HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-03-1997 PC MinutesL<. >
Lj (~)~ -"
A....A..<---MINUTES Planning CommissionCity
of
Orange Ma-
ch 3, 1997
Monday - 7:00
p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT:
Vem Jones,
Manager
of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City
Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City
Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
FOR THE MEETING OF 2/19/97.Moved by CommissionerPruett,
seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Consent Calendar.AYES: Commissioners Bosch,
Carlton,
Pruett NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioners
Romero, Smith
MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS
2. NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM - CITY OF ORANGE The Natural Community Conservation Plan (
NCCP) is a multi-species habitat protection plan that is an outgrowth of the Endangered
Species Act and the result of collaborative efforts by the U.S. Rsh &Wildlife Service (USFWS), California
Department of Rsh & Game (CDFG), County of Orange and a number of property owners
and cities in the County, who have land containing Coastal Sage Scrub CSS). The City of
Orange is eligible to participate in the NCCP plan, which creates a 37,000 acre "non-developable" Reserve In the
County's central and coastal areas, some of which are located in Orange. If the City decides to
become a participant, properties outside of the Reserve's boundaries, would be granted assurances that they
could be developed by utilizing the criteria established in the NCCP. The randowners will, of course,
be required to meet all of the normal city development standards.At the completion of
the public hearing, the Planning Commission will determine whether or not to recommend to the City
Council that the City of Orange participate in the NCCP Program.NOTE: EIR/EIS No.
553 has been certified by the Orange County Board of Supervisors for this project.Tim Neely,
County of
Orange, Manager of Planning & Zoning, thanked City staff for their support on this project. This program has
been underway for about four years. It started with the advent of the listing of the California gnatcatcher in
1993 and more or less encumbered all of the coastal sage scrub habitat in the County, as well as
the remainder of Southern California, and brought into play the Federal Endangered Species Act and the
U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service. There was a threat at that time that there were many other coastal sa~e
scrub dependent species the Service was also considering listing in the traditional process of speCies by
species review. It could have led to an extremely complicated, costly and unconsuming effort to try
and address each one of those species on a case-by-case basis. The Service and the
State Rsh and Game people both recognized that and this has moved forward so that they have the honor
of being a real National test pilot program in the area on how to deal with these kinds of large 1
Planning Commission Minutes Mad13,1997
habitat plans by getting reasonable amounts of open space preserved that will take care of not just one
species, but a whole host of representative species.
This started out to be a series of studies for the target species, which were the gnatcatcher, the cactus
wren and the orange-throated whiptaillizard. Those were to be identified as target species that couldbethebasisforacomprehensiveplanforthistypeofhabitat. They got coverage not just for those
three target species; they also got coverage for a total of 39 other related species. One of theprotectionstheygetundertheAgreement, and the City would be a beneficiary of, IS a recognition by the
resource agencies to protect the habitats within the subregion to the point that even if there are future listings
that are not currently on the books or contemplated, and if there is further mitigation required for those,
the participating landowners and agencies would not be required to bear the burden of those
additional mitigations. Those additional mitigation costs would be borne by the State and Federal
resource agencies. It's a profound level of coverage and this is the first of its
kind.He explained the exhibits on the wall. It was the official reserve boundary map that had thepreciseboundariesplottedonit. The dark green color is the distribution of coastal sage scrub through
the County. The City of Orange was shown on the edge of this. up into the East Orange planning area.
The City does have an interest in the coastal sage scrub habitat. The County was divided into twomajorplanningsubregions. The one in the middle of the County is called the Central Coastal Subregion.
The upper portion being the Central; the lower portion being the Coastal. 'There is another subregionthathasnotyetbeenapprovedanditistheSouthernSubregion. They hope to have it finalized later in
the year. The next exhibit is a depiction of the Reserve Plan that was developed for the Central
Coastal Subregion. The dark green areas are the proposed Reserve. The mustard color represents theExistingUseArea. The Reserve itself is the most restrictive situation. There are other areas that were
not voluntarily included in the Reserve that were thought to have important resources. They not only
had coastal sage scrub. but they had fairly dense concentrations of the target species, es~cially
the gnatcatcher. which is the listed species. Those areas were classified as Existing Use, which has
one regulatory aspect to it. Under the plan, the participating landowners that have "take" both inside
and outside the Reserve -- that "take" is all covered by the Agreement. Their mitigation. either by dedicationoflandorpaymentoffees. is already commemorated in the plan. If there are other property owners
that are not a party to the Agreement, they can still reserve the right to go out and pursue their own
separate permits with the State and Federal resource agencies. They have all of their prior legal rights;they just have an extra option that wouldn't be available to them by the payment of a fee. The ExistingUseAreas, however. have a slight variation from that theme in that the Existing Use Areas do not
automatically allow for the payment of fee. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reserves the right to look
at "take" of habitat in those areas on a case-by-case basis and decide whether or not they want
to allow the payment of fee or if they would rather insist on some other form of mitigation. Theyareretainingsomeoftheirjurisdiction. For the City of Orange, there are some areas that are classifiedas "Existing Use" in the hills that are on both sides of
Chapman Avenue.The other area he mentioned was the blue area to the north of the East Orange general plan area. It is called the North Ranch Policy Plan Area It's part of the Irvine Company holdings that are within theCity's Sphere of Influence. It's understood that there are no current development plans forthatproperty.Because there are no immediate plans. there is no real way to negotiate any trade offs of what
should be preserved and what should be left open for potential deveropment. There is a general framework
that is put out in the Plan that addresses the relative biological importance of some of those areaswithintheSphere. It sets up a loose framework that says, "rf and when there is development proposed
in the area, and it is proposed to be in areas of higher biological sensitivity. then much more study isgoingtobeneededtobeabletodeterminewhetherornotthoseareasaresuitablefordevelopment, or whether or not they should be preserved for open space purposes." On the otherhand, development that would be outside of these areas could theoretically be considered without furtherbiologicalstudy.Orange will still be able to do their land use planning with the area. It sets up the biologicalhierarchyofwheretheserviceisgoingtobecomingfromintermsofexpandingtheNCCPconcepttocoversomeoftheareas. The North Ranch Policy Area tends to be a transitional higher elevation portion oftheranch.It gets out of the lower level coastal sage scrub and gets up into chaparral and other typesofhabitat.These indicator species that were used for coastal sage scrub may not be effective indicators fordoingabiologicalassessmentofthatarea. They will probably suggest new target species thatbecometheindextogobyratherthanrelyingontheanalysistheyhavedonewiththegnatcatcherandcoastal
sage
scrub.2
I ,--
Planning Oommi55ion Minute5 Ma-ch 3,
1997 Commissioner Romero wanted to know what Mr. Neely meant by coverage? What is coverage?
What does it entail? What does it require the City to
do?Mr. Neely explained the U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service has jurisdiction over all coastal sage scrub
habitat,whether It was in the City or County. To disturb any of the coastal sage scrub habitat requires
Federal approval to comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act. When NCCP was formed, it was
an unique program and they established an interim process that allowed for an interim take of habitat
and allowed that authority to decide who could have take of habitat. It was delegated from the Federal
level down to the local jurisdiction level. So, the County and cities now have the ability to issue interim
take authorizations for projects based on certain criteria and
findings.Commissioner Romero understood Mr. Neely to say that coverage would mean there would be
Federal control over the land with regard to any type of development or use
thereof.Mr. Neely replied no. When he referred to covered habitats, it's just the opposite. Currently, they don'
t have any jurisdiction there. What coverage means Is, the other habitats are covered by this permit that
is now covered by the Apreement. The Federal government has relinquished their jurisdiction through
the Agreement to the loca
authority.Jere Murphy, Senior Project Planner, presented the full staff report. In June, 1994, the City of
Orange a~reed to participate in the preparation of the NCCPIHCP by signing a Memorandum of
Agreement With the other County cities containin~ coastal sage saub, the Federal government, the State and
major land owners. That agreement committed the City to review and comment on the Draft NCCPIHCP
and its accompanying Environmental Impact Report. The City provided written response to the County
in March, 1995 and January, 1996 with regard to questions that were raised by the County at that time
about the land use issues in the City. These questions were resolved except for one which is still
unresolved.That is the final disposition of the open space portions of the Irvine Company's ownership In the
East Orange General Plan and part of the Reserve System in terms of who will retain eventual
ownership.That decision will not be made until entitlements are obtained by the Irvine Company for the
property.The Reserve System, as related to the City of Orange, only includes portions of the Irvine
Company land within the Sphere of Influence, the Barham Ranch and existing or proposed County Regional
Parks.Staff felt that the reservoir site on the west side of Loma, north of Chapman Avenue, was shown in
the Reserve, but in further investi~ations with Mr. Neely and representatives of the non-profit
corporation, it was found that the reservoir site does not lie within the Reserve. Development of the site will
not occur for another 10 years. The Existing Use Areas are smaller pockets of "important populations
of Identified Species but which are geographically removed from the Reserve System such that they do
not provide primary connectivity functions". These areas include property in the Crawford Hills, Tracy/
Edison property and Serrano Heights. Crawford Hills and Tracy/Edison developers have already
contributed significant mitigation fees under the interim take provisions to the NCCP non-profit corporation,
and have been allowed to move ahead with their developments. The developers of Serrano Heights
may choose to take that same route in developing that property as well. Staff has attempted to
inform the above landowners of the potential implications of their participation (or lack thereof) in the
NCCP Process since the original Agreement was signed in June, 1994. Some properties have been taken out
of the Existing Use status by communication with the NCCP staff. Courtesy notices for this meeting were sent
to all of the known property owners as part of this process. The Cerro Villa park site was found
to have coastal sage scrub on the property, but only In the western small canyon portion -- not to be developed
as part of the passive park. Discussions with the NCCP staff have indicated that the development of
Cerro Villa Park will be able to continue without any need for mitigation. By si~ning the NCCP/
HCP Implementation Agreement the City of Orange will be committing to a series of activities, most of which
are encouraged activities and not mandated. The major staff time will be spent in monitoring the acreage of
coastal sage scrub as development occurs and relaying that information to the non-profit corporation staff.
That will not be a major time commitment, but will require some attention. The benefits to participating in
the Plan are that the City will be covered should any of the other 39 potential species become listed; that
the City has the ability to allow the non-participating landowners and projects to utilize the plan'
s mitigation fee; that road improvement projects for roads shown on the master plan will be allowed
to be developed without any further analysis; that if the City is found to have property in the Reserve, they
would be a Board member of the non-profit corporation. Staff does not anticipate at this
time having any property owned by the City within the Reserve System. The City would be able to
participate in the fire management program; the process is intended to streamline the endangered species process
which staff has heard is very encumbarsome; and participation in the Plan really demonstrates a
cooperativeness on the part of the City to participate in a reasonable effort, joining with other public
agencies
Planning Commission Minutes MEI'ch 3, 1997
with the issue on a regional basis, rather than as individuals. The only potential disadvantages are the fact
this is a new program, an untested program. There is no experience to look back on. There is a
requirement for some level of staff participation in the monitoring and maintenance of the Program if the
City were to join. Staff believes the benefits to the City outweigh by far any of the drawbacks. The
coastal sage scrub habitat exists and must be dealt with. The Federal and State governments have both
mandated that. The early participation by developers already in the Program has shown that the NCCP
assists them in getting through the process of reVIewing the endangered species. EIR/EIS No. 553 was
adopted by the County Board of Su~rvisors in April, 1996 at the time the Plan was approved by them.
The EIR/EIS dealt with a series of minimization measures which are listed as issues that need to be dealt
with development by development. A suggestion has been made that those be made as conditions of
development as they are approved. The action by the City to participate in the NCCPIHCP Program by
signing the Agreement is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15307 of the
State's Resources Code, as a regulation related to protection of natural resources.
Commissioner Carlton said there were two letters in the Commission's packet. One was dated March 16,
1995; the other dated January 25, 1996 regarding a site at Loma and Serrano. She didn't see a response
from the City to those letters. She would like clarification on this.
Mr. Murphy said the issues identified in those letters were dealt with verbally between the staff, Mr.
Neely and representatives of the Program. They were resolved to the satisfaction of both parties,
except for the one issue raised with regard to the ownership of the Reserve areas within the East
Orange General Plan area, which will not be determined until development entitlements are received for
that property. Regarding the Carro Villa park site, staff has found that the coastal sage scrub lies within a
small canyon at the west end of the property. The flat portion, which will be developed as a passive
park, not an active park with ball diamonds, is not encumbered with the coastal sage scrub. Therefore,
the City will be able to develop that park site with park uses because the coastal sage scrub is only
found on the steep slopes at the south edge of the property, adjacent to Serrano Avenue and the
canyon to the west that will not be developed.
Commissioner Carlton said according to the letter, the City's plans may include (and it listed several
things). So, if at some point in the future the City decides to build some things other than just grass,
there will not be a problem with that?
Mr. Murphy responded not in the area designated for park use. The areas that have the coastal sage
scrub are not really suitable for development. They are canyon areas with steep slopes.
Chairman Bosch responded the letter was not correct. The park is designated as a passive park on the
master plan. There would be no baseball fields or lighting.
Commissioner Carlton said the Implementation Agreement talks about an annual report. She read that
OCEMA was putting out an annual report that will show what is being done, where the mitigation funds
have gone, and what they have been used for. Is it too soon to receive an annual report? Has the City
received one?
Mr. Neely said there were two aspects. He is the Executive Director of the Non-Profit Corporation
that has been set up to administer the Reserve. By the Agreement, it calls for the preparation of an
annual report to document things that happen within the Reserve, which is where the mitigation monies
would be spent. It also calls for an accounting of the take of habitat because as the Agreementstipulates,there is a certain amount of authorized take of habitat that is vested in each one of theparticipatinglandowners. In effect, the County is the bookkeeper on that. The GIS system that has all of the
coastal sage mapped on it is the official foundation for keeping track of that record. The process would be
for cities that have some take to communicate with them to let them know what has been authorized so
they can deduct it from the various accounts. The non-profit takes care of reporting what is happening
in the Reserve. There is a report for 1996. There is virtually no take of coastal sage scrub
under the Agreement because most of the take that was authorized during 1996 occurred as a result of
interim take authorizations under the interim rule that would have happened throu9hout the remainder of
1996. There wasn't really much take that occurred afterwards. The annual report IS a documentation about
setting up the non-profit Reserve, they accrued the funding that is going to be the endowment to help
set that up and manage it. But, there isn't anything that would directly affect the City
in
the report.4 rr -~--,.----
Planning Commission Minutes Mardl 3, 1997
Commissioner Carlton said from her reading she sunnised there have been substantial mitigation fees
paid. How are those set? Is it on a case-by-case basis, or is it so much per acre? Who sets
tt1e formula
for that?Mr. Neely explained during the interim phase there were some fees that were collected and
they were individually negotiated on a project-by-project basis. There is also the
mitigation payments that were required of the participating landowners. That was negotiated as part of
the Agreement with the developers. Those fees are called the endowment fees and those are already in
the process of being collected by the non-profit corporation to be used to set up a
long-tenn funding mechanism that the Reserve will operate off of the proceeds from. The new fees that
have yet to be set (the Implementation Fee) is to be established by the Board of
Directors of the non-profit corporation and collected by the Board of Directors. The monies will be spent
in the Reserve under the guidance of both the State and Federal Resource Agencies. Those
Resource Agencies get the annual report and see where the money is being spent. Both of these Agencies are
also voting members of the Board of Directors of the non-profit corporation. The fees are not
yet set. They have collected some interim fees because certain projects wanted to move forward. In the
Plan there was a budgetary estimate used of 50,000 an acre as the potential fee. That was used to
be able to develop a long-term projected cash flow and there was a foundation for that because that'
s the number used for participation of Rutland's banking efforts within the County's regional parks. They are
entering into a contract with a finn out of Sacramento that has a National reputation
in this business of Reserve Management and fee calculations.They are going to develop an impartial estimate of the fees
and bring it back for adoption by the Board of Directors at their meeting in June. In the meantime, they
are collecting fees on a $50,000 per acre basis, with the stipulation that if it turns out the adopted
fee becomes less than that, they will refund the difference to the developer who opts to pursue that. If it
turns out the fee exceeds $50,000 an acre when finally adopted, the
developers won't be charged any more than that.Commissioner Carlton asked at this point, none of
the money that has been
collected has actually gone to enhance any specific area?Mr. Neely said they have adopted a preliminary budget for
the Reserve and its going to be adjusted at the next meeting in March. They had done
a preliminary estimate of doing some work on restoration enhancement during the first year. The program is spread out over a
75 year term and you can only do so much in the first year to get it rolling. They have
since made applications forgrants from both State and Federal programs. They weren't sure how much money they were
going to get in the first year from the outside sources to help augment their internal
expenditures. Part of the purpose of collecting these fees is not to pay them out initially on a dollar
per dollar basis towards restoration and enhancement, but to put them towards the creation of an endowment so they
can maximize the endowment and live off of the proceeds. The endowment is projected to be 10.5 million
dollars, which at a 5% yield should net them about $500,000 a year in operating funds. They want to build up to
that level and that will be the level of funding after four years, after some of
the Initial payments come in from the participating landowners.Right now, the fund is at about 3.5 million dollars and it should
grow to about 6 million dollars by the end of the year. The fact they are only partially
funded now means they were somewhat limited about how much money
they are going to spend during the first year.Commissioner Carlton expected the money was
protected in the non-profit organization, and it would not
go into any kind of general fund in the County.Mr. Neely said the money was not connected to
the County. There are strict procedures in place at the County offices regarding those checks.
The non-profit
has separate bank accounts and it is independent from the County.Commissioner Carlton asked if the
City anticipated adding another
staff person, or can the present staff handle the work load?Mr. Murphy did not anticipate adding staff
in the near future. The existing staff will be required to perlonn whatever duties are required to
participate in the Program. Staff feels confident that as long as Mr.
Neely is involved, staff time will be kept to a minimum.Commissioner Carlton referred
to Page 7 of the Implementation Agreement. The identified species of which there are numerous, if any of those critters
show
up
Planning Commission Minutes Mardi 3. 1997
can decide on the mitigation and not have to go through the Federal government? It will be handled on a
local basis? What if some additional species are identified; what happens?
Mr. Neely said another component of the identified species is that there are some that are conditionally
covered. Those that are completely covered. the fee is paid and everything is taken care of. That's all
the mitigation that is required. Conditionally covered species are assumed to be covered by the Plan.
Some additional project level mitigation may be needed. but that is based on the development of the
habitat management plan for that species. The way the language in the Agreement is structured. it very
much favors the local determination of what mitigation should be and it puts the onus on the Federal
agencies to disprove the adequacy of the habitat plan.
Commissioner Carlton appreciated Mr. Neely's time in answering her questions. About 4 years ago she
had a client in Riverside County who really got burnt with the kangaroo rat study and it cost him a lot of
money. She was anxious to know everything they can leam about this Program.
Mr. Neely said they went to school on the kangaroo rat situation. There were many mistakes made in the
way that plan was negotiated. and the types of coverage that was provided. They only had a conceptual
approval. which really meant the Federal government retained jurisdiction up until about a year ago. They
understood some of the administrative shortfalls of that particular situation. They have taken care of those
kinds of problems to make sure they have a cleaner arrangement.
Chairman Bosch was concerned about the reservoir site that was mentioned on the west side of
Crawford Canyon Road. Is it correct that the land proposed for the future reservoir site is not currently
owned by the City?
Mr. Murphy replied the land is owned by the City, but it has not been given to the Reserve. Even
though it shows as being partially dark green on that map, that does not automatically classify it as beingintheReserve.
Chairman Bosch's concern was that since the Public Works Department has carefully designed the water
system based on the zones. elevations and locations to assure proper pressure and fire protection
through the areas of the City, is there anything in this that does impact the potential for locating that
reservoir for the necessary zone coverage in the future? And what can be done about it if there is an
impediment given on the plan?
Mr. Murphy said at this point in time. in discussions with Mr. Neely, who has attempted to represent the
City's interest with the State and Federal governments, it would ap'pear that development of the
property may require payment of the mitigation fee or something like that in terms of alternative
mitigation. For the portion of the property to be used and that portion which is covered by the coastal
sage scrub. perhaps there will be a fee or something related to the fee being required. The property is
extremely steep; it would be very difficult to place even a large reservoir on the property. The Water
Division knows that and they are aware of what they are dealing with there. It's a very difficult site to be
used for anything, including the reservoir.
Chairman Bosch said the report talked about the voluntary participation of the Irvine Company on lands
that are currently within the open space portions of the approved East Orange General Plan. He asked
Mr. Murphy to expand on the implications on future land use planning where if the Irvine CompanydesiredtorevisittheEastOrangeGeneralPlan. what this impact might have on that planning effort?
Mr. Murphy guessed since the Irvine Company has volunteered these lands for the Reserve, that theyhavelookedatalternativelandusesfortheEastOrangeareaandhaveidentifiedotherpropertiesas
being more appropriate for development. He was sure part of that was with the topography; that one
of the large green areas shown on the map is the meadow area to the west of Limestone Canyon. It's a
sizable area, but it is probably the most developable portion of that area southeast of Irvine Lake. The
portions that have been volunteered for the Reserve are those that would be the most difficult to
develop, regardless of land use types.
Chairman Bosch said ther know at least the Irvine Company's voluntary contribution conforms to the
existing approved Genera Plan Amendment and there is a presumption beyond that. that as a prudentlandownertheywouldhavelookedatthebroaderimplications.
6
w r-
Planning Commission Minutes MCI'Ch 3, 1997
Mr. Jones stated that was correct. Those areas the Irvine Company has put into the Reserve are those
areas that are already committed to open space and to major ridge lines. The only areas in the Plan that
had any development potential that may have been included were those rural residential designations
that were 1 unit for 4 acres -- very remote, sloping hillsides that had some of the more sensitive habitat to t>
egin with. There is at most a couple of hundred units out of the 12,000 that might be impacted by the P1M.
The
public hearing was opened for public comments.Barbara
DeNiro was glad to hear Commissioner Carlton respond about the kangaroo rat because when they
built in Riverside, they got hit pretty heavy with that fee. Many ~ople almost lost their homes when
there was a fire because they were not able to remove the habItat. She was curious if the fee process
involved a tax on the people? How do they establish the fees? Is coastal sage scrub a weed?She
thought they were just creating jobs at a terrible expense. Who pays for the fire damaged areas?Will
anyone in the non-profit organization be paid from the collection of these fees?
Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, endorsed this Plan and encouraged the
Commission to become a participant in the Plan. He felt it was important to find a way to prevent every
single acre in Orange County that a bulldozer cannot level without something on it. This IS one way to
head towards that goal.
Rebuttal
Mr. Neely spoke to the issue of the K-rat and fire management. Fire management has been
an important aspect of why the Plan has moved forward. They were trying to make sure all of the
local junsdictions maintain maximum prerogatives about how they want to develop their fire management
plans so that they are not encumbered by the endangered species issues, which is exactly what led to
the problems in Riverside County. The Federal government is the assertive jurisdiction. They are trying
at the local level to make the best of it administratively. This Plan has been worked on with the
California Department of Forestry, Orange County Are Authority, both of whom are members of the
non-profit corporation Board of Directors. They specifically constructed the Reserve to recognize
existing fuel modification areas so that they can continue to be maintained. There will be an on-
going management of existing fuel breaks throughout the term of the Agreement (75 years). The Plan calls for
the creation of the adaptive management programs -- about ways to aggressively manage the Reserve so
that it maintains the balance of ecological value and maintains safety for the surrounding land uses. Part
of the fire management plan is to develop a way to foster controlled bums on a smaller scale basis
within the large open space area to create a more natural fire mosaic. The coastal sage scrub is a
natural habitat;however, there are weeds in it because of grazing that has disturbed that natural habitat. The fee is
not a mandatory requirement. It is an option that is put there for the benefit of landowners that
might not otherwise have that option. Without that option, they would have to go to the State
and Federal resource agencies, negotiate their own permits, and in effect, they have very little
protection. The process is very much stacked in favor of the State and Federal resource agencies if you have
to go through them. No one in the non-profit corporation is paid from the fees. The County
has agreed to provide all of the administrative support at least for the first four years to get the
organization up and running. It's their intent to stay involved in that as long as the organization wants them to
so that they don't have to add an extra administrative burden to be taken out of the fees. Every cent of
the fees will be spent on doing direct work
within the Reserve.The pUblic
hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith commended Mr. Neely for his efforts on this Program. She was
impressed with the amount of energy and detail that has gone into the research of this Program. It gave her
a lot of confidence in what was being presented. She thought this was a wonderful arrangementfortheCity.She would also hate for the hills in East Orange to be lost. She was 1000k in favor
of implementing the Plan, even though it is untested. She's looking at the maintenance and preservation oftheopenspace
through
this
Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes Mad13,1997
Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Cou,:,cil
the City should become a participant and sign the Orange County Central and Coastal SubregionNCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Bosch added his thanks to the hard work Mr. Neely and City staff have done. His interest in
preservin~ open space in East Orange began in 1969. His Master Thesis is about half on that; the rest is
on the eXisting town. He found it extraordinary and wonderful that after all these years. perhaps as a
result of the gun to the head of some endangered species, but ultimately there has been recognition bymajorpropertyownersthatthereisavaluableimprovementintheworthoftheirlandthatcanbemade
for better development, with higher profitability to them while at the same time preserving so much of
the natural resources. Common sense has come around through the back door and the City has
something real extraordinary that is happening that will benefit many future generations.
3. ZONE CHANGE 1187-97; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-97; AND AMENDMENT #3
TO THE CHAPMAN COLLEGE SPECIFIC PLAN - CHAPMAN
UNIVERSITY Proposal to expand the planning areas for Chapman University campus, to include a four acreparcelwestofGlassellStreet (the Orange Unified School District office buildin9 and warehouses), an increase
in maximum enrollment from 2,500 to 4,000 students, and other modifications to affect the existing land
use plan, building setbacks and height contour map. Some property east of Center Street would
be eliminated from the planning area. The Specific Plan expansion area is located west of Glassell
Street,south of Sycamore, at 370 North Glassell Street (Orange Unified School District buildings).
The amendments to the SpeCific Plan also address the existing Chapman University Campus,
located generally between Glassell Street on the West, Center Street on the East, Rose Avenue on the
North and Palm Avenue on the
South.NOTE:EIR 1195-89 was prepared to evaluate the effects of this project, and
certified as adequate and complete (SCH No. 8712231). An Addendum has been preparedtoupdate
EIR 1195-89.Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report. The University
is proposing the annexation of a 4 acre parcel of property on the west side of Glassell Street, which
was formerly owned by the Orange Unified School District and used as their headquarters. It is still partially used
in the rear portion of the lot for shipping and receiving purposes. The proposal also includestheestablishmentoflanduse, building setbacks and height limitations on that parcel. It also goes back to the
area that was amended last (the second amendment) which was the former residential lots on the westsideofOrange,between Sycamore and Walnut to also establish some height limitations and buildin9
setbacks there. The proposal as staff anticipates would include the demolition of all school district buildln~sthatarepresentlyontheproperty, which includes a building that is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. That would allow ultimately the redevelopment of the law school and a three-level parking
garage with room for 800 parking spaces. The title of the plan would be formally changedtoChapmanUniversitySpecificPlan. There would be a shift in the divisions between the academic area, the residential/recreation area,which is currently divided at Sycamore. That boundary would shift to the north atWalnut. Part of the rationale is that the residential uses simply don't exist on that property except
for parcels that the University is now proposing to either cut out of the planning area or the property
west of Orange that was annexed with the last amendment. The property that would be eliminated fromtheplanningareaarefourresidentialparcelseastofCenterStreet. That property would revert to its
original R-2 zoning that was in place before a Specific Plan was adopted in 1989. Even withaSpecificpran, those properties remain zoned R-2 with the Specific Plan overlay, but really gives
Chapman no right to use those properties for anything but residential purposes anyhow under the
present plan. The plan could be amended, however, if Chapman were to acquire all those propertiesontheeastern ~rtion of Center Street. Additionally, the maximum gross floor area would increase from 1.5to1.8 million square feet.That is a simple increase with the land area that would be foldedintothisamendment, including not only the school district site, but also the areas amended the first and second
time to the planning area. There are other mi,lor modifications in the development standards thatarecontainedwithinthetext, including some parking lot standards that are more specific
about
landscaping
requirements and
Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1997
that both Chapman and City staff feel were pretty much left out of the plan at its inception and they are
now trying to clarify and incorporate some of that language.
Mr. Donovan briefly addressed the notification requirements. He referred to an exhibit that shows the
parcels that were notified. This became an issue at the last hearing. The notification requirement is 300
feet around the University property. That only includes two parcels, east and west on the distance of the
campus, and five parcels, north and south. That's merely because of the east/west orientation of the
subdivisions that are prominent in the Old Towne area. The City's legal requirement was to notify only
those parcels that were within the 300 foot radius. Additionally, staff had a requirement to either put in an
ad in the paper or post the property. Staff did both. The University also hand delivered notices to not
only those within the 300 foot radius, but had extended the radius to 500 feet.
There are several conditions of approval that staff attempted to clarify exactly what was meant with the
University's proposal. They assumed the height contour map is remaining in place except for where the
amendment areas are. They made some assumptions about what the Council requirements were back at
the time the original plan was approved that would effectively change what Chapman was proposing.
That would include a setback of 10 feet from the commercial property that is situated on Glassell Street
and backs up to the OranQe Street property. Also, there are some changes to the height contour map
where staff noted the original height contour map only allowed a 40 foot high structure on the arterial
streets, or only where Chapman owned property across the street. That's an issue that would probably
be best for the applicant to address as to whether that is an acceptable modification, or whether they
would rather leave the proposal as is planned now.
The public hearing was opened.
ADDlicant
Jim Doti, resident of Villa Park, 19252 Mesa Drive, was the President of Chapman University. It was a
pleasure for him to introduce their amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan. He recalled in 1988
he presented a version of the Specific Plan, the one they wish to amend now. He thanked City staff for
their cooperation and help in working with Chapman University. Prior to their presentation of the specifics
regarding the amendments, he would like to take an opportunity to show the Commission a broader
context of Chapman's future and how the Specific Plan relates to a vision they have for the University.
He reviewed what they have done for the past five years. It was important to see it in context because
the Specific Plan that was approved in 1988 indeed was made possible by the Specific Plan. The net
assets of the University have Increased from approximately 55 million dollars to almost 90 million dollars
in 1995-96. Their total full-time equivalent students has increased from 1,922 students in 91-
92 to almost 3,000 students in 96-97. That would include both graduates and under graduate
students on the OranQe campus. At the same time they've had growth in the number of students, they've also
had the growth In full-time faculty. It allowed them to continue maintaining a relatively small,
average class size, which allows them to continue serving their
mission of providing personalized education.In addition to those qualitative variables, there were a number of
qualitative factors that were very important. They've invested almost 2.2 million dollars within just the last
few years in renovating their Natural Science labs. Their endowment balances have increased from 34 million dollars
in 91-92 to over 50 million dollars. In terms of endowments and endowed shares at 7; actually in
the next few months it is anticipated those endowed shares will be brought to 9. Those are
endowments of 1 million dollars or more that allow them to attract the best faculty. They also
have 7 endowed professorships; those are endowments of $250,000 or more. They have two endowed
centers and next month they anticipate announcing a third center which will be endowed at the $2
million level. Their library expenditures have increased from approximately $750,000 to one million two
hundred fifty-four thousand. The number of participating student athletes has increased from 185 to 450 so they'
ve more than doubled the number of students participating in more than 20 athletic programs. He also
gave the Commission an idea of where Chapman was going in the next five years and even beyond
that. The Strategic Plan was important to be presented at the hearing because the amendments they will be
talking about are part and parcel in making this plan possible. 1t will be a win-win situation
for the students and faculty, University and City.They currently have 3.012 students as of Fall '96. They anticipate
an average annual growth rate of 3.4%that will bring them to 3,555 students by the Fall of 2001.
The School of Law. which is currently off campus, in the City of Anaheim, currently has 227 students. They are
projecting a growth to 391 in the Fall of '97. Then. in the Fall of '98 when they are at 432 students, they plan
for the Law School to move to the Orange campus. That's why the total Orange campus will
take
a quantum
Planning Commission Minutes Ma"ch 3, 1997
students to 3,651. Overall growth on the Orange campus, because of this sharp increase in '98, they
anticipate the average annual growth rate will be 6.2%. Their life-long learning centers are
located throughout the State of California, including the state of Washington. They expect a growth
of approximately 4.5% so the total University would grow to 7,570 students. They have a number of
major fund raisinQ campaigns in progress. And, an endowment campaign over the next five years that
will hopefully bnng them 50 to 100 million
dollars.He showed a preliminary drawing of the Business Information Technology Building. As a result of
input from the neighborhood groups, tnis has gone back to the drawing board because of the feeling it
was too modem of a building. And, it was not in keeping with the neo-classical tradition of the
campus. He showed a very preliminary drawing of the School of Law Building to be located on Glassell.
This also went back to the drawing board as a result of input from a number of neighborhood groups.
He showed a current footprint of the Chapman campus, at least at the time the Specific Plan was approved
back in 1988. Since that time, Chapman has acquired all the homes west of Orange Street, and
they also acquired the 4+ acre Orange Unified Schoof District property. Wrth the Orange Street parking
area. they I>lan to have surface street parking in that area. There is a new Grand entrance to the
campus on Sycamore which would end in a rot~ that would provide access Into the major parking area.
They already own 12 parcels of property on Orange Street and they've Identified that as an area
for potential acquisition. They would also be willing to do the same for the commercial properties and
the multi-family units to the east of Glassell Street, just west of their current perimeter. They have their
eyes on the former Anaconda site as a 80tential acquisition area, as well as the Sun kist packing
plant and the properties between the OUS site and the Sunkist property (and the residential units located
just to the south of the OUSD property). When and if they are able to acquire those properties,
he showed them an idea of a future (10 to 20 years from now) footprint of how the Orange campus would relate
to the City of Orange and in particular, the Orange shopping area. to the south. They have a dream
or vision of increasing their residential zone, they need another athletic field for their vanous teams,
and a residential area for the campus to offer a
living leaming environment.They currently have 1213 parking spaces and expect to add just slightly over 300 spaces
with the Orange Street addition, bringing them to 1,527. They also plan to add to tneir residence hall
parking 50 spaces that would bring them 1577. But then next year, they would begin their major
construction projects. The Business Information Technology construction would result in the loss of the main parking lot
area, and that would be 181 spaces, bringing them to 1,396. Then, as a result of the construction of the
Law School and the parking structure on the former OUSD site, would result in the loss of another
132 spaces, bringing them to 1,264. Notice, though, it is still over the current total even bringing these
parking spaces and areas off line. In September, 1998, as they are building their parking structure, they
will add 750 additional spaces, bringing them to slightly over 2,000. Then, when they remove
the modular computer lab units from the stadium area, as a result of the Business Information Technology
Building, where the labs will then be located, they will be able to add 28 additional spaces, bringing them to 2,
042. To give the Commission an idea of how that works out in terms of their ability to serve their
students, faculty, and staff parking needs, if you just take it on a per student basis, 1,213 current spaces, dividing
it by the number of FTE students gives them .4 parking spaces per FTE student. In the Fall of '97
they will have 1,396 with 3,114 students which will increase the parking sp,aces per FTE student by .
45, which represents a 12 1/2% increase from 1996. But, then in the Fall of 98, mainly as the resultofincreasingparkingbecauseofthenewparkingstructure, even with the growth in the number of law students,
they will have 56 parking spaces per student, which represents a 40% increase from the Fall of '96.
FTE enrollment, not including the Law School, (he took the law students out for ease of analysis because they
will be allocated 392 of the 750 spaces in the parking structure) will grow to 3,555 which is an 1SOk
Increase. Classroom lab seats will increase from 1,883 to a projected 2,500 by the Fall of 2001, which represents a
32.7% increase.The parking spaces will be increasmg most rapidly from 1,200 to 1,650. If you take the 1,650
plus the 392 that gets you the 2,042 parking spaces. By doing this, he believed the Specific Plan willmakeitpossibleforthemtoservethatmissionofprovidingpersonalizededucationofdistinctionthatleadstoInquiringethicalandproductivelivesasglobalcitizens. And, in so doing he believed they willthenbeservingtheirstudentsandthecommunityinenhancingthe
City of Orange.Bob Mickelson, Planning Consultant, 121 West Rose, thanked the Commission for
allowing them to present these plans. They have had a series of neighborhood meetings in which these
plans were also shown. Mr. Donovan explained the proposal to the Commission so he would jump into
some of the details and try not to repeat what he h2.S said. The immediate expansion plans are just for the
4.2 acre OUSD site, which housetheLaw Scho')l and parking structure. Some of the changes they
made to the Specific Plan relate not only to that site, but to the parking area called the Orange
Street
parking lot.10 r-
Planning Commission Minutes Mmd13, 1997
Hopefully, in the next few weeks there will no longer be an Orange Street there. City Council is holding
a public hearln9 on the 18th to consider abandonment of that street. Their plans are for that area to
become an entire parking lot. The significant things they have changed in the plan are to eliminate the
residential/recreational zone and create only two zones: the academic and residential. It's their
understanding from past history the reason there was a residentiallrecreational zone in the middle of the
campus was at the time the Specific Plan was adopted the first time, there were several residences
included, some of which the University owned; some of which they did not and which were part of the
campus. Now, with the acquisition of all those homes on the west side of Orange Street, their removal
and the inversion of two or three homes on the south side of Walnut that they are intruding into what is
now the parking lot area. there are no residences in that area between Walnut and Palm, except for those
residences on the east side of Center Street, which are being deleted because they were subject to the
underlr'n~ zonin~ anyway. They are extending the height contour lines around to the Orange Unified
Schoo DIstrict site and onto the Orange Street parking lot site. Clearing up some of the ambiguities.
they have attempted to bring into the draft all of the conditions that were significant out of the Council's
previous resolutions of approval. It was obvious to them that every single condition in those resolutions
were sometimes actually inappropriate, sometimes just because of the passing of time. As an example,
one condition put a time limit on the infant care center. That no longer exists on that site. That condition
obviously does not need to be in there. He made some judgment calls as to which of those conditions
they pulled out of the Council's resolutions and incorporated them into the plan. Some of them like fire
extinguishers and low flow shower heads are not included purposely. It would be appropriate to jump
into the conditions and discuss them.
The height contour map that was presented (Exhibit E-1) - about in the center of it where there was a
cross-section D, which IS the western boundary of the current parking lot - they proposed a zero setback
at the 30 foot heiQht contour, which starts at the property line. Staff is recommending a 10 foot height
contour. Their ratIonale was that the area is somewhat limited in terms of its size and shape. It's backed
up to commercial zoning, which has a zero setback at least for the first story. The major consideration is
for the Orange Unified School site where they extended basically the 62 foot center campus designation
across to the Law School building site and the parking structure. Then, they tried to copy the situations
that were in the previous plan. For example, where you have Section E across Glassell Street to the
east where there is commercial and the University-owned property on the north side of the street.
There is a 40 foot height contour that goes up at a 1 to 1 ratio because there is commercial and a church in
that area. As you move westerly along the block. where you have single family uses, its similar to Section
B where you have that situation existing in other places on the campus (residential on one side; campus
on the other). The difference is that it goes up to the 62 foot height maximum rather than the 55,
which Section B does. Ukewise, on the west side they proposed a 40 foot hei~ht contour, which is a new
one.That didn' exist anywhere else on the campus. And the rationale there IS that you have commercial
and multi-family' side on situations where you're not interfacing with the single family rear yard
recreation area,and the site does provide some limits on what can be done to squeeze a 100,000 square
foot Law School building in. They didn' want conflictinQ height limits on the north and south as it related to
the Law School building. Actually, they just arbitranly extended it down to the west, beyond where
the Law School building is, but that would give them the maximum heights in that area. Staff
pointed out Chapman missed a transition; that's on the south side of Walnut. There was a transition on
the existing height contour map where it went from 40 to 55 feet. They can correct that. He covered conditions
1, 2 and 3. He went back to condition 2: In trying to eliminate some confusion, they aeated some
more. That was by drawing those cross-sections with the height contour map. It brought to light
the fact the approved height contour map that has been in the plans since 1988 measured
those height contour setbacks from the face of curb. They were proposing to leave that intact and those
contours that they added, they would also measure from the face of curb. Then, the question comes to
the lay reader,what do you mean by setback?" Does that mean you moved all the building setbacks out
to 20 feet from the face of curb? No. that doesn', but it could appear that way if you reaait that
way. There needs to be a clarification this is not to be in conflict with the structural setback of 20 feet from
streets, 15 feet from residential. Condition 4 talks about clearing up all those items. There are a few
other things like some easement maps the Water Department wants to have prepared that are not part
of the Specific Plan, but if they were to be included as an Exhibit, it wouldn't change the substance of
the Specific Plan at all in terms of land use, setbacks, heights, intensities, etc. It would simply
be a supplementary document that would clarify things. It was flis opinion that it should be a separate document
that can be referred to. But if it could serve a better purpose by being added to the Plan. they could
do that and hopefully that could be added without readvertising the Plan and holding another public
hearing just to make a change in the location of an easement. The other conditions are fine and he
didn' have any
comments
Planning Commission Minutes Mmd13,1997
Chairman Bosch referred to the draft Specific Plan. His first concern was on Page 2-3. under Goal 4.
1.The original text in the existing approved Plan stated each buildinQ should continue to have its
own identity; however, architectural compatibility throughout the University should be achieved. They
are proposing to change the word "achieved" to "considered". Obviously, even the word "achieved"
leaves a lot of room for design prerogative to be fulfilled within the context of the campus and blending
of contemporary structures existing on the campus with the historical ones. Why should the
word considered" be utilized? "Achieved" gives a goal and "consideration" is not a
goal.Mr. Mickelsonthou,pht their concern was there was no measurement criteria to determine when you
have actually "achieved and so it has to be subjective. Maybe another word could be substituted orjustleavetheword "achieved" as long as everyone understands it is their
goal.Chairman Bosch was also concerned on Page 3-3 under Planning Area Designations. This is one
of the areas where the elimination of the combined residential/recreational zone currently in the center
of the campus occurs, and the last paragraph previously stated residentiallrecreational and B. & C.
This central norther1y portion of the campus is devoted primarily to athletic activities and the facilities
necessary to accommodate them. including but not limited to campus housing, teaching and parking.
Again, this becomes a subjective one, but by eliminating the designation and modifring this paragraph to
refer only to the residential zone north of Walnut Avenue. the term "purely teaching is something thatseemsoverlybroad. He understood there were educational activities that occur in the residential housing
portions of the campus, but they are not the primary activity within the building. His concern was that the
intent was to open that up to construction of academic buildings, but rather to continue the accessory utilization
for i~residence seminars and fellowship type purposes of the teaching aspect rather than creating
a new category of use in
that area Mr. Mickelson believed that was true. It was probably a hold over from the center portion,
which was residentiaVacademic where there was and is actual teaching
going on.Chairman Bosch was just concerned they don't put something in that changes the broad intent
so that those who are new players In the future misinterpret the intent of the University and the
City with whatever is arrived at. Moving on to Page 3-14, it follows on the same aspect. Section 3, formerly recreational areas; now residential area B. Former item H. stated classrooms as a
principle structure use and that is proposed to be revised to D. classrooms and computer labs. Same
circumstance here. It appears they are introducing a new principle structure north of Walnut Avenueand he didn'
t believe that
was the intent.Mr. Mickelson stated that was not the intent and they
will clarify that.Chairman Bosch referred to Page 5-4. Item E.2. is proposing to eliminatetherequirementthatfloatingdocksbenocloserthan50feetfromapropertyline, fronting on a public street.
He thought the intent was that one couldn't, from the public street, look straight into a loading dock, close
to the property line for aesthetic purposes and protection of the other non-University uses across the
public street, if that is the case. There needs
to be clarification on this.Mr. Mickelson believed more clarification could be added and screening from
view is definitely
a shared intent and goal.Chairman Bosch said on Page 5-19, it refers to the proposal to introduce
into the sign age plan an internally illuminated marquee sign. He wanted to make sure it was for
the theater facing Palm Avenue. It appears it is in the planter on the south side of the theater. He was concerned about the potential impact of lights, size, etc. on the residential neighborhood to the south
of the campus and whether this type of setback for it would meet the City's intent in termsof
eliminating nuisance light on neighboring uses.Mr. Mickelson would like to come back and answer that after conferring
with Mr. McQuilkin who has had several meetings with staff on that particular issue. They also had the same
concems and tried to build in limitations that would reduce
that impact to an acceptable level.Chairman Bosch moved to other questions on theAddendumtothEIEnvironrnentallmpactReport1195.On Page 12 in the Summary it states the 1997 Specific Plan
Update
Planning Commission Minutes Mmd13,1997
capacity from 2,500 to 3,000. The presentation and staff report indicates an increase to about 4,000. Was
this an error or was he mis-reading the
statement?Mr. Mickelson responded it was a complicated answer. The Addendum to the Final EIR is to give
them assurance they can in fact build the Law School, the BIT School and chapel under the old certified EIR.
It speaks to that and yes it can be done if you add up the existinp capacity currently at 1,885 and addtheBITthatincreasesitto2,500; the Law SChool, another 500, which comes up to the 3,000. So thatwouldtakecareoftheexistingprojects. The statement In the Specific Plan IS more related to azoninQ.standard, such as density, and it mayor may not be achieved. But, it could not be achieved the way
It was written without prOVIding the additional parking. The additional parking would trigger probablyafurthertrafficanalysisand/or an on-site parking analysis, which perhaps could trlp'ger somethin~ else they will have to do before they ever reach that 4,000. It's more of a setback density type ofzomngcriteriathanadirectrelationshipto
the Addendum.Chairman Bosch said that it was anticipated at some point there is a potential increase beyond3,000 towards 4,000. which will require an amendment to
the EIR.Mr. Mickelson said perhaps it would; however, they're not sure at this time. It's just
a possibility.Chairman Bosch had the same question relative to Page 7 of the EIR. which had thesamequantitieslisted. And, on Pages 26 and 27 of the EIR amendment it addresses the traffic study portionandreferstothepedestrianvolumecrossingWalnutAvenuefromtheresidentialzonetotheacademiczone, south of Walnut. And, notesthere aren't warrants for a traffic signal or pedestrian traffic signal due tothecriteriaforwarrantsintermsofCalTrans' minimum pedestrian volume. He was concerned and didn' know if there was a way to control college-age pedestrians. But, for local travel into and outoftheneighborhoodandwithintheproximityofboththeUniversityandhighschool. utilization of Walnutandimpactsofestrianscrossingisachallengeforeveryone. He was interested in the feedbackfromtheapplicantIntermsofwhatstepscanbetakentoimprovetheconditionthatistherenow, which is
fairly disruptive to access to the neighborhood when there is a reasonable
flow of students.Mr. Mickelson will ask Joe Faust to address those concems because it's
another complicated answer.Chairman Bosch continued with the traffic concerns. He was concerned about the needforafurtherexplanationofwhytheyshouldbelievethattheproposedmitigationmeasurestominimizetrafficinclusionontheresidentIalareasonOliveandLemonStreetsrelativetotheparkingstructure's primary and secondary entrances will be satisfactory. It proposes that the primary entranceonSycamorebeoffsetfromOliveStreet. with no through access onto North Olive provided in order tokeepthetrafficfromimr.acting that neighborhood. He was concemed how that traffic flow may try to circumventthelinkofGlassel , between Palm and Walnut, which would impact the neighborhood. What isbeingthoughtabouttohelpmitigatethat? (That question was referred
to Joe Faust.)Chairman Bosch noted the traffic signal proposed for Sycamore and Glassell, at thenewmaincampusentrance. The staff report speaks to the potential not only for elimination ofon-street parking with probable impacts on the adjacent small businesses that have limited, or nooff-street parking. But, it also speaks to a potential need for acquisition of properties and anenhancedright-of-way. He didn' see that Since they don' have the configuration of the proposedstreet. That should be addressed as well because there are impacts that
may hurt the proposed traffic mitigation scheme.Mr. Mickelson anticipated that question, and
Mr. Faust will also respond to it.Commissioner Smith referred to Page 3-12 of the revised
Specific Plan. It raised the question of how many students can be seated at one time on campus? That would be the last paragraph. That number has not been given. As the enrollment increases, whatistheactualseatedstudentcapacity? What about the Inclusion of faculty, staff and visitors? No numbers weregivenforhowmanyfacultystafforvisitorswouldbeoncampusatanyonetimeeithernoworinthefuture. She didn' think they could base the parking merely on student enrollment. They
must also factor in faculty. staff and visitors.Mr. Mickelson thought the answer is that it relatestotheparkingrequirementofsomanyperfaculty/employees and a separate category for studentcapacity. They will answer that in more detail though. The mtent was to base it on the
total
requirement of
the
Planning Commission Minutes March 3. 1997
Commissioner Smith wanted to make sure they talked about the demolition process and the mitigatingfactorsfortheremovaloftheschooldistrictbuildingsothatalltheproperCEOArequirementsarein
place, and any environmental reports that need to be done solely for the purpose of mitigating factorsbemet. She was also concerned about the traffic crossings at Walnut and Center, and at Sycamore andGlassell. It seems to be written up rather loosely; there's not much that can be done because these are
college students and they cross the street wherever they are. There needs to be more control,
especially since the campus is located in the middle of a residential district. On PaQe 9 of the staff
report, the bottom paragraph, it troubled her the way it was worded. It said. "In short, it is increasinQlydifficultforthecitytomanageagrowinginstitutionalfacilitywithinanoldercommunityandanexistinggrld-street network. All studies and processes needed to expand the residential permit parking program,limit on-street parking, or control traffic on residential streets must be undertaken by the UniversIty."
That needs to be more of a partnership between the City and the University. She didn' think it wastheCity's whole responsibility or the University's whole responsibility. It's something that needs tobeworkedonasa
community.Mr. Mickelson agreed with that. At their last neighborhood meeting they had the Police ChiefandCaptainwhowasinchargeofthepermitprocess. They went throu9h the entire long explanation ofthechan~e it is going through right now and what they win be presenting to the City COuncil as a
revised permit parking process. The University has been keeping the neighborhood up to date. TheChapmansecuritypeoplehavebeencooperatingandfacilitatingthepolicestudiesofthat. That is anon-
going thing.Commissioner Smith had a copy of the resolution from 1989 of the conditional use permit. Item10onPage4talksaboutthecampusfloorarearatioandgivessomeconditionsthatsaysitshallnotexceed
1.0 or a maximum of 1.5 million square feet of building area, excluding parking structures. She would
like to see where they are in terms of playing this out. Are they up to 1.5 million square feet ofbuildingarea?How can that be adjusted for future plans which are much larger than they were at the time the
CUP was granted? It also raises the question, why are parking structures excluded when those structuresareveryfargeandtakeupalotofsquarefootage? Another question - with that much square footage and
the population growing, why isn' there additional plans for parking structures in the plan that isbeingproposednow? She was not sure that the one parking structure would be
adequate.Mr. Mickelson said they would respond to her questions. They transferred that condition to theSpecificPlanandthentheyamendedittoreflecttheadditionalacreage (Page
3-12).
Public comments Socorro Baca, 313 North Center Street, asked if the parcels on the east side of Center were goingtoberemovedfromtheSpecificPlan? Does this also include private residences east of Center
Street? She was concemed the Specific Plan had greater authority over the
Zoning Ordinance.Chairman Bosch said there was no zone change proposed on any property not owned bytheUniversity.Although they do own properties east of Center Street, those properties are zoned R-2. That zoning would remain. What they are doing is removing the overlay of the Specific Plan fromthatproperty. The Specific Plan becomes the Zoning Ordinance for that particular area; it's part of the
City's ordinance.Mr. Donovan said the intent of that statement in the staff re~rt was if there wereanyconflictbetweenwhattheSpecificPlansaysandtheZonin9Ordinance, the Specific Plan is whatgovernsthedecision-making process. As the Specific Plan IS adopted by the City Council. it doesbecometheCityOrdinanceforapplicationofsitedevelopmentstandardstothepropertytowhich
it is applied.Chairman Bosch stated the City still exercises pOlice power over the Specific Plan as itdoesovertheremainderof
the Zoning Ordinance.Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, was concemed that Chapman was going ahead inwantingtoenlargetheneighborhood, but yet there is a dangerous area in the neighborhood becausethestudentscrossCenterStreet. There is no light at night and it is very dark. They have asked Chapman to putupalightorhelptheCityputupalight. When they begin building, parking will be lost. She did notwanttoseethestudentscomingdownthe500blockofOrangeStreet. going straightacrossWalnut. She-..,;uggested putting in directional signs for vehicles to only tum right. Residents need to beprotected. She wanted to see staff's report on counting the number 0 students on campus and how
many
parking spaces
14
Planning Commission Minutes Ma-ch 3,
1997 were used. The only' person she knew who counted students and parking spaces was Gene Beyer.
Will another dorm be built for the additional
students?
Rebuttal Joe Faust, Austin-Faust Associates, prepared the traffic study for Chapman University. He
spoke about the right-of-way requirement on Glassell for the proposed new signal at Sycamore.
He was a little surprised at that. The proposal is to signalize the intersection by and large the way it
is today. There are two lanes of travel on Glassell and parKing. It will be necessary along Glassell
to eliminate the parking.They estimated a couple hundred feet both north and south of the intersection to
make room for what would be the left turn pockets, but they would wind up with two lanes and a
turn pocket within the existing curb-to-curb widths. There is perhaps the opportunity to do a little
bit of widening on the side street itself (Sycamore), but that isn' what is being proposed. The plan,
as conceived, is to signalize the intersection pretty much the way it is. There would have to be some chanQes
on the curb returns. but in terms of widening the street, the street is wide enough to support one lane
In each direction, and
left turn pockets with the signal.The second issue raised was that of neighborhood protection.
Specifically. with regard to Lemon and Olive. He looked carefully at Lemon and Olive to
determine what impacts potentially the neighborhood would face where the parking structure is proposed to be constructed. Given
the uses of the school. the impacts to Lemon regarding sensitivity is less than it may be on
Olive. To discourage traffic from using Olive, they have specifically offset the intersection of Olive with the
parking structure. It would not be practical to line it up in the first place. But, it will prohibit a couple
of tuming movements. For the east bound traffic coming out of the parking structure, they would not be allowed to
turn left or turn north. In the reverse movement of that, ther will discourage student traffic
from using the right turn movement coming south on Olive). There wil be a small impact to the residents.
They also propose from the new parking lot, which will be on the south side of Walnut, directl~ opposite
Orange, they would again sign the north/south through movements from both southbound on Orange
into the parking lot; and northbound out of the parking lot. Those two restrictions will affect
residents who use the parking lot.He spoke to the pedestrian movement across Walnut in the vicinity of
Center. A signal at mid-block is technically not warranted. There is plenty of pedestrian traffic that
occurs there or in close proximity. They will need to get deeper into "what IS the problem" and "what can be
done about it". City staff for some time expected that sometime in the future it may be necessary
to signalize Walnut and Shaffer. If that intersection is signalized, then it will be necessary to do something
at the four-way stop at Walnut and Center. In his opinion, it will probably jeopardize the safety
record. or it will be more dangerous after that intersection is done than it is as a 4-
way stop. The mid-block crossing may become a practical alternative to look at that at that time. That location is
not a convenient entrance into the main part of the campus. It's a very complicated issue
and
he realizes he hasn' really answered the Commission's questions.To answer Commissioner Smith's
question about controlling the college students/pedestrians, it's an entirely different situation on Walnut than the college
campuses she attended. In the eyes of the State of California and the warrant system, they have
more than 60 gaps an hour, which is adequate for pedestrians to cross the street. It Is a
residential street, it is narrow, and traffic is going considerably slower than on the streets surrounding other campuses.
If they put in a traffic si9nar for pedestrians to cross, they would end up waiting much longer than
they are now. Pedestrians will disregard that signal if it were put in. Something needs
to be done though, there was no question about that.Commissioner Smith was concerned about
increasing the enrollment by 1.500 students. There will be more traffic and more students to create
more
congestion. She was thinking of the problems in the future.Mr. Faust suggested maybe the 4-way' stop needs
to be a flashing red light. It will still operate the same way; however, motorists can see
It better. That's a potential improvement to
the existing situation.Commissioner Carlton asked about overhead crossings or bridges?Mr. Faust said there was nothing to say it
couldn't be done. If there were convenient landings on both sides and it was generally the
path the pedestrians would take. overhead crossings work well. Short of that, there are the ADA requirements. However,
if
students
Planning Commission Minutes Mmd13.1997
could be across the street in 15 seconds and they will simply not go out of their way to use the overhead
aossings.
AI McQuilkin. Director of Facilities at Chapman University, responded to a couple of questions that. were
raised b}l Commissioner Smith. On the Issue of parking requirements he referred to Page 3-19 In
the Specific Plan. That Indicates the parking required for employees and staff plus the parking reqUired
for students based on the numbers that they referred to as capacity. The formula takes in the need
to provide parking not only for students, but for faculty and staff as
well.Commissioner Smith's question was. had anyone calculated that out? She didn' see it written. What
is the number of staff plus
faculty?Mr. McQuilkin said they were required to submit a summary that essentially lists the parking
requirement by calculating those numbers. The last revision was in August, 1994. They had 466 employees X .
8 =373. They had 1,883 seats at .4 = 620, minus the residential capacity. Then they added back in
the number of beds which was 1,013 X .5 = 507. That gave them a total parking requirement of 1,126. That'
s how they calculated that for
1994.Commissioner Smith asked how that played out to 2oo1? With the increase of students. it would
mean the increase of faculty, staff and visitors. Did anyone calculate it out? Her concern was not
enough parking. She didn' think there would be enough parking just based on the number of
students.Mr. McQuilkin said they had calculated it out. They looked at other cities parking reguirements, as well
as Orange's parking requirements. If they didn' have the parking requirements in theSp8(?ific Plan and
they were to follow the requirements the City would impose on any other private Institution similar
to Chapman. they could probably justify having to provide less parking spaces. The projections they
have made is how they arrived at the 800 for the parking structure they are planning at the back of the
OUSD site. There may be some conflicting numbers. It doesn't take into account some additional
surface parking they may be able to get between the Law School building and the parking structure.
He referred to a chart presented earlier by Dr. Doti. Enrollment is projected to increase by 18% over
the next five years. Classroom seats are projected to increase by 32% from their current 1,883 to 2,500 (
not including the Law School). Whereas parking is by far the largest increase from a current
approximate number of 1,200 all the way to 1,650 for a 37.5% Increase. They're increasing parking at tWice the
rate they're increasing enrollment. They took an actual survey of the Law School and interpreted the
results.There is a large body of students that are using the Law School In Anaheim and they surveyed them
to determine for an enrollment of 650 students, they would need 305 parking spaces. This allocates
392 parking spaces. Additional spaces were added for faculty and staff. They are very conservative with
their
numbers.Chairman Bosch said several years ago they spent considerable time looking at the parking and
parking changes. The existing approved Specific Plan, as well as the proposal, requires an annual review
and recording of the number of full.time equivalent students and a comparison to increase the students
in terms of classroom space to the number of parking spaces provided. as well as faculty. This
continues the ratios. In fact, the University cannot add a building without demonstrating it had adequate parking
to accommodate the additional students and faculty or employees that were required for that
building.Mr. McQuilkin responded yes. That was a good point. He referred the Commission to Page 3-
11, Item 7. It talks about that process in Section B. The problem is that it only relates to Item 7. and
if new construction results in an increase of more than 10%, then they can add 10% additional parking and
catch up as enrollment increases. That's not what they are planning for the projects they are
currently considering.With the BIT building and the Law School the parking will be provided for those projects.
A full compliment of parking will be provided for
these projects.Chairman Bosch asked if there was no proposal to relax the ratios or reduce the scrutiny of the
City to assure there is adequate
parking? (No.)Commissioner Smith said the reason she is continuing to discuss this issue is because it is for
the benefit of the University's acceptance and place in the community for this broad expansion. She lives
in the neighborhood and the number one problems are traffic and parking. That's where the rubber
meets the road of irritation with the neighbors. She was trying to offset that for the future. The year 2001
is
only 16
Planning Commission Minutes MCI'ch 3, 1997
four years away. Once building is done. it could be possibly only two years away, at which time, the
parking does not seem to be adequate for the numbers that are proposed.
Mr. McQuilkin responded the parking study did try to address her concerns in some detail. It was based
on the assumptions they had at the time they would be adding the parking structure. but it was not based
on the additional parking for Orange Street. If you don' include the 120 or so additional parking spaces
that they will have that are not taken into account in the traffic study, the traffic study indicated when they
were done, they would have an excess of over 220 parking spaces if they meet all of their projections.
Dr. Doti said if they were to include the Law School in this analysis, enrollment would increase from 3,012
to 4,061. which is consistent with the earlier numbers he presented. That would represent an increase of
34% in full-time equivalent enrollment. Parking spaces would increase from 1,200 (not the 1,650
because they allocated 392 to the Law School). to 2,042, which again compares to the numbers presented
earlier.That would represent an inaease in parkin9 of 70%. In total, from 1996 to 2001 is increasing parking
by 70% and increasing enrollment by 34%, whiCh suggests that the parking challenge that exists today will
be lessened by the year
2001.Mr. McQuilkin said the next question had to do with the FAR and square footage. They increased
the FAR strictly as a technical matter. The original Specific Plan had an FAR of 1, which calculated out at 1.
5 million square feet. Currently they have 700,000 square feet, including trailers, residence halls and all
of the buildings in the academic zone. They are at less than 50% of what they would be permitted to
have under the existing Specific Plan. The Law School and BIT building and the chapel combined will add
less than 200,000 square feet. They will be under approximately 900.000 square feet. There is an
additional requirement (Page 3-12) for 30% of the total campus to be open space and they will try and
meet that
goal also.Chairman Bosch was not aware of a jurisdiction where parking structure area was included in
the FAR.There are two different things going on. The FAR is to relate to intensity of land use in terms
of people,occupants, and activities that are on-going. The parking structure concerns would be in
setbacks and visual mass, volume and how the traffic is handled. It seems the FAR deals
with usable space.Mr. McQuilkin also responded to Ms. Walters' concern about the light on Center
Street. The University added three lights on Center Street near the tennis courts. They wanted the light,
however, to be focused on the sidewalkbecause they didn't want it shining across the street into
the residential homes.They are adding another light on the corner soon. They are aware of that problem and hope
it will be alleviated very soon. Another problem is that of the street trees. They are blocking what
light is there.About a year ago they were doing some tree trimming on campus and they accidentally
trimmed a street tree. The person was cited by the Police Department. They're a little bit reluctant to
trim any street trees, but they were willing to talk to the City some more
about that concern.Commissioner Romero asked if there were any type of specific encouragement for the
students to use the parking structure, as compared to on-street parking? The parking garage will
not be easily accessible to the academic areas. He didn' see a very easily obtained full use of the
parking structure. Has any thought been given as to what type of encouragement would be used to have
the students park there?Mr. McQuilkin said first the structure would be used by the law students. Also, all
faculty and staff are required to park at the OUSD site. They have included 132 in their official inventory
of spaces, but they have a somewhat higher number (160) of spaces over there that are being
used by employees. They are also looking at various changes to the parking management program where instead
of having all the lots open for a particular type of student, they may actually look at assigning
students to particular lots and try and control parking that way. Major changes have been made in the last couple
of years and they will
continue to make changes.Commissioner Romero asked about the parking security with regards to the
way students parked and how it affected the residents in the neighborhood? He spoke to the
monitoring and enforcement efforts.Mr. McQuilkin said they had parking enforcement on campus. Their jurisdiction was
limited to the campus;they were unable to issue tickets to people who park on the street. They
do have on-going meetings with the resident students
regarding
campus
safety and
Planning Commission Minutes Mmd13, 1997
Mr. Henley was a member of the Board of Trustees for Chapman University. He assured the
Commission the issues having to do with architectural design and compatibility will be dealt with
appropriately. Pedestrian issues and traffic flow is another issue they are very aware of and they are
trying to find ways to encourage their students to use the appropriate crosswalks. The comer needs to
be illuminated a little better. Two street 1i9hts on Walnut are not operating. They are extremely
concerned about campus safety and the parking structure. The Board of Trustees Is very much involved
with what their Administration is doing.
Mr. Mickelson said the question about the "achieved" VB. "considered" - leave it as "achieved". They will take
the classrooms and teaching out of that area. The clarification of the loading docks, he could visualize the
situation where there would be a loading dock father close to the street and maybe even at the 20 foot
setback line. but was serviced from the parking lot and totally screened. It will be handled on the site
plan review process. The wording they have accomplishes that when it is combined with the fact that any
major structure that is going to have a loading dock would have a site plan review. Wrth regard to the sign
marquee, that has been a proposal for some time that they didn' know how to handle. Maybe they shouldtakethewords "internally illuminated" out of there so they are not stuck with that. It may be better to
have it externally illuminated under the right circumstance. Then. add that it is also subject to site Rlan review.
The demolition procedures for the building would be more appropriately answered by City staff.
The
public hearing was closed.Commissioner
Smith said when property changes hands, especially on main arterials like Glassell, there is
a dedication of property off the front for street widening. What is the status of that with Chapman's purchase
of the school district building? She hasn't heard mention of any dedication or plans for street widening.
Mr.
Hohnbaum said Public Works staff has been working with the campus to procure what right-of-way
is required, not only on Glassell, but also on Walnut. They are concerned with the signalization atSycamoreandGlassell. It was mentioned the plans are still in the process of beinliJ submItted to staff for
review.They haven' had an opportunity. to see the actual designs at those locations, or to determine what
the exact amount of rights-of-way Will be needed to accommodate all the moves. It has
been mentioned that parking would have to be removed in order to accommodate the tuming movements
that
are being anticipated.Commissioner Smith was personally against the widening of Glassell. She liked it as a
two lane road.Commissioner Pruett said on Page 3 of the staff report, second paragraph, it
does indicate the dedications and street widenings will occur incrementally as the projects are
approved through the process of
Site Plan Review.Mr. Hohnbaum said it should also be mentioned that not all of the properties areownedbyChapman.Some of the improvements being made would also predicate a City-University
partnership in order to do the full widening. In the absence of the actual improvement plans, it's difficult to
say exactly what the dedication needs would
be at this time.Mr. Donovan heard Mr. Faust say a street light could be put in within
the existin9 right-of-way. Staff needs to see a design and that design needs to be reviewedbytheTrafficEngineerandapproved.The one thing Mr. Faust said was that he wanted to make sure the City has
a protected left turn pocket at every signalized intersection of the City in the future and that was Mr.
Faust's intent at this intersection.Chairman Bosch thought they needed to look back into the not too distant
past at the EIR for the improvement for Glassell, north of Walnut. At that time
there was discussion about limitation of enhancements south of Walnut and a diversion of traffic westerly on
Walnut and other routes to avoid bringing too much through traffic into the Plaza area. That's something that Is part
of the City's process of review and revisitation. There may be existing rights-of-way
dedications that are in place, but the City may never exercise them. That should be left to thePublicWorksDepartmenttobringforthandidentify.There is quite a process to be gone through, including studies and
EIR's to pose any further widening of Glassell, south of Walnut.
which
he would be
Planning Commission Minutes MCYch 3, 1997
Commissioner Smith wanted to ask staff what the process for demolition was regarding the school district
building so that the same things that happened recently with the Depot do not reoccur with this much
larger building that impacts even a greater number of adjoining properties.
Mr. Donovan pointed out the prior EIR was originally Intended to address a number of different options
for the University. In 1988 they were looking at a lot of potential acquisition areas. There were different
blocks and areas where the University could expand and this site was identified as one of the properties
that had a building that was eligible for listing at the time. Now it is listed on the National Register.
Having addressed that at that time, now there are mitigation measures in the report that give different
options. One is to attach the building to the use that Is proposed which is the Law School. The
Commission received a condition assessment study that addresses the current conditions of the building,
and to some extent, the challenge of converting it to a state of the art academic facility.
Commissioner Smith stated everyone knows the building is 90ing to come down. That is accepted in the
community. Her question is: What will be the process to bnng it down?
Mr. Donovan said they were partly going through that process now. The second option was to look into
relocating the building, which given the size and construction, would not be possible. The third option is
the Historic American Building survey, which is included with the Commission's packet, which would
assume the buildinQ would be permitted for demolition. The City's review process would be merely
once the CommiSSion and Council apfrove an amendment to the Specific Plan, would be for the
replacement plans of the Law Schoo to be presented to the Design Review Board. The only
notification requirement is for staff to post an advertisement in the newspaper and notify interested
parties through the mail. After that, the Design Review Board would review the replacement plans.
They should, according to the Ordinance, focus on the replacement use -- not the issue of demolition. If they
were to approve the replacement plans, that sets a process of appeal of 15 days where an opponent
could appeal the DRB's decision and it would end up back at the Planning Commission.Commissioner
Pruett hoped when they get into the traffic study and get into the signalization issue that has
been discussed at Sycamore. he was not sure if signalization of another section controls the masses.He
didn' see how it would hold the students back from crossing the street. He didn' think the necessary sis;
lnalizationis the answer. There may be other factors to consider and be looked at closely. The other thing
that caught his attention was the suggestion in the staff report on Page 9 that indicated staff suggested
some initiative be undertaken by the University to become more proactive about traffic management
and on-street parking problems in local residential neighborhoods. He suggested maybe a
partnership be established to where the University's security is empowered to place parking tickets on
cars that are parked on the street illegally around the University. The partnership could be one that the
University is able to share in the revenues that the City might receive from the parking. That way it helps
fund the project for them and ensures it is being taken care of. It would limit that empowerment to certain
hours or certain days of the week.
Chairman Bosch would like to move ahead. An extraordinary amount of work has been done and he
appreciated the work of the University in communicating more effectively with the neighborhood. That has
been a challens;le in years past and hopefully it will continue to be addressed in an appropriate manner in
moving ahead In partnership to minimize the impacts on the neighbors and to improve the quality of life
for everyone in the community, including the University. The University is an incredible asset for the City
of Orange, in terms of the number of jobs it provides, the economic input to the community, the cultural
opportunities, all the residents related to the University that participate in the community and make it a
better place to live. At the same time, they need to be very careful to continue and improve their
protection of the environment of choice for existing residences and make their opportunities for growth
and peaceful living improved over the years.
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, that the Planning Commission finds
that EIR 1195-89 was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of this project. It
was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA), reviewed and
considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, and submitted upon certification with a Notice
of Determination to the State of Califomia, Clearinghouse No. 87122310. And, that no substantial
changes are proposed in the project that wasorls;linally evaluated in EIR 1195-89, thus no major
revisions are required. There is no evidence of new Significant environmflntal effects or substantial increases
in the severity of previously identified significant effects, including trc ffic conditions and the significant loss
of an nationally-registered historic resource. That no substantial changes have occurred
with
respect to 19
Planning Commission Minutes MiI"ch 3, 1997
circumstances under which the Chapman College Specific Plan would be implemented, involvinQ new
significant environmental effects or substantial Increases in the severity of preVIously identified significant
effects, thereby requiring no major revisions of the project EIR. And, that new information of substantial
importance was not presented, unknown or could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable
diligence when EIR 1195-89 was certified as complete. Therefore. the Planning Commission finds that
the addendum to the final Chapman College Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report 1195 meets
the requirements of CEOA and is
approved.
AYES:
NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero,
Smith None MOTION
CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch. seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City
Council to approve General Plan Amendment 1-97 and Zone
Change 1187-97.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES:
None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, the Planning
Commission finds that the Specific Plan and amendments are consistent with the City's General Plan, as
required by California Government Code, Section 65454, and recommend to the City Council to approve
the third amendment to the Chapman College Specific Plan with conditions 1 through 7, as outlined in the
staff report, with modifications as follows: Condition 5 be modified to specifically identify the inclusion
and requirement of a traffic impact mitigation study (design and Implementation) to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Director and City Traffic Engineer for the 500 block of Orange Street as it relates to
the Orange Street parking lot at Walnut Street. and to Olive Street. north of Sycamore Street, as it relates
to the proposed parking structure. Add condition 8: On Pa~e 2-3 of the Draft Chapman
University Specific Plan under Objective 4.1. leave in the word "achieve" with regard to the architectural styles. On
Page 3-14 (and any related references) to classrooms or computer labs in the residential zone,
as proposed north of Walnut Avenue, modifies that use with wording to mean that accessory
educational functions appropriate to the residential hall environment intent would be allowed, but no classroom buildings
or major use as academic space would be allowed within the residential zone. On Page 5-19
with r89ard to the proposed marquee sIgn, to add to the text requiring the marquee sign
placement and deSign, including Illumination,
be
subject
to site plan review.AYES:NOES:
Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Pruett, Romero. Smith None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Pruett suggested there were a lot of vacant second
floor buildings in the downtown core of Orange, which would make great housing for law students. He thought
it would be an interesting thing for the University to look at it to see if the property could be
converted to residential housing, or work with the property owners to do that. It would bring some activity to downtown
and would be of
value to the students and community.Commissioner Smith once stood on the other side of the podium
to talk about Chapman University; it was indeed a pleasure to be able to communicate and work through
the process with the University and appreciated the fine staff and Dr.
Dati for much of their achievements.Chairman Bosch also wanted to give recognition to the residents who
worked with such tenacity over the years to assure that communication was improved. It will require this kind
of partnership in the future to assure that the residents are protected and the resources continue
to
be protected as
the University grows.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero. seconded by Commissioner Pruett,
to adjourn to a study session March 17. 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discusstheCity's development review process,review of regional issues impacting
the City and a legislative update.AYES:
Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett,
Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting
adjoumed