Expansion debate continues to grow

Approved youth center means less congestion

It would be wonderful if everyone had hindsight and could know

what we are finding out today because all of our residential areas

are becoming burdened. There isn’t enough parking for the schools.

There’s not enough parking for anything.

Traffic in the Newport Heights area has always been there and will

continue to grow with or without St. Andrew’s. In fact, St. Andrew’s,

I think, will make the situation a little bit less congested as far

as street parking. But you have the high school growing and people

building larger homes over there, which means more children, which

means more traffic.

The UPS and FedEx trucks, I’m sure, are just making deliveries.

City trucks are probably just doing their job. But overall, I think

that to try and say that the church has not done its best, and that

it’s going to create more traffic is the furthest from the truth.

I think that the church has done everything it can to improve the

community and should be approved with the utmost support --

especially from the heights area.

PAUL DAVIDSON

Newport Beach

More space

for moral growth

We’re calling to support the St. Andrew’s building project. We

feel that the youth of the community and of our congregation need

some additional space to accomplish their mission of relating so well

to kids in this trying time of moral and ethical need.

And it’s interesting to note that more than half of the building

proposed is below one-story down, which will help with the noise.

So, St. Andrew’s wants to be a good neighbor. The church has and we

will continue to be in conversation with the neighborhood and its

leadership. My wife and I wholeheartedly support the St. Andrew’s

project.

JOHN AND ANN LEHMAN

Newport Beach

A different way on church ‘Q&A;’

As a 26-year resident of the Cliff Haven neighborhood, I was

disappointed in the large question-and-answer forum on May 23 with

Rev. John Huffman. Disappointed not from the perspective of providing

Huffman an opportunity for his position on the proposed St. Andrew’s

expansion, but on the apparent lack of balance, given the

contentiousness of this issue.

Unfortunately, from reading Huffman’s responses, several points

become clear:

First, the church is seeking to characterize the proposed

expansion to add the youth and family ministry building as something

they had long been considering but did not pursue until now because

they weren’t certain as to what exactly to do.

As one who was present during the previous controversy regarding

the 1982 expansion, it is unbelievable to read Huffman’s quote that

“we should have done this in the early ‘80s ... but we didn’t know

how to do it right.”

I don’t believe that anyone seriously thinks there was an

opportunity to do this in the early 1980s. The project, as initially

proposed by St. Andrew’s in 1982, was dramatically scaled down due to

concerns of the neighborhood as to the size and density of the

project. The real reason another building wasn’t done in the early

1980s is that it wouldn’t have been permitted without a reduction in

other facilities that were constructed.

Secondly, the church apparently wishes to characterize this

expansion as similar to residents of the Newport Heights and Cliff

Haven area remodeling, or rebuilding, their houses. The church

indicated it just wants to do what the neighbors are doing. This

ignores a dramatic distinction: the neighbors do not need a general

plan amendment or zone change to remodel their homes because they are

not exceeding the density currently permitted by local zoning

ordinances. St. Andrew’s is already built out to the maximum it is

allowed under current zoning, unlike the residents who are expanding

and, or, remodeling.

Thirdly, the church also seems to argue that either it was in the

neighborhood first or that someone moved into the neighborhood when

the church existed, and people should have assumed the church would

want to expand. Given that there are a large number of churches that

have remained the same size in the same location for a number of

years, that argument in and of itself is questionable.

It is further suspect given that there are a number of neighbors,

such as my wife and I, who moved into the neighborhood when the

church front was only on a portion of St. Andrews Road and 15th

Street, and the entire portion of Clay Street, between St. Andrews

and 15th , was occupied by homes. When we moved into the

neighborhood, we certainly did not anticipate the major church

expansion that occurred in 1982, which we were also led to believe

would be the final expansion.

Anyone moving in after 1982 I think was justified in believing the

local zoning ordinances that restrict any further growth in

development would not necessarily be changed to accommodate further

growth. I don’t believe anyone moves into an area assuming that the

zoning in their residential neighborhood will necessarily change.

Ultimately, the question of St. Andrew’s expansion is a land-use

question. The church wishes to avoid the real issues by only

discussing their vision and perceived need for a youth ministry.

Obviously, no one can argue with the benefit of trying to help our

community’s youth. They can rightfully, however, question where the

appropriate location for such a project is. If St. Andrew’s is able

to accommodate a youth ministry within its existing facilities, or by

remodeling and staying within the size limits of its existing

entitlement, that is a viable alternative. However, the neighborhood

rightfully has concerns about traffic, parking, density, noise and

other issues that are attendant to a 140,000-square-foot facility on

a 3.9-acre site in a low density residential neighborhood. That is

why the neighbors in Cliff Haven, including my wife and I, are

opposed to the proposed expansion.

BRUCE C. STUART

Newport Beach

Let’s try not to

repeat the past

My comment is no, the church should not be allowed to expand. We

let them expand to capacity almost 20 years ago when they overbuilt

their sanctuary. It was their promise then that that would be as

much growth as they would endeavor in our neighborhood.

They have now pressed to again expand for a youth program, and we

are overwhelmed with traffic and other concerns, especially the

concern that they are not monitoring their parking for their evening

events. Children are unsupervised late at night after these events.

It is creating a huge problem in our neighborhood.

TOM CULLIS

Newport Beach

Youth center, noise, traffic don’t add up

I’m calling to oppose the expansion plans for St. Andrew’s Church

in Newport Beach. We are residents of Newport Beach and we think it

will create a lot of traffic problems as well as noise.

ARLENE WEINER

Newport Beach