St. Andrew’s already too big for neighborhood

The Daily Pilot article on the proposed St. Andrew’s project raised a

number of issues that might lead a reasonable person to question the

merits of placing a parking garage in a residential neighborhood to

accommodate the expansion of an institutional structure out of

proportion and character to the surrounding community (“Church

parking poses expansive problem”).

It was also refreshing not to have the picture of the photogenic

Rev. John Huffman accompanying the article, because the issue of a

general-plan amendment to facilitate a parking garage in opposition

to the immediate residents should not be a referendum on the leading

personalities against whom few, if any, would reasonably speak.

For the second time in as many decades, St. Andrew’s has asked the

community of Cliffhaven to accommodate its growing congregation. The

result is a facility that already exceeds the limits imposed by the

current general plan while providing less parking than required. This

means that on Sundays, 60% of all available neighborhood street

parking, all of the adjacent school parking and all of the church’s

parking are used to accommodate the parishioners.

There is a need for 700 parking spaces, yet the current proposal

will build a gym/auditorium on a portion of the existing parking.

This necessitates the construction of a multilevel parking structure

on the remaining portion. As residents know, the parking garage will

be a permanent blight on the neighborhood and, perversely, will

exacerbate parking problems. This is because (as the environmental

review noted) parishioners will not choose to be inconvenienced

negotiating their cars through the parking structure’s labyrinth

during the Sunday rush hour, when they can alternately park in the

neighborhood and make late entry to and rapid exit from their weekly

devotion.

But any debate about planning, consensus and compromise will be

moot should the city approve the general-plan amendment. The use of

this institutional facility will no longer be conditional, and the

Religious Land Use Act will remove city and community oversight over

any future use. Furthermore, once so designated, St. Andrew’s may

well determine that this site, which neither the city nor the

surrounding community envisioned as a campus, cannot encompass its

ambitions and sell the property to another religious organization.

Would those who benignly speak of fellowship using terms such as

sanctuary be as accommodative to Jim Jones and David Koresh?

DAVE YOUNG

Newport Beach