Church should abide by 1984 agreement I’m...

Church should abide by 1984 agreement

I’m a 25-year veteran of the St. Andrew’s issue.

My husband and I have lived in Newport Heights and have owned and

operated an architectural firm for 30 years, also in Newport Heights.

My perspective comes from both a concern about our neighborhood and

an understanding of the city’s due process. But, like the neighbors

who have cried out publicly and in the local paper, I am deeply

concerned.

The proposal St Andrew’s is making is too large for its suburban

setting. The reality of this is obvious.

This project needs to be reduced to the limits set forth in 1984

by Evelyn Hart and the City Council. I was actively involved with

that process in 1984 as an officer of the Newport Heights Community

Assn. and remember well the deliberations and anxiety we all endured

to reach an equitable solution.

The compromises we all reached at that time were to be final. All

parties involved accepted the final resolution and agreed that this

1984 decision would be a permanent solution. The very fact that the

1984 decision would end any future talks of expansion was part of the

negotiated deal.

St. Andrew’s was granted its 1984 approvals based upon an

agreement to self-impose limits to future growth -- to fit within the

fabric of a neighborhood church.

I have no complaint with St. Andrew’s Church or its parishioners.

The church has provided a needed and valuable service to our

community.

However, if it has again outgrown its facilities, it should look

elsewhere for facilities properly zoned for continued growth, or

allow the current facility to be a satellite of a larger main

facility located elsewhere, so that the current facility can remain

to serve the local residents.

BONNIE JEANNETTE

Newport Heights

It’s time for a fourth plan for City Hall

I am in complete agreement with Joseph DeCarlo’s letter of May 11

wherein he recommends outsourcing city services before mortgaging the

future to build a new City Hall.

I attended one of the public-outreach presentations and was

disappointed to not get any information from our city manager about

his cost-benefit analysis of outsourcing.

I guess this topic did not fit into the fancy PowerPoint sales

presentation we paid $550,000 for. Maybe Homer Bludau hasn’t crunched

these numbers yet.

As I awaited Bludau’s eventual discussion of outsourcing as a

viable or even impractical alternative (which never occurred), I did

notice one interesting slide put together by the

build-it-and-they-will-come consultants. In order to provide the

planned staff at capacity of 225 employees (a 19% increase over

existing levels) with reasonable space, our consultants figured that

276-gross square feet per employee is just about right. First of all,

what are the additional 36 city employees for?

Second, could outsourcing possibly reduce City Hall staff by this

same planned growth number? If yes, then the existing City Hall would

provide about the same gross square footage per employee. By reducing

City Hall staff, we may not need a three-story parking structure

either. This seems way too simple, but I am sure glad we paid

$550,000 to those guys.

I believe Bludau and the council owe residents a thorough

outsourcing analysis prepared by third-party, independent consultants

(call it the Fourth Alternative). It should be put out to the public

via the same road-show atmosphere as was used for Griffin Structures

and LPA Architects’ expensive slide show.

Given the nature of this council’s attitude toward resident

concerns, I believe it is the minimum we need to make the right

decision.

If we are not careful, the next thing Ridgeway and company will do

is convince us we need a boardwalk down Mariners Mile.

EDWARD LYON

Newport Beach