HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-1995 PC MinutesMINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Romero, Smith
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart, Pruett
November 20, 1995
Monday - 7:00p.m.STAFF
PRESENT:
Vern Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary;Stan
Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,
Gary Johnson, CRy Engineer; and
Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE: MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6. 1995
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the Minutes of
November 6, 1995 as corrected: On Page S, second paragraph, first sentence -- the word "get" is to be replaced
with the word "gut".AYES:
Commissioners Bosch, Romero, Smith NOES:
None ABSENT:
Commissioner Cathcart, Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN
RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1930-91 - BUNDY-FINKEL ARCHITECTS
Applicant is requesting a one year extension of a conditional use permit approved in 1991 which expires
November 16, 1995. The project consists of constructing a 17,400 sq. ft. automotive center that includes
service and repair uses such as lubeloil change, car wash, and fire shop. The project also includes, and is
integrated with, an existing 1,600 sq. tt. Mobil service station located at 1935 East Chapman Avenue.
The applicant has been delayed due to negotiations with Cal Trans, because a substantial portion of the
site is located within the 55 freeway widening project area. The applicant is also negotiating with Mobil
Oil Corporation regarding reciprocal access required for the project.
The Staff Review Committee reviewed the request and does not have a concern with the time extension.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the Consent
Calendar item for 11/20195.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Romero, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart, Pruett MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS
November 20, 1995
1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-95; ZONE CHANGE 1175-95 AND AMENDMENT
TO THE CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC PLAN -CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY STADIUM
PARKING
LOT EXPANSION Chapman University proposes to develop a parking lot to provide additional parking
for future expansion plans. The project location is on the west side of Orange Street, between
Sycamore and Walnut Avenues, and includes 11 parcels addressed 404-490 North Orange Street.
The protect requires the removal of existing structures. The General Plan Amendment is requested to
change the existing designation from Low-Medium Density Residential, 6-15 dwelling units per
acre, to Public Facilities. The zone change is requested for redesignation of 11 parcels from
R-4, Multi-Family Residential to Public Institution. The Amendment to the Chapman University Specific
Plan is requested to allow street front setbacks of less than 20 feet along the west side of Orange
Street and the north side of Sycamore Avenue for the open parking lot development; to
modify the provision regulating the maximum density of modular units in order to allow 6 units north of Walnut Avenue and
6 units south of Walnut Avenue; and to allow the Specific Plan boundary to change prior to acquisition of the
entire block onthe west side of Orange Street, i.e., iT the parcel located on the southwest corner
of Walnut Avenue and Orange
Street is not acquired by Chapman University.NOTE: Negative Declaration 1469-95
has been prepared
to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Joan Wolff presented the staff report as several
people opposed this item. The project is located adjacent to the Chapman University stadium and consists of
11 properties on the west side of Orange Street, between Sycamore and Walnut Avenues. The proposal
is to utilize the property for a University parking lot. Ten of the 11 lots are to be utilized for a parking
lot, as part of this application. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change cover all 11 lots. The one
property left out of the parking lot site plan is the one at the southwest corner of
Walnut and Orange. The applications requested include a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the
properties from Low/Medium Density Residential to Public Facilities, a Zone Change to rezone the
properties from R-4 (Multi-Family Residential) to Public Institution Specific Plan), and then there is a Specific Plan Amendment,
which has three parts to it. The first part is to amend the setback requirements to allow the new
parking lot to have a 2 foot setback along Orange Street, and an 8 toot setback along Sycamore
Avenue. The Specific Plan now requires a 20 foot setback along those frontages. The second part
of the Specific Plan Amendment is to modify the provisions within the Specific Plan for a modular unit. This would be
to allow a maximum of six modular units north of Walnut and six units south of Walnut. The Specific Plan
now allows six units in each of the two planning areas of the University -- six in the
Academic Zone, which is generally located between Palm and Sycamore Avenues, and six within the Residential
Recreation Zone, whicyi is that part of the University that is located north of Sycamore. The
change has been requested because there are already six modular units in the Residential Recreation Zone. The
third part of the Specific Plan Amendment is to allow the project area to be incorporated into the
Specific Plan boundaries prior to the acquisition of the entire block. This is because the lot at the southwest corner
of Orange and Walnut is not yet owned by the University. It is believed to be in escrow at this
time. The details of the project are that the University is proposing to remove all the structures on
the 10 lots, the landscaping and utilities, to grade the properties and install asphalt, hardscape, lighting,
landscaping and irrigation, to dedicate a 7 foot strip of property along Walnut Avenue in accordance
with the circulation element of the General Plan, and Sycamore and Orange would both be retained
as public streets. There is no proposal to incorporate those into the University
property. The University presented staff with two protect alternatives.Alternative B is the one the Planning Commission is
considering at this hearing. It shows the parking lot incorporating the 10 of the 11 lots on the block
and it provides 203 parking spaces and 38 additional spaces on Orange Street. Alternative A is a later proposal. It
utilizes the entire block (all 11 lots) for the parking lot and is provided for illustrative purposes at
this time. It cannot yet be considered bythePlanning Commission because the hearing by the D.R.B.
for the demolition has not yet occurred and the property has not yet been acquired by the
University. Oncethe last property is obtained and the D.R.B. hearing is held, then the site plan can
be approved administratively to extend the parking lot to the final lot, if the plan is approved at this
hearing por Alternative B. This alternative would provide 240 parking spaces within the parking lot, after
the dedication of property along Walnut. A couple of supplemental studies have also been provided
to the Planning Commission. There is a historic mitigation plan that contains measures that are intended to mitigate the
impacts on Old Towne of the removal of all the old houses on the block. These measures
include publishing a notice in the local newspaper and posting the properties to advertise that the
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
inventory of salvageable historic materials from the structures (doors windows, mouldings, fixtures, etc.)
and then hiring a contractor to salvage and store these materials, and making them available for sale to the
public at cost. Lastly, to take archive quality photographs of the historic structures to provide a record of
what has been there. The second supplemental document is a Parking Study that was done by Austin
Foust Associates to look at the traffic impacts of the new parking lot. The Study concludes that the
parking lot will not significantly impact the current level of service at either the Glassell/S camore or
Walnut/Orange intersections, and that there will not be a need for a traffic light at Glassell and Sycamore,
or additional stop signs at Walnut and Orange. One of the other things the Study notes is that there is
not currently a campus parking deficiency, but rather a reluctance of students to use the parking lots. The
City Traffic Division would like to suggest that additional parking lots may not mitigate parking impacts on
the neighborhood as long as street parking is free and fees are required to park in the lots. With the
Specific Plan there are a number of conditions that have been recommended. Staff stated conditions 7
and 8 were no longer needed. They came from the Water Department regarding the need for an
additional water line and easements, and the conditions were based on an earlier version of the plan.
Chairman Bosch asked about the public notification process. Many adjoining property owners to the
existing Specific Plan boundary property did not receive notification in the mail.
Mr. Jones stated the applicant provided staff with a mailing list which included a 300 toot radius map
around the entire University Specific Plan boundary. He personally witnessed the stuffing and mailing of
envelopes and he was confident staff notified everyone on those lists. (A number of people protested
this statement --they did not receive notices.)
Chairman Bosch asked about the legal impact upon the hearing this evening?
Mr. Soo-Hoo responded based on Mr. Jones' recollection that the mailing went out, he recommended
if there were objections received, to enter them into the record, but go ahead and conduct the
hearing.Chairman Bosch said this was a serious problem. They have found on occasion that all noticesdon't
get delivered or the lists are incomplete before going out to the public. The Commission takes
very seriously the need to hear from the community, especially from those who may be affected by any
action pro or con) with regard to an application before them. But, again, the Commission will nose
the objection for the record and, regardless oT what action may or may not occur, the Planning Commission'
s action will be a recommendation to the City
Council.Commissioner Smith said in Ms. Wolfi's presentation she mentioned the action taken at this hearing
had nothing to do with the acquisition of Sycamore and Orange; however, in the letter to Mr. McGee from
Mr.Gary Braum, Item 2 on Page 2, it lists as an item the abandonment of Orange Street from Sycamore
to the south line of the two remaining non-University owned houses on Orange Street,
immediately adjacent to
Walnut Street.Ms. Wolti said staff has looked at a number of versions of the Plan, and some of the earlier
versions did call for the abandonment of those streets. But, as you can see, the plans being reviewed at
this hearing show the streets being retained as publicstreets. It's true, the original proposal that
came forward showed abandonment, but the proposal being considered does not include abandonment of
the street.Commissioner Smith said there was also something in the document Mr. Mickelson provided,
which gives it as an alternative plan. She has heard for a long time discussion about the abandonment
of South
Orange Street.Ms. Wolfs responded the mitigation plan and parking study were both done early on. There
was an addendum to the parking study, which reflects the street would not be abandoned.
The addendum shows there will be access to Walnut. In the mitigation plan they talk about this as
possibly being something chat would occur with a later phase, once all properties were obtained and their plans
for their buildings were known so they knew exactly what the need Tor parking was. Then they might
come back and ask for the abandonment. It would definitely be a separate action with separate
public hearings.Chairman Bosch clarified the Commission was considering the November 6 addendum to
the Traffic Study, superseding the June, 1995 study, which spoke of the potential abandonment and
the letter Commissioner Smith referred to, which was a February,
1995 letter.The public hearing
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
Ao licant
Gary Brahm, Vice-President of Finance & Administration at Chapman University, introduced
Bob Mickelson, their planning
consuHant.Bob Mickelson, 121 West Rose, has been Chapman University's consultant since June, 1995.
He pointed out the University identified a need for additional parking over a year ago, and has
been struggling with the various plans to come up with satisfying that need. That need is not necessarily
a deficiency in the number of spaces based on the adopted Specific Plan, but pressure from
the community that the students are parking in various areas, seeking parking around the campus.
The University is attempting to satisfy a perceived need and perhaps a practical need, rather than a
technical one to provide parking. They have identified the west side of Orange Street way back when theSpecificPlanwasoriginallyconsideredandadopted. At that time there was specific language inserted into
the Specific Plan via a resolution of the City Council that said the uses on the west side of Orange
Street could not be used for University purposes until the University had acquired the entire block. Part of
the request before the Commission is to relieve that language slightly. There has been a long history of
the proposal by the University to supply parking in this general area, which is as close proximity to
the center of the campus as they have control over and can find. During the course of this last year and ahalf,the University has been offering to purchase those properties on the west side of Orange Street.
Part of the frustration everyone has is with the ever-changing plans. Fairly recently, the UniversityhadacquiredallbutthelastparcelatthesouthwestcornerofWalnutandOrange. There is an agreement
with the owners to purchase that property, to allow them to relocate their home to another lot in townthattheyhavebeennegotiatingwith. There is a hand shakedeal; it's actually not entered into escrow, but
there is an agreement with the Harnack's (property owners). Before the Commission are Alternatives A
and B.Alternative A is the preferred plan. From a technical standpoint though, Alternative B is
before the Commission because the University has not yet acquired the final parcel. They have set this up
as the Harnack's have agreed to allow their property to be included within the boundary of the Specific
Plan and Zone Change, reserving the right in the event everything falls apart, they can withdraw their
property and even protest if they want. They don't anticipate that happening and are looking forwardtoeverybodyshakinghandswhenthetransactioniscompleted. One of the reasons they asked for the resolution
to be amended was so they could go forward at this time with at least the 10parcels. It's ameretechnicalitythatitwillberesolvedbythetimetheCityCouncilconsiderstheproposalandtheywillbe
able to present the entire block. Part of the timing is the result of the fact the University has constraints
on when they can do things. Their goal is to begin construction on the parking lot facility during spring
break. They were forced to get the process underway. The application was submitted to the City in
February or March. Since that time, they have been going through all the iterations and possibilities,
including the possible abandonment of the street. Their conclusion was they had too many irons in the fire; too many possibilities; and it got to the point where even they were misunderstanding them. They want to
keep it simple and just go with the parking lot that can be done; leave the street intact for awhile asapublicstreet; utilize the on-street parking that is there; and perhaps at a later date (later phase)
to come back and request abandonment of that street and part of Sycamore to create a total parking lot
in the area.They recognize that would require a new application, new public hearings with notification
and the whole process all over again. Mr. Mickelson was surprised by the Historic Mitigation Plan; he wasn'
t aware of that. He prepared the Plan with the help of the University and City staff. It basically
says those homes will be offered for sale to interested parties for $1. They can move them away.
The University will cooperate with them. There is a proposalin the University'shand -- it's brandnew. It's a proposal
by a firm who specializes in moving suchhouses. It's premature to present it at this hearing though as
he 'ust received it. The Hornack's intend to retain their home and relocate it to a lot of their choice withinthe ~ity.Failing to find someone to move the homes away and rehabthem, they've agreed to form
a committee that would identify those materials in the homes that are of historic value and have acontractorsalvagethem, offer them for sale at a nominal price to parties who may be interested in taking themandusingthemintheremodelofotherhistorichomes. This plan was put together to help mitigate the
proposal to remove the homes from the area. Within the application there is a request to change the Specific
Plan in that section which allows the temporary units. There are three temporary units at the northwest
corner of Sycamore and Orange, which house the Wellness Center. The University proposes to put those
up in the area of the dormitories. A specific site has not been selected yet, but that's
an administrative process within the purview of the Specific Plan. When they made the request, they said to allow
six units up there. By the time they got their act together, they realized they only wanted three. Sothey
don't propose to add six units up there; only the three that house the Wellness Center. They
have reviewed the staff report and conditions of approval. They find them acceptable. He wanted to
discuss one condition. It's condition 3 - a dedication of land to the City of Orange to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director in order to improve Walnut Avenue to its Secondary Arterial status. Dedication shall
be
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
made by an "irrevocable offer of dedication," or as otherwise approved by the Public Works Director.When they submitted their application and did their research, they found this was a special study streetarea. The actual width of the street has not been determined. It may be widened at some later date; itmayretainitscurrentwidth. Based on that and the fact that the project on the north side of the streetnorthwestcornerofWalnutandOrange) was specifically relieved of any requirement to dedicate, and amemowenttothestaffthatperhapstheydidn't understand fully, that no dedication was going to berequired. They, therefore, did not address anything on the south side of Walnut Street, thinking the 20footsetbackwouldprovideforanyfutureopportunityfortheCitytoacquireintheeventtheymightwanttodothat. They don't have any opposition to offering an irrevocable offer of dedication. That's fine.But, they would ask since there is no dedication, simply an irrevocable offer that may never be exercised,that the City measure the setback from the existing right-of-way line at the back ofthesidewalk,consistent with their plan on Alternative A. That leaves the plan intact and in the event there is a7footdedicationmade, there is still a 13 foot landscape setback and the parking lot across Orange totheeasthasa10footexisting. If they were forced to measure the right-oT-way fromtheultimateright-of-way line,which may never happen, they would lose four parking spaces across the widthoftheparkinglotthatisproposed. They agree with the
deletion of conditions 7 and 8.Commissioner Romero said staff made a comment that the University's parking lots are not
completely used. What are your comments?Mr. Mickelson understood that all of the lots are not used to their fullcapacityeveryday. He hasn't visited the campus parking lots that much, but he finds at certain times oftheday, the lot off Center Street, east of the campus, and the lot next to the stadium, across Orange Street, are sometimes 100%full. There may be other lots near the dormitories that are not full. The ones immediately adjacent to the student center and classrooms are full enough to warrant the expansion of
the parking lot to relieve the pressure from the students wandering around the neighborhood
looking for a space to park.Commissioner Smith heard Mr. Mickelson request three modular unitsratherthansixfortheWellnessCenter. (That's correct.) She
asked where they might be located?Mr. Mickelson responded the Tirst choice would be nearthemaintenancefacility, back behind the dormitories.
Parking is provided at that location.Commissioner Smith asked iT there has been anydiscussionaboutChapmanUniversitydonatingsomeofwhattheywouldhavepaidtodemolishthehomestowardsthemovingofthosehomes? (No.) Would that be something the University would consider in the spirit ofpreservingthosehomes? (He would ask the University and respond to
the question later in the evening.)Commissioner Smith asked how the salvaged items would be advertisedforsale? (They would publish a notice in the public newspaper and post the homes that wereavailableforsale. They have been working with the Old Towne Preservation Association and their Presidenthasbeenovertovisitthehomes.) Commissioner Smith was concerned that the items be well
publicized and printed in larger print.Commissioner Smith will attach a condition that it be well publicized inlargeprinttothepublic. She asked who the photographer will be in taking pictures of the homesandsites? (It would be someone who
is qualified as a professional photographer.)Commissioner Smith questioned their request for relief from a 20 toot setbackwitha2footsetback --how was that distance determined
because it was rather small?Mr. Mickelson said if they don't get that relief, they will wind up with averyinefficientparkinglot. Their goat is to get as many spaces in there as they can. They considered reduangthesetbackalongthewestpropertyline, which is identified as 10 feet. Personally, he didn't think that wasneeded, but he was out voted by everyone. They decided to leave 10 feet along the westboundary, which has commercial and apartments. In order to get the two rows of 90° parking, which was alwaysthemostefficient, they ended up with only two feet left. There is another alternative -- he hesitated to bring itupbecausehepromisedthestaffhewouldn't. But he will anyway. That is, if you could let the cars overhang by twofeetinthat10footplanteronthewestside, then you could have a tour toot hedge along there. If they're going to put in a hedge, which is shown on the plan, two feet is adequate to have a very solid, dense hedge that will screen the cars, to the 42 inches that is allowed by code. The other consideration isthereissomechancetheUniversitywillcomebackandrequestabandonmentofthosestreets, in which casetherewillbeoneparkinglotwithdrivewaysandtherewon't be
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
Commissioner Smith asked if Chapman had to dedicate property on the north side of Walnut when the
dormitories were built? (Mr. Mickelson deterred to Mr. Johnson.)
Mr. Johnson said the dedication was made on that north side. He thought the only dedication that has not
been made during the redevelopment or reconstruction of the facilities along those frontages was the
one a year or six months ago. He guessed the street was identified as a study street and the road
would be removed from the Master Plan and not require widening. Unfortunately, the alternatives to that
still haven't been worked out and they represent a substantial detriment to Collins and Chapman. It was
viewed as a symmetric dedication and that is the normal way things work. There's a precise alignment that
changes that.
Commissioner Smith said there was a handy system where the students duplicate parking permits and
then use them in the same way that residents do. She has checked this out herself. She has spent time
in friends' homes on the 200 block of North Grand and watched students pull up in the morning with their
sticker, pull away in the afternoon and they're not residents of the street. It's a clever idea and she
guessed someone was selling the permits. If that is to change, she believed Chapman should provide
no cost parking on campus in order to relieve the burden from the neighborhood. The University might
want to investigate this. Would Chapman wnsider openin at least portions of those existing lots not for
fee to try and relieve some of the burden on the residents
AI McQuilkin, Manager of Facilities at Chapman University, said they currently charge a $25 tee per
semester for parking permits. They had a problem with students complying with the parking regulations.
They had a voluntary permit system that they didnR charge for, but they found students would rather drive
across the street and park closer to the campus than stay in the residents' hall lot. They moved staff off
site from the lots that were more attractive to students. Since doing that, they have noticed a change in
the utilization of the lots (some favorable; some unfavorable). As they continue to monitor the program
and work with the program, they are making changes to it. They have also gone to a new method of ticket
processing so when people do get tickets, they can collect those tickets rather than them being tossed
aside and ignored.
Chairman Bosch had questions as well. Mr. Mickelson spoke about the number of parking spaces
proposed in the improvement that spoke of demand relative to the Specific Plan requirements vs. the
problems of management. He asked him to address and till the Commission in on what will be the net
gain in parking after other improvements to the campus take place. He understands the current lot on the
southeast corner of Sycamore and Glassell, which is allowed under the current Specific Plan to be
developed for academic buildings, will most probably be the site of an academic building, thus
displacing that parking. And perhaps increasing the parking demand because of the new building. How
does this lot figure into the other potential development on the campus and the net parking gain that
might result?
Mr. Mickelson said there is consideration for a possible building on a portion of that parking lot. There
are not even preliminary plans designed yet for it and it may, or may not go there. But one of the
considerations for adding more parking at this time than the Specific Plan would call for, is to allow for
perhaps some usage for that building if it becomes a reality. They've discussed that at some length;
there are no definite plans, but there is a verbal plan to perhapps put a building there. There may be
other sites or other buildings that are identified to use for that. In the event a building is planned, there
will be an extensive site plan review and another analysis of the parking that may be dislocated by that
building, it it becomes a reality.
Public Input
Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, asked those people to stand up who did not receive notices of this
public hearing. Even the Hornack's did not receive a notice. There are other residents not in attendance
tonight because they did not receive notification of the public hearing. She thought the process was
being done backwards. Chapman University should not be making a presentation to the Commission
until the last home is sold to them. Chapman University will not listen or talk to the neighbors; they are
lying to them. She knew Chapman University had plans for another building and she didn't think the kids
would park in the parking lot, but rather park where ever they wanted. Chapman cannot abandon the
street because they donY own it. She felt it was time to close the meeting and have Chapman meet with
the neighbors. She didnR trust Chapman and did not have faith in them.
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
Commissioner Smith asked Mrs. Walters it she had seen the letter from the Harnack's that was included
with the staff report regarding their consent for the property to be included in the Specific Plan, and theyretaintherighttoopposeatanytimeuptotheCouncil's final decision? (Yes, she had.)
Chairman Bosch noted the staff provided the Chair with a copy of the City Council Resolution 7233 which
includes under Land Use, Item 2, the College shall pay fair market values for the parcels. Fair market
value is assured since homeowners will not be compelled to sell to the College. He pointed this out
because he has heard rumors about eminent domain. That's not an issue before the Commission; they'renotgoingtoappproveordisapproveofthat. For the record, the Commission is aware of such a thing of
what is called Yriendly eminent domain" to where all parties agree to that as some basis of tax impact.
M.J. Martini, 638 East Walnut, was somewhat conversant with the parking situation with Chapman and the
neighborhood, having been involved personally with it for nine years. He remembered Chapmanwantedtoincludeallthestreetparking (with the Learning Center) that was on their side of the street that
bordered the campus as part of their parking requirements. That didn't work. They had to go to
residential permit parking for certain areas that were impacted by the Chapman parking problems. He
was amazed as to what has happened and changed over the past few years. He's now hearingChapmanrepresentativestellingtheCityaboutalltheparkingproblemsthathetriedtellingtheCityaboutseveralyearsago. They have finally admitted it. Chapman is talking about 38 parking spaces on
the street; that's fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to count it as part of their parking requirementsbecauseit's still a public street.
Socorro Baca, 313 North Center Street, across the street from Chapman. She didn't agree with the
Assistant City Attorney for the Commission to take action without most of the residents in attendance. It's
wrong and dishonest for the minority to rule. The parking tickets are sold for $50 up to $75 for a year.She didn't trust Chapman University because they have been dishonest with the neighbors. The houses
they are selling are full of termites; she would not buy those houses. She thought the Commission had
already made up their minds before the meeting started and they were just going through formalities.
John Alecaa, 510 North Orange, thought there was a lack of communication; not the whole story has been
told. They do have a go ahead, from the College's point of view, to start work on their new building.Without it, they cannot do it. The building will be from 70,000 to 90,000 square feet and where it will gowillpossiblybeinoneoftheexistingparkingspots, which would eliminate those parking spacescompletely, which puts the residents back to ground zero or worse. This was not noted or specified, but
it's something that ought to be taken into consideration as they look at the whole General Plan.
Carol Harnack, 490 North Orange, thought she was in the wrong order, but missed her chance to come upearlier. She realized she was in the middle of those speaking in opposition and that's not her intent.
She and her husband own the double lot at the northwest end of the 400 block of Orange Street, which is
the last property on the block not owned by Chapman University. At this time they are not opposingtheGeneralPlanorSpecificPlanAmendments, nor the parking lot proposal. They have provided the
City with a letter that authorizes the inclusion of their property in the proposal because they have reached
a satisfactory agreement with the University regarding the acquisition of their property. There are still
numerous steps ahead to complete the process and they are going forward in good faith to completethosesteps. They are working cooperatively with the City and Chapman University to do that. Theyhavereservedtherighttowithdrawtheirauthorizationandasserttheiroppositiontotheparkinglotplansifthey're unable to complete the transfer of their property.
Commissioner Smith asked her if she were aware of the mitigating plan of the fence, landscape and
everything that would surround her property if they decided to stay there?
Mrs. Harnack replied yes. They haven9 actual)y agreed to favor that situation. They reserved the right to
oppose that, if their property is not acquired. They opposed the street access in front of their house totheparkinglot. They would favor a cul de sac or some blocking ofT of that entrance to the parking lot.
Mr. Jake), 528 North Orange Street, was not notified of the meeting and was called from another meetingsohecouldbehere. It was a very underhanded move not to thoroughly check on the residents who
were not notified. If the people are not willing to sell, does that mean the property will be acquired byeminentdomain. What is the City's procedure on that? His property is within the proposed plan. Who
has the authority to give the final approval on eminent domain?
7
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
Chairman Bosch told him his property was outside the proposed plan. But, they will ask the applicant to
address specific plan expansions and also the issue of eminent domain. The City Council has to agree
to that, but there are other legal rights.
Mr. Soo-Hoo said as far as the City entering into it, it would be the City Council. There is a provision
of State law that allows private universities to engage in eminent domain, but only with the consent of
the City Council of the City of Orange. To his knowledge, no formal request of any kind has been
received by the City to engage in either
one.Shannon Tucker, 556 East Culver, has been trying to stay as involved in this project as she possibly
can.She has missed a few of the neighborhood meetings, but felt like she has been part of the process
in spite of that. She met with Bob Mickelson and some of the people from Chapman over the last
several months, and have been aware of the changes in plans and the different types of proposals that
have come forth. She could intellectualize the purpose of this and the fact that Chapman is expanding
and growing. She has been happy with the mitigation measures and suggestions of those for
historic resources. However, as President of the Old Towne Preservation Assoaation, her philosophical
and emotional basis tells her there is no mitigation for destroying nine houses. From her perspective,
the difficulty is with the neighbors. There is a lot of history and a lot of bad blood. She thought the
good faith and responsiveness that had to take place through this process had to be even more
than adequate. When things are going on simultaneously such as D.R.B. hearings going on after
Planning Commission hearings or proposals being submitted prior to acquisition of all the properties, it starts
to make people feel a little bit uneasy about the process. She personally had to have all of her ducks in
a row and everything in place before coming to the Planning Commission on a private project and also on
a historic project. When she didnY have everything in place, it was postponed. Everyone should
go through the same process in the same order. She had concerns on the landscaping, wall designs and
she has not seen the designs because Chapman has just settled with the Harnack's on their
agreement.Carole Walters said it seemed like everyone was more concerned about the homes rather than
the people who live
there.
Rebuttal Mr. Mickelson didn't know how to respond to the public notification. Shannon Tucker just suggested
they had to go the extra mile (those are his words; not hers) in this process. He believed they did.
He personally ordered the notification list from Chicago Title, went down personally to Chicago Title
and checked the map they used Tor the notification process. He personally walked the entire
neighborhood with his wife and wrote down all the addresses of all the apartments and commercial facilities that
would not get a notice because they may be tenants. To the best of his knowledge, notices were sent to
even the tenants of all the properties around there. They could have very well missed a couple, but
he believed some people got two notices. It surprised him the Harnack's did not get a notice. They
were not on the list from Chicago Title, but were intentionally added. There was no underhanded attempt
to exclude anyone from the notification list. He has never worked so hard on a notification list for a
project as he has for this one. It's a sincere apology on their part if there were errors. He did note,
however,the people were in attendance who said they were not notified. Mr. Martini brought up a couple
of interesting points. There's been a lot of spiring going on over the years and some mistakes have
been made by both parties. The University has admitted to a parking problem. Perhaps they don't have
the pertect solution, but it's a definite improvement and is a solution, and it provides some opportunity
for the University to have a little breathing room. He's sure the University would agree to no tee
parking,but he hesitates to agree to a condition that is finite. It would be better to work with the City
Traffic Department to work out a traffic management plan which may include some free parking for the
students,or non-permit parking He didn't think they could identify the problem in the solution nght now
at this hearing. Chapman University needs some flexibility; they've been working diligently to
reduce those problems. And they've made some progress. Perhaps a new problem will arise next week that
no one thought of. He explained they have the problem of timing for the University. They don9 really
have the leisure to just start a project and end it whenever they want to. They have to accommodate
the students during the school year and plan ahead. They have delayed the application at least four months
from the time it was initially submitted to the City and to the time they agreed with staff it should be
scheduled for hearing. The big reason for doing that was to purchase the last two homes. The one
was purchased;escrow has closed. The University has an agreement with the Harnack's and are looking forward
to that being a positive solution. There is obviously some contusion about eminent domain and
that the properties north of Walnut may be included in this request. They are definitely not. There
are no properties included in this request to expand the boundary of the Specific Plan, other than those
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
the west side of Orange Street, between Walnut and Sycamore. Nothing more has been requested;
nothing more is proposed; nothing more is under consideration, to the best of his knowledge. No one in
the 500 block is included in this proposal; only the block he described. In terms of eminent domain, that
was a request by the Harnack's to assist them in their total relocation package. It's something they have
researched. The City does have the authority to authorize the University to do. They also have the
authority and obviously the opportunitX to limit that authorization to this one specific parcel. There is no
intent to expand beyond that. It wasn t the University's idea, but they're willing to cooperate and try and
make that happen. Because they felt it was in the best interest of all parties, particularly the Harnack's
and the University.
Commissioner Smith asked ii Mr. Mickelson checked with Chapman on the demolition costs? (Chapman
shook their heads in the affirmative.) She appreciated the effort Mr. Mickelson made on the notices. She
knew Chapman University would be before the City in the future and she thought Chapman had to know
they have to make the personal appearance, hand delivery of the public notices to the neighbors.
Chapman would avoid all of this if they took the extra step. She asked Mr. Mickelson to recommend to
the University a more face-to-face notification process, especially with the people on
the borders.Chairman Bosch was moved to include a condition on the Specific Plan that requires
Chapman University to hand deliver notification flyers to property residents and properties -- not the owners -- within 300 feet
of the property, recognizing it's the legal obligation of the City to mail those, in addition to what may
occur. They need to do whatever they can to encourage good communication. The neighborhood has a
great history of involvement and listening well to what isn't said as well as what is said in what's going on
with Chapman University. He thought more teeth were needed for encouragement on the University's
side in a gentle way, but including that type of provision in this.
Mr. Mickelson said they agreed to that condition. There may be a technicality of whether it could be
incuded in the amendment to the Specific Plan, but he thought if they concurred, there's not much concern
about whether it was technical or not.
Chairman Bosch said there were several comments about the street abandonment at Orange and
Sycamore and the mention of an additional property on Sycamore (the 100 block East). He asked Mr.
Mickelson to address these concerns a bit more -- the concepts of abandonment as he understood it,recognizing
again it is not part of the application before the Commission. And, again, relative to concerns expressed
about gaining parking here only to lose it again. And to end up with no net gain in parking beyond
that required by that code after the construction of the new facilities is entirely proper, presuming everything
is well planned and goes through the process. It's important to address a bit more how that process
is seen by the University, how it applies to this parking lot that is proposed, and also to address
the nature and ownership and potential in the future for the abandonment of Orange and Sycamore?
Mr.
Mickelson said it was a complicated question, but he will try to answer it the best he could. It erhaps
could be true. Imagine a scenario where a building would be proposed on the library parking Pot
or the southeast corner of Sycamore and Glassell. It'sconceivable a building could be proposed on that
site that by combination of the building's increased demand for parking and the reduction of the parking
that it might remove from that same parking lot, one could end up with a wash or even a net loss.That'
s not a scenario the University is interested in. Part of the reason they went through all the iterations of
Phase 1, Phase 2, possible Phase 2, maybe Phase 2, is to leave the door open for either the abandonment
of the streets to increase the number of parking spaces over what is being proposed now should
that be appropriate, or even to allow the development of a parking structure somewhere in there.And
that could occur on the frontage of Glassell at Sycamore. It could occur on this parking lot or a portion
of it. Or on the old stadium parking lot. There is no intent to go forward and end up with a no net gam.
The University is proposing to have at least some net gain in the final analysis. It'strue they don't know
the exact size of the building, they don9 know the location. Many scenarios could be discussed. In terms
of vacating or abandoning the street, as you proceed easterly on Sycamore, from Glassell, there is a
market on the northeast corner. Obviously, the University owns the south side. There is a duplex on the
next lot in and then you star) again with the University owned property. There was never a proposal Iodate
to start that abandonment until you were past chat duplex. So that would be a public street under the
plans that have been considered so far. There would be a public street at least up to that duplex and
maybe even to the intersection of Sycamore and Orange Street. Then, you can abandon Orange Street,
between Sycamore and Walnut, and create a large parcel that could be one integrated parking lot or
perhaps parking structure. They never proposed to abandon in front of the market, which doesn't take
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
access or the duplex, which does take access. There have been discussions over the years (not on-
going) about the University purchasing that duplex. That's a possibility.
Chairman Bosch had one last question. Concern about the process was raised. He asked Mr. Mickelson
to explain what, if any, parts of the approval process for the parking lot development precedent to this
hearing have not occurred? Obviously, if the proposal were approved, the building permits still need to
be obtained for the parking lot as well as the issue of finalization of the southwest corner of Sycamore
and Walnut. But, he was thinking in the past. The University has gone through what parts of the process
in some reasonable order to get to this point in the application. Is there something still outstanding the
City is not aware of in the staff report?
Mr. Mickelson didn't believe so. It's a frustrating process at best. They must go through the Design
Review Board process for the demolition and removal of the structures; they have to review the
Mitigation Plan, and it's just recently the City has set up the process where the Design Review Board
reviews the project prior to the Planning Commission. Everyone is caught up in a little lack of practicing
ability. One reason why the notices were not mailed even earlier was because they forgot to notify the
Design Review Board and they missed one cycle of the process. To the best of his knowledge, they
have done everything technically appropriate. They still are aware they have to get the demolition
permits and still go through AOMD. There's a ton of things that must be done before the houses are
actually removed and the parking lot started. Those are things that would follow the approval of the
discretionary permits they have asked tor.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Romero said the new parking lot is rather difficult for any resident and there is good and
bad. The visual aspects of the parking lot is bad; traffic flow and student parking will be good. He
observed a substantial amount of students parking on the streets. In fact, one car followed him for quite
awhile as he went Trom block to block. He found it to be a deteriorated situation right now the way it
stands with the volume of parking. He definitely conceded to the one resident with the problem of
parking for a fee. He must see some improvement, especially when Chapman keeps coming back to
the City for approval. He sees this as a sound principal of land use. He will not agree with Mr.
Mickelson as to the setback. Landscaping is a nice addition to any flat asphalt parking area. He believed
condition 3 should be kept as it was written.
Commissioner Smith stated she was on the other side of the fence 10 years ago, protesting Chapman
University, trying to hang on to about 20 houses that the University was going to demolish. And in the
last 10 years, she was aware of a number of homes (maybe 25) that have been removed. She was really
sick at heart to think of another 11; however, the writing was on the wall when the Specific Plan was drawn
up. She thought Chapman University was a tremendous gift to their community; to have a place where
you can obtain a Ph.D. is a wonderful advantage to the citizens and children of Orange. She wants
Chapman to stay, grow and flourish. Those tiny, cute, historic houses just won't last forever on the
periphery of a University. However, she felt the University should Pay something back to the community
for the loss of that housing and those historic resources. That s why she proposed that Chapman
contribute the cost of demolishing the properties towards the move of those homes. She hoped they
would make every effort to see that those houses were moved to other sites rather than be demolished
and pieces of them sold. She figured the street will be abandoned as time goes on. There will be a
large parking lot there. She wants Chapman University to be on notice that it takes another huge permit
process to put up a 70,000 to 90,000 square foot building. She personally felt if that kind of project
came before the Commission, that the City would require the University to build their own parking
structure. Chapman must take care of its own parking needs. She sees this as clearing property to make
way for more parking and more buildings. But, she hopes as they do their planning, they plan to take
care of their own parking on their own property. It must be assumed; the City can't condition or require
that. As pointed out, the site for the next big building is in a parking lot. She didn't have a problem with
the 2 foot setback because it's not going to be there forever. Eventually, it will be a parking structure.
She was in favor of Chapman using their own property, for their own parking and getting the parking out
of the residential neighborhood. She didn't think $25 a semester is too bad for a parking fee. She
wanted Chapman to investigate why the students were not parking on campus. Have somebody do a
research protect on it. That is an irritant to the neighbors. She referred to condition 11 - in the event a house
would be demolished and parts of the house would be salvaged...she wanted to add to that condition:
That said sale would be publicized by newspaper advertisement other than the public notice page.
And add to condition 9 which deals with the sale of the houses for $1: In the event homes may be moved
to other sites, Chapman University will contribute costs of what demolition would have been 10
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
toward the move of the homes. She hoped Chairman Bosch will add a condition of the public notice
process being a little more formalized. She would support what Chapman University is asking for,
especially given the Harnack's cooperation with the University. That shows some tremendous strides.
But, the University must also come through with a few other things to give back to the community.
Chainnan Bosch would also like the Commission to consider under condition 12 relative to the houses and
the photos of them to include photographing the street with all buildings in place to record the historical
context. And that the photographs be provided to the historical archives of the Orange Public Library for
record. He added condition 14 stating that the Specific Plan for Chapman University be amended to
require the University to hand deliver notification flyers of any future public hearing or public body action
before boards of the City of Orange to all property owner or resident addresses within 300 feet of the
Specific Plan property or affected parcels of land. They have the stipulation by Mr. Mickelson for the
University, although it may still be a tiny bit muddy on the modulars, that their intent is, if this is approved,
to relocate three modulars north oT Walnut Avenue and to therefore leave in place the maximum of six
modular units south of Walnut Avenue and allow three north of Walnut Avenue, but have the positioning of
those modulars -- he was uncomfortable with them being subject only to the review of the Director of Community
Development. Everything that happens with regard to any major institution has major effects on
its neighbors. He wanted to stipulate that as the requirement of that reallocation of modular units that any
plan for location of modular units be brought back before the Planning Commission for hearing at the Commission
as ii it were a major site plan review to identify all conditions surrounding the proposed location
of those modular units, allow public testimony, and set conditions which may help mitigate any impacts
they may have. And, add that as part of the conditions for modification of the Specific Plan. Mrs.Walters
was correct; the people are far more important than the dwellings. They've seen what occurs when
there is a major institution that is successful, and everyone wishes success for them within the context
and needs of the community. He stressed open communication between the University and the neighbors
and to focus on the issues at hand. He appreciates the hard work by everyone. He felt this was
an important improvement to the community.Commissioner
Smith asked if demolition permits were required for the demolition of these properties?She
brings this up because in the past Chapman has not gotten the necessary permits and they should.Ms.
Wolfs responded demolition permits are required. It's a code requirement, required by law.Chairman
Bosch discouraged adding in a condition for the demolition permits.Commissioner
Smith said they had mentioned another condition that would be concurrent with Chapman University'
s building of the parking lot: That they will work with the Traffic Department of the City with a plan
to attract Chapman students to the University's parking lots.Commissioner
Smith worked very hard and spent a lot of time in working with the residents to put together
the Specific Plan. She remembers requiring that Chapman would need to own all of the properties
before they would come into the Specific Plan. She thought to herself they will never do it.But
they have done it; they have acquired the properties and it is now their right, as property owners, to do
with that property what they need to for the University. It's a bit of a growing up process for her and it'
sa positive step forward. She thought Chapman has been sensitive in the property they did acquire for
this purpose.Moved
by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the Mitigated Negative
Declaration 1469-95. It will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife
resources.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Romero, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to recommend to the City
Council to approve the Chapman University stadium parking lot expansion, General Plan Amendment
1-95, Zone Change 1175-95, and the Amendment to the Chapman University Specific Plan
with all conditions that have been aforementioned by the Commission added to
the Plan.AYES: Commissioners Bosch,
Romero, Smith
NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett
MOTION
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
Mr. Jones explained this item will go before the City Council December 12, 1995 and notification will be
made.
2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-95; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2130-95
AND ZONE CHANGE 1178-95 -SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA PRESBYTERIAN HOMES The applicant is proposing to construct a three story residential care facility for the
elderly. A General Plan Amendment is requested to change the site's land use designation from
Low Density Residential,2-6 dwelling units per acre to Low/Medium Density Residential, 6-15 dwelling
units per acre. A zone change is requested to change the zoning classification from R-
1-8 (Residential, single family, minimum lot 8,000 sq. ft.) to R-3 (Residential, multi-family). The
conditional use permit is to allow a "residential care facility for the
elderly" and to allow building height exceeding two stories.The property is located on the easterly half
of the
Covenant Community Church property, at 1515 East Taft Avenue.N TE: Negative Declaration
1485-95 has
been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Chris Carnes presented the staff
report because of noted opposition. The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
to change the land use designation from single family to multi-Tamily so as to allow the potential
development of the site with a community care facility for the elderly. The proposed facility is unique to the City of
Orange in that it doesn't have one quite like it.They will provide assisted care to the elderly
who are defined as persons over 62 years old who are healthy and can generally take
care of themselves, but who need some assistance in getting around.Normally these people donR
drive. The facility will provide transportation, meals, some physical care. Itdoes not provide any medical or
diagnostic assistance to them. That's where the big difference is between this type of facility and
a convalescent home. The specifics of the site development include the three-story building, which is placed towards
the southeast corner of the site, a driveway on the west side bordering the church, and a 19 space parking
lot to the rear of the site. The proposed building will have open porches on the east and west sides
that will allow the residents to sit outside, and there will be small open spaces on both sides of
the building. The architectural style hasbeen chosen to fit more in the Old Towne area, but it's a
combination of wood and brick siding with gabled roofs. The intention of the roof design is to reduce the
appearance oT the height of the building. The maximum height of the building is 46 feet. ThePlanningCommissionisbeingaskedtomakearecommendationtotheCityCouncilonthreemainissues: One
is the land use, which is the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. This type of use cannot be
developed in any of the other zoning classifications in the City. The second issue is the Conditional
Use Permit request to permit the community care facility. The third issue is a Conditional Use Permit
request to allow athree-story structure. The R-2 zoning district only allows a two-
story structure, but the Zoning Ordinance does allow additional height subject to approval of a
conditional use permit. Staff has received numerous calls from residents in the area complaining and protesting the request
by the applicant. Their concerns have been that the use is too intense for the site; it will
increase traffic in the neighborhood; and the structure is too large. Staff has recommended 7 conditions of
approval that would apply to the two conditional use permits.
The conditions do not apply to the General Plan Amendment request or Zone Change request.
Commissioner Smith asked what the total square footage of the
building would be upon completion?That can be addressed to the applicant in their presentation.Chairman Bosch
stated they have received a number of letters. A letter dated November 20 from Betty Schober; a letter in
opposition to the project because of impacts on the privacy of residents to the north and
because of traffic problems with access along Taft Avenue. A letter dated November 20 from Thomas
and Judith Maston who reside adjacent to the property on North Lincoln Sireat, again with objections
because of traffic, site area for the density, parking, medical service vs. a convalescent home,noise and a
question of whether this is a service meeting the community's needs. A letter dated November 20
from Mrs. Emilio O'Neal on Briardale, also against the proposed project with regard to noise,
traffic, parking and impacts upon the neighborhood, and market value of residences. Also,
a letter from Robert Schore, on November 20, Pastor of Covenant Community Church, representing
the congregation, unanimous in their opposition to the zone change, preferring the single family previously approved for
the
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
wncept of choosing tax revenues over welfare and quality of life of the neighborhood with privacy, resale
values, sunlight, traffic and 24-hour a day hospice operations. A letter dated November 20 from Ann
and Benton Crowl on Briardale, opposed because oT impacts on quality of life, traffic and noise. A
letter dated November 20 from Paul and Jean Hackman on Briardale, opposed to specific references to
the findings of the conditional use permit regarding services required in the community, impacts
and deterioration of neighboring uses, affects on the community plans and conditions necessary to
preserve the general welfare with detailed objections on each of these grounds. Fnally, a letter from Enrico
Cari on Sundance Circle, November 20, owner of the apartment building immediately to the east,
concerned about the statement of operations and designation of the facility, noise, light glare,
transportation,circulation and aesthetics because of the size of the building, and impacts upon the traffic and
easement through the church property as well as the property line wall. All letters will be entered into the
record.The public hearing was
opened.
Aoolicant Marilyn Kennedy, Director of Home Administration for the Southern California Presbyterian Homes,
1111 North Grand Blvd. #200, Glendale, introduced the members of their team. She told the Commission
a little bit about Presbyterian Homes, which was founded in 1955. They have identified an unmet need
for assisted living in the City of
Orange.Dennis Boggio, Lance-Boggio Architects, 5200 DTC Parkway, Denver, Colorado, stated
his firm specializes in the design of senior facilities, particularly assisted living facilities.
Nursing homes discourage independence and while they do a good job of taking care of the medical
needs of individuals, they don't do a very good job of taking care of the human needs of individuals
or housing needs of these individuals. Assisted living provides a lot of amenities and assets to meet
the human needs a nursing home never could meet. These people want to live a normal life; live in a house.
That's the concept behind assisted living. They wanted their building to become integrated
into the neighborhood and become a part of the community. The scale of the building reflects that of
a single family house. Sixty units is a magic number; it's of a scale that certain programs can occur efficiently
in the building. It's not like regular apartments. The majority of the units are efficiency-type units
or single room environments. There are also some one bedrooms. The average unit size is in the
neighborhood of 300 square feet (slightly over). There are common spaces in the building such as dining
rooms. They have exceeded the minimum setbacks on all four exposures to the site. In order to reduce the
scale of the three-story building and to create ahome-like, intimate building, they
also have one-story roofs and porches on all the major exposures of the building. Realizing
there are some houses and apartments adjacent to the site, and there are some issues of views into the yards
and privacy, they have made a landscape buffer along the entire west and north property
lines. They selected landscape materials for those areas that will grow up within a couple of years to the point where
the views from the windows will be blocked. This is to
soften the impact of the building.Commissioner Romero asked how many efficiency units there were
compared to the other units? Maybe 60/40? How many
units were on the third floor?Mr. Boggio responded 60 was a threshold number where it meets a
size that allows the provider to incorporate certain staff members and programs to occur in the
building. You can accommodate a much richer program because of the economy of scale with 60 units, rather than
40. It becomes a much more efficient building. It allows the units to be smaller; the smaller the number
of units, the larger the public areas need to be. He believed there were
26 units on the third floor.Commissioner Smith asked how many
square teat were in the building?Mr. Boggio responded the building has a footprint of 14,000 feet.
The total square footage in the building is approximately 41,000 feet. The top floor is actually the smallest floor
in the building at a
little over 12,000 square feet.Commissioner Smith asked if this
facility tell under any State license?M. Boggio said the facility was licensed
by the Department of Social Services.Ms. Kennedy said it was licensed under the Residential Care Facility for
the Elderly,
which
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
Bob Mickelson, 121 West Rose, has been the consultant to Southern California Presbyterian Homes
regarding the land use issues, and has assisted to some degree in the design issues as well. This is an
unique proposal for the City of Orange. It's the first one he's aware of. In looking over the City, he
didn't believe there was a piece of property in the entire City where this will be a permitted use without
some sort of discretionary permit. At a very minimum, a conditional use permit to put this type of facility
on any given property that might perhaps already have the zoning. There are virtually zero multi-
family parcels available in the City of Orange that are vacant and need to be developed. The proposal is
in order to accommodate the facility to amend the General Plan to medium density, to change the
zoning which will facilitate the tiling and processing of a conditional use permit, and they have chosen to file
them all simultaneously. Speaking to the General Plan Amendment, it you leave Tustin Avenue on Tatt, you
will find that the northeast corner of the intersection there is a shopping center, the next parcel over is a
two-story apartment project, the next parcel is this particular parcel m question, and the next one is the
church that exists there. It would seem m conventional land use planning practices, it would make sense
to accommodate this specialized use. Speaking to the conditional use permits, it's quite clear that this
facility can only be allowed by a conditional use permit in the zone. In terms of the three stories, there are
four findings that the staff has called out in the staff report. Siting building or structures so as to
achieve greater open space area than could be achieved with a two story construction -- he thought the site plan
speaks very clearly to that. The setback off of Taft is double the minimum. The setbacks from the
eastern properly line are 12,14, 24 or 25 feet in the courtyard area, setback from the west property line,
and then there is a 70 toot zone next to single family where you are required to have only one story. The
code is silent on the third story, allowing this technically in that 72 feet, which is slightly over the minimum.
It's proposed to be a parking lot with extensive landscape to buffer the use from the adjacent
residences to the north. The staff points out there may be some shadows in the late afternoon on the
apartment project; he supposed that is true. However, if it were reduced to two stories in height and
built to the minimum five foot sideyard, there would probably be similar, if not the same, shadows.
That's something that is unavoidable entirely and care has been taken to mitigate that. The court yard may
have to be eliminated with a two story proposal. There has been a great deal of care in the design of
this to meet the standards the City has set forth and to allow a much more interesting, compatible design
with three stories than with two. With two, you're forced to more of an institutional design and look; that's
definitely not in their plan of operation. The project does meet and/or exceed most all code
requirements. One of the things that has bean brought up repeatedly was the heavy traffic this would
generate. That's always a fear of the neighbors. This is a very low traffic generator. The residents
themselves do not drive. They're usually elderly in their 70's and 80's. In most cases, they are not
capable of driving any more. He discussed the traffic trips per day using rule of thumb traffic generating
factors -- it will be a minimal amount of traffic that will be accommodated on the site from an arterial highway
with no direct link to the immediate neighborhood. There is no reason for these trips to wander through
the neighborhood for any reason.Chairman
Bosch said the traffic concern is a key concern. What guarantees are bein~ built into assure chat the
management of the facility won'tchange relative to the mobility of the residents. He wanted to make sure
the parking would be adequate.Ms.
Kennedy explained they oversee operations in four existing assisted living facilities. None of the residents
in these facilities drive. By virtue of the product itself...when someone decides to move to an assisted
living facility, it is need based. It is because they may need help with dressing food preparation
and in some cases, they may use a cane. The average age of the residents is 83. They are not
marketing to seniors who are looking for a very independent lifestyle. They are marketing to seniors and
families who need assistance with activities of daily livng.Chairman
Bosch explained he was looking for assurances because ownership can change, regardless of what
the intent is now. The actions of the City in approving a conditional use permit go with the land; not with
the operator. They're looking for assurance those conditions of approval will not change in the future.Ms.
Kennedy could assure them, just by looking at her track record in Southern Calirfornia, they have never turned
over management of any of their communities since they began this business.Mr.
Mickelson just asked the CEO if he would accept a condition that said any change in the type of occupancy
or management operation would require review and possible revocation of the conditional use permit.
He said that would be an acceptable condition.14
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
Public Input
Enrico Cari, 7025 Sundance Circle, owned the apartment building at 1535 East Taft, directly adjacent to the
east side of the proposed project. He wished to address a couple of issues and he submitted a letter
earlier to the Commission. What is the occupancy for this facility under the Title 22, Division 6 of the
California Administrative Code? It was explained to be assisted care where the people have the ability
to teed themselves, they have their own kitchen. It's not a convalescent home; there's not a physician on-
site 24 hours a day. There is minor medical assistance. It's been described as a "homey" atmosphere.
Where are the garages? There is nothing in the documents that says these people are not ambulatory.
They're given every indication these people are healthy individuals of all ages (62 and younger). They can
cook and he's sure some will drive. If it's an R-3 property and it's like a home, it's like an apartment,
he believed they should be subject to the same permits, laws and reggulations as everyone else. His
other concern was the height of the project. It's limited to two stories for R-3. Not only are
they requesting three stories, but they designed this at 46 feet, which is the equivalent of4 1/2 stories. They way
it is layed out, it would look directly down into the bedrooms of his tenants, as well as the
residents behind the apartments. Their structure dwarts the church and the apartment building. His apartment is 20
feet in height; the drawing shows it at 32 teat in height. Lack of parking and the height of the building
are his major concerns. There is no guarantee the 70 residents would not drive. Even if they don't drive,
you will have 70 people with doctors, lawyers, priests, in-laws and family coming to visit them seven
days a week.Where will they park? Twenty-one parking spaces is not enough. If Orange truly
needs this facility, let them build it; however, let them adhere to the pparking requirements, the 70 foot
setback, and the rules and regulations that everyone else lives by. He wouldn't have a problem ii they
built the facility within the
requirements of the zone.Allen Schulz, 1875 North Shattuck Place, said there was commercial property on the
corner of Tustin and Taft. There is one R-3 on Taft. The next commercial property is about one
mile (maybe less) down at Glassell and Taft. Everything else inbetween that point is R-1.
He recommended the City keep this property R-1. Once you start changing the zoning, it will be easier to do
the next one. He's against the three-story building and willnot be happy looking at it everyday.
It's not going to help his property values. He spoke about the traffic concerns of the
neighborhood. Ninety percent of the traffic on Lincoln and Briardale are not residents; they're not getting
assistance from the City on that. He suggested moving this proposed facility out
to Jamboree where there is plenty of land.Howard Chassagne, 616 Vista Del Gaviota, is a
member of the church. He questioned the Negative Declaration; the project will destroy the church because
of tratiic problems. On Sundays, their parking lot is full, as is Taft. Visitors will be visiting the site
during church services. What happens when those 21 parking spaces are full? People will park in the church parking
lot, on the street and in the commercial strip at Tustin and Taft. The use is in the wrong place. His mother is
in a care facility and he has trouble finding parking because it is
always full of cars. These people can drive.Ron Drynan, 1761 North Lincoln Street, opposed the
zone change because they have a bad traffic situation that exists. If this proposal is approved, it will only make
it worse. His wife wrotea letter on November 20, but it wasn't mentioned. He had a copy of
that letter which includes the actual traffic study that was done in their neighborhood. There were 3,777 cars
counted during a one week period
at peak hours of the day (19 hours).Chairman Bosch noted for the record they had
received
the November 15 communication with the traffic study.Wally Bredendick, 1507 East Candlewood, said his back yard
faces that property. He has lived there for 32 years. They are proud of their neighborhood
and they have a Neighborhood Watch. The neighbors take care of each other. He adamantly
opposed the re-zoning and construction of this building.Lois Barke, 2022 Spruce, questioned the Negative Declaration.
The parking lot is not used by the church.There are 8 or 10 full grown trees and that is vegetation as
far as she could see. They are not mentioned or included. The report states there are no
impacts noted and she disagreed. She was concerned about a change in the zoning to high density. The property at one
time was one parcel, then it was split and approved for four units. Approval
of this project would be detrimental to the area.Carol Chassagne, 616 Vista Del
Gaviota, had some questions about the Negative Declaration. With delivery and trash trucks and the traffic coming to and
from, it will increase traffic. She also disagreed with staff's comments of "no impacts". The paperwork mentioned
75%
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
25% would then be under 62 years of age. Many people under 62 would probably drive and more
parking is needed. If meals are going to be provided to these people, why would there be stoves in
the rooms? She wanted to know what the people are going to be charged to live in this facility. Will
people reside there who already live in Orange, or will they cater to people outside the City? Can the
elderly people afford to reside at this facility?
Robert Schore, Pastor of the Covenant Community Church, 1515 East Taft, felt awkward speaking against
a plan that wants to help the elderly, but he was concerned it will have a negative impact on their church.
He was impressed by the fact everyone from the church is concerned and opposed to the proposed
project. It's not a swtable piece of property for the use. They have found the neighborhood to be
friendly and wonderful; the church has been accepted into the neighborhood. The neighbors met at the
church last Tuesday to discuss their concerns with this project. Everyone he has talked to is opposed to
this as it would be a detriment to the quality of life for the area. It will negatively impact the life of their
church and neighborhood. They would like to see an alternative plan for the relocation of this facility to
another site.
Carol Burt, 1519 East Concord Avenue, was not notified of this hearing. She believed only one person
in their neighborhood received notice, yet all of the neighbors are impacted by this. In praise of the
architect, it is a beautiful building, but it is their feeling it is not in the right place. The neighbors take
pride in their homes, are fixing up their homes and they want to stay in the neighborhood after 32 years.
It this project is approved, it will make a big difference in how people feel about staying. Does the
neighborhood warrant the need of an exemption for building codes? In looking around, the
neighborhood has one and two story homes. All of the businesses are no taller than two stories. This
proposed structure would be an intrusion rather than a benefit to the surrounding neighbors. Can this be
scaled down? She didn't think anyone was opposed to senior housing. If there was less density and a
two story building, maybe that would be acceptable. The project can't help but generate more traffic.
Garrett Kaylor, 3519 Meadowridge Road, is a member of the church. He was surprised to hear about
the density and square footage per unit. His grandmother lives in a Presbyterian Retirement Home and
she can't find any place to put her stuff and her unit is about three times the size as the ones being
proposed. The size of the building and densty are major concerns and the parking situation is unrealistic.
Judy Staph, 508 North McCain Circle, Placentia, is a member of the cnurcn. ner mom nvea m rn~s type of
facility, the Garden Towers. The residents there can either cook in their unit or they can go down for a
prepared meal in the dining room. They have no parking for guests because they don't even have
enough parking for the residents. Those residents drive until they're 80 or 85 years old. She spoke
about the noise impacts; in particular ambulances that come and go on an almost daily basis.
Ms. Snyder challenged the Commission to start working with the community and to keep them informed.
She was concerned about traffic and safety issues in their neighborhood. She called in to protest this
project.
Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, sympathized with the people about the traffic. She is a member of
the church and would certainly hate to lose it. She felt this was a substantial alteration of land use for the
area. The staff did not have time to review the plans that were submitted or prepare comments. She
submitted pictures to the Commission. Where is the trash dumpster located? Would redevelopment
funds be used to help subsidize the project?
Steven Carr, 1808 Lincoln Street, submitted a letter after he made his remarks. He thought this was a
land use and a location question. These types of facilities are good and are needed, but this location is
not the proper one. So many issues were glossed over in the initial study. He Telt a project like this
should require a full blown environmental impact report.
Herb Barke, 2022 Spruce, said he was a member of the church and gave a history of its fast-
growing congregation. The density is much too high -- 60 units/90 people (approximately). Traffic
problems/concerns were raised.
Frank Rogers, 1518 East Candlewood, likes his neighborhood; he's lived there 33 years. He felt this was
the wrong location fora 3-story building. He was opposed to the zone
change.
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
Ray Cook, 807 South Dickens Street, Anaheim, is a member and one of the founders of the church. He
doesn't understand why a Presbyterian organization is coming in and Tighting and wanting the land. They
need to look for another location.
Paul Shrigley, 1820 North Lincoln, doesn't want to see his neighborhood get any worse in the way of
declining property values. This project is not going to help. It's a good idea, but in the wrong place.
Tom Mason, 1723 North Lincoln, was opposed to this project because it will look down into his back yard.
The noise will be tremendous because of the delivery trucks, laundry, and everything else. He did not
think the zoning was compatible with the neighborhood.
Rebuttal
Mr. Mickelson commented a ton of information and lack of information has bean given to the Commission.
He understood the people's concern about something new in their neighborhood. There is a
misunderstanding of the proposal; lack of information they've been able to disseminate. There is not
high traffic generated from this project. They reviewed the project with the Traffic Department and they
agreed there was no impact. The Zoning Code recognizes only a need for 15 spaces and they are
providing 21. There's concern about the density, which is compared to an apartment's density and that is
really not a lair comparison. There's concern about people short cutting through Briardale. That's not the
fault of this project nor this parcel. That's the fault of the design that happened many years ago where
Taft lines up with Briardale, as you come through the intersection on Tustin. With or without this project,
that will not change. Notification was made; he had the list of names and map available for review. It did
include a part of
g
andlewood. He made several attempts to contact adjacent property owners. He met
with Mr. Cari, the owner of the apartments. He met with some owners and the pastor oT the church. He
walked the street of Briardale and knocked on doors in an attempt to set up a meeting with the
neighbors. He failed at that and apologized for it. Given the amount of opposition and the fact they
haven't been able to communicate the real facts to the neighbors, he requested a continuance to provide
the Commission with a traffic analysis based on actual facts from similar projects for an objective study
and to meet with the neighbors. The access to the property was explained -- a reciprocal access easement
is in place for emergency vehicles to get to the back and around the church. The easement is not
exactly the easement that is needed for this project. They would intend a new easement be consistent
with the proposed project and be recorded to replace the existing easement.Commissioner
Smith didn't understand the easement. She would like more information on that. Would they
be willing to meet with the members of the neighborhood and church to discuss some of the points that
were raised at this hearing? (Definitely.)Chairman
Bosch had greai concerns about the bulk of the project as designed on the site. He was also concerned
about...given the apparent activity level of the facility for its residents and also by the size of common
facilities proposed for the first floor of the building, how would the applicant address alternative designs,
which would have a different impact on the site or setbacks, but because of height and bulk concerns
relative to the neighborhood; is the applicant willing to look at alternative methods of developing
the parcel of land to generate the use intended -- not the impact that this represents?The applicant
nodded in agreement.Commissioner Smith
wanted the applicant to pay attention to the parking spaces. She thought the architectural style
of the building was beautiful, but the density was far too great for this piece of property. She
would like to see atwo-story structure and would like to see the parking more of what they
require for other senior housing facilities, which is .5. She would like the units reduced to 48 and have 30
parking spaces. This would be more reasonable. The building, as it is proposed, is just too big for the
parcel.Commissioner
Romero said it was the Commission's position to listen to the community as to what they would
like.Chairman
Bosch wanted staff to address the EIR process to help eliminate some confusion.Mr.
Jones talked about the EIR process. It'snot always as scientific as staff liked it to be and it does require
some judgment on staff's part. All projects are first evaluated to determine if they are subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act. Some minor projects are exempt. It they are exempt, the 17
Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1995
process is not gone through. If it does qualify, staff goes through the process of preparing an initial
study and that gives staff four categories to look at. Staff looks at the existing site and potential use of
development allowed by the General Plan and zoning for the site. They compare the proposed use to
other allowed uses that might be permitted. In this case, they're talking about a single family zone with
iwo story houses that can be constructed there. They ask, how is the project, in some respects, different
from what could automatically be developed there. Traffic and parking are also looked at as Part of the
process. Staff does not feet anything will significantly change on this protect strictly from an enwronmental
standpoint in terms of satisfying the environmental quality act. It's a definition of what CEQA requires.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue General Plan
Amendment 4-95, Conditional Use Permit 2130-95 and Zone Change 1178-95 to the
meeting of January 15, 1996. The applicant is Southern
California Presbyterian Homes.AYES: Commissioners
Bosch, Romero,
Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart,
Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN
RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Steven Carr, 1808 Lincoln Street, addressed the traffic problems Trom Taftto Briardale.
It's something that needs to be looked at seriously by the City because it is
a major problem.Mr. Johnson said the traffic issue on Briardale needs to be addressed by the
Traffic Commission. The residents on that street need to voice their concerns to the Commission. Mr. Carr
could contact Chuck Glass, the Traffic
Commission's secretary.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Chairman Bosch, to adjourn to
Monday, December 4,1995 for a studysession at 5:30 p. m. in the Weimer Room for the purpose of
reviewing the current technology
in wireless telecommunications.AYES: Commissioners
Bosch, Romero,
Smith NOES: None ABSENT:
Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett The meetingadjourned at11:
15
p.m.
std