NTAC MESSAGE: “JUST DO IT!”

At the June 16th meeting of the North Tustin Advisory Committee (NTAC), the vote was 4-to-3 to allow expanded enrollment at Fairmont Private School, Edgewood Campus, on Newport Avenue in North Tustin. The close vote mirrored division in the audience. Passions were high on both sides of the issue. Supporters consisted largely of parents and teachers, many living outside the North Tustin area. Opponents are neighbors of the school and other residents of North Tustin and the Foothill Community Association (FCA).

Last November, NTAC unanimously rejected a different application by Fairmont to increase its enrollment to 442 students. During that hearing, Fairmont revealed its enrollment for the 2003-2004 academic year to be around 360 students, thereby exceeding allowable enrollment of 280 students by 80 students or almost 30%. After rejection by NTAC and opposition by neighbors, the county planning staff refused to forward Fairmont’s application to the County Planning Commission. Fairmont then withdrew its application.

In April 2004, the county issued a Notice of Violation to Fairmont giving it 60 days to bring its enrollment down to 280 students or face revocation of its conditional use permit (CUP). In June, Fairmont filed the new application for an enrollment increase to 360 students, thereby staying the running of the 60 day period and keeping its enrollment at 360. In doing so, it followed the strategy of asking for forgiveness rather than permission.

The NTAC meeting on June 19^th dealt with the new application. NTAC’s 4-to-3 vote recommended an increase to 320 students, requiring Fairmont to step down to that level over 3 years. In doing so, NTAC made a mockery of its own standards and precedents; because of its significance in the planning approval process, it invites the county and board of supervisors to do the same.

The county relies on self-administration for enforcing conditional use permits (CUPs). The county lacks sufficient resources to review periodically all CUPs to observe compliance. It is an honor system, much like our tax system that relies on self-assessment. It is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with conditions of the CUP. Failure to do so means failure to meet an important responsibility to the community. Rewarding CUP violators, as NTAC has done, sends the wrong message.

Most neighbors and FCA oppose expansion because of complex traffic patterns for student drop-off and pick-up and failure of Fairmont to meet minimum and adequate parking standards. These factors combine with excessive enrollment intensity per acre of campus to create a busy environment in the school’s vicinity that North Tustin residents believe is incompatible with the area’s character. These were considerations that led to limiting student enrollment to 280 in the existing CUP. My opposition follows that of my neighbors and FCA.

David Jackson, owner of the Fairmont property and president of the school, has approached me twice within the last year to express interest in purchasing my property, which is adjacent to the school. I do not know if he was interested seriously. Word has spread, however, that I am attempting to sell to Jackson (Fairmont) at an outrageous price. This word carries the implication that my opposition to Fairmont’s expansion arises from the desire to push up the selling price of my property. In fact, I vigorously opposed expansion by the school before Jackson became the owner. I have repeatedly told Jackson I intend to oppose expansion. My last letter to him explained the financial burden to me of replacing my residence in the current market, bearing in mind the problem of locating an alternative residence, transferring my property tax base and paying capital gains taxes. I will send a copy of the letter to anyone who wants to search for evidence of ulterior motives. The source of my opposition to Fairmont’s expansion proceeds from the assumption I will live at this residence indefinitely. Accordingly, I want to limit the intensity of Fairmont’s operation in the neighborhood as do other neighbors who testified at the NTAC hearing.

The NTAC decision rewards property owners who JUST DO IT, and then ask for permission. If county planning authorities and Supervisor Bill Campbell follow NTAC and allow this expansion, their action will demonstrate a lack of county standards for issuing and enforcing conditional use permits. Such action will erode confidence in officials elected and appointed to administer our laws and regulations in an objective and unbiased manner. Fairmont should be required to comply with the current conditional use permit.

Harold Dilbeck