2002 - May 6
(} ,.(j/tf tJ. ~..J 3-
MINUTES
APPROVED ~[~~
Planning Commission
City of Orange
May 6, 2002
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
Karen Sully, Planning Manager,
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney,
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Madeline Russell, Recording Secretary
INRE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: - None
INRE:
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
5.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2395-02 AND ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUSTMENT 2002-0008 ST. MARY'S SYRIAC ORTHODOX
CHURCHMARCH ]8,2002.
The applicant, Reverend Fr. George Touma, St. Mary's Syriac Orthodox, requested a continuance of their
scheduled hearing from May 6, 2002 to May 20, 2002 to allow their project architect to attend the public
hearing.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue of CUP 2395-02 and
AA 2002-0008 until the next regular meeting on May 20, 2002.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandrnan, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Smith called forward the applicant for Agenda Item No.6, KFC & A & W All American Food.
Chair Smith apprised the applicant that his item was last on a very long agenda. Chair Smith gave the
applicant the option of waiting to be heard or continuance to the next regular meeting.
Mr. Ahmad Ghaderi, representing the applicant, responded that he would leave that up to the Commission
and he had no problem with a continuance.
Chair Smith confirmed that a continuance would be acceptable to Mr. Ghaderi. Mr. Ghaderi affirmed.
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to continue CUP 2360-0], Variance
2]03-0], and AA 01-47 - KFC & A & W All American Food, to the next meeting on May 20, 2002.
A brief discussion ensued as to whether the applicant or the Commission should make the decision to
continue. Ms. Karen Sully indicated that the meeting could continue and at an appointed time, the
Commission and the applicant could make a decision for or against a continuance.
Commissioner Pruett withdrew his motion.
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
INRE:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF MARCH
18, 2002 (CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 15TH MEETING) AND APRIL 15, 2002.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve the Minutes of March
18,2002.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue approval of the
Minutes of April 15, 2002 to the next meeting on May 20th, 2002.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
2.
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING - SEVEN-YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) - FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 THROUGH 2008-
2009.
Review of Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 2002-3 through Fiscal Year 2008-
09 to determine program conformance with the City's General Plan, as required by State
Law.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Find that the projects identified within the proposed Seven Year Capital
Improvement Program is consistent with the City's General Plan Policy.
Chair Smith indicated that the Planning Commission had reviewed this proposal at a public meeting a
couple of weeks ago. All Planning Commissioners and the City Council were present at that hearing and
had a thorough review of the document, some discussion, and had the proposal packet to read.
Chair Smith continued that the Commission's task tonight was to find the subject CIP as proposed is
consistent with the City's General Plan policy. Chair Smith asked Ms. Sully if there was a verbal Staff
Report. Ms. Sully responded that this item is on the Consent Calendar, however, if the Commission
decides to pull it off, Ms. Sully indicated she would be happy to review the Staff Report.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve the remainder of the
Consent Calendar, specifically, General Plan Conformity Finding-Seven Year Capital Improvement
Program (CIP).
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
2
Planning Commission Minutes
May 6,2002
APPROVED
INRE:
CONTINUED HEARINGS: - None
3.
APPEAL NO. 0486-02 APPEAL OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENTDIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
No. 206-01 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY (APPELLANTS: VICTOR IVERSON AND
PAUL AND ANGELA LARSON)
Appeal of the Community Development Director's approval of a request by Chapman
University to replace an existing dormitory (Cheverton Hall) with a new four-story, 300+/-
bed dormitory and six-level, 600-space parking structure. The project site is located within
the Chapman University Specific Plan area, and has a Specific Plan land use designation of
Residential. The site is located at One University Drive. This item was continued from the
April 15,2002 Planning Commission Meeting.
NOTE: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1195 (SCH# 87122310) for the
Chapman College Specific Plan was certified on January 10, 1989, considering
the environmental effects of a campus-wide specific plan with a student capacity
of 2,500, existing campus facilities, and proposed expansion of the campus. An
addendum to that EIR was approved in March 1997 to assess an updated Specific
Plan focusing on the addition of a law school, new parking facilities, and an
increase in student capacity to 3,000 students. In accordance with Section 15177
of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Orange, as the lead agency, has prepared
Initial Study No. 1686-02 to assess the potential for project specific
environmental impacts and determined that the environmental effects of the
proposed dormitory and parking structure project have been addressed in EIR
No. 1195 and its Addendum, therefore additional documentation is not necessary.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Planning Commission hear the item, take public testimony and take
action of Appeal No. 0486-02.
Ms. Sully began her report indicating that at the hearing of April 15th, the Commission requested
background information from Staff about a once proposed Orange Street parking structure, originally
included in the All Faiths Chapel proposal. The Commission also requested additional information and
response from Chapman University on their approach and response to dormitory fire alarms, auto alarms,
dormitory access and security, student evacuation plans, the relationship between the proposed project
and Chapman's parking management plan, student parking permit and sticker system, underground
parking, pedestrian related traffic impacts, traffic generators, lighting, parking meters, speed bumps, and a
long-range Chapman Master Plan.
Staff completed some additional research, concluding there was a parking structure proposed in April
2000 for the Orange Street Parking Lot. The proposal was a 5-level, 4-story, 706-space parking structure,
to be located at the Stadium Orange Street Surface parking lot. It would accommodate the future All
Faiths Chapel as well as other future development potential within the Specific Plan. The footprint of the
parking structure was 300 x 120 ft, with a maximum height of 46 ft. The structure was setback 28 ft.
from Walnut, the west property line, and abutted the commercially zoned property on north Glassell. The
Planning Commission hearing was held in June, 2000 for a site plan review of that structure with a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and at that time the Planning Commission questioned the size of the
structure in relation to future University expansion plans and how traffic plans might affect the
surrounding residential streets. Included in this discussion was feedback from the Commission to the
University suggesting that parking be established in the vicinity of the Child Care Center, a non-historic
University owned property on Shaffer Street, or in the residence hall area. The Commission questioned
3
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6,2002
the need for the amount of parking proposed in that structure and suggested the solution to campus related
parking problems rest with a development of a parking management plan, which was then being
developed. Per Ms. Sully, the Commission continued the hearing and shortly thereafter, the applicant
withdrew the proposal.
Ms. Sully pointed out Chapman University has responded to many of the questions and issues proposed
by the Commission at the last meeting. They have submitted a letter, directed to Alice Angus, which is
attached to the Staff Report, which provides information and response to these issue areas. She informed
the Commission of receipt of additional correspondence, a letter, e-mail, and a video survey submitted by
the applicant presenting results from cameras placed at certain locations to observe pedestrian habits.
Chair Smith asked Assistant Attorney Sheatz what process was needed if it was decided to keep the
public hearing closed from the last meeting, or if public hearings were reopened in light of new
information.
Attorney Sheatz indicated that the public hearing was closed at the last meeting. Chapman University
was given a laundry list of items and Commission questions to respond to. The scope of public comment
at this meeting would be confined to University response, unless there is a motion, and majority approval,
by this body to reopen the public hearing in its entirety. That would open all the issues, those discussed at
the previous meeting, and any new issues that are supplemented by information brought forth tonight.
Chair Smith then asked the Commissioners how they would like to proceed with regard to the public
hearing on this matter.
Commissioner Brandman asked Attorney Sheatz if that decision had to be made now or if the
Commission could wait until the applicant had been heard.
Attorney Sheatz indicated the decision should be made at the onset.
Chair Smith reiterated that the point is not to rehash prior information and minimize the length of the
hearing by receiving new information only.
Commissioner Romero said he would like to hear new information only. Commissioner Bonina asked if
the scope of the hearing would be limited to the information Chapman University provides, based on what
the Commission requested. His concern was about providing parameters that may not allow discussion of
all the issues.
Attorney Sheatz stated that the baseline for discussion tonight are the points the Commission asked
Chapman to address and bring back. The scope will be defined by the Commissioners, based on the
response from Chapman and subsequent inquiry by the Commission.
Commissioner Brandman requested the public to police themselves and only bring new information.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero to reopen the public hearing for
new public information with the response from Chapman University.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
NOES:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
4
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
Chair Smith inquired of Attorney Sheatz as to the ground rules for the Appeal and what order will the
applicant and appellant speak.
Attorney Sheatz responded this hearing should be conducted slightly differently. He indicated the
appropriate way would be to have Chapman respond to prior inquires and then ask the appellants to
address those responses and perhaps address some of the issues that occurred at the public meeting, then
accept public comment and go back to the appellants for final comment.
Chair Smith invited Chapman University to come forward to address concerns conveyed last time.
Mr. Ken Rvan, EDA W. representing Chapman University. He urged the Commission to uphold the SRC
approval, the DRC approval, and the Director approval and OTPA support. Chapman believes this
project will improve and significantly benefit the community by providing more on-campus parking for
resident students in the resident hall area. Mr. Ryan also believes Chapman University has taken
significant steps, since the last meeting, to further ensure that it is a good neighbor in terms of the design
of that facility and in terms of being compatible with the surrounding community.
Mr. Ryan continued with response to the items present to them from the Commission and the public:
. Since the last meeting met with the neighbors in Mr. Iversen's living room.
I. Some of the discussion at the last hearing related to improving relationship between the
University and the community at large.
2. Very candid with the neighbors with regard to Chapman's commitment to the community in
working on this project now and in the long run.
3. Acknowledged that all may not agree on everything, but start with finding some common ground
on areas important to the community that could be addressed.
4. Good suggestions were made and we evaluated all the issues.
. Security: Although the security for this University is very high and the numbers indicate such, the
public crime statistics are dramatic even from a year ago, thefts, for example, have gone down 50%.
However, the University has initiated a wide range of activities which they are committed to doing:
I. Mr. Larson asked if there was a way to list, track, and measure.
2. Increase bicycle and vehicle patrols to occur more frequently and particularly around the
residence halls and have greater officer visibility.
3. Henley Hall, which houses the public safety office now, will be staffed more frequently.
4. Keeping the blinds open and rotating combination codes on doors will let students know there is a
stronger presence in terms of security.
5. Hire an additional Public Safety Officer who will report directly to the Chief of Public Safety,
allowing more visibility as well, as more safety on campus and around residence halls.
. Pedestrian Crossing and Traffic Operation, particularly at Center and Walnut:
1. Installed new, larger signs at Grand & Walnut and at Center & Walnut.
2. Agendizing this for discussion at regularly held campus-wide safety meetings to be conducted by
the residence advisor at each dormitory.
3. Conducted traffic studies that indicated, both at Center and Walnut and Shaffer and Walnut, the
existing level of service. Video taped the intersections.
4. Would accept a staff's condition, even though the warrants are not there now, that some time in
the future, for a pedestrian signal, traffic signal, or some type offence barrier.
. Residence Hall Fire Alarms: Found it's really not a design issue, but a behavioral issue of students in
some of the residence halls, occurring more frequently last fall, and the incident report shows that this
has dropped dramatically.
5
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6,2002
1. Believe that a very strong enforcement technique would cause further decline. This would bother
other students as well. We have students come out and stand for a half hour if they are
responsible for the disturbance.
2. Will be conducting comprehensive discussions of the sign program in terms of location and in
terms of text in all residence halls.
3. These may not necessarily relate specifically to this project, but a lot of what we're responding to
relates to being better neighbors.
4. Agendizing for discussion at resident campus safety meetings, to let students know how
important this is not only to fellow students but to the surrounding community as well.
. Car Alarms: Believe the addition of another on-campus safety officer will help respond to car alarm
Issues.
I. Committed to implementing to a program where car alarms are silenced within fifteen minutes.
2. If students can't be tracked down, they are sited, and if it happens frequently, the car gets towed.
3. Making direct phone line numbers available to the Director of Public Safety, Vice President of
Dean of Students, and the Executive Vice President of the University, so if that safety call doesn't
work, there is more recourse.
4. Initiated a new "hot line" which took effect last week, using door hangers and magnets that have
the updated "hot line" for the University.
5. In addition, a new service is provided. Dial the "hot line" and within 24 hours, someone from the
University will return your phone call.
6. You can go to Public Relations, by pushing #2, and actually talk to a live person.
7. By pressing #3, you go to Community Facilities, so if there is a construction project going on,
you'll get Mr. Chris Olson's response.
. Campus improvements over time:
I. Presented graphics of the next 15-20 years, "Future Conceptual Development Layout Plan"
2. Are updating the overall Specific Plan for the University.
3. As the University builds out over the next 15 - 20 years, the long-standing goal is to provide
more on-campus parking for resident student in residence hall areas. The proposed residence hall
and parking structure is consistent with that goal and responds to previous direction from the City
Planning Commission in terms of design and location.
4. Look at two previous Planning Commission hearings regarding previous parking structure and
there was very clear direction that more parking was needed and it needed to be located in
proximity to residence hall areas.
5. Believe the current proposal is centrally located within the residence hall area, and responds to
prior direction.
6. Many current on-campus improvements are intended to accommodate students currently enrolled
in the University. The Film School is an example of that.
7. The overall Specific Plan allows for some growth to occur, but currently, in the Specific Plan,
that 4000 student seats is planned over the next 15 - 20 years, with maximum capacity to go to
5,000 seats.
8. Mr. Ryan pointed to the graphic, indicating where the campus will grow to house the new
facilities and there is no change in the residence hall facility with what will occur over the next 15
- 20 years.
. Parking Management Plan: A PMP was adopted for Chapman in May of 200 I.
I. The proposed residence hall and parking structure are consistent and will implement the goals
that were established by that adopted plan.
2. An annual report card, which is required to be submitted, was just submitted.
3. Have in place, a Sticker Program: the commuter students have red, resident students have blue,
Staff is pink, and Faculty is silver. Enforcement is happening.
6
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
. What's happening with adjacent high school, Cambridge, St. Johns, consideration of that traffic. All
of our analysis took that into consideration.
. Why do you need so much parking: (Mr. Ryan displayed the graphics)
I. Parking spaces currently proposed: 600
2. Already exist in the parking footprint. Less: 150
3. Spaces required for existing residents 171
4. Spaces required for 350- bed residence hall(@.65 per bed not .50) 228
5. Parking Surplus resulting 51
6. There is no allowance for new students coming in
7. There are now residence parking in Forum and Stadium lots.
. Lighting:
I. Incorporating state-of-the-art technology, 50% less visible light than neighboring areas in the
Lemon Street parking area.
2. Committee to monitoring light levels
. Evacuation Plan is in place consistent with the Fire Dept, Police and the University
. The vacant lot of Shaffer, the pile of dirt has been removed, and addition a] landscape has been
installed on the Shaffer Street edge.
. The controller at the Stadium parking lot has been fixed.
. Other options:
I. Split the parking: 3-stories in the residence hall area, have a smaller, kinder, more friendly
parking structure in the Stadium Lot.
Reason not to consider: I) There are very clear directions not to do that; 2) received viable
information from OTPA that we've been down that path before and it's been resisted; and 3)
it would go against the bigger picture goal, it would split traffic, putting students away from
residence hall areas; and 4) cost certainly would be a factor.
2. Underground parking:
Cost is certainly an issue, but there is, whether perceived or rea], a concern for students'
safety and security, particularly female students; no matter how much lighting or presence
you put there, the resistance remains and students would find other places to park.
3. Open up the lower leve]: Allow view into the lower level.
Not as big a footprint as the Lemon Parking lot, because of the residence hall and other
facilities next to it.
In order to open it up, it needs to be pulled back further. There is already a lOft. setback for
landscaping which is critical to making this blend into this neighborhood, and a 20 ft. fire
lane.
Those would be lost trying to open portions of the parking structure.
Ventilation issues - you can't do it all the way around. Cars need to get in and out and
students need a place to walk. It physically and technically doesn't work.
4. Genera] perception: How can you be proposing this skyscraper at this location?
This really isn't a skyscraper, there are five ]evels, the top level is the roof.
Parking structures are, typically, 10- II ft. per level.
Compared to other facilities (graphic): Kennedy Law School with the tower is 90 ft., the top
of Kennedy is under 70 ft.; the west fa,ade of the proposed residence hall parking structure is
at 55 ft.; the recently approved All Faiths Chapel is 55 ft., not including the tower; Pralle-
Sodaro and Hen]ey Hall is about 50 ft.; and Beckman is 90 ft. So, in terms of scale, within
the campus, it's very consistent with other buildings.
We believe that OTPA is supporting this project because it is designed as sensitively as it can
be for location and looks.
7
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
Another angle -looking north from Center Street at Walnut, the entrance to the residence hall
area. Note the attention the architectural detailing, particularly on the comers. It tends to look
like a residence, rather than a parking structure.
. Speed Bumps: Can we slow down cars in the area?
Much of that is related to the high school and not necessarily Chapman University.
They tend to not be warmly received for emergency service, Police and Fire, because the increase
response time.
They tend to cause higher accident rates, the can result in damage to cars, and mostly they irritate
people, warnings - cause bright colored paint, signs and stripping that deteriorate the asthetic quality
of the community. Not the best solution.
. Results of neighborhood meetings which the University concurs with:
Better communication - we believe that the new "hot line" the door hangers and magnets, as well as
regular meetings, are something that the University would be committed to, not just with the OTPA,
but with the community as a whole.
. Campus Safety when there's something going on off-campus. That the responsibility of the Orange
Police. There was a recent event. Campus safety would be required to call the Orange Police to
inform them of such an event.
Mr. Ryan introduced Mr. Paul Wilkenson, 1580 Corporate Drive #122, Costa Mesa, to provide
information regarding the Parking Management Plan, the report card, and his video analysis.
. Traffic implications (pedestrian crossing issues on Walnut.)
In the original analysis concluded that the Center St. and Walnut Ave. intersections are now, and
would be, after the traffic and pedestrian influences of this residence hall project, be operating at
service level A at peak hours.
. Mr. Wilkenson alluded to Chair Smith's concerns at the last meeting, namely what is the actual
pedestrian crossing experience at Walnut now? Location does not warrant signalization and might
create a liability for the City.
. How did we prepare this information: video observations from 7:00 am - 10:00 am and from 3:00
pm - 6:00 pm., out of which the survey isolated the highest traffic and pedestrian crossing activity
time frame.
. We actually used three cameras and a stopwatch to determine these figures. The numbers aren't
inordinately large. There are conditions of approval, agreed to by the University, as it stands now,
signal warrants are not required at this location, but at sometime they could be installed in the future,
one of the conditions.
. In summary, it brings greater visibility to the current situation and every pedestrian doesn't represent
a stopped vehicle, sometimes pedestrians travel in-group across the street, sometimes there is no
vehicle to be interrupted and in the middle of the day, circumstances change.
. The study validates the prior analysis that was done for the service level calculations at the Center
StIW alnut Ave intersection and the pedestrian characteristics there.
Chair Smith interrupted for questions:
Commissioner Pruett asked if signalization were required at this point, would the pedestrian count at the
crosswalks and mid-block remain the same or would there be an increase in mid-block crossings and lead
to a fence down the middle of the street.
Mr. Wilkenson indicated there is that risk, and actually what happens is impatience of the motorist when
stopped at a stop sign, if there is not traffic pressure, the pedestrian may cross against a signal. They don't
want the inconvenience, so there is that risk, but there is no indication that such a risk exists.
8
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
Chair Smith asked Mr. Wilkenson if these figures are on current housing and project how the change by
the proposal to demolish a 140-bed dormitory and replace it with a 350-bed dormitory would affect these
figures. The number of students would more than double at Center!Walnut intersection.
Mr. Wilkenson responded the first thing is the total number of beds in the end is 1400. While it appears
that this residence hall increment is doubling, that setting includes over 1000 beds, which now are
represented in the pedestrian counts. So, would expect the pedestrian crossing at these locations would
grow at about 10% - 15%.
Chair Smith asked why no study was done mid-day. Mr. Wilkenson indicated that because the crossings
were greatest during the afternoon and peak hours. Henley Hall study found that the crossing were
greater in the afternoon than at mid-day. Students have probably accumulated on campus through the
class schedule hours, then they kind of come home as a group in relative terms.
Chair Smith asked when was spring break? Mr. Wilkenson replied - it was the week of March 251h, not
during our survey.
Chair Smith asked to hear about the Report Card and the Parking Management Plan.
Mr. Wilkensen responded that the University instituted a number of actions, with the Parking
Management Plan adoption last year and as part of the parking management process and the Specific Plan
update, a separate study. We have a window of knowledge relative to the parking demand at the
University. We all realize, in recent years, the surface lots at the University are pretty well full. When
talk began about the parking structure, it was withdrawn asking if the parking was really required and if
the University could get students to use the Lemon Street Lot. The occupancy of the Lemon Street has
increased from about 49%, in the spring of 2000, to 73% in the fall of 2000, to 97% in the spring of 2002.
Chair Smith asked how that is measured and Mr. Wilkensen stated it was measured by actual counts of
parked vehicles parked on a cyclical basis throughout a day in the individual lots. The overall demand of
off-street parking at the University has increased from the spring of 2000 from 1645 spaces to about 1930
spaces today. Enrollment is growing.
Chair Smith asked if this information has been submitted to which Mr. Wilkenson replied affirmatively, it
is under review. She then turned to staff for a response.
Ms. Sully indicated the report was submitted last Thursday, and Staff has not had an opportunity to
review it.
Mr. Wilkenson indicated he wanted to bring attention to the fact that parking demand is growing at the
University, in part because of increased enrollment and partly because of successes in some of the
implemented programs.
Chair Smith asked for enrollment numbers. Mr. Wilkensen said he didn't have them now, but could
provide them later.
Chair Smith pursued the occupancy rate: Are you talking about the 49% increase or 49% of the spaces
were occupied. Mr. Wilkensen said 49% were occupied in the spring of 2000 and peak demand has grown
from 1645 to 1930.
Mr. Wilkensen continued the parking increase is due partly to the implemented management plan,
including special events, notifications of what to do as a visitor, continued enforcement of the City's
9
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
parking permit program, mandatory parking permits for all students and staff, and a new parking permit
for part-time evening students. Have also found that poaching, illegal parking, is diminishing as a % of
total demand, sitting at 60 vehicles throughout the blocks within the parking permit program of the City
that could not be accounted for as anyone presumed to be Chapman related. That's about 3% of the total
Chapman demand, if it is presumed to be all Chapman demand. These 60 folks need special interest as to
why they park there. In the residence area, Chapman believes the appropriate ratio is .65 per bed not .50.
The reason the full impact of that difference is not manifested in the parking areas of the City is because
Chapman has historically provided significantly more parking than required under the Specific Plan.
Chapman has enough parking, the question is how to use it. Chapman needs to update the ratio, and that
has been proposed through the Specific Plan process.
Chair Smith asked if the statement that Chapman has enough parking that includes the structure proposed
tonight. Mr. Wilkensen replied that the proposed structure would perpetuate his ability to make that
statement, so it does not include it.
Mr. Ryan summarized his presentation indicating that in order to provide more resident parking on-
campus, reduce commuter traffic and reduce the impact of those parking in the neighborhood , and
provide enough parking and in the right location, Chapman believes the project is critical to accomplish
that goal and believes Chapman has satisfied the Staff, the DRC, concerns from OTP A, and addressed
client/Commission questions and concerns. They have worked really hard and intend to do so in the
future. We want to continue to be good neighbors.
Chair Smith asked about the Negative Declaration and the appearance of a discrepancy in some of the
numbers discussed tonight. On 3-47, "The project site is presently developed with Cheverton Hall, a two-
story, 140-bed dormitory, and a I I 3-space surface parking lot. In other reports, such as your letter to on 3-
146, says that the existing spaces lost in the footprint are 150 spaces, so there is a difference of 37 spaces
there.
Mr. Wilkensen state that actual lot existing now is I I 3 spaces, however, the adjustments to fit the new
parking structure in and make the circulation connections to it result from the original 150 (actually 144)
spaces, which includes handicapped spaces. Therefore, the actual lot that's being displaced is 113 spaces.
Chair Smith asked if the 37 spaces were being used currently. Mr. Wilkensen stated they were being
used. The 37 spaces are in front of Raven Hall.
Chair Smith noted that there is some underground parking present and available on the residential sight at
this time, under Henley Hall. She asked how many spaces are available and are they included in the
residential spaces available. Mr. Ryan responded there were 75 underground spaces, 308 beds at Henley,
and if you use Mr. Wilkensen's latest and greatest .65 x 308, you realize there needs to be additional
parking. That additional parking is currently provided for in the overall residence hall planning area. The
75 spaces are used.
Chair Smith asked the height of Henley Hall. Mr. Ryan stated Henley Hall is 45-46 ft. The current
proposed parking structure at 55 ft. adds just 10ft. more located in the center of the project and is well in
proportion to existing surroundings.
Chair Smith asked whether the 1300 beds, indicated by Mr. Wilkensen, included the family residences
and all residences north of this project. Mr. Ryan did not believe it included the family residences but
would check with Mr. Wilkensen.
Chair Smith asked the capacity of cars of the Lemon Street Lot, aka, the Law School structure. Mr. Ryan
indicated is at 702. Mr. Ryan corrected the height of Henely Hall, which he stated was 45 - 46 ft, to 50 ft.
10
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
at the top apex, not including equipment. He continued the parking structure at Lemon Street structure
has a larger footprint so there is a larger capacity of 702 spaces, more cars per opening.
Chair Smith said she pulled off the numbers for student count and parking requirements from the 2000
parking management plan study and those numbers are bigger than this spring's study which stated 1731
parking required and now has been reduced to 1513. Curious as to why everything is lower now.
Ms. Sully stated that without benefit of the having review the Parking Management Plan she was not
prepared to address that question.
Mr. Wilkensen began that without the documents, he could give a qualitative answer. The requirement
for the residence halls turns out to be an allocation of the total number of spaces required on the academic
side of the campus. The more beds you add in the residence hall area, the lower the number of spaces
required.
Commissioner Pruett asked where Chair Smith got the numbers. She stated they were from the last
hearing. In the Staff Report the number is 2121; proposed is 2608, the figure now is 1900. Chair Smith
indicated there is a 700 spaces difference and she needs to know why there is a difference.
Commissioner Pruett clarified the approach that we are taking on this application is one for the parking
requirement for the residence hall area, while it does have an effect on the overall plan, but we're really
increasing the number of spaces in total. The issue here is the number of spaces for the parking structure
required for the residence hall rather than the total parking for the area.
Ms. Sully pointed out that according to the Specific Plan, the requirement for parking in the residential
area is .50 and that is what the parking calculations have been based on for purposes of this project. The
applicant has come before us and proposed a new ratio, if you will, based on more realistic figures they
have found to be true as a result of their study and the Parking Management Plan.
Chair Smith mentioned that the current Specific Plan makes no mention of a parking structure in the
residential area and the bed count is offby 300 from the numbers given tonight.
Mr. Ryan asked to clarify stating Chapman is consistent with the Specific Plan and they are doing the
right thing by sharing the real factors that are out there in order to solve the bigger issue regarding the
traffic impact on this community. He said Mr. Wilkinson would clarifY the discrepancies. The prudent
thing to do is to achieve the overall goal of providing parking for more residents on campus and is
confident that those numbers are accurate.
Mr. Wilkenson stated that the 1300 is a rounded number for the existing beds at the University; 1500 is
the resulting total with this project in place. But in terms of the beds in service now, and the number that
are to be taken out of service, is reflected in the 1300 figure.
Chair Smith said she understood.
Commissioner Bonina asked if parking at Henley Hall was considered underground parking. Mr. Ryan
said it is semi-underground, with some visibility and ventilation.
Commissioner Bonina said he assumed that underground parking had enhanced lighting and wondered if
it was typically used at full capacity. Mr. Ryan indicated there were assigned parking spaces for specific
students and what proposed tonight would serve a broader area of the residence hall. It would also allow
students that are parking down at Stadium and Forum back in this area as well.
11
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
Commissioner Bonina inquired about a semi-underground structure; security and safety and reduction in
height.
Mr. Ryan said every level IS about ] I ft. He asked Bob Hornacek, parking engineer, to respond
specifically.
Mr. Hornacek. CRHO Architects. ] 95 S. C Street. Tustin, clarified the footprint of the upper stories at
Sodaro is quite a bit smaller than the underground parking area, so some of the parking actually spills out
into open courtyards, which allows natural ventilation of the parking structure
Commissioner Bonina responded that given this footprint, it would not be feasible to put a semI
subterranean parking and still provide the required lighting and ventilation.
Mr. Homecek said mechanical ventilation is possible. They would have to create a slot all the way
around the building, which would eliminate any landscape against the building and create subway grates
around the building, which are not attractive.
Commissioner Bonina said again if the parking structure were semi-subterranean, that is 4-5 ft below
grade, we're saying we can't get natural ventilation or sufficient lighting to make it safe.
Mr. Hornecek responded it's a different issue. In that regard the Pralle-Sodaro parking is not semi-
underground, it is a full level below grade, but it is open to the sky in some rather significant areas
because of the way it was designed. When it was built there was a type of slot on the north parking light
side. It's a difficult thing to handle, architecturally and it's not very attractive. A partial subterranean, a
half ]evel or a few feet down, is not real effective from an accessibility standpoint. All handicapped
accessible stalls or disabled access stalls are at grade so people can move directly from the grade level
into the residence halls.
Chair Smith asked how many students are at the University today. Mr. Ryan indicated it was
approximately 4, 590 students in total head count.
Chair Smith stated that it is the same figure in the letter to Alice Angus, student total in the specific plan
is 4,000. Mr. Ryan indicated again that within the next ]5 - 20 years that number would grow to 5,000.
Commissioner Romero asked about the security and hiring one additional staff accomplishes # ] and # 2.
Mr. Ryan said it accomplished more than that. By hiring a new officer there is more visibility.
Commissioner Romero said that according to condition #1, the existing staff will be increased, more
vehicle patrol, etc. ]s that in place?
Mr. Ryan indicated it was in place.
Commissioner Romero asked Mr. Ryan to define what direct phone numbers are, regarding car alarms
and the statement "the University will make available direct phone numbers". Mr. Ryan said it is the
phone numbers for all three individuals.
Commissioner Romero said if there is a call at 3:00 AM, the only answer would be a recording. Mr. Ryan
agreed and added that the next day there is "hot line" to call with two people to answer, one in
Community Facilities and one in Public Relations. The belief is that follow-up will enhance responses
and ensure those responses happen properly and timely.
12
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
Commissioner Romero asked if the neighborhood responded positively m that regard. Mr. Ryan
affirmed.
Commissioner Romero asked with regard to underground parking at Pralle-Sodaro, have there been
security problems historically. Mr. Ryan said the problems have not be out of proportion with other
safety issues on the campus.
Commissioner Romero asked how long the controller problem relating to parking meters had existed.
Mr. Ryan responded that he couldn't tell but it has been fixed since it came to their attention.
Commissioner Brandman asked how many security staff they have, including bicycle and vehicle patrol;
what do they do; and what are their qualifications. Mr. Ryan said he would get back to her.
Commissioner Brandman asked if there were camera in the garages, either underground or above-ground.
Mr. Ryan said it was considered, but the problem is it creates a perceived feeling of safety and that
translates to having a console somewhere and having someone watching those consoles. ]t starts to defeat
the purpose and cost is an issue. The best scenario is the open parking.
Commissioner Brandman asked if they had given thought to having a security officer patrol the parking
levels. Mr. Ryan responded that certainly would occur but he would have to check the number of
persons.
Commissioner Brandman continued inquiring whether the 24-hour "hot line" is staffed by a live person.
Mr. Ryan said there will be a "live" person from 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM, then there will be a recording and
commitment of response within 24 hours.
Commissioner Brandman asked if a car alarm went off, whom would she call. Mr. Ryan said call the "hot
line". The commitment is the alarm goes off within ]5 minutes, ifit doesn't, a citation takes place. If the
it is a longer issue, the car gets towed. There are two numbers: the Campus Safety and the "hot line" and
residence will call Campus Safety.
Commissioner Brandman asked about scheduling Special Events. Mr. Ryan indicated there is a plan in
place to schedule those events so that no two events take place at anyone time.
Commissioner Brandman inquired how many "bed" students, from out-of-the-area, have a car? Mr. Ryan
responded .65 of a car. Chair Smith interjected a little more than a half, .65 of] 00, or 65 students.
Commissioner Brandman asked about assigned parking and whether that will be a reality. Mr. Ryan
stated it was a reality.
Commissioner Pruett asked how often would regu]arly scheduled safety meetings occur and who would
be required to attend. Mr. Ryan said the meeting would include all resident students.
Commissioner Bonina asked about the 350 beds, how many were per unit and could beds per unit
increase. Mr. Homecek, said there were two beds per sleeping room, and sleeping rooms share baths, so
a unit is actually 4 students, which equals roughly 75 units with 350 beds. A]so, it would be difficult to
increase the beds per unit.
Chair Smith called the applicant for KFC, agenda item #6, and asked if the applicant wanted to wait or
take the continuance. Mr. Ghaderi said he would take the continuance.
13
Planning Commission Minutes
May 6, 2002
APPROVED
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue Agenda Item #6,
Conditional Use Permit 2360-01, Variance 2103, and Administrative Adjustment 01-47 - KFC and A&W
All American Food until the meeting of May 20, 2002.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Smith called for a 10 minute recess. The Planning Commission hearing will resume at 9:45 PM.
Chair Smith resumed the Planning Commission hearing by calling for the appellants:
Speakers:
Vic Iversen, 719 E. Hoover:
. Had a meeting with Mr. Ryan in my home. He was very nice, he listened to our complaints.
. We suggested the University go underground; Mr. Ryan said he would look into it.
. We suggested a 3-story structure, 1 underground.
. We suggested a 2-story structure next to the residence hall and a 3-story structure at the Stadium.
. We asked that they keep the traffic off Shaffer; Mr. Ryan said he would look into it.
. Mr. Ryan called back after the meeting: He responded "no" to underground parking because of
security; "no" to a 3-story structure; "no" to two 2-story structures; Mr. Ryan said the community of
Orange didn't want it; He also indicated that security was all set.
. So, what happens Thursday night - a riot across the street from the 5-story dorm. There was no
security; the Police Department could come, they were too busy.
. Paul and Angela Larsen went over and couldn't do anything because it noise was in a private house
and it was 4:30 in the morning before the kids gave up.
. Chapman is getting bigger and bigger, and Mr. Ryan says underground wouldn't be good for security.
. Asked if a lady was going to drive up to the top of a 5-story parking garage and park and either walk
down or take the elevator and feel safe. I don't think so. Worked on high-rises in Chicago and more
rapes occur in elevators than anyplace. That's why the suggestion is for a 3-story structure. That's
much safer.
. We suggested security cameras, the response was that's too expensive.
. They should think of having a permanent security office in this compound.
. How can you decide on this, it's too big, would like a continuance.
Angela Larsen, 519 N. Orange Street:
. Gut says she appreciates what Chapman has done in the last 2 weeks.
. Feels like it's smoke and mirrors; there are so many other solutions.
. Thinks students should get assigned parking; in a lot of schools, students are not allowed to have a car
in the first year.
. Underground parking is definitely the way to go.
. Suggested cameras in underground and aboveground parking; with one person stationed to monitor
them.
. If an alarm goes off, there is no way to punch in a license plate number and find out who owns that
car, and where they are assigned to sleep.
. As for the students walking back and forth across the street, all the students have been staying in the
crosswalk area, but it's the lack of respect they have for the cars, pilled up behind. It's the attitude.
14
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
. They did post a sign, but it's now being covered with frat house posters, in fact, one of them was tom
down.
. 6-story parking structure and how tall it's going to be compared to other structures means nothing. It
looms large.
. The plan isn't specific enough, the procedures, or the rules.
Commissioner Brandman said she understands the mistrust of Chapman, however, there were meetings
that took place. If committees were set up, and you could get your teeth into something, would you be
willing to perhaps revise your feeling of smoke and mirrors. Ms. Larsen replied affirmatively. The
problem is lack of accountability.
Chair Smith called for Public Hearing:
Speakers:
Those in Favor of the Appeal:
Steven Naslund, 660 N. Orange:
. Concern heard for past promises and little action.
. Applaud Chapman for putting up signs, however, putting up a sign on Walnut saying "obey traffic
laws" and then on Saturday, opening the fire gates on Shaffer, so the students can easily walk mid-
block to activities at the High School takes away from that.
. Saying you're enforcing traffic restrictions, yet, since our last meeting, no one has targeted the cars
parked on Shaffer for days on end, and they have Chapman stickers.
. Called the Orange Police since our last meeting, but the most they can do is put a warning sticker on
the car saying put I mile on the odometer, which gets them up to KFC and back, and they've satisfied
the requirement.
. The reality of enforcement is they don't have to hire anyone new to walk down the street and write
those numbers down.
. Chapman came out with a 2002 survey, saying the citizens of Orange identified the areas of highest
importance and also the lowest satisfaction in performance of a City. This isn't addressing managing
growth and managing traffic flow.
. They also commented they are currently working on amending the Specific Plan; this project should
be placed under a moratorium until the Specific Plan is complete, is submitted, and opened to a public
forum.
. The new dormitory at 350 beds at the current .50 provides 175 spaces and if you agree to the .65, that
equals 231 spaces. We're losing 150 from the footprint which says the new building requirement to
meet the needs of the new dormitory and the loss of spaces we would need somewhere between 325
and 381 spaces, not 600.
Fred Peters, 706 E. Walnut Ave:
. It's extremely admirable the "fixes" that have been suggested and respect and believe in the intent
and the integrity, especially in Mr. Ryan representing Chapman College.
. These are "soft issues" and they are not what you're voting on; they are susceptible to slippage.
However, they can be addressed with appropriate pressure and the leadership of Chapman.
. Putting up a structure is a "hard issue" and it will be there forever.
. The height of that building must include the height of the automobile, noting the height of SUVs, it
will be a little taller than was expressed.
. It would be beneficial to re-address the issue of partial submersion. If you have 5 ft between any wall
in front of the cars and the beginning of the 2"d level, the amount of circulation, unless you block it
off with shrubbery or something, is basically the same. It's a matter of the handicapped ramps,
compared to the cost of the whole project, is miniscule, hardly worth bringing up.
15
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
. In contrast to the chart shown, the parking structure is actually right next to the dormitory, not 3
buildings away. When you put in direct contrast, it does protrude above by a considerable amount.
. Issues: Height of the parking structure; a different number of students from last hearing; the number
of increased cars.
. Chapman is increasing by about 100 students per year and is likely, by projection, to go to about
6,000 students; at that rate we will need 800-900 more parking spaces and they will come back,
before terribly long, to ask for more.
. Allowing the 6-story structure sets a precedent for future expansion.
Ann Siegert, 340 S. Olive on behalf of Old Towne Preservation Association:
. Fact that Chapman has met with the neighbors is a great step toward better community relations
. Things can't happen over night, we have to let the University prove itself.
. The City and Chapman need to resolve the traffic issues and come back to neighborhood meetings.
. This project fits the use the University needs to provide for its students; it mitigates the impact on an
historic area by redirecting the parking where it belongs with the residential students.
Chair Smith asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. There was none.
Chair Smith called for additional questions from the Commissioners.
Chairman Brandman asked if this was approved, what recourse does the City have to monitor them.
Ms. Sully indicated that would be up to the Commission to add Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Brandman to Mr. Sheatz, if we approve this tonight, is any part of it retractable, if we see
the conditions are not being met.
Attorney Sheatz said he wasn't certain he followed "being retractable". First, any condition you impose
has to have a nexus in proportionality so it has to be tied in somewhere with impact. The best way to deal
with this is through the environmental document, which requires mitigation monitoring. You can make
adjustments or alterations through the mitigation monitoring program. We don't have a provision in the
OMC to revoke a major site plan review approval. The reason for that is once it's built, it's done, and you
can't go back and cut and cure.
Commissioner Brandman indicated she has a problem with the traffic study. She was there on site in her
own car, and knows that if lights are set and timed, they can keep the traffic from backing up all the way
to Shaffer. As she approached the College area, making a right-hand turn onto Walnut from Shaffer, was
continually stopped by students going back and forth in front of her car. Maybe it was the color of her
car, but it took forever to get to down to the parking lot to make a left-hand turn. They were not
courteous. If Chapman expressed a desire to pay for part of the warrants, is there ways the City can make
that happen.
Ms. Sully reiterated the perceived impact vs. a real impact. At this time, the Traffic Study and Warrants
does not show that type of impact.
Mr. Hohnbaum agreed with Ms. Sully that this was a concern for the Staff Review Committee as far as,
interference of pedestrian traffic with vehicle traffic. Believes the survey done by Chapman is somewhat
representative of what is seen out there today. Hohnbaum emphasized, "what we see today", it does not
take into account increased dormitory beds or anything else.
Mr. Hohnbaum continued that what the City has tried to do is recognize the difference between a
measurement and function. There is a provision, a condition, that's being recommended for Chapman to
16
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
fund a "fair share" of a signalized crossing, should one be warranted in the future, noting that Staff does
not feel that one is necessary today. There may be some inconvenience of people stopping, but as far as
level of service and capacity that 's being handled on Walnut today, we don't see reaching those levels.
Having said that, Mr. Hohnbaum, continued, we can also place a signal without a warrant. That's being
done throughout the City, but is typically not funded by the City. There are a number of locations where
signals are warranted today, and the City has insufficient funding to put them all in. So we would be
remise in spending City funds on an unwarranted location. That does not stop us from spending other
funds, if it were so conditioned.
Commissioner Brandman noted they've come before the Commission, with a certain number of floors for
the parking structure. Is there a provision that I as a Commissioner can ask them to modify and go down
one story and once we vote on this, we cannot request one less floor? And once we vote on this, we
cannot request one less floor?
Chair Smith said that was the question she had addressed to Attorney Sheatz earlier.
Attorney Sheatz responded that the scope of the review is what's proposed. A request to alter the plans, is
just that and it could be offered to the University, should the desire to modify the plans and bring it back
is their prerogative. They could politely decline and take this to the City Council.
Chair Smith clarified the action is to uphold the appeal; or if the appeal is denied, the project goes forward
as previously approved by the Director of Community Development. If the appeal is upheld, the option
for Chapman University is to come back with another plan.
Attorney Sheatz said they could come back with another plan or appeal to the City Councilor walk away.
Commissioner Pruett stressed that the Director of Community Development and many of the issues
discussed are conditions in the prior approval, i.e. the issue of signalization. The question before us is has
the Director failed in decision to consider all the facts.
Chair Smith closed Public Hearing.
Chair Smith asked Mr. Ryan to come forward to present the fact regarding to additional information.
Mr. Ryan indicated there are 13 officers, 2 - 3 patrolling all the time, adding a new officer would increase
that to 3-4; a dispatcher during the day; 2 people at night; all academy trained, in fact trained to be future
police officers and usually that's where they ultimately go. Regarding how often does the residence
meetings take place - there are regular meetings monthly with a major kick off meeting at the beginning
of each semester. As for where we go from here, Chapman is not going to walk away.
Chair Smith asked if conditions could be added to the Director of Community Development's work.
Attorney Sheatz responded the Commission could add conditions but would caution the Commission to
temper that. Stay close to what's in front of the Commission for decision.
Chair Smith closed Public Hearing for Planning Commission discussion.
. Commissioner Brandman complemented Mr. Ryan on doing what was asked, namely to work with
the community. She expressed her disappointment at not having anyone in the community say they
were feeling good about the project. She indicated she would like to see some teeth put into the
wording if the Commission decides to approve this; and some real guidelines/policies that are going
to stick. Chapman is a landowner and so are these residents, Chapman needs to expand, although it's
not clear they should expand as much as they want to.
17
Planning Commission Minutes
May 6, 2002
APPROVED
She enumerated her concerns as follows:
. Traffic
. Landscaping on the Law Library parking lot.
. Have the applicant screen the parking lot on the top floor in a way that would be increase eye
appeal.
. More compatible with the neighbors as far as the problems that could arise.
. Reduce the parking lot by one level.
Chair Smith stated she is in favor of upholding the applicant's appeal. Her reasons are:
. Agrees that sufficient environmental input has not been given to a project of this size. Many of
the findings speak to the dorm but not to the parking structure, creating that deficiency.
. The principle issue is the height of the parking structure, which is one-story too tall, it would turn
out to be the second tallest building on campus.
. A premier or showcase building of that height should have more architectural detail than a
parking structure.
. A parking structure in the residential area and the traffic generated by a parking structure of that
size are not included in the Specific Plan.
. Surplus parking is stated throughout the testimony and the records, even in the records that
conflict.
. Would like to see the structure reduced by one-level, which would reduce the capacity by 100, or
have parking underground to retain the capacity.
. What is heard from the University is there will be more building, more parking, proposed in the
future where this parking could be caught up.
. Would like to see implementation of the security elements spoken to.
Commissioner Pruett said he guessed he was on the opposite end of the stick, because he looked at the
Staff Review and the decision of the Community Development Director and doesn't have a lot of problem
with it. The issues have been addressed in terms of mitigating any impacts associated with the project.
Commissioner Pruett stated he is concerned the Commission may be headed in the wrong direction if they
look at reducing the size of the parking structure because that size is driven by the dorm. People have
expressed concern about the size of the parking structure, but no one has expressed concern about the size
of the dorm. If the Commission takes a position for reducing the parking structure, you're reducing the
dorm and basically just unloading the project and throwing the whole project into a tizzy. Commissioner
Pruett indicated he really feels that the environmental impact report and issues have been addressed.
There's been a traffic study and a pedestrian study; the security issue has been dealt with from the
standpoint of additional security that Chapman is going to put on. He continued his view is that it gets
back to the parking study when the Parking Management Plan some time ago, at that time how much
responsibility the City was willing to take on, in terms of oversight, was discussed. The Commission's
view was to let the University manage some of their issues and we need to give them some flexibility in
terms of what they need to do. So from that standpoint, we didn't ignore the issues that need to be
resolved. The City and the community need to work with the University, but if you start dictating how
they manage and set up a particular structure to manage it, we should stay away from that. To put in what
type of security, how it's going to be managed, and what kind of people they're going to be requiring is
inappropriate on the part of the City. They have a liability, if we start dictating what type of security they
should have, we may be in a situation where the City may be incurring a liability. We should be cautious
of that type of condition. The concept of taking the structure down and putting a sub-grade, you might
say, raises some real issues, that Staff has probably already considered, from the standpoint of lighting,
the issue of air circulation or big fans which create a lot of noise. This project is a good one and the
Community Development Director has done a very good, competent job and he's not prepared to overturn
the Community Development Director's action. It's appropriate and we should look at it from that
standpoint and understand what's before us and my position is to deny the appeal.
18
Planning Commission Minutes
May 6,2002
APPROVED
Chair Smith indicated she wanted to respond for balance in perspective. She thinks the dorms are fine the
way they are, they're large and bulky and more than double the population. The parking structure is
completely out of line and we have a responsibility to the community to be the conscience for this
neighborhood. We are land use planners and I do not feel that sufficient attention to the presence of such a
large looming square box in the middle of our neighborhood, with residential on the north and west and a
high school on the east. Also, I don't believe that 600 cars was ever a thought regarding a parking
structure when going into a residential area. That impact was never discussed. With regard to
underground parking, the University has already built under their dormitories which speaks to the fact that
they know how to do it safely with good circulation and they site there are no incidences of crime or very
few in that regard.
Commissioner Pruett asked to make one point, without being in the position of debating the issue, but that
appears to be what it is, so I'll rebut one of the issues that was made and that is the issue of the
surrounding properties. The surrounding properties are other dorms. That's the unique issue of this
particular parking structure. It's situated within the residential community for which it serves. It's not
across the street from the school. It's not across the street from residential homes, it's setback in the
community that it serves. I think that's the ideal situation, in terms of planners. If this were set out into
the street, I would have some real concerns. If it was set out adjacent to or across the street from the high
school, I would have some concerns, but it's not, it's setback, it's in a community that's surrounded by
University residential housing. That provides an excellent buffer for the community. You couldn't have a
better relationship in terms of where it's placed. Ifwe were to put it any other place on the campus, there
would be concerns about how it related to the adjoining property. This is what we asked the University to
do when they wanted to put in over on Glassel, we said get it away from there, move it into the
community it's going to serve and that's what's been done here. Yes, it's a little bigger than the dorm,
but I don't think it's going to present a problem to the surrounding property owners because of the way
it's setback in there.
Chair Smith said she agreed with the setback, but her concern was the line of sight traveling north and
that looming building and the view west.
Commissioner Romero indicated he agrees with Chair Smith and her comments. At the last meeting the
data indicated Chapman was to have 2,000 students, then as time progressed, it was 4,000, then 5,000.
He eommented what's the purpose of the Specific Plan if it's not adhered to. Regarding Commissioner
Pruett's comments, the structure is driven by the dorm, I believe the parking structure is driven not only
by the dorm but also by that increase in students that Chapman is desirous of. As stated tonight, by one of
the members of the public, building the structure will result in excess parking. One of Ken Ryan's
comments was that the previous history of the University has been the parking had always been met with
regards to the need at that time. That is what I believe the structure would be doing at the moment, not
only satisfying all the requirements of the 65% of the student capacity, the beds, but also, the future
requirement of expansion of the student populace. Also, with regards to parking, I can't see why a
database is not used when they allow or sell a parking permit, a license number is not entered into a
database to determine what student belongs to what car. At an administrative meeting, around April I51h,
Commissioner Bonina made comment regarding the dormitories bulk and mass, and had Chapman giving
any thought to tearing the dorms off the street to allow less a look of bulk and mass, and I still haven't
heard a response to that.
Commissioner Bonina indicated he feels that the dorm and parking structure are actually very appropriate
for this location. All things considered with other locales within the University property, this is probably
the most appropriate spot for this use. Agrees with Commissioner Pruett that this parking structure will
have minimal impact with its revised height, although some impact, to the residents along Everett Ave.
There is a line of sight issue. Commissioner Bonina also commended Mr. Ryan on his representating of
19
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6,2002
Chapman University. Mr. Ryan has taken them in a positive direction. Commissioner Bonina stated he
believes the auto and pedestrian traffic has been adequately addressed. He also feels the height of the
dorm is appropriate, but there is still the issue of the height of the parking structure. 6-stories would set a
precedent in terms of the type of building on the campus, it's a very, very large building for the area. He
recommended some level of redesign for the parking structure, allow it to be here on this site and the
dorms to be as they're sited, but try to take the parking structure and provide some semi subterranean
which is underneath the actual residence, which would allow you to keep a count of the dorm number at
350 and allow the 600 parking spaces. In summary, the location makes sense of both the dorm and the
parking structure, the traffic has been addressed adequately, but there is concern for security and safety,
although is has been addressed, it's come a long way. The Report Card Management Report is apparently
still in with Staff, and we don't know if the result will be favorable or not. Commissioner Bonina said he
would endorse the appeal, however, if the was applicant were open to the restructure of the height, as
articulated, he would endorse the project with that modification.
Commissioner Brandman said she doesn't quite clearly know where the Commission's responsibility
stops and Chapman University's starts. However, she is at a quandary, she doesn't like the looming
nature of the parking structure, but it seems the Commission has to go either/or tonight. She doesn't
know if anything can be decided tonight. I brought up landscaping. It was clear that the University did
not want to go underground. The University has to have an opportunity to come back and re-speak before
I can vote.
Chair Smith asked Attorney Sheatz if it was in the parameters of the decision tonight, but it sounds like
the Commission could make this project happen if one-story was taken off the top. Is that action
appropriate.
Attorney Sheatz said he was concerned when he looks at that because the project before the Commission
was analyzed by the Community Development Director, and in association with that the analysis was
done under the existing Environmental Impact Report as well as the addendum. He thinks when you get
into altering or changing the project you could potentially trigger a brand new environmental concern that
has not been analyzed. So, although it may look good now to say, I think it's a go if we shave a level off
the top, I'm not certain, without further analysis from the environmental perspective, one of the concerns
raised by the appellant, that we could go forward with what we have in front of us with modifications or
redesign, unless that environmental analysis was done. That's my concern. Based on that, he urged the
Commission to stick to the matter that's been submitted and previously approved and appealed, and take
it from there. If the University decides they would like to come back and put forth another plan for
additional analysis that would be fine.
Commissioner Pruett had a question on the action. The issue before the Commission is the appeal. The
decision of the Community Development Director and the Design Review Committee, who approved this
project as well, an appeal of that decision is before us. The question is whether it's appropriate to review
and modify a project that's on appeal. It seems the appellant wants it approved or denied, not modified.
We don't know that, he's never given testimony to that affect. So the issue becomes, is it from the
appellant's point of view, is it yea or nay.
Attorney Sheatz said if that's the flavor the Commission is getting, it's certainly within your prerogative
to limit it to that. The answer that I'm willing to give you provides some latitude because it's straight out
of the code. On the appeal issue you're allowed to approve, deny, or approve with modifications to
conditions.
Chair Smith said we could possibly get there by approving the appeal with modifications, because the
modification is dropping one-level off the parking structure.
20
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
Attorney Sheatz said it would seem if you turn it on it's head, it seems it's going the wrong way. One of
the reasons for that is that you have more than the bulk and mass issue. You have so much more than that,
which was the basis for the appeal. The first thing out of the gate on the appeal was the contention there
was a failure to do an adequate environmental analysis. That takes a whole gamut of things into
consideration, as opposed to just the bulk and mass issue.
Chair Smith called for question of the appeal, either to uphold or deny it, remembering how the vote goes
and it will have to be sorted. Either way, it can be appealed to the City Council and they will have the
benefit of our testimony. Everything is in the public record for another body to review.
Commissioner Bonina asked if it were possible to hear from Chapman again.
Attorney Sheatz noted if the Commission hears from Chapman, it must re-open the public hearing and
would require a majority vote.
MOTION
Moved by Chair Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero to uphold Appeal No. 0486-02 as stated on
3-16 of the Staff Report, "... the Negative Declaration No 1676-01 is not accurate. It does not correctly
reflect the impact the additional cars and students will have on our neighborhood and it's resources" and
"...we don't want to grow into something the size ofa city, complete with it's own businesses and high-
rise buildings." And include the findings starting on 3-10, #1, the proposed project could possibly cause
deterioration of neighboring land uses, not in the area of the dormitory, but in the area of the parking
structure, both visually and in bulk and mass. The parking structure has the potential to overpower the
University's residential structures, as well as, the neighborhood residential structures; #3, the proposed
project conforms to the Chapman University Specific Plan, 3'd Amendment (Ordinance No. 14-97), dated
March 25, 1997)..." is challenged - a residential parking structure is not mentioned and there are no
mitigating factors to the bulk/mass, visual impact, traffic, noise, pollution associated with that. Also, that
plan referred to a student capacity of 2500, which has now jumped to 4,000 and the impact of that
increased population and the perspective increase in the residential section has not been addressed. #4
addressed traffic and a contribution of 252-spaces to the surplus of campus off-street parking and that was
no information in the report as to how that figure was determined. # 6, the proposed dorm project is
compatible with community aesthetics but the parking structure not in that it does not match
neighborhood scale, detailing and fenestration.
Discussion: Commissioner Pruett complimented Chapman University on the approach they've taken on
this project. Mr. Ryan has done an excellent job in terms of working with the community. It's really
unfortunate this project is going to be denied, or at least the appeal is going to be upheld. I don't agree
that the findings outlined have really been articulated either in the public testimony or the evidence
presented here tonight. I think the work Chapman has done in presenting the project and the supporting
evidence on the compatibility and suitability in the community has been very well presented and
articulated. I'm very disappointed this is going to go down, but it's important to get this in the record.
Commissioner Brandman said she was also disappointed. She sent a clear message to the University
about what was expected and they have begun a good dialogue and it is going to be incumbent on them to
make sure the community around them is not disturbed. The Director of Community Development has
included plans for buffering and landscaping and staff has talked about traffic. I find myself also
disappointed, I'm not going to be able to support it. Compliments to the University, you're certainly well
on the way.
Chair Smith compliments the University as well. She is almost there with the project, except there is one-
story too many on the parking structure. Would also like to address the environmental review, page 3-54,
there should be an accurate record of the population. Student capacity is listed as 3,000, it should be
21
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
4,000 and the population stated today by the University is 4, 590 students. That type of information is
where I get my opinions that the Environmental Impact Report was not entirely accurate and was not able
to process the application.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
Commissioners Bonina, Romero, Smith
None
Brandman, Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Smith asked Ms. Sully to state the rules of appeal.
INRE:
NEW HEARINGS:
4.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2406-02, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 218-02,
AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 9-02 - CITY OF ORANGE
(EXPANSION OF THE MAIN LIBRARY)
A proposal to expand and develop the City's Main Library from 17.000 sq. ft. to 45.000
sq. ft. The project included the remodeling and expansion of the Main Library to include
site, fa,ade and landscape improvements. The project also includes the closure and
vacating of approximately 250' of Center Street right-of-way north of Chapman Avenue
and redesigning the existing parking lot located at the comer of Chapman Avenue and
Center Street into a 162-space lot to accommodate the newly expanded library. The
subject site is zoned OP (Office Professional) and C-I (Commercial Limited Business).
The site is located on the north side of Chapman Avenue between Grand and Shaffer
Streets addressed, \01 N. Center Street.
NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration 1688-02 was prepared to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project. Staff is recommending the
Planning Commission forward its recommendation to the City Council that the
document is an adequate and complete assessment of environmental issues
related to the potential approval of this project. The public review period for
the Mitigated Negative Declaration is April 22, 2002 through May 32, 2002.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution PC 12-02 recommending to the City Council approval of
Conditional Use Permit 2406-02, Major Site Plan Review 218-02, Administrative
Adjustment 9-02, and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1688-02.
Commissioner Smith asked to be recused from discussion and voting on this project.
Vice Chair Pruett reconvened the hearing.
Karen Sully presented the proposal and asked the Commission to consider the environmental document
and the mitigated negative declaration as set forth and pass its recommendation on to the City Council.
Ms. Sully continued with the Recommended Action. She introduced some amendments to the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in the form of an Errata Sheet encapsulating the following: Clarifications have been
made to Mitigation Measures. These clarifications concern timing and responsible party to the Mitigation
Measures. An additional Mitigation Measure has been provided that elaborates on the moving of the
Edwards House to include photographs for documentation. Corrections have been made to the traffic
22
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
study to correct a mathematical error and certain methodologies. Also included are the actual revised
pages that will be part of the draft final Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Ms. Sully noted receipt of e-mails, letters and a petition. The draft resolution has not been modified to
reflect these new mitigation measures: the resolution for the City Council will be changed to reflect the
Mitigation Measures as presented in the Errata Sheet. Staffs presentation will also reflect those changes
and will include a description of the entitlement, the purpose of the entitlement and an elaboration on the
site design by Senior Planner Chris Carnes. Ms. Nora Jacob, City Librarian, will follow Mr. Carnes who
will discuss the need for the project and the Library Bond Act Application. Following Ms. Jacob will be
a project presentation from the Architect, LPA, to provide the Commission a brief summary of how we
got from the beginning of this project to where we are now, including the genesis of design and
architecture. She asked Chris Carnes to proceed.
Vice Chair Pruett stated there was a letter which had been handed to him, dealing with the Shaffer Street
egress, and he would pass in on to the other Commissioners for review. He asked Commissioners to
allow completion of all Staff presentations, making notes of questions they would be allowed to ask later.
Ms. Sully interjected that the Environmental Consultant was present to answer any questions related to
technical studies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Also, the Traffic Consultant is present.
Chris Carnes said one of the applications before the Commission tonight was a Conditional Use Permit
for two requests:
I) To allow a public use and property zone CI and Office Professional; 2) to allow the building height to
exceed what is permitted in the base zones and in the Old Towne Historical District.
Mr. Carnes continued presenting the staff report citing standards that apply to the property and
enumerating the purpose of the entitlements. Also, Mr. Carnes elaborated on specifics of the proposed
development.
Nora Jacob, City Librarian, spoke about the Library Bond Act and the opportunity for obtaining grant
funding. She indicated that the City is applying for round one; the deadline is June 14,2002.
The Bond Act Application calls for completion of conceptual design with all the related agency approval.
It also calls for a Community Needs Assessment. Some of the highlights of that assessment completed
last fall are: I) it identified a number of needs, in particular, the overall need for more Library space in
Orange. We have only thirty-five percent of the standard square footage of the standard required in the
nation today. We have one of the smallest libraries in all of California. More space means more books,
A V material, computers, community meeting room space, study rooms and reading tables. The Needs
Assessment also identified for a homework center, a literacy center, a much larger children's room, a
separate young adult room and a local history room.
An analysis of the demographics and of the available sites within our city, led to recommendation of the
existing library site as the location for an expanded library facility.
Ms. Jacob summarized the key reasons the City believes this project proposal would be a major
enhancement for Orange: I) the major need for space to provide all the additional services and programs;
2) this library will provide significant civic and ceremonial presence in our downtown area, one that is
sorely needed; 3) and it would really enforce our Old Towne District downtown as the Heart of our City,
as well as the Historical Center.
Ms. Jacob introduced the architects from LPA, Jim Wirick, Rick DiMatto and Keith Hemphill.
23
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
Rick DiMatto provided a powerpoint presentation, which was an abbreviated version of what has already
been seen. Going back to why we originally wanted to close Center Street, we looked at the original Old
Town Orange, the Sandborne fire map. Center Street was not going through at that time, 1905. It wasn't
until 1908 that Center Street goes all the way through, but the area is still called the Library Track. Why
do we want to close Center Street: safety for children and the elderly trying to cross the street to enter the
Library; stewardship by using as much of the existing Library as possible and expanding to the west
seemed to be the best option for that; traffic, concern about using Center Street as an access into the
Library; and historic precedent in restoration of the Library Track.
Mr. DiMatto showed some of the previous site studies that led to the ultimate preferred design. The plan
has evolved into a dual-entry, which takes you from the parking lot as well as from Chapman Avenue.
We're trying to utilize as much of the existing Library as possible, so we're using the existing "Orange"
which hangs in the center of the Library as a terminate point and it defines where the children's area
starts. We have meeting rooms that open off the garden space and can be closed down after hours; there
are stack areas, friends of the library bookstore, administrative areas that wrap around the edge, audio
visual, a children's library, having direct access off the children's garden, restrooms and circulation faces.
The second level, there is "reference" at the top of the stairs, stack areas, literacy center, local history
center which takes advantage of a new tower element and forms the tower reading room, we look at
recessing mechanical space into the building to eliminate mechanical screens sitting on top of the
building, restrooms, and circulation.
He spoke about the architectural style - Spanish Colonial Revival. The styles selected are based on roof
forms, the flat roof with the prairie influence, flattened arch, square and open and the entry always applied
to that form; hip roof using square openings, the concept of a base, middle and top and simple planes; the
gable gave us deeply recessed entries, simple planes, and a full arch combined with a segmented arch.
They presented the flat roof and hip roof alternatives.
Vice Chair Pruett asked if the Commissioners had questions. There were none and Vice Chair Pruett
opened Public Hearing.
Speakers: Ann Siebert, 340 S. Olive, representing OTPA. Ms. Siebert stated she was in favor of the
project, while opposing the closing of Center Street also realize it's the best solution to obtain the
funding. She expressed her concern at losing Edwards House, a contributing historic resource, and
suggested a condition for a predetermined location for the house.
Paula Soest. 143 N. Shaffer Street. Applauds the teamwork exhibited by the community, the library
representatives, the Planning Commission, the Design Review Committee, and the City Council and of
course, LP A. Experiences traffic and congestion of cars trying to enter and exit the Shaffer driveways.
From 3:00 - 6:00 PM, the traffic gets backed up accompanied honking horns, screeching tires, fender
benders, and irate high school children trying to cross the street. Opposes any entry/exit on Shaffer. She
referenced differences in the traffic study, page 4-15 suggests no adverse impact on traffic; then on page
3-71 of the same report, it indicates that there will be significant traffic increase and there is no specific
solution identified.
Al Ricci. 192 N. Shaffer. Supports the Library, but not an entry or exit on Shaffer. Shaffer will already
be impacted because the traffic on Center. Any ingress/egress at Shaffer should be eliminated. Traffic
lights could be installed to facilitate the in/out of the Library and the pedestrian traffic or the existing
lights on Shaffer and Grand could be synchronized to facility turns in/out of the Library.
Richard (Sandv) Ouinn. 164 N. Shaffer. Concerned and disturbed by the traffic and it's compounded by
the anchors, the park, the Library, Orange High School, and Chapman University. Indicated he is for the
24
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
Library plans as he sees the renderings but concerned about traffic and the entry/exit on Shaffer. Should
address traffic on Chapman only.
Wendv Sabin. 176 N. Center Street. In favor of Library project and likes the flat roof. It would be a
horrible mistake to take the traffic off Center Street onto Shaffer. Including a cul-de-sac on Center Street
is a mistake since there is no place to park now. Please permit the 100 block of Center. The neighbors
were forgotten about when it came to the staging area for redoing the Circle, no one had concern for the
noise in our neighborhood. In looking at building this, there should be some guidelines for handling the
noise impact.
Bob Hitchcock. 195 N Shaffer Street. Favors Library proposal but asks that they not be burdened with
more traffic by putting an exit on Shaffer. The solution would be to have all exits and entrances on
Chapman. Thinks the extra cost of a hip roof would far outweigh the cost of maintenance of a flat roof.
Trace Weatherford. 174 N. Shaffer. Was told by the Real Estate agent in 2000 that the \00 block of
Shaffer was the best block in Old Towne and thinks it had more to do with the people than the traffic.
Otherwise loves the Library and is in full support of getting the funds in round one of the Bond Act.
Ditto to everything that has been said.
Al Truehart. 135 N. Cleveland. Indicated he was new to the project and attended meeting to get
information. Was drawn to the project because it's an historical area and doesn't know of any precedent
for cul-de-sac, a developmental feature from building large houses. Doesn't like the idea of changing the
traffic patterns of City. Supports sub-libraries and more main libraries in the East areas. Doesn't like the
idea of having one more large structure. Realizes the library needs space but it should be spread out for all
the people of Orange.
Vice Chair Pruett closed the Public Hearing and directed questions to Staff.
Commissioner Brandman stated that as a past President of the Orange Library and understands the need at
the current location. There will be other smaller libraries out east as a result of the building out there.
Prefers the hip roof, especially after the events of 911. There are also issues in managing the flat roof.
Regarding the windows, Mayor Pro Tern Alvarez was very clear about the type of windows, they were
slanted in, recessed, and concrete or stone, more an element of the Revival Style. Councilman Cavechi
was strong on that also. She posed the question to Ms. Sully.
Ms. Sully indicated that these are conceptual drawings, yet very close to the final form; however, the
Design Review Committee will have the opportunity to review the architecture and make refinements to
the design after project approval as a condition of approval.
Commissioner Brandman continued as far as not permitting access on Shaffer St, she understands the
concern and supports them but questions what happens to the design if access/egress is implemented on
Chapman.
Vice Chair Pruett concurred that the question was viable and was raised by many of the speakers. He
apologized to the community for having overlooked the issue and asked for a response from Staff.
Ms. Sully asked to defer to the City's Traffic Engineer, Roger Hohnbaum.
Mr. Hohnbaum said the proposal is for three driveway accesses, two full accesses off of Chapman and
one limited term access, right turn only, off Shaffer. The purpose is to provide enough egress so that
traffic does not back up on the site. The traffic study indicated that with only two driveways onto
Chapman, it would create a significant impact on site because of the lack of egress. As a mitigation
25
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
measure, rather than have a full access on Shaffer, and there are two now, they are proposing only one, a
right out only. Mr. Hohnbaum indicated he had heard the testimony that traffic does backup on Shaffer,
and this certainly wouldn't help that situation, but it would channel traffic from the parking lot, down
Shaffer, to the signalized intersection and allow traffic to enter Chapman through a signalized
intersection. Each side of that stretch of Shaffer is Commercial. It would be controlled in the design, the
technical term is "pork chop", basically the roadway is funneled over and you would have to make a
pretty radical move to be able to turn and go north.
Commissioner Bonina asked ifthere was any other way to address the egress issue and modifY the access
off to Chapman.
Roger Hohnbaum indicated that it was looked at and would have to increase the number of turning lanes
onto Chapman, which poses a problem, especially if two cars are trying to turn in the same direction. It
poses a further problem, and we discussed parking and the need for an Administrative Adjustment, we're
trying to utilize as much every square foot in the parking lot, as much as possible, to provide for that
parking. So not really, there are really only two points where you can connect into Chapman to provide
for the onsite parking, you have to have the entrance and exits lanes the width they are. If they are any
wider, provide additional out-lanes. It would impact the parking, and the only other point to connect into
the parking lot is right off of Shaffer.
Vice Chair Pruett said that as he understands it, to not have an exit capability on Shaffer would basically
render the project unmitigated. Is that correct?
Mr. Hohnbaum affirmed, you would have an unmitigated significant impact by having only two exits.
Vice Chair Pruett said the letter that was submitted to him proposed "cul-de-sac" Shaffer as well.
Mr. Hohnbaum said he would like to note that the environmental document traffic study was a feasibility
study for the closure of Center Street. It analyzed the traffic impacts of what that closure would mean. It
was found to be feasible to close Center Street, however, prior to that closure, the City does not abandon
street or close streets without holding a public hearing through the Council and that same process would
have to be used for Shaffer Street. Shaffer Street has not been analyzed but would suggest a look at the
volume based on some of the comments made tonight that the closure of Shaffer and Center would create
probably a significant impact that could not be mitigated, so we'll have to pick and choose.
Commissioner Bonina commented that the last time he saw the design he had quite a few concerns, but it
has come a long way and he really likes it. Appreciates the two entrances, the main on in the back takes
the traffic off of Chapman. Someone in the audience brought up permitting Center Street and that may be
something we need to look into because we have already identified that parking is fairly tight. Ideally,
would prefer not to have the Shaffer egress, but understanding the constraints, a right turn makes sense.
Commissioner Bonina said he likes the hip roof and supports the project.
Vice Chair Pruett acknowledged Staff.
To address Ms. Soest's issue on traffic, Roger Hohnbaum indicated that one of the Errata notations was
that the preliminary analysis of the Circle made several assumptions. First the traffic circle is fairly
unique feature, not only in Orange but also in the State. The industry does not have standard
methodologies for analyzing the traffic impact of a traffic circle. The analysis done came up with an
impact that fell below our acceptable level of service. But looking at the additional traffic, the project
would assign or add to this is deemed to be insignificant. According to the analysis, we should be looking
at significant of level of services today. We couldn't correlate that with what we saw today and for that
26
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes
May 6, 2002
reason determined that the analysis was not representative and have excluded that from the presentation
and documented information.
Vice Chair Pruett said for the public's information that was calculated based on a "T-intersection" and
obviously, the Circle is not a "T-intersection" and it was not an appropriate model.
Chris Carnes indicated that one of the concerns was about noise in the construction of the facility in
comparison to the noise in the Plaza. The Plaza project took place at night and this project is restricted to
what the Orange Municipal Code allows, which is construction during weekdays, not on weekends,
afternoons, Saturday or Sunday, or Federal Holidays. So this project should not have the noise impact the
Plaza reconstruction project had.
Vice Chair Pruett noted there are several mitigations dealing with that particular issue so we stay within
the prescribed noise level.
Mr. Carnes continued that another comment had to do with the recent accident at Shaffer and the entrance
to the parking lot. The proposed site plan has 30 ft. setbacks to the first parking spaces off the Chapman
driveways. There should be no conflict between of cars entering and backing out of spaces near a public
street.
Mr. Carnes noted another concern, cul-de-sacs. Staff did review a few options of dead-ending the street
into a "T", such as you see south of La Veta Avenue. There are a couple of dead-end streets where it just
stops. There were some designs done, but it was decided they just didn't function. They created
liabilities and the Public Works Department could not maintain them or would be very expensive in terms
of street cleaning.
Mr. Carnes said the third point was a comment about the Library being centralized here on the west side
of town, and a fourth point concerned the Edwards House. Nora Jacob will respond to those.
Ms. Jacob began noting this is the first step in a 20 Library Master Plan process. That Master Plan
identified several things that needed to be done in the City of Orange. One is that we need another branch
library in the east part of town. The consultants recommended that we focus on the Main Library first
because it serves the entire City, although it's located downtown. Our survey of where library users came
from showed us they came from all over the City. Another reason we chose this location was the mass
transit connection. Another reason is we have the land now and could make it by round one. We do not
have land out east, so we were very pragmatic as to what project Orange could go for.
Ms Jacob addressed Ms. Siebert's comments about the Edwards House. There are a number of mitigation
measures about maintaining and preserving it. One reads, " The Edwards House and all parts, post,
columns, etc. shall be moved to a location an Old Towne location." Then there a other mitigation
measures that spell out that will be done, we're very intent on preserving it, as well, and look forward to
partnering with OTPA on that. To the best possible efforts we can make, we're going to keep it and keep
it safe.
Ms. Sully addressed the comment regarding the permit parking on Center Street. There is a mitigation
measure that requires, after six months of opening and operating the new Library expansion, the City shall
conduct a study for on street parking for the 100 block of north Shaffer Street and north Center Street. If
off-site parking is deemed to have increased, the City will consider initiating a parking program for both
streets.
27
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
May 6, 2002
Mr. Hohnbaum added the area is currently within our Parking Area A, that area impacted by the
University, so if indeed that study does indicate a need for permit parking, then really need to issue
permits for it.
Vice Chair Pruett indicated from what he heard today, the problem is not tomorrow or when we have the
Library, it already exists today. Believes Staff should take the issue and determine if it is something to
look at immediately.
Commissioner Romero said he lives in East Orange and had initially heard the Library would be built out
there and would have liked to see it in his neighborhood, but obviously with the construction here, it's
much more central to the entire City, not just East Orange. The expansion will allow for efficiencies of
cost with the location being much more simple as opposed to out in the east. The use of the State funds,
the source of funds, the expansion of an existing building, all of these are allowing a good efficient use of
money. Commissioner Romero indicated he is also in favor of the hip roof and believes the mitigation
measures will help to keep traffic from Shaffer Street. It's an excellent project for the City.
Vice Chair Pruett commented he attended one of the earlier workshops and doesn't see how the project
can be accomplished without closing Center Street. Likes the concept of having dual entrances on
Chapman and on the rear of the building. Likes the hip roof and wants the record to show for the Council
there is a consensus of the Commission for the hip roof, different from the Design Review Committee.
Vice Chair Pruett concluded it's a great project and thinks the City's will benefit from it and the strategies
for mitigating the different issues to address all the impacts are great. The only issue still creating a lot of
concern by those testifying today is the issue of the egress onto Shaffer from the parking lot, but there will
still be further review. He said he doesn't want anyone to walk away feeling it's a "done deal". There
will be further review and there are options to work with.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve Resolution No. PC 12-
02 recommending to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit 2406-02, Major Site Plan
Review 218-02, Administrative Adjustment 9-02, Mitigated Negative Declaration 1688-02 with Errata
dated May 6, 2002, including the Findings and Conditions for Approval as outlined in the Planning
Commission Staff Report.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
NOES:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero
None
Smith
None
MOTION CARRIED
INRE:
ADJOURMENT
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Romero to the next regular meeting on
Monday, May 20, 2002.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
Commissioners Brandman, Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 12:45 a.m.
28