2003 - September 22
APPROVED
MINUTES
September 22, 2003
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
INRE:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
Jim Reichert, Acting Planning Manager/Secretary
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 3, 2003.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve the
minutes from the September 3, 2003 meeting with two minor corrections:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
INRE:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
None MOTION CARRIED
CONTINUED HEARINGS:
2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003-0005, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
NO. 2003-0002 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.5-CHAPMAN
UNIVERSITY), ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2003-0003 (SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 1 - SANTA FE DEPOT), ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
NO. 2003-0004 (DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE SOUTHWEST
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA), ZONE CHANGE NO. 1223-03, AND
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1717-03 - CHAPMAN
UNIVERSITY - SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.5
Proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 would add parcels totaling approximately 17.12
acres to the existing 40.35-acre project area to accommodate future University expansion
efforts, including the School of Film and Television, the Dance Center, and other uses.
Amendments to the City's General Plan Land Use and Circulations Elements, the Chapman
University Specific Plan, the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan, and the Design Standards for the
Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, and a Zone Change are proposed
to reflect the addition of these properties to the Specific Plan area. The amendment to the
Chapman University Specific Plan also proposes to update development and signage standards,
add historic preservation and edge/interface standards, add Secretary of the Interior standards
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
for rehabilitation, and identify an Area of Interest immediately adjacent to the campus which
may have a future relationship with the University. This item was continued from the August
18, 2003 and September 15, 2003 meetings.
NOTE: Environmental Impact Report No. 1717-03 has been prepared for this project in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State
CEQA Guidelines Article 7 - EIR process. The Planning Commission's review of
the EIR will include demolition of existing improvements on the "Anaconda"
properties on the south side of Palm A venue between the AT &SF railroad tracks and
Lemon Street and the reconstruction of the site for the School of Film and Television,
other related uses on various sites throughout the campus, and consideration of a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for environmental impacts that cannot be
mitigated.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution PC 31-03 recommending the City Council certify FEIR 1717-03,
which was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq.
Adopt Resolution PC 30-03 recommending to the City Council approval of the
following:
. General Plan Amendment No. 2003-0005
. Ordinance Amendment No. 2003-0002 (Specific Plan Amendment No. 5-
Chapman University)
. Ordinance Amendment No. 2003-0003 (Specific Plan Amendment No. I-Santa
Fe Depot)
. Ordinance Amendment No. 2003-0004 (Design Standards for the Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area)
. Zone Change No. 1223-03
Mr. Reichert introduced the item.
Alice Angus, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. She explained that
back in August there were a number of issues raised for staff and the applicant to respond to.
EDA W has put together graphics that portray how some of the processes work and answer some
of the land ownership issues that were raised.
The first issue, regarding the existing surrounding general plan and zoning designation, Ms.
Angus indicated that Chapman University extends over many blocks and is proposing to extend
further to the west, Attachments 4 and 5 shows the General Plan designations and the zoning in
the area.
Commissioner Bonina wanted to confirm that the zone SPZ was for the Specific Plan for the
Depot.
The second issue had to deal with the ownership and acknowledgement from Villa Park
Orchards Association in terms of their inclusion of their property within the Specific Plan
Amendment. A copy of a letter was given to the Commission from Villa Park Orchard's
authorizing that inclusion and also there was language that the intention was for the underlying
industrial zoning to stay in place.
2
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
Mr. Bonina asked how the current property was affected, how are they affected relative to the
future development of their site and what rights are taken away from them and how is that
addressed. Ms. Angus explained the development regulation language in the Specific Plan talks
about the General Plan land use and zoning designation that will remain in effect for any and all
parcels not owned by Chapman University. So if Villa Park Orchards does not sell to Chapman
and they want to make some changes in their operation by adding buildings, it would be treated
as an industrial zoned property. If they sell to another owner other than Chapman University,
that land would continue to be an industrial zoned property. It would be only if and when
Chapman buys the property that it would follow the regulations of the Specific Plan.
The third issue, Ms. Angus explained, had to deal with noticing in the future of projects within
the Specific Plan boundaries. What Chapman has proposed if there is a project, a decision
would rest with her as the Community Development Director if it was consistent with the
Specific Plan. What she has done and what the applicant is proposing in the future is to give
notice within a 300' radius. That radius would be from a larger area. Attachment No.7
designates four different areas which primarily includes the residential area; the main campus
area; another area extending to the west that includes the law school and potentially the Villa
Park Orchard's site; and an area more to the southwest in the area where the film school is being
proposed and the dance studio exists. Also if the University came along with an amendment to
the Specific Plan in the future, an amendment would affect the entire Specific Plan and at that
time noticing would take place from the entire boundary of the entire Specific Plan area.
The fourth item deals with the student population numbers. Attachment No. 8 makes a
comparison of the existing Specific Plan that is in effect and the request that is before the
Commission in terms of both maximum number of seats at the University and then a translation
of that into students. In the past they have talked about total number of students or full time
students or full time equivalent, they find that seats are a more constant way of measuring. But
from a traffic standpoint, the number of students is also very useful in terms of a maximum cap
so what the Specific Plan is asking for is both standards - one in terms of total number of seats,
maximum number of 5,000 seats, that compares to the existing Specific Plan that has a total
number of seats as full-time equivalent at 4,000. Translating that into how many students would
be anticipated, which includes all students, would raise it from the current maximum of 6,972 to
8,715 and those are caps that are proposed within the Specific Plan. Looking at that in terms of
growth, keeping in mind the current land area of the Specific Plan (SP) is around forty acres and
they are looking at adding about seventeen acres to the SP site with an increase of less than
2,000 students from a base of nearly 7,000 students.
Commissioner Bonina asked on the student to seat ratio, what is it tied back to, are there some
standards or benchmarks in which other Universities or other types of facilities ofthis nature use
this as a benchmark of some sort of ratio. Ms. Angus wasn't sure it necessarily ties to other
Universities but in terms of tracking at Chapman as to how many classroom seats they have had
and how many students they have had, total student enrollment, and then projecting that out. A
lot of it from their perspective had to deal with parking and traffic and what types of impacts
there would be so they did have their traffic consultant look at it and make sure the numbers
were true with the numbers that Chapman was giving in terms of student population and was
reflective of the type of parking demand and traffic they were seeing existing. Seat-to-student
ratio was listed on the bottom of Attachment No. 8 and it's projected that will continue out and
it's also been written into the environmental document and the Specific Plan as a cap. So if
things change in the future and there was a possibility of having more students, they would not
be allowed to do that without amending the SP to account for higher student number.
3
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
Commissioner Brandman stated they talk about students and there are a lot of examples of
students. She tried to looked through the documents over the past week and wanted to know if
Chapman put together a plan, a spreadsheet, that shows at any given time, for example at 9:00 in
the morning, at 12:00 noon and 7:00 at night, who is going to be on their campus. They have
students, visitors, citizens, high school students, workers, and teachers and she's concerned with
the impact and she'd be interested to know before she's able to make a decision. So they've got
5,000 seats and they are asking for a cap of 8,000 students but they also know that the campus
has more than just students on it. So is there somewhere that they have provided a worksheet of
who is on the campus at any given time and what the makeup is of those people. Ms. Angus
stated they have not and maybe that's a question to raise with the applicant. One of the things
being done on an annual basis over the last few years with Chapman is a parking report card as
to how they are doing. That gets at a lot of the impacts and also helps to rationalize and connect
how many seats there are on campus and there's a known number of how many students there
are and the parking demand is then looked at. One of the things the SP is proposing is to raise
the ratio as to how much parking is required per seat or per student. Part of that may be
because of the ancillary activities where the campus is open to the public or there are other
people coming to access different events and more students are bringing cars to school than five
to ten years ago. Whether or not there is more value in measuring how many people are
actually on campus at one time, she didn't feel the impacts would exceed their maximum student
number. Commissioner Brandman felt it was important because there are activities on the
campus and they are asking to extend their influence and affect surrounding areas and that would
be an important thing to find out who is on the campus and why they are there. That's
something she'd like further information on.
Commissioner Smith wanted to know if there was an idea of how many graduates there were
related to that number of students. Ms. Angus did not have that number but probably someone
from Chapman would.
Commissioner Bonina asked in the calculation or the establishment of the maximum seats,
which is 5,000, how do the auditoriums and various other assembly type of areas, how do they
factor in, if at all. Ms. Angus said if they have an auditorium or program where students would
be taking regular classes, there would be a calculation assigned to that building or that space.
Contrasted with sporting venues where you'd have seats in an outdoor stadium or perhaps an
indoor facility in the future, those are not included in the cap on seats. It's just the educational
part of the campus, the film school, for instance, they would need to know how many students
would be attending the classroom and that would be included in the overall cap of the 5,000.
Chair Pruett said the development plan calls for Academic Area 1 & 2 and Residential Area B
and he was wondering if they looked at it from the standpoint of academic areas and what kind
of population impacts do they anticipate in those areas. He would assume that Academic Area 1
is going to stay pretty much the way it is now and Academic Area 2 is an area of growth that
includes the new film school and is that where the growth is occurring? What he'd like to get is
a good handle on the student population issue and is it getting more intense use on the University
main campus or is it spread out among the proposed campus. Ms Angus responded from a
regulation standpoint what they have done in the SP is there is also a cap as to the maximum
floor area ratio, parcel by parcel, and there is some ability to transfer some of that floor area
ratio and it's a 1.0 floor area ratio. Also from a regulation standpoint there is a requirement to
provide parking commensurate with any type of building growth and that parking needs to be
convenient to the area of growth and that ties the two together. Looking at the main campus, it
has not been built out to a 1.0 FAR right now and there is still some ability to grow but there
4
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
Planning Commission
would be some need to provide parking. The land in the southwest area would be able to
accommodate the bulk of the growth.
Commissioner Brandman would like to go on the record because she thinks it's important to
open the hearing to the public and allow the applicant to come forward because there could be a
combination of new information and more clearly put information. The staff and Chapman have
gone through another iteration of charts and maps that she thinks the community should be able
to see and hear and comment on so she is asking the public hearing be opened. Chair Pruett
explained that the applicant will make their presentation and then following that the issue of
opening up the public hearing will be decided.
Commissioner Smith had a question on Item No.2, which is the letter from Villa Park Orchards,
and it seems a little vague to her. The gentlemen who signed it doesn't list his position and it
would seem to her that a board of directors or some executive officer would have to sign off on
it. The letter doesn't hold a lot of weight with her because it doesn't say who he is or who
authorized him to write it. Ms. Angus did not have clarification on that but Chapman may.
Ms. Angus continued with the issues and the next one had to deal with traffic signals. Under the
worse case scenario of the environmental document it would appear that a number of
intersections within the area would potentially require signals. Two issues came up, one was is
Chapman the sole cause for requiring signals and does Chapman get assessed for future signals;
and the other was in terms of the quality of life issues within Old Towne and whether or not
signals are appropriate within the residential areas of Old Towne. In the worse case, there would
be some signals required and that requirement alone does not compel the City to put in signals.
There are a number of factors, one having to deal with warrants from intersection capacity
utilization and also there are requirements because of traffic or accident history and also
pedestrian movement is factored in. Chapman is a major factor in terms of their future growth,
which could trigger the need for signals in these locations. They would continue to monitor this
as the Public Works Department does on a regular basis and as new projects are proposed by
Chapman, they would see if any of those would trigger the need for a signal and then further
study as to whether it is truly warranted. They have looked at the design of signals and they
have looked at designs that would be much more in keeping with a historic flare. What is
suggested in the staff report for any signal Chapman's traffic would be contributing to, they
would have to contribute to the cost of signal installation.
Commissioner Bonina asked if the concept of the enhanced signal also applies to the paving of
an area where a signal would be located and any other type of improvements relative to that
general area and more in keeping with the Old Towne standards. Ms. Angus said in terms of
paving it was not necessarily so and in some instances they have modernized what they put on
the streets and in terms of the crosswalk. As far as signage features and lighting fixtures it
would be appropriate to look at something that is more in keeping with the Old Towne district.
Commissioner Bonina asked Mr. Hohnbaum in looking at alternatives to a signal in this area,
has he explored any other alternatives that might achieve the same result but has less visual
impact. Mr. Hohnbaum explained that the purpose of the traffic signal is to assign intersection
access so the signal is the ultimate control device they would use. There are other methods of
controlling intersection access which are four way stops and a roundabout like the Plaza but
they don't work with higher volumes of traffic.
Ms. Angus explained about the existing process of reviewing projects within the SP and also
what is proposed under the amendment before them. Attachment 9A and 9B walks through the
5
APPROVED
Planning Commission
September 22,2003
process of the existing historic review and the proposed process under the SP amendment. The
review is very thorough and if there is any relocation or demolition, whether it's contributing or
non-contributing, it is being looked at from a CEQA review in conjunction with the SP by
conducting that review, taking it through an internal Staff Review Committee review, Design
Review Committee review and then reaching some decision. When dealing with a project either
consistent with the SP or is not in the historic district or is non-contributing within the district
the decision would go to the Community Development Director.
Commissioner Brandman was concerned with the Villa Park Orchards and Anaconda sites and
what happens to them. Ms. Angus discussed the film school project and what the Commission is
doing as part of their review of the SP is looking at the environmental documentation that looks
at the demolition of a portion of the Anaconda property. The building on the eastern half has
substantial environmental documentation in the EIR and they went through the process of
whether it could be saved, adapted or relocated for the requested film school use and the
conclusion was that the building does not facilitate that type of use. The environmental
document talks about capturing the history of use in terms of photo documentation. The
Commission is being asked to confirm that the study has been done on the film school and from
an environmental standpoint, demolition is the appropriate option. This is happening a little
differently since the SP is running parallel to the film school project. The applicant has already
submitted their plans and it has gone through the Staff Review Committee and Design Review
Committee and they have recommended approval of the design of the new project. That's now
waiting for the final decision by her. The intention is when the Specific Plan is in place and that
project comes to her for a final decision, it gets approved with conditions and there is notice
given of that decision and then there is an appeal period.
Commissioner Smith stated that this has some alternatives to it and she is confused as to why
they are approaching it this way. There is no SP right now, this is a new project in Old Towne,
therefore, there is an ordinance in place on how to get a new building into the system, especially
where a demolition is involved. Why are they doing this complicated piece ofthe environmental
review and a SP that is not yet approved on a building they have never seen the design of? How
can she tell that this environmental impact report accurately addresses the components it needs
for this building when she has never seen a picture or footprint or anything that describes this
building? Also in the normal process wouldn't it go to SRC and then DRC and then the
Planning Commission? Because it's two stories tall, it would need a CUP and they would make
a determination on that? But as Ms. Angus stated this would be waiting for a final decision by
the Community Development Director, which is very unusual for projects in Orange. She's just
wondering why this is being done this way. What if the SP isn't approved for a year, wouldn't
they like to get going on this building and couldn't it be approved more quickly if it came
through the usual way. Ms. Angus explained that that is an option. This one is a little bit
different because of the parallelism and the fact that the project has caught up with the SP.
Originally when the applicant was moving ahead with the SP they wanted to put enough detail
in to look at clearing that site for future use as a film school. They wanted to incorporate that
documentation into the SP knowing that was a project they were working on. As the SP has
come along and the process takes a number of months in regards to working through the
environmental document, they have gotten much further along with the design of the film school
so they were starting through with a parallel process with the idea that it would follow behind.
it is now partially up to the applicant to choose which path to follow. They can wait on the film
school or they can bring that forward to the Commission and it would require re-noticing and
then they are dealing with a project within a project in terms of keeping things straight from a
noticing and processing perspective. At this point they have chosen to keep the two separate
6
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
although they are much further along with the design of the film school than they originally
anticipated.
Chair Pruett explained that there is another issue and that is in projects that have come to them
before from the University they have always asked for what is the master plan, where are they
going with the campus and this SP attempts to address many of those issues. Hopefully what
happens is they are able to get an understanding of where things are going and within what
framework or boundaries and it establishes the process too.
Commissioner Smith doesn't see the SP as the master plan. She thinks the master plan shows
what will be built in a phasing process. She's never seen a picture of the film school except two
years ago in a brochure at an event she went to. There is something about this that seems more
complicated than it needs to be. In the regular process of noticing, the people that lived across
the street from the film school, within 300' of this project, would be noticed and they would
have an opportunity to give input. If this is the environmental document then there is a plan for
a building, why can't they see what it looks like so they can have more information. It's vague.
Maybe there's something about it that the community won't accept and so they want to keep it in
this silent process. Chair Pruett felt there are two issues, one is the film school design and the
other one is the SP. What they really need to do is focus on the SP from the standpoint of
addressing some of those concerns, the process Commissioner Smith is talking about and really
make sure they capture the proper process. His view is they are not going to hide anything from
the public because at some point the public does get an opportunity to deal with this issue. The
process is one that needs to take into consideration not only the community but also allows the
applicant to really get a feel for what changes will be required for the project so they don't have
to come back and get through the project with a large investment and then to find out it's a no
go and they have to go back and redesign. He thought they really need to focus on this process.
Commissioner Smith stated that this project is already moving through. Chair Pruett explained
that if the Commission establishes a review process for the SP and that project that is moving
through is not following that process, he thinks the point would be it would have to follow the
process they have adopted. The project can only be approved two ways, one through the
existing process or through the SP process. Commissioner Smith asked if the SP wasn't
approved, would the project die. Ms. Angus replied that if the SP is not approved, then the
applicant would need to process the project in a different manner. The manner they are using
now is that it is consistent with the proposed SP, zoning of the area is industrial and the use is a
film school type of use so if the SP does not cover the area then they are looking at an individual
project. It would require a major site plan review, CUP and whatever else would be necessary
to process it.
Commissioner Smith stated that there is a demolition ordinance so why would they take the
biggest demolition in the history of Old Towne out of that process. This is one square City
block. This project has been lifted out of that process which was put in place exactly for the
purpose of preventing a demolition without review. Ms. Angus replied that in terms of the
process, Chapman hearing what Planning Commission, staff, City Council and the public has
been saying to them over the last couple of years, they have gone to great lengths in terms of the
environmental documentation to incorporate that piece of property for the film school in terms
of the historic review of the property, going through the four step tiering as to looking at using
the building, adaptive reuse of the building, relocation of the building and finally demolition.
They make a case in the environmental document as to why the first three options are not
appropriate for the site with the intended use. Then they go on from there in terms of how to
memorialize and preserve the history of the use that occurred at that building. So she doesn't
think there is any attempt to duck a public process in terms of looking at a demolition review of
7
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
the site. What they had not intended was to be as far along with the building. She then
contrasted that with any other future buildings. On no other site does the environmental
documentation go far enough to clear it from an environmental standpoint so if Chapman comes
back with a proposal for another building on a site that has a contributing historic structure,
that would have to go through environmental review which would require a demolition review
along with the project and a public hearing by the Planning Commission. That includes the
other Anaconda building as well. The only building being cleared is the one on the eastern half
of the site.
Commissioner Brandman stated it was her understanding that one of these building was in the
DRC for review with two members. It is also her concern that if they approve the SP with these
two buildings in it, what they are saying is they approve the demolition of the building and she's
not comfortable with that. It was her understanding that in a previous SP it was put in there that
no property could be put into a SP that was not owned by the applicant. The other issue was that
there's a place in the design standards that states that if a building is found to be historic or has
value, that at least the fascia or part of it must remain. She wanted to make certain that at the
very minimum it comes to the Commission for review of that. She thought they need to find
every opportunity to encourage Chapman to use the resources that are there and not just to
demolish them and go forward with something else. She's not certain that that's the best use and
moving it off that site is best for the community because that's the way it's been since the 1920' s
and 1930's. Ms. Angus was confused because she mentioned two buildings because it's only the
film school that is before them in terms of the SP. In terms of the proposal that has gone
through the DRC, to the degree that they are a full body and they are down to three members but
all three members were able to participate. They have reviewed the plans for the film school on
the eastern block known as the Anaconda properties and they have recommended approval of
the design of the building and the landscapingfor that site. From a staff level the environmental
documentation has been accepted and they have done a thorough job of looking at whether or
not that particular building can accommodate the use and there are very unique aspects of a
film school and studio that don't fit into the current building design. What makes that building
historic is primarily the use that occurred there as opposed to the architecture. The Anaconda
building was not found to be unique in terms of the building materials, the style of the building
or necessarily being a good representation of a period of time but rather it was more the use
that occurred there and that's what is most appropriate and how does that get documented.
Commissioner Bonina asked if part of the proposal for the redevelopment of that area includes
the abandonment of Cypress and the closing off between Palm and Maple and has OTPA had the
opportunity to look at the plans, cross sections or otherwise understand the scope of the project.
Ms. Angus stated that in terms of Cypress Street, it's a part of the environmental review and the
studies do look at the closure and abandonment of Cypress Street. From an environmental
standpoint, they are looking at not only traffic but also a land use standpoint, noise, etc. It does
find that it would not have significant impact. There is also a separate public hearing process
that any street abandonment needs to go through a process. So what the project before them
does is from a SP standpoint, if they approve it, allows for the abandonment of Cypress Street
but it does not mean that that will necessarily occur because that needs to go through its own
public hearing process with input by the Traffic Commission and City Council. Regarding
OTP A, Chapman has worked with them and she believes they have presented the film school at a
number of their neighbor-to-neighbor meetings. At the DRC meeting, there were members of
OTP A present commenting on the film school. Commissioner Bonina asked for clarification
regarding OTP A review of a proposal by Chapman through the SP. What authority or how does
their input manifest itself in the project and if there's a disagreement on certain issues, how is
that resolved. Ms. Angus explained that OTP A, as any organized group, gives them a little more
8
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
input but not necessarily authority. They do have the ability to work with Chapman, presenting
their designs to them and working through the project. OTP A is aware of this project and the
scheduling and they have the opportunity to come in and talk to her and her staff about the
project and the concerns they see as it goes through the review process. If it's a decision she
would make, then she would weigh all the input she is hearing before making a decision. If
anyone disagrees with it, they can appeal it to the Commission.
Commissioner Smith asked if it was in the SP that items go before OTP A. Ms. Angus replied
yes and it's part of their process of review within the historic district. If a project goes before
OTP A and OTP A is not in favor of it and recommends denial that does not necessarily mean that
the applicant cannot move forward. This SP takes the place of the zoning ordinance for the
property so it is adopted by ordinance and becomes the regulation for the area. OTP A would be
like the DRC in that it would be a recommending body.
Commissioner Bonina wanted to know if during this process would they know if OTP A signed
off on it or not. Ms. Angus said yes. When the library project was submitted she received a staff
report that was 25 pages long and so it's not something where her staff does a quick look at it
and makes a recommendation. Staff goes through almost line-by-line a review of the SP and
evaluates how the project conforms, or if it doesn't conform what changes need to be made.
Also as a practice, she has sent projects through SRC and DRC. What's being proposed as part
of this plan amendment is to memorialize that and make that a requirement.
Commissioner Smith wanted to talk about some of the language in Item No.6. It had been
established there is an error and it really needs to be corrected. In the second paragraph it says in
1997 a formal building inventory was conducted on behalf of the City of Orange, which serves
as a basis for establishing the Old Towne National Register District and that is incorrect. It goes
on to say that the 1997 building inventory is the deciding factor in determining whether a
structure is contributing or non-contributing. She wants to establish exactly what they are using
as a criteria and what they need to do to formalize this activity. Ms. Angus explained that the
correction was made on the flow chart. The 1997 survey was done on behalf of OTP A as
opposed to a City effort. The City had done a study back in the 1980 's and then updated it in
1991. They use a combination of both of those in terms of looking at a project. If either one
looks at a property as being historic, then they would consider it to be a contributing historic
structure and take it through the processes outlined on the bottom of the flow chart. As part of
the General Plan update, one of the elements in the General Plan is the historic element and one
of the aspects that they are looking at there is to do a further update of the historic resources
survey and that may add additional properties that would be considered contributing historic
properties. Commissioner Smith believed that the 1997 work is the National Register
application that OTP A made to the State so have they adopted that as an official inventory in the
City. Could it be challenged that it is not a formal document? Should there be some type of
action to formalize that document if they are going to use it? Ms. Angus felt there may be legal
action necessary to adopt the 1997 work. To ensure as they review projects and properties
within the Chapman University SP the flow charts becomes part of the document. If it is listed
as contributing in either one of those documents, they would consider it to be contributing and
then take it through that process. Chair Pruett felt that if the 1997 document was used and
served as a base for establishing the Old Towne National Historic District, that it may not have
been adopted by the City Council but if it was adopted under the federal program it would be
considered a formal document. Mr. Sheatz explained for CEQA purposes it does not have to be
a City sanctioned document and the City would still be bound to follow it even if it was on a list
that was maintained by OTP A and listed as contributing.
9
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
Commissioner Brandman asked about the packinghouse and the Anaconda building. Was it her
understanding that neither one of these buildings are identified. She's very concerned that they
give away their right to have that done when they haven't gone through every bit of process so
she'd like to know if there has ever been an undertaking to have those building identified. Ms.
Angus was unclear as to what she meant by identified but in terms of being listed as contributing
historical resource, the Anaconda building is and that's why from an environmental standpoint
there is so much documentation in the EIR. She'd have to check the record on the Villa Park
Packing House but it is not being considered at this time. Commissioner Brandman stated that
in the previous SP it was clearly noted that nobody could come forward to have a process done
on a site they did not own. Ms. Angus clarified that while Chapman is asking to incorporate
that larger area within their SP, including the Villa Park Orchard site and to put in within the
umbrella of regulations for that site, they don't have any plans for the site right now and they
don't own that site right now and the industrial zoning would remain. If they do buy it and they
come up with a plan for the site, at that point they would look at the status of the building and its
historical value. If it is a historic structure in terms of a contributing structure, there is further
environmental documentation that needs to take place. Commissioner Brandman wanted to
know about conditioning the project with just the application of just these two sites so that there
would be more control. She's very concerned that they are going to give permission to demolish
that building without much more thought as to what can be done without demolishing it.
Commissioner Smith stated that in the EIR regarding the packinghouse, that on page DPR523B
(Page 3 of 3 regarding 350 N Cypress Street) it says the building was previously accessed as
contributing to the National Register of Historic Preservation and she believes on the Aegis
survey that it is recommended that it be nominated for the National Register on its own.
Ms. Angus explained they are looking at including the Villa Park Orchards site within their SP
but they do not have any plans for the site nor do they own it. If and when they own it and come
in with a proposal then they would need to look at it because it has not been cleared
environmentally in terms of any changes to that historic resource. Looking at the flow chart it
would require further environmental review and a decision on how to best address the resource.
It would eventually require a Planning Commission hearing for any changes that would have any
demolition or relocation issues associated with it. As she looks at the Anaconda property on the
east side from an environmental standpoint and as part of the SP, it is to be cleared for
demolition with recordation of the activities that occurred at the plant. Some graphics have been
given to show what the film school would look like on that site and how it would be situated and
what the architecture of the building would be. In terms of the rest of the Anaconda property,
that portion that is adjacent to and west of Cypress Street is a historic structure that is not being
cleared in the environmental document for any type of demolition or relocation.
Commissioner Bonina asked if there was a reason why they didn't get the elevation comparison
because it does seems to be answering a lot of questions. Ms. Angus said it was partly because
of the timing and just the way these projects have come together. Chapman originally did not
expect to be as far along with the design of the film school. This is the type of documentation
that would be required under the SP to look at how it conforms.
Commissioner Bonina stated that Ms. Angus had mentioned that they are very close to doing a
General Plan update and he's assuming it will cover the overall historical district area and part of
that would include an independent historical, contributing or noncontributing, study. What
would that review look like and who would do that type of review and then compare that to what
Chapman has done in their application relative to a driveby review of these buildings and the
assessment they have made in the document. Ms. Angus explained in terms of the review that
within the EIR there are a number of buildings that it addresses as either contributing or
10
APPROVED
Planning Commission
September 22, 2003
noncontributing and some assessment as to the condition of those buildings. An historic
resources expert within the EDA W firm did that and they are noted for that ability. Comparing
that to the General Plan update, one of the areas where staff is somewhat concerned has to deal
with the historic element and the currency of the historic surveys and there are various surveys
out there. OTP A has requested of the City that they assist with surveying.
Chair Pruett stated that these processes that they have mapped out on the flow charts, one of the
things he likes about them is that they show the current process and the proposed process. He
thought that one of the things he'd like to focus on at some point is doing a comparison and how
are they improving the process. For example, the process right now does not provide for OTP A
involvement. In terms of historic evaluation, you need to take in anyone's input. What they
really need to look at is where they are and where they are trying to go and then they can focus
on those areas that maybe something needs to be added to or embellished.
Ms. Angus continued with the rest of the points. One of the other questions that was raised
concerned height and setbacks proposed within various areas of the SP. Attached to the staff
report are some exhibits of those. The process that they went through in terms of coming up
with the recommended setbacks and heights was to look at the existing SP, look at the other
documents that guide development in various areas such as zoning code, the Old Towne Design
Standards, the Santa Fe Depot plan and the Southwest Design Guidelines and took it a step
further because those look at things in broad areas. They know what uses are currently out there
adjacent to the property that is to be included within the SP and so they looked at each site and
determined from a potential impact which standard or combination of standards made the most
sense. The SP has a number of cross sections that walk you through that. Commissioner Smith
stated that the maximum building height for the campus is 62 '. How tall will the film school be?
What it's saying then is that if something is already in the SP, that if there is a property adjacent
to a property already in the SP, they are going to honor the old heights and setbacks. Ms.
Angus explained that in the area of the film school, the maximum height proposed is 55' and
setbacks are different depending on which street site elevation they are looking at and that's
based upon what the adjoining uses are across Maple, Lemon, Cypress or Palm.
Commissioner Smith had a question in the Specific Plan on page 6-19 on No. 6 where it talks
about street side yard encroachment. It states that a five foot building encroachment onto the
required setback on the east side of Cypress Street between Palm and Maple may be permitted
provided that no more than 30 feet or 20% of the building length along Cypress Street, which
ever is less, is located within this encroachment area. So this is giving permission to jump into
that setback but only for either 30' or 20% of the building length, whichever is less. Ms. Angus
explained that there is an area along Cypress Street where there is a stairwell proposed that
would have a slight encroachment onto the set back. In the existing SP, there is some language
that talks about areas of projections like that and those were taken out but they wanted to call
out this one area as being potentially permissible along there and it would not negatively impact
the building design or setback along the street. The setback required is ten feet from the
property line and what this is allowing is an encroachment of five feet into that ten foot setback
from the property line and not the curb.
Ms. Angus explained that they do document the abandonment process for Cypress Street. To
her knowledge Chapman has not made any requests to abandon any other streets in the area.
The SP and environmental document does not encompass other street abandonment and they
would need to be evaluated. In terms of Cypress, what Chapman is doing with the SP is
basically getting it ready for potential abandonment of Cypress Street from an environmental
standpoint as it looks at all of the potential impacts, such as traffic, and it indicates there are no
11
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
significant impacts. The City would have to undertake a specific and separate abandonment
process and that requires a separate public hearing, notification and a decision by the Traffic
Commission and City Council. Chair Pruett mentioned that a traffic study would be done that
the Traffic Commission and City Council would have to take up. In that traffic study, to what
extent does it look at the development plans? If a parking structure is contemplated in this area,
it could have an impact in terms of circulation and how does that get rolled into the evaluation?
Mr. Hohnbaum explained that in their review of the information that's been supplied for this
environmental document, that type of specifics has not been pointed out to them. So really what
they are looking at is the ultimate development of the campus but nothing specific as far as if
there is a parking structure on one of the Anaconda lots. The environmental study has done the
traffic study and the analysis of the circulation impact is based upon the proposal that they see in
the SP. The SP is not proposing a parking structure in that area. Their study is basically saying
there is no traffic circulation impact and the environmental document is basically saying the
concept of the abandonment of Cypress Street has been environmentally cleared. The proposal
to abandon Cypress Street still has to go through the Traffic Commission and the City Council.
The technical evaluation of traffic impacts is but one of the considerations. Chair Pruett stated,
according to Academic Planning Area 2, it does list parking as a possible use and so a parking
structure could be included. Mr. Hohnbaum agreed and stated that the parking that is currently
being analyzed is surface lot parking and there is some that is proposed in that area. If they were
to intensify the parking use, a parking structure, that could change the analysis as far as localized
circulation. He didn't believe a parking structure was currently being proposed. Chair Pruett
stated that any parking structure in the future is not defined and the issue becomes does the EIR
really capture the issue of Cypress closure. Do they need more information and do they need to
know how Cypress closure would be considered in the future to ensure those types of issues are
taken into consideration. Mr. Sheatz explained that the approval of this SP and the
environmental document doesn't pave the way for the closure of Cypress Street. When they
bring the closure of Cypress Street forward, the City would have to look at the environmental
approval, they'd have to see if there were any significant changes or anything reasonably
foreseeable. If, for example, a parking structure comes before the proposal for the abandonment
of Cypress Street, and the abandonment request comes to the City Council, then that additional
analysis is going to be done and if Cypress Street is needed for circulation, it might not be
approved. Chair Pruett is concerned with the parking structure coming after the street
abandonment and now they have created a circulation problem that may not be able to
accommodate a parking structure. It's important that the applicant understands that there is a
choice here.
Ms Angus explained that they are looking at maximum levels of development and with that
development there are requirements in the draft SP that they have to provide parking in the area
of the development at the time of the development. They may never be able to build to the
maximum level because of parking demands. The applicant is making a choice when they
request the abandonment of Cypress Street that it may limit where they can place parking
structures in the future and may limit their ability to ever fully build out the SP.
Commissioner Bonina wanted to know where the surface lot parking was to be located and at
what level did the traffic study look at the growth of the University in terms of student
population and seats. Mr. Hohnbaum stated that generally the campus already has its parking
structure sited and its taken into account with the traffic circulation. There is another off-site lot
at Sycamore Street and then there's a parking field proposed out towards the backside of the
new film school building. Those surface lots have a minor impact as far as circulation because
they don't have a great amount of cars. They were not looking at any other concentrated
12
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
parking areas in that location. He's not sure that they are expecting to see another parking
structure.
Commissioner Smith had previously voiced her concern about Center Street being closed for the
library and the common denominator is Maple Street. She's concerned with the load on Maple
Street if the two other streets are closed.
Ms. Angus continued and mentioned Attachments llA, Band C which does a comparison of the
proposed SP standards and standards that are included within the Santa Fe Depot SP, the Old
Towne Design Standards and the Design Standards for the Southwest Redevelopment Project
Area. One area that they looked at was the area within the proposed A2 zone and its relationship
to the Santa Fe Depot SP, specifically the area where the dance school currently is and the
adjoining parcel to the south. They've proposed an additional overlay on that area to more
closely reflect uses that are allowed within the Santa Fe Depot SP with the addition of the
educational dance school types of uses (Attachment 12).
Ms. Angus explained who monitors the mitigation measures. The environmental documentation
is reviewed and if there is anything unique about a particular project, it would be looked at in
terms of whether there are any environmental impacts that are different than those that are called
out within the SP. There is also monitoring stipulated in the Municipal Code. Each year an
independent traffic study is done, surveying what is happening out on the streets to ensure proper
traffic flow.
Ms. Angus stated that in terms of future projects and the process, there are projects that will
come back to the Commission because they are within the historic district and are significant as
contributing projects that require additional environmental review. There are other projects that
will come to the Community Development Director for a decision and there is a notice of
decision that will be made on those and sent to property owners. Another tool that will ensure
the projects are reviewed correctly will be the public who will be able to appeal a decision.
Attachment No. 13 is a map in which Chapman shows the property they own and the property
they are proposing to include within the SP and there is a colored graphic on that attachment.
Lastly, Ms. Angus explained how they had asked Chapman to create a master landscape plan.
That has been reviewed by SRC and DRC and they have recommended approval.
Chair Pruett, regarding Attachment 6B, wanted to know how many parcels were not owned by
Chapman in this proposal. Ms. Angus indicated there are two, both of them owned by Villa Park
Orchards. Chair Pruett is concerned with the first sentence that says "any and all parcels"
because it suggests that it's bigger than that. He'd like the first sentence dealt with so it's
specific to those two parcels that are part of the SP.
Commissioner Brandman is very concerned about the property that Chapman does not own but
are clearly intending to own.
Chair Pruett was hoping to complete their work by 11 :00 and if not, then they may have to
continue this item and that might include continuing the public comment and he apologized for
that.
Commissioner Smith thought when the public comes to comment on a project that it's important
that they are afforded the opportunity to speak.
13
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
Ken Ryan from EDA W representing Chapman came forward to speak on the project. They have
been working to provide further clarification. Some of the issues they have focused on are the
historic review process, public noticing, the process in terms of height and the Cypress
abandonment, the traffic signal issues, who monitors compliance, uses that are not allowed
within the Depot area, providing a letter from Villa Park Orchards of authorization of that
property, what property does the University own and to share some of the landscape vision. He
made a PowerPoint presentation on the site plan approval process. They have added a number
of additional requirements that clarify and ensure that the issues they have discussed have been
addressed. They are proposing that all new site plan review applications go through SRC and
DRC review. If there is a modification to the SP then it goes to the Planning Commission.
What they are proposing in terms of the historic review process and essentially the site plan
review application has been beefed up. If the project is not in a historic district and its not going
to be relocated or demolished, it goes to SRC and DRC and then to the Community
Development Director for a final determination. If it's going to be demolished or relocated and
it's not in a historic district and it goes to SRC, DRC and Community Development Director. If
a project is in the historic district but is a noncontributing element and is not to be demolished or
relocated it goes to SRC, DRC and the Community Development Director. If it is going to be
relocated or demolished, staff would make a determination about CEQA applicability and if
there should be potential for impact that would be associated with that, then its goes through
CEQA review, SRC, DRC and Planning Commission. Their goals in order of priority are to
preserve the contributing element, adaptive reuse of the element, relocate the element and the
last choice would be to demolish it. If the contributing element is to be preserved or used for
adaptive reuse, the Community Development Director makes a preliminary determination then it
goes to SRC, DRC and the Community Development Director. Ifit's found to be consistent and
exempt from CEQA it still goes through SRC, DRC and the Community Development Director.
They had their historic resource technical evaluation team do a windshield survey and they
looked at all those buildings. If a structure is listed in the 1991 survey and in the 1997 update
and it is to be relocated or demolished, there is a CEQA review that will take place with a photo
documentation and then it's going to SRC, DRC, and to Planning Commission. So if there is a
contributing element that's listed, it will come before the Commission. If it's a contributing
element but not in the historical district then there would be a CEQA evaluation that the
Community Development Director would look at and would make a determination if there are
any impacts and if so, it would go through CEQA review.
Commissioner Smith commented that heavy review comes under relocation and demolition, so
what about the review of the community for adaptive reuse or addition to the building or adding
two stories on top of it. Why are those things not coming for public review? Mr. Ryan said they
would and there's a difference between heavy review and public review. In terms of the new
requirements one of the things listed in their site plan review process is to consult with the
community, meet with OTP A as well as additional requirements in the SP in section 5 and 7.
There is a lot of additional information that needs to be prepared before it even gets submitted to
City staff. Commissioner Smith does not consider it full public review unless there is a public
hearing. The SRC is only an internal staff review committee and DRC is only a three-member
body. Public review is where anyone can come and see it. If this is what is going to happen,
then she'd like to see strong public noticing. On the chart it should be stated that the
Community Development Director's decision can be appealed. She's concerned with the
contributing element on the bottom line of the chart. She stated that the City has a demolition
ordinance that says you cannot take down any historic building unless you review what's going
to take its place and see if that's OK. This process sidesteps that review. Mr. Ryan stated that
the only area they have focused on to clear CEQA wise is the Anaconda property. The only
14
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
thing that would be processed in terms of demolition permit would be the Anaconda property
where the film school is proposed.
Chair Pruett explained that 7.4 of the SP indicates on page 7-8 that application for demolitions
shall be processed in a manner presented in Section 17.10.090, demolition review of the zoning
ordinance. One of the items is the Design Review Committee's recommendation on a
replacement structure or use of the site including architectural drawings for the proposed new
construction and/or use that is intended to replace the landmark structure. So this is following
City code in terms of demolition.
Mr. Ryan has responded to the desire to have a film made of the Anaconda building and make a
documentary about it.
Commissioner Smith finds it very confusing when there is the film school going through the
process right now that is not going through the demolition process. Mr. Ryan indicated that they
have put off submitting the application for the film school and moved forward with interacting
with the community and they got excellent feed back from the public and OTP A. They had a
very detailed historic resource evaluation that took place in terms of CEQA documentation. He
felt they are being asked to do more than anyone else and they are doing more than anyone else.
They feel they have gone beyond the call of duty with their outreach to the public.
Commissioner Smith said the reason why they are feeling singled out because they are
systematically purchasing property by property, block by block, a part of this historic district in
the neighborhood of Orange and anybody that does that needs to come under more scrutiny than
a single lot property owner. They are being given the advantage of the staff s wisdom and
opinion of how they can get these things through. Mr. Ryan felt they have made an
extraordinary effort in terms of public outreach.
Chair Pruett was looking for exhibit 7.1 but couldn't find it. He was going to ask the question as
to what process was this following. What is the process on historical review? Mr. Ryan said
that what they are hoping to get this adopted and to have a new process in place that is more
restrictive and provides more assurances. Chair Pruett was unable to find 7.1, which should
explain that. Mr. Ryan said it's the chart being shown on the screen. Chair Pruett found it to be
circulatory since 7.4 is referring to 7.1 and 7.1 is referring to 7.4. Mr. Ryan explained that 7.1 is
the exhibit that's on the screen. Chair Pruett stated that the process is being revised and is
referring to 7.4 which then refers to 7.1. That needs to be cleared up.
Commissioner Brandman wanted to let Mr. Ryan know that a lot of work has been done and
there is an amazing improvement from the first set of charts and graphs coming before this body
but he is going to have to do a little bit more. Her comment to him was that there are several
different things that would require their vote and in her opinion, perhaps it was not the wisest
thing to be concurrently getting approval for the SP and the film school. Preservation or
adaptive reuse goes through one thing and it still does not go through the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ryan said the City asked for the big picture and it is a lot of information. They felt it was
the right thing to do and they heard the community ask for it and that's the reason they are
getting a comprehensive approach in terms of all of the information. Commissioner Brandman
was not balking at the information but what she was concerned about was making a decision and
having it affect another area. In her mind there are a couple processes that need to be dovetailed
and she needs to get a better handle on this.
Mr. Ryan was asked at the last meeting to find a better way to reach out to more of the
residences. They have now broken it down into four areas so if anything was to occur, for
15
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
example, in the northwestern campus, there would be a 300' notice around that entire SP
boundary area of the University. Their main goal was to bind all these different documents and
different guidelines into one document. They have provided a master landscape plan and they
have included more specific campus signage location requirements. They also compared the SP
to the Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne Orange and new construction that
will need to be compatible with massing and scale. The new SP has more restrictions on parking
requirements. Every new project that comes forward will have to park itself. On the Santa Fe
Depot area they focused on land use and have modified it to have a more restrictive designation
in that area. They have stand-alone guidelines for historic preservation and enhancement
guidelines referencing the Secretary of Interiors standards for rehabilitation of historic
preservation standards. Mr. Ryan continued to explain the SP design and highlights of the plan
with a PowerPoint presentation.
Mr. Ryan wanted to address a couple of key issues that were brought up tonight. One was who
evaluated the document in terms of traffic and as it relates to students. They asked their traffic
consultant to focus on a.m. and p.m. peak periods. An overall management traffic plan is in
place to address the question of who's on campus when. They have looked at the worse case
build out scenario per CEQA and on a yearly basis they have agreed that there will be an annual
update of the traffic management plan including if signals are really warranted and looking at
special events. About 30% of the students are graduates on a yearly basis. They looked at the
worse case scenario and the assumption that all resident students, 100% of new resident students,
over time would all be located up in the residence area and 100% of all commuter students and
employees would be down in the Anaconda site. The more likely scenario they looked at
doesn't require six traffic signals and the A2 zone would be a mixed use zone and they would
have a mixture of activity that would more evenly distribute the traffic impact. It really isn't
about being big, it's to excel in quality. The only statement of overriding consideration in the
entire CEQA documentation is for the potential historic impact loss on the east side of the
Anaconda property and the mitigation minimizes that to the extent possible. They are in
agreement and happy to contribute to the purchase of signals would it be required over time.
They are trying to be consistent with the City's long-term circulation master plan. They agreed
to a maximum build out. The University does own the property on the west side of the tracks
but there are no plans as to what will happen with that piece of property.
Commissioner Smith wanted to know how many acres there are on the property on the west side
of the tracks. Mr. Ryan said about nine acres. Commissioner Smith also had a question on the
number of students, knowing it's a tough thing to pin down. She had a newspaper article from
May 31, 2001 and it stated it was Chapman University's largest graduating class with 2606
graduates. If that's two years old and that's approximately 30% of the student body, then right
now the University is only 897 students short of their projected student enrollment. Mr. Ryan
replied that the graduating class number also included students from satellite campus locations.
Commissioner Smith was trying to point out the confusion they have in trying to pin point the
number of students.
Commissioner Bonina wanted to compliment Mr. Ryan and his team relative to the information.
There is a fear factor out there that needs to be addressed in terms of the projected number of
students. He asked if Mr. Ryan could articulate what is the vision of Chapman University
relative to size and population. Mr. Ryan had taken this into consideration and the vision of the
University is to be very, very good, to excel in quality and not to be big. It is going to stop at
8715 students in the worse case scenario. They want to be good neighbors and work with the
community.
16
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
Commissioner Brandman wanted Mr. Ryan to understand that a lot of people see this is as a little
hometown. She stated they are into the process and they are going to move through process, but
they are not always going to agree. Mr. Ryan felt the environmental document is very thorough,
defensiveable document that indicates that all potential impacts have been fully mitigated except
for the impact to the Anaconda property. That's the best ways to judge whether this is too much
or whether it's not enough.
Chair Pruett stated that private universities do put limits in terms of student population. The
property that is on the west side of the railroad tracks is not part of this but is owned by the
University. He wondered if that was the California Cordage property. He is told yes. So in
adopting the project impact report under the historical resources, it discusses the California
Cordage facility and talks about how it provides significant industrial heritage to Orange and the
Old Towne district and it talks about how those buildings may not be preserved and it goes
through this issue of mitigating that impact. So while that property is not a part of this project, it
is a part of the EIR so by approving the EIR, are they in fact including that project in terms of its
impact. Mr. Sheatz asked if the proposal is for the demolition of that property. Chair Pruett said
it's not in the project so why is it in the EIR. Mr. Sheatz said it doesn't make any sense to him at
all. It would have to be analyzed for CEQA purposes. Chair Pruett wanted to know if it's
proper to address something that is not within the project and the mitigation measures in terms of
how that property might be dealt with in the future. Mr. Sheatz stated it is not proper. Chair
Pruett felt this section needs to be struck from the EIR and Mr. Ryan agreed.
Chair Pruett felt the other thing that needs to be dealt with is the demolition issue. He wants the
modification that was made to 7.1 and he'd like that revisited to where it's clear. If it's not
going to be following the code but is going to take up what is on the next page in terms of the
process then it needs to say that that is the process and that process maybe is outlined in the
exhibit that Mr. Ryan refers to but it needs to be clarified.
Commissioner Smith deeply respects Mr. Ryan's work and the tremendous turn around in
attitude and community involvement since he and Kris Olsen came on the staff of Chapman.
But unfortunately they won't live forever and her highest level of concern with the proposed
project is that there is no master plan. She doesn't know what they want to build on the property
so if the University cannot tell her what they want to build she can only speculate and she did an
overlay of her own based on where she thinks the University is going in the northwest quadrant.
She received a number of phone calls in the past week from people who can see this happening
as well because they are getting a strong hold and a foot in every block in the northwest quadrant
except for those properties between Walnut and Sycamore. This is a very large project and it is
not only the inclusion of two little properties in the Al slice between the packinghouse and the
law school. To her she can only speculate on what's coming next and this is why her scrutiny is
high because this is what it looks like to the community and you throw in the closing of public
street and basically they have lost the essence of this quadrant. She only offers it so Mr. Ryan
knows where she is coming from on this based on past experience on what has happened in Area
B, Area Al and what she feels is about to happen in the northwest quadrant.
Commissioner Brandman wanted to thank Chair Pruett for succinctly laying it out. They are not
trying to target Chapman but they are trying to do a good land use analysis of the project and
vote on it as best they can.
Mr. Ryan explained that relative to the master plan question, he understands their concerns and
since he's been working for the University he has never been asked to prepare a master plan.
When he refers to a master plan it is more a vision of what' s going on and with the SP you don't
17
Planning Commission
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
know twenty years from now where every building is going to be. He respectively asked that the
Commission consider some conditions of approval and consider a vote tonight. There are two
issues he heard that needed to be focused on, one was the to clarify the demolition process and to
perhaps delete the area that was evaluated west of the railroad tracks.
Chair Pruett had some issues he'd like answers to and the public has not been allowed to make
their comments so he'd like to continue the item and have those issues come back. The work
they have done on this is great. There have been a lot of issues and answers that they have got
past. From his point of view, when parking structures go up there is going to have to be a whole
new review in terms of the circulation given the traffic that's in place. It will really cause some
limitations in terms of the development of the project within the SP. He's not so sure that the
population being proposed in terms of a maximum will ever be achieved. The issue is about
classrooms, dorms and parking and from a generic standpoint that type of master plan is within
reach. If they knew where the parking was going to be, they could probably do a better
circulation plan that might serve the University better in the long term. It becomes something
that they begin to look at from the standpoint of a SP that becomes a little more definitive.
Commissioner Smith stated she is not asking for a master plan in place of a SP but why can't the
people at the City level know what they intend to build. Mr. Ryan said their plans have been in
local papers. He's very happy to respond to key issues and they have worked very hard the last
two weeks to respond to all the issues and they came back with answers. Time is of the essence
right now because there are a lot of business issues that are going on that mandate him to ask
the Commission to render a vote tonight. He sees that there are additional concerns.
Chair Pruett stated that he is not prepared to vote on the project tonight and there are some
problems in continuing the issue because Commissioner Bonina is not going to be at the next
meeting and he's not going to be at the following meeting.
Commissioner Bonina explained that it was important for him to hear from the community and
the groups specifically impacted by this.
Commissioner Smith indicated if she was to vote on it tonight she would vote against it. She
thinks the property not owned by the University should not be included in the SP; that an entire
block should be owned before bringing it into the plan; many of the 300' radius' fold back in on
the campus property; the size of the SP area should be reduced and tried out with these
ordinances in place and then expanded in a year or two to show development; not enough
attention has been paid to the Cypress Street neighborhood, its history of the Mexican
community and the history of the residents is at risk; does not want to see the properties at
Walnut and Shaffer included in the SP; does not like the many decisions the Community
Development Director can make without public review, would rather see that the Community
Development Director's jurisdiction is lifted in some instances based on the size of the building,
if it is very large, the use, if it's high impact and if the location is at high impact; they should not
vote for the closure of Cypress Street although everything is in place and it has to come forward
again for review; the great Western Cordage should be taken out of the EIR and she'd like a little
more time to review this design review piece especially with the demolition ordinance. There
needs to be negotiation and agreement on what the Commission can live with and what the
University can live with.
Commissioner Brandman didn't think this was a negative and this just signals that more work
has to be done.
18
APPROVED
September 22, 2003
Planning Commission
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to continue this
item to October 13,2003.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
INRE:
IN RE:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
None MOTION CARRIED
NEW HEARINGS: None
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Bonina and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adjourn to the
next regular Planning Commission meeting on Monday, October 6, 2003 at 6:30 p.rn.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
None MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 pm.
19