A neighborly heads-up would have been nice

Terry Botros

I read with great interest your interview with John Huffman, senior

pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, in Sunday’s edition (“Q &

A”).

In the piece he says of the expansion, “we should have done this

in the early ‘80s ... but we didn’t know how to do it right.” As a

longtime neighbor of St. Andrew’s, I respectfully suggest to Huffman

that they’re still not “doing it right.” Here are some facts.

In 2001 and 2002, the church approached the school district with a

plan to erect a parking structure at Newport Harbor High School on

15th Street. They did this without consultation with the neighbors.

Not surprisingly, the neighborhoods opposed this outlandish proposal

for many reasons: traffic, security, financial priorities within the

school district, school land use, aesthetics, etc. In fact, the

proposal was lampooned on the editorial pages of the Daily Pilot. The

school board was left holding the bag in the face of the

neighborhood’s reasoned opposition and rejected the church’s plans.

After all, who among the readers would welcome a parking structure in

their neighborhood, especially if that structure was only the first

step of a large expansion?

In pursuing the existing development proposal, the church once

again never consulted with the neighbors before filing their plans

with the city. Let me repeat that: The church put together plans for

a parking structure, gymnasium/performance hall, a 35% expansion of

space, and filed those plans with the city without ever approaching

the Cliff Haven and Newport Heights neighborhoods to look at

acceptance or feasibility. Instead of working cooperatively with the

neighborhoods on plans that meet the church’s needs while mitigating

the many existing traffic, density and noise issues, the church

retained the services of a cadre of well-connected consultants to

lobby and push the proposal through the city.

Since those plans have been filed, the neighbors have had several

meetings in which the church has presented and attempted to sell the

expansion plan, but at no time has the church administration proposed

tabling the proposal and working with us on alternatives.

Instead, the church representatives insist -- as Huffman repeats

in the interview -- that this 35,000-square-foot expansion is a

simple remodel, as many of us have done in our own homes. I don’t

know about you, but I’ve not seen many homes remodeled to add a

full-court gymnasium and performance hall and 400-space parking

structure.

In recent years, St. Andrew’s has also bought the apartments at

the corner of Haven Place and St. Andrews Road, and is on the record

as wanting to acquire the Masonic Lodge at the corner of 15th Street

and St. Andrews Road. These are the actions of a church looking to

expand. The church is not spending $20 million simply to have a nicer

facility for the present congregation. Through its regular

advertising in the Los Angeles Times, Huffman’s own closing words in

the interview and through the statements in the church’s fundraising

material for this expansion, St. Andrew’s is clearly looking to raise

the number of activity participants. That would be well and good if

the church was at a site adequate for that level of congestion.

The neighbors believe that a development that will become

two-thirds the size of a Wal-Mart Supercenter is not a simple remodel

and is not appropriate for a residential area. We believe a

development that will result in an additional 328 car trips a day is

not appropriate in an area in which the city already has to spend

tens of thousands of dollars to mitigate the existing traffic

congestion. We believe that a development in which a proposed

mitigation is to cone off public streets and have ushers direct

traffic and parking is not one that is indicative of a community

church. We believe proposing a gymnasium/performance hall and a

parking garage within a few dozen feet of residences does not show

sensitivity as a neighbor, and is simply lousy land use. We believe

that St. Andrew’s already has a tremendous impact on the surrounding

homes, homes which did in fact predate the present church by decades.

To continue the metaphor Huffman offers in the interview, even now

the shoe does not fit the foot.

The church, of course, has every right to propose any plan they

wish and file it, as they have done, without consulting the

neighbors. Unfortunately, by proposing a plan that is so out of scale

with the surrounding residential area, and by attempting to steamroll

those plans over the neighbors, the church is seen by many as

insensitive and bullying.

In my opinion, “doing it right” would have the church coming

together with the neighbors, many of whom are parishioners, with a

list of project objectives, combining that list with the neighbors’

existing concerns, and then cooperatively developing a reasoned

enforceable plan that meets the needs of both without requiring

zoning changes or general plan amendments. That process wouldn’t be

easy, and it wouldn’t be quick, but for a Christian institution it

would most certainly be the right thing to do.

* TERRY BOTROS is a Newport Beach resident.