors where the neighbors cannot hear them. This would be a wonderful help to the neighborhood to give the kids from Harbor and Ensign Schools a place to meet. We are sorry to find some neighbors objecting to the idea of a church sponsored Youth Center. The Church is tryng something to improve the general conditions of the neighborhood. ON -SITE UNDERGROUND PARKING The church is proposing added parking for about 150 additional on -site spaces in an underground area. This should help parking problems at Sunday and evening church events. The High Schooi students also would benefit during the school days by using about 80 spaces. -4- We would like to see the Newport Harbor school district consider a proposal to build a 600 parking space garage with St. Andrew's financial assistance on the 15th street school parking area. This would eliminate the need for the Church underground parking facility. We feel that an accident is waiting to happen during the confusion of students runnng between classes to find new parking spaces evey two hours. When an accident occurs, the school would probably be forced to take some action - -at the expense of local tax payers. CONCLUSION The Newport Beach City Council will make a difficult and critical decision between the bullding plans proposed by the St. Andrews Church and the "No Addition Plan" propsed by some of the neighbors. I suspect that the overall feelings of the total population of Cliff Haven and Newport Heights probably looks like a standard Engineers bell shape curve. About 5 % are vocally against any expansion, 5 % are equally strongly in favor of the project. The remaining 90% majority are somewhere in between and will not necessairly like but will accept your vote either way.. Finally, if the " NO Building" neighbors have their way, there will still be gradually increased traffic, parking problems and noise from the High School. Now is the time to make some corrective improvments to help remedy the problem. PLEASE VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE CHURCH BUILDING PROGRAM. Ray and Margaret Palmer 702 St.James Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 '05 AUG 10 All :09 0 F. -F T' E[a Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density, of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, v Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. " i.:., , The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, "tC, 1 / <"L-,�i/ Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density-of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Vi'&- (iwlu a, Y1� (''DaR Lk Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density,of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Ay % OZ vIv CA %Z_6745 "_ Z G 7 S"_ Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard . Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Fancily Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. }: The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as' reducing the densityof the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, / 0 /�- 5 66'y Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density, of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, �i Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density, of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after_ school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density-of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concems. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, a i l e L1 P� K)-O � r � C,,�,, z ��3 Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density -of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, _P t&£` —�— F (fie _N..r Cwt %ic c C Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, CIA 2vLYA1 H 01) 1'C' ,*/ Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density- of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concems. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, i P" &. mina G�,(n, gOted s Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that a] lows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as' reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density,of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, 'UP 9�6� Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after_ school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as' reducing the density, of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, 7F/ Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density-of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, 112- 5 Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, , aaa-7 L,�01 7),- NPg ,C14 qo�Z 6-7 Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density. of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, l fJ0 115�'leG k - 1" -ff-, 4�13 (91 �O6 4 ¢t�1,1 Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity.to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density, of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, VV 9 g 0 0 &-2 Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, &Vlha &-Z PW � Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density-of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, 1� mot: 9-11-6&0 Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density. of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density.of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density-of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, �t ��•� _ �,ca. G�i4 Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density, of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, r Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as' reducing the density. of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density-of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as' reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, W k4wwwt4b� Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density- of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, A (r rk�&—ca /`1� Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density, of the project by more than 40 %, creating along list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, 1//) &41 %'262( Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density -of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- scbool tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. F, The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density. of the project by more than 40 %, creating along list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, 9 --2 bl I-/ Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after - school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, c�- Oq3 So nA ct A n A -A -e Cassia Mesq, C'A L�ar#Q� Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, la4 D N ;7,i/ 0,4(i.KN.(K k_j. 04 - 90/ - Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after - school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as' reducing the density-of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Ct !1 s � �y � a,n ► c e- �✓� l (za(v)b nc--t CLJ �0C � a..J ROBERT S.COLDREN 605 Kings Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 642 -8449 August 9, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor Members of City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion/Notice of Determination/DEIR Approval /General Plan Amendment/Proposed Zone Change /Special Use Permit Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: 0 r a -•i v My wife and I have lived Newport Beach for over a quarter of century. We oppose the proposed expansion of St. Andrews, and urge you to vote no on each of the above - referenced items. This letter is being submitted with respect to each of the above - proposed actions. I have personally walked the streets of my neighborhood (Kings Place, portions of Kings Road, St. James, 15`h Street, etc.) going door to door and collecting feedback from "the neighborhood" respecting this project. In all the homes where residents were home, I heard well- reasoned, vigorous and vehement opposition to the proposed expansion. Indeed, only two of the households that I visited indicated that they favored the proposed project. Thus, it is clear that the absolute overwhelming majority of the neighborhood not only opposes the project, but looks to your vote on this project as, indeed, a litmus test of whether individual members of the Council are responsive to the needs of its voters /constituents. I have heard from the church (and indeed a couple of Planning Commissioners) that they acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of residents in Newport Heights /Cliff Haven oppose the project, but that, according to them, the rest of the City "favors it ". On each occasion, when pressed, there is absolutely no logical or empirical support for this proposition. When asked if the rest of the City "favors it ", as opposed to "is neutral on it ", they waffle towards modifying their position to describe an ambivalent group of voters outside of Newport Heights /Cliff Haven. In fact, of the many friends and acquaintances that I have throughout the City, when asked, virtually none of them are supportive of the project, and, again, the overwhelming majority of those who do have a strong opinion (and there are many) are adamantly opposed to the project because of the damage to the fabric of our neighborhood, and ROBCOL.0002838 John Heffernan. Mayor Members of the City Council August 9, 2005 Page 2 because of the precedent that a project like this would set. Thus, the voters do not want this project. The fact is that one of the approvals that you are being asked to give is wholly and completely discretionary (the General Plan Amendment) and carries with it a strong burden of proof on the applicant. This should be more than enough to end the issue, and to deny the project. Indeed, developers will tell you that projects are, essentially, "dead on arrival" if even a significant portion of the surrounding neighbors oppose the project. My neighbors and I continue to be mystified that we have to devote our time, effort, energies, and resources for years now simply to cause our City politicians to do what logic, common sense, and the voters would have the City do. This is not to say that it is too late for you, the City Council, to win back the trust and confidence of those you serve. Put an end to this project; allow the neighborhood to return to its peace. The project is currently 104,000 square feet. Such a project should not have been approved back in the 80's, but that is water under the bridge. Nevertheless, to consider expansion by an additional 21,000 square fee of such an overbuilt project (not including a 120,000 square foot proposed underground parking garage) is simply beyond the pail. Set forth in Exhibit "4" are current FAR's (Floor Area Ratios) for the most dense projects in Newport Beach, with a comparison to both the current and proposed FAR for St. Andrews, prepared by City staff. If we suffer in our neighborhood this sort of mass and density and overbuilding, not only will it irreparably injure one of the nicest family neighborhood in Newport; it will set a new floor or precedent for future expansion projects of other churches and in other neighborhoods in Newport Beach. I can hear the proponents of the project responding that each project is unique, and that approval of this project will not set a precedent for the other neighborhoods in Newport Beach. Hog wash! To turn down other churches proposed expansion plans in the future, even if as with this one, it is completely out of character with the neighborhood, would inevitably be met with cries of discrimination, preferential treatment, and the attendant threats of litigation. A letter to the editor from Sunday's Daily Pilot from a parishioner spoke about how much the community would benefit, and how little the neighborhood would suffer. The title read something to the affect of "Parishioners Support Expansion of St. Andrews ". The churches spin - doctors (two paid firms that I know of) could apparently not muster such a sentiment from Newport Beach residents, since the letter to the editor was signed by someone in Huntington Beach. This is consistent with my other observation, that St. Andrews has dramatically succeeded in its "outreach" program, and that now less than half of its parishioners reside in the City, less thantl0% of its parishioners reside in the neighborhood, and, according to a petition that was ROBCOL.0002838 John Heffernan, Mayor Members of the City Council August 9, 2005 Page 3 previously filed with the City supporting the expansion by the church (collected by the church of parishioners of the church), the majority of those signators resided in Irvine, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, and elsewhere (see documents collectively labeled Exhibit "6" attached hereto). 1 do not have a copy of the petition that shows the addresses of the petitioner's to give you, because the City has not yet provided it, despite my request. At the Planning Commission level, the commission decided that its "hands were tied" and that it had to accept a norm of three occupants per vehicle for church parking analysis. Hog wash! There is no City ordinance or state law mandating this for GPA consideration, and a General Plan Amendment, wholly discretionary, relies on a needs assessment coupled with an analysis of the actual and specific characteristics of the neighborhood and the proposed use. 1 personally commissioned a parking study, and posted trackers who actually counted the number of occupants in vehicles parking on the streets, at the high school and in the church parking lot during a Sunday service. The results were 1.73 occupants per vehicle, as opposed to three occupants per vehicle. Additionally, other churches in Newport Beach have recently conducted their own parking studies, and have come up with ratios of two to one. It is simply dishonest to evaluate expansion of this church based on an occupancy of three to one (see collectively Exhibit "5" hereto). The Planning Commission was apparently swayed by the conditions that were offered up to be imposed upon St. Andrews in terms of its operations, as offsetting the fact of massive expansion. This is the "are you better off now or before" argument. Very bright and fully informed professionals who live in our neighborhood have studied the proposed conditions, and have universally decried this project (with the conditions) as bad for the neighborhood. Indeed, again, virtually everyone in the neighborhood is opposed to the expansion, even knowing of the proposed conditions. Yet the Planning Commission apparently felt that it knew better than the neighbors what is good for them, and the Planning Commissioners (and the church) continue to point to this "net benefit" red herring. Commissioner Tucker is even on record at the hearing as stating that he is going to vote for the project (presumably to pass it up to the City Council) but that he hopes that the project is never built. Absolute insanity! (See e.g. documents attached Exhibit "7). The occupant vehicle ratio implicates not only parking issues, but more importantly, traffic issues. Traffic counts have not been studied on the true vehicle occupant ratio of 1.73, if they are, I am confident that traffic on residential streets will be dramatically adversely impacted. I can speak from first hand knowledge of the difficulty negotiating my way up to Westcliffe Plaza with the traffic involved at St. Andrews. ROBCOL.0002838 John Heffernan, Mayor Members of the City Council August 9, 2005 Page 4 The Planning Commission initially concluded that this project did not make any sense without parking at the high school. The school district, indicating it would not get involved in a land use issue, declined to approve the church's request for a long term parking agreement. 1 attended the school board hearing, and read the materials. A review of same indicates that the school board's position went beyond merely indicating it wanted the City to approve the project first; problems of security, loss of flexibility for future expansion at the high school, bad precedent of leasing school facilities on a long term basis for private purposes, the possible interference with Measure A in school foundation funding and goals, and other similar factors played a substantial role in the school district's decision. Thus, not only is there no assurance that if the Council goes ahead and approves the plan of the St. Andrews expansion that the district will look favorably upon a utilization of school property, but there exist legal, practical, fiscal, and political impediments that render it highly unlikely that the school board will ever grant a long term parking arrangement with St. Andrews. So we are left with a situation where, legally, the church cannot count on any high school parking in the future, let alone a long term agreement. Yet, the current massive density of the church is predicated upon the availability of high school parking. Subtracting the high school parking, relying only on the proposed 120,000 square foot parking structure, and adding 21,000 square feet of utilizable space hardly represents responsible planning. (See documents collectively attached as Exhibit 118 ".) About a week and a half ago, I went to the City offices and met with Jim Campbell, who escorted me into a room containing "most of the files" respecting St. Andrews. 1 reviewed those files, and marked a number of documents for copying. Those documents were quite revealing. A petition signed by a Parishioner of St. Andrews, and apparently prepared by the church, was in the files, indicating that many of the signators and supporters of the church expansion reside outside of Newport Beach. This not only means that political accountability weighs in favor of a denial of the project, but also indicates that this church is not truly currently a "neighborhood" church. 1 asked that the petition be copied, but for some reason it was not, and when 1 asked for an opportunity to recopy it, I did not hear back from the City. The documents also indicate that Dr. Huffman has, in the past, expressly pronounced that one of the important features of the church is his "outreach" program. If Dr. Huffman and the church, in fact, require a larger facility to "serve the neighborhood," then perhaps rather than an expansion, they should devote more resources to "inreach" and over time, through attrition, they will once again come to be a neighborhood church, rather than a regional church. It should be noted that other churches, when they outgrew their location, moved, in recognition that to fulfill what they perceived to be their desired mission ( "outreach "), they needed to move from the neighborhood (e.g., Mariners). Also, during my review of the documents, 1 noted that there had been scripted "questions and answers" devised and designed by and among the Planning Commission and the actual Planning Commissioners and planning staff, which reads more like a scripted show case of the "selling" of the expansion, coupled with an effort to make both staff and individual commissioners look good, then it does a true and honest look at the appropriateness of the project (e.g., see documents collectively attached as Exhibit "T' hereto.) ROBCOL.0002838 John Heffernan, Mayor Members of the City Council August 9, 2005 Page 5 The public has not been provided an accurate DE1R to consider. While at the City, 1 compared the "staff copy" of the DE1R, with the "public's copy" of the DE1R, and they had significant differences, which are material. Examples of discrepancies (apparently staff's copy is the more "accurate" and are attached as Exhibit "9 "). Recall that both the City representatives and the residents specifically asked the church to provide them until September to attempt to reevaluate and work through the process. The church rejected this, and indicated it would not consent to a continuance beyond August 11, 2005. The fatal infirmities of the proposed entitlement documents addressed hereinabove and hereinbelow, should not be laid entirely at the doorstep of the staff; the applicant has had a responsibility to give staff sufficient time to work through these issues, and did not provide staff with that time. 1 object to the hearing on August 9, 2005 and the hearing on August 11, 2005, on procedural and substantive grounds as set forth below. As 1 write this letter, there has been no action by the City Council, and no deliberation in a public forum, and no opportunity for comment by the public, respecting the Council's "decision" to "adjourn the regular meeting from August 91h to August 11 ," and to consider the St. Andrews' expansion solely on August 11 a'. One of two circumstances must thus exist: Either the City Council has taken some formal action (i.e., adjourned the meeting of August 9`h until August 11`h,) or the meetings of August 11`h and August 91h have been misnoticed. In either case, there either being a Brown Act violation or a misnoticing violation, these meetings need to be continued, renoticed, etc., after the City has determined what it intends to do procedurally, and after the public has been given the opportunity to comment. The only formal city action respecting the August 11 m meeting 1 am aware of is one denominating it a "special meeting." Of course, GPA and zoning actions can only be considered at regular meetings. We live about two blocks from the church, and yet church parking still makes its way down to our street. 1 have researched the issue of the St. Andrews expansion, have read the DE1R and many letters and staff reports, etc., and this mountain of paperwork simply buttresses what 1 believe to be the overriding consideration; St. Andrews has been built out to its absolute maximum capacity for the neighborhood (and perhaps beyond) as a result of the expansion in the early 80's, and thus, absolutely no additional revisions to the entitlements, and certainly no amendment to our general plan, is in order in order to accommodate yet more extensive development on the site. St. Andrews was envisioned as a community church (e.g. neighborhood church). The proposed expansion is designed to serve perceived outreach needs. Such a facility would be far better suited to another location. 1 believe that the letter of April 26, 2004, of Joanne Lombardo, addressing the DE1R, raises very good concerns about the sufficiency of the DE1R, concerns which to this day have not been ROSCOL.000/2838 John Heffernan, Mayor Members of the City Council August 9, 2005 Page 6 addressed adequately. 1 would like to raise objection to the DE1R, and to incorporate by reference all of the points made in that letter. It is my understanding that the CC &R's (Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions) for the Cliff Haven tract were specifically modified by the then property owners in order to allow the original neighborhood church to be constructed. The proposed expansion of St. Andrews would, however, violate the still existing terms of those CC &R's respecting restrictions such as set backs, etc. While I understand it is not the province of the City to enforce private restrictions, in the context of the DEIR, the City must be satisfied that the project as conceived can be constructed, and that the project mitigations are feasible. It is in this connection that I raise this objection. (See Exhibit" 10" attached). I have seen the letter from ex -Mayor Evelyn Hart, and have heard from others involved during the entitlement hearings of the early 80's expansion, and 1 have come to the conclusion, based upon this information, that St. Andrews (and specifically Dr. Huffman) made a commitment at the time to the neighborhood that it would not seek any further expansions in the future. I would appreciate hearing a clear response directly from John Huffman, who was the chief representative of the church at that time. In the paper this Sunday he was quoted he promised not to expand down Clay Street and earlier he said he could not make any promises about expansion. Which is it? 1 believe that the City is entitled to a response, since otherwise, the City, having brokered a peace in the early 80's, would find itself complicit in approving a project that violates a central pillar of that earlier resolution. (See Exhibit "11" attached). Also please find collectively attached as Exhibits the following: 1. Various articles from the Daily Pilot ( "Orange Coast Daily Pilot ") from back in 1982 regarding the "last" church expansion. I have been told by one person negotiating at the time that she was personally there when Dr. Huffman promised at that time that there would be no future further expansion. These news reports make it clear that that certainly was the "quid pro quo" between the neighborhood and the church in this highly contentious issue in 1982. Dr. Huffman is quoted in one article of saying "we are prepared to acknowledge that the plan we originally presented was not the best plan for St. Andrews, the neighborhood, or the health in the community. We do want to serve the community and we do want to be good neighbors." "I'm very happy ", "Now 1 hope we'll have nothing but a positive future ". (Attached as Exhibit "1 ") 2. Copy of the Pilot's article of March 24, 2004. The City officials have already prejudged the project favorably, and we are concerned that it is a "done deal" the case before the Commission. I was reminded of this article of March 24, 2004, entitled "St. Andrews Officials Say They Regret Telling Their Parishioner That City Officials Have All But Approved the Plan." (Attached as Exhibit 112 ") ROBCOL.0002838 John Heffernan, Mayor Members of the City Council August 9, 2005 Page 7 3. The next set of documents consist in the series of e-mail to Jim Campbell from Barry Eaton, Larry Tucker, etc., "cc'd" to the balance of the Planning Commission. The spirit of the Brown Act notwithstanding, it certainly appears that Larry Tucker was "teeing up" a show for the audience at an upcoming Planning Commission meeting, and was working with Jim Campbell to script "softball" questions that would showcase the positive features of the project (and make both Jim and Larry look good). You also get the sense reading through these a -mails that, in a rush to get this matter approved, many comers were cut, and many efforts were made to "fit around peg into a square hole ". (Attached as Exhibit "3 ") 4. 1 have also included an e -mail of October 20, 2004, at 7:30 p.m. to Jeff Cole from Jim Campbell copied to all the other Commissioners which shows how bizarrely out of whack the proposed FAR of this project (St. Andrews) is with any other church. (Attached as Exhibit "4 ") 5. Finally, 1 enclose one of my letters written to the City (the Planning Commission) dated December 7, 2004, which goes through some of the points that serve as the basis for such heart felt and firm opposition in the neighborhood. You will note in some of the a -mails that 1 sent reference the Planning Commission's acknowledgement that the actual parking ratio is dramatically less than 3 to 1. 1 actually commissioned an independent parking ratio study that tracked the actual number of occupants per car at a Sunday service, and noted a parking ratio of 1.7 to 1 as opposed to 3 to 1 ratio. Of course, using a realistic parking ratio would dramatically increase the parking requirements for St. Andrews, and would also point out how incredibly under parked the facility is now, even with the temporary and revocable access to the Newport Harbor High School parking lot. More importantly, it impacts on traffic counts ( ? ? ?) and implicates "greenlight ". (Attached as Exhibit ") Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. 1 urge each member of the City Council to deny the project. RSC /nb Enclosures cc: Krottee (via e-mail) Carmack (via e-mail) Stuart (via e-mail) McKittrick (via e-mail) Dunlap (via e-mail) ROBCOL.00012838 John Heffernan, Mayor Members of the City Council August 9, 2005 Page 8 Adler (via e-mail) Tod Ridgeway (via e-mail) Steven Rosansky (via e-mail) Don Webb (via e-mail) Leslie Daigle (via e-mail) Steven Bromberg (via e-mail) Richard Nichols (via e-mail) John Sturgess (via e-mail) Robin Kalussen ROBCOL.0002838 C • . e e�•�. AN • OV Z Go 141-014— y ff w e� Y • M tl O = an J1 Sol a. 'd' p A or�i+ tl• . tj* p •�' o S tl e '�4��Ti Teed �BF U a�x~00 B R . �2 i to �• w as oa'' i a° w �C� igw ra9x �� ax 19 i e rk �y p� aty o • • v • p fq� w y to 4 wj �3 t ~Y.,qq.s7�a� W•••�pB p�•d E :dl W Ili k'.• r 4: 6 Ed V V d 'ny w + M m� m0 G'r mOF» amE °EyG Oa rJ°c� vv >` S O yam i3,>, . a,""r 3wm m3 �o5 °g Ga '�v d E ° =a6 �g mr� rod. a IUV m`" Gam ' '-3` y °w,F���4E �u V 96 O- Z' 'gin «E °GE �„raaS° ae83vE° rJe°o ;g3� 3yy, pC°dL' cGr�Fi�3 y v .04vq c ao3 't7mc« i, u Gmo m F°r� da y r pa v mom " $. ar_� p 15; r p„'�..3d°a vm°7^7d P �dm9� d�F $mmo`04.5E as 2V � �ema0WU GppVmo 3 '3a?:m.SE"ym� °8 '3a W-rpo C��a «ma$ 4 a °W v3• rCa3�'a -01r : a mtl' iQ o. O m Sr O. .�mO" i4 :t O y Sj !. y s $° ctar3j0 m 3 Ci Oil ce 'Y w ^, �l O �����IIIIII G E> mp , rte. s-' N m 14 V C� w q. 3 u E�a �. w E,9G3'8o�m may' a w r r � e^o V it °M K m� 11 ° � 3 �y: �V�C �`'VLWLF4 t u we to. r ru12w Moto a E ad�v�. N co w Ql 1, a H W r H O F a U z 0 a � C S M ..w AGE 3 3� m �v y u m 0 ` Y1 0 r a'a g�g 4 AEm� w' °9 w 'o x m aEi •K.:' xr1 'a+ Q � r agog ai= �. . s�f�yyNie. C�C � �j p � i ♦♦�. O [` Uib �'tO CD c.0 i m a 1 E v8 i 3 y V, L � a � C S M ..w AGE 3 3� m �v y u m 0 ` Y1 0 r a'a g�g 4 AEm� w' °9 w 'o x m aEi O f I z Vl �3 r it .+ O CO P. o O d s 0 ds^a w.dw pp' � 0.00 G > L O G d y 0 ur `oE a; Z.O. a %da 5E 0 dfiL �c� ,g Uc,,do� L'O o L � asg 00 v > 0-0 > `y O'M s c Ndd>T t .4d4 c '$L ^"' "' 'O 0w d O.^' m3'Exs m�ysss° 0. -o "'�r' >00 iF acsyQC >in r 0,9 y�.OdV d3' 3` s3a CZ T >d�� uC" r.lLC7U `,w aN 0 v d � c w$ 0 d O T o ^�« u g v z A 2 0 c� 0 2 c s E s T u oc s0. a,qo�^ �p�uam a E�"9 «0 y�e 3 >a 'U ppva N w TbG ddg'D Gy u.0 Tyy % N cM'O u s as d9 %. E o 65 °� c c 0 7 u a s �'� 0 0 v � - s4 c (0 u w s A u N L mUE� s ;cEv 0Y Edyy $o TOm uy �- COC4c dU�fO �°-1 UC cyy.0"O U'-LC U %Sinnd Y .y. C.?3'N Y�'YS SwF C� T.• dLK�rO.AU� 0 ��ppt O f°N i)reJV Ud WaUS nO% >y ��'70�. u C�0>' u>'p0'. �60L YY rTJCG Ws 3cS,x >4 >xu..pp o� %m E %00.a ,Q, ,$ `� �. poppp aFs �' Vie -'y'N y —u7 UL6ddi�rW^ �i Lppi.�i'td %��� %T d�s 4'd30�w >EV7 dA�sP] 3�xc��OpC >sv�F a c d�AF�o`3x.�r�v'vc R10 0? 0 ,>, c% o°uw`UEa A..cx .. �3% :0. o:,c ��+ Cu O s e r z S c • ptm it • j Qi �i. V J, ca a n Cd �I w qad�.� �(AL ° WC'�L �. j V V °QE &'.a]y= is •°"rJ— ac, o`w C 3o .� O:pp� m Uic SrcE'a. 3�`y�cm v_...o .00sx✓�-^�� c'c cE9c Euyv>$u�uvi.... w.� v s`�FE15 L$oSmo� 3 vs '` o E" �pg$cs °O$; Au` -0rT v o rj^ 3T.'wc�c°o..coo°T'vv$c�, u °'•a$ab� s�'u c =�L•- o `00.., Lm 8 �. o ce m° w m E•o Sot ° ous{° v� c: "Cu`m` uE. °ma`.'uoo` yc _$>Lu �0Z� zcuEvc�°w°�j>L� TL o> .rcu E�ouo a�Vc°mEa30 Es�19�� oc c �s$utN x?L°•ueEcaic urju L3 '�3g C'°' gaLyauO V! s s u%• r u V u• 3 A a °p s L .oE•o`o Jo•.'�u3d�L'; �_�+3�.o`LUU�yycv`•°"�"E"ccg�•o` o`91 E6E� .'s39S�svc�u• EQ.L.. wE�u =x 3arJ', un3' —�°6 aVi 3 eta $,.mQ :T �s.uc L.o •i soom c C3ryc s`e3 X U' 'E -5 r ' C Ero zq mcdc uucq g"Jrouc rn2 «oL W4 sFy vL UCE v D3�po"q ✓L F w°, �0 yy V•Cam 03' L L� A10: U ^O �L E - .wov- y �E� `QQeuy.y G uWcE. C9 ACL EV e0 c u Lo g' ° •°% E� ��s 3 m G o c y oum Nann�`m � ..v v H n.. •Jr' L. .V.LL e e LY CS° Ldv eD ELT U F E�smE_nF �ya� on v �'Bc a,Ec 3qv NU e6u� C C J 7 u F Y v L '^ •_ is � DnOD uEL�tCCt X29', VVC�� -cu on. ,gOOiUL FcC F M.- p ��NS a u ro u y r `c E' c `0 3 Z W =.c` E v 4 c c�MN 3i : ;,3o °c �8 0 Y Y e S m � q 0 r0 O C y G W yea > m a o G .0 � X„ y j 0 � .mC ° •O C �CC 0y 13 O O O 0 0 0 U O .D m M O O uC ;00 XO= m ��gmJm{Qp gip _o aoi aa�m�- ga.eRa �U00'Eo o 000 w�1 �c��i // 1 m x p Os c m 3 o " >°oom,• xUm 6e m c p uo>' „m- -Uu, 0 p q Ey m °° ¢ 3 ? y^po � v ° ox ° N u C -;U'D .E V u p -0 c oom0U cP00.o60 m c m x iu w >o�0r a 0D�o .aa 0EV y :0 m u u� O 0 pm0o o i1 6>0>4 v- o0 q>a 0 o�O J.9 °i a uG p uu °a u u$ 0 cm 0.oa U v B mpq D ° a .� T b & A3 u . 0x 0 0u a -0 0 9 o mx 0 m > me'o- 0Uu q o D o — 1°a02” � � ,,"'sSOuu• V � ." D °°_ ' v° ym� o 0omct d a qaa E9 aom Es c o m t' ss u O> O Go w m n m e y p M .ma p am°mC m 6.au0 —mE ^0 u u > a O'u „FZ g E D C L° D I L' M m U m P U u n';; 6 m4 E -0 0.0 Ar c m d 2 L T L m V L 3 vD d U L T V a L 0 T c � M C IJ 6 ° c L_ m C d u V K ti v ayv Up va>'.axo m E U a =-- 'p °'m °� numw nui�w °.euu °mbmc a q Cq 13 0.6 pm pU U a p�F m mE 0Fqq p$D m fop., U u X Sx u 6 .9 e E N a q ti F g Z ° S omm u o c�j q p °- m m a. m Em m°Eq., 3 °Eqo'° 0Z° o ub 0 .c o ° o p d F E m D m p O.D'� v ayv Up va>'.axo m E U a =-- 'p °'m °� numw nui�w °.euu °mbmc a q Cq 13 0.6 pm pU U a p�F m mE 0Fqq p$D m fop., U u X Sx u 6 .9 e E N a q ti F g Z ° S m -u mmtlo t,3?s tl pow ax mm¢ , tl3yNUCS, o 0 tlo3E >am"m.m o�a`.tls a.° tlsy mv� °o U ° o mxb c.q tiv p °i.;, tl.tl ° o op c v m'�mA -00 E Ox �1 V nn-oo nsmrnUec am'UW. a > a nto 3 a• pUd c u'u u o° d tl,o a a u d nO n: u d °wm�q �m o6io33 a a 6 Tv- b 1 c ' - u[1-° 7 s ° N a�tl ggi tla y m?u ; y m ba 3 ,s .0 a p ° m o 00.6 C. 10 r ° 3 a s i m s m m o tj 0 a m a ° ° %U u ° u sy a ° 8 uQ z:tl w U tl -O O x. i ap -0 u a a: �ur3 m s a a tog 14 ur - • 0, t33 gym° s oos m m G 0 n D O C m xm -W - -° o m o o m ;=I s3ms U tl c M o° ° $ ° o7 Z s p $ p o.> lid qv o � °p ° ia O a: = M 0. a tl a t �t' L A� t R 6 L d d iE V L 0 OU o d V L T d C L O — ID T �Lp — b C � V a c L R ` a c C V 3 J LL V Q L 2 — H O G W — Z N +3 i � yry z ` � t u N N • -- a��tl omam of m d a a - o - E otl�3.° 5 °013 0- 0 o U a � � P UX °s ms W °° m a 6 m L S y • uS.?/ao ° z F m C os F N tl m m ? tl F U U �3sU g. .9As Los Angeles Times: Residents rallying against expansion Page 1 of 2 C-06 Anacks Dow http : / /www.latimes.cotn/newsAocall pilot / news/ Ia- dpt- standrews24mar24;1,3255291 story?coil =la -tcn- pilot -news Residents. rallying against expansion St. Andrew's officials say they regret telling their parishioners that city officials have all but approved the plan. June Casagrande Daily Pilot March 24, 2004 NEWPORT BEACH — The environmental study for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church expansion was still hot of the presses when the first controversy erupted. In his newsletter to parishioners, Pastor John Huffman paraphrased some city leaders by writing: "In our meetings with planning department and city officials, we have been told on several occasions that there is nothing about our proposed project that is a concern to them from a planning and development viewpoint." Now that a neighborhood leader has cried foul, church leaders say they regret the choice of words. "I wish we could have been more delicate when we said that," said Ken Williams, a spokesman for the church. "It makes it sound like we think the project's a shoo -in and of course nothing's a shoo -in." What really happened, Williams said, is that planning department staff had told church leaders that the technical aspects of the project wouldn't be the biggest hurdle — winning support of neighbors would be the biggest challenge to the 36,000 - square -Foot expansion. "We apologize for that misunderstanding," Williams said. The faux pas could be the first step in a long and rocky road toward community consensus on the plans to add a new youth center, a parking garage and to demolish and replace two of the church's existing buildings, transforming the facility from 104,440 square feet to 140,388 square feet. "If the church and the residents can't come up with some sort of compromise, it's going to be difficult to approve anything." said City Councilman Don Webb, whose district includes the church, located at the intersection of St. Andrews Road and 15th Street. Webb is not a member of the church. Some residents oppose the project, saying it will bring too much traffic to this residential area and that the sheer size of the new church will overwheltn their neighborhood. http: / /www.latimes.com/ news /local /pilot/ news/ la- dpt- st andrews24mar24 ,1,769629,print.s.,. 03/24/2004 Los Angeles Times: Residents rallying against expansion Page 2 of 2 "It's a land -use outrage," said Don Krotee, spokesman for the Newport Heights Improvement Assn. and a leading critic of the plans. "If you have to live across the street or around the way from it, you'll have to look at a bigger bulk than is zoned for the area." Church leaders say they are eager to win over residents through traffic management, creative landscaping and other measures. Councilman Steve Rosansky, whose district begins across the street from the church, said the church should continue meetings with neighbors to arrive at an accord. Williams said the church has the same goal. "There's not a drawing in those plans that's in permanent ink," Williams said. "The church is wide open to doing whatever we can." Community members have about five weeks to comment on the environmental study, which is available at the Mariners Branch Library and in the Planning Department at City Hall. The project requires a general plan amendment because it would rezone the land, but it would not require a Greenlight vote. Eventually, the Planning Commission will decide whether to approve the general plan amendment. After that, someone could still appeal the matter to the City Council. • JUNE CASAGRANDE covers Newport Beach and John Wayne Airport. She may be reached m (949) 574 -4232 or by e-mail ai june.casagrunde(o),lutimes.com. If ou want other stories on this topic. search the Archives at latimes.comfarchives. Click here for article licensing and reprint options Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times http: / /www.latinies.com/newsl local /pilotl news /la- dpi- standrews24mar24 .1,769629,print.s... 03/24/2004 Message Campbell, James From: Edmonston, Rich Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 5:56 PM To: Campbell, James;'GTP' Cc: Temple, Patty Subject: RE: St. Andrews I'll add mine in red. -- Original Message- - From: Campbell, James Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 7:05 PM To: 'GTP; Edmonston, Rich Cc: Temple, Patty; Campbell, James Subject: RE: St. Andrews Larry, Page I of 5 Some of these I have some knowledge of and my responses are below in blue Ariel text. Jim ---- Original Message— From: GTP [mallto:gtp @ohill.comj Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 4:16 PM To: Edmonston, Rich Cc: Temple, Patty; Campbell, James Subject: St. Andrews L y and Jim ome questions I plan to ask for the record on Thursday night. The questions, as you will otice, are random in order. As you might remember, the Commission seemed inclined to remove the Clay Street access point and place a wall along Clay Street. Will such a move cause any significant impacts by having more traffic routed onto 15th Street and St. Andrews Place? The Traffic Management Plan prepared by LUG indicates this would not be a problem, but it refers to emergency access at this location. What I am after is to preclude someone from walking through this emergency access. The goal is to make parking on Clay and especially the adjacent residential streets inconvenient. Is the emergency exit at Clay necessary? Emergency access at the Clay Street entrance is absolutely necessary per conversations I have had with the Fire Department. I'll ask Kim Lerch for a memo for the record. Is there an emergency vehicle access gate that cannot be used by the average pedestrian... it would need to be a full height rolling gate at a minimum. I'll get a reaction from Fire Prevention. The Traffic Study did not attempt to break down the access volumes for each driveway. I don't believe the closure of the Clay St access would create a significant impact on either of the other two access points (one IN and one OUT). while 1 appreciate the desire to minimize parking in the residential area. the curb along Clay adjacent to St Andrews provides parking for 25 -30 cars. This is not insignificant and I can't 1012 1/2 004 Message Page 2 of 5 imagine this not being used - with or without a gate on Clay. Also, do we have a traffic count of the ADTs on the segment of Cliff Drive between Dover and Irvine Ave? I couldn't find this in the traffic study, although it is referenced in one of the RTC's. What is the segment LOS with the project. Which RTC are you referring to? I understand that we don't have roadway segment LOS, but only intersection LOS. Rich, can you assist? This area was included in the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan study and almost 3200 vehicles per day were counted on Cliff between Irvine and Pirate. No counts were taken closer to Dover Drive. The Traffic Study indicates that peak hour traffic on Cliff would increas by about 10 cars on a weekday. There has also been discussion about the creation of diagonal spaces on 15th Street, West of the 15th Street lot in place of parallel spaces. This will require some re- working of the right of way and some dedication of land by the District Is this something the Public Works Dept. can support? I am looking for as many more spaces as I can find and these spaces would be in high demand by the students, and perhaps help alleviate some of the parking in the neighborhood. Rich and I discussed the possibility of additional diagonal spaces on 15th street and I thought it might create increased vehicle conflicts and hazards, but who am I but just a dad who drops off his daughter at a traffic nightmare of a middle school every morning where there are diagonal street spaces! If you add new high school drivers who must move the cars every 2 hours... vehicle conflicts, hazards and concem are my opinions, not necessarily Rich's. This is a topic in the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP), but my feelings mirror Jim's. The diagonal parking across the street is less of a problem because there aren't a lot of people backing out at the same time students are driving down the street. On the north side, students would be leaving from the lot and the diagonal spaces at the same time. Will a one -way plan at peak times, with entry on St. Andrews Road, cause that street to be overburdened? Rich... No Is it feasible to build the wall toward the earliest part of the project schedule so that noise and dust will be kept in the project site to the maximum extent practicable? I don't know, but likely not given how little room there is between the property line and the garage. I'll inquire of the architect who might be prepared for the question Thursday. Table 3-6 of the EIR indicates a capacity of the gymlmulti- purpose room at 1,333. Yet at RTC 77, comment 1, the facility is designed for 460. Did I miss something elsewhere in the documents? The occupant load of the gym is actually 415.5 rounded to 416 and when I heard 416, my mind understood 460...my mistake. The 1333 number is the occupancy of the "gym and multi - purpose room" cited in the original application. I spoke with the architect today and he doesn't have the data on the whole building in a complete final form for submission before the hearing Thursday, but he can prepare it. I will clarify what I can with the architect and/or the Building Department before Thursday. 10121/2004 Campbell, James From: Campbell, James Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 9:36 AM To: 'eaton727@earthlink.net' cc: Toerge Michael (strataland @earthlink.net); Barry Eaton (eaton727 @earthlink.net); Earl McDaniel (emcdanlel@fullertoneb.com); Edward Selich (EdSelich @adelphia.net): Jeffrey Cole (jwcole @trammellcrow.com); Larry Tucker (Larry Tucker) Subject: RE: St. Andrews My responses are below in blue,'rimes New Roman text. — Original Message-- - From: Susan /Barry Eaton (mailto:eaton727@earthlink.net) Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 7:54 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Temple, Patty; Clauson, Robin Subject: St. Andrews Jim, I decided to look at this report first, to try to maintain some continuity with my recollections from the last meeting. I confess to being a little confused by the report; and I do have some questions (as you might expect): 1) On the first page, you refer to operational conditions 16 and 19. Do I assume correctly that you mean 12 and 15, respectively? Yes - I re- numbered the operational conditions and 16 & 19 refer to the old numbers. 2) You do not say so, but you appear to have abandoned the concept, postulated by the majority of the PC at the last meeting, that a more r realistic ratio of attendees to parking would be closer to 2.5, rather `jp• than the code stated 3 occupants per vehicle. Is this correct? We recommend that we use the Zoning Code parking standard for religious assembly for its intended purpose. Creating a new standard for this applicant is not advisable, We can require parking for concurrent uses. 3) You appear to be basing your recommendations on a total parking supply of 600 vehicles. Is this correct? If so, where is there a condition that states how much parking is required to be provided on site? (Condition no. 76 still states that 400 shall be provided on site; but I assume that that is not correct - but where is the correct number, and the condition to require it ?) I thought the Commission targeted 600 vehicles. The reference to 400 will change, but the current proposal from the Church has a 400 space garage. If the GP language holds, we want 322 at NHHS and that would leave required 278 on site. I envision that the off -site parking agreement and development agreement will also specify the parking arrangement you folks hammer out. 4) If you are assuming a total supply of 600 spaces, and basing your recommendations on the 3/1 code required parking, why are you recommending a total occupancy of 1950 persons? (Children don't drive, but they certainly are a component of the 3/1 ratio.) You are correct. The higher # works since the sanctuary is typically far less occupied that 1,387 — 700 to 900 is usual. 5) You point out 8 necessary components of a Development Agreement, but the language you have proposed in the General Plan Amendment doesn't include 5 of the 8 items. What mechanism would you use to ensure that all 8 components do, in fact, end up in the Development Agreement? What does "adequate off - street parking" mean in the GPA language? We didn't want the GP language to sound like a Use Permit. We want the goal in there and a minimum of other detail. The Commission and the City Council are the mechanisms to ensure everything is covered in the DA that needs to be covered. 6) You also point out that the draft Parking Agreement (exhibit 3, 1 assume) would make a good framework for the parking agreement, but where, again, is the mechanism to ensure that the draft is implemented? What about conflicts between that exhibit and the conditions? (e.g., - The agreement states that a "majority" of the spaces have to be at least 8'6" wide [without stating how wide the other 49% could be], but condition no. 77, 1 believe, requires that all spaces be at least 8'6" wide.) That language is a framework and no one is saying that it is acceptable and all spaces must be 8' -6" wide as required by a separate condition. 7) At the end of the last hearing, the Chair indicated that he wanted a provision that the improvement ay NHHS would have to be completed prior to issuance of Building Permits on site. I don't see any reference to that in this report or conditions. Was that an oversight, or did you decide that that was infeasible? I believe it remains in the parking condition or "framework" and I envisioned that the off-site parking agreement would specify it. A separate condition can be added. 8) Operational Condition no 2 references a list to be determined. When would that be determined? Is the condition intended to retain that language? The list was to be provided by the Church and I have not received it yet. When the list arrives, we can simple insert it. 9) Operational Condition no. 13 references permit parking for NHHS students, but doesn't say for how many. Shouldn't it? How many do you want? 10) There appears to be a conflict between Operational Condition no 14, which specifies that "participants and youth workers and staff " shall park in the NHHS 15th street lot, and MM Condition no. 51, which states that staff shall use the lower level parking in the garage. Which is your recommendation? NHHS parking lot per the Commission's direction. 11) Operational Condition no. 19 states that the St. Andrews Road driveway shall be designed to be limited to left in and right out only. Is this correct? How will you be able to prevent right in movements? RLch thinks we might consider having the driveway hit St. Andrews at an angle, add signs and see what happens. People will still make that turn when traffic is light. It is not perfect, but the residents want it and it doe sn't seem to a problem. 12) Operational Condition no. 22 states the attendance monitoring requirement, and states that those results shall be reported to the City quarterly. But it doesn't state how often the monitoring shall occur. Every Sunday? Only when events are expected to exceed certain levels? Are any of the weekday or evening maximums to be monitored? Everything every day. 1 think we can add a phrase easily 13) Did you review the conditions against the comments of the Chair, Commissioner Hawkins and myself? (For example, I notice that condition no. 26 still states that the City shall prepare the subsurface investigation; that condition 47 still refers to the current informal agreement with NHHS; that conditions no. 59 and 61 still use "should" instead of "shall'; that condition no. 68 still refers to the Modification Request that apparently doesn't apply to this site; and that condition no. 76 still refers to 400 on site spaces.) Sorry Barry, I am not perfect. I changed 26, deleted 47, changed 59 & 61. Condition 68 does apply and the Fire Department has 9 conditions related to the project associated with that case. I can add the 9 conditions if you like. Thank you for your consideration of these questions. Hopefully they can be clarified (and whatever corrections that are necessary, made) prior to the meeting. If you have any questions of me, please let me know. Barry /V1 a.- Campbell, James From: Campbell, James Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 7:05 PM To: 'GTP'; Edmonton, Rich Cc: Temple, Patty; Campbell, James Subject: RE: St. Andrews Larry, Page 1 of Some of these I have some knowledge of and my responses are below in blue Ariel text. Jim - -Original Message---- - From: GTP (mailto:gtp @ohill.com] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 4:16 PM To: Edmonston, Rich Cc: Temple, Patty; Campbell, James Subject: SL Andrews Rich, Patty and Jim Here are some questions I plan to ask for the record on Thursday night. The questions, as you will no doubt notice, are random in order: As you might remember, the Commission seemed inclined to remove the Clay Street access point and place a wall along Clay Street. Will such a move cause any significant impacts by having more traffic routed onto 15th Street and St. Andrews Place? The Traffic Management Plan prepared by LUG Indicates this would not be a problem. but it refers to emergency access at this location. What I am after is to preclude someone from walking through this emergency access. The goal Is to make parking on Clay and especially the adjacent residential streets inconvenient. Is the emergency exit at Clay necessary? Emergency access at the Clay Street entrance is absoLutely necessary per conversations I have had with the Fire Department. I'll ask Kim Lerch for a memo for the record. Is there an emergency vehicle access gate that cannot be used by the average pedestrian... it would need to be a full height rolling gate at a minimum. I'll get a reaction from Fire Prevention. Also, do we have a traffic count of the ADTs on the segment of Cliff Drive between Dover and Irvine Ave? I couldn't find this in the traffic study, although it is referenced in one of the RTC's. What is the segment LOS with the project Which RTC are you referring to? I understand that we don't have roadway segment LOS, but only intersection LOS. Rich, can you assist? There has also been discussion about the creation of diagonal spaces on 15th Street, West of the 15th Street lot in place of parallel spaces. This will require some re- working of the right of way and some dedication of land by the District. Is this something the Public Works Dept. can support? I am looking for as many more spaces as I can find and these spaces would be in high demand by the students, and l0 /1 8/2004 Page 2 of 4 perhaps help alleviate some of the parking in the neighborhood. Rich and I discussed the possibility of additional diagonal spaces on 15th street and I thought it might create increased vehicle conflicts and hazards, but who am I but just a dad who drops off his daughter at a traffic nightmare of a middle school every morning where there are diagonal street spaces! If you add new high school drivers who must move the cars every 2 hours... vehicle conflicts, hazards and concern are my opinions, not necessarily Rich's. Rich... Will a one -way plan at peak times, with entry on St. Andrews Road, cause that street to be overburdened? Is it feasible to build the wall toward the earliest part of the project schedule so that noise and dust will be kept in the project site to the maximum extent practicable? I don't know, but likely not given how little room there is between the property line and the garage. I'll inquire of the architect who might be prepared for the question Thursday. Table 3-6 of the EIR indicates a capacity of the gym/multi- purpose room at 1,333. Yet at RTC 77, comment 1, the facility is designed for 460. Did I miss something elsewhere In the documents? The occupant load of the gym is actually 415.5 rounded to 416 and when I heard 416, my mind understood 460... my mistake. The 1333 number is the occupancy of the `gym and multi- purpose room' cited in the original application. I spoke with the architect today and he doesn't have the data on the whole building in a complete final form for submission before the hearing Thursday, but he can prepare it. I will clarify what I can with the architect and /or the Building Department before Thursday. Why didn't the traffic study look at the effects of the added ADTs on the residential streets, like Pirate and Snug Harbor? What are the carrying capacity of these streets at LOS D? I was told that we don't have thresholds for roadway segment capacity. Rich, can you assist? 1 attended a meeting of the neighbors at the Newport Theatre Arts Center a few months back. The neighbors have visions of the demo and excavation part of the project taking much longer than the EIR states. Do we have anyone we can get a time estimate from. I think the neighbors may have been thinking that one truck at a time would be loaded, but couldn't there be multiple loaders loading multiple trucks at one time? Is 14 cy per truck realistic; I thought that most trucks carry closer to `1D cy. I will have a clear identification of the assumptions used in the analysis for you on Thursday. 14 -15 yds3 is commonly used for AQ analysis and trucks with that capacity are available. If we indicate for the record that 14 yds3 is not appropriate, we need a new AQ study and we need to re- circulate the EIR. Is it advisable to require that the new parking facilities, including those at Newport Harbor, be completed before the new buildings be commenced. Altematively, maybe the Newport Harbor parking facilities should be completed first, then the Church parking, then the Church buildings can begin construction. May have to look at how the underground part of the Youth facility will be constructed- -this phasing may not work. 10/18/2004 Page 3 of 4 I think it is advisable to have the increased parking at NHHS before construction begins. That way, we have a nearby parking supply for services or other activities that might take place during construction. Excavation of the basement of the youth center will take place at the same time as the excavation of the parking garage, so I don't see how you can have one before the other without some serious engineering. What happens if we approve of the GPA, but the implementation of the use permit is tied to approval of a final parking agreement and we never get a parking agreement that we can approve? Wnat becomes of the GPA? Once the GPA is approved, it is on the books. If the UP has conditions they can't live up to, they could seek an amendment, change the project or abandon it. I assume structure parking is acceptable in the City. If so, is there any basis to consider the argument that it wont be used? The City gives credit for tandem parking, even though it is usually not used. Are we precluded from making a value judgment as to whether or not structure parking will be used? A parking structure is acceptable provided it meets applicable standards, but we are not precluded from placing a value judgment on it in my opinion. If you don't think the number of spaces is realistic given proper management of the structure as proposed, the project has less than optimal character... the site might not be of sufficient size for the intensity of development therefore detrimental to the community. Many mitigation measures are for issues that are not identified as significant impacts. It is my understanding that an applicant only has a duty to mitigate impacts 9 they will be significant K not mitigated. So I tend to doubt that many of the mitigation measures, especially for operational aspects, are really mitigation measures. Accordingly, so that they aren't challenged later, shouldn't they also be listed as conditions to the CUP? You can't eliminate the mitigation measures unless there is a clear statement that they are not necessary to mitigate an impact. The ones that specifically come to mind are the recommended measures of the police department related to parking structure design. Without them there will be no significant environmental impacts, but they are recommended none the less by the PD to address concerns raised in the NOP process. In a nutshell, they are not required but they are a good idea. As you know, mitigation measures must be applied to a project as a condition of approval to be effective, so all of them will be conditions. What will be the height of the lighting standards proposed for the surface parking lot? They are not specified and the lighting mitigation measure limits them to 20 feet. Should we have someone from the Police Dept to testify as to whether a Church parking structure, as opposed to a structure in a shopping center or office building, will likely bring In more crime to the neighborhood? If so, let me know so we can get them In and out quickly. My conversations with the crime prevention specialist tell me that the Church garage will not be a problem, but we need to get it on the record. I have their original letter and I will inquire about testimony. If the Youth Center is reduced to effectively 21,900 s.f., is it possible to move that building at least in part out of the existing parking field so that some more of the surface parking can be maintained? Not in my opinion. I don't think (actually I am positive) that the gym building can be pushed 1 011 912 004 Page 4 of 4 away from the parking lot to make more surface parking. The classroom space in that building is the preschool space and the courtyard adjacent to it is the outdoor play area for it. I see no way get there without losing the preschool or the gym itself... both way too important to the applicant to lose. I suppose they could get there with a significant redesign... What happens If there is a large memorial service at the time the Youth facility is operating its programs? Is it just traffic jam city, or do we expect that if that happens it is after school anyway and there will be more spaces in the area to accommodate all. The problem would be the 2W service when school is still in and doesn't let out until all of the attendees of the memorial service are in the sanctuary. Of course, that probably happens more or less today, a few time a year, but if the answer is, those will be bad days, then I guess they will be, Memorial services are scheduled at 10AM as needed throughout the year and I doubt the youth will be in the youth center at that time except possibly during the summer months. Barry wants to prohibit memorial services from "prime school hours" as you know and that helps with the school parking conflict. I don't see how all three activities (memorial service, youth center & NHHS) will overlap ever unless there was a 2PM memorial service. I was thinking that we condition the entire campus such that there will not be concurrent assembly occupancy that exceeds 1,387 people. Counting heads is not easy and enforcement is difficult... it's like Bahia, non - compliance is evidenced in the parking problem generated. It will be up to the applicant to properly schedule things like Bahia. Anyway, why can't they close the youth center when there is a memorial service? It seems easy and logical to me. I will probably have more questions later, but I have to get going on my day job, so I am sending these out so you can take a look at them before the last minute. You don't need to answer in writing, I just wanted you to be ready when I ask some or all of the above. Answering these questions in writing gives me a chance to get prepared and it has the added benefit such that 'you all" can stop me from putting my foot in my mouth if you think I'm off base or otherwise just plain crazy. Thanks. Larry Tucker 10/18/2004 Page 1 of 4 Campbell, James O From: Campbell. James Sent: Monday. October 18. 2004 4:41 PM To: 'e8ton727@earthlink.net; Campbell, James Cc: Temple, Patty: Edmonton, Rich; Clauson, Robin Subject: RE: New Questions on St. Andrews Barry, My 2 cents are in the blue. Aria] text below. Jim - -original Message--- - From: Susan /Barry Eaton [mailto:eaton727@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 3:56 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Temple, Patty; Edmort_stnn, Ra; Oauson, Robin Subject: New Questions on St. Andrews Jim, Thank you for your responses to my questions on the Response to comments document, as well as including the proposed Traffic and Parking Management Plan and Construction Management Plan. These have generated some new questions for me, as follows: (What a surprise, huh ?) - When will we see the staff comments on the TMP (exhibit 5)? Will it be before the meeting? I hope to send Rich's them before the meeting, but I don't have the comments yet. - The first bullet point of the TMP states that it will only apply to Sunday morning services. Does that mean it will not apply during the Saturday evening service? Are there attendance numbers for the Saturday service that show that ifs usage is so much lower than the Sunday rooming services that the TMP is not, and will not be, required? What about the Wednesday evening bible study sessions, which are stated in the original data submittal to typically draw 600 attendees? I think the first two bullet points are clear. We have Saturday attendance for the last year and a half and it draws much roughly 50% or less the attendance of a single Sunday service. We have no attendance information for Wednesdays. The 10/1/04 activity analysis by hour in the °use and needs assessment" for Wednesday suggests 590 as a maximum for the sanctuary building with an average of 435 people. I don't have any information or data to back that up. but if that is correct. the average is below a typical Sunday service. If we go with 600 people on Wednesday evenings, that number is close to a typical Sunday service attendance. -The 3rd bullet point of the TMP refers to a "Report Card (through some type of monitoring program) ". Is there any detail on the "some type of monitoring program "? Would the results be 10/18/2004 Page 2 of 4 required to be shared with the City? No detail at this time, but I would like it to be submitted for review as part of the monitoring. The 6th bullet point of the TMP states that it would include "requiring the congregation to use a specified route away from residential streets... ". Can the congregants be "required" to do this? They can be encouraged to do it, but we can't enforce it. -The 2nd recommendation of the TMP talks about closing the St. Andrews Road driveway "during typical weekdays/weeknights and Saturdays" but then goes on to say "during non church service conditions ". Does this mean that that driveway would be closed during the Wednesday evening Bible Study and Saturday evening service, or not? I believe A indicates the traffic engineer's opinion that closing the driveway weekdays/weeknights and Saturdays will not be detrimental to operations and that it will encourage people to use the 15th street driveway. It doesn't really say that it is a recommended item. - Recommendation no. 26 of :he TM' notes that their recommendations would require the use of a total of 10 personnel every Sunday morning for traffic supervision duties, with no specified time limit (other than a notation in the 3rd introductory bullet point that it may be that, with time, not all of the recommendations of the TMP would continue to be needed). Is the church committed to this extensive a use of its volunteers? How would adjustments over time to the TMP be handled? Is that something that would require City concurrence? You are correct in that no time frame is noted nor is there any suggested method of adjusting the use of parking attendants. I would recommend that the city be in the position to control any he in the program with the applicant being held responsible for the costs of monitoring by a qualified third party consultant 8, city staff. - Recommendation no. 30 of the TMP states that "supplemental Police personnel should be considered for the 'crossing guard "'. Is this intended to be a commitment and requirement, or not? Eavlooks like a recommendation to me, and in my opinion, a good one. I have no idea if we have ailable police personnel. - In the Construction Management Plan, recommendation No. 1 states that "A l] other Church activities, including the pre- school, will be relocated off site. (during the construction period)." Is this to be taken literally? The original application documents and the new Needs Assessment appear to indicate that there are dozens of activities that occur during a typical week. Is the church committed to relocating ALL of them to off site locations? If so, will that be a City requirement? I take their statement that all other activities especially the school relocation literally. They indicated long ago that the school will be relocated off site (where I have no idea). If they commit to it, we can require it to promote fewer parking conflicts. 10/18/2004 Page 3 of - I counted a total of 13 "should "s, "should he "s and "could be "s among the following recommendations of the CMP. Are these going to become commitments and/or requirements, or will they remain only as possibilities? The applicant has indicated that they are prepared to implement all recommended items. I might have they clarify or augment that on the record and then I might require everything if I were on the Commission. - Recommendation no. 5 of the CMP states that trucks will be limited to the 15th Street driveway, except that they can also use the St. Andrews Road driveway "if necessary". How will this be determined? There will be a time when the parking structure /parking lot is being constructed where there will be no physical access from 15th street. I would suspect that the St Andrews Rd. or Clay Street entrance will be necessary during those times. - Recommendation no. 14 of the CMP states that "All construction - related parking including construction employee parking, will be accommodated on site, and prohibited on City streets." But the DEIR (in the 3rd paragraph on page 4.3 -12) states that "During the construction phase, when adequate on -site parking is not available for the construction crew, workers will be shuttled to the site from an off site location... ". Which is it? Can an entire construction crew be accommodated on site when all the current parking area is being excavated and thereafter under construction for the underground parking garage and youth and family center building? This recommendation states that there would be anywhere from 15 -75 "construction personnel employee vehicles expected" during various time periods of the construction. How was this determined? Is it realistic? If the site cannot accommodate all these vehicles (which seems likely to me), where would they be shuttled from? How would the workers get to their tools if they were to be shuttled? The applicant pledged to shuttle contractors in and we went with that for the DEIR. The 10/1/04 Construction TMP is the first time a prohibition on construction vehicles has been floated. We can prohibit construction vehicles from parking in the area and we would only be able to cite the applicant for failure to adhere to the conditions of approval (administrative citations that can lead to fines) and we could not ticket the individual vehicles. I suppose we could post temporary no parking zones in the area during construction and then ticket vehicles. - Recommendation no. 15 refers to the attached permit from the School District. But the attached permit application does not appear to have been approved, or otherwise acted upon. Is it, in fact, an approved permit? (It is also impossible to read what "comments/exceptions" have been recommended by the unit supervisor on the permit application.) I just spoke with NMSD staff and that application is out of date and invalid. A new application was re- submitted and approved and a copy is in the mail to me. There are no conditions on it and the terms are the same. - Recommendation no. 15 also states that an agreement from the Lighthouse Church has been obtained for 50 spaces for staff parking during the week. However, the letter from the Lighthouse Church specifies 50 spaces in the 2nd paragraph, but lists the location of only 40 spaces in the 3rd paragraph. Which is it? Regardless of whether it's 40 or 50, the documents accompanying the original application list 48 current full time personnel and 70 part time 10/18/2004 Page 4 of 4 personnel at St. Andrews. Will 40 or 50 spaces be enough to handle all this personnel? Will the shuttle service be available throughout the working day, to accommodate the part time personnel? I read the letter from Lighthouse the way you do; 40 spaces not 50. If the 40 spaces are not enough, I always assumed that the street would be the overflow. The applicant might be asked to clarity how the shuttle service will be operated. They have several vans and a bus. Thank you for your consideration of all these additional questions, Jim (and, I suspect, Rich). Although I suspect that you may want to save some of your answers for the following meeting, I would appreciate whatever I can receive by or before the Oct. 21 st meeting. M M- 10/18/2004 Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: Campbell, James Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 7:30 PM To: Jeffrey Cole Qwcole@trammelicrow.com) Cc: Campbell, James; Toerge Michael (strataland@earthlink.net); Barry Eaton (eaton727@earthlink.net); Earl McDaniel (emcdanlel @fullertoncb.com); Edward Selich (EdSelich@adelphia.net); Jeffrey Cole (jwcole@trammellcrow.com); Larry Tucker (Larry Tucker) Subject: Church FARS Per your request, I have found the FAR for the churches you asked about and I included a few more: 1. Our Lady Mt. Carmel, 1441 W. Balboa - 0.54FAR 2. St. James Church, 505 32nd St —1.0 without parking lots, 0.45 with parking lots (they transferred the development intensity of the two off -site parking lots to the church site to achieve the 1.OFAR at the main site) 3. St. John Vianney, 314 Marine — 0.53FAR (there are some open courtyards and walkways) 4. Our Lady Queen of Angles — no more than 0.17FAR 5. St. Marks (existing) — no more than 0.17FAR G. St. Marks new — 0. 11 FAR 7, St. Mathews, 2300 Ford Rd. — 0.28FAR 8. LDS Temple -.05 St. Andrews existing — 0.61FAR, proposed with the 21,900 addition — 0.74FAR James Campbell Senior Planner 949 -644 -3210 - voice 949 -644 -3229 - fax 10/20/2004 ROBERT S.COLDREN 605 Kings Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 642 -8449 December 7, 2004 VIA HAND DELIVERY Planning Commission James Campbell, City Planner Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Mr. Campbell and Commission Members In anticipation of the hearing on December 9, 2004, I am submitting this letter for your consideration and as part of the administrative record. I represent my family. We live in Cliff Haven on Kings Place in Newport Beach, approximately two blocks from the church. We can see the church cross illuminated nightly from our house. My family opposes any expansion of square footage at St. Andrews. I would like to congratulate you, as well as the "representatives" who engaged in the "mediation" session that occurred at the last hearing that I attended, on your willingness to be so attentive, to the some 85 conditions that were under discussion. The residents of Cliff Haven overwhelmingly oppose any expansion of the church. I base this on recent discussions with neighbors, and on over 20 years in "the hood ". The Planning Commission encouraged the group to negotiate over the conditions, and it is my understanding that the group made it crystal clear that by negotiating over the conditions, it is in no way conceding that a new project of any sort was appropriate for the site, which project would call for an expansion of square footage. The entire hearing on November 18`h was about what conditions were appropriate when the expansion is approved; not whether the expansion and general plan amendment should be approved. The appropriate issue is: Is the proposed St. Andrews expansion a "net benefit" to the community? The proposed expansion is not beneficial to the community, based upon the following non - exclusive reasons: ROBCOL0002660 Planning Commission James Campbell, City Planner December 7, 2004 Page 2 • After the Planning Commission hearing of November 18, 2004, I spent the following Sunday from 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. surveying the parking situation at St. Andrews. I enlisted the aid (at a modest fee) of two of the file clerks at my law firm. One of them I posted at the church entrance off of 15'", and the other at the high school parking lot entrance across the street. I took up position on the other side of the church. A tally of the survey report (copies of the actual survey are attached) indicate that the parking ratio (even including pedestrians) is not 3.0 as staff had suggested, nor is it 2.5 as the Planning Commissioners had decided to adopt tentatively; the true parking ratio is 1.7 to 1. Not only is this the now proven, actual, and "real" parking ratio for this particular facility, but it is also consistent with Commissioner Eaton's study of St. Marks which he indicated showed a parking ratio of, I believe, well below 2. Doing the math now indicates that they are severely "under parked" even with the proposed 88 space underground parking structure. The church undoubtedly would respond that they will have a reciprocal agreement with the high school providing for parking on the weekends, and that during the week they will have a maximum capacity of 750. Even with this response, they would still be under parked. Most importantly, and in keeping with my theme that the question ought to be "is this good for the community ", this does not provide any "net benefit" to the community. To the contrary, it adds to the traffic and adds to the parking problems. I recall that Commissioner Eaton also suggested that he supported a large underground parking structure with a larger expansion precisely because, in his view, that would provide a "net parking benefit ". The current plan under consideration does not. • More occupancy means more cars, and more cars means more traffic. Even with a revised "traffic management program" (very similar to the prior one), the fact of the matter is that there will be more traffic as a result of additional intensity of use and the proposed additional parking (on a gross basis). We do not need more traffic in the area, we need a solution to the current traffic problems. I would posit that the church will contend that they have entitlements to intensity of utilization and traffic patterns that they are willing to ameliorate or restrain through conditions. Evaluating these conditions make it clear, however, that, even if enforceable, these conditions would act to, at best, partially mitigate the adverse impact of the increased traffic flow; the fact is that there will be a net increase in traffic and traffic congestion, and therefore, no "net benefit" to the community. • The community does not want a parking structure of any size. The parking structure will not solve the problem of on street parking congestion; nor will it alleviate the traffic congestion. An inordinately large number of vehicles coming to St. Andrews (as is evidenced by the survey attached), are SUV's and Vans. I understand there has been some debate about the size of the parking spaces contemplated, but these spaces will not be of the size or configuration designed to entice these vehicles to park in the underground parking (even if the "clearance" would allow these vehicles to park there). As someone who drives a Toyota Sequoia, I can assure you that, whenever faced ROBCOL00012660 Planning Commission James Campbell, City Planner December 7, 2004 Page 3 with the opportunity to park on the surface, on the street, or in a parking garage, the decision is not a close call. I believe that your staff will confirm that underground parking structures will not draw vehicles so long as there is easy access to surface parking, street or otherwise. Thus, the underground parking structure does not provide any "net benefit" to the community. • Similarly, with only 40 minutes between services, and with the proposed lack of access off of Clay, the underground parking structure is certain to create a backup of cars at the very time we are trying to encourage cars to park underground. Common sense dictates that once a line of three of cars forms to get into the underground parking lot, which is temporarily snagged by virtue of church goers who stayed for the extra cup of coffee from the last service, the structure will be under utilized, if utilized at all. No net benefit to the community will be created. This is not "good for the community". • The church has proposed to build a wall to render the church and its massive new structure less visible. Is it better for the community to be faced with a more massive building structure to look at, a wall, or to look at the existing church? I submit (and to the church's credit) the current architecture of the church is the most beneficial of those three choices. • The church has offered to limit access from Clay and the church points out that it currently has no such access restrictions. This may be one upon condition that, standing in isolation would offer a "net benefit" to those living on the other side of Clay. On the other hand, this will exacerbate parking and traffic issues along 15e Street and other streets. Thus, when considered as a single item of traffic, it is very difficult to say that this would provide any true "net benefit" to the community. • The "net benefit" analysis is probably best evaluating the context of what the neighborhood wants. There is no question that the neighborhood does not want a parking structure, and that the neighborhood does not want St. Andrews to have greater square footage. I understand that none of the Planning Commissioners or Planning Commission staff live in the Cliff Haven area; thus, it is perhaps not surprising that they are unaware of the severity of the current impacts, and the exacerbation of those impacts that the neighborhood foresees should additional square footage be added to St. Andrews. • While "green - light" may not apply because of the "100 trip" and "40,000 square foot" thresholds, a controversial use such as this, in an older residential neighborhood, which would require an amendment to our carefully crafted general plan, is precisely the sort of project that ought to be submitted to the public for a vote. Thus, the very fact that the Planning Commission is considering voting to approve a project with additional square footage is not a "net benefit" unless the Planning Commission also goes on record as indicating that a project with this much interest deserves to be voted upon by the community. I am unclear relative to whether the Planning Commissions current thought ROBCOL.00012660 Planning Commission James Campbell, City Planner December 7, 2004 Page 4 is to recommend approval of the project as modified to the City Council, or rather to simply send the modified project up to the City Council with an indication that, if any project with additional square footage is warranted, then, in that event, the Planning Commission supports the project of the scale and subject to the conditions as modified. In other words, in my view, the Planning Commission has not adequately addressed the "net benefit to the community" issue, and should not be approving a project on that basis. • The proposed expansion would simply exacerbate what I understand to be the highest density use in Newport Beach. A denser project (as opposed to the existing facility) is not a "net benefit" to the community. • One of the Planning Commissioners noted at the last hearing that the "conditions" imposed upon restaurants on PCH in Corona del Mar seem to work well. This brings to mind the white church on Heliotrope in Corona del Mar. This is truly a neighborhood church serving the neighborhood. Can you imagine a request from that church to add 20,000 square feet and install underground parking! Clearly, such a proposal would not be a "net benefit" to that residential CDM community, and simply because St. Andrews already has a more "institutional" character, does not militate in favor of subjecting Cliff Haven residents to such a circumstance. • The conditions will be impracticable or impossible to enforce. Rather than debating whether there should be a citizen "monitoring committee ", "self- monitoring" or City Staff "audits" of condition compliance, the fact is that conditions such as this are impossible to monitor. Who will count people utilizing the church facilities for various purposes at various times? Who can keep track of the "exceptions" which I have heard talked about so much? The fact is that no one can or will do this. Witness the fact that the church admittedly now has thousands of square feet more than its entitlement in use (having apparently taken utility or storage space and converted it into occupied space). • More "bricks and mortar" are not a "net benefit" to the community. No matter what conditions are imposed, the bottom line is that St. Andrews will have a facility that will lend itself to a much more intensive and expanded use of the property. Not only are conditions hard to enforce, they are also easily subjected to modification, much more so than consents for general plan amendments and more square footage. Thus, I suppose our neighborhood can expect that once the 20,000 foot expansion has occurred, and the attention to this matter has subsided, the church will be back for simple "modifications" to the conditions. It is not a "net benefit" to the community to subject the community to the rigors of enforcement of the conditions, or to have to fight to maintain these conditions in the future. The construction of the proposed church project will not be a "net benefit" to the property. Two years of trucks, skip loaders, fumes, dust, construction debris, etc., cannot, by anyone's calculation, be deemed to be a "net benefit" to the community. Our children that attend Newport Harbor High School do not deserve this at a time when their campus is already tom up. ROBCOL.OW/2660 Planning Commission James Campbell, City Planner December 7, 2004 Page 5 • The new gym will not be a "net benefit" to the community. The neighborhood already has a gym across the street at the high school. The school district indicates that it is available for use by anyone in -the neighborhood when not otherwise in use by the students at the high school. I have never heard a clamor from the neighborhood for more gyms. • The proposed reciprocal parking easement is not a "net benefit" to the neighborhood. First, the applicant has not demonstrated such an arrangement can be struck with the school district, and there are, in fact, many reasons to believe that the school district will not enter into such an agreement in the unlikely event that it would be lawful. It should be up to the applicant to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposal, before a project is approved predicated on this reciprocal parking easement as providing a "net benefit" to the community. Were such an agreement to be worked out, to be usable, it would, of course, need to give the church exclusive parking rights to the high school parking lot, at least during Saturday and Sunday services. I doubt the school district, as a practical matter, would be in a position to provide those sorts of exclusive parking arrangements. • The two proposed "multi- purpose rooms" may not be a "net benefit" to the neighborhood. Here again, it is up to the applicant to demonstrate the "net benefit" and for the applicant to be forthcoming with the information, since the applicant is the only entity that has the information. I have not seen in any of the literature what these "multi- purpose rooms" are going to be used for, or what intensity of use they will be put to. I also join in, and incorporate, the additional DEIR objections cited in Joanne Lombada's (Don Krotee's) recent reply. Thank you for your time and attention to these matters. Again, I urge you to deny the application, and to not certify the DEIR, or approve of the general plan amendment. Very truly y e oldren RSC /nb cc: Larry Tucker, Chairman ROBCOL.00012660 J 3 3 j o 0 o p 0 OL V E V =c a o? 0-0 o rn 'D C75 0 > Z c cu 4, ° 3 ' oO C.aD oE 0; o a oc\a, ° > 3 c c O a° v oO 0 c O Vr 0 O O 0 0 C f 3.4, A 0 O O a0 O >. 0 c 0 P O 0, -cc 0 T , Q 2,a V L L C o E y 7 0 0, 7 3 0 0 2 p C, a Q a O ^, l°9 •-0,p ° `a 4 C a yv° °41 C7 °2 E�vo5 0 o' == a E �`a 0 W 'Co O L L t 01 O .O �- „� 3 2 O2 Q a O ON 0, C O C .� O L 0> p Z-' 4, 0 0 � L p L L C L ��� p L O= '5 o° via c2yLL ° � g3 °c 06 "-c a3�` °oo4O,L 3 r o oa Eavo 2 ° v; v�o O >�a 0 Zoo L ''Oc o S a y o V a` 3 v Q 0 c a b a° o c >>> a 0 0 o S -!n rn c° L p] 3 v C a r Om O C 7 0 O V C c '^ ° . Q p O a a r a9x ay qo a3 a ao c�a, .cy L„'q0 „aL v` 0 ca = ' a+'0 c0�aca vt°— 'pp02a ,4r” a 0ia c °c ° cLcL6o LQ a ?da, tc° c . ,ar Lv` � v °6'a°,a,26 un c ° °ooc C 84M 6 OC N, L- V L or= O.M = OV O C a L a�°S�' r� ° : ooay O av 41 o ,6.0 aa 1 3 . rn rn D a L Oao O n o - 4p O VDp.a. 0 .0 p . N° a, ' — 00 C;, D C o, c —a y a a n 9 ca2b o o ° O L VC C c vc V o Q � �ao E ING vE 4,2 a a.E a ;c_ ca � 0 o E �o a LO a tzmL 0 c o > oc3 24, Lv a — O a c a a L g7 M r= a.� a, c OL0, _�.— oO d c 0 o L Q C W v�, °0y' 2CYX = - f WO 00coo 3 C c . ac ,° % c z cq 0 _o o.0 i fi 0 M�a ° m ' ° L°e` Va o.c ° La a.Ocsc0aEo - .2a 4, IV O c oo O ao'3E0 ?fix or o 3 g v 93 0 The Joint Neighborhoods of Cliffhaven and Newport Heights April 15, 2005 agreements, with the rights afforded such entities, from the effects of such development. 0 Ar that protect the neighborhoods 4. The City revisit the EIR whose entire basis of calculation was established embracing the original occupant load of 1,387 (per section 3.6, p. 3-30, DEIR) while the City recommended a conflicting and higher cap in the above referenced Conditions of Approval, of an occupancy of 1,800, thereby causing the EIR to have underestimated every impact associated with the project and pursuant to CEOA, requiring that the EIR be revised and recirculated. Respectfully, On rote P ` Newport Heights Improvement Association Telephone (949) 355 -3280 Facsimile (949) 548-6981 dkrotee@krotee.com Vim- . Brian Brooks, President Cliffhaven Home Owners Association bbrooks10000yahoo.com cc: Ms. Patricia Temple, Mr. Jim Campbell — Planning Department Attention: Jim Campbell, I would like to remain anonymous due to the fact that I am a Presbyterian, and a member of St. Andrews church. However, I along with many other members am very much against the parking structure at Harbor High school. If there was a vote taken of the members 1 am sure the marjority of members would like to see our money spent in helping people, not in creating a dangerous place for teenagers to get in trouble. Please consider the negatives. Thank You i ANINC 'T i'i I rAENT Y OF Novj!.,.. :T ^EACH MAY 10 D05 PM I7 819110111112111213141516 Nancy S. Heaton 460 Mendoza Terrace Corona del Mar, California 92625 Tuesday, May 24, 2005 RECEIVED BY Mr. Jim Campbell PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department City of Newport Beach JUN 0 1 2005 3300 Newport Blvd. AM PM Newport Beach, CA 92663 7181911011111211121314,516 Re: St. Andrews Dear Mr. Campbell: I have been following the St. Andrew's issue In the Pilot and have some knowledge of this issue. And, what Is happening within is frightening. The main thing that people and the City need to understand is the awful precedent that is set -- especially for other Communities -- by approving such a huge development. The church now, before the proposed expansion, is already at over 100,000 square feet. I am familiar with no project of an area that large that resides on a 4-acre site and asks its City for both a General Plan Amendment and a zone change, which cannot possibly in itself be a good idea. The Planning Commission split vote is shocking. This project in a residential community has a proposal for an underground parking garage that is capable of parking so few cars —less than a third of what the site would really need -- that offsite arrangements need to be made for the remainder of the expected visitors. What part of this is attractive or even necessary? How bad of an idea must an applicant have before people of reason say, "Gosh, no thanks!"? The entire original and mature landscape along the length of the Clay Street side of the church will be plowed under and removed for a new concrete parking garage and a wall. What are people thinking ?! Like the drug companies running out Celiberx and Vioxx to handle the pain, the City and its Planning Commission miss the point. They treat the side effect and not the cause of concern. This proposal doesn't need 50 or even 100 Conditions of Approval; it needs to be reduced to the limits set forth by the intelligence afforded it by Evelyn Hart and the 1984 City Council. They saw the huge high - occupancy gathering spaces, the residual meeting and convention area(s), and the underground parking garage for what they were, and threw them out on their collective ears a long time ago. Now that it is twenty-two years later, when twice the number of high school juniors and seniors are driving, the residents are again asked to lie down for more ?? We as residents across town say, "No!" and "Please, just don't do it!" Sincerely, Nancy S. Heaton F November 2, 2004 Mr. Jim Campbell/ Planning Commission/ Mayor and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Hand delivered Re: St Andrews Expansion Sirs/ Madams: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOV 0 2 2004 AM PM 71819110111112111213141516 The City, Commission and neighbors have been presented with a document titled "St Andrew s Use and Needs Assessment. We have been asked to rely upon the information included to understand the level and timing or events planned for the facility. I am troubled by the apparent inaccuracy of this document. Attached please find the churches publication Horizon; distributed to their parishioners. Also attached is an excerpt from the St. Andrews Needs and Use Assessment and a separate document that lists the many scheduled events, most of them weekly, that DO NOT appear in the Use Assessment As recently as last Friday, the St. Andrews Building Committee stated that although they were" not perfect, their list of activities was accurate. In my opinion, there are far too many programs that are omitted to be categorized as "clerical error'. Staff should make for the Commission and City an accounting of these discrepancies. I object to two very important features of this document. First, the document was not produced in order to assess the use and needs of the church. It was produced within the last month, not prior to the conception of this project. This fosters the perception that the project was conceived without a real need other than the ambition to build as big a box as the church can push through the system. Second, the attached documentation reveals that, according to the church's own publication, the Use Assessment is misleading as to the current number of events scheduled at this facility. The neighbors have worked long and hard to understand the true motivation for this ever - changing project. This "Assessment' only confuses the issue further. The inaccuracy of this document also illustrates the need for an independent party to monitor compliance with the CUP. Thank you for your time. ly. mes .Carina k�-- OCTOBER CALENDAR CHILDREN I SINGLES 70+ Gtl Cbiblren i MlnWma. p4'1S)4.ZTZd Jne lrr/rnrr,nlMrS WEEKLY EVENTS Snr,dgi. B:b cm. Nursery. Xhwl.ni W.. Cruas. in plain RId'a gbrgrinw 15 . ,Ja in play $II Tniin 10:15 am., NunmT, TminingW4ah. CmuTmin6q, qJ's K.Okk, &%P-. Intoin Pfau WcdnrKkK il6.50 p.n., NenuTY. AIP1M (wK +Nand FOUND SMUMm.59 pa TrYMngWli Wds C.T-r m mg l0d'a [irWelenn VurAp, hlb in plan Muwlay,9A0a.m..Ihmn4k:hlW (iMs Tumdry-Frida,, 9 15 a.m.. vvemR]liki C 1m,* Ii sellod, 9W mF rh (LJdl,n9r ni Mwcl"FriJa,, IS:W wwn.WAl'.GH. SPECIAL EVENTS Owher3, 11130x. , m F.mil, Waabiy Wabimp, ac page 61n, dauth JUNIOR HIGH In, 6r/1„mmpn e18lbr y(Im6 t)gmnaran4 9 u5)1,I11) WEEKLY EVENTS 6uwbp, 6:30 a.m.luwnr Uigh Rwxn. WeJrcuhp.6OO6:Wvm.)nin- high RrimaTime.JuIRm l8gh l9fola. SPECIAL EVENTS v Un- I30 hwJ. Tr rn URIe 1:30,9' W v m.,)uma I IiRlS Rnra9 1 Ambassadors WEEKLYEVENTS suaitm, 10: 15 a.m. ib 1:N& by xprcv) Iranilarron wa errwr110, oicnin e, Pkdk, 1P 6 fnwnniun in d.. .SnrWa) a ldl5 a.m. !n 9nmm luange we roesiowk. tirybnnaka bNb, w qllin a 91¢5143T11 SINGLE ADULTS 30 -55 duBdlrN • mmnrlrrJU uJ riaJe. 6e,dM 2165 and urlgk pRrtnlimnRMa WEEKLY EVENT'S W MM6,IJgbx,hmlryln Oannb" 1, Z i6.BPBd1, nt.9Nll (dimn mdudN fa 85); Cmtil)mie R inAwsmnu pns rwF lur ofumMioin v 30s Something Bible Study —LORD, I Need Grace to Make It S-.IM, beglnm,rg (wnhn I, S.gPJ:00 p.m.r lAYljnri, M h,lk®wMR4ewaprts.o,g 6k Inbmlamn YOUNG COUPLES Fa 14 Inm, erJZJenhMn 9 9nas s HIGH SCHOOL Fw inlu,mllian WfWe »nrrb tlmanrrn59!}5)1 -ul) WEEKLY EVENTS Sorldep. g:30cm, CkrpemnY. Hal), We iwiiiya•&Mp.m.FnrmbeeaR. Cagw.nie r '41148 SPECIAL EVEN" 1468`` I S) 7. GW, tr Gap lieuean, 6 n 5.W pm Friday: mum 2 W P.M. Snmla, (klabr 28, nmmda,. Tear rl6W. ): W9:N pm., junks Hign Ruum COLLEGE & YOUNG ADULTS Fu, in/vrmurbn.. nM Iaariww, .89415) ,2275 WEEKLY EVENTS Mohan. ):VO p.m, C01 Nbk Swdy Tueulap. TIM p.m.. Yam,µ Mull bible kwy WMee.t.,. 6181 p.m..lkl WA,, Slwy SPECIAL EVENTS lbmlw 1 -3. C—,., ROVnI SINGLES 55+ Illuminators WEEKLY EVENTS F, Su Meya, N5llanr..elmn mu4in try M. hill }Inn.0 n..tirew,nx I mm }rc' SPECIAL EVENTS I'nr nN,nrrarLV,, mJ/ rl,,. GMebe uQce n, 949 5741 2J4, wp6k Try, talvnMr, of ,be,grrWnv mnrnn9; 111, , COUPLES 50+ Pilots Minna aN.A. IrerM,W 4li a murdbfa n .eery 1. r nN ier Sanredry.0 d.,9, IO:W an., qaD rilh ,he Puelu in Imne. ell i cins Ilon HJliad M 949,61E 1869 (xeapage )) COUPLES, SINGLES 55+ Commodores Fmn.(klober d, 6:1 S pm, png nW L'xlered dRUlel, U Mnfhvld Wg; e'Rlr );in and Nun)nhrnun, %9bfZJi44 FAMILY MINISTRY Single parent Family Ministry SPECL1L EVENTS VpcnrmnR llnliday l:mhonm: in lie —iwi, N—linhen I2d1, Penes r Lme Rlrrgb harem Family Cann, t, WPF 3) I A ik-Hullim -, 949.5)2 Z273, W infn Home Builders Family Fellowsbip 01119I95M:LIL /rr it f nmaliw Second Saturday " (lnrrltir 9. W'... UrereMtm .11 ,- 0UTREACH' OPPORTUNITIES Wr nrpmnmmn in. l nls,n n.6 au1 m 16f,r— rnmmrr 2.1l /Jnnreotl )umn IMvrv... M')3)i�_ rN' MEN'S MINISTRY Men 1s Fellowsbip Breakfast WEEKLY EVENTS 'Wed cxl.ys, 7.91) u. Ube 41 HO- 5m page )1x droih ' WOMEN'S MINISTRY Presbyterian Women WNn hen n d M14wobm6. Iamehmgpam. N Lknrn6tW Wn (arc pages) Women in Management Tumdg 41s a.m.. sa LrvnRe Women's Spirituality Retreat fkwlRn I Sd). Smv Ruml C.r mer in ,Na40u I. page bi MUSIC MINISTRY GJI,b M1de Dlpv.lfnr Inlw 90574=8 SUNDAY CLASSES, SEMINARS & WORKSHOPS stwvd ; elO,1,fh Dr. Doe` Walhree, ll:W m., TRe e,nfaYd NO! B. S. page 9 W Ni9,INrion abpw Irh e0oea 6uMap, Ihmugh IkRiee 24, M. Sinn. 181,1.. 10:15 a.m.. Dimenfi`W 1[01 B. ropkYJrmuan MCM d I'9lMneti [Nc P B) GENERAL WEEKDAY CLASSES MRnda,s. 1:W a.m.. Wind., MUn.n Warr Sillily w1h Bee Totld, Dcmnfiew NO' AB WNnmdan. 6:W P.m., WednexWy MOI Wile frrW, rLLCHA lin. y GENERAL SPECIAL EVENTS W O,N 1 -2. APC.Imnh M ,e, V. ,1. SW P. m. F,klry 14-05'W v,r5. SRUre y ar pW3 2 tA-,4 Zi.3."A n,wM.Yrphrn MIuip rrdenmw[innal meelurr[l elk' weu.Nip (xm i a 9) fkR6cr 4, ):Wpm., glee Ortnrum s,W Chornx GMfen, SMCwary Iu Page 2) i,nnher Ill New MrnO,er Gass. 11'W .m., Uienm6ew IUN 5WC p9µ, 9) tvl h l III, SARIpm .13ndir lighr 1e,vwe in ,he 5a,1 rrr:n, Ue'e P W ) fen Jcuih) lwrRrer 16, T4. tr Jl. Fan Lay I.K, lh.ror l F.`NT,er,cr (ue Iraae ,P) U,uber Z3.9. Ml am. e94.W p.m.. Ann and Mum- Awrene i5emi,u, (ee PY? 3lm .k +.nq WEEKLY SUPPORT GROUPS Sm,Wr. 630 P.m., Soppon (! u, Io, Fermdna W Meanll, In load l)nea, %,`wvn lounge. Lz le, Vr. 09nmr Wilk nnury 949,593.1145 I� Iluoel.,l. 7:30 p.m., M N,Mn RI IT" Cawpla, Ram 0019. (an MMS w Grm). ""314491 TcSJ ):ml pm., ALAWW. Wwrn f!m). cstl Maninr, y494HP I6y9. q ntulap, 8:00 p.m.. M Ift ewk Swill. Ram 1014. Coll 1m4 in fond. 91-).6316194. F W:ns, I2: W noon, ALM ON tbl fuuill' and Inr nda W dwM,liw, Room 1014, CA Mardn, 91¢61V.11f19 MONTHLY SUPPORT GROUPS (rm1r11 II (iwuhY). Cvr {N)nl In, d,e EWr d9, ):W pm.,dn —n LwnW.. Far ldlunr h hmmr Palen Pxnbo, D d Z51MUnJ.pn) S1101.1 W, lin —hn men aml wean in SlevmreMrnem, 4:.505:50 pni , Wungm IcaJr r: Lwb Am: 94957: -.235 Neel GROWING IN QIRIST T)1R000H GRIEF el-, enli hegln lwnil ,12, >.3PYam pm. le:nlar N pMn Ob M I'll gory w nlgNel, 9496)3.5)'5 SENIOR ADULTS 11,#wl II, r P30 a m., Dlemnfi,W Ildl, \.A in I.mrdrrnn. 1— ry,e .) r Regular Programs ( Not Listed in Needs Assessment) Horizons October Calendar All regular events on campus College & Young adults Weekly Mondays Weekly Tuesdays Singles 55+ Weekly Singles 70 + Weekly Singles30 -55 Weekly Weekly Weekday Classes Weekly Women's Ministry Weekly Weekly Suppor Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Sundays Sundays 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:30 AM 10:30 AM Wednesdays 6:00 PM Sundays 5:00 PM Mondays 9:30 AM Tuesdays 6:45 AM Groups Sundays Mondays Tuesday Wednesdays Fridays Monthly Support Groups Tuesday Monday Monday Family Ministry Saturday Bible Study Young Adult Bill Flanagan Various speakers Alpha including dinner (Thirty something) Bible Study with Bev Women in management 6:30 PM Families of mentally ill 7:30 PM AA AI -ANON 7:00 PM AI -ANON 8:00 PM AA Noon AA -AI -ANON 7:00 PM Elderly Care 4:30 PM Spiritual Wellness (Oct. 11) 4:30 PM Spiritual Wellness (Oct25) 7:00 PM Second Saturday Donna A. Gallant 424 St Andrews Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1766 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Campbell: September 8, 2003 PL NNINGEDEPARTMENT CITY OR NEWPOPT BEACH AM SEP 0 91003 PM ?B910i1121Z3456 I I I I I I I! I I I I am writing to make additional comments I believe are relevant to the land use component of the Environmental Impact Report being prepared to evaluate the proposed expansion of St Andrews Church. My property is the southeast comer of St Andrews Road and Clay Street I built my home there in 1958, and have lived there since. In 1979, at the same time St Andrews Church was preparing its last expansion, my lot along with all the others on the east side of St Andrews Road between Clay Street and Cliff Drive was downzoned by the City of Newport Beach. This action Amendment 534, by Ordinance 1815, was initiated by the City of Newport Beach in response to an application to build a five unit complex at 418 St Andrews Road. As a result the St Andrews Road lots, which were all originally R -3, were downzoned to R -2 to prevent the kind of multiple unit redevelopment allowed by the City of Newport Beach on R -3 lots. The issue, as expressed by the City of Newport Beach, was density. I believe this is significant when subjectively looking at the neighborhood for reasons to justify, what St Andrews Church now proposes. I want to again express my strong opposition to St Andrews' plan. I believe it is overwhelmingly detrimental to my property and to the neighborhood. Sincerely, / 1N Donna A. Gallant The proposed additions to the St, Andrews complex will have the following negative environmental impacts on the immediate neighborhood: 1. Increased traffic both on Sundays but also during the weekdays and evenings. St. Andrews is proposing to become more than a neighborhood church. They are proposing to provide services that extend beyond the concept of a worship facility. As a result, the neighborhood will see increased traffic during the daytime and evening time. Currently when evening youth programs conclude, there is up to 1 hour of continued noise and activity outside as the groups gather in the parking lots. 2. In many aspects, the expansion will make the St Andrews facility more like a commercial facility and as such will have a negative impact on the prime residential real estate in the immediate neighborhood. The slow expansion over time is the objective of the facility and we believe it is time to direct the facility back to its core value: a place of worship. 3. The construction will have a severe impact on the neighborhood. Large trucks passing through the neighborhood transporting dirt, concrete, steel reinforcing, etc. will be a safety hazard for the children and all individuals living in the neighborhood. This type of construction will also contribute to the continued deterioration of our neighborhood streets. Who will repair the streets once all of the construction is completed? 4. An underground parking facility could easily become a magnet for the following situations: a. A place for homeless individuals to sleep b. A place for drug abusers to meet c. The usual crimes that occur where a discreet unsupervised area is available. This is a serious concern following evening sports activities at Newport Harbor High School. A simple look at similar facilities in surrounding cities makes it obvious that this situation will develop. Who will patrol such a facility since it will be privately owned? Such a facility will have to include significant fighting as a means to prevent #a,#b and #c above. This lighting will again convert a quite neighborhood into more of a commercial looking area. (We voted against City streetlights in the past to preserve the quiet character of our neighborhood.) 5. Should the facility expansion be allowed to occur then it is imperative that the City of Newport Beach takes all necessary steps to protect our neighborhood. One key way to protect the neighborhood is to cul-de-sac Snug Harbor Road and Pirate Road at Clay Street. li the city of Newport Beach is going to allow the commercial activities to develop on the St. Andrews facility then please propose other viable methods to further isolate the neighborhood. Sincerely, Ton cums 418 Snug Harbor Road Newport Beach, CA RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY p�: Nr= rucl[-'T REACH AM AUU 2 S 2003 PM 718191101111181 11213141516 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Campbell: Donna A. Gallant 424 Saint Andrews Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 August 19, 2003 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWmr•p'r •',EACH AM AUG „ 0 Z003 PM X1819110111112111213141616 I am writing in response to the Notice of Preparation regarding the proposed expansion of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. Since I am one of St. Andrews' immediate neighbors on Clay Street, I am taking this opportunity to express my strong opposition to St. Andrews' plan, and to offer some comments. The Cliff Haven subdivision predates its annexation into the City of Newport Beach. Each lot carries original subdivision Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions that are binding and run with the land. These declare the subdivision General Plan use of the lots to be for residential use exclusively. They also specify what test must be met in order to modify or escape the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Any property owner seeking to modify or escape the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions must obtain, within a specific time schedule, the approval of the owners of more than fifty percent of the acreage area of that tract, excluding streets, alleys and parks. �at. St. Andrews Church owns rvn esidential lots along Clay Street that were purchased from previous owners and cleared of the then existing houses. Five lots are in tract 1220, five in tract 1218. In 1979, prior to St. Andrews' last expansion, the church filed declarations with the Orange County Recorder supporting church use of the Clay Street residential lots and signed by a limited number of property owners from tracts 1220 and 1218. However, this small number did not meet the test specified in the subdivision Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for St. Andrews Church to either modify the underlying use of the Clay Street lots or to escape the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Now being discussed is a proposed amendment to the City of Newport Beach's General Plan that would facilitate a change in zoning of St. Andrews' Clay Street lots from Residential R -2 to Institutional. I believe such an amendment would legitimize the type and level of density that St. Andrews Church now proposes. I also believe that it would work to the detriment of my property and the entire Cliff Haven neighborhood. I ask the City of Newport Beach to recognize and respect the residential nature of the Cliff Haven subdivision. Sincerely, //ll Donna A. Gallant Campbell, James Prom: Jill Kanzler [fill @standrewspres.org] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 9:18 AM To: jcampbell @clty.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: eshiro @fvhs.com Subject: FW: St. Andrew Church_8_03_I am writing about the proposed expansion at St.doc Jim, Attached are comments from a St Andrews Presbyterian Church neighbot. Please let me know if you need additional assistance from me or if you would like me to forward elsewhere. Thank you. Ji]I Jill KanAet 949 -650- 5433 JKanzlcrCaadelphia.nct -- Original Message--- - Ptom: Ellen Shiro [mAto:cshirottt R-hs.com] Sent. Tue 8/5/2003 7:24 PM To: Jill Kanzler Cc: Subject St. Andrew Church_8_03_1 am writing about the proposed expansion at St doc Dear Jill, Would you forward this to Jim Cambell as soon as possible. He did not leave me his address or email. I am leaving town for a month and would like my observations and opinions to be heard. I congratulate your church on the many contributions they make to those that participate. It is difficult living in such close proximity due to the reasons below. Thank you for helping me get heard, Ellen Shiro To Jim Cambell and staff: I am writing about the proposed expansion at St. Andrews Church. I live across the street at 499 St Andrew. Noise /:Air /Light Pollution: Already there is excessive noise in this residential neighborhood due to the traffic and comings and goings of pedestrians, buses, cars to /ftonh the church. It is hard to sleep through it on Sunday mornings. On evenings after events Eke the Diyotce Recovery program , there is a tremendous amount of traffic and consequent noise and fumes. The light pollution at night is very significant and uncomfortable. When the programs let out, the 150 plus cat lights, of traffic leaving the parking, lot shine directly into my living window. I bought dus condo presuming I was hying in the peace and quiet of this residential neighborhood. Living across from the church sometimes feels Eke Eying across from a shopping mall. This traffic has already increased in the 13 vears that I have lived here. Therefore. I do not want to sec more increase in the amount of traffic and noise and lights shining and lessened air quality, which more traffic would represent. I feat that the addition of teenagers going to and from the gym would gready increase the noise on the streets Nvith both cat noise and socializing noise, as well as the dangerous driving of some of the cars passing through Underground gauge and gym: The noise and air pollution from such a project would be ongoing for a year, and perhaps more. Because I live close to the beach, I have no air conditioning. I Icave my windows open for a fresh breeze. Even in the hot months, air conditioning is not needed. If the construction happens, I will not be able to open my windows for up to a year without extensive filth, in the forth of dust and dirt, entering my windows. bly condo with the windows shut will be suffocatingly hot. Trees: If the action is no building, I suggest the church allow the trees around the perimeter to grow larger and fuller. That would help to take care of the situadon of noise, light, and dirt pollution that is already occurring. Safety: This is a neighborhood with children and old people. We want our streets light on traffic, not more congested. Already many pcopic, whom I see leaving the church, do not stop at the stop sign. Ellen Shoo 499 St. Andrew Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 9492933890 FAX TRANSMITTAL Page 2 of 2 3. Traffic and Circulation: including (a) current and projected (20 year) parking demand for the church; (b) current and expected status of shared parking arrangements with high school; (c) expected queuing in and out of parking garage during peak and non peak hours; (d) the alignment of key ingress and egress points, impacts on current and projected (20 year) peak and non peak hour traffic; (e) adequacy of vehicular access; (f) impact on pedestrian circulation; (g) traffic impacts during construction. 4. Air Quality: including (a) violations of state and federal air quality standards; (b) exposure of residents to increased and substantial pollutant concentrations: (c) effects on the Flora and fauna at the Environmental Nature Center from substantial pollutant concentrations; (d) creation of objectionable odors. 5. Noise: including (a) generation of noise levels in excess of adopted standards or acceptable levels from vehicular activities, errant car alarms, and patron activities within parking garage. 6. Aesthetics: including (a) the potential degradation of the existing visual character and quality of the surrounding residential community; and (2) creation of a new substantial source of light or glare. Please note although page 20 of the Initial Study states that a photometric plan of the proposed lights has been prepared and that there are no significant adverse impacts. the document fails to provide any information to support this conclusion. The photometric plan should be included within the EIR for the benefit of public review and comment. 7. Public Safety: including (a) the development of a subterranean parking structure adjacent to homes and school facilities could create a magnet for criminal activity; the EIR should include a review of the project's proposed security plan. 8. Project Alternatives: including (a) alternative sites for a regionally sized church facility. 9. Mandatory Findings of Significance: including (a) project impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; (b) project environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Also please note that the Initial Study erroneously includes mitigation measures for geology and hazards, but fails to include these as EIR topics. Failure to do so is contrary to the intent of Section 2 108 1.6 of the Public Resources Code that requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring report for all mitigation measures. We look forward to the City's prudent review and consideration of this project. 08/2012003 Campbell, James From: At Marshall j almarshall0paciticnationaldevelopmentcom] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:06 AM To: jcampbell Ocity.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: iblauer@pacbell.net Subject: St. Andrews Church James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Departmenr P. O. Box 1768 Newporr Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Mr. Campbell: 1 reside ar 330 Sr. Andrews, half a block away from the church. I am a real esrare developer, licensed Archirecr and licensed Real Estare Broker in the development business for over 30 nears, well versed in planning and zoning procedures. I occasionally arrend St Andrew's church and appreciare all the good work char the church does and how good a neighbor they are. The Church, however, is a business like any other organization. The intensity they are requesting, in my opinion (and I am usually on the other side of the fence) is roo incense for our area. I currently pur up with the parking in fronr of my house on Sunday by parishioners the same as I do for the Saturday Soccer and baseball games which 1 enjoy directly across the streer from my house ar the Ensign field. While the parking garage will eliminate mosr of the on streer parking the on sheer parking will continue after the garage is bar as it is easier ro walk half a block than wair in line in a parking garage before and afrer services. The Traffic before and afrer services on Sunday, traffic from counseling sessions in the afremoon and evening, and weekday morning and evening drop off /pick up of children ar the church combined wirh the high school traffic make dear inrersecrion of Sr. Andrews and 15th Sr. a difficulr area ro navigare during terrain hours of the day wirh the currenr use. I supporr the Church as it is now bur I do nor supporr the expansion of the church ro intensify their business and senuces. Once a church becomes this large and aggressive, a more commercial area would defnireh' be more appropriare than our quier neighborhood. Ler this remain as their neighborhood church and rake the more inrense use and services to a more commercial area. I will be our of rown during this hearing but will arrend future hearings. Please accepr this lerter as my comment for the record. Al Nlarshall Pacific National Developmenr 1012 Brioso Sre 201 Costa ivlesa, CA 92627 (949) 645 -1000: (949) 645 -9800 Fax almushal lrpacificnationaldevelopmenr.com Date `� 7 Ccpies Sent To: May 1, 2003 1�2y�-'Payor °f —� :i'3 VJ ceuncit Member Mayor Bromberg [?Manager City of Newport Beach _ rf.r'. ❑ Att ney 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 llhr,iri Dear Mayor Bromberg: It is with a great deal of "shock and awe" that I am writing to you regarding the proposed expansion of St. Andrews Church. In 1982, Mr. Pete Gendron and I were involved in leading the Cliff Haven Association and surrounding neighborhoods, through all the discussions, compromises and negotiations that led up to the final agreement for the building and development of St Andrews Church. The agreement in 1982 was taken to the absolute limits of permits, variances and conditions for the size of their facility and property. I am in "shock" because we were assured in 1982, that we would never have to go through such disruption again. I am in "awe" (and disbelief) that an organization, the high caliber of St. Andrews Church, would be trying, once again, to impose size and impact beyond reason. Based on the agreement we all reached in 1982, 1 hope this City Council will not be put in the position of having to consider the current proposal of St.Andrews Church to expand. Yours truly, Barbara Whitford Rawlings 523 Tustin Ave. NB 92663 Cc: Council members Ridgeway, Adams, Heffernan, Proctor, Webb, Nichols 06/05/2009 13:41 FAX 7146470199 Donald %rotee (003 March 4, 2003 The Honorable Mayor Steven Bromberg City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor Bromberg. This letter is written to you on behalf of the Cliff' Haven Community Association to express significant concerti with respect to the proposed expansion by St Andrew's Presbyterian Church of its existiq facilities, including adding approximately 40 ,000 square feet of buildable area and a parking garage whose main access would be at the intersection of two residential streets. Pirate Road and Clay Street Although the information provided to the City by St Andrew's indicates that neighborhood meetings would start in December of 2002, I am not aware of any contact by St. Andrews to schedule meetings with members of the Cliff Haven neighborhood to discuss the proposed expansion plans. When one of our members, Bill Dunlap, heard of the project through St. Andrew's architect, he contacted the church to set up a meeting to determine what was planned That meeting was held with the St Andrew's building committee and some residems of Cliff Haven in December. At that time, the prd4ninery plans were displayed and the attendees were informed that the application for the general plan amerdmew had already been submitted_ Needless to say, they were taken aback that such a significant project in a residential community had proceeded so far down the path with no apparent input from the community, especially in light of the communities' strong reaction against the prior plan for a parking structure at Newport Harbor High School which would have accommodated St Andrews proposed expansion. In our prelimiruuy review of the St. Andrew's application, we feel that it is imperative that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared to adequately address the potential impacts on not only the ClffHaven neighborhood, but Newport Heights as a whole. As you may or may not recall, St Andrew's proposed a significant expansion with an office tower in 1982 which, due to strong neighborhood concepts about traffic, density and other issues, was downscaled significantly. This resulted in Use Permit 822 which is currently in place. Please ask staff to provide copies of the reports to us which are required under Use Permit 822, as amended in 1985, showing the church's monitoring of parking as required under Condition No. 6. We are concerned that there are aheady significant parking, noise and traffic problems caused by the current use and to increase the intensity of use at this time would exacerbate the existing caadinon oocstra552070n1 9M.00W 06/05/2003 13:41 FAX 7146470199 Donald ttrotee Q 04 The Honorable Mayor Steven Bromberg March 4, 2003 Page Two What is the justification for now allowing additional expansion which was rejected in the early 1982? Certainly there have been no increase in roads or other infrastructure which would justify such an increase. At this time, the Association has no information about the nature or extent of the Church's programs to be run in the additional 40,000 square feet to be added. We have requested that information and it has not yet been provided. Therefore, we must assume that the entire 140,000 square feel after build out adjacent to an R -I neighborhood could be utilized at once. This undoubtedly would lead to more trips which would equal more traffic which would equal a more intense use of residential streets not designed to be major arterial, feeder streets. Our furtber concerns are as follows A. The additional intensity of use would create a greater parking demand than currently exists which would not be alleviated by a parking structure due to people's natural tendency to park in the most convenience location, not in a congested parking lot or structure. B. The parking structure itself will not be fully utilized due to people's aversion to parking structures. C. Parking structures also raise issues such as security and noise due to reverberation of sound. D. More detail needs to be provided about how the parking structure will be utilized i icluding how long it will take to fill and empty and the traffic impact of that activity. now will noise abatement, fumes and pollution will be handled? What lighting is intended to be used? What security measures will be undertaken? I-. Increased programs result in a higher intensity of use throughout a greater period of time. Currently, the most intensive use of the church is on Saturday nights arid Sunday morairtg. Expanding evening programs would spread the level of intensity over a greater period. Increased levels of activity obviously would result in increased impacts on the neighborhood Already the neighbors across the street from the church are impacted by noise from inside the buildings and other programs. A gyro, even with its doors closed, would seem an unlikely candidate for quiet activity. F. The potential uses of the gymnasium and its hour of operation need to be hilly understood. What of the arrival, reloading and departures of team buses, equipment trucks, etc.? G. How will drop -offs and speed control be handled on neighborhood streets? Generally, most streets are in an R -1 neighborhood, which are almost one lane in each direcuon. H. During the period of construction, how will the durst, noise and damage to the streets be handled? What will be a temporary parking solution during construction to accommodate church goers, etc.? What will be the canstnetion hours and how will they be enforced? L During construction, the extent of the excavation would result in significant traffic impacts from heavy trucks, not to mention potential damage to roadways. DOC3009 r 5207v Al 9999.000 a 06 /OS /2003 13:41 FAX 7146470199 Donald Krotee 005 The Honorable Mayor Steven Bromberg March 4, 2003 Page Twee I Increased traffic would adversely urgrem air quality. IL There an a large number of children in the Cliff Haven area- Increased trace on rendentid streets with numerous parked cars, especially during eonstructioo, noses simufiesnt risk of Potential accidents. especially at night on streets without street lights - L_ We have not stun my phommettic swdies concerning the lighting for the parking lot and these additional buildings, but we are concerned with the light impacts on a quiet residential rsmghborhood- M The hcigbt and mass of the buildings could create a negative visual impact on the neighborhood- N. Any parking or traffic studies should coasider the potential joint effed that could ocar if there were high school events at the same time there are mgruficant church events. Overall, the relationsmp with the Cliff Haven neighborhood and St Andrew's has been difficuh at best From the neighborhood's perspacbM this request by the church is a land usdplann tag issue; it is not about whether or not the dutch has many wonderful programs (they do) The question is intensity of use, density, traffic, noise, perking and other impacts m an R -1 residential neighborhood, We are concerned that what may be in St Andrew's best interests may not bs in the best interests of the neighborbood- We are also extremely concerned that St Andrew's lack of soliciting meaningM input from the neighborhood bespeaks a continued disregard and dismissal of neighborhood complaints and concerns about these issues- We strongly urge that an extensive environmental impact study be undertaken if this project is to be seriously considered. Please understand that Rased on the current limited information provided bo the Cliff Haven Community Association we do not believe this expansion would be in the best interest of the neighborhood or its resideata- Very truky youm, CIF HAVEN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Brian Brooks President BCS:ssd D0CS0095 52074 uss99.0000 EXHIBIT "B" 8/9/82 EXHIBIT "B" RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 822 (AMENDED) USE PERMIT N0. 822 (AMENDED) FINDINGS: 1. That not withstanding any previous approval of Use Permit No. 822, the expansion of the church between the alley and Clay Street is not desirable. 2. That in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach, the visual character of the subject property and surrounding residential area would be altered so as to have a less desirable and appealing nature. 3. That not withstanding any previous approval of Use Permit No. 822, the expansion of the church without all required off -site parking is not reasonable. That the increased building height, in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach, does not result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building. 5. That occupying portions of the proposed project above the average height of the existing on -site sanctuary is not in keeping with the primary land use of the neighborhood. 6. That the occupied portions of the proposed project above the average height of the existing on -site sanctuary could be relocated on -site through the re- design of the proposed project. 7. That the proposal to occupy portions of the project above the average height of the existing sanctuary increases the bulk of the vertical dimensions of the structure. is- A Page t of Nancy Broders From: Robert Coldren Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 1:00 PM To: preed @nmusd.us Subject: FW: St. Andrews Expansion AssocURL: http: / /DEFENDENT/ public/ Client% 20Profiles /CPSOUMatter°k20lnfo/70019 /Messages/ (DOC1 C649- E652-4C97- 6133 -4 E9C67937520).eml' CaseSK: 70019 DatabaseName: CPSQL IblNumAttach: 0 Matter: ROBCOL.000 MatterStyle: ROBCOL.000 ADMINISTRATION: ROBCOL MessageGUID: ( 15BBOB5F- BA52- 48EA- 8F6A- E4D006AF65C2) MsgHeaderlD: < EOE228C679973541B8D2A048EA89802F0304108A @defendent.hkclaw.local> OriginalDate: 3/8/2005 5:00:00 AM ProfileName: CPSQL Style: ADMINISTRATION: ROBCOL Paul Reed Asst. Superintendent for Business Services Newport Mesa Unified District 2985 -A Bear Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Mr. Reed: I am writing to you on behalf of my family and myself. I have a daughter who is a junior at Newport Harbor High School (NHHS), and my son graduated from NHHS in 2001. 1 live in Cliff Haven about two blocks from NHHS. We are concerned about the apparent complicity of the District in efforts to expand St. Andrews. I understand there is a hearing coming up, and I ask that you include this letter in the administrative record. I will not be able to personally attend due to a long- standing prior commitment. The neighborhood is overwhelmingly opposed to any expansion of St. Andrews. The local community associations are also opposed to any expansion of the square footage at St. Andrews. We understand that expansion cannot occur without the active participation and endorsement of the District. We urge the District to clearly and unequivocally assure the neighborhood (and the parents of the students at NHHS) that it will not participate with the current scheme to build a parking lot and enter into reciprocal agreements, licenses, leases, or other arrangements with the District to provide for NHHS students to park on church grounds (with formal District sanction), or to allow St. Andrews to park its staff and members in the NHHS parking lot (under a formal long term lease). The notion being advanced by some that there is no "linkage" between the lese being sought from the District and the Church's planned expansion is, of course, pure fantasy. I attended the planning commission hearings where great attention and focus was given to that very "linkage ". Page 2 of 4 A few of our concerns and questions are as follows: 1. It is my understanding that the State Board of Architects may need to certify any parking structure as earthquake safe under codes and standards developed for school facilities. Can you tell me whether you or the District has had any discussions respecting this issue with St. Andrews? 2. It would be unfortunate for the District to move forward and entertain this project, only to find that it did not fully appreciate the level of political, practical, legal and emotional negatives. We understand there have been some meetings between the church and school officials, but neither the church nor the District has sought our input on this element of the project until very recently; nor has the District taken any steps to inform its constituents or involve them in the process until recently. We would urge you to immediately release all written documentation (correspondence, etc.), and to share with us all of the details of the District's discussions to date with the church. Please contact me if you are willing to set up a meeting with community leaders and the District officials. 3. We are concerned that the project that you are considering is clearly a "project" within the meaning of CEQA, and we would like to know if the District has taken, or intends to take, any steps to prepare or cause to be prepared the necessary environmental documents respecting the project. Undoubtedly, the project will implicate construction issues, and circulation issues, among others. Indeed, because of the "linkage" of the church expansion and the lease proposal, this is all one "project" and requires a comprehensive environmental review. 4. The District is presently in the process of undertaking a multi -year extensive construction project on the grounds of the high school. I know from first hand experience the inconvenience and disruption already being caused to the educational experience of the students. To compound that with years of construction at the church across the street, and.additional construction at the school itself, is unfair to the students and the neighborhood. 5. A parking structure will not "solve" any "parking problems" which currently exist at NHHS. Studies have shown that vehicle drivers, when given the choice, will go to some lengths to park on surface streets (particularly on safe ones such as those currently in our neighborhood), rather than in a structure. Thus, any agreement with the church respecting parking will not alleviate concerns about student's parking on the streets surrounding the high school. Moreover, we question whether NHHS should be encouraging more vehicular traffic in the neighborhood on the part of high school students by providing more parking. More parking will simply mean more cars, and more cars means more traffic, which in turn means more safety concerns for the student body and pedestrians. Your thoughts on this would be welcome, particularly as the proposed deal with the church will bring yet more church traffic to the high school area. 6. On a related note, a formal agreement and more parking spaces at the church and school would require a "trip analysis", which would have to be considered in conjunction with anticipated increased church "trips" to determine the extent of the increase to traffic. Indeed, "green light" could come into play. Please provide your input on this issue. 7. We are also concerned about the safety of NHHS students. What steps will be taken to ensure their safe pedestrian passage across 15th Street during the morning and afternoon rush? What about the "off hours "? Will there be school security personnel patrolling the church structure? Will there be security retained by the church? Your Pa.-C3 of thoughts would be appreciated. 8. During the Planning Commission hearings, representatives of the church made it clear to the Commission that the only way they could effectively allow student parking in the parking structure is if the District allowed the church to have unfettered and sole discretion to deny any student the right to park in the lot, to suspend any student's privileges, or to evict any student parking in the lot. It would seem that students and parents are entitled to assurances from the District that any facility open to students be open to all students on a non - discriminatory basis, and that the revocation or suspension by the District (and not the church) of parking privileges should be subject to a modicum of due process requirements to ensure not only that students are treated fairly by the administration, but also so that students are satisfied and comfortable that there is no appearance of a lack of due process. We would like to know what your thoughts are on this particular issue. 9. We are assuming that the District would require the church to indemnify it for both "defense" and "liability" issues that may arise as a result of any reciprocal parking arrangement. Can you give us any insights into the level of insurance and bonding requirements that the District would historically find adequate for a project such as this? 10. Not only would students be parking on church property, but church staff and members would be parking on school property. Given the fact that the school should be promoting maximum utilization at its public facilities (athletic fields, gymnasium, class rooms, library, auditorium, etc.) how many church vehicles would be allowed to park on the high school's parking lot, and when? It is not enough to say that school is in session Monday through Friday, and church utilization is highest on Sundays. The goal is to develop increased utilization for the neighborhood of its school facility and the church's expanded anticipated utilization would inevitably create dramatic friction with that goal. Has the district received any input from, or provided any input to the church on this issue? 11. When school is in session or when school events are occurring (such as plays, athletic events, tutoring sessions, etc.) would the church be allowed to park on high school grounds? If so, how would the safety of students be assured in light of the fact that there would be unknown people parking on school grounds, coming on and off of the school grounds, and not present on school grounds for a school event? 12. Does District staff have a list of concerns or questions? If so, can we see it? 13. It is my understanding that a number of neighborhood leaders involved with the NHHS Educational Foundation are also extremely concerned. Some undoubtedly vigorously oppose the expansion, and NHHS may find itself in the position of having to "trade" between continued contributions at the community level, and whatever dollars or other consideration St. Andrews will be providing. To the extent money or "in kind" improvements come in the direction of NHHS, as parents we are concerned that money and in kind consideration will be diluted when spread throughout the district, and yet NHHS, its students, and neighborhood will be saddled with the entire burden of the arrangement. Can you help us understand what the impact would be, and how the dollars would flow. Would all of the money benefit go to the high school, or would any such monies be "equalized" with other schools in the District? We look forward to working with NHHS and the District in enhancing the educational experience of current and future students. We feel the planned church expansion is bad for the neighborhood, bad for NHHS, bad for the District and bad for the students. I look forward to speaking with you regarding my family's concerns. Please also put me on the list for notice regarding any meetings or study sessions that I would be invited to attend. Page 4 of 4 Very truly yours, Robert S. Coldren RSC /nb cc: Krottee (via e-mail) Carrnack (via e-mail) Stuart (via e-mail) McKittrick (via e-mail) Dunlap (via e-mail) Adler (via e-mail) Tod Ridgeway (via e-mail) Steven Rosansky (via e-mail) Don Webb (via e-mail) Leslie Daigle (via e-mail) Steven Bromberg (via e-mail) Richard Nichols (via e-mail) John Heffernan (via ---mail) John Sturgess (via e-mail) NEWPORT -MESA Unified School District 2985A Bear Street . Costa Mesa • California 92626 a (714) 424 -5000 BOARD OF TRUSTEES Daua Black a Dave Brooks • Tom Egan Martha Floor a Judy Franco • Linda Sucen • Serene Stokes Robert J. Barbot Ed. D., Superintendent Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1368 Newport Bncb. CA 92663 -0368 June 16, 2003 Mr. Steven Kiser Chairman, Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ms Patricia Temple Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY l'r nrACH 0 2403 AM PM 71819 110 111112 ;11213141516 RE: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Application for Conditional Use Permit Dear Mr. Kiser and Ms. Temple: We are all aware that parking in the neighborhood around Newport Harbor High School is an issue of concern. We are also aware that there are ongoing discussions considering proposals from St. Andrews Presbyterian Church for renovation and modernization of the church facilities. The School District is pleased to have St Andrews as a good neighbor of long standing. The District is concerned, however, that there may be some misunderstanding regarding the relationship between the Newport-Mesa Unified School District and St. Andrews Presbyterian Church as it pertains to parking issues and the impact of parking on the church's proposed renovation and modernization plan. Information published by the church states the following: "St. Andrews and Newport Harbor High School have shared parking for 45 years. The church and high school expect to continue that historic relationship that helps ease parking demands on the neighborhood" As a general statement the information is correct. The Church and the School District have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship as good neighbors over the years. To the extent each have had parking facilities available when one or the other have had events which caused a peak parking demand the relationship has indeed provided additional options to the neighborhood. However, the District is compelled to clarify that the relationship has been merely one of good neighbors. To the best of our knowledge, and to the extent files stretching back forty -five years are available, there is no formal agreement between the Church and the School District that grants any specific parking or other facility rights to one or the other entity. Mr. Steven Kiser and Ms. Patricia Temple June 17, 2003 Page Two We agree we have enjoyed a historic relationship and hope it will continue, but as a matter of public record we must point out that it is not a contractual relationship. We trust no one is /�(\ assessing it as such. Sincerely, Paul H. Reed Assistant Superintendent Business Services c: Members of the Board of Education Superintendent Robert J. Barbot Mr. Jake Easton, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church DRAFT Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2003081065 ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8995 STAFF COPY Prepared by. Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17782 East I r Street, Suite 106 Tustin, CA 92780 -1947 March 2004 9 c 5�'� n a c y d R m m m mm a o M.^mA J 2 m m o<m gg aQ . om " "' E o �c ° a3 AG m m J p4 N O <}m - �5g�m� �aOV m a mX m s a �pd m N 6 $ m N pp NJ or, MM mN 0 a N m a m m IJ m "3' 6m aT J J'-�3 S, O $N mm m m =om- a sc 0 -2R°� <L �Ozmm mm � cd v O mrj9Gte-m o m fmi a < J S J C m N J O n_ J X, m S 6 N N J m m v _ � Z�o m 8'R pmm 3 N w m RM A N �i9° 3 v m ° m 'gyi $0g a QO4 O , m x It . g a -m J IAN S' . Ea < p m A O � �g o B m 3 Q m$o a Dac ^, ag m_agNm g= iry\SS�n �- O O a o m sl m Y� 3 o o m< 5 �as m J d 0 I A R law Sm � o�c N da d a "N �0 arm-- "Ojf¢3m 89 8<0 H � 3 4 a m .0 m��v0 FL wCsz 883 vffog o' m3mn 8r @a m �i P m= NS ° 3 m D Q N O m Q P m c nm a °m E Z;$ _ SSJ N�y m mmSR $ m 6 (d� FA a TN ys4.aY N d a �o C N m m m a QN.� Q -� am md Ndm, mgm v OJ v1E m dN 9 � 3^' ^ m EF. B� = a m -m~ 3 ' m N = c Q m m m ' 0�; a = N L g- m N m pd V-w O a &° m Em <m fm^ 10aa manrm o'�zcN 200 9 �a'a� m o Aam�oaA$ 0 o a m$ ° _ �m Ja�019 Clem m a PO 3 m "a °�gq,aa 8ada d �aa g m m aJ� g 3R • o; 0 3 ma.6 -m v_ � N Q^ v zp 3 m o o 0a J _ _ m `d m g m a °o3Qm m 5 ge a a }dam m a aim oao amm mmJ �m r N Z ° O m m N 3 3 N N � S S r m D< m _ J m 3 d 0 m n 0 m d ,m m c N � W _ 6 r r m m O N 7 w 7 n D w 0 } i➢ r,a o m �z 3m 0� )n 1 � T m a U m' a m 3f m n ji St. Andrew's Presbytedan Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Envimnmerdal Irtrped Report Section 10.0 10.4.2.7 Other Environmental Parameters As indicated previously, the subject property is developed with a sanctuary and ancillary/supporting structures and facilities (i.e., classrooms, fellowship hall, chapel, surface parking, etc.). No new construction would occur that would increase any demands for public service or utilities, which are all currently adequate to serve the existing development. No impacts to soils, mineral resources, biological resources, Ability to Achieve Project Objectives Renovation of the existing facilities as permitted in this alternative would achieve several of the project objectives (e.g., update and modernize interior spaces, enhance landscape character, continue to provide a meeting place at the church for church- sponsored programs, etc.), two of the objectives would not be achieved. Specifically, without the expansion, a new Youth and Family Center, including the proposed gymnasium, would not be available to facilitate the programs identified by the church and additional parking would not be provided. Elimination/Reduction of Significant Impacts This project, similar to the No Project/No Development alternative, would eliminate most of the potential impacts identified in Chapter 4.0. Construction noise and air quality impacts would be significantly reduced because no grading, excavation, demolition or building construction would occur. Noise and air emissions would occur only as a result of the remodeling andior renovation activities, which would be significantly less than that anticipated as a result of project implementation. Further, potential increases in traffic would be related only to the any expansion of programs that may be offered by the church (which could occur without any remodeling or renovation) and would not be related to an increase in the floor area. Therefore, mobile- source noise and air emissions would also be related to any increase in the number and frequencv of proaraactivities offered by the church, which the church could Gl,fRV ' .imp ement if l noses to do so without any review or approval by the City. Land use impacts are also tad to the activities and programs o by the church iowever, this alternative would not require a L General Plan Amendment and would be entirely consistent with the City's Land Use Element and adopted long -range plans. Without any changes, except for renovation and remodeling (mostly in interior spaces), no changes in the visual character would occur, except as provided by any enhanced landscaping. Finally, without the construction of the subterranean parking garage, none of the potential unauthorized activities previously discussed would occur. • Feasibility Similar to the No Project/No Development alternative this alternative can be feasibly implemented with a significantly reduced commitment of resources. However, while many of the applicant's objectives can be achieved, if a Youth and Family Center were to be created in this alternative, it would not include the gymnasium, an integral element of the programmatic elements proposed by the church. 10.4.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative (Proposed Project without Gymnasium) Because the site is currently developed with St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and ancillary facilities, this alternative addresses only the proposed Youth and Family Carrier, which does not currently exist on the subject property. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would encompass all of the improvements proposed by the applicant, including the Youth and Family Center and underground parking garage, with the specific exception of the gymnasium, which is proposed to be located within and be part of the Youth and Family Center. Implementation of this alternative would likely include the demolition and replacement of the existing fellowship hail (Building D) and classroom building (Building E). The total floor area resulting from the elimination of the gymnasium would be reduced to 133.493 square feet from 140,388 square feet. Although the floor area ratio would be reduced by approximately five percent, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would still require the approval of the same discretionary actions proposed by the C:WyFilesV(KC 0060.STANDREWS. 1,180RAFTEIR00. 0 Alternatives. doc Page 10 -8 St. Andrew's Presbylelian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 the existing conditions without any additional expansion of the facilities as proposed or the 'status quo." This alternative would be limited to the 104,428 square feet of development and the 250 -space surface parking lot. However, the City could cause more parking to be provided pursuant to the existing Use Permit, should it determine that additional parking is necessary. It is important to note that although no physical expansion of the facilities would occur under this scenario, with the possible exception of providing increased parking on -site, it is possible that new programs and activities may also be conducted by the church to accommodate the church's various ministries sire there is ore Pns tiv nmita ion n religious activities or hours of operation. G {� �t nO.tw� rf+�y— Occ ypAti *u•t 10.4.1.1 Land Use and Planning Implementation of the No Project/No Development Altemat ve would result in the continuation of the existing use of the site. Without intensification of the site, neither a General Plan Amendment nor a Use Permit Amendment would be required; however, the benefit of increased on -site parking to accommodate use of existing church facilities would also not occur, unless the City determined that additional parking were required under the auspices of the church's existing use permit. At the present time, a modest to significant amount of overflow parking, extends into the adjacent residential neighborhoods and causes some degree of nuisance; however, during the week (i.e., Monday through Friday), on- street parking in the residential areas is mostly attributed to high school students and not the church, which does not have a high demand for parking during that time. Some of the neighborhood parking impacts on Saturday and Sunday evenings are associated with regularly held church services. Without implementation of the proposed project, it is likely that these neighborhood parking impacts will continue, unless additional parking is provided at Newport Harbor High School, which might be characterized as an unlikely event due to the budgetary constraints of the Newport Mesa Unified School District. With the exception of potential increase activities that make take place to accommodate the church's various ministries (e.g., youth and fellowship programs, adult classes, etc.), this alternative would not significantly change the characteristics of the neighborhood, unless the City required additional parking. 10.4.12 Traffic and Parking None of the short-term construction- related impacts associated with the proposed project (e.g., construction traffic, loss of on -site parking during construction, etc.) would occur if the proposed improvements were not implemented. Intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better and no additional project- related traffic would be added to either the existing or future traffic levels. As indicated above, no additional parking would be provided. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church would continue to operate under the existing Use Permit No. 822 (as amended in 1985). Under that permit, the City has allowed the use of off -site parking, including the historic use of Newport Harbor High School's 15" Street parking lot, to supplement that provided on -site. As indicated above, without any additional improvements, the church could expand their programs and activities. If so, it is possible that some increases in traffic and the demand for parking could occur, however, with the exception of the Saturday evening and Sunday morning services, most of the activities would occur during the week in the evenings and would not significantly affect the existing or future traffic and parking conditions. In the event the number of church services was increased, particularly on Sunday morning, the demands for parking would also be Increased by extending the time of parking impacts. The church is required to monitor worship service attendance to comply with the approved use permit. If attendance exceeds the thresholds specified in the use permit, the church is required to implement appropriate operational changes to lessen parking demand. Therefore, no significant traffic or parking impacts are anticipated as a result of the No ProjecVNo Development alternative. 10.4.1.3 Air Quality With the elimination of any physical improvements, no construction-related air quality impacts would occur. Specifically, the significant short-term air quality impacts resulting from the excavation required for the construction of the parking structure and the demolition of the existing buildings would be eliminated. No heavy truck traffic would be generated to haul the excavated soils to an off -site location would be required and the significant NOx emissions would be eliminated. The only potential air quality impacts that would be anticipated from this alternative would be the incremental increase in both stationary and mobile source C:IMyFdeslKKC- 0060.STANDREW .N8IDRAFT IR11 .0Attematives.doc Page 10-4 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0 on Sunday when parking demands of the church are the greatest As a result, no long -term cumulative impacts are anticipated. 9.3.7 Biological Resources With the exception of the Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center located east of Newport Harbor High School, the subject property and surrounding area are devoid of any natural vegetation. Redevelopment of the subject property as proposed will not result in impacts to any direct significant sensitive plants or animals. Further, with the exception of the Newport Harbor High School modernization improvements, none of the related projects identified in Section 9.2 are located in the vicinity of the Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center. Dust and particulate matter generation associated with the renovation improvements that occur concurrently with the project- related construction activities would be minimized through the implementation of the requisite SCAQMD conditions to reduce the emissions. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to the biological resources at the Environmental Nature Center will occur as a result of project implementation and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. 9.3.8 Mineral Resources As Indicated above, the site and surrounding areas have been developed. No mineral resources are known to exist on the subject property that would be adversely impacted by developed of the site as proposed. Therefore. no significant cumulative impacts to mineral resources will occur. 9.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The subject property has not been used for any activities that have resulted contamination or otherwise created a "hazardous' condition. The site has been altered and currently supports urban development, which does not involve the use of hazardous materials in the daily operations of the church. Demolition of two existing structures is proposed that could yield some asbestos containing materials or lead -based paint. However, demolition will require that appropriate measures are implemented that comply with AQMD and other regulatory requirements to ensure that no significant emissions of potentially hazardous materials occurs. Similarly, other projects, including the modernization improvements proposed for Newport Harbor High School, would also be required to comply with these same requirements so that no significant emissions occur. Therefore. no significant cumulative impacts would occur when compared to other projects that have been approved or proposed in the City of Newport Beach. 9.3.10 Noise Similar to air quality, implementation of the proposed project will result short-term (i.e., construction - related) increases in noise levels along 15'h Street, resulting from heavy truck traffic; however, the project- related increases are not significant and the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour will remain within the street right -of -way. While it is possible that some of the noise generated during the construction stage will be a nuisance to surrounding residents, the construction noise is exempted by the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. Long- term vehicular noise assocta a wi e e in development w no significant, even when compared to the increase in noise resulting fro the cumulative projects Identified in Section 9.2. The slight increase in mobile- source noise levels attribute to the proposed project, (i.e., 0.2 dBA) is not audible and, therefore, not cumulatively significant. The mechapical equipment (e.g., HVAC, etc.) will be required to comply with current City requirements. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. SP �d 9.3.11 Public Services t Y lr%r -I l�ltM -_�J Cam - viot}cv l v W4 IVAr The project she is located in an area of the City of Newport Beach that is adequatey served by public l) services and facilities, including police and fire protection. The increase in the intensity of use of the subject y property will not significantly affect the existing level of service of either police of fire protection. As indicated l� in Section 4.6, the potential (less than significant) impacts associated with the proposed underground parking W601/ garage will not alter the ability of the Newport Beach Police Department from providing an adequate level of service to the site even with when compared to the approved and proposed development other areas of the C: Vv4yFilesV< KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR19.0 Cumulative.doc Page 9 -6 ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment end Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 6.0 the church in 1985. As a result, there would not be any significant new demands that would result in the necessity to expand an existing service or create a new service, which would eliminate an existing impediment to growth. Would the proposed expansion of the church facilities result in economic expansion or growth such as changes in the revenue base or employment expansion? Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant economic growth or expansion in either the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange or larger southern California region. Specically, with the exception of short-term construction jobs, no significant employment will be created by the proposed project. The expansion of the existing church is intended to facilitate the existing youth and family religious and related programs currently available through St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. No significant increase in staffing is anticipated and no retail or other revenue - generating uses are proposed that could stimulate unanticipated growth and development in the City of Newport Beach. Additionally, church facilities are exempt from property taxes. Further, no residential development is proposed and none would be expected to occur as either a direct or indirect result of the proposed expansion project. Therefore, no significant growth - inducing impacts of the proposed project are anticipated. Would the proposed expansion of the church facilities result in the establishment of a precedent setting action such as an innovation, a radical change in zoning or a General Plan amendment approval? Although the applicant is requesting and amendment to the Land Use Element that establishes the maximum floor area for the subject property, all of the existing infrastructure serving the site and area have adequate capacity and will not necessitate any additional expansion. Ann-gal P _„rrt In the case of the proposed . t project, the proposed amendment is requesting an increase in the intensity of the same use, which is currently permitted by the adopted land use designation. No significant change to the existing use is d proposed and, therefore, the amendment does not represent a radical change to the adopted land use. P" Therefore, approval of the proposed general plan amendment that allows for expansion of the existing oi ;k Mp facilities will not set a precedent in the use of the site. k' Would the proposed expansion of the church facilities result in development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space, as opposed to an infill type of project in an area that CGO 1_J 1F� is already largely developed? 'tvP l,✓p� Generally, growth- inducing projects possess such characteristics as being located in isolated, undeveloped or under developed areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure (e.g., sewer and water facilities, roadways, etc.) or those that could encourage the "premature' or unplanned growth in an area not planned for development (i.e., "leapfrog" development). The subject property is a developed site located within an urbanized area in the City of Newport Beach. As such, it is important to note that the proposed intensification of the existing development will not remove an obstacle to population growth since the project site is located in an area that is urbanized- As indicated above, all of the essential infrastructure, including sewer and water facilities, storm drainage facilities, electricity and natural gas, and related utilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed expansion, which will not result in significant increases in demands on the infrastructure. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts are anticipated 8.3 Conclusion The answer to each of the questions cited above as they relate to the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project is "no." The proposed project includes only the intensification of an existing, established land use that is not characterized by features that attract orfacilitate new, unanticipated development, which would ordinarily be considered growth inducing. Conventionally, growth inducement is measured by the potential of C: WyFOosIKKC-0060 .STANDREWS.NBVORAFTEIRIB.0 Growth.doc Page 8 -2 1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 condition, which may be perceived as a potential visual impacts. However, while these activities may be unsightly during the demolition and construction phases, they are not considered significant impacts because they are temporary in nature and will cease upon completion of the proposed construction program. Moreover, once completed, the character of the site and neighborhood will return to normal. In addition, several measures, such as a screen fence six feet high at the property line, can be taken to minimize the potential adverse effects of construction. Appropriate measures have been identified to ensure that such adverse effects be minimized. 4.5.4.2 Long -Tenn Operational Impacts The project has a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista As indicated above, the subject property is located in the Cliff Haven area of the City that is nearly entirely developed. The predominant land use in the project environs is single- and multiple - family residential development, although some institutional uses, including the subject property, exist in the area. No scenic vistas are identified, either by the Newport Beach General Plan or other long -range planning document adopted by the City. Although the aesthetic character of the project area is defined by its predominant residential nature, the Cliff Haven area is devoid of natural features or other important visual amenities (e.g., bluffs, water features, etc.) that typically define important visual amenities, including scenic vistas. Objective 6 of the Recreation and Open Space Element is intended to preserve scenic vistas and resources; however, none of the desired features are located in the project area. In particular, the policies articulated in the Recreation and Open Space Element address coastal views, coastal bluffs, and the preservation of natural landforms. Neither those features nor any designated scenic vista(s), including from the Newport Beach ENC, exist in the project area and none of the adjacent roadways is identified as a scenic drive or scenic highway on the Recreation and Open Space Map. Moreover, although project implementation will result in new development. the proposed structures will be substantially similar in height andlor character as the existing sanctuary and buildings that will not be demolished. As a result, the aesthetic character of the area will not change significantly and no significant visual impacts are anticipated. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway No resources, including heritage trees, rock outcroppings or other naturally features exist on the site; therefore, project implementation will not result in any substantial damage to existing important scenic resources. Further, neither of the existing buildings proposed to be demolished have been designated as "historic" structures. Therefore, project- related impacts will be less than significant. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings As described above, the area surrounding the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property are developed with single- and multiple- family residential dwelling units, a high school, and the Masonic temple. The character of the existing church and ancillary structures are compatible with the character of the surrounding development, which includes a variety of architectural styles. Although �Me— inlerrsiEy development on the site would be intensified (refer to Section 4.1, Land Use/Relevant Planning), construction of the two new buildings, which will replace the two buildings proposed for demolition, will not result in a significant change in the character of the area. The proposed buildings will be located In the same general area of the existing buildings. The new fellowship hall (Building D) will be 35 feet 2 inches high, not including the mechanical screening, compared to the height of the existing fellowship hall, which is 29 feet 9 inches (from finished grade). Building elevations for Building D are shown in Figure 4.5-1. As can be seen, the building materials proposed to be used are similar to those incorporated into the existing sanctuary and other structures that will not be demolished. Building facades will be treated with brick veneer and painted exterior plaster. Punched aluminum windows, aluminum doors, and painted metal canopies will characterize the new fellowship hall, which will be located approximately 175 feet from Clay Street. (The existing Dierenfield C: 1MyFileslK KC- 0060.STANDREWS.Na{DRAFTEIR14.5 Aesthetics.mvdoc Page 4.S8 1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Repot Section 4.4 Table 4.44 Traffic Noise increases Due to Trucks St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church 6. T Table 4.4 -4 reveals that the greatest noise level increases will be experienced along 15" Street. However, these increases at that location are less than the 3 dB "substantial" increase required for a }0� significant impact to occur. Further, noise levels will not exceed the City's 65 CNEL standard at homes along 151° Street as shown in Table 4.4 -5, which reflects the distances to CNEL contours with the �J construction truck traffic on 15"' Street and Irvine Avenue. Table 4.4.5 shows that the traffic noise level �4s along the right -of -way of 151h Street will be less than 65 CNEL. The haul trucks associated with ,Lmolition and excavatV of the project will not result In a significant noise Impact. AR, trwY" Jim s' �(j Table 4,4-5 7/ � ;,O , _ 40 � t4 Distance to Traffic Noise CNEL Contours with Construction Trucks t� SIL Andrew's Presbyterian Church CNEL Q 100' Increase in Roadway Segment CNEL (dBA) Existing WIProject Trucks W5 Street East of Irvine Avenue RW East of Irvine Avenue 54.3 56.8 2.5 Irvine Avenue North of 19"' Street 38 North of 19th Street 63.2 63.7 0.5 South of 19'" Street 62.5 63.1 0.6 North of Westcliff Drive 62.7 63.2 0.6 South of Wastdiff Drive 62.4 63.0 0.6 North of 15'" Street 58.4 59.8 1.4 'From centedine of roadway. SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 29, 2004) 6. T Table 4.4 -4 reveals that the greatest noise level increases will be experienced along 15" Street. However, these increases at that location are less than the 3 dB "substantial" increase required for a }0� significant impact to occur. Further, noise levels will not exceed the City's 65 CNEL standard at homes along 151° Street as shown in Table 4.4 -5, which reflects the distances to CNEL contours with the �J construction truck traffic on 15"' Street and Irvine Avenue. Table 4.4.5 shows that the traffic noise level �4s along the right -of -way of 151h Street will be less than 65 CNEL. The haul trucks associated with ,Lmolition and excavatV of the project will not result In a significant noise Impact. AR, trwY" Jim s' �(j Table 4,4-5 7/ � ;,O , _ 40 � t4 Distance to Traffic Noise CNEL Contours with Construction Trucks t� SIL Andrew's Presbyterian Church C: MyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBiDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -10 Distance to CNEL Contour from Centerline of Roadway (feet) Roadway Segment 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 77 Street East of Irvine Avenue RW RW 61 Irvine Avenue North of 19"' Street 38 82 177 South of 19"' Street 35 74 160 North of Westcl'Iff Drive 35 76 154 South of Westdiff Drive RW 73 158 North of 15"' Street RW 45 97 FRW Contour does not extend beyond roadway right -of -way. RCE. Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 29, 2004) C: MyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBiDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -10 St Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 4.4.4.1 Short Term Noise Impacts Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Demolition for the project is expected to occur over a two-week period. Grading including excavation of the subterranean parking structure is expected to occur over a six -week period. Construction of the parking structure and buildings is then expected to occur over a 40 -week period, Construction equipment noise comes under the control of the Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program (Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations). Examples of construction noise at 50 feet are presented in Exhibit 4.4 -3. Note that at twice the distance (i.e. 100 feet) the noise levels will be 6 dB lower than those shown in Exhibit 4.4 -3. At 200 feet from the source (i.e., four times the distance) the noise levels will be 12 dB lower and at 500 feet the noise levels are 20 dB lower than shown on Exhibit 4.4.3. Noise measurements for other projects indicate that the noise levels resulting from commonly used grading equipment (Le. loaders, graders and trucks) typically do not exceed the middle of the range shown in Exhibit 4.4 -3. The nearest homes to the construction are located across Clay Street and St. Andrews Road. Construction activities will occur as close as 45 feet to the property lines of these homes. At this distance construction noise levels are only about 1 dB louder than those shown in Exhibit 4.4 -3. This maximum noise level will only occur as a piece of heavy equipment operates adjacent to a residence. Much of the time equipment will operate at a distance of 150 feet or more away from any one home. At this distance heavy construction equipment noise levels are 9 dB Igyxrth'aq shown in Exhibit 4.4 -3. Peak noise levels from construction equipment could reach as high ss 96 dB at the homes across Clay Street and St. Andrews Road. Average noise levels during period construction activities are estimated to be in the range of 60 to 70 dBA. The noise levels generated by on -site construction activities will exceed the current Noise Ordinance standards. C vct% � WQ_ prov :atk —A- Co" 4"k-) vtdvr�,e , �nlh.r. jTwl r tn.tigft.�'^� Section 10.26.035.D of the Newport Beach Municipal Code exempts construction equipment from the provisions of the Noise Ordinance and requires them to comply with Section 10.28 of the Code. Section 10.28.040 of the Code restricts hours of noise - generating construction to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. Because the proposed project will be required to comply with Section 10.28.040 of the City's Noise Ordinance, the short-term noise impacts are considered to be less than significant. Demolition debris and dirt excavated for the subterranean parking garage will be trucked off site to remote locations. These trucks will generate noise along public roadways and at the project site. The trucks are expected to travel on Irvine Avenue, and le Street, entering the site from 15'" Street near Clay Road (refer to Exhibit 4.2 -4). The trucks will then exit the site onto St. Andrews Road, near Clay Street, and travel to 15`" Street, turning left onto 15`" Street. Trucks will proceed to Irvine Avenue and then turn right on Irvine Avenue. Based on the construction phasing plan, soils excavated from the site will be transported from the property at a rate of 100 trucks per day, resulting in the addition of 200 daily truck trips to 15"' Street, Irvine Avenue, and St. Andrews Road. Table 4.4 -4 shows the affect on traffic noise levels along these roadways. The CNEL noise level at 100 feet from the roadway centerline, based on existing average daily traffic volumes, is presented along with the noise level resulting from this traffic and the addition of 200 daily heavy truck trips on the roadways. The increase in CNEL noise level due to the addition of the trucks is presented in the last column of the table. (Data is not presented for St. Andrews Road since the traffic study prepared for the project did not report traffic volumes for St. Andrews Road. Presumably, traffic volumes and noise levels along St. Andrews Road are lower than those along 15'° Street.) QV4yFilesV<KC- 0060.STANDREWS. NS ORAFTEIRW A Noise.doc Page 4.4-8 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Reporl Section 4.4 The noise ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying sounds from sources such as parking lots, loading docks, and mechanical equipment at the residential property line. However, the noise ordinance requirements cannot be applied to mobile noise sources such as heavy trucks when traveling on public roadways. Although federal and State laws preempt control of the mobile noise sources on public roads, the requirements can be applied to vehicles traveling on public property. The City of Newport Beach exterior and interior noise criteria are expressed in terms of 15- minute Leq and Lmax noise levels. The noise levels specified are those that are not to be exceeded at a property from noise generated at a neighbor property. Noise levels are to be measured with A- weighting and a slow time response. Greater noise levels are permitted during the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) as compared to the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Newport Beach Noise Element Outdoor and indoor noise limits for various land uses Impacted by transportation noise sources are identified and prescribed in the Newport Beach Noise Element. The noise limits specified in the City's Noise Element are expressed in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The standard states that for residential land use, the exterior noise exposure level shall not exceed 65 CNEL and the interior noise exposure level shall not exceed 45 CNEL. Exhibit 4.4 -1 reflects the Interior and exterior noise standards prescribed by the Noise Element for all land uses. Ambient Noise Levels Ambient noise measurements were performed to document the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. Noise measurements were made at three locations around the project site. Exhibit 4.4 -2 shows the location of the measurement sites. The noise measurements were conducted between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on January 22, 2004. (Refer to Appendix E for a description of the instrumentation and related specifications and parameters of the noise measurements.) The measurement results are presented in terms of the equivalent noise levels (Leq), maximum noise levels, minimum noise levels and percentile noise levels (L %). The L50 percentile level for example, represents the noise levels exceeded 50 percent of the time, and usually represent the average ambient noise level. The L90 noise levels represent the background noise levels that are exceeded 90 percent of the time. The L10 noise levels represent the typical maximum noise level of noise events. I 9 stkvv a �" [ rte'— S Table 4.4 -2 $ A-7 Ambient Noise Levels St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church C: U4yFiesV< KC -0060.STANDREWS.NBV)RQFTEIRV4.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -2 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 Similar to the emissions resulting demolition activities, the data presented in Table 4.3 -3 indicate that N0, emissions associated with the excavation are also projected to be greater than the significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. As indicated above, the primary source of NO, emissions is from the haul trucks, with construction equipment also contributing substantially to the total NO, emissions. Mitigation measures are prescribed in Section 4.3.5. 4.3.4.2 Long -Term Air Quality Impacts Local Air Quality The traffic study prepared for the project (refer to Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR) shows that for the intersections with more than 1 percent of peak hour traffic through that intersection resulting from project implementation are projected to operate at levels of service (LOS) of B or better under future with project conditions. Air quality at intersections is only a concern at those intersections operating at LOS D or worse (i.e., LOS E or F). That is, only intersections with an LOS of D or worse are considered to have the potential to cause localized exceedances of the ambient air quality concentration standards. To result in a significant impact the project would have to substantially increase pollutant concentrations at an intersection where the concentrations exceed the ambient air quality standard. The intersections serving traffic from the project are projected to continue to operate at conditions much better than LOS D. As a result, those intersections would not be expected to experience air pollutant concentrations in excess of the ambient air quality standards. Therefoyl1e�, the project will not result in a significant local air quality impact. P"Wotc< 41-,*4 ad{ /NI'}%gTl�ti we wr»w- -%V%_ i..,'►c«i+dkl�. Regional Air Quality The primary source of regional emissions generated by the proposed project will be from motor vehicles. Other emissions will be generated from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and the generation of electricity. Emissions will also be generated by the use of natural gas and oil for the generation of electricity off -site. The data used to estimate the on -site combustion of natural gas, and off -site electrical usage are based on the proposed land uses in terms of dwelling units and square footages, and emission factors taken from the 1993 CEQA Handbook. The traffic study prepared for the project indicates that the project will generate 328 additional daily trips to and from the project during operation. The average trip length for the proposed project is assumed to be 9.0 miles. This is a composite trip length derived from data contained in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Page 9 -24). The product of the project daily trips and trip length, translate to total of 2,582 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the proposed project. An average speed of 25 miles per hour was assumed. Additional pollutant emissions associated with the project will be generated on -site by the combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating and off -site due to electrical usage. The project will add approximately 35,948 square feet of floor space to the church. The square footages and emission factors utilized in calculating the emissions with these sources are provided in the appendix. The emissions are projected for 2005. The total project emissions are presented in Table 4.3-4. C: VI4yFileslKKC -0060. STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.3 Air Quality.doc Page 4.3.8 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 The City of Newport Beach is divided into several services areas for the purposes of park planning and to equitably administer parkland dedications and fees provided by residential development. The proposed project is located in Service Area 3 (Newport Heights /Upper Bay). Service Area 3 is largely built out and contains several important park and recreational facilities, including those existing at schools within the area (e.g., Newport Harbor High School, Ensign Junior High School, and Mariners and Newport Heights Elementary Schools. Although the existing and projected parks acreages are deficient, the school recreation facilities cited above Compensate for these deficiencies. "" ��� 'jb)p �� Harbor Element T e • IOC The City of Newport Beach adopted a Harbor and Bay Element on June 12, 2001. This optional element of the General Plan that focuses on the uses of the water and waterfront property within the area encompassing portions of Lower and Upper Newport Bay and Newport Harbor. The Harbor and Bay Element supplements provisions of the Land Use and the Recreation and Open Space Efements. The principal goal of the Harbor and Bay Element is to establish policies and programs that will preserve the diversity and charm of Newport Harbor and Bay without unduly restricting the rights of the waterfront property owner. Although the Element is intended to control the content of Harbor Regulations and Harbor Permit Policies related to development of, and the activities conducted on, that portion of the Harbor that is bayward of the bulkhead or the line of mean high tide, it is also considered in land use decisions related to properties adjacent to Newport Bay. However, the proposed project is not located within the limits of the City regulated by this element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan (LCPILUP) The Local Coastal Program consists of citywide policies and land use designations, detailed area descriptions for each of the areas located within the City's coastal zone boundary, and land use maps for the entire coastal zone. The LCPILUP addresses shoreline access, recreation and visitor- serving facilities, water and marine resources, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, coastal visual resources, locating and planning new development and related land use and planning issues. No portion of the site or adjacent areas is located within the City's coastal zone; therefore, site development plans and programs and land use regulations prescribed in the LCPILUP do not apply to the subject property. Newport Beach Zoning The larger southern portion of the subject property is zoned R -1 (Single Family Residential) and northern portion of the site is zone R -2 (Duplex Residential). Residential district regulations are intended to accommodate residential development areas that are consistent with the General Plan. Public and semi- public land uses are also permitted in the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts; however, approval of an amendment to the existing use permit is required. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is currently operating under a use permit (Use Permit No. 822), Newport Harbor High School is zoned GEIF (Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities) consistent with the land use designation. The area east of St. Andrew's Church is zoned R -1, with the exception of the property extending along St. Andrew's Road between Clay Street and Cliff Drive, which is zoned R -2. The area south of 15'" Street and west of St. Andrew's Road is zoned MFR (Multiple Family Residential); however, the parcel at the southwest corner of 15'" Street and St. Andrew's Road (occupied by the Masonic Temple) is zoned GEIF. 4.1,2 Significance Criteria Land use impacts are considered significant If the proposed project will conflict with the adopted plans and goals of the community as expressed in the Newport Beach General Plan. In addition, the following would be considered significant adverse impacts of the proposed project related to land use: C.WyFilesiKKC -0060. STANDREWS. NSIDRAFTEIRW, 1 Land Use dot Page 4.1 -4 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 Table 4.1 -1 Estimated Growth for Statistical Area H3 St Andrew's Presbyterian Church Land Use Residential (in DUs) Commercial (in sq. ft) Existing (111187) Gen, Plan I Projection Projected Growth Existing (11118 Gen. Plan Projection Projected Growth Cliff Haven 519 555 36 0 0 0 Cliff Haven Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 St. Andrews Church 0 0 0 100,428 100,428 0 Newport Harbor HS 0 0 0 840,493 879,912 39,419 Dover/Cliff 0 0 0 12,000 17,465 5,465 Dover /16 Street 0 0 1 0 73,648 83,155 9,507 Total 519 555 36 1,026,569 1,080,960 54,391 Population 1 1,028 1,099 1 71 SOURCE: Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element; October 24, 1988 (Amended through 9195). Circulation Element None of the streets bordering the subject property are included in the City's Circulation Element on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Each of the streets surrounding the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property is a Iocallcollector street. In addition, le Street, from approximately St. James Place east of the subject site to Newport Boulevard is designated as a secondary bikeway, which is intended to connect to trails or bikeways and serve cyclists and children riding to and from school. Several policies were adopted by the City, with the intent of accomplishing the basic objective of construction of public transportation facilities, which, in conjunction with programs to reduce peak hour traffic, can accommodate vehicular haft within the City of Newport Beach at acceptable levels of service. The policies constitute the basis for both further analysis and new solutions to ensuring that adequate transportation facilities exist with the City. Housing Element The Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan examines residential development within the City and establishes local policies and programs to facilitate the conservation, improvement, and development of housing for all economic segments of the community. The element presents policies and programs that are intended to guide the City in making decisions regarding housing. The Housing Element estimates that the City accommodates 46,932 dwelling units, including the 5,150 dwelling units in the recently annexed Newport Coast based on the General Plan and City's traffic model and the 2000 Orange County Progress Report. The Housing Element further estimates that the average household size in the City of Newport Beach would be 2.25 persons (by 2000) and the vacancy rate would decline to 10.0 percent (from approximately 11.5 percent at the time the Housing Element was prepared). The population of the City (including unincorporated areas in the sphere of influence) was estimated to be 89,488 at buildout (i.e., 2010), or approximately 2.9 percent of the population estimated for Orange County at that time. The City identified eight remaining major undeveloped sites suitable for residential development; however, none of those sites are located in the project area. Additional areas of the City have been identified as °residential infill " including an area east of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church (the Castaways property) and two areas west of Superior Avenue (Caltrans West and Newport Ranch). 1 �{, , _,{—`� A-" � 1/U yrnr+ C:1MyF9esV(KC -0060. STANDREWS. NBORAFTEIRWA Land Use•doc Page 4.1 -2 1 v m amp mog w x33 �' acBa m m Sro ip via or, n2. a 2 N 2 m VV w �^ L. 3 c c m Fig w m n w >>> a ca m 3 m 3 j a w m e_y � w o m w O g Om S w O m= m �-` 0 N a' ro Q m ro 2w� 3 n < m m moam L+3o �$ Om 5i TSF ��da ma g 5 m m a 0 q N� �m v '0 'cw cOw pn mFF nc @� a n3 m a fm m O w 8m °- , 03. � c m Fw 1 � ¢m M . , £ .. x o 8 Q c 5 S2 4 S'^= �'OR' s a wmmw am' 3m o o'^' ro�in'u nro '0 aroi wOm nao S) �mn m3c Z0 .< a w Z m m a m p m o o m m n 0. K 0 0 Onw�. 19��nmm d..c0 z Km aa%'ro '".'O Om oy $ 'm DF °M. 2L ��,m mmD m 3 z Om MW cK, NEo�m� �c3 <a'o' asa2 Nn ccamT To $�msx_y�c3�3� -m a m Em 3"m�N0 O ro n m n °w.3 =3 3nq: 3<ww mN mo0 3nF �g5D �F �m 0 m 9J m£ = n=@ N =m - =R' &SO am per' 3 '" w? 2 w m - -m OM � c MSm m - m G m?!ui �c 30 a3� m N m0 �.ao0 _ mm u m CS m m O arw Qro wm�O�w 9: a00 m'wng ocom b m ama� -c�a ���.mm 3mm >^ a�g m9 0A 00 mm =�c= 3�w'0 O m 5 m mTm _ SS= ma�' xSPw m o• m' m< a� ,mZn mNxt �'P°mmQa �'g`'S": sp aS�a w3 v- a�0 °== w^ ss'4 mM rs -va 0, ��aw � m.m<�o nii� gm 5' w.-�' mb'su Omoy N c5 � 53��c 2�d m``�� Sw°�3S °o NO 6�'n� 3. ma m$. �! 2r m' mO3 ui$3m X7'3.'° �� nom E�m 2f &n �m L 1533 Fq EL 3, rs c�V1 0,a oro 3� 3=$_0O �OS-i mP� & m m °o m m �''hN m m J m m Q a m j m N m �Om�= n m - ro as gy m= n m m m� m a c o c N 4 wag, _V°�o a33g� �mOmy am me .�� 3£7 wmc `s� <�wo m�3 3wv 5' 3 m O��aFn as �-' 9>m c ^'m m n`�m 3E. n a Q,° mm`s m aawmm'3 me ro a mm 0. m O. R. �I =?cm O°F °.03 MW < �>•3 w.� Og °o8 3'<m =mSE wm -_ c vw�^ 3 mA m u c m m" m 1p�3' .aw sW'F Q ^zanm <_ ° $roRam gam°_' �a0A 3a 9: m two mnw w01 o� d d m YQ- m 0. O >: anm �. S m m< aj'� m n.Z m<�= mm m. n w.2 - r r m 3 m - w w H 3m O m� n mnd m QN a 3N �o cfmg y]3 n� m a= m > nm y t b m n m a PUBLIC REVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY REMOVE DRAFT Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2003081065 ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17782 East 17h Street, Suite 106 Tustin, CA 92780 -1947 March 2004 .1�1 �1YI��'l �.G.t�i�j•.viL�. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NeW0o:.-t.Bdalevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 c,L�pJ (949) 644 -3200 NOTICE OFAVAILABEUW OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL QVACP REPORT The City of Newport Beach has completed the preparation of a Daft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the St Andrew's Presbyterian Chwcb in the City of Newport Beach. The DEIR has been prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed expansion of the existing Church, which is located at 600 St. Andrews Road. The applicant, St Andrew's Presbyterian Church, is proposing to increase the intensity of development that currently exists on the 3.943 -acre property. As indicated previously, the site currently supports five existing buildings, including the 1,387 -seat sanctuary, a chapel/administration building, two classroom buildings, and a fellowship hall. Project implementation includes the demolition of two of the existing buildings. One of the classroom buildings (Building E) and the existing fellowship hall and kitchen facilities (Building D) will be demolished and replaced with two new structures. In doing so, the total gross floor area will be increased to 140,388 square feet (Le, 34 percent), resulting in a FAR of 0.82. The 35,948 square foot expansion includes classrooms, a new youth and family carter (including a gymnasium), and related facilities to support the existing church. In addition, the applicant is proposing to construct a subterranean parting garage beneath the surface parking lot proposed along Clay Street A total of 400 parking spaces is proposed by the applicant to accommodate the existing and proposed development. That figure includes 227 spaces in the subterranean garage and 173 surface parking spaces. An Initial Study, prepared by the City of Newport Beach, indicated that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment on Air Quality, Noise, Aesthetics, Land Use and Traffic/Circulation; an additional issue related to Police Protection was subsequently identified and is also evaluated in the EIR prepared by the City. Based on the findings in the initial stady, the City determined that a Focused EIR would be required to more fully evaluate potential adverse environmental impacts that may result from devekmpment of the project. All other environmental effects were determined to be less than significant or impact and were not included in the DEIR. As a result, the DEIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 150M et seq.). This DEIR also com- plies with the City of Newport Beach's procedures for implementation of CEQA. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the following locations: Planning Department Central Library 3300 Newport Boulevard 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Newport Beach, CA 92625 (949) 6443200 (949) 717 -3800 The DEIR is available at the City's website: httT)://www.city.neMLort-beach.ca.us/Pin/PlanninpMain.htmi Comments on the adequacy of the DEIR will be accepted by the City between March 17, 2004 and April 30, 2004. Comments on the Draft MR. should be sent to the attention of James Campbell, Senior Planner, Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915. The Planning Commission will be conducting a noticed public hearing on the DEIR and project on April 20, 2004. James Campbell, Senior Planner m m m �n �a L+_� m o�am cb 0 mmm T� n mnc'�is� ^ Cbf JS C 0 N Won m c N c f 0 ° 0 N 0 0 J t+ J 0 `v C n C 'g >2a�v °nJ m vmJJ.9 m�Sa�n O�Qn oSi Nmm °03 �~l dim am C =�n' (Z qdo m °J�.�C �Z�W nJn m J CS�.N O' rj' ° m P 1 J Pj > S J ° m 6 m CI C L� C� H FmN S n K m aa## 444I�� 0 10 m M i �m xc� p ax onumi =D9mm Sz L m�5m 3 _. �2�pL�E 9 p got = .fin x = =m 08m m5 ZH3g' w'� 3 i gdN? n oN 6m �' ^n mo n.mn < m4.�gm?cc,5 d _0 j N m m 0 m$m �- W_ m 0'p0 �m 0 W J.'Z M5i* N mmF. can 0 °_ �v ° �S9 m N $Jm ° °' G�nW N w "m3 Za m me .. W3 sn i�W'o`d °� �f m$m S.nnnW oogoF'J �tS;oZ -3 m,. 0 Cy momo 0 5 m ° $g0 nW l�u�a m S9m JN sg mcpm n> HOC mJ mom pc 0ssm3m Sn�+R m a� i V 0 a n° N 9 J •� J N» d V Gr S m N O m n N Q a mmnnn_ £ 0 c 2 �W-° W m d '� 0 g _ nom o�e�N $.�HE 6Sm D m m m N m m n W5poo ^� mm3 9ygyG Jm m 6 0 0a S� J . J@ Q N PI o 2 '�Z^' vON r nnN W m-°°. o r goo n ° 0 0 n c°J. V95. 7E : 05S0@ 5 Wg w N� n ' M9 D m u R. V s E. Z °anQ'= mn ,m� w 5a m ° m v W aa_o N W m m m m m 9 s Ma . $n $R,00 N9 naD ? 3 ic' ,_ m $ 2 m m 57 Wmg gg�yWg ",-0F 38� � W nSn W �n =' mvm mom y.� m�'Q'ww i 5 n 90000go0m�gm2 n '0 c no 00 Jn °m�� ga yamm$.KSm d W 0 °�a�a o m a0'5rgnJ P3° S71 R D ��N J mm5. � =nJmbO my�60 cr m V Z m 2 m J G 0 s 3m_QQ o9 G W J m m a N OR S m S J � 5 n m j ° n o n m J m m 0 m N o 0 Z o r m r m N 3 3 N N 9 N m v 3 3 =0 v 0 m y 3 3 d IZ O 3 d .0i N 3 m .d. 7 3 d m' Q N ID d i C r W O y m 7 n d n W M W 3 fD d_ O_ oy_ xx m' J 4 c m o N. J 3 � m j n C 90 0 J d y n 0 J 0 b D n C b m 3 amm e.00 D moos xng53 �o_om J O d ?O N m w m aca � 3aw3 2m rn0 ° 495 =. �3o in N 0 O ° S O C m m m J y p ao U G M a mmJ gg ¢o ^`8m d.0 m m '�5 n3.c 3¢9 nm �mm9 ?�m �y� giw6•Po n ° m ° a 3 aii „42 f.W^ m BU J'w = < m Fg m ° m w n m - mn m n ,m m < m� 5-. m b� m V 3° G ® eN J o J V N J _. •Z0 wn'< m� 0 Rm3m z, and a'c2 id n �' x g3- X2 0 0 nc Q. of ww�m xc 3= '' <v ° °_� �o am ° -� m °° �aosii%� agmo y^ m SOm m mo a i� =3m9°em�g,3 Da m m o°, ,<3ma c2a 36 m i'o a �2SZ�pJ m3mJ -30 C3�OR 2'$ ASS} ago 32"m g 3�4m °ia ni?.4o 0N. 3<a S Jol9S '^54.D wmmJ0 y mc�22z .3 = wmm -•w3 3mc m� w y anaN o cf y9= w SO fF -�� �w< $sm d -_dc2 m �Hir R9 -Om o�ma� a,w�mQC Sm m wdaJm m �= <m�?. �' n3 n '° w3 5 °p aO� m 0m cSSm 3 m 9$j a° m�p 6 am._ moRV m3m 3mm'S� mTm - xoQmmo mm< �F ZQ� 0m- nanR ' m�3 d�mm $2E m"' °Su i°om g mm n > {Q 3 -' S}5 N� g h 5 4+a J35 Cq 0ai Qm �¢ S3Jdo Nye iS �.m � n4J? N. =FC G gF mR D�33 %h m 205 �. o J °D5m = <1 ¢J �N A v SD_ mmgm�a _m JA cj�m 803 °ca ?39�n8> =n ddn^ m'D S mRN 3F,c� m ywm cm T-g= w6 `5.�m 3 FL 3 gn <m aJ°Y$ '3^ =mnp A ocs o'm > m.Sw F o F�m 0 aamwm ££° 3 No°F w >•3 mZ m oco�'o °°'uJio 0 hm =m3 Nw oiQ wm.�� ngN go'c 'c '^w? �3'• n 3' -iv vm >• 3'g3 m mom.. 2 mam o gzm�A mp 5m p�p 332'0 Y m2_�" 3 �mi°o m= Nhm mwa 300 �. � �pC <.4. �S< c J w m �<m - =F m m pS aJ�Jm c J- 5 J m m tS < J J w m J m n2 m m m ° C w m'° m- J m =w� SJ_ Rom - 4 N a0 w 3 m m m 5 o' Y o m m �' QA= II Sin 3 3 'FmF N Fm 3 3 m A J- 3 m S v = ^J°. 9 y J m m Et A O 9 = 5 m 3 D m 3 St. Andrews Presbyfenan Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 3.2.3 Existing Zoning The larger southern portion of the subject property is zone R -1 (Single Family Residential) and northern portion of the site is zone R -2 (Duplex Residential). Residential district regulations are intended to accommodate residential development areas that are consistent with the General Plan. Public and semi- public land uses such as churches are also permitted in the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts; however, approval of an amendment to the existing use permit is required. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is currently operating under a Use Permit (UP No. 822). Newport Harbor High School is zoned GEIF (Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities) consistent with the land use designation identified and described above. The area east of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is zoned R -1, with the exception of the property extending along St. Andrews Road between Clay Street and Cliff Drive, which is zoned R -2. The area south of 1 e Street and west of St. Andrew's Road is zoned MFR (Multiple Family Residential); however. the parcel at the southwest comer of le Street and St. Andrew's Road is zoned GEIF. Zoning for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and vicinity are illustrated on Exhibit 3-6. 3.2.4 Physical Environment Land Use The area in which the project site s located is virtually entirely developed. As indicated above, single - family attached and detached residential development exists southeast and southwest of the church property. Newport Harbor High School is located north of 15t' Street; the Masonic hall occupies the small parcel located at the northwest corner of St. Andrews Road and 15th Street. The Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center occupies a narrow drainage, which physically separates the school from the residential development to the east. No significant undeveloped property is located within the irnmediate vicinity of the site. The site is devoid of natural vegetation and has urban landscaping and introduced plant materials. Climate and Air Quay The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6.600 square mile area encompassing all of Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Regional meteorology is largely dominated by a persistent high - pressure area that commonly resides over the eastern Pacific Ocean. The distinctive climate of this area is determined primarily by its terrain and geographic location. Local climate is characterized by warm summers. mild winters, Infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes. and moderate humidity. Ozone and pollutant concentrations tend to be tower along the coast, where the constant onshore breeze disperses pollutants toward the inland valley of the SCAB and adjacent deserts. However, as a whole, the SCAB fails to meet national standards for several criteria pollutants, including ozone. carbon monoxide and PM10, and is classified as a "non- attainment" area for those pollutants. Geology and Seismici The project site is located in the seismically active southern California region. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site is not within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State Geologist for the area. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site (and the site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone), it is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The closest active faults within 50 miles of the project site are the Newport - Inglewood, Norwalk, and Raymond Faults. The Newport- Inglewood fault, which is the only active fault within or immediately ,adjacent to the City of Newport Beach, could generate a 7.0 magnitude or greater maximum credible earthquake. The subject property is devoid of slopes and/or unstable soils. C: W4yFitesV( KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR13.0 Descnpfion.doc Paoe 3 -9 St. Andrew's PresbOenan Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 Table 4.1 -1 Estimated Growth for Statistical Area H3 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Land Use Residential (in DUs) Commercial (in sq. fL) Existing (111187) Gen. Plan Projection Projected Growth Existing (111187) Gen. Plan Projection Projected Growth Cliff Haven 519 555 36 0 0 0 Cliff Haven Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 St. Andrew's Church 0 0 0 100,428 100,428 0 Newport Harbor HS 0 0 0 840.493 879,912 39,419 Dover /Cliff 0 0 0 12,000 17,465 5,465 Dover /16 Street 0 0 0 73,648 83,155 9,507 Total 519 555 36 1,026,569 1,080,960 54,391 Population 1,028 1,099 71 SOURCE: Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element; October 24, 1988 (Amended through 9/95). Circulation Element None of the streets bordering the subject property are included in the City's Circulation Element on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Each of the streets surrounding the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property is a locallcollector street. In addition, 151h Street, from approximately St. James Place east of the subject site to Newport Boulevard is designated as a secondary bikeway, which is intended to connect to trails or bikeways and serve cyclists and children riding to and from school. Several policies were adopted by the City, with the intent of accomplishing the basic objective of construction of public transportation facilities, which, in conjunction with programs to reduce peak hour traffic, can accommodate vehicular traffic within the City of Newport Beach at acceptable levels of service. The policies constitute the basis for both further analysis and new solutions to ensuring that adequate transportation facilities exist with the City. Housing Element The Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan examines residential development within the City and establishes local policies and programs to facilitate the conservation, improvement, and development of housing for all economic segments of the community. The element presents policies and programs that are intended to guide the City in making decisions regarding housing. The Housing Element estimates that the City accommodates 46,932 dwelling units, including the 5,150 dwelling units in the recently annexed Newport Coast based on the General Plan and City's traffic model and the 2000 Orange County Progress Report. The Housing Element further estimates that the average household size in the City of Newport Beach would be 2.25 persons (by 2000) and the vacancy rate would decline to 10.0 percent (from approximately 11.5 percent at the time the Housing Element was prepared). The population of the City (including unincorporated areas in the sphere of influence) was estimated to be 89,488 at buildout (i.e., 2010), or approximately 2.9 percent of the population estimated for Orange County at that time. The City identified eight remaining major undeveloped sites suitable for residential development; however, none of those sites are located in the project area. Additional areas of the City have been identified as "residential infill;' including an area east of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church (the Castaways property) and two areas west of Superior Avenue (Caltrans West and Newport Ranch). C: 1MyFilesiKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRW. 7 Lana Use.doc Page 4, t -2 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendmenf and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Repod Section 4.1 The City of Newport Beach is divided into several services areas for the purposes of park planning and to equitably administer parldand dedications and fees provided by residential development. The proposed project is located in Service Area 3 (Newport Heights /Upper Bay). Service Area 3 is largely built out and contains several important park and recreational facilities, including those existing at schools within the area (e.g., Newport Harbor High School, Ensign Junior High School, and Mariners and Newport Heights Elementary Schools. Although the existing and projected parks acreages are deficient, the school recreation I facilities cited above compensate for these deficiencies. Harbor Element The City of Newport Beach adopted a Harbor and Bay Element on June 12, 2001. This optional element of the General Plan that focuses on the uses of the water and waterfront property within the area encompassing portions of Lower and Upper Newport Bay and Newport Harbor. The Harbor and Bay Element supplements provisions of the Land Use and the Recreation and Open Space Elements. The principal goal of the Harbor and Bay Element is to establish policies and programs that will preserve the diversity and charm of Newport Harbor and Bay without unduly restricting the rights of the waterfront property owner. Although the Element is intended to control the content of Harbor Regulations and Harbor Permit Policies related to development of, and the activities conducted on, that portion of the Harbor that is bayward of the bulkhead or the line of mean high tide, it is also considered in land use decisions related to properties adjacent to Newport Bay. However, the proposed project is not located within the limits of the City regulated by this element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Local Coastal Prolaram/Land Use Plan (LCP /LUP The Local Coastal Program consists of citywide policies and land use designations, detailed area descriptions for each of the areas located within the City's coastal zone boundary, and land use maps for the entire coastal zone. The LCP/LUP addresses shoreline access, recreation and visitor- serving facilities, water and marine resources, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, coastal visual resources, locating and planning new development and related land use and planning issues. No portion of the site or adjacent areas is located within the City's coastal zone; therefore, site development plans and programs and land use regulations prescribed in the LCPfLUP do not apply to the subject property. ' Newport Beach Zoning The larger southern portion of the subject property is zoned R -1 (Single Family Residential) and northern f portion of the site is zone R -2 (Duplex Residential). Residential district regulations are intended to accommodate residential development areas that are consistent with the General Plan. Public and semi- public land uses are also permitted in the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts; however, approval of an amendment to the existing use permit is required. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is currently operating under a use permit (Use Permit No. 822). Newport Harbor High School is zoned GEIF (Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities) consistent with the land use designation. The area east of St. Andrew's Church is zoned R -1, with the exception of the property extending along St. Andrew's Road between Clay Street and Cliff Drive, which is zoned R -2. The area south of 151° Street and west of St. Andrew's Road is zoned MFR (Multiple Family Residential); however, the parcel at the southwest corner of W' Street and St. Andrew's Road (occupied by the Masonic Temple) is zoned GEIF. 4.1.2 Significance Criteria Land use impacts are considered significant l the proposed project will conflict with the adopted plans and goals of the community as expressed in the Newport Beach General Plan. In addition, the following would be considered significant adverse impacts of the proposed project related to land use: C. WyFi1 esWKC- 0050.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTE1R14.1 Land Use.doc Page 4.7 -4 St. Andrew's Presbytenan Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 Similar to the emissions resulting demolition activities, the data presented in Table 4.3-3 indicate that NO, emissions associated with the excavation are also projected to be greater than the significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. As indicated above, the primary source of NO, emissions is from the haul trucks, with construction equipment also contributing substantially to the total NO, emissions. Mitigation measures are prescribed in Section 4.3.5. 4.3.4.2 Long Term Air Quality Impacts Local Air Quality The traffic study prepared for the project (refer to Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR) shows that for the intersections with more than 1 percent of peak hour traffic through that intersection resulting from project Implementation are projected to operate at levels of service (LOS) of B or better under future with project conditions. Air quality at intersections is only a concern at those intersections operating at LOS D or worse (i.e., LOS E or F). That is, only intersections with an LOS of D or worse are considered to have the potential to cause localized exceedances of the ambient air quality concentration standards. To result in a significant impact the project would have to substantially increase pollutant concentrations at an intersection where the concentrations exceed the ambient air quality standard. The intersections serving traffic from the project are projected to continue to operate at conditions much better than LOS O. As a result, those intersections would not be expected to experience air pollutant concentrations in excess of the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant local air quality impact. Regional Air Quality The primary source of regional emissions generated by the proposed project will be from motor vehicles. Other emissions will be generated from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and the generation of electricity. Emissions will also be generated by the use of natural gas and oil for the generation of electricity off -site. The data used to estimate the on -site combustion of natural gas, and off -site electrical usage are based on the proposed land uses in terms of dwelling units and square footages, and emission factors taken from the 1993 CEQA Handbook. The traffic study prepared for the project indicates that the project will generate 328 additional daily trips to and from the project during operation. The average trip length for the proposed project is assumed to be 9.0 miles. This is a composite trip length derived from data contained in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Page 9 -24). The product of the project daily trips and trip length, translate to total of 2,582 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the proposed project. An average speed of 25 miles perhour was assumed. Additional pollutant emissions associated with the project will be generated on -site by the combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating and off -site due to electrical usage. The project will add approximately 35,948 square feet of floor space to the church. The square footages and emission factors utilized in calculating the emissions with these sources are provided in the appendix. The emissions are projected for 2005. The total project emissions are presented in Table 4.3 -4. C:1MyFiles{KKC -0060. STANDRE WS.Na1ORAPTEIR14.3 Air Quality.doc Page 4.3 -8 ,l St Andrew's Presbyterian Church Genera( Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 The noise ordinance is designed to control unnecessary. excessive and annoying sounds from sources such as parking lots, loading docks, and mechanical equipment at the residential property line. However. the noise ordinance requirements cannot be applied to mobile noise sources such as heavy trucks when traveling on public roadways. Although federal and State laws preempt control of the mobile noise sources on public roads. the requirements can be applied to vehicles traveling on public property. The City of Newport Beach exterior and interior noise criteria are expressed in terms of 15- minute Leq and Lmax noise levels. The noise.levels specified are those that are not to be exceeded at a property from noise generated at a neighbor property. Noise levels are to be measured with A- weighting and a slow time response. Greater noise levels are permitted during the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) as compared to the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Newport Beach Noise Element Outdoor and indoor noise limits for various land uses impacted by transportation noise sources are identified and prescribed in the Newport Beach Noise Element. The noise limits specified in the City's Noise Element are expressed in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The standard states that for residential land use. the exterior noise exposure level shall not exceed 65 CNEL and the interior noise exposure level shall not exceed 45 CNEL. Exhibit 4.4 -1 reflects the interior and exterior noise standards prescribed by the Noise Element for all land uses. Ambient Noise Levels Ambient noise measurements were performed to document the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. Noise measurements were made at three locations around the project she. Exhibit 4.4-2 shows the location of the measurement sites. The noise measurements were conducted between 10:D0 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on January 22, 2004. (Refer to Appendix E for a description of the instrumentation and related specifications and parameters of the noise measurements.) The measurement results are presented in terms of the equivalent noise levels (Leq). maximum noise levels. minimum noise levels and percentile noise levels (L %). The L50 percentile level for example. represents the noise levels exceeded 50 percent of the time. and usually represent the average ambient noise level. The L90 noise levels represent the background noise levels that are exceeded 90 percent of the lime. The L10 noise levels represent the typical maximum noise level of noise events. Table 4.4-2 Ambient Noise Levels St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Site Time Leq Lmax L10 LSD L90 Lmin 1 10:07 a.m. 59 74 62 57 52 49 2 10:29 a.m. 56 67 60 52 49 47 SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates. Inc. (January 29, 2004) C: WyFiteSWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFI-EIRM.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -2 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 4.4.4.1 Short-Tenn Noise Impacts Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Demolition for the project is expected to occur over a two -week period. Grading including excavation of the subterranean parking structure is expected to occur over a six -week period. Construction of the parking structure and buildings is then expected to occur over a 40 -week period. Construction equipment noise comes under the control of the Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program (Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations). Examples of construction noise at 50 feet are presented in Exhibit 4.4 -3. Note that at twice the distance (i.e. 100 feet) the noise levels will be 6 dB lower than those shown in Exhibit 4.4 -3. At 200 feet from the source (i.e., four times the distance) the noise levels will be 12 dB lower and at 500 feet the noise levels are 20 dB lower than shown on Exhibit 4.4 73. Noise measurements for other projects indicate that the noise levels resulting from commonly used grading equipment (i.e. loaders, graders and trucks) typically do not exceed the middle of the range shown in Exhibit 4.4 -3. The nearest homes to the construction are located across Clay Street and St. Andrews Road. Construction activities will occur as close as 45 feet to the property lines of these homes. At this distance construction noise levels are only about 1 dB louder than those shown in Exhibit 4.4 -3. This maximum noise level will only occur as a piece of heavy equipment operates adjacent to a residence. Much of the time equipment will operate at a distance of 150 feet or more away from any one home. At this distance heavy construction equipment noise levels are 9 dB lower than shown in Exhibit 4.4-3. Peak noise levels from construction equipment could reach as high as 96 dBA at the homes across Clay Street and St. Andrews Road. Average noise levels during periods of high construction activities are estimated to be in the range of 60 to 70 dBA. The noise levels generated by on -site construction activities will exceed the current Noise Ordinance standards. Section 10.26.035.D of the Newport Beach Municipal Code exempts construction equipment from the provisions of the Noise Ordinance and requires them to comply with Section 10.28 of the Code. Section 10.28.040 of the Code restricts hours of noise - generating construction to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. Because the proposed project will be required to comply with Section 10.28.040 of the City's Noise Ordinance. the short-term noise impacts are considered to be less than significant. Demolition debris and dirt excavated for the subterranean parking garage will be trucked off site to remote locations. These trucks will generate noise along public roadways and at the protect site. The trucks are expected to travel on Irvine Avenue. and 15'" Street, entering the site from 15t Street near Clay Road (refer to Exhibit 4.2 -4). The trucks will then exit the site onto St. Andrews Road, near Clay Street, and travel to 15"' Street, turning left onto 15"' Street. Trucks will proceed to Irvine Avenue and then turn right on Irvine Avenue. Based on the construction phasing plan, soils excavated from the site will be transported from the property at a rate of 100 trucks per day, resulting in the addition of 200 daily truck trips to 15"' Street, Irvine Avenue, and St. Andrews Road. Table 4.4-4 shows the affect on traffic noise levels along these roadways. The CNEL noise level at 100 feet from the roadway centerline, based on existing average daily traffic volumes, is presented along with the noise level resulting from this traffic and the addition of 200 daily heavy truck trips on the roadways. The increase in CNEL noise level due to the addition of the trucks is presented in the last column of the table. (Data is not presented for St. Andrews Road since the traffic study prepared for the project did not report traffic volumes for St, Andrews Road. Presumably, traffic volumes and noise levels along St. Andrews Road are lower than those along 15'" Street.) C: M4yRiesIKKC •0060.STANDREWS.NB1DRAfTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -8 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 Table 4.4-4 Traffic Noise Increases Due to Trucks SL Andrew's Presbyterian Church Table 4.4-4 reveals that the greatest noise level increases will be experienced along 151h Street. However, these increases at that location are less than the 3 dB "substantial" increase required for a significant impact to occur. Further, noise levels will not exceed the City's 65 CNEL standard at homes along 1511 Street as shown in Table 4.4 -5, which reflects the distances to CNEL contours with the construction truck traffic on 15"' Street and Irvine Avenue. Table 4.4 -5 shows that the traffic noise level along the right -of -way of 15'1 Street will be less than 65 CNEL. The haul trucks associated with demolition and excavation of the project will not result in a significant noise impact. Table 4.4-5 Distance to Traffic Noise CNEL Contours with Construction Trucks St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church CNEL @ 100' Increase in Roadway Segment CNEL (dBA) Existing W/Project Trucks 1 Street East of Irvine Avenue RW East of Irvine Avenue 54.3 56.8 2.5 Irvine Avenue North of 191h Street 38 North of 19"' Street 63.2 63.7 0.5 South of 19' Street 62.5 63.1 0.6 North of Westcliff Drive 62.7 632 0.6 South of Westcilff Drive 62.4 63.0 0.6 North of 151° Street 58.4 59.8 1.4 'From centerline of roadway. SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 29, 2004) Table 4.4-4 reveals that the greatest noise level increases will be experienced along 151h Street. However, these increases at that location are less than the 3 dB "substantial" increase required for a significant impact to occur. Further, noise levels will not exceed the City's 65 CNEL standard at homes along 1511 Street as shown in Table 4.4 -5, which reflects the distances to CNEL contours with the construction truck traffic on 15"' Street and Irvine Avenue. Table 4.4 -5 shows that the traffic noise level along the right -of -way of 15'1 Street will be less than 65 CNEL. The haul trucks associated with demolition and excavation of the project will not result in a significant noise impact. Table 4.4-5 Distance to Traffic Noise CNEL Contours with Construction Trucks St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church C. 1MyFiles\ KKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBOP,AFTEIRW.4 Noise.doc Page 4.440 Distance to CNEL Contour from Centertine of Roadway (feet) Roadway Segment 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 95 --CNEL 15 Street East of Irvine Avenue RW RW 61 Irvine Avenue North of 191h Street 38 82 177 South of 19"' Street 35 74 160 North of Westcliff Drive 35 76 164 South of Westcliff Drive RW 73 158 North of 15'h Street RW 45 97 RW — Contour does not extend beyond roadway right -of -way. SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 29, 2004) C. 1MyFiles\ KKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBOP,AFTEIRW.4 Noise.doc Page 4.440 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 4.4.42 Long -Term Operational Noise Impacts Off -Site Impacts Vehicular Noise Table 4.4 -6 reflects the incremental noise level increases due to project- generated traffic on roadways in the vicinity of the project. The first column presents the roadway segments analyzed. The second column shows the increases in traffic noise CNEL levels over existing conditions due to all projected growth in the area. This includes general traffic volume growth, as well as additional traffic from currently approved projects as well as other anticipated projects. The final column shows the contribution of noise resulting from the proposed project to this increase (.e., how much louder future noise levels will be with approval of the proposed project). Table 4.4 -6 Traffic Noise CNEL Level Increases St Andrew's Presbyterian Church C: 1A4yFil esv( KC .0060.STANDREWS.Na1DRAFTE1R14.4 NOISe.dOC Page 4 4 -11 Noise Level Increase (in dB) Roadway Segment Over Existing Project Contribution Pacific Coast Highway West of Riverside Avenue 1.6 0.0 East of Riverside Avenue 1.7 0.0 West of Tustin Avenue 1.7 0.0 East of Tustin Avenue 1.7 0.0 West of Dover Drive 1.7 0.0 East of Dover Drive 1.5 0.0 Cliff Drive West of Dover Drive 0.2 02 1 Street West of Irvine Avenue 0.2 0.0 East of Irvine Avenue 0.2 0.1 16 Street West of Dover Drive 0.2 0.0 East of Dover Drive 0.2 0.0 Westcliff Drive West of Irvine Avenue 0.9 0.0 East of Irvine Avenue 1.2 0.0 West of Dover Drive 1.1 0.0 1911' Street West of Irvine Avenue 0.2 0.0 East of Irvine Avenue 03 0.0 Riverside Avenue North of Pacific Coast Highway 02 0.0 South of Pacific Coast Highway 02 0.0 Tustin Avenue North of Pacific Coast Highway 0.2 0.0 Irvine Avenue North of 19'h Street 02 0.0 South of 19 " Street 02 0.0 North of Westclift Drive 0.2 0.0 South of Westcliff Drive 02 0.0 North of 15" Street 02. 0.0 South of 15'h Street 02 0.0 C: 1A4yFil esv( KC .0060.STANDREWS.Na1DRAFTE1R14.4 NOISe.dOC Page 4 4 -11 ISt Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmentai Impact Report Section 4.4 Long -Tenn Operational Noise Impacts Traffic Noise The project is not projected to result in any significant long -term off -site traffic noise impacts. No mitigation is required. On Site Activities Impact 4.4-1 There is some potential that the mechanical systems proposed for the project, if not property designed, could exceed the City's Noise Ordinance limits. MM 4.4 -1 A noise study shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. This noise study shall estimate noise levels generated by the proposed mechanical equipment at the worst -case residence. Compliance with the Noise Ordinance limits will be demonstrated, including the provision of any measures determined necessary to meet the limits specified. The mechanical equipment shall not generate an A- weighted average (Leq) noise level of greater than 55 dBA during the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). If the nighttime noise limit cannot be achieved a timer can be used to limit the operation of the system to the daytime hours. The study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and submitted to the City of Newport Beach prior to the issuance of building permits. This will ensure that the mechanical equipment constructed with the project does not result in a significant noise impact. Long Term On -Site Impacts Adequate ventilation shall be provided for the proposed building pursuant to Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the UBC so that windows can remain dosed to meet the City's interior noise standard. (It is important to note that windows do not need to be sealed shut; however, they must remain closeable at the occupants' discretion.) This ventilation requirement should be satisfied by the proposed HVAC system. The project site is not significantly impacted by noise and no mitigation measures are required. 4.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Project - related noise impacts are anticipated to be less than significant, with the possible exception of noise associated with HVAC and related mechanical equipment employed on -site. However. implementation of the mitigation measure prescribed in Section 4.4.5 will adequately address the potential mechanical equipment noise impacts, which will be reduced to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. C:% MyFJesV( KC- 0060.STANDREWS.Na1DRAFTEIM4.4 Noise.0oc Page 4.447 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0 on Sunday when parking demands of the church are the greatest. As a result, no long -term cumulative impacts are anticipated. 9.3.7 Biological Resources With the exception of the Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center located east of Newport Harbor High School, the subject property and surrounding area are devoid of any natural vegetation. Redevelopment of the subject property as proposed will not result in impacts to any direct significant sensitive plants or animals. Further, with the exception of the Newport Harbor High School modernization improvements, none of the related projects identified in Section 9.2 are located in the vicinity of the Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center. Dust and particulate matter generation associated with the renovation improvements that occur concurrently with the project - related construction activities would be minimized through the implementation of the requisite SCAQMD conditions to reduce the emissions. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to the biological resources at the Environmental Nature Center will occur as a result of project implementation and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. 9.3.3 Mineral Resources As indicated above, the site and surrounding areas have been developed. No mineral resources are known to exist on the subject property that would be adversely impacted by developed of the site as proposed. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to mineral resources will occur. 9.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The subject property has not been used for any activities that have resulted contamination or otherwise created a "hazardous" condition. The site has been altered and currently supports urban development, which does not involve the use of hazardous materials in the daily operations of the church. Demolition of two existing structures is proposed that could yield some asbestos containing materials or lead -based paint. However, demolition will require that appropriate measures are implemented that comply with AQMD and other regulatory requirements to ensure that no significant emissions of potentially hazardous materials occurs. Similarly, other projects, including the modernization improvements proposed for Newport Harbor High School. would also be required to comply with these same requirements so that no significant emissions occur. Therefore. no significant cumulative impacts would occur when compared to other projects that have been approved or proposed in the City of Newport Beach. 9.3.10 Noise Similar to air quality, implementation of the proposed project will result short-term (i.e.. construction- related) increases in noise levels along 15°i Street, resulting from heavy truck traffic; however. the project - related increases are not significant and the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour will remain within the street right -of -way. While it is possible that some of the noise generated during the construction stage will be a nuisance to surrounding residents, the construction noise is exempted by the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. Long- term vehicular noise associated with the increase in development will not be significant, even when compared to the increase in noise resulting from the cumulative projects identified in Section 9.2. The slight increase in mobile- source noise levels attributed to the proposed project, (i.e., 0.2 dBA) is not audible and, therefore. not cumulatively significant. The mechanical equipment (e.g.. HVAC, etc.) will be required to comply with current City requirements. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. 9.3.11 Public Services The project site is located in an area of the City of Newport Beach that is adequately served by public services and facilities. including police and fire protection. The increase in the intensity of use of the subject property will not significantly affect the existing level of service of either police of fire protection. As indicated in Section 4.6, the potential (less than significant) impacts associated with the proposed underground parking garage will not alter the ability of the Newport Beach Police Department from providing an adequate level of service to the site even with when compared to the approved and proposed development other areas of the C: MyFilesWXC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR19.0 Cumulative.doc Page 9 -6 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and US& Permd Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 the existing conditions without any additional expansion of the facilities as proposed or the "status quo." This alternative would be limited to the 104,428 square feet of development and the 250 -space surface parking lot. However, the City could cause more parking to be provided pursuant to the existing Use Permit, should it determine that additional parking is necessary. It is important to note that although no physical expansion of the facilities would occur under this scenario, with the possible exception of providing increased parking on -site, it is possible that new programs and activities may also be conducted by the church to accommodate the church's various ministries since there is presently no limitation on religious activities or hours of operation. 10.4.1.1 Land Use and Planning Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in the continuation of the existing use of the site. Without intensification of the site, neither a General Plan Amendment nor a Use Permit Amendment would be required; however, the benefit of increased on -site parking to accommodate use of existing church facilities would also not occur, unless the City determined that additional parking were required under the auspices of the church's existing use permit. At the present time, a modest to significant amount of overflow parking, extends into the adjacent residential neighborhoods and causes some degree of nuisance; however, during the week (i.e., Monday through Friday), on -street parking in the residential areas is mostly attributed to high school students and not the church, which does not have a high demand for parking during that timme. Some of the neighborhood parking impacts on Saturday and Sunday evenings are associated with regularly held church services. Without implementation of the proposed project, it is likely that these neighborhood parking impacts will continue, unless additional parking is provided at Newport Harbor High School, which might be characterized as an unlikely event due to the budgetary constraints of the Newport Mesa Unified School District. With the exception of potential increase activities that make take place to accommodate the church's various ministries (e.g., youth and fellowship programs, adult classes, etc.), this alternative would not significantly change the characteristics of the neighborhood, unless the City required additional parking. 10.4.1.2 Traffic and Parking None of the short-term construction- related impacts associated with the proposed project (e.g., construction traffic, loss of on -site parking during construction, etc.) would occur if the proposed improvements were not implemented. Intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better and no additional project - related traffic would be added to either the existing or future traffic levels. As indicated above, no additional parking would be provided, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church would continue to operate under the existing Use Permit No, 822 (as amended in 1985). Under that permit, the City has allowed the use of off -site parking, including the historic use of Newport Harbor High School's 1 e Street parking lot, to supplement that provided on -site. As indicated above, without any additional improvements, the church could expand their programs and activities. If so, it is possible that some increases in traffic and the demand for parking could occur, however, with the exception of the Saturday evening and Sunday morning services, most of the activities would occur during the week in the evenings and would not significantly affect the existing or future traffic and parking conditions. In the event the number of church services was increased, particularly on Sunday morning, the demands for parking would also be increased by extending the time of parking impacts. The church is required to monitor worship service attendance to comply with the approved use permit. If attendance exceeds the thresholds specified in the use permit, the church is required to implement appropriate operational changes to lessen parking demand. Therefore, no significant traffic or parking impacts are anticipated as a result of the No Project/No Development alternative. 10.4.1.3 Air Quality With the elimination of any physical improvements, no construction- related air quality impacts would occur. Specifically, the significant short-term air quality impacts resulting from the excavation required for the construction of the parking structure and the demolition of the existing buildings would be eliminated. No heavy truck traffic would be generated to haul the excavated soils to an off -site location would be required and the significant NOx emissions would be eliminated. The only potential air quality impacts that would be anticipated from this alternative would be the incremental increase in both stationary and mobile source C: 1MyFi/ esV( KC• OO60.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRt10.0 Attemafives.doc Page 10 -4 St. Andrew's Preshyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 10.4.2.7 Other Environmental Parameters As indicated previously, the subject property is developed with a sanctuary and ancillary/supporling structures and facilities (i.e., classrooms, fellowship hall, chapel, surface parking, etc.). No new construction would occur that would increase any demands for public service or utilities, which are all currently adequate to serve the existing development. No impacts to soils, mineral resources, biological resources, Ability to Achieve Project Objectives Renovation of the existing facilities as permitted in this alternative would achieve several of the project objectives (e.g., update and modernize interior spaces, enhance landscape character, continue to provide a meeting place at the church for church - sponsored programs, etc.), two of the objectives would not be achieved. Specifically, without the expansion, a new Youth and Family Center, including the proposed gymnasium, would not be available to facilitate the programs identified by the church and additional parking would not be provided. Elimination/Reduction of Significant Impacts This project, similar to the No Project/No Development alternative, would eliminate most of the potential impacts identified in Chapter 4.0. Construction noise and air quality impacts would be significantly reduced because no grading, excavation, demolition or building construction would occur. Noise and air emissions would occur only as a result of the remodeling and/or renovation activities, which would be significantly less than that anticipated as a result of project implementation. Further, potential increases in traffic would be related only to the any expansion of programs that may be offered by the church (which could occur without any remodeling or renovation) and would not be related to an increase in the floor area_ Therefore, mobile -source noise and air emissions would also be related to any increase in the number and frequency of programs and activities offered by the church, which the church could implement if it chooses to do so without any review or approval by the City. Land use impacts are also related to the activities and programs offered by the church; however, this alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment and would be entirely consistent with the City's Land Use Element and adopted long -range plans. Without any changes, except for renovation and remodeling (mostly in interior spaces), no changes in the visual character would occur, except as provided by any enhanced landscaping. Finally, without the construction of the subterranean parking garage, none of the potential unauthorized activities previously discussed would occur. Feasibility Similar to the No Project/No Development alternative this alternative can be feasibly implemented with a significantly reduced commitment of resources. However, while many of the applicant's objectives can be achieved, if a Youth and Family Center were to be created in this alternative, it would not include the gymnasium, an integral element of the programmatic elements proposed by the church. 10.4.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative (Proposed Project without Gymnasium) Because the site is currently developed with St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and ancillary facilities, this alternative addresses only the proposed Youth and Family Center, which does not currently exist on the subject property. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would encompass all of the improvements proposed by the applicant, including the Youth and Family Center and underground parking garage, with the specific exception of the gymnasium, which is proposed to be located within and be part of the Youth and Family Center. Implementation of this alternative would likely include the demolition and replacement of the existing fellowship hall (Building D) and classroom building (Building E). The total floor area resulting from the elimination of the gymnasium would be reduced to 133,493 square feet from 140,388 square feet. Although the floor area ratio would be reduced by approximately five percent, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would still require the approval of the same discretionary actions proposed by the C.,NyFileslKKC- 0060.57 ANDREWS .NBIDRAFTEIRt1D.0Aaematives.doc Page 10A J Prep Sheet � ■ ( III 6 a. FOWw Panm aea "aaT Single Page Does s Suffix Increment Pape Rota Rotate Ri ht 1% Spt Sbp t% 2x U 1% M S1aM1 Smp M tial slab b Trip01 b 7" 02 Y "Tapw h 7" 09 bpp Tap05 ,-, Tap w M TV 07 w Tap06 —, Tag 09 a 7w m lave Tay It bane Tap 12 have Tap 13 nw Tap 1/ have Tag 15 ■ I SIM 60 haW Tag 16 vp Tap 1T baps Tip t6 Ism Tip W Ism Tap w sx Tap 21 I Tag= haw Tap 23 ka Tap 21 Opp Tog 25 app Tap 26 blue Tap 27 haw Tag 26 sp Tap 20 bane Tap X I stm Sb* 1 2 p a 5 6 T 6 loose Staph PVw Cto Ru r Dom Bb C 1 Ctp MYe. VND Bauraf sprat 8e A= Bar e.aa W0 UP Nanprp Fopm Level Codes Misc. Instructions 6 0O I Page] of 2 Robert Coldren From: Robert Coldren Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:28 PM To: Robert Coldren From: Robert Coldren [mailto:rcoldren @hkclaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 4:29 PM To: jampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: rdauson @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: St. Andrews Dear Mr: Campbell: Thank you for giving me access to the files on the St. Andrews matter last week. Some of the materials I had tabbed to have copied do not appear to be in my set. For example, there was a petition from, I believe, 2002 or 2003, signed by many St. Andrews parishioners, containing their address, which had been forwarded to the City in support of the proposed project. Do you know anything about the petition? Can I send someone down to pick up a copy or make a copy of it? Do you have any idea how my copy service failed to copy it? One of the reasons it was important to me was that simply in reviewing the first four or five pages, it was evident that a number of the signatures (it seemed to me well over half) were from Irvine, Santa Ana or Huntington Beach, as opposed to Newport or Costa Mesa. I wanted to have the petition so I could make a definitive count, as the church keeps talking in its needs assessments about the needs of the community, and how much the neighborhood "needs" another gymnasium. Also, I know that you indicated there were a number of materials that had been withheld on the basis of privilege, and that there were files pertaining to the project located in other offices of the City. Can you help me understand the nature of what was withheld on the basis of privilege, and where else I should go to look for the balance of materials? Finally, I am concerned about the quality of notice that the neighborhood has received for various past meetings, as well as a procedural issues pertaining to the upcoming City Council meetings on August 9th and 11th. With regard to notices respecting past meetings concerning St. Andrews, it appears that outdated mailing lists from FATCO were utilized. Can you tell me what list you used to mail the notice respecting the last two Planning Commission hearings addressing the St. Andrews project, and respecting the last Council meeting at which the St. Andrews expansion was discussed? My concern with the August 9th and 11th meetings are somewhat technical. The notice indicates that the St. Andrews expansion project will be considered at an "adjourned regular meeting" on August 11, 2005. Undoubtedly, this is because general plan amendments and zone changes cannot be considered at special meetings. However, there is, as of this point, no "adjourned regular Council hearing" scheduled, and therefore, the notice is completely, and intentionally, inaccurate. Residents who desire to do so should be able to come to the regular hearing on August 9th and voice their opinions, not only with respect to the merits of the project, but also with respect to the issue of consideration by the Council of adjournment of the meeting. Has the City Council already voted to adjourn the meeting? Has some "pole" been taken of the City Council indicating their agreement to adjourn the regular meeting on August 9th to August 11th? What if a more appropriate date now to adjourn the meeting to would be sometime in September or October? What if someone wishes to speak on August 9th? By copy of this e-mail to Robin Clauson, I am inviting her comments and response. Very truly yours, Robert S. Coldren Campbell, James From: david young Idavid .rowanyoung@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Sunday. August 17, 200312:25 PM To: jcampbell ®city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: St. Andrews expansion Dear Mr. Campbell: It is my understanding that St. Andrews is seeking city approval to expand their facilities. Because I am unable to attend the scheduled council meeting on Aug. 20th I wanted nevertheless to voice my opposition to St. Andrews' proposal. As a resident in the immediate neighborhood I am familiar with the original plans and conditional use permit that allowed a neighborhood church to expand into the current institutional facility and the promises that the ne hbothood uld not be further burdened by any futtuc e. ansion. Despite su�c t assurances an a unanimous neighbor ood opposition to the purpose expansion ndrews pushes ahead. I am unconditionally and unambiguously opposed to any expansion of the St Andrews' facility. Their current facility• and ,more so, their proposed expansion are wholly incongruous with the adjoining residential neighborhood. Such an cxpansion will negatively impact and diminish the character of the Cliffhaven community in every conceivable manner and the city should not consider amending the general plan or altering the conditional use pemut to facilitate such ill advised development schemes. Please register my opposition with any relevant regularory bodies. Thank vou, Dave Young 604 St. James Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 949 645 7272 i/ March 6, 2003 Mayor Bromberg and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: Clerk to copy each of the council .3 MAP 17 A 9 :11 The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church comes as a surprise to many of it's neighbors and, as a former servant of the City, me too. My recollection of the public record and approval, back in the eariy'80's, was that after the tooth pulling of this often embattled CUP, and the eventual settlement that the church could expand then, was th t appmyaLwould be the final straw of development. This is a wonderful church with great programs for al e i p o atten as th members and visitors. But, to allow it to expand to a regional level, in a neighborhood, does not make planning, political, civic or economic sense. The impacts of traffic and building mass alone, on the Cliffhaven and Newport Heights neighborhoods didn't work then, often breaks down now and does not work for this expansion. The proposal makes the development an aggressive expansion without thought to the neighborhoods and those citizens the church has served. We strongly urge the City to move away from this already tired battle and to have St Andrews make better what they have- not bigger. it would seem that an inevitable and expensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would show the before mentioned issues of traffic and building mass irreparable impacts, not to be mitigated. This results in there being no way for the City to show that they have demonstrated to the public that the environment is being protected. And, as you all know this is a mandate from the State Public Resources requirements. Please hear the citizens on this issue. f 710 "ate Yours truly, Evelyn H /art ceoieS Sent To: 'O'Payor `i i:ar�nril Member U t�prney � ,1 1806 Dover Drive Newport Beach, CA August 4, 2005 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -1768 Honorable Mayor John Heffernan: '05 AU1 -9 : 9 :08 We are residents of Newport Beach and have been members of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church for 29 years. We wish to express our views to you regarding the church's construction project We have used the church's parking lot or the Newport Harbor High lot when we attend church on Saturday or Sunday. We are fully aware of the need for additional parking, especially on Sunday morning. Since N -MUSD would not allow a parking facility on their property, we need to extend the onsite parking underground. We support the construction of a gymnasium for the young people in our area. We are public school teachers and we raised our son here. Hence, we are very aware of the need for children to have a safe place to go after school hours and during the summer. Because of its proximity to the intermediate and high schools, the new gymnasium will attract many more young people than the present campus. The vast majority of the young people will be walking, not driving, from Newport Harbor High or from Ensign. There will be less noise because the gymnasium will be underground. Today, many programs are conducted in the second story rooms where the sounds do carry somewhat. We do not understand why the residents have the opinion that only Dr. Huffman and the Building Committee are behind the project. Almost all St. Andrew's members support the gymnasium and additional parking. When the residents in the Cliff Haven area purchased their homes, the church was already there. St Andrew's has tried to work with them, and has scaled back its program by 40%. It seems that the Cliff Haven residents have created a lot of their own construction noise by building mansions in their neighborhood. Many have eliminated their yards where their children would normally play. It seems to us that there is a lot of misinformation being circulated by a few of the Cliff Haven residents and we feel they have caused the hostile feelings being expressed in the community towards the St. Andrew's project. Thank you for your consideration. S ty, incer k d k Lance and Nancy Gil: August 4, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -1768 Re: Let St. Andrew's Join in the Neighborhood Expansion Dear Mayor and Council Members: :12 Since the early 1970's, my wife Nancy and I have lived at 411 Kings Road, about four-to-five blocks from St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, where we are members. Two of our sons graduated from Harbor, where they were active in sports. We attended a lot of ball games and track meets. Nancy taught school at Harbor and then at Corona del Mar. We consider ourselves part of the local community. I read the entire Environmental Impact Report on the St. Andrew's building plan, set my coffee cup down, and thought this is a win -win situation for both the neighborhood and the Church. The diminished building plans will give our children a place to play inside and not in the parking lot, thus, reducing the neighborhood noise. A gymnasium is a healthy environment for kids and keeps them off the streets. Also, a new landscaped wall will cut down on the parking Iot noise. As for the parking lot, an additional 150 new spaces will be added, which will mean less parking on the streets, and thus fewer cars parked in front of homes. I don't believe the revised plans will materially affect the attendance, and thus the traffic at St. Andrew's. Some years ago our membership was around 4,500, and today it's probably in the area of 4,000. Our Saturday night service and our two Sunday services are not full. We are merely trying to make things better for our members and for the community. The neighborhood in the vicinity of our church is not just a cozy little housing community. The Church is'across 15th street from Newport Harbor High School, which in the process of extensive remodeling. Across St_ Andrews Road on the comer of 15th is the Mason building and parking lot. A block further down 15th on the NW comer is a dental office. A block SW is Ensign Junior High School. There is some neighborhood objection to St. Andrew's expansion. But, if you drive around on the streets in the neighborhood, you will see huge new homes everywhere. I believe it is called "Mansionization." Several of the new homes have even purchased two lots. On the Coast Highway below our property, a developer plans to tear down everything from Dover west to McDonalds and put in new buildings. I have endeavored to cooperate with the developer. By the way, there will be an underground parking structure involved. If everyone else is entitled to expand, why can't St. Andrew's? Sincerely, Jack Geerlings Copy: Daily Pilot N J GEERLINGS 411 MNGS ND NEWPORT BEACH. CA 926615101 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Boulevard . Newport Beach, CA 92658 -1768 August 5, 2005 L3 �t '05 AUG -9 A 9 :15 0; - r T C ;T Y C- _.9Pi;RT EEACi. Honorable Mayor John Heffernan, This letter is a vote of affirmation for the St. Andrew's-Proposal for a'Youth and Family Center. St. Andrew's has been a leader in the community for fifty years, offering Christian programs and worship. They have 'a strong reputation of providing quality leadership and valued programs for our community: Times have changed, and nationwide,. churches and. synagogues are focusing on the important needs of our,youth and young.families. Youth are exposed,-and have access to vices and ills that were virtually unheard of a generation or so ago. More than .ever it is evident that our youth need leadership, and families are seeking guidance in the ever challenging role of parenting. The program proposals of St. Andrew's.are directly a focus on the needs of the community. Giving youth .a place: to go, in walking distance from both the middle school and the high school, Will provide positive activities rather than idle unsupervised time after school anal .early evening hours. The future of our community is in the hands of our;children. But it is.up to us, their parents, to—provide such places that will-prepare them for their future. We have a responsibility to support community programs that .support that. endeavor. St. Andrew's has always been a leader in the past; do not stop it from_ continuing their .commitment to our community. Sincerely, C_Pce� Elaine Karman (,)I q) sy9 -3Y,72 PS As a kindergarten teacher, I am daily. aware of the needs of our children and their parents. I try my best to offer what 1 can to model and teach, but our community needs to have facilities and leaders as well. ti August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: The St. Andrew's Church expansion is a neighborhood issue. The only people in Newport Beach that are directly impacted by the Church's construction, traffic and parking are the Cliff Haven and Newport Heights neighborhoods, As with many issues in the City, it's not unusual for just the locals to voice their opposition. Please help to maintain the quality of life in our neighborhoods! Please vote "NO "" J Thank you, C� ; A IL August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council, If you think that the St. Andrew's Expansion will not add to the traffic and parking problems in the Newport Heights and Cliff Haven neighborhoods, you must vote "NO ". Since you can't guarantee "it won't ", the project should not go forward. If the campus is enlarged and the parking and traffic problems do get worse, what is the recourse for the neighborhoods? Will the Church "unexpand " ?? Please vote "NO'!! Thank you, August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Newport Beach City Council, Due to the fact that the St. Andrew's Church needs a General Plan Amendment to expand their campus is a good indication that this expansion of the Church is too large for the neighborhood. Please vote NOH Thank you, August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: The St. Andrew's Church is big enough!! Please deny the St. Andrew's Church expansion plan on August lit'! Please vote "NO'!! Tha you, Q.0 Coco 4�191 IA ok 1� 41 V' e N 1t August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 330o Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council, I believe that the reason that the St. Andrew's Church expansion is perceived to be a "neighborhood" issue is because it IS a neighborhood issue. The Cliff Haven and Newport Heights neighborhoods fought the first expansion on our own in the 198o's and lost, forever changing the character of a peaceful residential neighborhood. Now we are doing the same thing again. The first expansion of the Church to its present size far exceeded the capacity of the streets and parking available, and the latest request will only make the situation worse. Back in the i98o's the Church representatives gave their word that this would be the last expansion. Let's help them keep that promise! Thank you, Please vote "NO'!! t a�60 - (I-V cw (94q) 60 _a7A August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Newport Beach City Council, Please vote "NO" for the St. Andrew's Church expansion. The extensive damage and disturbance of the building demolition, and the grading and hauling of dirt for the underground parking garage which may take over two years to complete will cause significant traffic, pollution and possibly damage to the local streets. Can you imagine living with huge truck after truck, day after day hauling dirt through your neighborhood ? ?? The dirt and noise for everyday the grading and hauling takes place will fill the air of our peaceful neighborhood. The trucks will compete with local daily traffic and children walking or riding their bikes to school or play. Where will all the construction personnel park their vehicles? Where will all the parishioners park for their daily functions and Sunday services? Please vote "NO "" I Thank you, �►`�`1��u Zit 1 3� e�4,� <9r- - / August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council, Please vote "NO" on the St. Andrew's Church expansion. I believe it will cause irreparable damage to the quality of -life in the Cliff Haven and Newport Heights neighborhoods. The Church has out grown their lot and the neighborhood. It serves as a "countywide" church and is no longer a community church. Maybe it is time to move the campus to a larger lot. Please vote "NO'!! Thank you, L A�1� I I ----Ml August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Newport Beach City Council, Due to the fact that the St. Andrew's Church needs a General Plan Amendment to expand their campus is a good indication that this expansion of the Church is too large for the neighborhood. Please vote NO!! Thank you, CO/K 9"63/ /oSf August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Newport Beach City Council, I don't believe that the St. Andrew's Church expansion is appropriate for the Cliff Haven and Newport Heights neighborhoods. Enough is enough — the facility is already too large! Please vote "NO "I io rz 'LtE t\ V� Thank you, C L t,rf /44vEnd ge15 to q6- --,zr 5 August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Newport Beach City Council, The St. Andrew's Church expansion will set a precedent for density in every neighborhood in the City of Newport Beach. No residential neighborhood should have a church this size with all the services, meetings and other events that continue for 7 days a week. Please vote NO. Thank you, `- v� 01 y ,a- August 6, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council, Dr. Huffman argues that surrounding homeowners of St. Andrew's Church have torn down houses and expanded - and the church should be allowed to do the same. Maybe he has already forgotten that in the 1980's he did tear down the church and expand - from about 40,000 square feet to over 100,000 square feet! The vast majority of the homeowners have build within the allowable building area with allowable square footage. Dr. Huffman** plan requires a GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT and many, many operating conditions. I'm at a loss to understand his argument. Please vote NO and protect the Cliff Haven and Newport Heights neighborhoods from the continuing erosion in the quality of life. Thank you, 6) ka August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council, The Planning Commission Chairman Larry Tucker was quoted in the December 11, 2004 Issue of the Daily Pilot as saying "I would suggest that it would be the right thing for St. Andrew's to not build this [project] the way it's constituted. The church could have done a lot of things [over the years] and hasn't. it's created so much animosity that the neighbors can't see any benefit. I don't think that's healthy, and I don't see the urgency." The Newport Heights neighbors also feet that the expansion is unhealthy and not an urgent need. A neighbor's modification request to the Planning Commission can be denied based upon one neighbor's objection. For the St. Andrew's Church's expansion request, 100's if not near a thousand neighbors object, This deserves a denial by the City Council members. Please vote NOI Thank you, W1 XgR August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Newport Beach City Council, Due to the fact that the St. Andrew's Church needs a General Plan Amendment to expand their campus is a good indication that this expansion of the Church is too large for the neighborhood. Please vote NOII Thank you, i; A'd LIA L e� P (A' IV D August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: It's their Church, but it's our neighborhood. Please vote NO on August ffh' Than ou, = F 6t,7 47-1 9Hti 6'9i 3 ►ti4Y August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: The St. Andrew's Church is big enough!! Please deny the St. Andrew's Church expansion plan on August 11th! Thank you, Please vote "NO "' AJ 9��- 7 rox August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach F 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: The St. Andrew's Church is big enough!! Please deny the St. Andrew's Church expansion plan on August 11th! Please vote "NO"!! Thank you, ho/rta�s Cv1�� 5 N &Port bearA, CA . 94/9 C"9s = //-"/ August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Newport Beach City Council: To change the General Plan to accommodate St. Andrews Church expansion is asking too much. The Church Is too large for the residential neighborhood surrounding at its present size. Allowing the campus to expand would impact the quality of life for the residents of the Newport Heights and Cliff Haven neighborhoods. Please vote NO on August 11 "91 Thank you, eilel 77z otZo fV EAZA August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: The foot of the Church has already reached beyond the point of fitting into the shoe of the neighborhood. The Church has developed into a regional church with parishioners driving in from Costa Mesa, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Aliso Viejo, Mission Viejo and beyond. Let's try to maintain what's left of the quality and charm of our small neighborhoods. Please vote NO! Thank y , 5 F'A /V ,ll%3 y't/GG 3 9 p- EAZA John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: • • mxxscsac�w ecr.±nxcr .� w ww�nanmynnemynor�.�: ....�nuusuv.9.ru The St. Andrew's Church is big enough!! Please deny the St. Andrew's Church expansion plan on August 11th! Please vote "NO "' Thank you, �t y vIV �%►he,� J, I C7 5 X18 y��I t� August 8, 2005 ♦6 l �i ti John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: • • mxxscsac�w ecr.±nxcr .� w ww�nanmynnemynor�.�: ....�nuusuv.9.ru The St. Andrew's Church is big enough!! Please deny the St. Andrew's Church expansion plan on August 11th! Please vote "NO "' Thank you, �t y vIV �%►he,� J, I C7 5 X18 y��I August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Newport Beach City Council: Many issues come before the City Council for consideration. Many of them are localized in nature - issues such as locating more public restrooms along the Bay Front or Peninsula, sand deposition in West Newport and the St. Andrew's Church expansion are a few of them. But all of them have a basic theme — quality of life in that particular neighborhood. And it would stand to reason the loudest objections to the projects are from the affected neighborhoods. They are the ones that are impacted and the ones that know about the issues firsthand. It would be disingenuous to base your vote on the St. Andrew's Church expansion using the reasoning that it's a NIMBY issue and that the other residents of Newport Beach don't oppose the Church's expansion. Outside of the Cliff Haven and Newport Heights neighborhoods, other residents of Newport Beach do not have a stake in the issue, do not know about the issue or do not care about the issue. Please deny the request for the St. Andrew's Church Expansionl Vote NO on August 11th" Thank you, Qawl� AD - VV August 8, 2005 Sohn Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: Just imagine that a church expansion of this magnitude was planned in your neighborhood. Would you want a church the size of Hone Depot in dose proximity to your home? Would you want to live with dirt, dust, noise, huge trucks and construction equipment on such a grand scale for years near your home? Is this expansion really necessary? The residents of Ciiff Haven and Newport Heights are asking you to deny the St. Andrew's Church expansion. Please vote %NW on August 1101 Thank you, oc,[) CA a/6 August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: Help St. Andrew's Church keep the promise they made back in the 1980 "s. Please vote NO on the St. Andrew's Church expansion!! Thank you, , August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: Please help St. Andrew's Church be a good neighbor. Please vote NO on the St. Andrew's Church expansion!! Thank you, �\-k r ► -\k August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: The St. Andrew's Church is big enough!! Please deny the St. Andrew's Church expansion plan on August 11th! Please vote "NO'!! Thank you, Any fl✓� K"e X4 Bc h qq9/6 31. 3IL-9 August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NOHHHHH. Thank you L l : I L /t!C bL 7 CH August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, V�Vq C� 0> 17Z August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, 6W36 v. &t3Ar,) L-Am � CPr6 9-aty PL. NE&o LT �� OA 42-4 � � -72-2 - 9 1 S i August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you, M k ar M a� wOrl 9b, Sr..aicf C.A� VcaS (A qvk, o &90 99 5'- August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: Please vote "NO "!! Thank you, August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: Please vote "NO "!! Thank you, (bD5) gct5 August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: Please vote '�NO "!! Thank you, cviV AV Sol - >tv,aE AYF, I\% wPoC &A OA C9N5�3gq -9y14 August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: Please vote "NO "!! Thank you, 17`f y Ste'? G) ,, `�/I, August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: Please vote '"NO "!! Thank ou ` you, �n 1 LI August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you, s z -'�`Q vt . August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! `LUSSfC� I Thank you, � 6'0 C,21 C/44 August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, r,. August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, /VA T? &(,117 F1--/ 5�z F Ile 1fU1 -7 /�Ge VJ 14- August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrev.Os Presbyterian Church Expansion Thank you, Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! � � A l� August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Thank Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! /1-1 August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NOHHHHH. Thank you, August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you, 3 2, August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you, Z Z 72 August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: Please vote ""NO "!! Thank you, 33 P -'q�e A4 A4 e. 9 L- 6:5, (91Y1)4b s-7(�,J- August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Church Expansion Dear Mayor Heffernan and Council: Please vote " "NO "!! Thank you, _e'66 P, —14—/J>( M.D, `_74 C436T- 'SZ L( S16NA L AIIAP Alliwella rn—,— 6'61+C14 C4 cl z K6 Rqq- 4W -3y3Y August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you,, e2j(-o - el.�e�- )- 4, z-e August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you,. A/ KLIAC�fi1��n Sc�i�L «I _ JY) / August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you, ZZ:7 yZ6( 5 <�i � r-) S s- - 0 8 -�Z-C7 August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank u, 9 �4(I - �Fq - co �S August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you, /7 /Lvc� August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you 490 6A ,14ald-Cr 99%) 63i -X5( August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, � -f�,N , � �L - -- PIP 1) yC) - L 111 - zz)S�L August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you, VW-4� �J Lf ifIwtA August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you, August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you, �I LL ;4, �C 4 -q August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, (a t4, � J&-vt1 L August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, `7- � Jim 14, f i v/1 tfZ Lloo f-i /�lEw�'cnr T'EiaL,.ly CTi 5yc GHL -577c} Gl..,tFIz -W , ) ) ' August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, I August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. AndrevW's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, 1�)) 1J ,41 - -;� -:� 0 CII �t I Tom' q9q) s (-/y - �:q (�p August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you, 42-)6 Ntb. µAve August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, W,L:) «_� August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, / \,/J"p,J, -- 6dq (I August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you (0 4q)&31-113-7 August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you, AAA C�f Y%) August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank ou, August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you,, August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! ;�5a+ rt"te ( . �4�b -141 August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you, Y' 1 U � �L S � � kA dab A)N' 5C,;� August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you, August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you, August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. AndrevW's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, aY tc,� ►� fit'' August fl, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you, • Imo_ c� August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you, August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, C' `L,t jq August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NOHHHHH. Thank yo , Jqb4 Cky Sk NV cA q7b August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrev*Os Presbyterian Church Expansion Thank y u, mss. Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! ,a August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you,�.��� Ct August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, r1 6 . C(v G- IEF=f� VET August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!!!!! We're counting on you! Thank you, Ca�l�nr. A�cr�� August 8, 2005 John Heffernan, Mayor And Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Just vote NO!!!!!!!! Thank you 7* 64h"� Page I of I Subj: St. Andrew's Expansion Date: 8/712005 2:13:46 P.M. Pacific Standard Time From: HRawlins To: newport7 @gmail.com; tridgeway @city newport- beach.ca;us; dwebb @city,newport- beach.ca,us, parandigm @aol.com; lesliejdaigle@ aol .com;-nbcouncil @ranichols.info; edselich @adelphia.net This message is to let you know that I am opposed to the St. Andrew's Expansion. They propose a new gymnasium and computer rooms as part of the proposed expansion.The west side of the Bay already provides a wealth of recreational activities open to the public including many playing fields, tennis courts, baseball diamonds, parks, and, of course, all kinds of water sports. The new magnificent public library on Irvine Ave., currently under construction, will afford much computer space and study areas. Will the proposed St. Andrew's church land use set a new standard for all other churches in the City and, on the basis of equal treatment, is the City also prepared to approve similar requests of other churches? Please consider these issues when you come to your final vote. Respectfully, Harry Rawlins Sunday. Aueust 07.2005 America Online: HRawlins r _ P C G'l I - Honorable Mayor and City Council August 4, 2005 City of Newport Beach '05 AUG -'.• :45 P.O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Blvd. _ Newport Beach, CA 92658 -1768 +. Subject: St. Andrew's Youth and Family Center Dear Honorable Representatives: I am writing to you in firm support of the plans approved by the Newport Beach Planning Commission for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church to improve the facilities at 600 St. Andrew's Road. I hope that you can see through the smoke screen that a few vocal neighbors have erected and understand the benefits for both the neighborhood and the church. Being both a member of the church and a real estate professional, I have studied the plans and all the alternatives presented. St. Andrew's has been and will continue to be a good neighbor to the residents of the Cliff Haven area. As you are aware, the church bent over backwards to try to alleviate the parking issues by attempting to enter into a long -term agreement with the Newport-Mesa School District. The District was not willing to publicly enter such an agreement, even though the benefits were obvious to all parties involved (including the neighborhood). The (vocal, opponent) neighbors insist that the size of the proposed improvements are out of place in this neighborhood. They have even attempted to associate erroneous, misleading information in The Daily Pilot to sway people from the facts. Residential construction, or the "Mansionization" of Cliff Haven, has been booming in the past 10+ years in the Cliff Haven area. In the spring of 2002, the City of Newport Beach held several Neighborhood Workshops to discuss a "Visioning Process" for the General Plan Update. To quote from the Summary (copy enclosed): "Issues at the neighborhood level focused on traffic safety, water quality, zoning, and the preservation of neighborhood character. The traffic, zoning, and water quality discussions, especially, produced many valuable options for the City to consider. When discussing the topic of zoning, attendees were most vocal about the mansionization trend in the older neighborhoods and its consequences - the subsequent change in the look and feel of their unique neighborhoods ". The mansionization of the area has taken an average single - family residence built in the 1960's from approximately 1,500 square feet, to a brand new single - family residence of approximately 4,000 to 5,000 square feet (an increase of 150% to 200 %). Granted, land is precious and expensive in our city, but how can the neighbors choose to ignore the concerns of the citizens in the workshops a mere 3 years ago? Blending the current project with other concerns of the 2002 study, the District 3 citizens noted issues on: street widening (not proposed as part of the project), safety on the streets (the church has implemented a new traffic flow and the increased parking capacity of the site will take more cars off neighboring streets), traffic congestion (no new uses are projected with this project to increase traffic), and mansionization (already addressed). The team at St. Andrew's has met with the neighbors over the past few years and has made substantial concessions to them in hopes of addressing and meeting their concerns. However, while the church has: ✓ reduced the size of the project by 40 %, ✓ agreed to a list of 21 specific operating conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, ✓ attempted to enter into a long term lease agreement with the School District for a parking structure, ✓ offered to remove both vehicular and pedestrian access from Clay Street to the church, ✓ prepared and implemented a traffic route map to encourage the congregation to not use the neighborhood streets, and ✓ offered to establish a Parking Management Program to reduce traffic and parking congestion during worship services. The neighbors have made the following concessions: ✓ None While I do not live in the Cliff Haven area, I do live next to the newly constructed Mormon Temple. I was active in the Planning Commission meetings for this project and worked together with the Mormon Church to decrease the size of the steeple and limit hours of operation, but otherwise the project has been built and appears to be a nice addition to the city. I hope that the City Council can recall those discussions and the result of the meetings for the Temple. We all worked together and the project was built. Similarly, we have worked together with the neighbors in the Cliff Haven area and we hope that our project will be built (as approved by the Planning Commission with no further restrictions or conditions). Fears from our neighborhood were related to the value of the homes declining due to the construction of the Temple. Needless to say, home prices in our neighborhood have continued to climb approximately 15% to 20% per year since the Temple was approved. Not that I am attributing the increase to the Temple, I am merely noting that there was not a decrease as many of us had feared. I am also enclosing a copy of an article titled "Living Next to Godliness: Residential Property Values and Churches ". This article offers a study of nearly 5,000 homes located near 32 churches, covering an area of 100 square miles. To summarize the findings, the authors of the study determined that: 1. Neighborhood churches are amenities that enhance property values — not decrease property values, and 2. Being near larger churches increases property values more than being near smaller churches. The proposed facilities at St. Andrew's will be a benefit to the neighborhood, the kids al the nearby schools, and to the City at large. St. Andrew's conducts many programs that benefit the community and provide a safe environment for children, students, families, and people of all ages. The Youth and Family Center will help to create necessary space that will allow for enhanced connections with the youth and families in the community. Since the majority of the members live around the church, the project will directly provide a better more modem place for gatherings. Kids from Ensign Jr. High and Newport Harbor High could have a greatly enhanced and safe gathering place that would help to keep kids out of trouble in the after school hours. The kids would also be able to exercise and take place in athletic events, whose accompanying noise and impacts would be greatly mitigated as compared to the facility as it exists today. Overall, this is a "Win- Win -Win" for the church, the neighborhood, and the community of people we serve. A more efficient facility is built, traffic and parking concerns are reduced, youth and families are served, and the community has another high quality place for meetings and events whose benefit goes right back to them. Again, it is with the deepest respect that I hope you all vote to approve the building plan as approved by the Planning Commission with no further restrictions. Sincerely, David Guder 30 Whitehall Newport Beach, CA 92660 Encl. - "Neighborhood Workshops Summary" — May 2002 "Living Next to Godliness... " (Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics) NEW GENEEAI RAN Ur- VRIpN lEGCESS Neighborhood Workshops Summary �.. �Vr�PARr• r- err r .V Moore lacofano Goltsman (MIG), Inc. May 2002 Appendix C The Newport Beach General Plan Update and Visioning Process continues to be a citywide experience involving the direct participation of hundreds who live and work in Newport Beach. For six months, a partnership encompassing city government, individual residents, business leaders and appointed committee members have been collaborating in charting the future of the City for the next 20 -25 years. This document summarizes the results from 9 workshops held over successive weeks from March 18" to April 11th, 2002. One workshop was conducted in each of the seven City Council Districts, with an additional workshop held to discuss issues regarding commercial interests and the John Wayne Airport area. In addition, the Youth Council held a workshop on April 8'h. The comments from active community members in Bayside Village who participated in a workshop kit meeting are also included. Residents, business owners, property owners, youth and other stakeholders have participated in these workshops and meetings to define what the community believes about itself, to identify the key issues and challenges specific to the neighborhoods and to develop preliminary strategic directions related to these issues. OVERVIEW OF THE VISIONING PROCESS Visioning is the process by which community members collaborate on "big picture" decisions that affect the physical, economic, and social future of their community. The City of Newport Beach began its visioning process (Phase I) in January 2002 to lay the groundwork for future policy development (Phase II). The Newport Beach community has been actively participating in this collaborative dialogue, which began with the Visioning Festival in January. Over 400 participants attended one of two sessions to learn about the Update and to share their ideas about improving the future of Newport Beach. Participants discussed the assets and challenges of the City, and contributed vision statements for Newport Beach in 2025. Community members also interacted with activity stations, providing their input on strategic policy directions. In late January and early February, residents and business owners applied to serve on the General Plan Advisory Committee. The General Plan Update Committee (the steering group overseeing the update process) reviewed over 250 applications and recommended a balanced group of 52 potential members. They considered place of residence, affiliations and interests, age and gender along with statements made by applicants. The City Council considered the recommendations and appointed the final GPAC membership of 37 at its meeting on February 26th. The GPAC held its first meeting in early March and will meet continuously throughout the visioning process to discuss and resolve any issues of public process and outreach and to act as City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 1 a sounding board for the visions. choices and strategic directions that arise from the Vision Festival and the Neighborhood Workshops. Outreach with the community continued with neighborhood workshop meetings. At these meetings, residents refined and confirmed the citywide visions, which developed from the Visioning Festival. The workshops also provided an opportunity for participants to develop strategic policy directions at the neighborhood level. Simultaneously with the neighborhood workshops, workshop kit meetings were conducted on a smaller scale by volunteers who reached out to organizations beyond the City- sponsored workshops. Homeowners in Bayside Village and a facilitator for the Youth Council used the kits. (The information collected in Bayside Village will be incorporated into the next document entitled Vision, Values and Strategic Directions.) OVERVIEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOPS The eight neighborhood workshops hosted by the City were extremely well attended by over 450 people, with a very good representation of General Plan Advisory Committee members at nearly every workshop. The attendees were welcomed to the workshop by Sharon McNamee, a facilitator with Moore Iacofano Goltsman; (MIG) Inc., a consulting firm hired by the City. Ms. McNamee began with an overview of general planning and communicated the need for a comprehensive update of Newport Beach's General Plan. Ms. McNamee followed next with details about creating a citywide vision. She also introduced the Newport Beach: Current Conditions, Future Choices document, the Festival Summary and the newsletters as reference materials for the General Plan process. Following the overview, Ms. McNamee led workshop participants in an exercise to confirm or refine the Citywide vision drafted by MIG from comments received at the Festival. Participants reviewed the vision statement (included in Newsletter 92) and were asked the following questions: 1) Does the vision paint a good picture for the future of Newport Beach? 2) Is there anything of significance missing? 3) Is there anything you disagree with? 4) Is there anything that resonates with you or is most important to you? City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 2 Subsequently, Ms. McNamee asked the group to confirm the key issues and challenges in their neighborhood. Attendees were requested to identify other critical issues if they had not been previously noted at the Festival. After listing all the key issues and challenges, participants prioritized the top three issues for discussion. Then Ms. McNamee led participants in discussing key questions relating to their neighborhood issues. Each question included a set of policy options provided by City staff for consideration by participants. Participants shared their thoughts about each option (and many times suggested other options), then in most cases, they indicated their preferred strategic or policy direction. Attendees held up either a green, yellow, or red card as Ms. McNamee tallied votes. Green cards indicated clear support for a policy direction, while a red card registered disapproval. The color yellow signaled that a participant was undecided or hesitant to reply, either because he/she needed more information or more time to think about the issue. These responses are denoted in the following pages as "yes," "no" and "undecided." Most of the "key questions" appear in the Current Conditions, Future Choices Resident's Guide, and are part of the discussion occurring throughout the Visioning Process. The brainstorming of ideas without key questions also occurred during the workshop sessions. These ideas are listed, but attendees were not asked to vote their preferences and tallies were not collected. The workshops were concluded with a brief description of the next steps of the process. The information gathered from the workshops will be analyzed and presented in a summary to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). The GPAC will consider the results from these workshops, along with all input gathered during the visioning phase of the General Plan Update. GPAC members will make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding future directions for Newport Beach. MAJOR FINDINGS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOPS The nine workshops drew responses from a wide variety of stakeholders who provided detailed information regarding citywide concerns and neighborhood issues. The various neighborhood groups, when asked about their responses to the vision statement, felt that it was too broad and perhaps lacking enough detail to tie the vision specifically to Newport Beach. The issue of water quality was mentioned in more than one workshop. Participants emphasized the need for water quality enhancement, as well as recreational City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 3 opportunities in the water and on land. Additionally, attendees commented on growth issues within the City. The intensity of new development, traffic congestion, and the possibility of airport expansion resonated deeply with participants. Some felt that the impacts from tourism were also major issues. A discussion about tourism raised related concerns such as parking shortages, traffic congestion, and street safety. Issues at the neighborhood level focused on traffic safety, water quality, zoning and the preservation of neighborhood character. The traffic, zoning and water quality discussions, especially, produced many valuable options for the City to consider. When discussing the topic of zoning, attendees were most vocal about the mansionization trend in the older neighborhoods and its consequences -the subsequent change in the look and feel of their unique neighborhoods. NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOPS The sections that follow provide summaries of each neighborhood workshop by district. District 1— Balboa Peninsula /Lido Island The neighborhood workshop in District One was held on Tuesday, March 19'b from 7 -9:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. This workshop hosted the greatest number of participants -107 attendees and 8 GPAC members came eager to share their ideas. Sharon McNamee focused the discussion first on generating a list of neighborhood issues, then outlined some strategic directions. Toward the end of the night, the group chose to stay focused on the key issues rather than provide comments on the vision statement. Although there was not a separate discussion of the vision statement, the comments made in regard to the issues are reflective of this group's vision for the City, especially given the high interest in water focus, water quality, tourism, traffic and revitalization. (Tallies for each issue are noted in parentheses.) Participants were most concerned about issues with water, particularly as it pertained to preserving the water focus and character of the City. Other issues the group discussed were the possibility of new hotel development and the value of tourism. Attendees.were almost equally troubled by the increasing traffic in their neighborhood and the need for revitalization. City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 4 Issues • Preserving water focus and character (100) Proposed new hotel deveiopment (65) —Small or high end hotel more acceptable • Look at long -term value of tourism (60) • Concern for increasing traffic and the impact on the neighborhoods (54) • Revitalization (42) — Redevelopment needed — Failed commerce — Revitalization of the entire Peninsula region, including rentals — Failed commercial areas need revitalization — Revitalization of Balboa Village — Preservation of historic homes and buildings —Vacant commercial buildings and absentee landlords • Parking (32) — Parking in Balboa Village — Parking related to tourism — Rental areas need better parking control • Change older commercial areas to residential (12) • Mansionization and/or canyonization (7) • No city subsidy for revitalization (2) • Airport Expansion (3) • Finish public works projects • Create reserved parking for residents (2) • Expand recreation opportunities (2) • Clean up Bay and improve water quality (0) • Preserve residential area character (0) Strategic Directions The following strategic directions were the result of a brainstorming session by the participants. Their ideas were recorded, but tallies were not taken. Preservation of Water Focus and Water Quality • Permit fewer tourist boats • Fix sewer lines • Enhance and preserve the marine industry • Create tidal flow between the ocean and bay west of Newport Blvd • Enforce live aboard regulations • Regionalize water regulations and projects • Control fishing trash • Focus on the harbor as the heart of the city • Seek State and Federal support for dredging the Bay • Regulate commercial boat size and number • Collect street runoff to the sewer • Improve the split agency coordination of control of the Bay • Increase street sweeping of alleys City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 6 Revitalization and the Preservation of Neighborhood Character 15th -18tb Street Marinapark property may provide options for recreation for residents Hotel at Marinapark/ Las Arenas Park The attendees felt a new hotel at Marinapark/Las Arenas Park is a critical issue and wanted to take a reading of support for this development proposal. This count was taken towards the end of the meeting when many people had departed. 15 favored the hotel, 56 opposed the hotel and 9 were undecided Transportation Improvements • Standardize commercial signage to minimize impacts to traffic • Work with Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) to revise transit • Develop a City shuttle • Strategically locate parking structures • Control double parking • Resurface streets • Create a toll road on Balboa Blvd. • Maintain status quo - no improvements District 2 —West Newport/Newport Shores Residents from District 2 attended their neighborhood workshop on March 20th, from 7 -9:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. Thirty-nine residents and business owners and 10 GPAC members gathered to provide feedback on the vision statements and to comment on their neighborhood's issues. Concerns about water quality, open space and zoning were key for District 2. These topics were emphasized during discussions about the vision and called out again when participants were asked to examine neighborhood issues. Zoning received the greatest amount of attention, and discussion touched on density, condominium conversions and rental properties. Participants also spent time speaking about ways to alleviate the problems associated with the July 4th celebration in their district. A West Newport Committee member and a Newport Beach police officer both assured residents that a committee was actively seeking solutions with the City and invited participation from those at the workshop. Neighbors are invited to join the West Newport Committee studying ways to control the July 4`s party problem. Call Alan at 722 -6421. Vision Comments Balanced Land Use and General Development —More emphasis on parks — Evaluate Banning Ranch as open space —Pier = Community focal point City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary Genera/ Plan Update Visioning Process 6 Diminishing the "negative effects" of JWA is not enough to keep the neighborhood efficient and safe Consider reducing density limits • Install underground utilities Promote responsive government from all employees • Emphasize water quality enhancement and preservation • Focus on back bay wetlands • Revitalize/ Enhance commercial areas • Think more regionally • Integrate all ages into the City • Emphasize safe travel for pedestrians • Provide safe parking - consider parking permits for residents Issues • Zoning — population density -- condominium conversion (34) • Preserve and respect open space (30) • Water— marine(30) • Owner occupancy (10) • Mansionization— density (5) • Drinking water quality (4) • Drug rehabilitation houses and summer rentals (4) • Beautification of commercial areas (4) • Reduce crime (3) • Parking (2) • Wider sidewalks (2) • Fix sewers (1) • Rundown properties (1) • Trailer park control (0) • Landlord issues (0) • Street safety (0) • Public safety (0) • View preservation (0) • Odor control (0) • Preserve natural resource (0) Strategic Directions The following strategic directions were the result of a brainstorming session by the participants. Their ideas were recorded, but tallies were not taken. Zoning Density • Neighborhood approved summer rental permit (model after Laguna Beach) 21- yes 2- no 5- undecided • 24/7 residential parking permit with escalated fees depending on the number of cars • Parking fees for visitors • Increase code enforcement (illegal units and use of garages) • Work with HCD to improve quality of trailer parks City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 7 Park and Open Space • Work with Orange Coast River Park to connect at Banning Ranch • Create more wilderness parks • Consider a skate park • Zone and retain open space • Include more active sports facilities in the parks • Connect bike trails — don't pave them all Water Quality Solutions • Work with the Harbor Commission to maintain the bay • Flush the bay Control environmental problems • Coordinate with the Federal government to improve ocean water • Control storm drain runoff • Finish the Bay dredging • Increase education about water quality issues and solutions • Control boaters' waste • Consider implementing "dye tablets" (like Avalon) to police boaters' pollution Key Question #16- -What should the City do to protect historic commercial and residential villages? What should the City do to protect areas that may not be historic by definition, but give the community a sense of identity and are important points of reference in the community, such as "Cannery Village ?" (This key question can be found in the Current Conditions, Future Choices Document). • Adopt design and development guidelines 16- yes 5- no 6- undecided • Establish a design review process 1 1- yes 7- no 6- undecided • Adopt more Specific Plans with area specific development standards 12- yes 4- no 8- undecided • Reduce the permitted size of buildings in residential villages 10- yes 14- no 5- undecided • Narrow the permitted uses in some commercial areas 27- yes 3- no 2- undecided District 3— Newport Heights /Cliff Haven /Mariners Mile/ Dover 5hores/Westcliff Fifty Newport Heights/Upper Bay residents and 8 GPAC members gathered on the evening of Thursday, April 1 1 th at Newport Harbor High School to refine both the citywide vision and neighborhood issues. Several participants attended, interested in hearing about the Irvine Avenue expansion. They were directed to the workshop by an anonymous flyer that mistakenly announced the workshop's focus as Irvine Avenue. City Planning Director Patty Temple clarified the workshop's intent as providing feedback on overall community visions and issues. City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 8 District 3 residents discussed comments received at the Visioning Festival in January. Their main concerns were the expansion of John Wayne Airport, street widening and the loss of neighborhood character, safety on the streets, traffic congestion and mansionization. Participants chose not to discuss JWA but focus on the issues they could have some impact on. They spent the remaining time collaborating on resolutions to mansionization, traffic and street safety concerns. Vision Comments • Retain character and scale of neighborhoods • Emphasize desirability of growth • More pedestrian oriented mixed use and more sidewalks • Improve interface between commercial development and residential neighborhoods • More inter - government consultation and communication • Respect safety (traffic) Issues • No expansion of JWA (34) (skip discussion tonight) • Safety of neighborhood streets (19) • Street widening changes neighborhood character 0 7) • Traffic congestion at intersections (15) • Mansionization "starter castles" (11) • Maintain and retain street trees (7) • Increase street lights (6) • Underground utilities (6) • Better communication regarding impacts of interface between commercial and residential development (5) • More sidewalks (1) • Realistic speed limits (0) • View protection (0) Strategic Directions The following strategic directions were the result of a brainstorming session by the participants. Their ideas were recorded, but tallies were not taken. Key Question #16 —What should the City do to protect historic commercial and residential villages? What should the City do to protect areas that may not be historic by definition, but give the community a sense of identity and are important points of reference in the community, such as "Cannery Village ?" • Adopt desigu guidelines • Desigu review process • Develop specific plans • Reduce the permitted size of building • Narrow permitted uses in commercial areas • Expand uses in commercial areas • Enforce zoning regulations City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 9 • Review footprint study • Expand notification for zoning changes and post larger sign • Eliminate permitted 3rd floors • Increase communication of responsible government leaders • Strengthen existing FAR's • Prohibit property lot combining Key Question 442 —How should we protect our residential neighborhoods from traffic impacts? • Disallow street widening • Improve transit options • Coordinate with School District to improve school transportation • Reduce overall growth Regionalize traffic solutions • Change land use designations to create less traffic Enforce stop signs and traffic rules Create more mixed use zoning to reduce traffic District 4— Newport North /EastblufflThe Bluffs Twenty -eight people from District 4 and 5 GPAC members attended the workshop at Newport Harbor High School on April 10th. Participants had valuable contributions to the vision statement, focusing primarily on the improvement of City services. Airport issues such as noise pollution and expansion possibilities as well as infrastructure concerns regarding the widening of Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road fueled the workshop discussion, although maintenance of the Back Bay also is a very important issue in this neighborhood. Attendees felt strongly that the City should have a land use strategy to prevent the expansion of John Wayne Airport. A majority of residents also thought that it was a good idea for City members to work with the Federal Government in resolving the airport situation. Residents were in agreement about traffic issues in District 4. They proposed that street infrastructure changes be made to reduce traffic congestion such as right turn lanes and U turn areas, traffic light timing and grade separations by the airport. Vision Comments Include arts and culture The vision is not specific enough i.e.: airport, views, water quality Emphasize the need for local transit Set priorities for City expenditures — Finance —How to grow without taxes How to capture non - resident user costs, e.g., library fees Improve and protect water quality More access to water recreation: the bay, ocean and the Back Bay City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 1D • Insure the Planning Commission and Council adhere to the vision • Preserve view corridors • Need for school facility improvements • City should share responsibility for improving the housing mix • Successfully coexist JWA and quality of life • Protect City from Airport growth beyond the agreement timeframe of 2015 • Develop a new international airport with San Diego and Orange Counties at Camp Pendleton Issues • Airport noise pollution and expansion (24) • Maintenance and upkeep of Back Bay (21) • Traffic (20) —Irvine Ave expanding to 6 lanes north of University — Jamboree widening to 8 lanes • Residents should be a priority over commercial interests (3) • Crime (1) • City should control utilities i.e. cell phones sites (1) • Fletcher Jones Car dealership car lot light pollution (0) • Mansionization (0) • Barking dogs ordinance (0) Strategic Directions Key Question #45 -What role should Newport Beach play in airport issues? • Provide education and support for the November ballot "V" plan 16- yes 2- no 1- 'undecided • Support the new JWA Settlement Agreement 17- yes 0- no I- undecided • Create an International Airport at Camp Pendleton 13- yes 4- no 4- undecided • Coordinate with Orange County 5- yes 2- no 10- undecided • Educate community regarding airport impacts 11-yes 2-no 1- undecided • Focus City to work with Federal government 25- yes 0- no 0- undecided • City support November election 14-yes 0-no 5- undecided Key Question #46— Should the City have a land use strategy to prevent expansion of JWA? 17- yes 2- no 2- undecided Key Question #38—What kinds of transportation improvements are acceptable? Grade separated intersections? PCH widening through Mariner's Mile? • Provide free right turn lanes • Create single direction U turns • Reduce lanes with transitions that restrict traffic, e.g. Bristol • Grade separations by JWA City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process t t • Manage traffic light timing to be more sensitive • Prohibit street expansions District 5— Balboa Isla nd /BeIcourVOne Ford Road /Big Canyon/ Bonita Canyon Twenty-eight residents and business owners and ]2 GPAC members gathered at the Central Library on March 18th to provide feedback on the Citywide vision and neighborhood issues. Their vision comments centered on zoning concerns and preservation of the City's identity and character. The main issues in District 5 were related to the shortage of parking areas due to heavy tourism and traffic control and enforcement. After some discussion, participants agreed that parking permits may alleviate the lack of parking for residents and should be further explored. Attendees also liked the idea of more extensive visitor services, specifically shuttles from off site parking lots. The character of neighborhoods may be better preserved, residents thought, by reexamining parking solutions and maintaining the zoning limitations. Some participants also cited the lack of affordable housing as a major concern in the City. Vision Comments: Coordinate with neighboring cities and communities Implement R 1.5 zoning throughout city Strengthen the existing R 1.5 zoning City is already built out so need to preserve what we have Control mansionization to maintain unique identity Concern for regulation of growth —how to limit Community character— preserve age diversity of residents Plan for the graying of the city in housing and transportation Grow to have a "trusted" government Emphasize recreation opportunities for teens e.g., skate park • Need for odor control • Prioritize the preservation of residential neighborhoods over commercial and non - residential • Balance preserving a sense of community with tourism Balance city revenue needs with community needs to support quality of life Maintain old infrastructure and improve Issues Tallies were not taken in this brainstorming session about neighborhood issues. Traffic control Need traffic enforcement • Lack of parking • Tourism parking problem - use resources to solve i.e.: shuttles from off site parking lots City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 12 • Parking garages • Bonita Canyon noise pollution Use technology to reduce noise pollution • Increase communication re: new development • Master Plan calls for road widening of Jamboree Strategic Directions Key Question #32 —What changes would you like to see in our public visitor - serving facilities (e.g. restrooms, parking)? • Coordinate service and resources such as parking and shuttles • Do nothing • More facilities • Better maintenance • Higher quality Key Question #16—What should the City do to protect historic commercial and residential villages? What should the City do to protect areas that may not be historic by definition, but give the community a sense of identity and are important points of reference in the community, such as "Cannery Village ?" • Adopt design and development guidelines • Establish a design review process • Adopt more Specific Plans with area specific development standards • Reduce the permitted size of buildings in residential villages • Narrow the permitted uses in some commercial areas • Allow the changes to be economy /market driven • Parking solutions need reexamining • Monitor Coastal zone parking requirements and solutions • Keep R 1.5 zoning on Balboa Island • Need a process that involves the neighborhoods and the community Key Question #24 —How could the City facilitate more affordable housing? • Need more options • Focus efforts in selected opportunity areas such as northwest Newport Beach • Control or prohibit mansionization as it may reduce the number of housing units • Require commercial and office developments to pay affordable housing in- lieu fees • Increase housing density in selected areas • Establish minimum density requirements in multi - family areas • Use in -lieu fees to subsidize existing apartments • Require developers to incorporate a minimum percentage of units that are affordable for the workforce (inclusionary requirements) • Allow for the development of second units on residential lots City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 13 Allow for the development of buildings that integrate housing on the second higher floors of retail, commercial and office structures Key Question #43 –How should we protect our residential neighborhoods from parking impacts from commercial customers and beach users? Parking permit More pervasive use of parking meters Increased parking fees Increased off -site parking Reduced commercial zoning Regulation of business operations District 6-- Corona del Mar The neighborhood workshop for District 6 on Monday, April 25th was held at the Oasis Senior Center. Vision comments from the 71 residents and business owners and 4 GPAC members who attended touched on infrastructure and transportation alternatives, recreational and cultural activities for residents and environmental issues. The overwhelming concern from residents in this highly frequented area is the problem with traffic. Other issues mentioned were mansionization, carrying out policies in the General Plan and installing underground utilities. This neighborhood had a strong interest in design standards. When discussing ways to resolve these issues, participants indicated that they support the enforcement of speed limits and discourage `through" traffic as means to alleviate the traffic problem. Residents were also in favor of improved traffic engineering and grade separated streets as transportation improvements in the City. Vision Continents • Need for contiguous land use visions with neighboring cities • Healthy natural environment Improve and restore recreation areas • Include recreational attractions for youth • Implement a transportation system like the Laguna Beach shuttle Include public use with mixed use Hotel as attractions – need to control the increase in traffic and other impacts Include cultural activities Need circulation alternatives to cars, e.g., golf carts, bikes One way streets Growth strategy — review existing planting process • Healthy natural environment– xeriscape, native plantings, reduce pesticide use – Establish architectural and landscape standards – Retain beautiful Corona Del Mar Cdy of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 14 Develop a view protection ordinance to preserve Coastal Bluffs • Create uniform signage Add "serene," "quiet," "peaceful" • Protect from obtrusive lighting • Improve traffic sensors • River Park at North Banning Ranch • Protect the canyons for open space • Clean up alleys • Create water transit • Underground utilities Issues • Traffic (3 7) • Mansionization (22) • Carry out policies in General Plan (19) • Underground utilities (18) • Urban runoff (17) • Crosswalk safety i.e.: lighted crosswalk (11) • Big Corona Beach crowds in the summer (10) • View preservation (10) . • JW Airport expansion (9) • Maintain assets, set priorities (7) • Review trees in Corona Del Mar (5) • Alley beautification (5) • Create architectural sign standards (4) • Improved parking i.e: metered (4) • Clean up beaches (4) • Improve transportation (3) • Pedestrian bridge over PCH (1) • Restaurants with limited parking (0) • Provide restrooms and parking (0) • Encourage outdoor dining (0) • Street lights (0) • Improved sidewalks (0) Strategic Directions Key Question #42— How should we protect our residential neighborhoods from traffic impacts? • Install "traffic - calming" features (like speed bumps) 4- yes 17- no 0- undecided • Use more one -way streets in some neighborhoods 18- yes 15- no 0- undecided • Enforce speed limits 27- yes 2- no 0- undecided • Discourage "through" traffic 28- yes 4- no 0- undecided City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 15 Key Question #37 —What types of transportation improvements should be made in the City? • More public transit 1 ]- yes 0- no 0- undecided • Other street widening 5- yes 0- no 0- undecided • Improve traffic engineering of roads and signals 20- yes 0- no 0- undecided • Tunnel/ grade separation 16- yes 0- no 0- undecided Workshop participants, when discussing transportation improvements, suggested that the City add citywide bus stops and pullout areas. No tally was taken for this suggestion. Key Question #16 —What should the City do to protect historic commercial and residential villages? What should the City do to protect areas that may not be historic by definition, but give the community a sense of identity and are important points of reference in the community, such as "Cannery Village ?" • Adopt design and development guidelines 27- yes 9- no 0- undecided • Establish a design review process 20- yes 13- no 0- undecided • Adopt more Specific Plans with area specific development standards 19- yes 8- no 0- undecided • Reduce the permitted size of buildings in residential villages 10- yes 9- no 0- undecided • Narrow the permitted uses in some commercial areas 28- yes 0- no 0- undecided District 7— Newport Coast/Newport Ridge /Harbor View Hills District 7 residents attended their workshop on April 8th at the Central Library. Forty-two community members (GPAC members could not attend this workshop due to a GPAC meeting conflict) commented on the vision and would like to see more specificity regarding the preservation of views, improved water quality and conditions in open space areas and maintaining the character of Newport Beach's villages. Additionally, workshop participants would like to see improved ongoing communication about citywide issues. They felt that promoting dialogue between residents and City staff members would lead to more responsive action from government leaders. City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 16 View preservation (both public and private view preservation), traffic and mansionization were the top three issues identified by workshop attendees. A conversation about preserving views led most people to vote for limiting the scale and extent of housing and commercial development as a solution. To improve transportation conditions, participants suggested the City implement additional public transit options, particularly a shuttle service or possibly a water transit system, or limiting development. Vision Comments • Need to recognize the interdependency of regional issues • Need for regional transportation opportunities • Bay and ocean are full of sailing and fun • Maintain access and views • Improve safety in parks and recreation facilities • Add sense of community focus and character to Newport Coast • Maintain communication on issues • Need new innovative play equipment in the parks • Incorporate Hoag and UCI plans • Control air and noise • High Quality of Life = less traffic • Maintain character of the unique villages • Promote dialogue = responsive government • Improve water quality of the bay and ocean • Return more access to the Back bay • Newport Beach should be fun and full of activities • Newport Beach should have city focal points for gatherings Issues • View preservation (24) • Traffic (23) • Mansionization (18) • Water quality (13) • Need a new community center with a library, gym in Newport Coast area (8) • Improve utilization of open space for active recreation (4) • Maintain harmony of the neighborhood by controlling development size (i.e.: LDS Temple) (2) • Places for youth and teens (2) • More representation for District 7 (0) • Improve driving safety (0) • Need professional care of City trees (0) • Design Review models: (0) —Del Mar — Tiburon City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 17 Strategic Directions Key Question #15 —How should the City preserve its remaining public and private view corridors, for example, the Coastal Bluffs or views of or from other prominent natural features? • Limit the scale and extent of private development, housing and commercial development (17) • Implement a "views equals value " view preservation law like Laguna Beach (12) • City rules about the Mormon Temple (9) • Create a design review process (7) • Create FAR's by neighborhood (3) Consider binding arbitration to settle disputes on view preservation (0) • Allow for development in public view corridors provided that it is designed to provide viewshed opportunities (0) Key Question #37 —What types of transportation improvements should he made in the City? • More public transit — shuttle- water (16) • Limit development (15) • More off street parking /increase parking requirement (10) • Improve synchronized traffic lights (5) • PCH widening through Mariners Mile (3) • Increase parking requirements (2) Grade separated intersections (1) Commercial I John Wayne Airport Area Meeting The Commercial/Airport Area Meeting for commercial stakeholders was held on April 8'' from 5- 6:30p.m. at the Muth Interpretive Center. Twenty eight attendees and 5 GPAC members arrived to talk about the citywide vision and neighborhood issues. Attendees felt that the vision statements were too general and should be revised to emphasize the unique characteristics of Newport Beach. Others mentioned how important it was to maintain the economic vitality of the area. Ensuing discussions touched upon the best way to do this. Some attendees preferred retail to office development because of revenue generation, and some felt that some commercial areas should be converted to residential uses. Most were in agreement about maintaining the "elite" status of Newport Beach, protecting land values and the high quality of life. It was also important to some participants that the City have an "end game" —where the City and the community are headed in regards to the future of the Airport Area and JWA /El Toro. Key issues that were discussed for this area include the redevelopment of obsolete buildings, the balance of additional development and the ensuing traffic it would bring and the airport area surrounding JWA. City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 18 Vision Comments The vision statements are very broad — need to emphasize uniqueness of Newport Beach Protect land values when considering future airport expansion • Consider neighboring communities to airport (Santa Ana Heights) Allow logical growth with fee structure to maintain the airport area • How do we pay for improvements related to growth? Reuse/revitalize existing /older areas with new development, e.g., Campus tract. • Allow conversion of commercial to residential uses • Lean towards more retail dollars • Consider hotels near airport rather than in residential areas Maintain economic vitality • Define the "end game" (as Irvine has done) • Don't shortchange Newport Beach with no growth • Maintain "elite" status and property values and quality of life • Define the "end game" for JWA/EI Toro airports • Is the vision consistent with controlling JWA expansion? • Sustain a competitive position for the Airport area both locally and regionally • Protect reasonable rents • Maintain air quality Issues • Redevelop dysfunctional space that is physically and economically obsolete (22) • Balance additional development and traffic issue in Airport Area (14) • Agreement regarding JWA expansion (14) • Mixed use developments (8) • Maintain quality of life around the Airport and the whole City (8) • Annexation of Santa Ana Heights (7) • Traffic (7) • Airport noise and pollution (5) • Balboa Peninsula conversion of commercial to residential (4) • Improve aesthetics (i.e: trees) between JWA and the-City (3) • Street renovation impacts to businesses (2) • West Newport Beach revitalization (1) City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 19 Strategic Directions Key Question #30 —Which employment centers in Newport Beach should be retained at the current scale, and which, if any, should be expanded? Areas Retain at current scale Should be expanded Commercial Centers Airport Office Area 8 14 Newport Center 8 1 Retail Center Hotel/Fashion Island 3 14 Youth Council Workshop Eleven of the City's Youth Council members participated in a General Plan Visioning Workshop at its regular meeting on Monday, May April 8th. Airport issues were on the forefront; but the group identified the top issues for discussion as balanced growth, (i.e., the need to make sure infrastructure keeps up with new development), water quality and traffic. In discussing balanced growth, the consensus of the group was that the City should limit new housing and establish a cap on population. Participants also thought that hotel development should be limited and that the City should explore other options to better utilize existing buildings. The water quality topic generated suggestions such as: better storm water treatment, improvement of water quality in the Back Bay, better coordination with neighboring cities, stricter restrictions on dumping and requiring bio- degradable cleansers for boats in Newport Harbor. Proposals to alleviate traffic included a shuttle from an off - Peninsula parking structure to the beach for tourists, the better synchronization of traffic lights, the designation of one- way streets on the Peninsula and a bridge from 17th Street to San Joaquin Hills Road. Other comments /suggestions were that the City should provide a curbside recycling program and be more lenient on the conversion of garages to dwelling units given the lack of affordable housing in the area. Issues • John Wayne Airport expansion vs. no expansion, unsafe • Poor water quality in Bay /Ocean • Too rapid growth/too slow infrastructure • Need more open space • Conversion of garages • Lack of parking on Balboa • Traffic congestion • View preservation • Blight on Balboa Peninsula City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 20 Strategic Directions Proporiionai Growth Limit housing and establish limit on how many people we want in the end • Limit hotels • Provide more convenience stores so people don't have to drive so far to get needs met • Use what's already here more efficiently Water Quality Better storm water treatment • Clean up the Back Bay • Cooperate better with neighboring cities Establish regulations on dumping that are more strict • Require bio- degradable cleaners for boat cleaning Establish a curbside recycling program Traffic • Build another bridge across Upper Newport Bay • Provide a shuttle for beach goers • Establish one -way streets on the Peninsula • Synchronize traffic lights • Reduce fees for residents on the tolls roads Provide longer crossing lights for pedestrians Other comments: Key Question #11 —Does the City provide adequate services and facilities for youth? If not, what additional services and facilities are needed? • The City needs to provide more active parks and playing fields (8 out of I I voted as highest priority) • The City needs to expand recreation programs The City needs to help the school district improve its schools Bayside Village Workshop Kit Meeting Twenty-two residents of Bayside Village formed a Workshop Committee and on Wednesday, April I &, the group gathered at a workshop kit meeting, led by facilitator, Jean Stirling. The Committee's goals are to bestow the following upon Newport Beach: a sense of village pride; the preservation of the City's living history; extensive activities and facilities for senior homeowners; affordable home ownership for City employees, seniors and young professionals; and to maintain a low impact effect upon neighbors, local traffic and city finances. The Committee answered many of the workshop kit questions, addressing issues such as the need for historical preservation, public facilities in beach and visitor locations, a local public transportation system and strategies to contain the expansion of JWA. The City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 21 Committee wished to emphasize that manufactured -home living can not only benefit the homeowners living in the park, but also the entire City of Newport Beach. A NEW VISION FOR NEWPORT BEACH An appointed subcommittee of the GPAC worked with a draft of the vision statement to incorporate the major refinements suggested by neighborhood workshop participants, which are listed in the various district summaries. The new vision statement revised by the GPAC subcommittee appears below. NEWPORT BEACH VISION STATEMENT VISION: Our desired end state. What we hope to have achieved by 2025. Community Character We have preserved and enhanced our character as a beautiful, unique community with a diversity of coastal and upland neighborhoods. We value the high quality of life, community bonds, and the successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses and visitors. Growth Strategy, Land Use and Development We have a conservative growth strategy that balances the needs of the various constituencies in our community and that cherishes and nurtures our estuary, harbor, beaches, open spaces and natural resources. Development and revitalization decisions are well conceived and beneficial to both the economy and our character. There is a range of housing opportunities that allows people to live and work in the City. Design principles emphasize characteristics that maintain the community's desire for its particular neighborhood or village. Public view areas are protected, Trees and landscaping are enhanced and preserved. A Healthy Natural Environment Protection of environmental quality is a high priority. We preserve our open space resources. We maintain access to and visibility of our beaches, parks, preserves, harbor and estuary, The ocean, bay and estuaries are flourishing ecosystems with high water quality standards. City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process ZZ Efficient and Safe Circulation The transportation and circulation system is safe and convenient for automobiles and public transportation, and friendly to pedestrians and bicycles. Public parking facilities are well planned for residents and visitors. Community Services We provide parks, art and cultural facilities, libraries and educational programs directly and through cooperation among diverse entities. The City facilitates or encourages access to high quality health care and essential social services. Newport Beach is noted for its excellent schools and is a premier location for hands on educational experience in the environmental sciences. Our streets are safe and clean. Public safety services are responsive and amongst the best in the Nation. Recreation Opportunities Newport attracts visitors with its harbor, beaches, restaurants and shopping. We are a residential and recreational seaside community willing and eager to share its natural resources with visitors without diminishing these irreplaceable assets in order to share them. We have outdoor recreation space for active local and tourist populations that highlight the City's environmental assets as well as indoor facilities for recreation and socializing. Coastal facilities include pedestrian and aquatic opportunities. Boating and Waterways We are recognized as a premier recreational boating harbor. We have maintained a hospitable, navigable pleasure boating harbor in the lower bay through careful, low density, non - intrusive on -shore development, by regularly dredging navigation and berthing/mooring areas, and by providing adequate access to the water and vessel related servicing facilities. The upper bay retains an unencumbered shoreline and its waterways are maintained free of sediment and debris. Airport We have been united in our efforts to control and contain the increase in noise, air and traffic pollution associated with operation of the Airport. Our City government has vigorously and wisely used the political process to control the impact of the Airport on our community. This has resulted in a level of Airport operation which has preserved our unique character and land values. City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process Z3 Responsive Government Elected officials and city staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community. NEXT STEPS IN THE VISIONING PROCESS In the following months. community members will have additional opportunities to stay engaged in the process. Valuable information is available by reading Newport Beach: Current Conditions. Future Choices; the series of Citywide newsletters; and the www.nbvision2025 website. Randomly selected residents and business owners will also be asked to share their opinions and provide their insights to the emerging Citywide and area - specific strategic directions during a telephone survey in the summer. Two committees- the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC), a steering committee composed of City Council Members, Planning Commissioners, EQAC Representative, Airport Designee and City Staff; and the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), made up of a well- represented group of Newport Beach residents and stakeholders -will continue to meet throughout the process to synthesize community input and preferred policy directions. Broad participation in the visioning process will result in insightful information of the community's preferences, presented as visions and strategic directions. These will be shared at the Community Congress later in the fall. The community consensus that results from the Congress will be summarized in a final Vision, Values and Strategic Directions Report which will serve as a foundation for the second phase of the General Plan Update. City or Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 24 Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. 12: 319 - 330 (1996) MEGBOLUGBE AND CHO © 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers id Analysis;' Econometrlca 49, f Public Economnics H. 1 -24. ng," Journal of Urban&oromics Living Next to Godliness: Residential lousing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Property Values and Churches tnrica 42, 601 -608. dy.' Synthesis. Research report, THOMAS M. CARROLL, PH.D. Professor of Economics, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas. NY 89154 -6005 omeownesship;' Housing Polity TERRENCE M. CLAURE77E, PH. D. Mobility: The Role of Transac- Professor of Finance, University of Nevada, Las l4gas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las lrgas, NY 89154 -6008 of Urban Economics , 332 -348. JEFF JENSEN Gnduare Assistant. Transportation Center, University of Nnnda. Las Ygas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Liar l4gas, NY 89154 -4007 Abstract This article extends the analysis concerning the impact of neighborhood churches on residential property values try investigating nearly 5,ODO residential property transactions in Henderson. Nevada, between January 1986 and December 1990. We find that real property values decrease, at a decreasing rate, as distance from a neighborhood church increases. This result is the opposite of that reported by Do, wilbur, and Short in a previous edition of this journal. We bolster our findings by showing that distance from the site of a future church has little or no impact on midential property values, whereas distance from an existing church is associated with lower property values. Our evidence indicates that neighborhood churches are amenities that enhance the value of neighborhood midential property. Finally, we demonstrate that larger churches (as measured by square foot of lot siu) tend to have a greater positive impact on residential property values. In a recent article in this journal, Do, Wilbur, and Short (1994) (hereafter referred to as DWS) reported that a church can constitute a negative externality on residential property values much as does a powerline, hazardous waste dump, landfill, or nuclear waste reposi- tory,' That a church should, a priori, constitute a negative extemality is not clear, however. Although DWS suggest that such items as increased traffic or the noise of church bells may produce a negative effect, churches can also be viewed as amenities, much like shop- ping centers and quality schools. It is well -known that where there exist desirable neigh- borhood amenities, the value of which are reflected in property prices.' In the case of churches, one could hypothesize, for example, that elderly homeowners, religious because Of their temporal proximity to meeting Him or Her and loathe to drive, may place a high valueon being within walking distance to their house of worship. Other, equally appealing reasons can be offered suggestive of a positive effect on property values .4 If a church can be seen, a priori, equally as a positive or as a negative externality, then certain questions arise. Why did DWS obtain the results that they did? Would other tests in other localities produce the same result? Can all churches (denominations) be seen as either negative or positive extemalities ?5 Is there a difference in the relationship between church locations and property values if the sale of the home occurs before or after the construction of the church building? T 320 CARROLL, CLAURETIE AND JENSEN RESIDED To answer these questions, we replicate the DWS study in another real estate market. Like) Our method is different, however, in that it seeks to answer these questions. In addition, erty and the sue of our sample is over ten times that of DWS .6 Our results are quite different, as closest c well. We look at churches of several different denominations and find that nearly all, but from ea not all, have a positive effect on property values. There are differences in the price effect less of of various denominations. We also find, not surprisingly, that there is no price effect of some d distance between residential property and future church sites, before the construction of church. a church. That is, we intentionally divide our sample to include sales prior to, and subse- neighbc quern to, construction of some neighborhood churches. We do this as an added check to of neig ensure that our statistical results are not spurious. neighbc In the next section, we present the model and data for these tests. The third section, Howevc which presents the empirical results, is followed by a concluding section. not sho FP = an indicator variable for whether the house has a fireplace,' are am, 1. Model and data the chi I.I. Mode( 1.2. 77 Following DWS, we test several versions of a standard hedonic model: Ourda LSP;, = f(Xij„ i, DIST,k), planner 1990. where LSPi, is the natural logarithm of real selling price of property i at time t, X;j, is a Five ci vector of j characteristics of property i at time t, t is a time trend, and DISTk is the dis- this fx tanceof property i from "nuisance' k, in this case, thenearest neighborhood church, meas- family ured in feet. Our sets of j characteristics embody the following: and of databa AGE = the age of the structure in years, consis BATHS = the number of bathrooms, single. BEDS = the number of bedrooms, Nevad FP = an indicator variable for whether the house has a fireplace,' ple of LSQFTB = the natural logarithm of the square feet of the building, We LSQFTL = the natural logarithm of the square feet of the lot, Metro. POOL = an indicator variable for whether the property has a swimming pool, 1986 ROOMS = the total number of rooms in the building, includ Z89014 = an indicator for the Green Valley master- planned community (zip code Table 89014), in contrast to the rest of Henderson, NV (zip code = 89015), chord MONTHS = the time -trend variable, equal to 0 in January 1986, and increasing by 1 per Tab month. bougl the in Our tests are designed to answer the questions posed in section 1. Accordingly, we test the sisten model by looking at transaction prices of a sample of houses surrounding all 32 churches of ra in the local market of Henderson, Nevada. We include indicators for the following multiple- feet o church denominations: Baptist: 7 churches; Mormon (LDS): 5 churches; Ca tholic: 3 churches. with The other 17 churches include Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Assembly of God, swim Pentecostal, and congregations of unknown affiliation. Each church is separately identified bust by an indicator in a third variant of our model. Hend AURETIE AND JENSEN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY" VALUES AND CHURCHES 321 er real estate market. Like DWS, we measure distance to the closest church (in feet). The address of each prop - uestions. In addition, erty and the address of each church were converted to an X -Y coordinate system, and the are quite different, as closest church to each property thereby identified. Then the computer calculated the distance id that nearly all, but from each propertyh to that closest neighborhood church. 'Ibis calculation was made regard - ces in the price effect less of whether the church was constructed before or after the house was bought; that is. is no price effect of some distances are the span between a residential property and a vacant future site of a re the construction of church. Distinguishing the relation between property values and distances to actual or future :s prior to, and subse- neighborhood churches provides a very strong test of the nuisance versus amenity effect as an added check to of neighborhood churches. If churches tend to locate where land is inexpensive,9 then neighboring houses would also reflect those low land prices, even before the church is built. Is. The third section, However, if the church is truly a nuisance, then property near the future church site would section. not show the diminished value until after the church's construction. Similarly, if churches ing, are amenities, property values would increase as distance from the church decreased after the church is built, but not before. L2. The data odel: Our data consist of all property sales in Henderson, Nevada (zip code 89015) and the master planned community of Green Valley (zip code 89014), between January 1986 and December 1990.ro This was a period of brisk construction activity of both houses and churches -" ty i at time t, X;j, is a Five churches in our sample were built during this period, and four were constructed after and DIST;k is the dis- this period. Our data allow us to determine both how neighborhood churches affect single - orhood church, meas- family houses, and whether distance from the church site affects housing prices before and after the church is built. Data were obtained from Metroscan, a large computerized database of the files of the Tax Assessor's office of Clark County, Nevada. The database consists of 319,451 properties, including 196,000 single - family homes. 72 We found 4,924 single - family property sales for the period January 1986— December 1990 in Henderson, Nevada. After eliminating observations with missing data, we obtained our statistical sam- replace,7 pie of 4,858 property sales.13 We present descriptive statistics for these data in Table 1. ing, We also obtained data on 32 churches in Henderson and Green Valley from the same Metroscan file. Twenty-two churches were constructed before 1986, four were built between swimming pool, 1986 and 1990, and six were constructed after 1990. Churches of major denominations include seven Baptist churches, five Mormon (LDS) churches, and three Catholic churches. :ommunity (zip code Table 2 shows statistics on each church and the number of property sales closest to each :ip code = 89015), church, both before and after that church was built. Id increasing by I per Table 3 presents the results of three regressions run on the entire sample; that is, houses bought before and after neighborhood churches were built. The first regression suppresses the information on religious denominations and individual churches. We find results con - ccordingly, we test the sistent with the usual hedonic literature. Housing prices decrease with age and number ruling all 32 churches of rooms; housing prices increase significantly with time (about 0.5% a month), square he following multiple- feet of the building (elasticity = 0.6), and square feet of lot size (elasticity = 0.13). Houses c; Catholic: 3 churches. with fireplaces sell for about 7% more than houses without fireplaces, and houses with st, Assembly of God, swimming pools sell for about 7% more than houses without swimming pool, ceteris pari- s separately identified bus. 14 Houses in Green Valley (Z89014 = 1) sell for about 17% more than houses in old Henderson (Z89014 = 0). 322 CARROLL, CLAURETIE AND JENSEN Table 1. Descriptive statistics. Entire Sample Before Church Built After Church Built Standard Standard Standard Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Mean Deviation r- Statistic PRICE $103,215 $34,275 $111,760 $33,425 $99,933 $34,035 -10.58 RPRICE $84,502 $26,971 $92,565 $25,872 $81,406 $26,746 -10.58 AGE 4.48 8.16 2.07 4.71 5.41 8.97 12.98 BATHS 2.14 0.49 2.23 0.41 2.10 0.51 -10.11 BEDS 3.30 0.86 3.40 0.72 3.26 0.77 -6.20 DISTANCE 2872 2932 2768 1654 2913 3293 1.67 FIREPLAC 0.90 0.57 1.07 0.46 0.84 0.60 -13.83 FP 80.30% 39.78% 95.10% 21.59% 74.62% 43.53% -16.56 POOL 19.47% 39.60% 26.48% 44.14% 16.78% 37.37% -8.31 ROOMS 6.13 1.24 6.46 1.18 6.01 1.25 -12.75 SQFTB 1741 561 1856 502 1697 576 -11.02 SQFTL 7700 4987 7377 2951 7825 5570 1.62 289014 63.69% 48.09% 93.32% 24.97% 52.31% 49.95% -29.36 289015 36.31% 48.09% 6.68% 24.97% 47.69% 49.95% 29.36 MONTH 38.23 16.06 34.68 15.54 39.59 16.05 9.28 BAPTIST 16.82% 37.41% 16.77% 37.37% 16.84% 37.43% 0.57 CATHLC 18.77% 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 CHAGE 4.41 9.11 -2.55 1.36 7.08 9.40 38.09 Number 4858 1348 35 t0 PRICE Sales price of land and building in current dollars RPRICE Sales price of land and building in constant dollars (1982 -1984 = 100) AGE Age of structure BATHS Number of bathrooms BEDS Number of bedrooms DISTANCE Distance between property and nearest church, in beet FIREPLAC Number of fireplaces FP FP = I if building has 1 or more fireplaces; FP = 0, building has no fireplace POOL Pool iondicator (POOL = 1, has pool; POOL - 0, does not have pool) ROOMS total number of morns in structure SQFTB Square feet of building SQFTL Square feet of lot Z89014 lndicawr for zip code 89014 (Green Valley) MONTH Number of months after January 1986 that property sale closed BAPTIST Indicator for Baptist churches CATHLC Indicator for Catholic churches LDS Indicator for the Church of Jesus Christ of Larter Day Saints (LDS) CHAGE Age of nearest church at time of property transfer (AGE < 0 means church had not yet been built) RESIDENT) „m z a � U m o s U E o z� 0 O 0 s m u W 0 m B if y . s i �l c E m . lV e r y � V ry s Y ; V ,URETIE AND JENSEN urch Built Standard Deviation I-Statistic 834,035 -10.58 $26,746 -10.58 8.97 12,98 0.51 -10.11 0.77 -6.20 3293 1.67 0.60 -13.83 43.539 -16.56 37.37% -8.31 L25 -12.75 576 -11.02 5570 1.62 49.95% -29.36 49.95% 29.36 16.05 9.28 37.43% 0.57 3137% -5.57 46.619 25.45 9.40 38.09 •510 m is no fireplace Pool) 51 ans church had not yet RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES AND CHURCHES u J C L r C V N u < U u m L m t u E o z'u L O L U y �I 6 m" u u N LL m D D j � W z O 6 y N uD Y� m U L j u z p or:o o � a a z P Nry m° riyy� P _,o i n ail o � o T > m p C n> = U `cvv u = > u c o a m Y E o .a Cy O D V t_ m m E ' v u K. E W- U U 4'O4 3 F- rx_c _ms LLJ] U T V_ �t C U O F b IL {.l 9 N E a L .°', v C u u G 4 D' w_ mss, 1 6 y y O N Vl y r C 6 h V FO2 y > os O 00 1 cn ° cCD A..tA ��mm. =1 Q m'a muoaeuNX.�m'i -1 zu ra8LL re a a a rine a rr�nr In nn -- P W W P P Pm R P W W OD W W W m W m W W W W P 'O w N O n P P r O P P •1 r. - tp n P N� y O r y - N n O' z r W P p- N r. C ✓, -D r m P N N 11 N N N b N N N I. n r 324 CARROLL, CLAURETIE AND IENSEN Table 3. Regression results; dependent variable = log of real selling price; entire sample Variable Coefficient r- Statistic Coefficient r- Statistic Coefficient r- Statistic Log of constant 5.5560 70.74 5.6009 71.36 5,7506 68,77 AGE - 0.0060 -19.83 - 0.0061 -20.25 - 0.0060 -14.55 BATHS 0.0200 3.12 0.0192 2.99 0.0217 3.37 BEDS - 0.0022 -0.54 - 0.0029 -0.70 0.0009 0,22 MONTH 0.0021 17.79 0.0021 17.90 0.0021 17.57 DISTANCE - 1.12E -05 -9.13 - 1.22E -05 -9.67 - 1.32E -05 -9,09 DISTSQ 1.86E -10 7.91 2.02E -10 8.43 2.21E -10 8,48 FP 0.0682 11.66 0.0694 11.91 0.0600 9,99 LSQFTB 0.6013 42.08 0.5979 41.93 0.5787 39.63 LSQFtL 0.1298 20.87 0.1285 20.70 0.1228 18.67 POOL 0.0651 12.91 0.0649 12.93 0.0646 13.03 ROOMS - 0.0159 -4.74 - 0.0159 -4.76 - 0.0149 -4.47 Z89014 0.1579 31.11 0.1610 31.01 0.1908 18.74 Baptist - 0.0142 -2.52 Catholic - 0.0270 -4.99 LDS 0.0125 2.53 Church F = 9.1118 RZ 0.8294 0.8312 0.8368 Adjusted RZ 0.8290 0.8307 0.8356 Multiple F 1962.81 1589.55 686.64 Durbin - Watson 1.87 1.88 1.91 Number 4858 4858 4859 We are most interested in the coefficients on distance and distance squared. We find that property values decrease with distance from the neighborhood church at a decreasing rate (as shown by the significant positive coefficient on distance squared). Taking the partial derivative of the log of real price with respect to distance and setting the result equal to zero allows us to solve for the distance at which proximity to churches has no impact on property values: 81n(SP) = _1.1 x 10 -5 + 2(1.9 x 10 -I)D = 0 -r D' aD 1.1 x 10 -5 = 28,947 feet = 5.48 miles. 15 2(1.9 x 10 -10) Our results are strongly at odds with those of DWS, who found that property values in- creased with distance from the neighborhood church, up to a distance of 850 feet. Appar- ently, reactions of housing prices to neighborhood churches in Chula Vista, California, and Henderson, Nevada, are not the same. Adding indicator variables for denominations proves interesting. Fach of the dummy var- iables for Baptist, Catholic, and Mormon (LDS) churches was statistically significant. Com- pared to properties near (actual or future) churches of `other" denominations, properties near Baptist churches sell for 1.4 % less, houses near Catholic churches sell for 2.66% less, and LDS churches sell for 1.3% more. Adding dummy variables for each of the 30 P i. i- :TIE AND JENSEN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES AND CHURCHES 325 e. churches with neighborhood sales provides a significant, but small, improvement in the explanatory power of the equation. None of the other coefficients are materially affected "ficient r- Statistic by the inclusion of church or denominational indicator variables. Most importantly, prop - 7506 68.77 erty values decrease at a decreasing rate with distance from the neighborhood church, up 3060 -14.55 to a distance of 5.5 miles. 16 0217 3.37 Table 3 begs the question of whether the distance from the neighborhood church reflects 0009 0.22 the amenity value of the church, per se, or if that distance merely measures the effects 0021 17.57 32E -05 -9.09 of preexisting characteristics of church neighborhoods that predate the church building. 21E -J0 8.48 In Table 4, we limit our sample to 1,348 sales that occurred before the church building .0600 9.99 was erected. In contrast to Table 3 (and Table 5), property values are not significantly related .5787 39.63 to the distance or the squared distance from the neighborhood church.17 Adding dummy .1228 18.67 variables for Baptist and Catholic denominations (no LDS churches in the sample were .0646 13.03 ma9 -4.a7 constructed after 1986 does not affect the results, except to imply that Catholic churches � P P Y 1.1908 18.74 tend to be built in neighborhoods with slightly lower property values. This implies that 3.8863 the negative relation between property values and Catholic churches predates the building 3.8584 of the church, which does not seem to be the case for Baptist churches.18 tes has no impact on Table 5 clinches the argument that neighborhood churches represent amenities that, by F = 9.1118 0.8368 themselves, enhance property values. The first regression shows that, for properties bought 0.8356 after the neighborhood church was built, property values decrease with distance and in- 686.64 crease with the square of distance. Adding the indicator variable for church denomination 1.91 implies that Baptist and Catholic churches tend to locate in neighborhoods with slightly 4858 lower average property values; the location of LDS churches appears to be independent 3uared. We find that Table 4. Regression results; dependent variable = log of real selling price; homes purchased before church built. at a decreasing rate Variable Coefficient t- Statistic Coefficient t- Statistic Coefficient t- Statistic ). Taking the partial g the result equal to Log of constant 3.8845 26.89 3.8863 27.05 3.8584 26.57 tes has no impact on ACE -0. D040 -5.15 - 0.0042 -5.37 - 0.0042 -5.43 BATHS - 0.0576 -5.38 - 0.0544 -5.08 - 0.0553 -5.17 BEDS - 0.0010 -0.16 - 0.0054 -0.87 - 0.0065 -1.03 MONTH 0.0024 12.35 0.0020 9.36 0.0020 9.41 DISTANCE - 4.27E -06 -1.47 - 4.84E -06 -1.51 - 4.22E -06 -1.30 DISTSQ - 8.01E -11 -0.35 - 3.86E -1t -0.16 - 6.75E -II -0.29 FP - 0.0064 -0.42 - 0.0092 -0.61 - 0.0094 -0.62 LSQFTB 0.8868 36.24 0.8877 36.46 0.8933 36.25 LSQFTL 0.1137 10.04 0.1147 10.18 0.1139 10.08 POOL D.0395 5.86 D.0390 5.8D 0.0384 5.72 ROOMS - 0.0309 -6.68 - 0.0306 -6.66 - 0.0305 -6.62 at property values in- 289014 0.1438 9.95 0.1565 10.63 0.0941 2.05 ,e of 850 feet. Appar- Baptist 0.0040 0.45 [Ufa Vista, California, Catholic -0.0294 -3.71 LDS Church F = 6.1422 ach of the dummy var- R- 0.8249 0.8369 0.8371 cal)y significant. Com- Adjusted R2 0.8334 0.8351 0.8353 ominationS, properties Mullipte F 13.80 488.42 456.38 lushes sell for 2.66 %r. Durbin -Watson 1.64 1.66 1.67 Number 1349 1348 1348 bles for each of the 30 . 326 CARROLL, CLAURETIE AND JENSEN Table 5. Regression results; dependent variable = log of real selling price; homes purchased after church built. Variable Coefficient t- Statistic Coefficient t- Statistic Coefficient t-Statistic Log of constant 5.9850 64.68 6.0400 65.26 6.2038 63.50 AGE - 0.0061 -18.01 - 0.0061 -18.31 - 0.0060 -16.28 BATES 0.0382 5.00 0.0380 4.98 0.0440 5.68 BEDS - 0.0062 -1.22 - 0.0051 -1.00 - 0.0044 -0.86 MONTH 0.0021 13.72 0.0023 14.68 0.0022 13.95 DISTANCE - 1.20E -05 -9.25 - 1.33E -05 -8.90 - 1.36E -05 -7.83 DISTSQ 2.02E -10 7.50 2.20E -10 8.10 2.28E -10 7.61 FP 0.0854 13.00 0.0873 13.26 0.0810 12.09 LSQFTB 0.5265 30.87 0.5230 30.73 0.4974 28.63 LSQFTL 0.1359 18.71 0.1332 18.27 0.1316 17.11 POOL 0.0729 11.13 0.0720 11.04 0.0709 10.94 ROOMS - 0.0106 -2.46 - 010118 -2.74 - 0.0093 -2.15 Z89014 0.1660 27.34 0.1655 25.94 0.1802 17.14 Baptist - 0.0213 -3.02 Catholic - 0.0297 -4.04 LDS 0.0101 1.67 Church F = 9.22 R2 0.8272 0.8292 0.8321 Adjusted RI 0.8266 0.9285 0.8310 Multiple F 1395.13 1130.88 751.12 Durbin- Watson 1.90 1.91 1.93 Number 3510 3510 3510 of property values. The set of dummy variables for the 30 churches with neighborhood property sales increases the adjusted R2 slightly, albeit significantly, but otherwise leaves the results unmodified. Table 6 represents our analog of DWS's tables 3 and 4, showing the relation between property values and distance from neighborhood churches. DWS showed a gain of approx- imately $4,000 (2.2%) of value) due to movement 850 feet away from churches. We demon- strate a loss of nearly $4,500 (5.5% of value) as a result of being one mile, instead of 100 Table 6 Property values and distance from neighborhood church Distance (feet) Distance (miles) Property Value Rate of Change per 1000 feet Proportion of Sales 100 0.02 $83.025 -1.1960% 0.14% 850 0.16 $82.293 - 1.1657% 8.47% 1,320 0.25 $81,947 - 1.1467% 22.42% 1,760 0.33 $81,438 -1.1289% 22.42% 2,640 0.50 $80,646 - 1.0933% 57.35% 2,910 0.55 $80,409 - 1.0924% 57.35% 3,520 0.67 $79,886 - 1.0578% 57.35% 3,960 0.75 $79,518 - 1.0400% 76.07% 5,280 1.00 $78,462 - 0.9867% 88.55% 7,920 1.50 $76,552 - 0.8800% 88.55% RESIDENTIAL PROPER - feet, from a church. existing churches. As quarter of a mile) . There is one additi of DWS. Although th hood churches, it is c residents than large ( churches, then we w( externalities. In Table the size of the churcl nuisances, then larg churches are ameniti churches do, unless nearest neighborhoc CLOT supports the supports the hypotht the size of the chur( tion term between t has a positive coefl smallest church (lot near the largest chu Table 7 Prop Variable Log intercept AGE BATHS BEDS MONTH DISTANCE DISTSQ FP LSQFTB LSQFTL POOL ROOMS 289014 CLOT DLCLCrr WLCLOT R2 Adjusted R Fstatistic Durbin -Wa Observatio - AURETIE AND JENSEN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES AND CHURCHES 327 vrchased after church built. feet, from a church. In our sample. 97.5% of property purchases were with 1.5 miles of 60.26 existing churches. Assuming normality, 95% of DWS's sample is within 1.300 feet (or one - Coefficient I statistic quarter of a mile). 6.2038 63.Sil There is one additional equation to fit in an attempt to reconcile our results with those - 0.0060 -16.28 of DWS. Although their article did not discuss the size or other characteristics of neighbor - 0.0440 5.68 hood churches, it is conceivable that small churches are less intimidating to neighborhood - 0.0044 -0.86 residents than large churches are. If noise and traffic are the major disruptions caused by 0.0022 13.95 - 1.36E -05 -7.83 churches, then we would expect that bigger churches would create correspondingly greater 2.28E -10 7.61 externalities. In Table 7, we add three terms to gauge the relation among the property values, 0.0810 12.09 the size of the church, and distance from the church. If DWS are correct that churches are 0.4974 28.63 nuisances, then larger churches ought to be greater nuisances than smaller churches. If 0.1316 17.11 churches are amenities, larger churches should enhance property values more than smaller 0.0709 10.94 - 0.0093 -2.15 churches do, unless diminishing returns are experienced. CLOT measures the size of the 0.1802 17.14 nearest neighborhood church lot in square feet (see Table 2).19 A positive coefficient on - 2.74E -05 CLOT supports the hypothesis that churches are amenities, while a negative coefficient DISTSQ supports the hypothesis that churches are nuisances. DCLOT is the interaction term between 6.78 the size of the church lot and the distance from the church, while D'CLOT is the interac- F = 9.22 FP 0 8321 tion term between the square of distance and church lot size. Table 7 shows that CLOT 0.8310 has a positive coefficient that is statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Being near the 751.12 smallest church (lot size = 20,000) would increase property values by only 0.33%. Being 1.93 near the largest church (square feet = 368,517) would increase property values by 6.27 %. 3510 LSQFTL 0.1223 Table 7 Property values, church lot sin, and distance to nearest church. aes with neighborhood 14.74 y, but otherwise leaves Variable Coefficient r- Statistic Coefficient r- Statistic ig the relation between towed a gain of approx- n churches. We demon - -ne mile, instead of 100 ;e t Proportion of Sales 0.14% 8.47% 22.42% 22.42% 57.35% 57.35% 57.35% 76.07% 88.55% 88.55% Log intercept 6.1019 60.26 6.2296 59.13 AGE - 0.0058 -14.66 - 0.0057 -14.43 BATHS 0.0571 6.72 0.0583 6.92 BEDS - 0.0078 -1.41 - 0.0058 -1.07 MONTH 0.0021 12.25 0.0021 12.54 DISTANCE - 2.34E -05 -9.40 - 2.74E -05 -3.55 DISTSQ 1.38E -09 6.78 4.20E -09 4.73 FP 0.0682 9.20 0.0684 930 LSQFTB 0.5267 28.43 0.5050 27.07 LSQFTL 0.1223 14.73 0.1224 14.74 POOL 0.0769 10.93 0.0760 10.89 ROOMS - 0.0087 -1.88 - 0.0080 -1.74 Z89014 0.1496 21.96 0.1642 22.25 CLOT 1.65E -07 2.43 DLCLOT - 5.95E -I1 -2.10 D2LCLOT - 5.71E -15 -2.24 R 0.8210 0.8244 Adjusted R2 0.8201 0.8234 F-sunistic 1003.87 821.25 Durbin- watson staL 1.8575 1.8616 Observations 2640 2640 S 2 328 CARROLL, CLAURETIE AND JENSEN RESID ENTIAL PROM ,. Both the coefficients on DCLOT and D2CLOT are negative and statistically significant at 7, t7ur data set includes the 0.05 level. This implies that the effect of church size on housing values declines rapidly laced with building s with distance from the church. All effects due to church size disappear at 2,309 feet (0,43 - 8. The time wend MOP Miles) 20 These results support the conclusion that neighborhood churches are amenities. which the Henderson rate of change in the ( 9. Say, next to cemeter 2. Conclusion lo. The Las Vegas subu it. Trying m investigate Our findings sharply contrast with those of Do, Wilbur, and Short (1994). Whereas they task. Homes outside g rP Y eY vaitons outside Hem purport to show that neighborhood churches are nuisances that reduce property values over Las Vegas Strip, the relatively short distance, we fmd that neighborhood churches are amenities that enhance our sample to a sub property values over much larger distances (at least one -half mile, in contrast to DWS's suburb of San Dies, limitation of 850 feet). We suspect that the small size of their sample, plus the restriction 12. Both new and prtww of their sample to properties at a very short distance from churches, may have distorted - actually consweted could find none) an DWS's findings. 21 It is possible, however, that both studies accurately reflect the relation- 13. Sixty- twe sales wem ship between neighborhood churches and property values in their respective communities. 14. To compute the pre Chnla Vista, California, is apparently so crammed with churches that citizens can only escape its theocratic environment by selling their homes at a discount. This gives new mean- AP — a o. ing to the term "moral hazard." Henderson, Nevada, by contrast, is close to Las Vegas P (sin city). Henderson residents welcome churches built on vacant lots that might otherwise 15. The 5.5 miles is a have been the site of a neighborhood casino. Obviously, there is further research that must squared variables. It be conducted before this issue is finally resolved. How are housing value gradients across the equations by ins cities related to the concentration of churches within cities? We suspect that interesting occurs within 2,91( contrasts can be made between Vatican City, Salt Lake City, and Mecca. 16_ Since distance and s. could milat multic real housing price t Acknowledgments of 1348 observation: (from the future chi The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful comments of an anonymous referee. This cient was barely sil research was made possible in art throw a research rant from First Interstate Bank the chur the eng c PD P through g the church being e Institute for Business Leadership. All remaining errors are the responsibility of the authors. 17. Given that LDS at to reflect a neighb 18. Because church lot Notes church building w. church lot is a goo 1. The Iperature which offers empirical support for the negative effect on property prices of such obviously of the church acti, undesirable property uses as listed here is voluminous and not referenced out of a concern for brevity. 19. Because church to 2. Which the authors find, by the way, quite comforting. church building w. 3. Again. for brevity, the reader is not bored with a lengthy list of references which report that proximity to church lot is a got quality schools is an amenity for which house buyers are willing to pay. of the church acti 4. In the rapidly growing Las Vegas valley, it is a common practice for real estate developers to donate land 20. Letting D stand k to religious groups who build churches prior to the developers' constntction of houses. It is doubtful that the developers believe that the churches will reduce the prices which they can chuge for residential property. URP 5. Would churches offering relatively sedate or fewer services be preferred to their counterparts with rowdy and frequent services, for example? 6. The DWS sample contained 469 properties sold between January 1991 and September 1992 in Chula Vista, we have .65 — 5 California. The average distance between in their sample is 634.37 fat, with a standard deviation of 360.42 feet, implying that 95% of the properties in their sample are within 1,355 feet of a church. This works out 5,9 to 15 churches per square mile. Our data consists of 32 churches covering an area of approximately 100 D - — square miles. 1ENSEN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES AND CHURCHES 329 ficant at 7. Our data set includes the number of fireplaces per house, but this cardinal variable was more highly corre- : rapidly laced with building size than is this indicator variable. ;et (0.43 8. The time trend MONTH is intended to reflect the effects of general inflation and housing price inflation, which the Henderson. Nevada market may parallel. However, addition of the percent change in the CPI, the lenities. rate of change in the CPI for housin g, and the prevailing mortgage interest rate proved statistically insignificant. 9. Say, next to cemeteries, parsonages, or sinner. 1o. The Las Vegas suburb of Green Valley was annued by the city of Henderson in the early 1980s. 11. Trying to investigate all 196,000 housing sales for the effect of local churches would have been a daunting task. Homes outside the Las Vegas valley could be hundreds of miles from a "neighborhood" church. Obser- cas they vations outside Henderson and Green Valley would have created distortions due to an Air Force base, the ues over Las Vegas Strip, the 14th busiest airport in the counvy, land fills, and other nuisances. Accordingly, we restrict enhance our sample to a suburb of Las Vegas, for many of the same reasons as DWS restricted their sample to a ) DWS's suburb of San Diego. strlction 12. Both new and preowned homes were included in the sample. We include property sales before churches were actually constructed to control for spurious correlation between unspecified hazards (of which the authors listorfed could find none) and church sales. relation- 13. Sixty-two sales werc land sales only. Another four sales had missing data on building size and number of moms. .]unifies. 14. To compute the precise effect, subtract one from the anti -log of the coefficient on the dummy variable: min only is 4P - I = 1.0725 - I = 0.0825 = 7.25% � e o.07 is Vegas gas P therwise 15. The 5.5 miles is a point estimate of zero effect derived from the coefficients on the distance and distance hat must squared variables. It is likely that the major effect diminishes much before this point estimate. We reestimated is across the equations by including only houses within a given number of feet and discovered that the major impact teresting occurs within 2,910 feet (0.55 miles) of the neighborhood church, which included 62.5% of our sample. 16. Since distance and squared distance increase together, the mutual insignificance of distance and squared distance could reflect multicollinearity, between those two variables. This problem is avoided by relating the log of real housing price to the log of distance, so the coefficient can be interpreted as an elasticity. In the sample of 1348 observations before the church was constructed, the elasticity of property values with respect to distance (from the future church site) is - .0096, or about 1% loss in value for each doubling of distance. This coefft- This time was barely significcant with a r- statistic of -2.04. In the set of observations after the church was con- ee structed, the elasticity is -0.025 with a i-statistic of 7.67. This small negative effect of distance prior to 1te Bank the church being constnaed might be an expectations effect. authors. 17. Given that LDS and Catholic families tend to be larger than Baptist families, this result does not appear to reflect a neighborhood aversion to noisy children on Sunday mornings. 18. Because church lots are typically purchased pior to the construction of the church building, the size of the church building was known for only two churches, while Im size is known for 23 churches. The size of the church la is a good proxy for the number of parking spaces (reflecting traffic) and the expansion potential obviously of the church activities. brevity. 19. Because church lots are typically purchased pior to the construction of the church building, the size of the church building was known for only two churches, while lot size is known for 23 churches. The size of the oximity, to church tot is a good prosy for the number of parking spaces (reflecting traffic) and the expansion potential of the church activities. zonate land 20. Letting D stand for distance and S for church size, Table 7 implies: fW that the I property. with rowily KRP 8S = 1.65 x 10 -7 - 5.95 x 10 -11 D - 5.71 x 10 -15 Dr. hula Vista, we have .65 - 5.95 x 10 -4 D - 5.71 x 10_8 Dz = 0, which implies t of 360.42 works out 5.95 x 10 -4 - (5.95 x 10 -4)) - 4(1.65)(5.71 x 10-8) nately 100 D' = - 8 = 2,309. 2(5.71 x 10- ) 330 CARROLL, CLAURETIE AND JENSEN 11 " Number 1 N 21. When we limited our sample to the 762 properties within 1300 feet of neighborhood churches, sold after The Law and Econol ;1 the church was completed, we found that neither the coefficient on distance nor the coefficient on distance Restrictive Land Crn' squared was statistically significant, with a joint Fstatistic of 1.30, which implies a probability of .27 that Investor Efficiency it both coefficients are um. Dropping the distance squared variabhx fbaeasuc of possible multicollinearity with distance) yielded a coefficient on distance equal to — 2.24E -05, which is significant at the 9.5% level, ' ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' ' ' . . . The Effects of Envir one -rail test. An Economic Analy Reference ... ' ... Contract Theory ant - {. Do, A. Quang, Robert W Wilbur, and James L. Short. (1994). 'An Empirical Elimination of the Externalities of Neighborhood Churches on Housing Values," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 9(2), 127 -136. Threat to Regulate i ni................ The Property Right Number 2 Serial Correlation 1 Property Shares, A ................ Mortgage Prepaym ............... A Re- Examination ............... The Sensitivity of ............... Zoning and Fiscal M. Number 3 Unobservable Het Mortgage- Backed Choosing Betweei Mortgages ..... Early Evidence e .............. Racial and Ethnic Investigation ... Living Next to C .............. IEWVI LIGHT MANAGEMENT COMPANY AUGusr 4, 2005 MAYOR JOHN HEFFERNAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DEAR MAYOR HEFFERNAN.' '05 NG -8 X9:44 C_Lf'(, 1 .' ;nI M!, ,Cm WE ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES AT ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, WHICH ARE: 1 . VERY NECESSARY TO FOSTER THE PROPER GROWTH OF THE YOUTH WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY, AND 2. HAVE BEEN PLANNED WITH GREAT SENSITIVITY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF ST. ANDREWS' PROPOSED EXPANSION ON THURSDAY EVENING, AUGUST 1 1. THANK YOU. Y, JD JACK LIGHT VECREST DRIVE DEL MAR, CA 92625 1401 Quail Street, Suite 120, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 851 -8345 FAX (949) 851 -1116 BYCO, INC. commercial development 2625 Newport Blvd costa Mesa caul (949) 64s -22si Fax (949) 645 -4137 August 2, 2005 Mayor Steve Bromberg Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 926163 Dear Mayor Bromberg I'm fascinated by reading Mr. Jeff Martins reprint of his Daily Pilot letter to the editor that he so generously placed on the automobile windshields of owners attending Sunday service at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. Apparently he is unaware of the ordinances concerning this activity. I never cease to be amazed by the attitude taken by people who have "finally arrived ". It seems to me that this is a typical attitude that some people have of "I've got mine. Now let's roll up the sidewalks, so nobody else can have theirs ". Quite a selfish and irresponsible attitude I would say. Please put me on record as strongly supporting the expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. Should you wish to discuss with this with me personally. I would be more than happy to meet with you or any members of the council. Unfortunately I will be out of town when the hearing takes place. Very truly yours Hap Byers 401 via Lido Soud Newport Beach California 0 -= a - C C� ;r ;7 Ti ;tom L A .� DUDLEY W. JOHNSON 801 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 646 -8535 dudjan @pacbell.net August 5, 2005 James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: St Andrews Church *05 ?;1n :c;Q CH If the City has a General Plan but the Council changes it to conform to a structure the Council approves, why bother to have the plan in the first place? In the case of the Church the General Plan for the area the parking lot now occupies was originally designated residential, but when the Church bought all the houses and eliminated the alley separating the original Church property from what used to be single family homes the General Plan ballooned to incorporate what had been a residential area into an institutional area. The Zoning Ordinance for that parcel is residential. Because of the previous expansion the General Plan and the Zone Ordinance do not conform so the Planning Commission and the Church propose to change the zone designation. I'm confused by the chicken or egg thing — it seems like the Plan should come first and the structure conform to it rather that the other way around. If this is how this process works, and the church wants to further expand their "campus ", all they need do is buy more houses in the area and when they have enough the City will alter the General Plan and subsequently change the zone designation to accommodate it. Somehow that does not seem right- I'm also confused by height limits. As I remember, with the original request for expansion in the early 1980's a height exception was requested allowing one of the buildings to go much higher. Apparently the City was considering approval until one of the neighbors rented a large helium style balloon and floated it up to the proposed height. That put a stop to the building, but not the cross. That cross has, for more than 20 years, been looking down into our second story bedroom every night, and its two blocks away! Obviously the height limit imposed by the Municipal Code was circumvented. Why bother to have such limitations if they are not adhered to? I have a concern that other citizens of our community might think that because we in the neighborhood oppose any further expansion of the St Andrews site that we oppose the Church. That is simply not the case. This is not about religion or Christianity or Presbyterians. This is about traffic and parking in what is supposed to be a residential neighborhood — one with children playing and riding bikes and tossing the ball around with their dads. It is a normal neighborhood with guys standing around talking sports and wives carrying on about the kids. But it all stops on Church activity days. It doesn't matter if it is a normal church service or a funeral — kids and adults alike move inside because as one neighbor put it, "...It's the St Andrews 500 ". If general plans and zoning ordinances have any value this project should have been stopped dead in its tracks in 2000 when the Church first approached the City. Church facilities like the Calgary Church (The Crossing) or Mariners Church demonstrate the proper way to expand beyond their existing sites, they moved to locations that were appropriate for their plans. If St Andrews had been told no at the outset they may very well have done the same. The money they have already expended could probably have covered most of the cost of a site appropriate to their goals. The Mormon site is a good example of what they could have done if told no at the outset. Now they are in a tough spot, land prices and availability have moved at such a pace moving would be very costly. But should the citizens in the neighborhood suffer because employees and elected officials of the City could not bring themselves to just say no? If this expansion plan were put to a vote of the electorate it would be defeated soundly. Why? Because most of the people voting would either be homeowners from the immediate neighborhood or members of the church, and the majority of the church members would not be able to vote because they are not citizens of Newport Beach. Hopefully the City Council will put an end to this mess and have the courage to just say no, no further expansion at all. Take what you got 20+ years ago and live with it. Sincerely, Dudley Johnson cc: Council Members Vernona Kay Fath 609 Saint James Road Newport Beach, Ca 92663 949 - 646 -2637 Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church 600 Saint Andrews Road Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Gentlemen: '05 AUG -4 ,4 9 :13 r� c Re: "A Good Neighbor For The Last 50 Years" I received a letter in the mail from your church this week stating that you have been a good neighbor for the last 50 years. I do not agree that you have been a good neighbor in our neighborhood. In fact, you have given this neighborhood problems since the early 7O's when you first started to build and those problems continued through the 8O's, the 9O's, and now. You must think some of us don't remember your grand expansion ideas, however, I have saved the different articles over the years in reference to your plans. Your plans to expand will effect all of us in our neighborhood. Many homes here have been expanded over the years but they did not involve bringing more people and traffic into our beautiful neighborhood. Your expansion will create more future traffic problems for us. We have had to live with your parishioners parking on our streets for all these years and now you want to bring more people with cars into our neighborhood? In your letter you wrote that you have created a safe place for children? That might be true for toddlers but did you know that after your Wednesday night youth classes that your "children" are in the high school parking lot unsupervised as they yell and party at their cars with their fellow friends from church classes? They may leave the church with three letter words out of their mouths but they quickly turn to four letter words as they yell at each other and rudely awake the neighborhood. Unless your church starts giving better supervision to these children as they go to their parked cars it is a huge concern for us to think that these children are going to be out at all hours to go to the gym you have in your plans to build. Their behavior is completely unacceptable and we shudder to think what the future would bring if you continue with your plans as they are now. So you think you have been a good neighbor? My daughter lives in the northern part of Santa Ana. They have a very nice church in their neighborhood though it is not the one they attend, however, the church has always reached out to the neighborhood. Their neighborhood church sends out flyers to each house inviting the neighbors to join them at church sponsored free concerts and other activities. They also invite the neighborhood to attend Christmas, Easter, and other special services. Some of the neighbors belong to that church and others don't but the ones that don't do feel connected to that church since the church has always reached out and been a part of the neighborhood. When is the last time your church did something like that? For the last fifty years we do not recall ever having your church invite the neighbors to anything. Good neighbor? You were given the opportunity several times over the years to move to another location where you would have the room to expand. You chose to stay here. The people you have in your church are from other areas. We know that our neighborhood has only a few people that go to your church. We have met others that used to go to your church but chose to change churches because of your "big business" attitudes to quote them. Rather than continuing on with your big business expansion plans, maybe it's time you become a good neighbor. S'' i //ncerely, Vernona Kav ath cc: Cliff Haven Homeowners Association Newport Beach City Council Daily Pilot DONALD R. AND JANET C. WARNER 16561 HARBOUR LANE .05 RJG —3 A 9 :28 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 August 1, 2005 C c: -0 IT`('LrK CiT`,' Q+,7aOH; h ei'iifi&Iand City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Please vote YES on St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church's proposal for a Youth and Family Center and parking structure. Our young people need safe and positive places where they can gather for recreation, nurturing, and relaxation, especially during the after school hours. The present facilities at St. Andrews are inadequate to meet the needs of the approximate 300 active students. A new center would better serve the youth from Ensign Junior High and Newport Harbor High Schools. By providing a gymnasium, athletic and active events which currently take place in the parking lot, would be moved indoors eliminating excess noise to our neighbors. This proposal does not promote significant new uses at the church. It is NOT expansion. We are proposing better facilities for the services we already provide. The proposed parking facility would increase parking spaces by 60 %, adding 150 new spaces. This subterranean parking structure would be the most aesthetically pleasing solution to the community. St. Andrew's has endeavored to be sensitive to the concerns of nearby residents, and has agreed to be governed by limitations on church operations that help ensure peace in the adjacent residential community. We have also significantly reduced the size of our original proposal. We have been members of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church for 25 years. We ask you to support our goal to better serve the needs of the community by voting YES on our proposal for a Youth and Family Center and parking structure. Sincerely, 01& Donald R. Warner cc: The Daily Pilot, Letters to the Editor 4 Date Copies Sent To: Mayor A'uncil Member oir°anager El July 31, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council P.O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA. 92658 I have been a member of St. Andrews Church for at least 35 years and have supported it both physically and financially until just lately. In the neighborhood that I live in there has been lots of construction. Houses being torn down and large one built. The noise, the traffic, the dust, the trucks has been hard to live with. I can just imagine the noise, the jackhammers, trucks, etc. that will have to happen if St. Andrews is allowed to enlarge again. It is a residential area, zoned to be residential. Just think how the neighbors will react when the construction begins. Please St. Andrews stop this, You don't have the space, the zoning. Let's help other churches expand that have the right and the room. Let us "Love Our Neighbor "as our Bible teaches. A Presbyterian, (one among many with this thinking.) CC: The Daily Pilot, Letters to the Editor Date 10 Copies Sent To: /V ayor Council "Aember yry anager e �� �� __ J CV �Q F L ON �-- _G > �o n OL =L Date 10 Copies Sent To: /V ayor Council "Aember yry anager e �� �� __ J AIl6 —3 A9 :28 _y4k Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Cate ��3l05 ,y or �•n� r n 0 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. / Sincerely, 7 . RECEIVED I Z AIIG 11 P 1 :48 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Honorable IA*byFd"PCRyBGWhcil City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -1768 Webster Jones 341 Costa Mesa St., Costa Mesa, CA 92627 August 7, 2005 I was called to this area in the fall of 1949 to accept an assignement at Newport Harbor H.S. to teach all math courses above Beginning Algebra. The school's enrollment at that time was less than 900; one could stand by the High School's tower and have an unobstructed view of Ensign School and most of the area to the south and west of N.H.H.S. St. Andrew's moved into its first unit in September of 1950. This was the beginning of more than fifty years of growth. Almost all the homes in the Cliff Haven area were one story and remained that way until recently. St. Andrew's and the enrollment at the high school grew along with the area. In 1970 the high school's enrollment was around 3000 students. This coming fall it is projected to be 2472, having dipped to less than 1200 in the last fifteen years. During this time the high school eliminated busing most of its students and as a result more of them now drive to school or are brougt by parents or ride the Orange County bus system. A few still ride bikes. The school's parking facilities are usually full, and some of the students need to park and trove their autos on the adjoining streets every two hours. I am sure this has been an annoyance to the neighbors during the week. Church members are permitted to use the high school's parking lot and avoid driving on the Cliff Haven streets when possible. In the meantime the church's long term solution hopes to increase its parking area by going underground by some150 spaces which should decrease the parking problems. One suggestion that would make the Cliff Haven area safer would be to install sidewalks for pedestrians and for children to play on instead of in the street. igned, 4e Abs REC rE IV D '05 AUG 11 A 9 :27 OFFICE G. "HE CITY CLERK CITY 0; t WPORT BEACH The Honorable John Heffernan Mayor Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Heffernan: 542 Santa Ana Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 August 7, 2005 I have just finished writing Dr. John Huffman of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church letting him know that I was dismayed to learn that his church is asking for additional expansion on its current site. In my opinion the church has already grown to a size beyond that of a neighborhood j hunch. In a recent postcard sent to neighbors from St. Andrew's it is stated, "... like many of your neighbors, we need to remodel ..." however, my neighbors do not usually remodel to the extent that a General Plan Amendment is required I do not see how St. Andrew's can expect the community to support its request for additional expansion when it is apparent that the church is considered by many to be a neighborhood nuisance at its present size. Look at the number of signs in the neighborhoods asking for no additional expansion. For many years the community around St. Andrew's has endured automobile traffic, noise, parking problems, etc.; please consider the effect the requested future expansion plans will have on them. I'm sure the good works of the church are commendable. Unfortunately, the uncaring attitude towards its neighbors diminishes those positive efforts. Whatever happened to the "Golden Rule ?" Who voting for this expansion of St. Andrew's would like to have the church - created noise, traffic, and parking problems in the middle of their residential community? I understand that St. Andrew's is not in your specific council district, but I hope we can count on you to see precedent - setting possibilities of this vote on their expansion and the viewpoints of your constituents who oppose this expansion. We strongly urge you to vote against it. Thank you so much. Sincerely, loan E. McCauley tJ t�! w 0 LtJ Mayor Heffernan and City Council August 6, 2005 City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -1768 St Andrew's Presbyterian Church Youth and Family Center Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: We are writing in support of the proposed Youth and Family Center proposed by St. Andrew's because we believe it will provide a safe and enriching place for young people to gather. As parents of three sons, we have witnessed what society offers our youth in the form of ever more violent and sexually explicit entertainment. Our daily news is filled with discouraging accounts of teen alcohol abuse, sexual misconduct, and violence. We firmly believe, and have directly observed in St. Andrew's families, that this trend can be avoided as young people go through adolescence by involvement in worthwhile programs, many of which involve community volunteer efforts. We are not saying that every St. Andrew's child is perfect. What we are saying is that activities at St. Andrew's provide supportive, wholesome altematives to what is otherwise available. The existing facilities at St. Andrew's cannot support the programs our kids need. There are not enough rooms and the buildings are outdated. St. Andrew's has done an excellent job of working with the surrounding community to mitigate any effects of the proposal. In fact, with the landscape screening and improved parking, there is likely to be a reduction in the effects on the surrounding community. This project cries out for a broader perspective. The positive effects of having a safe alternative for our youth can't be quantified as easily as traffic counts or decibel levels. We are asking that you carefully consider these less tangible aspects of this proposal as ygu make your decision. The bottom line is that this project is likely to turn some young people's lives around. Please weigh that against whatever community concerns may still remain after this project has been so significantly reduced and mitigated. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this important project. ti Y� z U N J� �w r m 7Sincerely, 7 Michael W. Selna & Marja Dawn Selna ow wo M. W. Seim 6284 Foo Uundngm e lh. , CA 92648 August 8, 2005 Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California, 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I have been a resident of Newport Beach for 36 years, and a member of St. Andrews for all of those years. This building permit request is NOT for a profit - making entity. This is about a church which has been a part of the neighborhood and City for 50 years, a property owner that wants to "rework" it's building facility for more efficient use of the property and to address the needs of the future. The church objective is really no different than all the property owners in the neighborhood remodeling their homes. This is a neighborhood that is a mixed use community, not a pristine master planned community such as Irvine where all the various uses can be "compartmentalized" into neat little areas. This area has schools, medical offices, residences, and churches. And St. Andrews was there before most everything else was built in the area. That doesn't imply just because they have been there a long time, they can do whatever they want. On the contrary, the Church has "bent over backward" trying to be a good neighbor. YEARS have gone on attempting to be a good neighbor and listen to their needs, objections, etc. The Church has REDUCED the square footage desired by 400/6. That is a BIG COMPROMISE. What has the neighborhood done in return? I am not aware of any compromise. They want NO church project. But they want to continue to build their MC MANSIONS on all their individual lots. The Daily Pilot talks about `mediation failed ". Mediation reduced the plan by 40% and they are still screaming. For "mediation" to work, you have to have two sides that are willing to look for common ground. What continues to amaze me is that part of this project is for the Church to provide $3 million for Harbor High to build a parking structure to get cars off the street. That is a source of much of the problem but that never gets any attention or recognition. At the end of years of controversy, I sincerely believe it is time to draw this chapter to a close. For the benefit of all citizens in the community at large, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND that you vote in favor of this request by St. Andrews. r —_ Sincerely, �U 0 q mw oLoren Pannier UJ w �- z � f 1 -W � Z AMNipR :lJ �U O " RECEIVED '05 Al1G 11 A 9 :27 OFFICE OF 'HE CITY C± ER6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACii Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and after- school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. k( ' The leadership of St. Andrew's has made. significant changes to the plan, such as reducing the density,of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating .conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address . community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Fancily Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, 546 Redlands, Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I have been going to St. Andrews for 30 years. I do remember building the new sanctuary and Sunday School rooms. Now, we are planning to build a Youth and Family Center. There would be an underground gymnasium for our children, youth and adults that would be sound proofed so that very little noise would affect the neighbors. The new computer lab will help and aid the community's children. It is important to have this technology available to young children, especially with the competitive markets of India and China. Neighbors have complained about the churches parking and the new plan will help resolve this issue with 150 new parking spaces on our campus. I appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrews proposal for a Youth and Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerelyc��� CD om c an H art ,: z �m M v o Ay -- W rTi � m � 0 iv -x r RECEIVED Z Atl6 11 A 9 :27 OFFICE 01' THE CITY CLERf CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mayor Heffernan and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth and Family Center is an opportunity to provide significant benefits to the youth in this community. It will also help to address some of the traffic and parking issues in the neighborhood. I firmly support this proposal and encourage you to vote in favor of this worthy plan. The primary purpose for building the Youth and Family Center is to provide better facilities for our existing programs. The church simply does not have enough rooms to operate the kinds of weekend and. after-school programming that they would like to offer. The youth program needs space that allows for physical activities and after- school tutoring, one -on -one counseling and mentoring. The leadership of St. Andrew's has made significant changes to the plan, such as' reducing the density. of the project by more than 40 %, creating a long list of operating conditions, which limits occupancy on the site and other aesthetic changes to address community concerns. We want to provide a plan that provides for the youth, while attempting to address the concerns of our neighbors. We appreciate your commitment to our community and hope you support St. Andrew's proposal for a Youth in Family Center. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, WAYLAND and VIRGINIA AUGUR 1316 E. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 August 8, 2005 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Newport Beach P. O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -1768 Re: St. Andrews Church Youth and Family Center Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: '05 AtI; 11 A 9 :26 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERtt CITY OF ,NEWPORT BEACH The proposed new Youth and Family Center at St. Andrews Church is a rare opportunity for helping young persons in our community. At no cost to the City of Newport Beach, it will provide for years to come an opportunity for many young persons to have a safe and purposeful outlet for their time and energy, with a great chance for their individual learning and self - improvement. Helping young persons to improve today will lead to better adult citizens tomorrow. The Church has been willing to and has compromised substantially on its plans, but unfortunately many of the local neighbors have chosen to ignore the benefits the Center will provide to the youth in the community. Instead they have focused on some temporary and probably imaginary inconveniences they might be faced with during and after construction. The NIMBY factor has apparently outweighed a meaningful approach to reasonable compromise on their part. We understand that the independent EIR has shown that both the short term and long term environmental concerns are insignificant. We strongly support the plans of the Church and ask for your help in approving the current proposal of St. Andrews for the new Youth and Family Center. Sincerely yours, )A/ Q� WAYLAND and VIRGINIA AUGUR cc: The Daily Pilot, Letters to the Editor fz.�� C(►.,nnbr�d�e. lu-�- Newpovfi &Co'l , C� G2ce iz0 ct" -(ail Au�p s 11 t 2a�5 To wNA&Y. 1� M y c " "") ! c vm (Aff k. )b ask +Ike c i f r C c i f �oY ids ` 'Pik 4\C -S-t_ hyavr ws you+" cu'd E yv+i } y �eviker It bClleVC _ Ar,rbre s Glues cum fXCellckia- fob ('�l1eo� (HAS CCv�ke�- IS Yteedc� �b ��� Cgce!I'C- 6` G v�ro(rr \P-M- - 3Y !-eex\3 and tars Cep- �Ju,rL:) ib lea. r` �ocP �C1r Gm Mby Q1S (LAd C�QXACAer. Y� Um ! ! 0% Q r� ~cc = O _ Lo- =3m U F W 1x c o� 0 O Rich and Donna Newman 1230 Berkshire Lane Newport Beach, CA Email: dnewman0l @adelphia.net To whom it may concern, This letter is a request for the Newport Beach City Council to approve the modifications requested by Saint Andrews church, mostly a gymnasium, space for our youth and much needed parking. Saint Andrews Church would like to provide a gymnasium as a place for activities for the young people in our community. This segment of our population, our pre teens and teens, are already located close to the church, Ensign and Newport Harbor. We see this as benefit to Newport Beach. We also hope that the people living in this community who already raised their children here many years ago will consider the current availability of recreation facilities. The population has grown (including the sizes of the houses in this area) but the resources for the community have not. The streets are busier, local athletic programs are full to the point of turning kids away, and the libraries are full. The city has taken note of the latter, and voted to add library space. Why not a gymnasium, space for youth and parking as well? This will benefit the youth of the Newport Mesa area. From, Donna and Rich Newman Newport Beach �° M T . M To a mti ZI-- -1 m mr- Yr N nN O 'T ;]il rn �l M v August 10, 2005 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Newport Beach Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church building project has been a very controversial issue, as you well know. As members of the St. Andrew's congregation and residents of Newport Beach for 16 years, it has been particularly disturbing to see ads placed in the local newspapers that appear to have been designed not to properly inform residents of the church's plan but to inflame negative emotions against it, regardless of the facts. The campaign led by a select very vocal group of Newport Heights/Cliflhaven residents has used smear tactics to get attention and promote misleading and downright false information. Their approach leads us to believe that many, if not most, of the citizens opposing this project have not actually seen and reviewed the actual plan and contingencies. In addition, their aggressive stance has intimidated neighborhood residents who support the project. Please consider that St. Andrew's has been a vital part of the Newport Beach Community. Their planning of this building project has addressed the issues that concern the neighborhood. These issues are related not only to those projected as possibly arising from the completed building project, but also to the present problems such as traffic, parking, and noise. To alleviate the parking problem on the residential streets, an underground parking garage creating an additional 150 parking spaces was added to the plan as well as a landscaped wall designed to discourage parking from the adjacent street. To alleviate noise from the youth group activities, the plan includes a gymnasium, soundproofing, and subterranean rooms for youth gatherings. A reasonable person would conclude from these accommodations that St. Andrew's has the community's, as well and the neighborhood's, best interest at heart. The goal of this building plan is to provide a much - needed safe haven for the youth of the Newport Harbor area. It should be considered a remodel of the existing facilities to update and improve their function to meet this worthy goal. Your decision this Thursday evening is a difficult one given the emotional arena in which it must take place. We are confident, however, that you will make your decision based on the facts as provided in the plan and on the needs of the Newport Beach community. Thank ygu for consideration and your service. 1;1 r m Sincerely, 1 LD )pKenaMarita UJ o Wittman Qf 1225 Blue Gum Lane oNewport Beach