Chapman University has again announced plans for a proposed expansion, three years after shelving plans to try and add an additional 3,500 students. This time around it's 1,800 students.

In the interim, Chapman did support the local party ordinance, which has quieted things down considerably. They also invested heavily in additional housing for students, with the acquisition of an apartment building in Anaheim, and the build-out-in-progress of the Villa Park Orchards packing house property, which will add approximately 400 beds. The Anaheim site will provide an additional 900 beds or thereabouts in the Fall of 2018 when the current leases run out and the property can be configured for students (I'm not sure that I would want to live that far from campus if I was a Chapman student, but that's a discussion for another day). Chapman will also be adding some additional parking to Panther Village on West Chapman, that will allow them to house an additional 100 students.

Prior to the housing (in progress) noted above, Chapman housed approximately 38% of its students (compared to 90%+ achieved by some 97+ other well-known colleges and universities - click here for a list from U.S. News and World Report). With the new dorms, they should be able to house approximately 50% of their students. While an improvement, it's still not enough.

Back to the proposed expansion. Chapman hasn't completed the housing in progress that will add approximately 1,400 beds, and now they want to add 1,800 more students -- we'll be 400 beds behind from where we started -- how does that make any sense?!

As one of my neighbors stated very simply during Chapman's scoping session a few years ago, 1,800 students is 600 3-bedroom houses. So if we get back 467 houses (1,400/3) when the new dorms are ready, and then add another 1,800 students (600 3-bedroom houses) then we're not only back where we started, but are 153 houses worse off!

I've stated before, I'm not opposed to having Chapman University in Old Towne Orange -- I'm just opposed to them getting any larger. We all know about the crazy person with too many cats. Most people are OK with a couple of cats, or maybe even 3 cats. When someone has 20 cats, they've probably crossed the "just- the-right-number-of-cats" line. I think Chapman is at that 2-or-3 cat happy-medium point in their existence right now, but are quickly approaching the "crazy cat person" level. Enough is enough!

Above are non-owner-occupied sales (based on tax mailing addresses) from 2008 - 2018 - approximately 550 properties (of a total of 1,818 sales) - Source: Chicago Title and CRMLS

The Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) has been in existence now for several months. While I'm not on the NAC, I know several members who are, so I tend to follow their proceedings fairly closely.

Like all large committees, progress is slow.  While there seems to be some progress being made with regard to an awareness of the issues, one glaring omission is Chapman's insistence that it wants to increase the number of students on the Orange campus, in spite of their inability to house them. This was most recently expressed in an interview with the Voice of OC, whereby Dr. Struppa reiterated his intentions to see Chapman University grow by several thousand students. The statement by Dr. Struppa touched off numerous comments by interested parties on both Facebook and NextDoor.com.

A couple of items with which I'm not comfortable:

• Chapman indicates that they will strive to be able to house 50% of their students in Chapman-owned (preferably on-campus) housing. 
• Not all of the intended growth will be at once, that it will occur gradually over the years

With regard to the first item, while that's an improvement, and we have to start somewhere, 50% seem very low, and will not significantly mitigate the impacts felt from the current overpopulation of students in the residential neighborhoods.  Many colleges and universities house 90-95% of their population.  I believe 85% is a more realistic goal for Chapman. And while difficult to achieve, would demonstrate to the community that they are serious about confronting the issue.  50% just seems like such a small step from the 35%-38% that they currently house.

With regard to the 2nd point, whether the increase in students is gradual or all-at-once is immaterial -- it's still population growth that Old Towne Orange can't currently handle.   And once Chapman gets to its goal of 50% of students living on campus, then they will need to expand on-campus housing further prior to adding more students.  If they don't, it simply puts us right back where we are now.

If you haven't already, I encourage you to read (and join) the threads on FaceBook and NextDoor.com -- interesting perspectives both for and against Chapman University's continued growth.

And I'll say it again - I'm not against Chapman University -- just against aggressive Chapman University growth.

On several occasions I've written about Chapman's proposed expansion from its current cap of 8,700 students to its proposed cap of 11,650 students.  The college has recently backed off a bit from that, due to an outcry from the community which extends well beyond the Old Towne Orange area.

But are they really backing off, or just taking a breather?  They've indicated that they will continue to move forward with additional on-campus housing -- a good start but as noted in prior posts, they're a long way from being able to make even a small dent in the need for on-campus housing (about 3,200-3,300 beds shy!).  And they haven't backed off from wanting to expand the student population from 8,700 to 11,650 -- just postponed it.  Get ready for a confrontation, because it's going to happen.

A Pattern is Emerging...

I was looking at some articles from the past -- and Orange/Chapman University have been down this path before, and it's eerily similar to what is happening now:

• Chapman proposes expansion
• Public outcry ensues
• Chapman retreats
• Chapman ultimately quietly prevails

Don't believe it?

Read the two articles below, one from 2003 and the other from 1989.  "Deja vu all over again".  The citizens of Orange need to be on their toes, as this proposed expansion may be the deal-breaker.

Like many in Old Towne Orange, I've been following with interest the news regarding Chapman University's proposed expansion.  I'm not anti-Chapman University, but I'm not in favor of them expanding beyond their current student body count -- even with additional student housing.  While it's probably a little too large for the area now, there's likely no putting the genie back in the bottle at this point, so I think it's best to construct additional on-campus housing and absorb as many of the students into that environnment as possible.

And I have to say I'm at least mildly offended by the cartoon that accompanied a recent editorial piece in the Panther (a copy is in the upper left corner of this post).  The residents of Old Towne Orange have worked extremely hard over the past 30 years, in both time and treasure, to restore the beautiful homes found throughout Old Towne.  If the students of Chapman spent a few years stripping paint, sanding floors, fighting termites, running back/forth to Home Depot, painting (and then painting some more!) they might have a better appreciation of why the local population is resisting additional expansion into our quiet community (and might reflect some of the same haggard characteristics of the old guy in the cartoon!).

A little math:  Chapman can currently only house, on campus, approximately 40% of it's current capped population -- a total of 3,480 students.  To house 85% of its students, again at the current cap, they would need 7,395 beds -- a deficit of 3,915 beds!  The two largest proposed Chapman housing projects of which I'm aware -- one Chapman owned and the other a private enterprise -- only add about 685 beds, and are years away from approval/ground-breaking/completion.

In neighbor-to-neighbor meetings, and various other Chapman-sponsored meetings, they often reference the Claremont Colleges and how the students all live harmoniously with the residents in a similar historic community.  I graduated from one of the Claremont Colleges -- there's a huge difference -- the biggest of which is that approximately 95% of the students live on campus, in college-owned housing.  From U.S. News and World Report:

- Claremont McKenna College - 94% of students live on campus
- Scripps College - 96% of students live on campus
- Pomona College - 98% of the students live on campus
- Pitzer College - 100% of full time students required to live on campus
- Harvey Mudd - 98% of students live on campus (www.collegeexpress.com)

So a goal of 85% is actually a little underwhelming.  Sizewise, the combined enrollment of all of the Claremont Colleges is slightly under Chapman's current cap (about 7,500 students), so it can be done with the proper planning and build out.  The result -- most student life, including the after hours partying, is retained within the campus walls.  The students are happy, and more importantly, the property-tax-paying residents are happy.

So Chapman, build more on-campus housing (without destroying existing historic structures and neighborhoods) and settle into being a comfortable size and a good neighbor -- then we'll all be happy.

Occasionally I'll read an article or hear a comment along the lines of "...the Realtors are driving the prices up" or recently, in the case of the Chapman University proposed expansion, "...the Realtors are making big bucks selling houses to Chapman University".  I touched on this in a prior blog post, but here's the bottom line:

• Realtors don't dictate prices.  The market (willing buyers and sellers) dictate prices.  We educate our clients on the price at which we believe their property will sell, and then they determine the price at which they would like us to market and advertise the home.  The market will quickly tell us, in true Goldilocks fashion, if the house was priced too high, too low, or just right.
  
• Realtors do not select who purchases the home.   The owner of the home makes that decision, based upon the offer or offers in front of them.  Price is only one of many factors that determine whom the seller chooses to purchase their home, as there are a myriad of factors to consider in any offer.  Is the offer contingent upon the sale of another property? Is the offer cash or is financing involved?  What is the preferred escrow period?  is the prospective buyer an owner-occupant or an investor?  Is the prospective buyer strong financially?
• Realtors (the listing agent) have a primary fiduciary responsibility to the seller of the property -- all offers must be presented to the seller -- Realtors do not pick and choose which offers the seller considers (i.e. only investors, only owner occupants, only Chapman University parents, non-Chapman parents, etc.).

• Check and Balance on the offered price -- Appraisers conduct appraisals and are a check and balance in the system to protect the lender's potential interest in the property, as well as insure that a buyer is paying close to market price for a property (and not more).  In many cases the appraisals are close to the price offered by the buyer -- or in some cases there is a sizeable disparity between the offered price and the appraised price.  If the buyer elects to continue with the purchase at the offered price in spite of a low appraisal and it closes, paradoxically now that price becomes a legitimate comparable for the next sale in the area.

In Old Towne Orange, basic supply and demand is a huge factor in the price that prospective buyers will pay.  We have a limited number of homes for sale, a great location for quality of life and for commuters, and an overall unique environment that attracts buyers. So prices go up -- Realtors aren't driving the prices up.  I was in Washington DC last week and looked at a couple of real estate ads just for fun -- by DC standards, living in Orange County is affordable:

Revised 6/25/2015: I posted the exact same poll included in the prior blog entry to www.NextDoor.com, which in my case includes Old Towne Orange and several surrounding neighborhoods.  In addition to the votes, there were also 86 comments regarding the University's proposed expansion -- the majority of comments were anti-expansion, however there were several comments regarding well-behaved students/tenants and enthusiasm for Chapman's proposed growth -- included in the 86 comments were a handful regarding Orange public schools as well.  The results of the poll were as follows (with 86 votes -- more statistically significant than the handful of votes on my blog poll) are shown below.  If you would like to read the comments, simply login to www.NextDoor.com to view and/or join the discussion:

I attended last night's City Council meeting and, as expected, there were several speakers that exercised their right to speak for up to 3 minutes on a topic not on the current meeting's agenda.  By my count, there were 6 speakers who eloquently spoke for their allotted time regarding their opposition to Chapman University's proposed expansion within the City of Orange. 

Which got me to thinking -- aside from Chapman University themselves and their consultants, at the Chapman scoping meeting of a week ago, at last night's City Council meeting, and on a long thread on NextDoor.com regarding the subject, I haven't heard anyone overtly support Chapman University's proposed expansion.  One online commenter did express that she had 2 different groups of Chapman young men living next to her over a 2-year period and that they were all well behaved and only had the occasional weekend party.  So while not directly supporting the expansion (my words -- not hers) she did want to acknowledge that not all of the off-campus students were problematic -- fair enough.

So what do you think?  Results are anonymous and you can only vote once (theoretically).  If there is enough response by June 15, 2015 I will pass the results on to the City of Orange -- so let your friends know and have them vote!

I attended the scoping meeting last night for Chapman University's proposed modifications to its current Specific Plan.  It was kind of a bloodbath, as expected.

On the one hand, Chapman wants to expand its campus and student enrollment, and on the other, residents of Old Towne Orange are pushing back hard.

The primary issue (based upon audience comments from last night and the neighbor-to-neighbor meetings I've attended) appears to be the students themselves.  Chapman University does a commendable job of adaptively reusing historic structures, blending new structures into the current environment, and restoring historic homes that they own near campus.  But there are enough problematic students living in the Old Towne Orange area (and well beyond, as I learned at the meeting) that the aesthetics of the architecture and restoration are overshadowed by the unruly students.  Chapman doesn't currently have enough on-campus housing to provide for the majority of its students, but wants to continue to increase the enrollment while providing additional housing along the way (but still in woefully inadequate numbers to accommodate current enrollment, much less expanded enrollment).

Therein lies the paradox:  As Chapman, Chapman parents, and investors acquire residential properties to house students and faculty, more students--not fewer--are housed off campus and into residential neighborhoods (and not within the confines of the campus); In addition, if bought by Chapman University, those homes are then no longer available to the general public for purchase, in all likelihood, forever.

As Realtors, we can't control who purchases homes - that is the responsibility of the seller. While many sellers want to find a nice family to inhabit their home and create memories just as they did, ultimately most concede to whomever is willing to pay the highest price -- it's just human nature.  In many cases that may be an investor, a Chapman University parent, or Chapman University themselves.  As noted prior, if Chapman University procures a residential property, it is one less home in the local inventory that we have to sell in the future.  From a quality-of-life perspective, I think that the City of Orange also has some responsibility to make certain that local ordinances and codes are enforced, especially when involving occupancy and parking issues. The City of Berkeley has done just that (click here to read their local ordinances regarding students in residential areas - mini-dorms).

To be fair, I suspect that the majority of Chapman University students are decent humans -- but it only takes a small percentage of the student body to create the wrong impression in the community.  I like to think that there is room for compromise -- as we get older we tend to forget that we were younger once and likely caused some of the same problems when we were in college.  But I also recall having a healthy fear and/or respect for adults when I was that age -- some of that may not be present in the current generation of college kids.  In the interest of full disclosure, I also don't live next door to a Chapman party house -- for those folks that do, I'm sure it's a different story.

Whether you are for or against Chapman University's expansion in Old Towne Orange, I would encourage you to make your voice heard.  Contact the City, the City of Orange Planning Commission, and the City of Orange City Council Members -- especially Planning and the City Council, as they will be the ultimate decision makers.  This will be an interesting process.  Click here for a recent article from the OC Register on the subject.

Direct your comments, for or against, to be included as a matter of public record for the environmental impact review (prior to June 15, 2015) to:

Anna Pehoushek
Acting Assistant Community Development Director
City of Orange
apehoushek@cityoforange.org

Next week, Wednesday, May 27 from 6PM - 8PM there will be a scoping meeting, open to the public, regarding Chapman University's proposed amendments to the Chapman University Specific Plan.  The meeting will be in the Weimer Room at City Hall in Orange.

If you live in Old Towne Orange, or enjoy Old Towne Orange in its current state, you definitely want to attend this meeting!  A few of the highlights from their proposed amendment:

• Increase in student enrollment from 8,700 to 11,560 students (33% increase)
  
• Increase classroom seating capacity from 5,000 to 7,500 (50% increase)
  
• Increase Specific Plan area from 58+ acres to 75+ acres (29.3% increase)
  
• Decrease maximum allowable open space from 30% to 25% of the overall campus
  

There was also a phrase embedded in the document that could be nothing, or it could have a much larger impact.  The phrase is as follows:  "an enhanced circulation discussion".  What does that mean?  Does it imply closing off streets, or multiple streets, to make the campus more contiguous? For whom is circulation being enhanced?  Students or residents?

The list of construction and demolition projects is long (and expected to be completed over the next 10 years), and will impact Old Towne Orange for not just the next 10 years, but for many, many years to come.

So what are your thoughts on the matter?  Has Chapman University's expansion and influence been positive or negative for Old Towne Orange?  I suspect that an argument could be made either way.  I'm anxious to know what YOU think!