Preaching to a different choir

Donald Krotee, president of the Newport Heights Improvement Assn.,

does not have a church flock. But he’s got a membership in the

neighborhood organization he leads, which has become more like a

choir. Their one hymn? “No Expansion.”

Krotee, an architect by trade, is at the forefront of a battle to

get the venerable St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, at 600 St.

Andrews Road in Newport Beach, to scale down its plans to develop

more than 35,000 square feet of new space on the church’s 4-acre

campus, an effort that could cost the church about $20 million. The

church has applied with the city to receive a general plan amendment,

to go forward with its plans to demolish two buildings and develop

35,948 square feet that includes classrooms, a new youth center, a

gymnasium and an underground parking garage.

Church officials, like the church’s pastor, John Huffman, see the

expansion as a benefit for children, parishioners and the

neighborhood itself. Others, like Krotee, see it as one big mess,

encroaching on the equilibrium of the neighborhood, bringing, among

other things, unwanted traffic to an area that values privacy.

The Pilot’s Ryan Carter discussed the issue with Krotee.

Where are you now in dialogue with the church? Have talks yielded

any points of compromise? What’s the latest?

In the Planning Commission meeting in May several planning

commissioners indicated that they had but two ways to vote: red and

green, and if they did in fact vote, one of the parties may not like

the outcome. Most of the neighborhood people think that the statement

was directed to the church, whose arguments were more from the heart

than from a logical point of view. However, the commission clearly

asked the applicant and the communities to visit or revisit the

possibility of a compromise proposal, and the meeting was continued

in the hope of some progress.

In a compromise meeting in May, the church invited our working

group to investigate the possibility of a middle ground. This session

was hosted by an attorney assisting the church. The neighborhoods

stressed that the best alternative project and the one reiterated and

offered as an alternative project within the draft environmental

impact report, recommended a remodel, but no additional growth.

In this option, the church might [demolish] the two buildings, the

same as they plan to do with the current proposal, replace the

structures with abbreviated portions of their old buildings and

feature their new program (youth center and the gym), place the

buildings as to eliminate the current substandard parking and show a

net add to the site of zero square feet. This would enable them not

to encroach further into the neighborhood edge/landscape setback, as

they currently have proposed, and to use generally the rules of the

existing 1982-1984 conditional-use permit. As a second alternative,

the neighborhood presented a written outline of mitigation measures

in the recent July 13 negotiation session with the church. At that

meeting, the neighborhoods presented that they would accept the

burden of a remodel and some moderate expansion. Although the church

agreed to have another session just prior to the upcoming Thursday

Planning Commission meeting, they announced that they would attempt

to advance the environmental review report for their project as is at

the Thursday Planning Commission meeting.

The neighborhoods are hopeful that St. Andrew’s will carefully

consider our offer and before proceeding to Planning Commission.

Why does the neighborhood -- at least you and your association --

feel so strongly about the church’s attempt at growth, which is

already on its own footprint? What specific problems will underground

parking, a youth center and the other improvements cause to the

neighborhood?

Twenty-two years ago, the church asked much of the same thing of

the city and neighbors, proposing a “Crystal Cathedral”-scope

project. The commission and council, at that time, created an ad hoc

committee of neighbors, who scaled back the proposal to what we see

today. In that old design, the underground parking garage was the

first thing the church agreed to toss. As it stands now, the church

is as big as the average Home Depot, without collector streets, with

undersized and insufficient parking (regularly causing parking to

spill onto residential streets of Cliffhaven). The church’s programs

are no longer neighborhood in their scope. They’ve super-sized. Now

St. Andrew’s offers activities across the weekly calendar,

weeknights, mornings, and overnight stays for traveling youth groups,

bringing cars and busses to the neighborhood site never imagined by

the city ad hoc committee members some 22 years ago.

In regard to the church being on its own footprint, to provide the

parking to even satisfy today’s programming and worship demands, the

church is using over an acre of adjacent land for parking. The urban

need for them to park underground on their own site only moves more

parking closer to the neighborhood, but still will not solve the

existing parking deficit and the need to continue to park off-site.

The neighborhoods are also concerned that the expansion will increase

the volume of traffic on our streets, which already receive crowds of

cars from the church’s Sunday and weekday activities.

Increased traffic has been a big concern among residents about the

project, but wouldn’t underground parking on-site help decrease the

load on off-street parking?

No. The parking garage could actually make traffic worse. In this

expansion, more cars will drive through and down the neighborhood

streets. The parking is but one side of an unbalanced equation made

worse. Cars enter, leave and queue through parking garages at a much

slower rate than they do through at-grade parking lots. The church’s

proposed parking garage would cause traffic to back up onto the

neighborhood streets, further exacerbating traffic congestion.

Moreover, residents in the greater Newport Beach-Costa Mesa area are

generally parking structure-adverse, particularly to subterranean

parking. Studies show that residents will choose to park on a surface

lot or on a residential street if available.

What has your organization done to try and stop this? And how

involved have you been. Tell me how the idea for signs in

neighborhood yards calling for the expansion to stop got started?

The signs are an idea to make the neighbors aware of what is

happening. And, it works. We have received hundreds of phone calls

from neighborhood residents wanting to help the “No Expansion”

movement.

The church has a very extensive public relations and lobbying team

on board to support their proposal. The neighborhoods do not have

these resources. Instead, we have focused on getting the message out

to the community through letters to and meetings with council and

commission members. We ask them to look at the church’s proposal

objectively, and to try to envision what it would be like to have a

Wal-Mart-sized church locating next door to them.

Are you completely against the church’s growth? Isn’t there a

legitimate reason to grow when a congregation wants to cater to

youth, not only in its own parish but to attract local children in

the neighborhood who might not have anything else to do? In fact, in

our most recent offer to the church, we have assisted them in

beginning to find mitigation measures that would work for the church

and the neighbors. And, we additionally showed them our written

support for some expansion.

Rev. John Huffman has made the analogy that many of the homes are

expanding in the area, and that’s basically what his church is doing?

How do you feel about that?

The homes that are expanding do so within the limits established

by the City zoning code. The church is attempting to rewrite the

zoning code to allow them to become one of the most intensive uses in

Orange County. This is a church in a residential zone. The church use

is allowed only to the extent granted by special provisions to expand

given by the city more than 20 years ago. The neighborhoods are

already bearing the burden of the church’s increased traffic and

poorly planned parking. Now, they are asking, ‘Is it ok if we get

one-third larger if we jam the buildings underground?’ The reasonable

land use and planning answer is, no. The amazing thing is that the

neighbors are trying to find ways to allow for the youth center

through remodeling, and the church does not want this. They demand to

further super-size.

A letter to the editor of our paper once referred to the church as

a “guest” in the community? Huffman disagreed with this, saying the

church was just as much a part of the neighborhood as anything else?

What do you think?

They are both right. But whether a guest or a resident, we should

all endeavor to be responsible neighbors.

Do you attend the church? Have you personally met with Huffman, or

tried to meet with him?

We have had several meetings with Dr. Huffman but none have lead

to a reduction in their aggressive expansion. I have attended the

church as a regular visitor; I am not a member. I enjoy John’s

speaking and his message.

Five alternatives exist for the project: no project, renovation

without expansion, a project without new gymnasium, an off-site

parking structure, or alternative site? Which would you like to see?

I feel that our most recent proposal to the church, which would

allow for some expansion with mitigation, is very reasonable; it

would afford both the neighborhoods and church an equal amount of

give and take.

What will you and your organization do if the planning commission

grants a general plan amendment and allows the project to go forward?

Focus attention to council, the makers of the final decision. The

last resort is unfortunately litigation.