2001 - May 21
/oJ .
c~ c~_J-6--u_
(!,?jro' G-,l. 3-
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
May 21, 2001
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
ABSENT:
None
STAFF
PRESENT:
Karen Sully, Planning Manager,
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney,
Jerry Bailey, Design Manager - Public Works
Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary
Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to pull both items off of the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
MOTION CARRIED
1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF MAY 7, 2001 - pulled for
discussion.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve the Minutes of May 7,
2001 with a correction to the last page of the Minutes. Correction: The motion to adjourn was seconded by
Commissioner Carlton rather than Commissioner Romero.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith
None
Commissioner Romero
MOTION CARRIED
2. REVIEW OF PARKING MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS (pLAN) FOR CHAPMAN
UNIVERSITY, DATED JANUARY 23, 2001 (Continued from the March 19 2001 meeting) -
pulled for discussion.
The Parking Management Plan is a requirement of the Major Site Plan Review approval of a four-story, 350
bed dormitory building to be constructed at Chapman University located east of Grand Street, and north of
Walnut Avenue (Resolution No. PC 31-00, approved by the Planning Commission on April 17, 2000).
Chair Smith acknowledged that the Commission received a letter from Roy Shahbozian at 3808 East Palm
Avenue#P.
Ms. Sully reported that on March 19, the Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the January 23,
2001 Parking Management Recommendations Plan for Chapman University. The Commission requested
that specific management plan action items be solidified including the monitoring of on-street parking, the
mandatory parking permit system, designation of contact persons for move-in and move-out days,
coordination with the City on neighborhood permit parking programs, and the establishment of parking
Planning Commission Minutes
May 21. 200]
penalties and solutions to dormitory parking needs. The Commission noted that the All Faiths Chapel was
not listed as a near-term project and should be included in the scope of the Management Plan. Other clean
up items were also identified at that meeting, and the item was continued until May 2], 2001. The applicant
and their consultants have been working with staff to address these issues and concerns, and prepared
material attached to the staff report for the Commission's review.
The public hearing was opened.
John Biggs, Proiect Manager for Chapman University, introduced the consultant who worked with them on
the Parking Management Plan.
Paul Wilkinson, Law & Greenspan Engineers, took questions from the Commissioners about the Parking
Management Plan.
Commissioner Romero did not attend the March 19 meeting, but he reviewed the Minutes. He asked about
the parking program for Freshmen. He believed they were at fault more so than the Sophomores, Juniors and
Seniors. But he didn't see anything specifically in the responses relating to the parking program for
freshmen with regard to their understanding of the problems of the City, residences, etc. He did not see
anything addressing penalties or disincentives. He would like to see more definitive fines/penalties. He also
questioned the enforcement and monitoring of the students parking in other areas rather than on campus.
Mr. Wilkinson did not believe the problem is with the Freshmen students. He thought the people who have
attended the campus longer have the opportunity of cultivating the worst habits. Their field study work
indicates that there is enough parking supply at Chapman University. They are trying to get people to use
the parking spaces. The Management Plan treats everyone equally. All students will be made aware of the
program and all students will be required to purchase a parking permit. All students will receive in their
orientation packets the Parking Management Plan for both the Universal and the City. They added the
University's code of conduct to the plan. And, the University will take action to add abuse of their own
parking program or the City's parking program. Pages 3 and 4 refer to the code of conduct. Mr. Wilkinson
eXplained the University does not enforce parking on a public right-of-way.
Commissioner Carlton asked if there are secured bike racks on the campus? Mr. Wilkinson responded that
there are bike racks throughout the campus.
Commissioner Pruett asked when parking permits are applied for, are they assigned to a particular vehicle or
can they be transferred from vehicle to vehicle? He wanted to know if a license number can be affixed to the
actual permit. And, he asked if vehicle license numbers are kept in the University's database?
Mr. Wilkinson understands that the permit is issued to the student and the student assigns the permit to a
vehicle license number, which is recorded. Should the student need to move the sticker to another vehicle,
they can do so, but they must notifY campus safety. Vehicles and license numbers are tracked.
Chair Smith lives in the ]00 block of North Shaffer. She said there are three (3) students who park on her
block every Monday, Wednesday and Friday and walk four or five blocks to the campus for classes. They
opt to walk that distance rather than to use Chapman University's parking permits. In the Implementation
Plan, Page 3, Item 8 the conduct code is mentioned, and it is also mentioned under the City's Neighborhood
Parking Program. It is mentioned again under Item 12 under Parking, Fees and Regu]ation. This is much
more detailed than the City has seen before. She personally appreciates that the University heeded the
Commission's recommendations. It states in the Program that Chapman University will provide a report to
2
Planning Commission Minutes
May 21. 2001
the City in six (6) months on the effectiveness of the Parking Management Plan, and annually thereafter.
She wanted to know who that report will be done by and given to (Page 2 ofIssues and Responses).
Ms. Sully responded that the consultant would make the report to planning staff. Planning staff will bring
this item back to the Commission after six (6) months, and then staff will review on an annual basis
thereafter.
Jackie Gomez-Whitelv, Administrative Traffic Sergeant with OPD, explained that the Police Department is
responsible for two portions of the Neighborhood Permit Parking Program as it relates to the area that
encompasses Chapman University. They are responsible for the issuance ofthe NPPP (Area A), and this is
separate from the permits that are issued by Chapman University. In January 2001, all nine (9) areas of the
City were issued new parking permits, and adjustments were made in the program in order to decrease the
misuse of parking permits. They limited the number of parking permits issued to each household, based on
type of property. Chapman University owns 47 properties so special color-coded permits were made for the
students. The permits are to be renewed on an annual basis. They also handle the monitoring and
enforcement of all nine (9) parking areas, with the majority of their time being spent in the downtown area,
in and around Chapman University. As of July 2000, the Police Department has three (3) full-time parking
control officers. They also have full-time police service officers who are responsible for handling calls for
service and parking control issues. She spoke to the special events at the University. In some instances, the
University requests that suspension of parking permits be approved when there are graduations. But, over
the weekend, that wasn't the case. The PD received calls regarding a high volume of vehicles parking
without permits in the neighborhood areas surrounding the University. She believes it is incumbent upon
the University to have some type of procedure or planning method for either notifYing the PD or more
importantly, going to the City Council to get some type of suspension for special event parking.
Commissioner Pruett wanted to know if information could be exchanged with the University when students
are issued parking tickets.
Sgt. Gomez-Whitely and Mr. Sheatz both discouraged providing the University with a list oflicense plate
numbers because of staffing and budget constraints. Legally, there is a problem of turning over a list of
license plate numbers that were issued in a certain area.
Commissioner Carlton asked what criteria is used when issuing parking permits for the 47 homes owned by
Chapman University?
Sgt. Gomez-Whitely explained the PD's procedure for these 47 homes. The stickers are color-coded and
have a one-year expiration date. For single-family homes, the property would receive 7 permits. Duplex
properties are given 4 permits (2 units) for a total of 8 permits. An apartment complex is given 3 permits for
each unit.
Commissioner Romero asked if the PD has developed and maintained a database for monitoring the
Neighborhood Parking Permit Program.
Sgt. Gomez-Whitely said the PD has developed a database and her staff has walked and surveyed the
downtown area. But, without doing an investigation, they do not know if tickets are given to Chapman
University students, nor do they discuss the citations with the University. They could look into the
possibility of sharing with the University the quantity of tickets written on a monthly basis, if it would be
helpful for the overall impact of the Parking Management Program.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
May 21. 2001
Gary Brahm, Executive Vice President of Chapman University spoke about the special event that took place.
He believed only about 40 students or less graduated, and given the availability of the parking structure and
other campus parking, it was not anticipated that there would be a significant problem.
Commissioner Pruett suggested that it might be appropriate on special occasions to put up temporary signs
that direct people to available parking areas on campus.
Public comments were made at this time:
Roy Shahbozian, 3808 East Palm Avenue #P, did not want to omit from the conversation a program to
reduce the demand for parking on the campus. That can include providing some kind of vehicles available
for residents at the dorms, having bike lockers and showers for students. There are also a couple of busses
at the train station and he believes there is a great potential to increase ridership of the transit opportunities
and reduce the parking demand in the area.
Closing remarks by Chapman University:
Mr. Biggs believed the consultant presented a complete recap of what they have done. They have looked at
the issues and have an operational plan to implement and monitor the Parking Management Plan. There
have not been discussions about specifying the penalties for repeat violators of the Parking Program.
Commissioner Pruett is very pleased with the Parking Management Plan because it has addressed many
issues. He doesn't see the need of addressing repeat violators at this time. They need to move forward and
try to refine the Program as it is implemented and used. It is also important for the public to recognize that
there is a group of representatives from the City who will be working with the University.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Carlton thanked the University for all of their work in addressing the Commission's issues.
She did not think it was in the Commission's purview to get into the consequences for parking violations;
that is up to the University to develop their own system.
Chair Smith thought the University has done a fine job in taking the comments from the public, City staff
and the Commission and putting them in good form. The document is very tangible and specific. She asked
that the University come up with a specific penalty code for violators that they cite. She also asked that the
specific consequence be spelled out somewhere in writing to the University community for violations. She
suggested that the penalties coincide as closely as possible with the City's penalties. She also asked to
incorporate into the Plan the reality that the Police Department inform Chapman University of the number of
parking violations that do occur in Area A, around the University. She is concerned that the 47 owned
properties by Chapman University and each property gets 7 parking permits - automatically, Chapman gets
329 permits in that area. She wondered if7 are really needed for each property.
Commissioner Carlton appreciated the Chair's comments, but did not think it was appropriate to add all of
them to the motion. She would agree to including a menu of violations in the Implementation Manual.
Commissioner Pruett didn't even agree with that. The Plan lies out that the students will be subject to the
code of conduct, which establishes behavioral guidelines. The University needs to have some flexibility. If
the parking plan comes back to the City and it shows that there are some problems, then the University can
look at it and make amendments. The City needs to work with the University in resolving those issues at
that time. He does not believe it is the City's role to manage the plan.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
May 21. 2001
Commissioner Romero thanked Commissioner Pruett for his comments. He applauds the University for
their revised Plan. He encouraged the residents living around the University to keep the City informed about
the parking problems.
Chair Smith asked that reporting on the number of parking violations in and around the University be
included in the 6-month report.
The Commission and staff talked about the Commission's role of reviewing the 6-month report.
Commissioner Pruett did not believe it was the Commission's role to review what staff is carrying out. But,
if staff has problems in implementing the plan, then they could bring it back to the Commission for review
and direction. Ms. Sully stated the 6-month report should be submitted to the Director of Community
Development, which is not specified in the Plan. The report will be reviewed by City staff.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to receive and file Parking
Management Recommendations (plan) for Chapman University (January 23, 2001), Addendum to Parking
Management Recommendations for Chapman University (April 26, 2001), and the Implementation Manual
for the Chapman University Parking Management Plan (April 26, 2001). The Plan shall be submitted to the
Director of Community Development for review by City staff within six (6) months.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
MOTION CARRIED
RECESS - Chair Smith recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
INRE:
NEW HEARINGS
Commissioner Carlton requested to move Item 4 forward at this time, to be heard before Item 3.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to move Item 4 forward at this
time.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
MOTION CARRIED
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2368-01 - JERRY PHUNG (JOEY'S IT ALlAN KITCHEN)
A proposal to allow the on-site consumption of beer and wine (Type "41" license) for a restaurant in the C-2
zone. The site is located at 424 South Main Street, #D. No construction is associated with this request.
NOTE:
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (Section 15301; Class I, Existing Facilities).
Ms. Sully gave a brief introduction to this item.
5
Planning Commission Minutes
May 21. 200]
Commissioner Romero noticed that there were no specific conditions to address the outside dining area. He
wanted to know if the outside dining area was conditioned to be removed with approval of the project.
Jay Eastman, staff planner, responded the draft resolution contains conditions, which requires the applicant
to remove the outside dining area (conditions 8 and 9).
The public hearing was opened.
John Petsas, 2001 East 4th Street, Santa Ana is the agent for the applicant. They are requesting to sell beer
and wine with their meals. They have read and agreed to the conditions of approval.
The public hearing was closed.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve Conditional Use
Permit 2368-0] subject to the conditions stated in the draft resolution presented by staff.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
MOTION CARRIED
3, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 169-01 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1668-01 -
CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY'S PROPOSED ALL FAITHS CHAPEL AND DEMOLITION OF
CHEVERTON HALL WITH THE SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OF A 163-SPACE
TEMPORARY PARKING LOT
A proposal to construct an approximate 10,868 square foot All Faiths Chapel with associated amenities at
the northwest corner of University Drive and Orange Street (surface parking lot). This application also
includes the demolition of the existing 70 unit Cheverton Residence Hall located at 555 North Center Street
(east of Braden Hall, west of Shaffer Street), and the subsequent construction of a new] 63-space temporary
surface parking lot for residence hall parking. Both projects are within the Chapman University Specific
Plan area.
NOTE:
Negative Declaration 1668-0 I was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this
project.
Ms. Sully reported that the proposed project represents the continued development of the Chapman
University campus. Plans for a chapel on the campus have been years in the making. The demolition of
Cheverton Residence Hall would precede the construction of a temporary parking lot for short-term resident
parking needs. The ultimate disposition of the property is unknown at this time. In April, 2000, the
Planning Commission approved the construction and development of a 4-story, 350-bed dormitory building
located on the Chapman University campus. Prior to that, in 1997, the Kennedy Law School was approved
and has since been constructed and is now occupied. Specific development on the Chapman campus is
divided at Walnut Avenue into academic and residential zones. The chapel is located in the academic zone
and the proposed temporary parking lot is located in the residential zone. The site of the proposed chapel is
located within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. No historical resources occupy the site of the
proposed chapel, and there are no contributing historical buildings adjacent to the west edge of the project
site. The site of the temporary parking lot is not located in the historic district. In terms of City planning
and zoning regulations, the Chapman University campus is regulated by the Chapman University Specific
Plan, that was adopted in May, 1989, and has had three (3) subsequent amendments. This proposal does not
6
Planning Commission Minutes
May 21. 2001
require, or necessitate an amendment to the Chapman University Specific Plan, since the specific
development requests are processed and permitted through a site plan and design review process.
Dan Ryan, Senior Plan Historic Preservation, presented a description of the new chapel and parking lot, as
outlined in the staff report.
Staff believes that the development and construction of the All Faiths Chapel and the temporary parking lot
will be an enhancement and benefit to the University campus. The projects are both consistent and in
accordance with all the applicable zoning and design guidelines and regulations.
Chair Smith noted for the record that DRC's approval was three (3) people present and three (3) people
absent.
The public hearing was opened.
John Biggs. Proiect Manager, Chapmen University introduced the architectural team who made a
presentation to the Commission.
David Martin and Bob Murrin, AC Martin Partners, Inc., I West 7th Street. Los Angeles, presented a floor
plan for the All Faiths Chapel. The architecture of the chapel must communicate a sense of spirituality and
a sense of worship. The evolution of the design is that it becomes a metaphor for a journey. The worship
space is circular to encompass the congregation and to pull it together. Mr. Martin presented a series of
slides that described and portrayed the chapel in detail. He also presented a color and materials board.
Bill Cathcart, 134 South Glassell, is the landscape architect for the project. The landscape design attempts
to surround this area with significant color and landscape treatment. He eXplained the different plants and
trees that are proposed for the chapel area.
Commissioner Carlton asked if there was a subject or theme for the stained glass. She wanted to know if
this were an original plan, or has it been used elsewhere. She asked how many community meetings were
held and how many people attended those meetings. She wanted to know the reasoning behind not building
the first rendering of the chapel in favor of a more modem building that is being proposed now.
Mr. Martin said there would be stained glass in the chapel and the theme will relate to nature, water and a
number of elements that bridge all religions. The notion of how the building is structured is original to
Chapman University. He attended two University-sponsored meetings and two Design Review meetings.
The response at the University-sponsored meeting was 50-50. They responded to the criticism that was
voiced at both meetings. One of the changes that was made as a result of these meetings was to lower the
angle of the slope of the roof to soften the building. The combination of the plaster and limestone is another
change. The back elevation has been restructured to improve the building. And, the skylights have been
tapered to be less rigid.
Mr. Martin also talked about the proposed spire on the chapel, interior seating inside the chapel, and the
materials proposed to be used on the building, in response to Commissioner Carlton's questions.
Gary Brahm, Executive Vice President, Chapman University, talked about the existing chapel that is located
off campus. They have not decided what to do with that building once the new chapel is constructed. He
further explained that they looked at the feasibility of building the first rendering of the new chapel, did a
cost estimate, and it was a committee decision that it was not really the most suitable approach to take
7
Planning Commission Minutes
May 21. 2001
because it was extremely expensive. Therefore, the committee decided to look at an alternative project that
would address their needs.
Commissioner Pruett read from the Negative Declaration, which states that the unique function of a chapel
necessitated different design criteria than what is found within residential and/or academic zones on campus.
It further states that the unifying elements that tie the Chapel to other neo-classical buildings on campus is
principally defined in the use of similar building materials and colors found on campus. He would like to
better understand the problems that were presented in neo-classical building design for the Chapel. He
asked what is the challenge for the architect.
Mr. Martin said the chapel is located between two modem buildings. They want to make the chapel an
interesting place for people to discover an environment for worship and meditation. He thinks it is an
appropriate expression and believes that the architecture of the building is a good neighbor. A neo-classic
design tends to lean towards the Protestant religion. They wanted to have a common design theme for all
religions because there are six or seven different faiths represented on campus.
Chair Smith wanted to know it Mr. Martin is familiar with Old Towne. He responded that he designed the
law school and other buildings and projects on campus. He thought he had a good knowledge of the history
and what some of the issues are.
Chair Smith asked the question because one of the criteria for the project is that it has to fit in with the
Chapman University Specific Plan. Part of the Specific Plan says that it is supposed to ensure that the new
architectural forms are compatible with the existing architecture of the campus, and are consistent with the
City's Southwest Redevelopment Design Standards, and the Old Towne Design Guidelines. She is
struggling to see how the new chapel fits with the Old Towne Design Guidelines.
It almost looks like the design of the building was done and then the University is looking for a way to make
this relate to the design guidelines. The only compatibility is mentioned in the materials.
Mr. Martin emphasized that the chapel should be separate and removed from the rest of the campus. That's
the idea of the spiritual space; it shouldn't be like the material world. This is a one-story building and it is
not visible from Glassell. The building is substantial in its intent, but not in its volume.
Public comments:
3 people spoke in opposition to the proiect:
Anne Siebert, 340 South Olive, spoke on behalf of OTP A's Board of Directors.
Janet Crenshaw, 464 North Shaffer
Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange.
Their testimony indicates the following:
OTP A members want a design that is compatible with the surrounding community and one that respects the
National Register Historic District in which it is located. They feel that the project is not compatible with the
Historic District. They want the primary entry to the University's campus to be appealing and
complimentary to the Historic District. They state that the materials don't make the building per se. They
also feel that there doesn't seem to be a rhytlun to the project and it does not embrace the whole campus, nor
does it tie together historic elements with the more modem BIT building. Further testimony given indicates
that the Specific Plan states that it is important that the architectural design be compatible with the
neighborhood and written comments by the Director of Community Development of specific findings for
future projects at Chapman University and their compatibility with the neighborhood has not been presented.
8
Planning Commission Minutes
May 21. 2001
Disappointment was expressed with the new chapel project. They feel there is disrespect for the
preservation of the neighborhood with the state of disrepair that the current chapel has fallen into. They feel
the chapel does not meet the Design Standards of Chapman's Specific Plan, the Southwest Redevelopment
Design Standards or the Old Towne Design Standards; that significant changes have not been made to the
chapel. They concluded that the University believes that the color and texture of the project are sufficient to
make it compatible and that Chapman University has not worked with the community.
6 people spoke in favor of the proiect:
Reverend Connie Regener, 3961 MacArthur Blvd., Newport Beach - sits on the Advisory Board for the All
Faiths Chapel and serves as the Interfaith Director for all of Orange County for the National Conference
for Community and Justice.
Ron Farmer, 2931 Player Lane, Tustin - Dean of the All Faiths Chapel
Reverend Dan Oliver, 5750 East Crater Lake - Director of Church Relations
Reverend Christy Newton, Office of Church Relations, Chapman University
Fred Smoller, 611 North Glemose Drive - President of the Faculty Senate
WiI Mathews, 965 North Center Street - graduating student
Their testimony indicates the following:
The design for the All Faiths Chapel is a difficult problem to solve. The Interfaith Community is satisfied
that this design truly gives people the right of the freedom of worship. And, it blends in with the buildings
on campus. There are 10 different faiths on campus with other groups forming. The campus community
reflects the diversity in Orange County. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion between
students, faculty and staff as far as the input for designing the new chapel. Their goal was not to have the
chapel represent anyone faith traditionally. The building creates mystery, a sense of sacred space, a sense
of inspiring. It is something that all of the various faith groups have agreed that the chapel meets their
needs. The structure is a challenge and it doesn't fit architecturally with the rest of the Historic Old Towne,
but it can't. The architect has done a great job in presenting the universal symbols that embrace a diverse
people of faith. The chapel will be at the center of the campus. The chapel's design includes many of the
symbols of what a building can do to embrace members of all faiths. All speakers strongly support the
chapel's design. It is a new, bold idea; the design is an abstract idea. The chapel will be a tremendous
addition to the University and to the City.
Mr. Brahm said that many people were involved in the final design of the chapel. They worked with the
members of OTPA, but were not 100% successful. The design was modified, but he stated they couldn't
please everybody. The architects were very sensitive in designing a building that works with the Design
standards for the community as well as on campus.
Commissioner Pruett assumes that the University will construct some type of building in the area to the west
in the future. The outward appearance of the campus is one that is consistent and yet the chapel at the center
of the campus is much more modem.
Commissioner Carlton wanted to know where the different faith groups meet now.
Mr. Farmer responded they meet in the classrooms or the student union. The current chapel is not suitable
for most of the groups to use. The Disciples of Christ is the most active group with 100 students. The
Roman Catholic population is growing steadily and they meet on campus.
Chair Smith questioned why the existing chapel is in disrepair. She asked what the eventual plan would be
for build out where Cheverton Hall is. She received a rendering of the campus and she is concerned that
9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 21. 2001
there doesn't seem to be an architectural plan for the campus. Will the University come forward to the City
to present a Master Plan?
Mr. Biggs said the University has a plan to do the maintenance work on the existing chapel. They are
presently planning the development of the residential area to improve the parking, add additional residence
halls, but at this time their Master Plan is not at a point where they can move forward. The temporary
parking lot will allow them the flexibility to plan the rest of the area. They do plan to share their Master
Plan with the City upon its completion.
Commissioner Pruett said the Negative Declaration states the issue and tries to bring it together from the
standpoint of the unifYing elements, which tie the chapel to the neo-classic buildings on campus. The
concept he would also like to address, as a mitigating measure, is the future development that surrounds the
chapel. It will occur on the western side, fronting onto Glassell, and to the north. As the campus is
developed, it does follow the neoclassic style of the rest of the campus. He would like to put forward the
concept that as the Specific Plan continues to develop from a neo-classic approach, it becomes the element,
which the campus focuses on in terms of future buildings.
Dr. Brahm wanted the Commission to know that the University continues to meet with members of the
OTPA and planning staff to talk about their Master Plan. They want to make sure to take everyone's
concerns into account as they move forward with their projects.
Chair Smith said the chapel is very modern looking. It is not in keeping with the intent of the original
Specific Plan. Nor, does it represent the Old Towne Design Standards or Southwest Redevelopment
Standards or Chapman University's Specific Plan. She doesn't know which way the University is going.
Thirteen historic homes were given up for the site; that is part of the history of the neighborhood.
Dr. Brahm indicated that those historic homes have all been relocated to other sites; one is in Old Towne
Orange.
Mr. Martin stated that the architecture emphasizes different things. The most important thing in this case
was to create a spiritual worship space. They tried to make the perimeter pleasing and acceptable with right
angles to the rest of the campus.
Commissioner Pruett wanted to talk about other issues such as traffic circulation and parking. He
understands that the entrance on University Drive is going to be gated. To help manage the parking demand
that might be created for special events (weddings and concerts) at the chapel, he suggested that the
University provide valet parking.
Mr. Biggs responded that the gated entrance is not part of this project. Ultimately, they would like to have a
gateway type of entrance in the setback area. But, they are in the design phase and nothing has been
submitted for consideration. He spoke of the paving plans at the same grade to create a large plaza area.
He also thought valet parking could be considered as part of the University's special events, but he did not
want to see that as a condition of use for the chapel.
Mr. Biggs concluded by asking for favorable consideration of the All Faiths Chapel project.
The public hearing was closed.
10
Planning Commission Minutes
May 21. 2001
Commissioner Pruett referred to the plans and said on the existing parking it looks like they are adding an
opening in the parking area to the north in the middle row. He doesn't understand why an aisle is being
created. This interrupts the traffic circulation and creates more of a problem. At the south end of the
parking lot there are two aisles that have been created. This has created a maze.
Mr. Bailey is not sure this is reflective of the final plans. On Page 5 of the City's resolution, Condition No.
10 allows the City to continue looking at the parking lot design. He felt there is a need to review the plans
again to make sure it is consistent for good circulation.
The Commission and staff discussed traffic circulation and ingress and egress issues as it related to the
parking lot. The Commission feels the circulation plan needs to be tied down. Ms. Sully stated that the
project could be conditioned so that unresolved issues related to traffic circulation in the parking lot could
come back for final review by either the Director of Community Development or the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Carlton thought that the landscaping is very attractive. The success of their interfaith
activities is remarkable. Everyone recognizes the challenge in designing the chapel as a sacred space;
however, this is not just a Chapman University issue. It's an Old Towne issue. The elements of nature that
the University is embracing for all faiths is very valid, but the design of the chapel does not meet the Old
Towne Design Standards or is it compatible with the surrounding community or in keeping with the
Chapman University's Specific Plan. Commissioner Carlton further quotes the Specific Plan, Section 5,
indicating that she does not think the design meets the City's Southwest Redevelopment Design Standards
and Old Towne Guidelines. She states that the Chapel is certainly unique, regardless of her personal
feelings about it. She indicates that by just using similar materials does not create the compatibility that is
the intention in the Guidelines, so she cannot support the project as presented.
Commissioner Romero believes there are specific guidelines with the Specific Plan and he cannot agree with
the University's position. The project should respect the Historic District; therefore, he could not support the
project.
Commissioner Pruett has also struggled with the design issue and its compatibility with Old Towne. He
sees the benefit of the chapel on the campus and he wants to try and make it work in such a way that it
serves the needs of the campus, but yet at the same time, looking at the big picture and how the campus will
develop, it also serves the community. He finds the project to almost be acceptable.
Chair Smith stated their reference to the building has nothing to do with their feelings about what the chapel
is supposed to represent on campus. She wanted to be perfectly clear - it's not about the philosophy behind
the building; the Commission is addressing the building and the use of this particular land in the Old Towne
neighborhood. She would like to continue to work with this project. It has some elements that are
extremely solid and impressive and perhaps they can work to keep it where it is on the site and to make it
work. She disagrees with the concept that the chapel is going to only serve people who are already on
campus. This type of building is going to be a destination at some point. She struggles with the added
height of 75 feet. When the Specific Plan was written, the University promised there would only be one or
two sites where the height would be excessive. Every building that comes forward has a height element to
it. When the Specific Plan is amended, she requested that this issue be addressed. She is concerned that
there is no real architectural plan for the campus. Mr. Martin has made the linkages that are there. She can
see the artistic attempt with this building, but in this neighborhood setting, it's a little too dramatic, a little
too much of a departure from the traditional style. She didn't have a problem with the journey section and
the walls with the building in the middle. It's the building in the middle that needs to be softened a bit.
Anything built on the campus will impact the entire neighborhood every day. She asked the applicant how
do they know what is going to happen on Glassell in the future? She is sure that it is Chapman's intent to
11
Planning Commission Minutes
May 21. 200]
purchase the single story buildings along Glassell, but there is no plan in place to address these issues.
Chapman University has made great strides in working with the community and listening to the community.
However, this particular project does not look like the sensitivity that is there. It is a new and bold idea.
According to the standards, this building does not comp]y. She personally would like to see a re-design of
the elements to create a softer version of the same building. She favored a continuance of the project to
work on the building, parking and traffic circulation. She will overlook the height, the fact that there is no
master plan, that there are only 64 parking spaces, and overlook not knowing what is really being planned
for the area where Cheverton Hall is being demolished.
Commissioner Carlton would like to see a complete re-design of the building. She quoted from sections of
the Chapman University Specific Plan where it states: "Building sites should be developed in a coordinated
manner to avoid a confusing street scene of mixed architectural styles and building sca]e", "Buildings
should be sited in a manner that will be compatible with adjacent buildings and landscapes". Another
section states: "Assuring that new University development and acquisitions are aesthetically compatible
with the existing neighborhood and uses". She does not think that this has been achieved for the reason that
she stated earlier. Unless the applicant feels that they can come in with a whole new design for the building,
including the perimeter walls which are rather stark and almost looks like an industrial area with nothing
interesting and very little detail on the outside, she would vote to deny it.
Chair Smith asked the applicant if they were willing to entertain a continuance.
Mr. Biggs replied that they would not like to have it continued. They would like the Planning Commission
to take their votes. Mr. Biggs also asked if the consideration for the Cheverton Hall demolition and parking
lot is a part of the action for the Chapel.
Chair Smith believes that the two projects are directly related, but will ask for staff's clarification.
Mr. Biggs stated that the two projects are not related. The Cheverton Hall demolition and replacement
parking lot were included because the Community Deve]opment Director had encouraged them to do so.
Ms. Sully stated these are two separate projects that are within one entitlement request for the Major Site
Plan Review. She would also defer to the Ass.istant City Attorney for his opinion.
Mr. Sheatz is uncomfortable with the piece-mealing issue if the City were to go forward and allow
demolition on one project, when it is tied-in and related to another project. The environmental document
was evaluated with the two projects together. He would not like to see the two projects separated for the
purpose of avoiding piece-mealing.
Chair Smith is looking at it simplistically that to build a chapel, parking spaces would have to be taken
away. And, in order to put back those parking spaces, Cheverton Hall would have to be taken down, and
that is where she sees the connection.
Ms. Sully stated that there is no connection between the two separate projects under one entitlement. The
purpose was that staff had the information at the time for Cheverton, and staff wanted to include it with the
Major Site Plan Review application so that it would cover both approvals.
Chair Smith asked if the proposed demolition of Cheverton Hall required the approval of a replacement
project.
Ms. Sully stated that the replacement project is the temporary parking lot.
]2
Planning Commission Minutes
May 21. 2001
Chair Smith is confused because she thought that she was only reviewing the proposed construction of a
new Chapel. But now she is reviewing the new Chapel and also the demolition of a building.
Ms. Sully stated that the entitlement for the Major Site Plan Review application is two-fold. It is for the
construction of an All Faith's Chapel, and for the demolition of Cheverton Hall with the subsequent
replacement of a I 63-space parking lot.
Chair Smith asked what would happen if the Commission were to deny the Major Site Plan Review
application for the construction of the new Chapel.
Mr. Sheatz reiterated his opinion that when the application was evaluated, the two projects were taken
together as a whole. And he does not think, for the purpose of the environmental document and to avoid
piece-mealing, that the projects should be separated.
Mr. Sully further explained that it was the intent of the Community Development Director, at the time, to
consider the demolition as part of this permit. Staff had knowledge of the proposal at the time, and therefore
wanted to include it under this entitlement so as not to piece-meal the development. In terms of CEQA, the
requirement is to look at the action as a whole. The whole of the action in this case, would be both
components ofthis entitlement that have been presented tonight.
Chair Smith again asked if the applicant's answer remains the same that they would like to have a decision
tonight and not a continuance.
Mr. Biggs stated that is correct.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to deny Major Site Plan Review
MSP 169-01 - Chapman University's proposed All Faiths Chapel and demolition ofCheverton Hall with the
subsequent construction of a I 63-apace temporary parking lot, subject to a conforming resolution of denial.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Carlton, Romero, Smith
Pruett
MOTION CARRIED
Ms. Sully explained the appeal procedures to Chapman University.
INRE:
NEW BUSINESS
5. NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENV 1671 - CITY OF ORANGE
Environmental assessment identifying the potential environmental effects of a bicycle trail construction
project. The City proposes to construct the trail adjacent to Santiago Creek, extending from the
Orange/Santa Ana boundary (near the 22 Freeway creek over crossing), to Palmyra Avenue, just east of the
55 Freeway. The Negative Declaration has been circulated for public review and the review period will end
on June 4, 2001.
Joan Wolff, Principal Planner, reported that the City has concentrated quite a bit on trail planning. They
have held an extensive public planning process (approximately 13 community meetings). Two of the
meetings were specifically directed at this segment of trail. The City is proposing to build a section of trail
from the Santa Ana-Orange boundary up to approximately the 55 Freeway. They applied for several grants
13
Planning Commission Minutes
May 21. 2001
and received funding of $550,000 to construct this segment of the trail. The trail is part ofa larger Santiago
Creek Master Plan that will not only look at trails, but also a greenway and flood way component. During
the public meetings a number of people participated. The consensus at those meetings was to build a trail as
far as possible with funding that is available, and the people also agreed on the alignment ofthe trail through
Hart Park. The City's consultants have started designing the project and the Negative Declaration was
prepared. The Negative Declaration finds that with mitigation measures there will not be a significant
impact on the environment with this project. The Santiago Creek trail is one of the major backbone trails
that the City's Master Plan includes and this is simply an implementation of that Master Plan.
The public hearing was opened for public comments.
Mark Sedam, 521 Evergreen Lane, is not opposed to the bicycle trail, but to the information that maybe has
not been developed fully. The Negative Declaration is very light on its discussion of the current usage and
future use projections. The homeowners in the Sycamore Crossing residential tract are in Special
Assessment District #2, which covers the existing trail that is there on both the north and south sides of the
creek. They would be the only Assessment District for the entire trail. He felt it would be unfair to the
homeowners when the rest of the trail's year-to-year maintenance would be covered by the City.
Bob Bennvhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, spoke in favor ofthe bike trail. He indicated that
he has attended all of the community meetings. He felt it was time to get a trail system in place. The
problems can be resolved over time.
The public hearing was closed.
Ms. Wolff spoke to the Assessment District. In the Sycamore Crossing development, as a condition of
approval for the tract the developer was required to install a trail and to provide a mechanism for
maintaining it. When homeowners bought into that tract, that was part of the condition they were buying
into. The City has other homeowner associations that are maintaining parts of the trail as well. Now, as the
City establishes the additional linkages that are necessary to create the Master Plan of Trails, the City, as the
installing party, will be responsible for maintaining the trail. The Assessment District will not have their
fees increased in order to provide for the areas that are outside their specific area.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to receive and file the comments
on Negative Declaration No. ENV 1671.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
MOTION CARRIED
INRE:
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commission Pruett to adjourn to their next Planning
Commission Meeting on Monday, June 4, 200lat 7:00 p.m. The meeting of Monday, July 2, 2001 is
canceled because of a lack of items. The meeting adjourned at II :40 p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
MOTION CARRIED
/sdl
14