Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/3/1986 - Minutes PC• i ~..._ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange November 3, 1986 Orange, California Monday - 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mason at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bert K. Yamasaki, Director of Planning & Development Services; Stan Soo-Hoo, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Associate Planner and Acting Commission Secretary; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary '- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MTNUTES OF OCTOBER, 20, 1986 The Minutes were corrected to read: Page 3, Paragraph 7 - Commissioner Greek speaking .,."before the building is constructed. The zone change is a down zone from C-1." Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Minutes of October 20, 1986, be approved as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED TN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITTONAL USE PERMIT 1545, REVISED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85-297 - DE CLARK: Proposed"subdivision on a 1.86 acre parcel, at the terminus of Colorado Lane, south of Villa Real Avenue, into three parcels, two of which do not have fr©ntage on a public street. This item was continued from the October 20, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1094 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented and Chairman Mason declared the public hearing to be opened, Patrick Michael, 225 S. Prospect, stated the revised plan'=dated November 3, 1986, provides all access to Colorado Lane, with no access to Villa Real Drive. Access will be nearly identical to the plan approved by the Planning Commission on August 5, 1985. Chairman Mason declared the public hearing closed. + ~ Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1986 Page 2. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the plan dated November 3, 1986, is in substantial conformance with Conditional Use Permit 1446 and Tentative Parcel Map 85-297 approved by the Planning Commission on August 5, 1985; and with concurrence of the applicant, accept a withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit 1545 and revised Tentative Parcel Map 85-297. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1548 - WUNSCH: Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a restaurant within the M-2 (Industrial.) zone, and the on-sale of beer and wine within the restaurant, Proposed site is on the west side of Main Street, south of Collins Avenue (800 N. Main Street). NOTE: Negative. Declaration 1104 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented and Chairman Mason declared the public hearing to be opened. Herb Nowak, 911 Boone Circle, Anaheim, representing Bi11 Wunsch, stated there was an error made in the type of license They"have::for.- the'dispeiising of alcoholic beverages. Our. proposal states that we hold a "47" liquor license at 1302 West Collins, which. they would like to transfer to the proposed new location. The difference between a beer and wine license and a "47" is that a "47" is a full on--sale liquor license. To avoid future problems this should be noted in the staff report, The "47" license is used extensively for dispensing alcohol through our catering and is not designed to sell alcoholic beverages other than Beer and wine in the restaurant operation. We are moving lf2 block south because we lost the lease on the building at Main and Collins, The restaurant is being re-located into our own building at 800 N. Main Street. Chairman Mason closed the public hearing. Chairman Mason asked for a clarification of the 21 off-street parking spaces; 8 standard size and 9 compact, with 4 spaces in the back. Mr. McGee said this was his understanding.. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1104. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott +' NOES: None MOTION CARRIED w Planning Commission Minutes ., November 3, 1986 Page 3. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1548 as listed in the conditions by staff. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS .ZONE CHANGE 1062, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 86-385 - CITY OF ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE SANDPIPER SWIM SCHOOL: Proposed zone change from R-1-7 to C-1 (Limited Business) District for a .35 acre area and a Tentative Parcel Map to divide an existing 1.58 acre parcel into two .parcels. Proposed site is located on the east side of Glassell Street, north of Lincoln Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1103 has been prepared for this project . Commissioners Greek and Hart were excused for potential conflict of interest. Ron Thompson, Economic Development Director representing the Redevelopment Agency, concurs with the staff report. More than 30 properties were examined. This particular property would lend itself to a commercial/recreational use, it would be compatible with the existing zoning and land use in the area, and it would he conformed to the general plan. Chairman Mason opened and closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1103. AXES; Commissioners Mason, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT:Commissoners Greek, Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 10.62. AYES: Commissioners 'Mason, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT:Commissoners Greek, Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 86-385 subject to the conditions as listed by staff. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT:Commissioners Greek, Hart MOTION CARRIED • Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1986 Page 4. Commissioners Greek and Hart returned to the meeting. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS TENTATIVE TRACT. MAP 12741 - DONALD L. BREN COMPANY: Proposed residential subdivision of 18.49 acres located in the P-C (Planned Community). zone and within the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan southeast of Chapman Avenue and Newport Avenue. NOTE: EIR 868 was previously certified for this project. A staff report was not presented and Chairman Mason declared the public hearing to be opened. Bryan Austin, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, representing the Irvine Company, wanted to reassure the Planning Commission of their continuing participation and involvement in the builder phase of the development of Santiago Hi11s. The Bren Company's tentative tract map represents the last of the tentative maps to be processed in the first phase of this development, It was reported that some of the builders have started construction out there with homes there shortly. The project is moving along nicely. Mr. Austin updated the Commission on earlier community concerns of the fire station and police facilities; and the north/south arterial of Weir Canyon Road, as required by the specific plan that these be in place by 1,000 occupancy, first phase. Projected to occur in early 1989, A considerable amount of time has been spent with the Bren Company on refinements to that site plan, The Trvine Company and Bren Company have reviewed the conditions that have been proposed in the staff report, and are in agreement with them, Chairman Mason closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master voiced concern with the apron parking in some areas where there is a high percentage of parking on the street. C~uestioned 8 to 10 lots of moving the houses .further towards the rear property line would have provided additional parking space on the apron, rather than overhanging or parking at the curb. Ann Greco, 8 Klamath, Irvine, project manager for the Bren Company, responded they did review those lots and cannot do much. about the set backs presently, but it is preliminary. They intend to look at the lots very carefully to improve the set backs on those lots. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 12741 subject to the conditions as listed by staff; and in addition, that the Bren Company review the possibility of adding additional .set backs to provide parking spaces on the aprons of the lots. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED . Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1986 Page 5. IN RE: ADDENDUM AGENDA ZONE CHANGE 1057, CONDITIONAL USE rERMIT 1486 - CHAPMAN COLLEGE: Request for a zone change from RMM-6 and. RD-6 to P-I (Public Institutional) for two parcels; one parcel located on the corner of Walnut Avenue and Orange Street, and one parcel on the west side of Center Street, north of Sycamore.. Additionally, a request to expand the college facilities and exceed the building height in the P-T zone on a 1.2 acre parcel on the west side of Center Street at Sycamore. Avenue. This. item was previously heard by the Planning Commission on September.3 and October 6, 1986. NOTE: Environmental Impact .Report 1040 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Yamasaki stated the Planning Commission`s action was to continue this matter from October 6 for for amendments to the environmental impact report. The City Council, of its meeting of October 21, directed the Planning Commission to hear-the matter at the November 3 meeting, and to send a recommendation on to the City Council. The Council directed staff and the consultant to provide additional information on parking, as well as additional alternate project site locations. Staff has noticed tonight°s meeting for a public hearing. The Environmental Impact Report was augmented by Michael Brandman Associates, the ETR consultants. The college has developed a revised parking plan; it's in the ETR showing a total of 1,556 spaces. The additional spaces are realized by use of property ocaned by the College, north of Walnut. The Environmental Impact Report, as well as the documents, the attachment of Mr. Dennis' traffic/parking study are all part of the additional information given to you by staff. Tqm Smith, Michael Brandman Associates, Inc,, 3140 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200, Costa Mesa, has prepared additional information for the Commission`s review in response to comments that were raised at the last Planning Commission meeting. The parking study conducted by the City Traffic Engineer and four new project alternative sites are included in the Environmental Tmpact Report. In the previous EIR there were four alternatives that were evaluated; those were the no project alternative required by SEOA, two alternative locations: (1) at the southeast corner of Glassell and Sycamore; (2) at the southwest corner of Glassell and Sycamore, and the original design for the building, The additional alternatives described in tonig'nt's document are three in number and in summary they relate to an alternative location at the northeast corner of Walnut and Grand. Exhibits in the document reflect the location of these alternatives. And an alternative location at East Glassell over Sycamore Avenue; and lastly, a two-building alternative which would. allow the square footage requested by the College to occur at two separate locations on the College site, Advantages and disadvantages have been summarized in the document from an environmental standpoint from each of these locations, The shade and shadow analysis has also been reiterated from the response to comments package originally prepared for the Environmental Report. Exhibits are also included regarding the shadows. ' Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1986 Page 6. Commissioner Scott questioned the fourth alternative site. Mr. Smith clarified that the original EIR contained two alternative sites and the new document looks at three alternative sites. There have been a total of five alternative sites evaluated. Chairman Mason asked how many items were added to the Environmental Review Report. Mr. Smith listed the following: the original EIR, added to it were the response/comments dated August, 1986, the traffic report from the City Engineer, dated September 30, and the document entitled. Response to Comments Heard on October 6, 1986. Those documents comprise the Environmental Report, and, of course, Minutes from the Planning Commission hearings, staff reports, etc. comprise the totality of the environmental record. Commissioner Master asked what criteria was used to look at the alternative sites. Mr. Smith said in general they were looking at sites that would be contiguous to the existing College .area, with the intent of trying to maintain the integrity of the entire College unit. We then looked to available areas adjacent to the College that could accommodate the footprint of that building and the parking that would be required along with it. tae did not-look to any great degree of ownership, but simply at areas that would be contiguous enough and have enough land area to be able to accommodate the building originally proposed and its related parking. The stadium area was not considered because of major capital costs involved in removing that facia ty and then relocating the stadium. Those kinds of alternatives were felt to be not consistent with meeting the basic objectives of providing the proposed building within a reasonable amount of time with minimal capital outlay. Commissioner Master voiced concern with condemnation alternative in that the City has taken a position. that condemnation is not an acceptable approach. Mrt Smith clarified the .basis for their .analysis, Policy matters like that are not environmental matters.. They were looking at ways to mitigate the environmental concerns that were raised. Policies could be changed from an environmental viewpoint, So you would not want to preclude an alternative because of a policy consideration of that type.. Mr. Minshew stated the Council refers to the Environmental Impact Report as new information. Hearings. have been conducted on the other .matters and not subject to be re-opened. New information supplied by the consultant and the matter of the traffic report study is being considered at this time.. ~ Commissioner Hart asked the legal opinion of Mr. Minshew about the noticing of this meeting. Concerned with guidelines not being followed. Mr. Minshew stated at a formal hearing we notice the people within 300 ` Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1986 Page 7. feet and usually a newspaper notice. In this case, the Council referred to the City Attorney and requested that he inform them of what action needed to be taken. He recommended the Planning Commission could take an action November 3, based on the idea that this matter has been before the Commission off and on for over a year. The action by the Planning Commission will be a recommendation to the City Council. That matter will be duly noticed and anyone who feels they are prejudiced here, would have to go to Council to get satisfaction. The statutory authority is in the State Planning Act, Government Code Section 65010. Chairman P4ason stated new material is being considered for the Environ- mental Impact Report; that is, the alternative sites and anything else in this new document. The meeting will restrict itself to these issues. Commissioner Greek wanted clarification on Page 2 of the staff report: number of parking places that are required. The Traffic Engineer's report, dated September 30, Page 2 indicates a need from 932 to 996 vehicles as opposed to the existing 650. It is stated as a deficiency from 346 to 3$2, Further down the page it says 352 additional parking stalls are required. This gives us a number from 1284 to 1348? Mr. McGee addressed this issue,- The staff report dated September 3, yellow copy, item 410 is a calculation of the required number of parking spaces, This number dates back to the origins of this project earlier in the year. Nine-hundred eighty-one (981) is what the staff has used as a required number of parking spaces given the number of students, faculty, and staff. This report was prior to the Traffic Engineers report. This number has been used for quite some time as the required number of parking spaces. Chairman Mason asked if the 352 parking spaces were required in addition to the 346 to 382. Mr, Dennis responded by referring to his report of September 30, 1986. There is an existing deficiency between 346 and 382 vehicles at this point in time, Present off-street parking should accommodate 932 to 996 vehicles as opposed to the existing 650 off-street parking stalls presently available. Tf the proposed Learning Center is the consoli- dation of existing facilities and staff, there would be no change in the parking requirements. If, however, the Learning Center were a facility that would generate new trips, then based on our current parking requirements, an additional 352 (maximum) parking stalls would be required, if the entire facility were generating new uses. Chairman Mason wanted straight figures, There is 650 parking spaces now, They sti1~ need an additional 346 to 382 parking spaces if they get the new building. Mr. Dennis said they have existing 650 spaces off-street parking. They need a maximum of 996 parking stalls right now .without the new building. Tf the building were used for .something other than a consolidation of uses in total, they would need an additional 352 parking stalls. If the . Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1986 Page 8. new building were used in-part for something new, then the new square footage should be equated at the rate of four parking stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. of use. Chairman Mason said the maximum number for new uses, in addition to what is currently needed, is 996 plus 352. Commissioner Scott stated no. They would need 349; additional uses, they would need another 352, for a total of 1,348 spaces maximum use. Mr. Dennis said what they need now is 996 parking stalls. Separate this total from what the new use would require. Predicate if there is an additional parking demand, what the additional use of the Learning Center would generate in the way of parking at the rate of four stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. Chairman Mason asked if Mr. Dennis had a figure in between that should be considered. They are going to consolidate, but in addition to that, they are going to have some extra seminars, etc. Mr. Dennis believed President Smith and his staff prepared a report for the Planning Division on this matter. Jerry King, 3187 Airway, Suite E, Costa Mesa, restricted his comments to the EIR. Three zones have been identified: (1) residential zone for the college; (2) the recreational zone including the football field; and (3) the academic zone which includes the buildings and structures. All those areas represented the attempt to maintain a pedestrian and park-like setting for the main campus. Back in 1982 when this process first began it was recommended that a 1,500 sq. ft. structure be built for a learning center.. From 1982 to 1984 plans have been re-evaluated, re-assessed, and altered. The college is not dealing with an office building, commercial space, but this .building has been designed to accommodate and address the needs of the existing campus. This process has taken over four years to date. The new Environmental Impact Report has been discussed in some detail. Mr. King re-iterated. the advantages and disadvantages of each alternate site. The College continues to propose a 4-story, 88,000 sq. ft. Learning Center at the southeast corner of Center Street and Sycamore. The facility will accommodate the existing overcrowding on the campus and it is not proposed to increase the student population or create additional parking demands. Evening classes will also use this facility as stated before. -This will help reduce peak loads and provide feasible parking. All of the college's parking demands will be met on existing campus property. A11 of this parking will be available prior to taking occupancy of the building proposed. A parking plan will be prepared that requires that all faculty, staff and students be permitted and assigned on campus lots, as a condition of approval. This includes a requirement for 996 spaces, which is the upper limit of Mr. Dennis' study and adds 50 additional spaces for 1,046 spaces. The College, in response to the community, has reduced it's building from 115,000 sq. ft. to 88,000 sq. ft. - a 22% decrease in size. Thus adjusting for the bulk and size of the setbacks, changing the characteristics of the building and the zone's integrity by stepping it back. The footprint of the building has been changed by setting it ' Planning Commission.Minutes November 3, 1986 Page 9. ..... back off the street. The cost to date is approximately $800,000.00 providing infrastructure sources .for existing and proposed parking needs. We are in agreement that the College and City should work together to prepare a parking control plan as addressed in the conditions of approval. We should sit down jointly and review those things that are good for the College, but yet relate to the City's general plan growth. Commissioner Greek pointed out Mr. King stated the needs of the college will not change and you will not increase students. Mr. Smith sent out a letter dated October 30, however, stating the entire project and accompanying moves will allow the College to increase graduate enrollment by about 200 students. Mr. King answered that Mr. Smith wrote the letter and the increase in students, we are hoping, will. be in the evening classes. This was mentioned in the. past and we have advertised for additional evening enrollment. They will use that facility in the evening, there will be an increase, .but it would be p.m. students at a time there is not a peak demand for existing parking nor for the community's circulation system. Chairman Mason asked Mr. King to clarify the number of spaces required. Do you interpret the figures of the parking study to mean 1,056? Mr. King stated that was correct. We took the higher limit that was a, result of the City's parking study and .added some additional spaces to it. iJe''ve made the statement that we do not believe the facility will add additional students during daytime use. We do believe, however, there will be some evening uses of the structure. The maximum number would be 1,056 spaces based on the demands of the College.. Chairman Mason stated one of the main concerns is the encroachment of extra traffic on Center Street, With the parking lot being proposed next to the building, that is where the traffic comes in according to the traffic study if it was just used for faculty, there would be an increase of 300 vehicles per day into a residential neighborhood.. Has consideration been given to moving the tennis courts to that location so that the parking lot then could be brought down to Walnut Street where there would not be an impact on the neighborhood. Mr. King said it has .been considered by the College and perhaps is a viable alternative. The conditions for approval require the College to sit down with the City staff to work out the final configurations for parking. That would probably be a less expensive alternative than trying to move the student union. It seems to be a realistic alterna- tive to solving the parking. That lot would be restricted to faculty and staff in an effort to reduce trips through the community. Those speaking in opposition: John O'Dell, 414 N. Shaffer, was never apprised by the College suggesting to move the building to a Walnut Street site in the midst of another residential neighborhood. There has never been a proposal brought ~ Planning Commission Minutes. November 3, 1986 Page 10. before the neighbors for a 115,000 sq. ft. building. The first proposal we saw was for a 92,000 sq. ft. building. The College has not reduced it 20%. Lateral expansion was never discussed. New issues include: parking needs to be taken into account for the new building; Chapman is proposing a new parking lot in the new ETR -- parking lot "K"". This has never been discussed and is not discussed in the EIR; Chapman presents alternatives, but refuses to consider any -- it will only consider what was proposed originally i.n February; and moving the parking lot to a new location -- who is going to use it. We still need to consider the impact of locating this building and its size, where it is, with the impact on parking and traffic on the residential streets. M.J. Martini, 638 E, Walnut, addressed the daylight and shadow. The addendum stated 4:00 p,m. for shadow analyses standard and the drawing showing the shade and shadow at 3:00 p.m. New pictures were taken of the shadows at 12:30 p.m, and submitted to the Commission. He urges the Commission to deny the Learning Center as proposed by the College. Patricia Barrios, 235 E, Maple,-lives directly across from the Chapman College Chapel. Concerned about the parking problems in the neighborhood,. Questioned the different ways in which the money from the fund raiser was spent. Opposed Mr. Smith`s letter urging residents of Orange to vote for candidates who support him on this issue. This letter was submitted into the record for reference, Joe Suste, 409 N, .Shaffer, is a member of the Old Towne Preservation Association and would like the record to show that the residents question the legality ©f this public hearing, .Many people are concerned with. the building, parking and traffic. Feels the new ETR is a major revision instead of an addendum and should be given as much consideration and review as the original submission. The plan must be prepared and approved before a conditional use permit is approved. Dale Rahn, 350 N, Harwood, spoke as an individual-and as president of Old Towne Preservation Association. Chapman feels penalized by intolerable delays in the processing of the ETR and conditional use permit. The delays have been intolerable, but they have been caused by the College, A responsible decision can only be reached after a thorough examination of the facts. But. in several meetings, the College has presented irrelevant information for self-serving alternatives. There are already too many questions and .this report raises new ones. Where is the master plan? Concerned with the inadequate EIR. Cher;~l Green, 231 N. Grand, said Old Towne cannot be relocated and the neighbors are looking to maintain the integrity of the area. Chapman's proposal is in direct opposition to the original town plan. This proposal will not be blending old and new. Concerned about parking and impacts on residential streets. A master plan is a necessity. Steve Taylor, 363 N. Center, said he could come up with 20 alternatives Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1986 Page 11. to the project as proposed. Feels the one alternative referred to Glassell over Sycamore would be the better alternative. It would eliminate residential traffic, provide better access off of an arterial way in conjunction with the L-shaped parking structure of two stories. currently over .Sycamore and then behind the stadium. Chuck Haupt, 314 E. Palmyra, stated Mr. Smith's letter referenced a 60% growth over the past six years. This has been done without a master plan. He refers to the parking lot as a temporary parking lot; this is the first time I`ve heard the parking lot being a temporary solution. The alternative site issue has been minimized by Chapman College"s consultant. And, the consultant further states they will be happy to meet with the City after the proposal is approved. City of Orange residents have not been happy with this process and are urging denial of the EIR and CUP. Those speaking in favor: Theo Shapin, 5110. E. Elsinore, realizes the importance of this Learning Center. Ed Cancilla, 7930. E. Lakeview Trail, said Chapman College has been here for 32 years. Prior to that, Orange. High School was at this location, Traffic is being pointed out as the problem; traffic is a problem at Orange High School. Many of the people that have spoken tonight do not appear to have lived in the area for more than 30 years. Any of us who buy a place located near a school have to recognize that school locations are going. to have traffic conditions that they're going to have to tolerate. Many people are in favor of the Learning Center; that Chapman College is vital to our area. It is my under- standing that the EIR consultant is selected by the City and paid for by the College. Zs this true? Mr. McGee commented the applicant does select the consultant and the City consents to the applicant"s selection, Greta Weatherill, 1239 E. Lomita, resident and realtor, would like to explain what was said in terms of the amount of money that was raised by the college. The money raised by the College is an endowment that all private colleges need in order to function. ~~e~re not talking about a business that is for profit. Fae're talking. about something that is going to be educating the youth of our nation. This College can be quality, but it needs quality endowment to do that. That is basically the kinds of money that has been raised for our '86 program -- not to build buildings. Lorna Farnum, 3422 N. Glassell, pointed out there are no parking spaces where she lives; however, she can always find a parking place.. Traffic generated in the area has nothing to do with the college at all; other businesses and factors mitigate traffic problems in the area. Tom Sne11, 333 N. Glassell - business address and 268 N. Grand.- home address, said everybody in the neighborhood is not against Chapman College`s increasing the availability of education to its students. There is a big problem of confrontation between the College and the • Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1986 Page 12. +'` neighborhood and it appears to becoming a confrontation between the College and the City or some representation of the citizens of the City. There are problems in Old Towne not caused by the College. The other side of it right now is that the College's growth seems to be a way to solve some of those problems that. already exist. Tn reference to the serious parking problem, the College is making an offer in good faith to relieve that problem, which is only a partial cause. Tt's time to stop the confrontations and begin to move forward with the City and the College as a team for the best for everyone, including the citizens of 01d Towne. G.T. Smith., President of Chapman College, 333 N. Glassell, feels tonight is a continuation of many gross errors and mis-statements regarding this project by those who are opposed to it. Most of the corrections are included in the study material. Mr. Smith wanted to state for the record regarding the statement by Mrs. Barrios about his letter urging people to vote for candidates who supported the College: (_and he read)...."you might. be interested to know how some of the candidates stand on this particular project. I urge you to study their positions and then support those whose views you share by volunteering to help in their campaigns and then voting' for their election on November 4." T have never urged .anyone to vote one particular way in this election. We have addressed the issue of parking. If you are going to continue to restrict us to a maximum of 30 feet, or two stories in terms of height and also prefer that we not move laterally, then we will have to consider other alternatives. Again, I have not threatened anyone about moving this College out of town; I simply responded that we must look at all of our alternatives. Tom Smith, EIR consultant, clarified a couple of xemarks made earlier for the record. The document that was submitted to you last week entitled "Response to Comments Heard on October 6, 1986 Planning Commission Hearing", is not referred to in the document as an "addendum". It is not an addendum to the EIR. It may be referred to as an addendum by staff, but that is not what it's title is. Secondly, the comments about written findings and statements of overriding considerations are correct in one respect and are not correct in another. They are correct in the context of the decision making body having to make such statements of overriding consideration if there are significant adverse impacts that have not been mitigated. Also, the decision making body must prepare written findings to substantiate those overriding considerations. But, the decision making body in this City on this matter is the City Council. That's why there are not findings and statements of overriding considerations before this Planning Commission. There will be at that point in time when the Council deliberates on its final action as the decision making body on this matter. In reference to the alternatives that have been discussed earlier, CEQA simply ~"** requires that the alternatives in the EIR refer to those alternatives r'` to the project that could reasonably achieve the objectives of the project. In this case, the objectives of the project are those that are stated by the applicant. The one alternative which separates the four story building into two buildings changed the footprint Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1986 Page 13. by adding an equivalent footprint in another location. The intensity at the original site would be reduced by that alternative with-the addition of another alternative site of two stories placed elsewhere on campus. There has been a variation on the footprint in somewhat of a slightly different mode than you might normally expect. Commissioner Greek questioned the confusion of parking spaces required. The statement says 932 to 996 parking spaces would be needed to meet the campus demands. But the City Traffic Engineer's report says that 932 to 996 parking spaces are needed currently, This should be revised or corrected to reflect the proper wording. Mr. Smith concurred and the record should show the word "current" be inserted between the words "the campus"; therefore, reading "the current campus demand..." Mr. King wanted to clear up the issue of Chapman College's quite successful six year effort. at fund raising. The 17 million dollars of the 54 million dollars has been set aside for the building program - existing and planned construction. Nine million dollars of that 54 million dollars is set aside for operations and overhead of the campus. Twenty-eight million dollars is in terms of pledges which goes into an endowment fund for future expansion and operation of the facilities. We do not have a bag of cash sitting around to use for new buildings. We may never resolve the issue of who has talked to whom. There have. been meetings over the past year in respect to the College. We also may never resolve the issue of what action constitutes a master plan. We hope to be able to do that with you in the near future. The College has always operated under it`s master plan; it has had a set of goals, which are academic and which provide for educational facilities on the campus.. Tt has tried to achieve those goads over a period of years. Briefly reiterated the College's proposed plans for future expansion and the, reasons involved for each process and commented on the issues of the proposed Learning Center. Steve Taylor, 363 N. Center., questioned if the new information brought forth is not an addendum to the ETR, so it will not be included in the ETR to be approved? Doesn't understand how this document is to be treated. Mr. McGee said this is fully apart of the environmental document. Staff has used the word "addendum" merely as a matter of convenience to explain in our written reports to. you how to look at it. Per CEQA, "addendum" may not be the right word, but it is part of the environmental impact report. Chairman Mason closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master stated the composite EIR complies with the filing requirements. We are not certifying the EIR, rather making a recommendation to the City Council. The ETR has pointed out there are problems and they are problems that cannot be mitigated. Chairman Mason feels the issues that were of consideration were a Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1986 Page 14. problem to us. We have-tried to obtain the information that is needed to help us make some sort of a decision on the conditional use permit and zone change. Commissioner Master said the action on the EIR does not automatically approve the zone change or conditional use permit. Certification of EIR is just that -- our recommendation to it is that information has been gathered, heard comments, it goes on to the City Council and they, in turn, do the certifying. Mr. Minshew stated if the Commission denies the EIR; then, the zone change and conditional use permit would need to be denied. Commissioner Hart was somewhat touched by Mr. Snell. These hearings have generated so much animosity between the neighbors and the College. T have not heard the opposition speak against the Learning Center; but they are opposing the location of the Learning Center. The issue is whether the Learning Center will be on that site as shown in the EIR. Tf you vote for the ETR, you vote for that site. Mr. Minshew. stated the City Council can accept, reject, or modify Planning Commission's decision -- or even return it back to you. Commissioner Greek said the Commission should not be trying to ~ anticipate what the Council should do. We should decide what we ,~ think is right. My questions have not been responded to regarding the parking issue. Tt's a real problem. A detailed plan is essential. I cannot recommend certification, Chairman Mason said the certification of the EIR is just a certifi- cation that all of the information has been compiled. Mr, Minshew stated yesR You are recommending the Council approve it; that there is enough information, alternatives discussed, etc, Commissioner Hart questioned the conditional use permit action, which follows this action, what site plan are we considering? Mr. McGee stated the site plan being considered is part of the conditional use permit is the same. site plan that is in this most recent document. This is the site plan they have proposed for their project with the 1,000 and some parking stalls. Moved by Commissioner Master,. seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City. Council the certification of Environmental Impact Report 1040 as it was completed in compliance with CEQA; also, there are unmitigated adverse impacts resulting from parking, traffic, bulk of structure, as identified and presented by staff, AXES: Commissioners Mason, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioners Greek, Hart MOTION CARRIED ~, Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1986 Page 15. Commissioner Master would like a clarification from staff on the zone change: property adjacent in the middle of the parking area that is to the north of the proposed site. Is this correct? Mr. McGee said there are two parcels. One parcel, which is on Center Street roughly within the center of-the proposed parking lot. There is another parcel which is near the corner of Orange and Walnut, north of the Hutton Sport Center. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart,: that. the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they approve Zone Change 1057 as the proposed zone is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land use and zoning. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Mason understands the conditional use permit is strictly on that building at the location proposed. Mr. McGee stated the two purposes of the conditional use permit are the height o£ the proposed.. building and the expansion of the College campus use.. Commissioner Greek asked if the conditional use permit has nothing to do with the location of the building. Mr. McGee said the conditional use permit deals with the building. .This is the site plan which. is being approved with the conditional use permit and it does indicate the building at that location. C Chairman Mason stated the Commission could add .ten more conditions in their recommendation if they so wish. .Concerned with the additional traffic on Center Street and the parking. Parking has been over looked, Likes the recommendation from the Traffic Engineer to implement a residential parking permit program. Would like the College to consider and could make it a recommendation to the Council to relocate the tennis courts so that the parking lot along Center could be entered off of Walnut, which would then eliminate that excess traffic on Center, Two conditions I would recommend would be that a parking plan be approved by this Commission before building permits .are even issued; not after the building is built. Also, implementation of that residential parking .permit program. Mr. Soq-Hoo said the applicant would have no control over a parking permit program since it is public streets. A separate recommendation to City Council should be made. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded. by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they deny Conditional Use Permit 1486 based on the inability to mitigate adverse impacts resulting from parking, traffic and bulk of structure. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes ~ November 3, 1986 Page 16. Chairman Mason felt the many items of concern could be mitigated and that's why I would be in favor of the conditional use permit. Planning Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Request by International Park Design, Inc. for interpretation of zoning code relating to long-term parking in parking structures. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission adjourn the meeting to a study session to, discuss parking standards. AYES: Commissioners Mason, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m., to reconvene at a regular meeting on November 17, 1986, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California /sld C c