Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2001 > December 12, 2001
Shortcuts
State College & Raymond Grade Separation Updates
Water Bill Payment
City Employment
Agendas & Minutes
City Services
Classes
Emergency Preparedness
Online Services
Permits
Public Notices
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FULLERTON PLANNING COMMISSION

COUNCIL CHAMBERS - FULLERTON CITY HALL

WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 12 2001, 4:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Simons at 4:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Simons; Commissioners Crane, LeQuire, Price, and Wilson

ABSENT: Commissioners Allred-Blake and Sandoval

STAFF PRESENT: Chief Planner Rosen, Senior Planner Mullis; Program Planner Linnell, Planning Intern Lopez, Senior Civil Engineer Wallin and Recording Secretary Stevens

MINUTES:
MOTION by Commissioner Crane, seconded and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present, that the Minutes of the November 14, 2001, meeting be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

OLD BUSINESS:

ITEM NO. 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP-1041A. APPLICANT: WOODGLEN RECOVERY; PROPERTY OWNER: LARRY LOM

Staff report dated December 5, 2001, was presented pertaining to a reconsideration of a request to allow a human service agency, providing temporary shelter and treatment for up to 16 adults who are recovering from alcoholism and/or drug abuse, on property located at 329 East Commonwealth Avenue (north side of Commonwealth Avenue between approximately 350 feet and 400 feet east of Lemon Street) (C-2 zone) (Categorically exempt under Class 1 of CEQA Guidelines).

Chief Planner Rosen announced that the applicant had requested a continuance of this matter. MOTION by Commissioner Price, seconded and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present, that said item be CONTINUED until January 23, 2002.

ITEM NO. 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP-1046 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP-1059. APPLICANT: RICHARD FLORES; PROPERTY OWNER: TIMOTHY AND RUTHANNE LUBERSKI

Staff report dated December 5, 2001, was presented pertaining to a revocation of a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit for a health club on property located at 444 North Harbor Boulevard (second floor) and a request for a new location for the health club on property located at 310 North Harbor Boulevard (first floor) (east side of Harbor Boulevard, approximately 150 feet north of Wilshire Avenue) (C-3 zone) (Categorically exempt under Class 1 of CEQA Guidelines).

Program Planner Linnell reported that in August 2001, the Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a health club at 444 North Harbor Boulevard. Since that time, the required improvements to the building exceeded the cost anticipated by the applicant, who elected to pursue a new location. The new location is approximately one-half block away and will be on the first floor of the existing building. While parking is still an issue at the new location, it is closer to the public parking structure along east Wilshire Avenue, and will be more convenient for patrons of the health club.

Public hearing opened.

Richard Flores, applicant, explained that the cost of reinforcing the second floor at the previous location was too high, and would be disruptive to the businesses on the first floor. He read and concurred with the recommended conditions of approval.

Commissioner LeQuire asked for hours of operation and anticipated opening date. Mr. Flores stated that his hours are anticipated to be 4:30-5:00 a.m. until midnight, and the anticipated opening date would be early March 2002.

Commissioner Wilson questioned if the features of the club would remain the same as originally proposed. Mr. Flores explained that because the new building is approximately 3,000 square feet larger, the plan would now include towel service and saunas. He pointed out on the vicinity sketch where the various machinery, exercise rooms, and other amenities would be located.

Commissioner Wilson inquired if staff would require sound attenuation because of the church which is located next door to the site. Chief Planner Rosen reminded the Commission that the operators of the health club must comply with the City's noise ordinance.

Pat Vannoy, representing the First Church Christian Church that is located adjacent to the south wall of the health club, indicated that he had not seen any plans for the project, but was concerned with noise from free weights and the aerobics room, which may filter through to the main sanctuary of the church.

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner Crane was satisfied that the applicant was aware of the City's noise ordinance and would abide by it. Commissioner LeQuire also felt this was a good addition to the downtown and supported the project.

There was a consensus of the Commission for approval. The title of Resolution No. 6950 REVOKING a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit allowing a health club on property located at 444 North Harbor Boulevard, was read and further reading was waived. The title of Resolution No. 6951 GRANTING a Conditional Use Permit allowing a health club on the first floor of an existing building on property located at 310 North Harbor Boulevard was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner LeQuire, seconded and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present, that said Resolutions be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

ITEM 3A
GENERAL PLAN REVISION GPR-02-1A AND AMENDMENT A-1475. APPLICANT: CITY OF FULLERTON

Staff report dated December 5, 2001, was presented pertaining to a request to consider changing the land use designation of the Land Use Map of the General Plan from "Industrial" to "Low Density Residential", "Low-Medium Density Residential" or "Medium Density Residential" and to consider applying either an R-1-6,000, R-2, or R-3 zone classification for the following properties: the lots on the north side of the 300, 400, and 500 blocks of East Truslow Avenue (Negative Declaration).

ITEM 3B
GENERAL PLAN REVISION GPR-02-1B AND AMENDMENT A-1476. APPLICANT: CITY OF FULLERTON

Staff report dated December 5, 2001, was presented pertaining to a request to consider changing the land use designation of the Land Use Map of the General Plan from "Low Density Residential" to "Low-Medium Density Residential" or "Medium Density Residential" and to consider applying either an R-1-6,000, R-2, or R-3 zone classification for the following properties: the lots on the south side of the 300, 400, and 500 blocks of East Truslow Avenue, the lots on the north and south sides of the 400, 500, and 600 blocks of Patterson Way, the lots on the north and south sides of the 300 block of East Valencia Drive, the lots on the north side of the 400, 500 and 600 blocks of East Valencia Drive, the lots on the north side of the 300 block of East Ash Avenue, the lots on the 500 block of North Lemon Street, and several lots at the west end of the 300 blocks of Elm and Rosslynn Avenues.

Chief Planner Rosen introduced Erick Lopez, Planning Intern, who was available to assist in translating, if needed.

Program Planner Linnell reported that these two items are City-initiated requests to resolve inconsistencies between General Plan Land Use Designation and existing zoning in the neighborhood east of Lemon Street and south of the railroad tracks. Overhead slides were displayed showing all areas in question. Staff held three community meetings in an attempt to inform the residents of why the inconsistencies needed to be resolved. Staff also solicited input from the residents as to what they desired the designation for their property to be. In early November, a questionnaire was mailed to all involved property owners allowing them to vote on what zoning designation they desired for their particular block. Approximately 54% of the questionnaires were returned, and generally most residents desired to retain the existing designation of their block.

Program Planner Linnell stated that the various blocks were broken down into sub areas as shown in the chart below:

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES

Existing General Plan Designation Proposed General Plan Designation Existing Zone Classification Proposed Zone Classification
Sub-area A
300 block of E. Truslow Ave. (north side)
Industrial Medium Density Res. C-1 & R-3 R-3
Sub-area B
400 and 500 blocks of E. Truslow Ave. (north side)
Industrial Medium Density Res. R-3 & R-2 R-3
Sub-area C
300 block of E. Truslow Ave. (south side)
Low Density Residential Medium Density Res. R-3 R-3
Sub-area D
400 and 500 blocks of E. Truslow Ave. (south side); 400 and 500 blocks of Patterson Way (north side)
Low Density Residential Low-Medium Density Res. R-2 R-2
Sub-area E
300 block of E. Valencia Dr. (north side)
Low Density Residential Low-Medium Density Res. R-2 R-2
Sub-area F
400 and 500 blocks of E. Valencia Dr.(North side) and 400 and 500 blocks of Patterson Way (south side)
Low Density Residential Low Density Residential R-1-6,000 & R-1-7,200 R-1-6,000
Sub-area G
300 block of E. Valencia Dr. (south side); 300 block of E. Ash Ave. (north side); 500 block of S. Lemon St. (east side)
Low Density Residential Low-Medium Density Res. R-2 R-2
Sub-area H
300 block of E. Ash Ave. (two lots on the south side); 300 block of E. Elm Ave. (two lots on the north side and two lots on the south side); 300 block of E. Rosslynn Ave (two lots on the north side and two lots on the south side)
Low Density Residential Low Density Residential R-3 R-1-6,000

Public hearing opened. Chairman Simons announced that he would announce each sub-area, and ask for public comment on that particular area.

SUB-AREA A

Ernie Leon, asked how many units would be allowed if his C-1 property were zoned R-3, because he feared that developers would place large apartment or condominium projects on the lots. Program Planner Linnell clarified that three or four units could be built on the lots; however, in order to do so, the existing residences on Mr. Leon's property would most likely have to be demolished.

SUB-AREA B

SUB-AREA C

SUB-AREA D

SUB-AREA E

SUB-AREA F

No one wished to speak on any of these sub-areas.

SUB-AREA G

Dean Kinoshida, spoke on behalf of his mother who lives at 516 S. Lemon Street. While not opposed to the proposed zoning, he pointed out that responses to the questionnaire were not necessarily indicative of the wishes of all the property owners in each area. He felt that a more concerted effort should be made by staff to ensure that all property owners are aware of these changes.

Chief Planner Rosen informed the Commission that, in addition to the three community meetings, staff also went door-to-door of those property owners who had not responded to the questionnaire.

SUB-AREA H

Nita Vejar, 300 E. Rosslynn Avenue, was concerned that the value of her home would drop if the property were rezoned to R-1-6,000. Chief Planner Rosen explained that it was extremely difficult to predict property values regardless of the zone. Because these existing R-3 properties are developed with single-family homes and have no access other than the cul-de-sac, a developer would have to demolish the existing residence in order to build a multi-unit development, and provide adequate parking and open space.

Commissioner Wilson explained that, as a realtor, he felt that the property value would be greater with a R-1-6,000 designation, than if it remained as an R-3 zoned property.

Raul Correll, asked if changing the designation from R-3 to R-1-6,000 had to do with the lot size of each property. Chief Planner Rosen added that, in addition to the size of the lot, the code would take into account whether a property had alley access or access to a secondary street, and the configuration of the lot.

Antonia Gonzales, 307 E. Rosslynn Avenue, stated that when she originally purchased her property in 1955, the owner had told her to never change the zoning designation from R-3, because it would be more valuable with the R-3 zone.

Jacinta Herrera, 301 E. Elm Avenue, also desired to keep the R-3 zone classification for her property, because she also feared that her property value would diminish otherwise. Commissioner Wilson reiterated that from his experience in selling real estate, when R-2 and R-3 properties abut single-family properties, it has the effect of lowering property values of R-1 zones.

Ernie Vejar, 300 E. Rosslynn Avenue, also spoke in support of retaining the R-3 designation.

Ernie Leon again spoke and questioned whether the city had any long-range plans for Sub-area H. Chief Planner Rosen assured the Commission that there was no redevelopment plan, or any "ulterior motive" for changing the zoning inconsistencies in this area.

John Ramirez, 321 E. Valencia Drive, commended city staff for taking the time to conduct community meetings and their professionalism in dealing with a topic that was, at times, emotional for many of the residents involved.

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner LeQuire supported all of staff recommendations, with the exception of two sub-areas. Exactly half of the property owners desired retaining the R-1 zone classification in Sub-Area F, but because the lots were large and had alley access, he would be supportive of an R-2 zone. While he understood that the properties in Sub-Area H, did not have alley access, he felt that perhaps an R-2 zone classification may be more acceptable.

Commissioner Price concurred with staff recommendations for Sub-Areas A through G, and stated that he would also agree to an R-2 zone classification for Sub-Area H.

Commissioner Crane concurred with staff recommendation for all of the sub-areas in question. While sympathetic to the concerns of the residents who live in Sub-Area H, he did not feel that their values would diminish if the property changed to an R-1 zone. Commissioner Wilson concurred, adding that it was important to retain the consistency of the block in Sub-Area H.

Chairman Simons inquired if it would be possible to change the properties back to R-3, if rezoned to R-1, and Chief Planner Rosen stated that technically they could, but it would be very difficult. Chairman Simon concurred with Commissioners Crane and Wilson.

There was a consensus of the Commission for approval. MOTION by Commissioner LeQuire, seconded and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present that the Negative Declaration be CERTIFIED. The title of Resolution No. 6953 RECOMMENDING to the City Council approval of a General Plan Revision to change the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Map of the General Plan from Industrial to Low Density Residential, Low-Medium Density Residential or Medium Density Residential, and to consider applying either an R-1-6,000, R-2, or R-3 zone classification for the following properties: Lots on the north side of the 300, 400 and 500 BLOCKS of East Truslow Avenue, was read and further reading was waived. The title of Resolution No. 6954 RECOMMENDING to the City Council approval of a General Plan Revision to change the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Map of the General Plan from "Low Density Residential" to "Low-Medium Density Residential" or "Medium Density Residential" and to consider applying either an R-1-6,000, R-2, or R-3 zone classification for the following properties: the lots on the south side of the 300, 400, and 500 blocks of East Truslow Avenue, the lots on the north and south sides of the 400, 500, and 600 blocks of Patterson Way, the lots on the north and south sides of the 300 block of East Valencia Drive, the lots on the north side of the 400, 500 and 600 blocks of East Valencia Drive, the lots on the north side of the 300 block of East Ash Avenue, the lots on the 500 block of North Lemon Street, and several lots at the west end of the 300 blocks of Elm and Rosslynn Avenues, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Price, seconded and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present, that said Resolutions be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

Chief Planner Rosen announced that this item would be heard by the City Council at its meeting of February 5, 2002, at 7:30 p.m.

ITEM NO. 4
GENERAL PLAN REVISION GPR-00-04A. APPLICANT: CITY OF FULLERTON

A revision to the City Housing Element which was adopted in 2000 to address comments made by the state (previously certified Negative Declaration).

Senior Planner Mullis reminded the Commission that this item had been heard approximately one year ago, and subsequently heard by the City Council. In February 2001, the State of California gave comments which have been addressed by staff. Additional changes were also suggested by the State of California up to the date of this Planning Commission meeting. Senior Planner Mullis displayed an over heading depicting the following:

ORIGINAL CHANGES PROPOSED BY STATE
(INCORPORATED INTO ELEMENT)

  1. Actions to ensure General Plan consistency.
  2. An action to encourage and promote lot consolidation of vacant and underutilized properties.
  3. An action to review and update the Density Bonus Ordinance and promote its use.
  4. Include the list of persons contacted for review of the draft element.
  5. A list of additional steps which would further the City's progress in reaching the Housing Element goals.
  6. A more detailed description of the City's existing programs, policies and timeframes for implementation.
  7. Expanded discussion of the City's affordable housing successes.

NEW COMMENTS FROM STATE

1. Expand the program description for lot consolidation and provide workshops to inform affordable housing developers of this and other programs and policies available to encourage affordable housing.

ADDITIONAL PROPOSED CHANGES

1. Modify the length of time that units must be kept affordable when Redevelopment funds are used in order to conform to the recently adopted AB 637.

Chairman Simons noted that incentive programs were included in the Housing Element to encourage housing rehabilitation. Senior Planner Mullis stated that staff had added text to describe "no interest", "low interest" and "grant" programs for both ownership housing and rental housing.

Public hearing opened, but there was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.

Commissioner Crane commended staff for the amount of effort that had been put into this document.

Commissioner LeQuire noted the success of many affordable housing projects in the City. One of his concerns was the Single-Room Occupancy project (Fullerton City Lights) in the 200 block of East Commonwealth Avenue. He noted that there are still many outstanding problems with construction defects, and it has been a drain on police and fire services; at one time, the City experienced difficulty in finding enough tenants. He also noted that the Housing Element called for the implementation of a future Single-Room Occupancy Hotel ordinance, and felt that the City should not be bound to having to construct another SRO. Senior Planner Mullis clarified that Fullerton presently has an SRO ordinance in place, and staff was not recommending any changes to it at this time.

Chairman Simons inquired if the City was considering any future SRO's at this time. Chief Planner Rosen answered that the only proposals presented to staff within the last five years have been the conversion of existing residential motels, acting as SRO's, but with no management or oversight by the City.

There was a consensus of the Commission for approval. The title of Resolution No. 6955 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 Crane, seconded and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

ITEM A
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

Staff report dated December 5, 2001, was presented pertaining to an amendment of the Redevelopment Agency Plans for the Orangefair, Central, and East Fullerton Redevelopment Project Areas to increase the amount of tax increment that can be captured over the life of the project areas (Environmental Impact Report).

Redevelopment Operations Manager Galvin stated that the Redevelopment Agency must go through a process to amend the three plans for the Orangefair, Central and East Fullerton Redevelopment Areas. By the time these project areas expire in 2013 and 2014, the Agency may lose the ability to capture tax increment to complete the work and pay off the bonds. This process will amend those plans in order to increase the amount of tax increment the Agency may capture through the full term of those project areas. Operations Manager Galvin made a correction to the agenda letter, by changing the date December 1994 to December 1986. He then introduced Ernie Glover, from GRC Redevelopment Consultants who made a presentation on the process.

Mr. Glover explained that the proposed amendment increases the amount of tax increment and is intended to allow the Agency to pay its bonded indebtedness. The Orangefair total limit is currently $50,000,000, and the Agency is proposing to increase it to $175,000,000; Central Fullerton's limit would double from $120,000,000 to $240,000,000; and East Fullerton's limit would go from $135,000,000 to $300,000,000.

The Agency is proposing adding language to the East Fullerton Redevelopment Plan which would require conformity to the General Plan. Mr. Glover also explained that these amendments would neither increase any boundary or add programs, nor alter the authority of the Redevelopment Agency. The final report to the City Council will contain minutes of meetings and passed resolutions. The Draft Environmental Impact Report focuses on issues pertaining to traffic and air quality. This item before the Planning Commission opens up the public review process for the plan amendment and will be reviewed by ten various taxing agencies. In January, letters will be mailed to each resident, property owner, business and tenant in the three project areas explaining why the amendments are being proposed. In February, a town hall meeting will be held before being heard by the City Council.

Commissioner Wilson asked what would happen if the amendments were not approved by the City Council. Mr. Glover noted that the Agency would meet with the taxing entities prior to the City Council meeting. If the City Council did not approve the extensions, the old limits would remain in place and the Agency would run out of authority to collect tax increment between 2008 and 2012, and the taxing entities would receive all property taxes due at that time. Commissioner Wilson also questioned how the Agency originally arrived at the "caps" imposed in 1986. Redevelopment Operations Manager Galvin explained that when the Agency calculated the caps, it took the base in 1986 and increased it by 2% per year, factored in projects of which they were aware, and then doubled that particular number.

Public hearing opened, but there was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.

The title of the Resolution was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Wilson, seconded and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

ITEM B
REVIEW OF COUNCIL ACTIONS

Chief Planner Rosen gave a brief report on recent City Council meetings.

ITEM C
PUBLIC COMMENTS

There was no one present who wished to speak on any matter within the Commission's jurisdiction.

ITEM D
AGENDA FORECAST

The next regularly-scheduled meeting will be January 9, 2002, at 4:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Simons reported that this was his final Planning Commission meeting, after serving for eight years. He complimented his fellow commissioners for their dedication, support, leadership and friendship. He thanked staff for all their guidance and professionalism, and appreciated all comments received from the citizens of Fullerton who took the time to attend the meetings. He expressed his gratitude for the opportunity to serve on the Planning Commission.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:09 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