Loading...
2003 - August 18 APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange August 18, 2003 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith Commissioner Bonina Jim Reichert, Acting Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Alice Angus, Community Development Director Christine Kelly, Contract Planner Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2459-03, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 293-03, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1719-03, AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ORANGE AND ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL FOR THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN FOR FUTURE HOSPITAL EXPANSION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 234,000 SQ. FT. HOSPITAL BUILDING - ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL A request for a hospital master plan to allow the upgrading of health care facilities and construction of new buildings to comply with State mandated earthquake construction standards. The request includes the approval to allow the construction of a 234,000 sq. ft. hospital building and new physical plant building. The project is accompanied by a Development Agreement to allow phasing of project construction to occur beyond the time period allowed in the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1719-03 has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue this item to a Special Planning Commission Meeting on August 25, 2003 per staff and applicant's request. !\'lOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue this item to August 25,2003. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission APPROVED August 18,2003 IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: 2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2003. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the minutes from the August 4, 2003 meeting with the following changes: On page 4 under Commissioner Brandman's comments, the fourth bullet point should read, "would like staff to look at covers and landscape screening versus tarps which could possibly be mandatory." The following bullet point should read, "look at stand alone canopies in areas other than front yard setbacks." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: None IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: 3. 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 for rehabilitation, and identify an Area of Interest immediately adjacent to the campus which may have a future relationship with the University. 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 Avenue between the AT &SF railroad tracks and 2 Planning Commission APPROVED August 18, 2003 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 Jim Reichert introduced the item. Christine Kelly, contract planner for the City of Orange, made the staff presentation that outlined the project and the different actions related to Chapman University Specific Plan Amendment No.5. She explained that the Specific Plan is similar to a master plan and is intended to guide development for 15-20 years. The items being proposed are a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation to public facilities; three ordinance amendments: one for the amendment to the Chapman University Specific Plan, one for an amendment to the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan, and one for the design standards for the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area; and a Zone Change from R-2-6, R-3, C-l, M-l, M-2 and SP2 to PI-SP (Public Institution- Specific Plan). This project does require an environmental evaluation. The original EIR was adopted in 1989 and this project is being processed with a subsequent EIR which updates and adds to the original. The revised Specific Plan provides a more comprehensive approach to plan for future growth for Chapman University and adds additional controls for design and development standards that are not in the existing Specific Plan. Ken Rvan, EDA W, 2737 Campus Drive, Irvine, representing Chapman University, provided a brief overview of the project. He explained how the intent of this Specific Plan is to consolidate several different documents and make it more user friendly. The current Specific Plan includes 42 acres and the proposed plan adds an additional 17 acres. The mission statement for Chapman University is to be very good, not to be big. The total projected enrollment, in the worse case scenario, is 8,715 students. Currently 4,000 seats are entitled which equates to 7,000 students. The proposed plan will add more land to address parking and traffic issues. The key issues and concerns from the community have been addressed in the updated Specific Plan and EIR. The issues include campus build-out projections; traffic and parking; historic resources; Cypress Street vacation; zoning and areas of interest. Cypress Street will not be vacated until such time as Villa Park Orchard Packing House closes and then Cypress will be closed to traffic, but not to pedestrians. 3 Planning Commission APPROVED August 18, 2003 Commissioner Smith's questions, issues and concerns: . with the inclusion of Walnut and Schaffer in the Specific Plan, what would be the interim and transitional uses? Mr. Ryan referred to page 6-38 in the Specific Plan and explained that this relates to those areas within residential area B that are adjacent to other areas not yet owned by the University and it's narrowed down to just four uses: child care and child study facilities; recreational facilities of low intensity; residence caretakers; and any other uses that the Community Development Director would deem similar to those low impact uses. The parking lot has been omitted. . why was the Villa Park Orchard Packing House included even though the University does not own the property? Mr. Ryan stated that they have a letter from the packinghouse indicating they wanted to be a part of the Specific Plan. She would like to see a copy of the letter. . by removing property from the boundaries of the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area Design Standards and the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan, are we still maintaining the elements that were in those two plans and transferring them over? . what are the impacts of increasing FAR and adding 17 acres? Mr. Ryan explained that the addition of 17 acres is not that much and provides a little bit of growth and will go a long way to help reduce parking and traffic impacts in the neighborhood. . is the on-site display of the history of the Anaconda Company and Cordage Company included in the plans and where will that display be, who will design it and how big will it be? Mr. Ryan indicated they have added a place in the Specific Plan for art in public places and that would be something they would work on with the community. . additional controls have been added for building design but she couldn't find them in the report. Reference was made to the section in the environmental analysis on page 4-21 (item 4-2-4) and the site plan review on page 7-5 (item 7.3.4 site plan review procedures). Mr. Ryan will come back to address the issue. . why not include the property west of the railroad tracks that Chapman already owns in the Specific Plan? Mr. Ryan said it's so far off in the future, there are no plans for it and it's adjacent to the Villa Park Orchard property. . concern with the fact that the Community Development Director can approve buildings without public review. She would like to see how the existing Specific Plan has worked in terms of reviewing a building and compare it to how it will be proposed to work in the future. It could mean that a building could go in at the discretion of the Community Development Director with no further review. She is concerned that the SRC meetings are not noticed to the public. Chair Pruett stated that should be something for the City staff to address. . student population projections have increased with each Specific Plan. Mr. Ryan said the 8, 715 is total enrollment over time under the worse case scenario at build-out of the University. . Design Guidelines in the development regulations 6-15 talk about the height contours that relate to the neighborhood but it doesn't tell how the process of reducing building height would occur. . there's a portion in the EIR where some buildings have been judged to be without historic integrity, no longer with historic integrity. That would be in the document Draft Environmental Impact Report Technical Appendices and that's the section where there are photographs of some of the historic properties within the campus that the University owns. The pages were hard to read but she guessed the page is R53A. She just picked one at 4 Planning Commission APPROVED August 18, 2003 random indicating there's a building at 428 N. Glassell and it says the building is in good condition but has lost its historic integrity and she was just wondering who made that call, who made the call that it lost its historic integrity. Then there are some that she assumes still have historic integrity but it doesn't state that. The ones that say they do not have historic integrity are stated but the ones where it's omitted, it doesn't say this building retains its historic integrity. She only read the negatives. She wanted to know who made that judgment because she went out and just did a windshield survey of some of them, and although a window may have changed it still has historic integrity if your grandmother lived there or your grandfather built it or the first president of the University lived there or something like that. She was just curious about that process. Mr. Ryan will follow up. . she understands that a Specific Plan overrides the design guidelines and zoning and once the plan is set, if the Community Development Director made the call that none of the projects that were brought forth needed to come back for public review, nothing that was developed in the plan would ever come forward. Ms. Angus replied that this was correct but the decisions are not made in a vacuum. In terms of making that decision, she is looking at the Specific Plan and environmental document but if every project at Chapman brought forward is something that fits within the Specific Plan and is meeting all the design standards, then that is looked at and monitored to make sure they are doing everything that is required from a mitigation monitoring standpoint. It is taken through the City's internal process which is the Staff Review Committee to ensure every department is looking at it and giving her feedback. It is also taken through the Design Review Committee and she relies on that body to review the design. Her decision could be appealable and a noticing of the decisions would be made. The public is not being excluded from knowing what is happening or being able to give input on projects. . were the library project and the music school decisions noticed by mail to people within 300' of the campus? Ms. Angus stated that both of them were and the 300' radius was from the boundaries of the academic portion of the campus. . who monitors whether the University is complying with their own plan? It seems like it's a subjective opinion to say it follows or doesn't follow the design standards. The design criteria in this plan looks like it's been loosened and broadened because it says it needs to be in the general spirit of neoclassic design with appreciation for historic features and the context of the neighborhood. It's not specific and very open to interpretation. This could be carte blanc for Chapman University to do whatever it wants to and the review process could bypass public review. Because this is impacting the historic neighborhood, she thinks it needs to have tighter controls. . why did the Beckman building, law school and chapel go through the process and how were they different? Ms. Angus stated that the Beckman building was a departure from the rest of the architecture on campus in terms of height and the architecture itself and the current Specific Plan does talk about those compatibility issues. The director at the time wasn't sure if it necessarily met the intent of the Specific Plan so the director made a determination to forward it to the Planning Commission. The law school required an amendment to the Specific Plan. There was a question as to whether the chapel project truly met the intent of the Specific Plan and so it came to the Planning Commission and then to Council. The current Specific Plan is confusing as to its interpretation and if she has a problem with that interpretation, she will refer the project to the Planning Commission. With the amendment to the Specific Plan, it does become much more crystal clear. There would be a two-tier process so if a project comes along and meets the standards, it's approved at a staff level. If that's not the case, then her decision would be to refer it to the Commission or deny it and have Chapman appeal it to them. . would like to know about the General Plan changes to Public Facilities and what is it being changed from. Ms. Kelly referred to an exhibit in the Appendix, item B-2, which has the 5 Planning Commission APPROVED August 18, 2003 existing General Plan designations identified and B-3 has General Plan designations as amended. OT means Old Towne and is a General Plan designation. . would like to know the General Plan designation for those properties neighboring the area. It's so piecemeal because some blocks have public designations. Chair Pruett pointed out on page 16 there is a study that deals with the development regulations on building height and another page talks about what is on the other side. . the neighboring residential property owners should have some input depending on the size and location of the building. . how have the design guidelines of Old Towne been consolidated? . what is the policy of the City on street abandonment and who makes that decision? . are we now setting the criteria as to whether a building is historic or not? Does Chapman get to make the call as to whether a building is historic enough to keep or what if the community feels the building is more important than Chapman? The document has to be clearer on how this doesn't happen. Commissioner Brandman's questions, issues and concerns: . concerned with the number of possible students in the future. . maximum seating will increase from 4,000 to 5,000 in the year 2016. Mr. Ryan stated that the main issue with this is the parking, traffic and circulation and CEQA requires having these impacts looked at and determine what mitigation factors are appropriate. . Chapman University has become a very high profile university and there is concern about the traffic in the downtown and residential areas so how will the traffic be monitored? Mr. Ryan said there are mitigation measures and there is a mitigation monitoring report per CEQA that needs to be adhered to. There is a report card that is required to be submitted on a regular basis as well as a parking management plan. . very concerned about the buildings that are to be demolished and who makes that decision. Mr. Ryan indicated that they have met with OTP A and the concern was that with the EIR in place, all the Anaconda property could be demolished. However, this cannot be done until a demolition permit is issued. . very concerned about Orange's precious resource of historic buildings. Since she's been sitting on the Commission, she has been allowed to participate in the maintaining and in the underlying and underscoring of their preciousness and she's concerned about a vote that she might make tonight that would give someone a blank check either to negatively impact with traffic, someone' s home area, which is another letter that was received or take down buildings that she's wasn't aware of. She was being very, very careful so to not cast dispersions on Mr. Ryan or Chapman, she just wanted to make very, very sure she knows what she's voting on and will Mrs. Angus and her staff have an opportunity to revisit this once it leaves here. And most important, will she have an opportunity to revisit it." . there isn't a problem with the Specific Plan theory but she is very concerned about what happens after the Specific Plan is approved, and what the public review process would be for future buildings. She is particularly concerned about the Old Towne historic sites and she'd like to hear what OTP A has to say. Ms. Angus said that if a project meets criteria in the Specific Plan, it could be approved at staff level. Planning Commission can recommend that the process change and there could be a public forum in which, for instance, projects of a certain size or location need to come to Planning Commission. That's a deviation from what the current Specific Plan says but the Commission can put various standards in place. Chair Pruett's questions, issues and concerns: . he asked staff to talk about the process for demolition and stated that the Specific Plan is establishing the process and not necessarily approving the activity. 6 Planning Commission APPROVED August 18, 2003 . his understanding that the mitigation plan mitigates all the traffic issues including signalization and that's really a build-out situation. How does the process work to make sure we are managing the traffic issues? Ms. Angus stated that in terms of traffic and the mitigation measures, it looks at build-out and safeguards when a new development is proposed. Traffic and parking issues that would be associated with it would be looked at and a traffic study would be done. The Specific Plan states that parking has to be in place as each structure is built. With the Specific Plan, long term development is being looked at and is creating its own zoning standards that go beyond what is in the zoning code, Southwest Design Standards, Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan, and Old Towne Design standards. When looking at historic properties, there is a process in place that requires conversations with the community on those resources. The current Specific Plan is not clear to staff and various decision makers as to what those design standards/guidelines are. She explained the process by which she makes decisions and how they are appealable. The intention, after listening to the community, is to find out what protections are being put in place by this Specific Plan. Concerning FAR and future development, the EIR looks at the worse case scenario. The parking standards are higher than what is currently in place. She would like to get back to the Commission on the Technical Appendix, which goes through the various properties and their historical integrity. . the street vacation would have to come back for further hearing and approval before that could occur, it's just put into the EIR as something that is a possibility at build-out. Ms. Angus confirmed that the street vacation is a separate public hearing process and it does require action by the City Council. . for clarification, he stated that there are projects that are approved on a daily basis on the part of staff because they meet all the requirements. So if there weren't a Specific Plan, Chapman University would still be able to develop their property using a process that every other property owner in the City can use and if it meets all the requirements, it would not be subject to any review except by staff. When certain projects have come before the Commission, they would have liked to see the big plan and so the Specific Plan is to help deal with the big picture and then deal with the small projects as they come forward. Without the Specific Plan, it puts them at a disadvantage. Need to look at what the Specific Plan does in terms of managing how this project is going to move forward and build-out. Ms. Kelly explained some of the standards that were included in the Specific Plan. Parking criteria has been added regarding parking structures and setback requirements that apply when they are adjacent to certain uses. The standard for parking criteria has increased and they no longer subtract the residential component from the overall component. They have increased their existing parking requirements by 200 spaces. A landscape master plan has been requested and they have included enhanced landscape criteria and they have become more specific as they move into the A-2 areas and types of open space. They have included a discussion on temporary uses and the notification of the neighborhood. Some of the zones have been modified to ensure there is compatibility with adjacent uses. The shade and shadow requirements have been enhanced so that projects will not impact neighboring properties. They have added a pedestrian walkway exhibit to show pedestrian pathways. The public hearing was opened. Those opposed and concerned with the item: Augie Morales, 392 N. Lemon Street David Floyd, 422 Everett Place Jessica Hatfield, 660 N. Shaffer Street 7 APPROVED Planning Commission August 18, 2003 Vic Iversen, 719 E. Hoover Avenue Roy Shahbazian, 3808 E. Palm Avenue Paul Hudson, 212 S. Orange Street Anne Siebert, 340 S. Olive Street Their concerns were: . thinking this Specific Plan does not adequately address the surrounding neighborhood that has been there for over a hundred years and Chapman is coming in and destroying the community . traffic problems that will be created have not been addressed as well as the vacation of Cypress Street . wanting to know how much property Chapman owns in that area . not wanting them to put up buildings that look like the Anaconda buildings . concern with the shadowing of the buildings and not hearing anything specific on it . what are the plans for the dorms with the increasing student population . concern with rezoning property on Hoover Avenue . not wanting the Santa Fe Depot Area Specific Plan overturned and concern with the A-2 zone in which too many uses would be permitted and some of those uses violate the intent of the Santa Fe Depot Area Specific Plan . Chapman has been open with this new Specific Plan but the plan is huge . there is concern with the overall degradation of the neighborhood and approval of demolition without any oversight of any historical property in the district . signals at the intersections making the Old Towne area lose some of its old town charm . confusion on the demolition of the Anaconda property . the population number of 8,700 is alarming . projects that affect every contributing structure in Old Towne should go through the public process . the demolition process is confusing . who determines what is historical Commissioner Brandman would like to see the notices sent either 300' or 600' to properties on the outer boundary of Chapman instead of the interior of the campus. In response to the various public comments and in summary, Mr. Ryan wanted to point out that they have tried hard to listen to the concerns of the community. They have met with the neighbors to listen and respond to concerns. In response to one such concern from Mr. Morales and the Cypress neighborhood, they worked with the neighborhood to get stop signs along Sycamore. They have included criteria on shade and shadow, on limiting uses on the parcels adjacent to Mr. Iverson, and on incorporating more interaction with OTP A all to address neighborhood compatibility and historic preservation concerns. They have been adhering to the current processes in place. They will come back with specific information that will assist the public and Planning Commission to understand all of the regulations included in the proposed Specific Plan. They will point out in detail the demolition process as well as other mechanisms that they have added that make it more restrictive for the University in terms of any potential demolition. The public hearing was closed. Chair Pruett said that the University may want to explore doing a project by the History Department and the film school where the students would go into the community and do 8 Planning Commission APPROVED August 18, 2003 documentaries on the historical significance of some of these locations that may be removed as well as other sections of Orange. Commissioner Smith would like staff to clarify the street abandonment process. Mr. Hohnbaum explained that the first step taken is to do a traffic study to determine whether the street abandonment would be appropriate. If it is determined feasible, then the next step is to find out the ownership of that roadway. One would be fee ownership in which the City would actually own the land and the other would be a road easement in which the City does not own the land but merely has the right to have a roadway there. These considerations are brought forth to the City Council along with the traffic, ownership and aesthetic issues. If it is determined the street is no longer needed, then the City would abandon or sell it. It is not an eminent domain process. Cypress Street abandonment is a separate process and would need Council approval. Commissioner Smith was concerned with the possibility of both the Cypress Street and Center Street being abandoned and how it would destroy the historic grid pattern of the neighborhood. Ms. Angus talked about Center Street and the Library. She thought Roger did describe that from an environmental standpoint, looking at the impacts and the historic grid, that was addressed and it was decided that it was mitigated to a level less than significant and part of that had to deal with some view corridors and keeping them visually open. She thought old Sandberg maps had been reviewed and actually years and years ago it didn't go through so again it's looking at what point in history. In terms of taking the two of them together, that is something the Commission is always careful about because you could get into cumulative impacts. If it was found that with the Library and Center Street, although that's not a done deal but environmentally if that was found by itself not to be significant but now there's this request on Cypress Street and I'll say we'll need to go back in the environmental and make sure we've looked at cumulatively any impact beyond the stand alone request. Again, on the stand alone request what we feel comfortable with and what the environmental documentation says is from a traffic circulation standpoint, it does not have an impact from also in terms of the context of the neighborhood and historic grid, it does not have a significant impact but we will go back and look at the two of the in conjunction with each other. Is it setting up some type of pattern that could result in disruption to the neighborhood and that type of impact? There still is a public hearing process that will be undertaken for each of those potential abandonments and the City Council will grabble with that policy decision. Commissioner Smith wanted to be clear to staff on areas that the Commission needs feedback on. The Commission would like to know what the demolition process is, suggestions on providing public notice from the edge of the campus instead of the building site (300' from the Specific Plan boundaries), look at the process in all the transactions: the process for review of the height setbacks, the process for review of what a historic building is, the process for determining if the Community Development Director would make a decision approving a project or if it would go to the Planning Commission and Council for approval, the Cypress Street abandonment process should be put in writing, the concept of the Notice of Decision is a good idea and is open to appeal, will the traffic signal plan fit well, who monitors the University to see if they are in compliance with their own plan, look at the uses that were not allowed in the Depot plan but are now allowed in this project, the inclusion of property that is in the Specific Plan that is not yet owned by Chapman University such as the Villa Park Orchard property and what property is owned by the University and what could be there in the future. 9 APPROVED August 18, 2003 Planning Commission MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Smith to continue this item to the September 15,2003 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: INRE: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED ADJOURNMENT: MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adjourn to a special Planning Commission meeting on Monday, August 25, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 10:25 pm. 10