Differing visions for future

Nigel Bailey

PRO

Regarding the St. Andrew’s church growth, with all the rhetoric

about who said what 22 years ago about future expansion plans, it

seems that a point is being missed. There is no written agreement

binding either party. If it had been a major point of negotiation, I

can assure you there would have been a written record. In the

meantime, the thing that is being missed is that with all of the

conversation about “expansion,” it has not been pointed out that not

one single seat is being added to the sanctuary.

The number of people attending the services has not increased

appreciably in the 45 years I have been a member and probably

wouldn’t if we doubled the size of sanctuary. When I joined, we had

approximately 4,100 members, and now I’m told it’s around 4,600. St.

Andrew’s will never be a “mega church.” All we want to do is serve

members and attendees better. We are focusing on the youth and young

families, because if we don’t have something to offer youth and young

families, we are one or two generations from extinction. Massive

growth is neither anticipated nor desired. Our intention is to

maintain our membership; not grow it. And to “spread the Gospel to

all.” Who better than to our young people, to help them have more

fulfilling lives?

In the process of building the space to serve these families, one

would think the neighborhood would see the advantage of adding

additional parking on campus and securing an agreement with the

school district to assure long-term access to parking across the

street. In addition to adding parking, our construction plans include

sound, attenuated structures to keep boisterous youth from annoying

any one and to close the Clay Street entrance to the main parking lot

to discourage traffic through Cliff Haven.

The neighbors may not realize it, but the immediate neighborhood

will be infinitely better off after the construction than they are

today -- better parking, less sound and less traffic!

Few, if any, of the neighbors who seem so vocal on this issue

predate the church, so it does seem odd that they buy a home a block

from a church and two blocks from a high school and then complain

because there is a church and a high school so close by.

* NIGEL BAILEY is a former elder of St. Andrew’s and a current

member. He lives in Corona del Mar.

CON

John Huffman, a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and pastor

of St. Andrew’s Church, has written the Daily Pilot to dispute the

recollection of a Cliff Haven resident over a putative promise by the

church not to expand beyond its current configuration (“‘Promise’ was

never that church wouldn’t expand,” Saturday). Recollections differ

as to the substance of that agreement. With high rhetoric, Huffman

asks his congregation and the larger community to accept his version,

or find him unfit for moral leadership.

In any case, as Huffman notes, no such agreement is in writing,

and his word does not bind his congregation.

Regardless of what was or was not promised years ago, the

community did have every reason to believe that it would be

protected, its neighborhood character preserved and that the church

campus would not expand by the several layers of written restrictions

imposed by the existing zoning and general plan.

The issue today is not whether St. Andrew’s encroaches further

into Cliff Haven via Clay Street. The issue is not whether St.

Andrew’s should be allowed to remodel. This is not a debate on the

congregation’s vision for a youth ministry.

The issue today is whether St. Andrew’s should be granted a zoning

change and a general plan amendment, which will allow expansion and

eliminate, to some degree, restrictions on future “remodels.” The

issue is whether a residential neighborhood should suffer the

protracted construction of a massive gym, a conference hall and a

parking structure. City Council will determine whether this

special-interest group will be able to abrogate, over resident’s

objections, the codified protections designed to enhance the quality

of life in Newport Beach.

If Huffman has the votes, as his expression suggests in the photo,

which accompanied his letter, then St. Andrew’s (continuing Huffman’s

pedestrian metaphor) places us all on notice that the “foot”

(non-secular building visions) will no longer be bound by the “shoe”

(secular building restrictions) and it will be free to bunion from

“down into the ground and up into the air” and lay claim to the

coveted “National Church Architecture of the Year Award.” Can

high-rise, ocean-view, senior housing on adjacent church property be

far behind?

* DAVE YOUNG is a resident of Newport Beach.