Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2000 > December 13, 2000
Shortcuts
Downtown
Water Bill Payment
Agendas & Minutes
City Employment
State College & Raymond Grade Separation Updates
City Services
Classes
Emergency Preparedness
Online Services
Permits
Police News
Public Notices
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FULLERTON PLANNING COMMISSION

COUNCIL CHAMBERS - FULLERTON CITY HALL

WEDNESDAY December 13, 2000 4:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman LeQuire at 4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Chairman LeQuire; Commissioners Crane, Godfrey, Munson, Sandoval and Simons

ABSENT: Commissioner Allred

STAFF PRESENT: Chief Planner Rosen, Senior Planner Mullis; Program Planner Linnell; Associate Planner Viado; and Recording Secretary Stevens

ALSO PRESENT: Kimberly Hall Barlow, Deputy City Attorney

MINUTES:
MOTION by Commissioner Munson, seconded and CARRIED unanimously, that the Minutes of the October 25, 2000, meeting be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

ITEM NO. 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP-1034. APPLICANT: CLAUDIO DE LIRA; PROPERTY OWNER: RAMIN BRAL
Staff report dated December 13, 2000, was presented pertaining to a request to allow automobile dealerships in an existing office building located at 461-469 West Valencia Drive (northeast corner of Valencia Drive and Richman Avenue) (O-P zone) (Categorically exempt per Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines) (Continued from October 25, 2000).

Associate Planner Viado reminded the Commission that this item had been continued from the October 25, 2000, meeting because of unresolved items pertaining to property appearance, code violations and on-site parking. Staff had since researched the building permit file and confirmed permits were issued for a total of 6,085 square feet for all three buildings, therefore 24 parking spaces were required for this development. A revised plan was distributed to the Commission showing the 24 parking spaces, and four additional conditions of approval had been added. Staff recommended approval of the request.

Commissioner Munson recalled that staff had previously required no more than 10 automobile dealerships on site, and the present application showed 19 such uses. Associate Planner Viado clarified that staff had previously recommended 10 because of parking and other issues; however, the applicant has made the necessary improvements. Also, within 45 days of Planning Commission approval, the applicant must obtain a City inspection to determine whether all the necessary permits had been applied for by the applicant.

Commissioner Simons inquired whether automobiles were allowed to be parked on site overnight. Chief Planner Rosen stated that vehicles may be parked overnight, but long-term storage of vehicles was prohibited.

Public hearing opened.

Ramin Bral, property owner, in response to a question by Commissioner Simons, stated that there are 28 units available for lease in the two buildings. At present, all of the units were not occupied. Commissioner Simons expressed concern that there were 24 parking spaces available for 28 units, but Mr. Bral assured him that the owners of the automobile dealerships are rarely on the premises, and the street address is normally used for mail purposes only.

Public hearing closed.

There was a consensus of the Commission for approval. The title of Resolution No. 6901 ALLOWING 19 automobile dealerships in an existing office building on property located at 461-469 West Valencia Drive, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Simons, seconded and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

ITEM NO. 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP-516A. APPLICANT: JIM BAK; PROPERTY OWNER: PENTAGON INVESTMENT COMPANY
Staff report dated December 6, 2000, was presented pertaining to a request to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit allowing an existing restaurant to become a bar on property located at 500 South Raymond Avenue, Suite A (southeast corner of Raymond Avenue and Valencia Drive) (M-G zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15332 of CEQA Guidelines).

Program Planner Linnell reported that this was a request for an existing restaurant to become bar. This establishment had been in existence since 1983, and very little negative activity has occurred at this location. The bar use would be over 400 feet away from any residential zone. Staff recommended approval of the request with nine conditions of approval.

Chairman LeQuire noted that the existing sign had flashing lights, and he did not think that this was in compliance with the current sign code. Program Planner Linnell confirmed that flashing lights are in violation of the ordinance, and will investigate the matter further.

Public hearing opened.

James Bak clarified that there are two small flashing lights on the top of the sign, but would remove them if necessary. He indicated that he had read and concurred with all of the recommended conditions of approval.

Public hearing closed.

There was a consensus of the Commission for approval. The title of Resolution No. 6902 MODIFYING an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow an existing restaurant to become a bar on property located at 500 South Raymond Avenue, Suite A, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Simons, seconded and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

ITEM NO. 3
AMENDMENT A-1452. APPLICANT: CITY OF FULLERTON
Staff report dated December 6, 2000 was presented pertaining to a request to consider a comprehensive revision of the Zoning ordinance, Title 15 of the Fullerton Municipal Code (Negative Declaration) (Continued from October 11 and 25, 2000).

Program Planner Linnell reported that this was the final hearing on this matter by the Planning Commission.

Chairman LeQuire indicated that he was pleased staff had addressed the concerns which Centex Homes had discussed at the prior meeting. Program Planner Linnell confirmed that all issues had been resolved.

Program Planner Linnell added that the issue of monopoles was surfacing, and staff was recommending that language be placed in the code requiring that such requests be reviewed as a Minor Site Plan.

Commissioner Sandoval noted two corrections: on page 3 of the staff report, letter (e), the word "practicable" shall be changed to "practical", and on page 230 of the draft ordinance, in the section under Conditional Use Permits pertaining to time limits, the text refers to a period of "one year" before revocation proceedings, and on page 231, the text refers to a "six-month" period. She requested that the language be consistent, and Program Planner Linnell said that these changes would be made.

Chairman LeQuire noted that page 4 of the staff report concerned agricultural uses and stated that the keeping of bees was not allowed in an agricultural zone. He suggested that beekeeping be prohibited in the city, because of problems experienced by surrounding cities with African bees. Chief Planner Rosen reported that there were persons in the city who felt that bees were an important part of the ecosystem, and should be allowed in restricted zones.

Commissioner Crane recognized all of the staff time spent in preparing the final document, and felt it would now be easier to read.

Public hearing opened.

Mary Buckley, 500 Santa Barbara Avenue, questioned why the requirement for limited second dwellings was being changed from requiring that it be "attached to the primary dwelling," to allowing it to be a separate structure. Program Planner Linnell responded that staff felt there was no reason to require second dwellings to be attached to the main residence; in fact, there had been very few requests for limited second dwellings. Most residents desire the limited second dwelling to be detached because of privacy issues. Chief Planner Rosen added that these dwellings would still require a Conditional Use Permit, by a public hearing, and impacts must be mitigated. It also provides greater flexibility for site planning on the site, and with the floor area ratio requirement, it eliminates the possibility of overbuilding. Mrs. Buckley expressed concerned that even though a property may have a deed restriction, when the property is sold, a new owner may do whatever they desire with that unit, such as using it as a rental. Chief Planner Rosen assured her that deed restrictions run with the land, and also allow inspections by the city to determine that any restrictions are being adhered to. Further, there are a limited number of areas in the city for which these units may be approved.

MOTION by Commissioner Simons, seconded and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present, that the Negative Declaration be CERTIFIED. The title of Resolution No. 6903 RECOMMENDING to the City Council approval of a comprehensive revision of the zoning ordinance (Title 15) of the Fullerton Municipal Code, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Sandoval, seconded and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

7:00 P.M. SESSION

At this time, Chairman LeQuire acknowledged the two outgoing Planning Commissioners: Chuck Munson and Peter Godfrey. He read Certificates of Appreciation and commended both men for their contributions to the Planning Commission.

ITEM NO. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP-1036. APPLICANT: BALTAZAR CASTANEDA; PROPERTY OWNER: JUAN YBARRA, SR.
Staff memorandum dated December 13, 2000, was presented pertaining to a request to allow 10 off-site parking spaces to satisfy the parking requirements for an automotive tire installation and repair business on property located at 117-1/2 West Santa Fe Avenue (north side of Santa Fe Avenue, approximately 175 feet west of Harbor Boulevard) (M-G zone) (Categorically exempt under Class 1 of CEQA Guidelines).

Chief Planner Rosen indicated that the applicant for this matter had withdrawn his application.

(Because there were no members of the public present to speak on Item No. 5, Chairman LeQuire reversed the order of Items 5 and 6.)

ITEM NO. 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP-1037. APPLICANT: GM ASSOCIATES; PROPERTY OWNER: GRACE KOREAN CHURCH/GRACE MINISTRIES
Staff report dated December 6, 2000, was presented pertaining to a request to allow the use of an existing office building for an office for a religious institution on property located at 1645 West Valencia Drive (547-663 feet east and 538-593 feet north of the intersection of Valencia Drive and Brookhurst Road) (M-P-40 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines).

Chief Planner Rosen reported that the applicant, Grace Ministries International, desired to utilize one of the on-site buildings of the former Con-Agra (Hunt-Wesson) property, for an administrative office use. The property is zoned "Industrial", thus a CUP is required. An on-site inspection by staff revealed that Con-Agra is still using a portion of the site for its continuing research and development, and will vacate the building after the first of the year. A slide of the proposed building was displayed.

When Grace Ministries was negotiating to acquire the property from Con-Agra, staff advised both parties of the potential change in use of the property. There were numerous ideas for the overall reuse of the property, but nothing definitive had been presented to staff. Staff consistently requested that Grace Ministries provide a complete application for the proposed reuse of the entire property, a master planned development of the campus.

Staff was unable to support the Conditional Use Permit application at this time because it was not consistent with the City's Municipal Code, the Fullerton General Plan, or state law. The Municipal Code requires that findings be made proving that the proposed use is compatible with other types of permitted uses in the surrounding area. Staff could not determine if the proposed use was compatible with surrounding areas, or the General Plan, because staff did not have a complete picture of the entire reuse of the property. Further, staff was unsure whether the proposed project contributed to, or detracted from, diversification and expansion of the City's economic base, which is a key factor of the General Plan, in support of the industrial and commercial base of the city. With regards to state law and State Supreme Court rulings, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that a city cannot divide a project into smaller parts in order to avoid preparation of CEQA documents. This proposal, staff believes, is one "part" of a larger application, which staff had been told to expect sometime after the first of the year.

Based upon these facts, staff recommended denial of the Conditional Use Permit application without prejudice. The applicant may then reapply at any time as part of their complete application for the entire reuse of the property, or the CUP itself at another time. Chief Planner Rosen added that, should the Planning Commission choose to approve the CUP application, staff had provided an alternative set of findings which needed to be made for the approval.

Commissioner Crane questioned whether the Commission could legally act on this proposal, due to the fact that the complete master plan had not yet been submitted. Deputy City Attorney Barlow answered that the Commission could legally approve the CUP request, if the required findings could be made. She cautioned, however, that this would be a "piecemeal" application, since it involves only one building, and the applicant had made it clear that they would seek other uses presently not permitted on the site. Should the Commission approve the CUP, it would be likely that a legal challenge could be instigated, and it would be difficult for the city to defend the granting of the CUP for this use in the absence of a final site plan proposal from the applicant.

Commissioner Munson asked if CEQA challenges were common, and who would make such a challenge. Deputy City Attorney Barlow stated that anyone could bring a challenge under CEQA, because it is a statute which requires environmental review of projects, and such challenges are common in the courts. Commissioner Munson also inquired whether it was staff's opinion that the applicant was "piecemealing" the project to avoid preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Chief Planner Rosen replied that staff was unsure as to whether this was the applicant's intent, and clarified that the City, not the applicant, was mandated by state law to prepare an appropriate environmental document. The City is anticipating that an EIR will be prepared for the entire project, once it is presented to staff. Chief Planner Rosen reiterated that a normal CUP application for an office use would not require any environmental documents; however, staff is aware of a larger project for this site at some future date, due to conversations with the applicant.

Commissioner Simons asked what the consequences would be if the CUP application were approved at this time, but in the future the larger master plan was not. Chief Planner Rosen explained that conditional use permits run with the land, thus the applicant would be allowed to utilize the building for an office use.

Chairman LeQuire questioned: (1) how long would it take for a master plan to be developed; and (2) could the applicant utilize the office building while this plan was being prepared? Chief Planner Rosen clarified that staff was recommending denial of the CUP application (without prejudice), therefore, the applicant would not be able to utilize the building as an office in the interim period.

Director Dudley added that in April of the past year, staff met with the applicant and a number of potential uses were discussed. Staff was informed that a master plan would be provided by June, and, to date, has not yet been received.

Commissioner Godfrey asked how staff makes the determination whether or not an office use is an "industrial office use." Chief Planner Rosen informed him that the code has a list of which types of uses are allowed in the industrial zone, and any office use must have a relationship to industrial-related activities. Further, religious uses are allowed in an industrial zone, with a Conditional Use Permit. However, the CUP application before the Commission was for an office use, not a religious use. Commissioner Godfrey expressed concern that the City was not "singling out" this particular entity who desired to simply utilize office space, where an office had been used in the past.

Director Dudley advised that the City attorney had determined that a Conditional Use Permit was required for this application. The Commission could make the necessary findings to approve the application, and staff has supplied such findings, in addition to suggested conditions of approval. Although it was not a part of the discussion, staff was aware that there will be a master plan for significant religious use of this property. Staff was attempting to clarify that the CUP application before the Commission was only for an office use, and no church-related activities, e.g., weddings, parties, church services, etc., will be allowed. The applicant must prepare a master plan for a zone change, and other applications, and the applicant would then be able to utilize the land in such a manner. Staff could not make the necessary findings under CEQA law, to recommend approval of the application at this time, but the Commission had the authority to approve it, if they so desired. Chief Planner Rosen stated that, should the Commission approve the CUP application, staff added a condition which stated that no religious uses shall be allowed at any time, to make clear what the CUP entailed.

Commissioner Godfrey insisted that the City was anticipating that because the applicant was a church, they need a Conditional Use Permit to occupy an office building in an M-P zone. Deputy City Attorney Barlow clarified that it was not because the applicant was a religious institution, but because they are not an accessory use to an industrial use.

Commissioner Simons noted that the conditions of approval state that: "no public or private receptions, assemblies, or any group activities shall be conducted in the buildings or on the grounds…."

Commissioner Crane informed the Commission that he had previously viewed a proposed master plan for the site at a Chamber of Commerce industrial committee meeting. He added that this would not affect his vote on the Conditional Use Permit.

Public hearing opened.

Bill Gillespie, GM Associates, gave a brief history of the site in question. The initial application by Grace Ministries International was made in January, 2000. In that application, a very broad plan for the site was described. The applicant subsequently received a letter from Chief Planner Rosen, dated January 20, 2000 which stated that staff could not accept the application because of inadequate information. A notification was then received from Insignia, a real estate consultant, involving opening of escrow for the property. This notification was dated June 26th, and at that time a request was made to occupy the office building. On July 20, 2000, the City Attorney sent a letter noting that a Conditional Use Permit was required for an office use, not associated with an industrial use, in an industrial zone. It was also suggested that a master plan concept be presented.

The applicant proceeded with steps to convert the Con-Agra office use to Grace Ministries' office use, due to the fact that Grace Ministries had purchased the entire parcel, and had its office at the Melodyland facility in Anaheim on a month-to-month lease. Mr. Gillespie pointed out the office building on a vicinity sketch, and the research and development building presently occupied by Con-Agra, Inc. He reiterated that Grace Ministries would only utilize the building as an office use, and would not conduct any religious activities on site until the master plan was received and approved by the City. He gave a brief overview of the proposed master plan, which the applicant understands will require a zone change, general plan revision and another Conditional Use Permit. Also, the present parking facilities would be inadequate for a church sanctuary, church school, and other church activities. Mr. Gillespie assured the Commission that a master plan would be presented to staff during the first quarter of 2001.

Commissioner Simons inquired whether Grace Ministries had attempted to secure a temporary office facility, since Melodyland had informed them that they would need to find another location for their administrative offices. Mr. Gillespie deferred the question to Mr. Choye, administrator for Grace Ministries, International.

Mr. Choye stated that, while an exact date for vacation of the premises had not been given, they were aware that Disneyland was aggressively purchasing property in the surrounding area, and it would only be a matter of time before Melodyland was purchased. Further, they had not attempted to secure another location for an office use, because Grace Ministries had been under the impression, after discussion with the Deputy City Attorney, that a Conditional Use Permit could be granted for the corporate office building.

Commissioner Crane was uncomfortable with making the findings as presented by staff. He referenced the first finding that "The subject request constitutes a complete application of the intended use of the property by Grace Ministries International" and asked Mr. Gillespie if this would be a true statement. Mr. Gillespie replied that the CUP application constituted the intended use for the office building "property", but did not include the entire parcel. Secondly, the applicant had been informed by city staff, in the advertising for this hearing, that the CUP application, for the office use only, was a complete application and categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines. Chief Planner Rosen clarified that at the time the advertising had been prepared, staff was still evaluating the project, and found the project to be exempt. Upon further evaluation, however, staff found that the project was not categorically exempt. Chief Planner Rosen read from the California Environmental Quality Act book, which defined the meaning of a "project." Staff was not satisfied at this time, that a Conditional Use Permit application would not be received for a church school or sanctuary.

Commissioner Godfrey explained that the first finding the Commission must make: "that the subject request constitutes a complete application of the intended use" was difficult because if the CUP applied to the entire property, and not just the footprint of the office building, the application of CEQA guidelines apply and the CUP necessitates either an impact for the "entire property" or an exemption because of one building. Until the full plan is presented, it is difficult for the Commission to make findings.

Mr. Gillespie clarified that the applicant was following the instructions of the letter received by the Deputy City Attorney.

Deputy City Attorney Barlow contended that the applicant misunderstood the intent of the letter, which was if the applicant was only intending to utilize the office building, they could apply for a CUP. However, if a future plan was proposed for the entire site, there were other requirements which had to be met.

At this point, Mr. Gillespie read a portion of the July 20, 2000, letter from the Deputy City Attorney.

Commissioner Godfrey suggested that Condition No. 3, which states: "The office building shall be used for typical office purposes only" should be specifically defined so there would be no misunderstanding as to which building it was referring.

Deputy City Attorney Barlow reiterated that it was not the intent of the letter to state that the applicant had satisfied the requirements to obtain a CUP. The applicant had made it clear that there was a larger plan proposed for the property, and because of this, she felt that the City would be in violation of CEQA guidelines if a CUP were granted at this time.

Commissioner Godfrey expressed concern that the applicant did own the property and should be allowed to use it for administrative purposes while the remainder of the master plan was being prepared. He asked if the applicant could guarantee that all final drawings and plans would be completed within a six-month period, and Mr. Gillespie answered affirmatively. Commissioner Godfrey asked if this request could be exempt from CEQA Guidelines, and Director Dudley reminded him that staff had already determined that this request, if it stood alone, was categorically exempt.

Commissioner Simons pointed out that the letter from the City Attorney's office clearly stated: "If Grace Ministries International would like to begin using the property for its offices, it will be required to first apply, and obtain approval for, a Conditional Use permit in that regard. In addition, as discussed. Grace Ministries International will need to satisfy additional procedural prerequisites in order to conduct other activities." He felt this was a key issue of the letter, and Deputy City Attorney Barlow concurred that the requirements were not intended to be sequential, but all-inclusive. Commissioner Simons inquired whether GM Associates would be preparing the master plan, and Mr. Gillespie answered affirmatively. Mr. Gillespie clarified that a master plan for the property would be submitted during the first quarter of 2001, although it would not involve all construction documents necessary to obtain building permits. Commissioner Simons felt it would be advisable for the applicant to find a temporary location for the office building until the master plan was received.

Director Dudley explained that the Planning Commission might not hear the General Plan Revision and Zoning Amendment until as late as summer 2001. Staff had not yet reviewed the proposed master plan. If staff found that an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared, this would take additional time for mandatory review periods, etc. A fiscal impact analysis must also be prepared, and this meant that the applicant would be required to locate a temporary office for a longer period of time than 30-60 days.

Commissioner Godfrey felt that because a finalized master plan may take up to a year or longer, he was reluctant to deny the CUP application allowing Grace Ministries to utilize the office building.

The following persons spoke in opposition to the project:

William Phillips, 2360 Camino Escondido
Patrick Toulias, 2476 Coventry Circle
Enrique Conejos, 1635 West Avenue

The points of opposition were:

  • The church use will affect surrounding businesses
  • Increased traffic will occur
  • With only 50 people utilizing a five-story building, others may utilize the building for non-approved uses
  • Loss of tax revenue with church use
  • Loss of jobs from changing an industrial use to a church use-should keep the property industrial
  • Have official traffic studies been conducted, or merely information given by church personnel

Wayne Wedin, reported that due to his study of the proposed project, it will be a compatible use with surrounding areas, and efforts are underway to present a master plan that will show an economic benefit to the city, and community benefits city wide.

Seeing no further speakers, Chairman LeQuire closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Godfrey favored the CUP application as presented and felt that the additional 50 people who would occupy this building would not impact the surrounding area.

Commissioner Simons was concerned with the overall project and what effect the master plan would have on revenues, surrounding businesses, residents, and traffic. It was his desire to review the entire plan, and could not support the project at this time.

Commissioner Munson felt the project could have been better presented to avoid confusion. He concurred that the office space could be used by Grace Ministries, until such time that the master plan was presented, subject to another public hearing. He encouraged staff to meet with the applicant in an attempt to determine what would be best for the city, while protecting rights of the property owner.

Commissioner Sandoval expressed disappointment of not being presented with an entire plan. She inquired whether, if the CUP was granted, it would have to be modified or replaced if the master plan, including zone change, was approved. Deputy City Attorney Barlow stated that if the zoning was changed, a new CUP would not be required. If a zone change were not granted, the CUP would run with the land, including all conditions. Commissioner Sandoval voted in favor of granting the Conditional Use Permit, adding a condition which specified that only this particular building be occupied.

Commissioner Crane asked if adding the condition would affect the operation of the existing Con-Agra business, and staff said that it would not. The applicant added that Con-Agra had a lease to occupy office space until August, 2001. Commissioner Crane, while in favor of the concept of the proposed project as a whole, could not support the CUP application because it was in violation of CEQA guidelines.

Chairman LeQuire also favored the long-term use of the entire project, but because of the questionable adherence to CEQA guidelines, he suggested adding two conditions which require that only one more hearing be held on this project, and that a time frame be placed on the applicant to present the master plan. Commissioner Godfrey reminded him that adding such conditions would be against public policy and unconstitutional.

Because he had already seen a conceptual master plan on the project, Commissioner Crane suggested that the matter be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to present more detailed information on the master plan. Director Dudley cautioned that the Commission could not legally have a hearing on a master plan which had not officially been submitted, and the matter must be noticed as a public hearing. The master plan was not relevant to the CUP application, except regarding the CEQA issue.

Chairman LeQuire stated that he would be willing to support the CUP application, but not on an "open-ended" basis.

Commissioner Godfrey inquired if a CUP could be issued for only one year. Deputy City Attorney Barlow reported that if the applicant concurred, a time limit could be placed on the Conditional Use Permit.

Chief Planner Rosen asked if staff would have to instigate revocation proceedings at the end of one year, and Deputy City Attorney Barlow answered affirmatively. Mr. Gillespie indicated that the applicant would concur with the one-year sunset clause on the CUP.

Commissioner Simons felt that it would be difficult for the two new Commissioners who would be appointed in 2001, to revoke a CUP on which they had not heard testimony. Further, he wished to deny the CUP application without prejudice.

Commissioner Crane was still uncomfortable with the CEQA requirement, and cautioned the Commission about the liability issue, particularly since members of the public had already voiced their opposition to the project.

There was a consensus of the Commission for approval. The title of Resolution No. 6905 APPROVING a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of an existing office building in an industrial zone for an office for a non-industrial related office use, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Godfrey, seconded and CARRIED by a four-to-two vote, with Commissioners Crane and Simons voting no, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS AMENDED as follows: (1) Condition No. 3 to be modified to add the word ONLY to the beginning of the condition, and the words 1645 West Valencia Drive, to the end of the condition; (2) adding Condition No. 9 stating that the Conditional Use Permit shall expire on December 13, 2001; and (3) changing the words "religious institution" from the title of the Resolution and adding the words "non-industrial use".

Chief Planner Rosen reported that this item may be appealed within ten days.

ITEM NO. 5
GENERAL PLAN REVISION GPR-00-04. APPLICANT: CITY OF FULLERTON
Staff report dated December 6, 2000, was presented pertaining to an update to the Housing Element of the Fullerton General Plan to comply with new state requirements (Negative Declaration).
Senior Planner Mullis reported that the Housing Element is one of the state mandated elements of the City's General Plan. The Housing Element was last adopted in 1996, as part of a comprehensive General Plan update. As part of the Housing Element, staff is required to review the city's accomplishments, and a slide show was presented which showed various statistics. An area of concern is typically new construction, and low-income housing. While not meeting all of its goals, the City has accomplished many of them. Staff is not recommending any significant changes to the programs listed in the Housing Element, such as the First-Time Homebuyer's Program, rehab programs, fair housing, etc.
Staff recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council certification of the Negative Declaration, and approval of the General Plan Revision.
MOTION by Commissioner Simons, seconded and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present, that the Negative Declaration be CERTIFIED. The title of Resolution No. 6904 RECOMMENDING to the City Council approval of an update to the Housing Element of the Fullerton General Plan to comply with the new State requirements, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Munson, seconded and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.
REVIEW OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
Chief Planner Rosen gave a brief report on recent City Council meetings.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There was no one present who wished to speak on any matter within the Commission's jurisdiction.
AGENDA FORECAST
The next regularly-scheduled meeting will be January 24, 2000, at 4:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Becky Stevens
Recording Secretary
FacebookTwitterYouTube
RSS for Fullerton NewsFullerton eLists
Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map | Disclaimer & Privacy PolicyCopyright © 2000 - 2014 Community. Development, 303 W. Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832. 714-738-6547