Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2005 > July 27, 2005
State College & Raymond Grade Separation Updates
Water Bill Payment
City Employment
Agendas & Minutes
City Services
Emergency Preparedness
Online Services
Public Notices
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
WEDNESDAY JULY 27, 2005 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Griffin at 7:02 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman Griffin; Commissioners Bailey, Cowen, Hart, Savage and Stopper
ABSENT: Commissioner Francis
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Mullis, Assistant Planner Sowers, Associate Planner Eastman, Assistant Planner Kusch and Recording Secretary Baker
FLAG SALUTE: Chairman Griffin
MINUTES: There were no minutes available for review.


Commissioner Hart recused herself and left the meeting.


Approval of amended Resolution No. PC-05-21 for PRJ04-00901 - ZON04-00094 - ZON04-00095; LRP04-00019 - LRP04-00020 - LRP04-00021 - LRP05-00007 for property located at 2226 North Euclid Street (Continued from July 6, 2005).

Chairman Griffin explained that this project had already been approved by the Planning Commission and this was not a public hearing on the item. The Commission had previously directed staff to prepare a resolution with conditions that reflected the actions of the earlier meeting recommending approval on the project. The resolution was now before the Commission for their approval.

Assistant Planner Sowers clarified that the Amendment to the Engineer's Letter attached to the Resolution contained two modifications from the version previously provided to the Commission. Specifically, the type of agreement for the trail maintenance was changed from an encroachment agreement to an instrument and a form approved by the City Attorney. The second change was to fix a typographical error changing the figure of $180,691.46 to $182,520.32 for the storm drain reimbursement. The changed letter was re-dated and references to the Amendment in the Resolution were adjusted accordingly.

Commissioner Stopper asked about the paragraph in the Amendment to the Engineer's letter that discussed access from Yuma Way. Assistant Planner Sowers directed Mr. Stopper to the heading of the paragraph which stated that the paragraph would be deleted from the Traffic section.

Commissioner Stopper asked for clarification on the solution to the project being in close proximity to the lot #5 residence on Yuma Way. Assistant Planner Sowers stated that her recollection was that the Planning Commission recommended adding a condition that the landscaping on this edge of the project consist of mature trees to help screen the project. She referenced condition no. 4 on page 2 of the Resolution which states that enhanced, mature landscaping shall be provided along the eastern property line, abutting lots #4 and #5 of Tract 15982. Specifically, the trees shall be of the fast growing variety, hand-picked by the applicant, to maintain a minimum height of 10 feet at the time of planting. Commissioner Stopper stated that this was done to mitigate the fact that the building distance separations were not to City code, but defined in the Specific Plan. Assistant Planner Sowers answered affirmatively.

Chairman Griffin asked staff if the developer agreed with the requirement to deposit the estimated cost of the potential median island and with the reimbursement amount for the storm drain improvements. Senior Civil Engineer Voronel stated that it was her understanding the developer was in agreement with both items.

Commissioner Stopper asked that the record reflect why he voted against this project. He felt it was inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan of the City of Fullerton. He believed this project did not warrant that type of accommodation. The four specific reasons he was against it were:
  1. Changing the City of Fullerton's General Plan designation for this property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential;
  2. Changing the City of Fullerton's General Plan by making a Specific Plan District (SPD) a zoning designation consistent with the Medium Density Residential designation;
  3. Changing the zoning on this property from R-1-20 to Specific Plan District; and
  4. Approving a Code exception for this property that does not meet the intent of the existing Code requirements for designation as a Specific Plan District.
Commissioner Stopper stated that the original criteria for a Specific Plan District required a minimum area of 200 acres. Subsequently, the City Council found reasons why that was too large of a number, as the City was being built out. The Code was then changed to allow for a Specific Plan District to have a minimum of 40 acres but provided that the City Council could approve a Specific Plan for a smaller area under special circumstances.

Commissioner Stopper noted that this parcel is less than two acres in size, which made it inconsistent with the guidelines for establishing a Specific Plan District. He stated that this was a commercial business venture. It would be the only commercial property from Malvern to the City line on the east side of Euclid.

Chairman Griffin stated that he would be voting against this because of the same reasons that Commissioner Stopper outlined.

MOTION by Commissioner Cowen, seconded by Commissioner Bailey and passed by a 3 - 2 vote, with Chairman Griffin and Commissioner Stopper voting no, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

Commissioner Hart returned to the meeting after the vote.

ITEM NO. 1 PRJ05-00393 - ZON05-00045. APPLICANTS: FRANCISCO DIAZ FLORES AND PATRICK PANZARELLO; PROPERTY OWNER: BARRY CODISPOTI. A request to change from an existing ABC Type 42 license (On-Sale beer and wine - public premises) to an ABC Type 48 (On-sale general - public premises) on property located at 912 West Williamson Avenue (southeast corner of Williamson Avenue and Euclid Street) (C-2 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines)

Associate Planner Eastman stated that staff and the applicant had requested a continuance.

MOTION by Commissioner Bailey, seconded by Commissioner Stopper and passed unanimously by voting members present to continue this item to a date certain of August 24, 2005.


Staff report dated July 27, 2005, was presented pertaining to a request to modify an existing site plan to develop an approximately 4,500-square-foot structure, and to operate a day care facility within the structure, on property located at 1521 West Orangethorpe Avenue (north side of Orangethorpe Avenue between 108 and 400 feet west of Eadington Avenue) (R-3 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15332 of CEQA Guidelines)

Assistant Planner Kusch reported that this was a site plan modification for construction of a 4,570-square-foot, single-story building, and a Conditional Use Permit to operate a child-care center for up to 40 children and four staff members. The property is zoned R-3, limited-density, multi-family residential. He identified where it is located on the Zoning Map and described the surrounding areas. Site photos and an aerial photo were displayed.

An aerial photo showing the site was displayed in addition to a site photo taken from Orangethorpe showing the existing facility. A background of the history of the church site was given. The existing church has Sunday school and other related activities. There is no CUP or approval on file for a weekday child-care center or school. Staff showed where the proposed child-care center would be located on the site plan. The parsonage was identified, the existing playground, and an outdoor patio area in the front of the property was also identified.

The applicant was proposing to build six child-care rooms, an office, a lobby, a break room and three bathrooms. The attic and mechanical equipment space will be accessed from a pull-down stair. The plans were revised because of a concern over the proposed stairway to the second story attic area. The revised plans eliminate the stairway and the attic will be used for incidental storage only.

Assistant Planner Kusch discussed the building setback, the proposed design, the exterior stucco type, wainscot, and metal awnings proposed. He spoke of the upper windows proposed on the first story, which provide light to the upstairs attic.

Assistant Planner Kusch stated that since there are two street frontages, the property is considered a through lot. Staff recommended restricting vehicular access from Hill Avenue, however, fire code might require pedestrian and fire access from Hill Ave. The existing fire hydrant along Hill Avenue may serve the fire and water needs for the proposed building. If it does not meet the distance requirements, the applicant might have to provide a fire hydrant on site.

The proposed hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and are not concurrent with the current church services. The parking and drop-off area are adequate. The block wall must be six feet high in all areas. An aerial photo was displayed showing the areas where the wall height needs to be increased.

Public notices were mailed to owners within a 300 ft. radius of the property. One letter of concern was received and copies were given to the Planning Commission, who is a resident directly to the north of the property. His concerns were:
  • Restricting access from Hill Avenue;
  • Additional enrollment for the child-care center adding to the current enrollment;
  • No CUP for the existing school and day-care center;
  • A banner advertising a Korean language school;
  • Request to eliminate the upper windows on the north elevation.
The applicant faxed a response letter to the neighbor's letter. The applicant would like to increase enrollment from 40 to 76 children. Staff would need to review whether the parking can accommodate the proposed increase.

Staff recommended approval of the revision to the site plan and the CUP and approval of the site plan with the conditions notes on the staff report.

Commissioner Bailey asked staff to expand on the fire hydrant issue. Assistant Planner Kusch displayed the site plan which showed fire hydrants on Hill and on Orangethorpe. The Fire Department requires reliable water within 150 feet (as the hose lays). The distance from the two potential hydrants may be too far to meet that requirement. The applicant may have to trench and tap into another hydrant to provide a private hydrant on site.

Commissioner Savage asked to review the photo of the north elevation where the windows in question are located. Assistant Planner Kusch stated that the upper windows were only providing light to the attic space. The neighbor was concerned that these windows would be intrusive. Commissioner Savage suggested having windows only on one side. Assistant Planner Kusch stated that perhaps the applicant could increase the windows on the opposite side and remove the windows on the north elevation. Assistant Planner Kusch was not sure if the building code required natural light for an attic space.

Commissioner Savage asked if the neighbor had a problem with the windows on the first floor also. Assistant Planner Kusch felt that they just did not want windows on the north side facing their home. Commissioner Savage asked if the door was a safety requirement. Assistant Planner Kusch said that it was for an emergency egress and was not a main entrance. Commissioner Savage asked if there was a concern with the door, or just the windows. Assistant Planner Kusch felt that they were not concerned with the use, but the building's impact on their property.

Commissioner Hart asked about the height of the window. Assistant Planner Kusch answered that it was eight feet, which is higher than the block wall. The neighbor would not see the first floor windows.

Commissioner Stopper discussed condition #13 on page 6 and the sprinklers. Senior Planner Mullis stated that, in the past, the Fire Department had not supported sprinklers in commercial buildings as a replacement for a fire hydrant.

Commissioner Stopper asked if the notice mentioned the maximum number of children expected to attend. Assistant Planner Kusch stated that the notice did not specify the number of enrollment, just that a child-care center building is being proposed.

Commissioner Stopper asked if the building size was based on the proposed number of students and what was the actual square footage. Assistant Planner Kusch said that the actual occupancy was based on the square footage and the code allows 1 person per 15 square feet. Senior Planner Mullis said that the community care licensing requirements would prevail over the building code and are more restrictive and might be less than that. The number of children allowed would also be based on the size of the play yard.

Commissioner Cowen discussed the six foot block wall requirement.

Commissioner Stopper asked about a gate and Knox box along Hill Avenue mentioned in the staff report. Senior Planner Mullis said that the intent was if the applicant was able to resolve the water issue by only providing access to the fire hydrant on Hill, a pedestrian gate would be acceptable. However, staff felt that it would not be accepted since the applicant would need to reduce the building size to meet it. Otherwise, an on-site hydrant would need to be provided. It would be contingent upon whether access was required to the hydrant.

Commissioner Stopper asked if the Fire Department approved the access from Orangethorpe through the current driveway as sufficient. Assistant Planner Kusch answered that they had and also the Fire Department required a turning radius so that fire apparatus can turn around. The Fire Department had reviewed the site plan and has approved it.

Public hearing opened.

Applicant, Kwan Lee, Deacon and Youth Ministry Leader, introduced Peter Chung who is coordinating the construction. Mr. Lee wanted to respond to the Mr. Penderburst's letter:
  1. Access via Hill Avenue - It depends on whether the Fire Department requires a gate
  2. Additional enrollment - According to Title 22, the facility is currently designed to accommodate 76 children.
  3. Summer school, after school, day-care, tutoring, English, math training, provided according to parochial rules. He assumed that they were approved for parochial uses in the original CUP.
  4. Korean language school runs concurrently with the Saturday bible study.

They are in agreement with increasing the height of the block wall to six feet. The preschool children are not able to see over the block wall.

    Chairman Griffin asked Mr. Lee if he wanted to continue this item so that they could address their desire to increase the enrollment to 76 children. Mr. Lee responded that he wanted to proceed with the enrollment of 40 and would return to increase the enrollment.

    Commissioner Savage asked Mr. Lee if there was any reason he could not remove the upper windows. Mr. Chung answered that they are frosted, opaque windows allowing indirect light into the attic. There is no technical use for it, they could remove them if it was required.

    Commissioner Bailey asked if there were any plans to mitigate noise by keeping the doors and windows closed during hours of operation. They have an emergency alarm for emergency exiting, children will not be able to open the doors and the windows do not open.

    Commissioner Hart asked about hours of operation. Senior Planner Mullis said that the CUP would be modified to include their hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and increased to include Sundays and Wednesdays to operate concurrently with the church services. Mr. Lee said that a long term goal is for concurrent use so that the children can attend bible study in a familiar building. Senior Planner Mullis explained that it was considered a commercial activity during the weekday, however, during concurrent services it was considered a church activity.

    Chairman Griffin asked that the record reflect receipt of the letter from Brian Penderburst dated July 25, 2005.

    Sam Shin, a condo owner adjacent to the church, was concerned that the new facilities will create more traffic and noise in the residential neighborhood and decrease the property value. He was concerned that the children are climbing fences and retrieving toys. He had observed children not being supervised. He displayed a soccer ball, basketball and Frisbee that were found in his yard. He has observed activities occurring seven days a week. He was also concerned with a commercial development in a residential area.

    Commissioner Bailey referred Mr. Shin to condition #27 in the staff report which states if the use sustains three or more verifiable complaints, the CUP can be revoked or removed.

    Brian Pendarburst spoke to the concerns listed in his letter:

    The fire hydrant is located inaccurately on the site plan

    One story proposed, however, lists a second story

    Windows on the north side should be removed

    Seven day a week usage is excessive.

    The proposed building will be seven feet from his residence

    The need for a private fire hydrant

    Concerned with lack of privacy

    Commissioner Bailey asked if the CUP was for the building or for the entire property. Senior Planner Mullis stated that the church did not require a CUP when it was built in the 1950's, it was processed by a precise plan which refers to a parochial school building, which was never built. State records do not show a school or child-care facility in operation and the applicant was not aware of how the previous church operated. Commissioner Bailey asked who had the burden of proof. Senior Planner Mullis stated that both parties would have to show proof.

    Commissioner Bailey asked if the CUP was granted, would the applicant only be able to operate a child-care facility in the new building or would it be for the entire property. Senior Planner Mullis said that the use runs with the land. The site plan is for the development of the building, the CUP is for 40 children and four staff members. He also asked if the applicant could have another 40 children at another building on the site. Senior Planner Mullis responded that parochial school use is not child-care, it required state licensing. Legally, staff felt it could not operate a school and staff needed more information on the applicant's intent, their use, licensing and approvals.

    Commissioner Savage asked staff why other churches were asked to provide a master plan for their current and future uses. Senior Planner Mullis stated that the lack of parking might have triggered the request for the master plan.

    Commissioner Hart was not comfortable making a decision without complete information on licensing, hours of operation, and future plans.

    Commissioner Stopper was concerned with: the issues safety of the children in the facility, the appropriate sprinklers, a private fire hydrant, Knox box, etc. He wanted to give the applicant more time to work out those issues and be more definitive with their future plans.

    Commissioner Cowen was in favor of a continuance to allow a more comprehensive package. She would like to have a better definition of the parochial school use versus a "fee for service" child-care.

    Commissioner Bailey discussed the option of continuing the item or voting on it, as presented. He felt there were too many vague areas and felt a continuation would be best.

    MOTION by Commissioner Cowen to continue to a date uncertain, seconded by Commissioner Stopper and passed unanimously by members present 6 - 0.

    The Commission further discussed:

    Fire hydrant concerns listed in Condition #13

    The possibility of access from Hill Avenue

    Block wall height

    Increasing the building setback

    The applicant requesting a larger enrollment for the pre-school

    ITEM NO. 4 PRJ05-00413 - PM2005-188. APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS: ALEX & MARIANNA FISCHER-MILITARU. A request for a one-lot subdivision to create four individual condominium units on property located at 312 W. Wilshire Avenue (between approximately 170 and 220 feet west of the centerline of Highland Avenue) (R-5 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15315 of CEQA Guidelines)

    Associate Planner Eastman presented the staff report which states that the applicant wants to change an approved four-unit apartment building into a four-unit condominium development. The Planning Commission is being asked to approve the tentative condominium tract map, and a one-lot subdivision creating four individual condominium units. Surrounding uses were described and the subject property is zoned R-5, maximum density, multi-family residential. A project notification map and aerial photo were displayed. Residents within a 300 foot radius were notified of the hearing.

    Associate Planner Eastman gave a background of the approval process, the RDRC reviewed it four times before the apartment building was approved. He discussed the many conditions of approval listed at that time. Subsequent revisions were made on structural issues, architectural treatment, etc. Because the apartment was approved but not yet built or occupied, code allows it to be changed to condominiums (it would not be an actual conversion).

    Staff identified three issues: 1) a two car common garage which is not assigned to a unit. Staff recommends that the garage door be removed and striped for parking use by all occupants. There was a concern that it might be used for a recreation or storage space. Also, 2) every unit has a laundry facility so the laundry area on the first floor is redundant. Staff requested that it be identified on the plans. And 3), Should the project be completed prior to a final of the tract map, and the applicant obtains occupancy of the building, he must comply with the criteria established in the ordinance for the conversion of apartments to a tract map. Because the vacancy rate for rental housing is so low he would not be able to convert the apartments to condominiums unless the rate dropped below 3 %. In practicality, the applicant cannot occupy the building until the tract map is finaled.

    The engineering letter attached to the staff report identified the conditions of approval. One issue is that each sewer lateral should have its own connection to the sewer main. Each sewer stubs out from the foundation of the building to a six inch lateral that goes to the City main. It has already been designed, so it needs to be addressed. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

    Staff recommended approval of the one-lot subdivision, subject to the conditions in the staff report.

    Commissioner Bailey asked:

    If the applicant needed the extra garage in order to meet parking requirements;

    Why would he need to connect individually to the sewer main;

    Is a homeowners' association required.

    Associate Planner Eastman answered that:

    He did need the garage because he needed three parking spaces per unit;

    There is an issue of liability with who would be responsible for replacing the sewer. The City's perspective is that each unit should have their own sewer line and each owner would be responsible; and

    One condition of approval is that there would be CC & Rs, bylaws would be established, and dues would be collected to maintain the common areas.

    Commissioner Savage asked if it was typical to have one sewer line from each condominium unit going to the main City sewer, especially for a larger condominium development.

    Senior Civil Engineer Voronel answered that the Engineering staff felt it was better for each condo to have separate lateral connections because they were not sure if there was one collector lateral running along the slab or under the slab. With four individual connections, a plug could easily be repaired and the owner of each unit would be responsible for their sewer line repair.

    Associate Planner Eastman stated that in larger developments, such as 50 units, an individual main could be maintained by the Homeowners' Association.

    Commissioner Savage reiterated that the Homeowners' Association would have their own sewer system, typically. Senior Civil Engineer Voronel said that was correct.

    Commissioner Hart asked if re-labeling the laundry area was included in condition #8. Associate Planner Eastman answered affirmatively.

    Public hearing opened.

    Alex Fischer-Militaru, owner and designer, discussed:

    The common area and the ratio of the units served

    Re-label the common area as a designated area

    Ratio of guest parking is satisfied

    Keep the garage so unauthorized people won't use it

    He would like to keep the garage door on the fifth garage

    He felt a common laundry with better machines would be a better option

    The sewer system for individual laterals did not make sense to him

    Commissioner Stopper asked the applicant to explain his intentions for the laundry room and how the utilities would be included in the Homeowners' Association. Mr. Fischer-Militaru explained that he would have coin-operated machines connected to a separate electrical and water meter, and the cost of the electrical and water service would come out of the association fees.

    Commissioner Savage questioned if that was legitimate and Mr. Fischer-Militaru said that he had not thought it through and would consider not having a coin-operated laundry.

    Commissioner Bailey reviewed the applicant's statement which is to applied to build an apartment; is now changing it to condos; but he will own them all and rent them out; will have CC& Rs; will have a common area to do laundry; and have the option to sell each unit in the future.

    Mr. Fischer-Militaru stated that he was planning for the future of his three sons.

    Public hearing closed.

    Commissioner Savage asked if the two-car garage was required to meet code requirements.

    Associate Planner Eastman stated that the space is required for parking, but it is not required to be a garage.

    Commissioner Savage asked when the CC & Rs are written, are they approved by a certain standard.

    Associate Planner Eastman was not sure what standards they follow and they had not been prepared yet. He believed that they would use standards set by the California Department of Real Estate. It is a legal text and will address the use of common areas. City staff will review the CC & Rs to make sure the City concerns are addressed.

    Staff requested that the intent for the laundry area be clarified.

    Chairman Griffin asked if the two spaces were required for visitor parking. Associate Planner Eastman answered that code required three spaces per unit, but did not identify if they needed to be for guests. Staff suggested that the two additional spaces be open rather than in an enclosed garage.

    Commissioner Bailey asked if staff was concerned with the applicant's desire to rent out the units, and keep the common laundry area. Associate Planner Eastman stated that staff's final review was as a condominium project with separate owners. Mr. Fischer-Militaru would be held to the CC & Rs and the bylaws.

    Commissioner Bailey felt it was confusing with an apartment versus changing to condominiums. If staff did not have a problem, he was not concerned with it. He was prepared to approve it and recommended that the applicant consider leaving the fifth garage open for guests.

    Commissioner Hart discussed the expense of building apartments and said that builders protect themselves and their investments. She stated that many apartments are being converted to condominiums and felt that staff would make sure that the conditions are met.

    Associate Planner Eastman clarified that he was not concerned whether there was a laundry room or a storage room, he said that the removal of the garage door is being recommended as a condition of approval.

    Commissioner Savage was in support of the project. He felt that the Engineering Department would review the sewer system, according to their written conditions. He felt the legal issues of the laundry room would be handled in the CC & Rs. He wanted the garage door removed so that it could be used for guest parking.

    Chairman Griffin asked for a clarification from Senior Civil Engineer Voronel regarding the sewer. He referred to the third statement stating that sewer mains and laterals shall be constructed in accordance with City standards. He hoped the City would come to an agreement with the applicant.

    Commissioner Savage expected the applicant would build to the City standards.

    Senior Civil Engineer Voronel understood the applicant's concern of cutting into an old, fragile sewer pipe for each unit rather than once. She requested that the applicant provide a plan which showed where the sewer pipe is located in relation to the slab and also showing that each condo would have a separate connection to the six inch sewer lateral.

    Chairman Griffin suggested that as a part of the motion, if the Commission was in agreement, it should be stated that the sewer will be designed in a way that is mutually acceptable to both Engineering and the applicant. He also discussed the need for clarification in the motion regarding the fifth garage door and the laundry issue.

    Public hearing reopened.

    Mr. Fischer-Militaru stated that he preferred to have a garage door to prevent guests from parking in a space that he had assigned to one of the larger units.

    Senior Planner Mullis stated that there was no City standard that required four lateral connections. One of the commissioners suggested the "per city standards" portion of the lateral condition be removed. This is the response to that: The standard provision discussed how much fall there must be, the type of construction, etc. To remove that would remove the other City standard requirements to make sure the sewer works. Current writing would not preclude a discussion and agreement between City staff and the applicant regarding the connection to the lateral.

    Chairman Griffin stated that since staff explained it in more detail, he was not concerned any longer.

    Public hearing closed.

    MOTION by Commissioner Stopper to approve this project with the tentative tract map and conditions as stated in the staff report, with the exception of removing the last sentence in Condition #8 regarding the laundry room, seconded by Commissioner Savage.


    Commissioner Bailey stated that he felt it was the landowner's right to keep the garage door on the fifth garage, since the project is adequately parked. He suggested that all of Condition #8 be removed for economic reasons.

    Commissioner Savage asked if the two parking spaces needed to be open and available to all residents in order to meet the parking requirement. Associate Planner Eastman said that there were several options. If it was the applicant's intent that the garage be owned and utilized by individual tenants, the tract map would need to be revised to indicate the ownership of those spaces by the tenants. It is currently identified as a common area so the agreement regarding the use would need to be spelled out in great detail in the CC & Rs. Staff was concerned with the long-term use of the space for storage.

    Options discussed by staff:

    Staff is recommending that the garage door be removed for guest parking

    Remove the garage door and not stripe it, so it could be used by guests or residents

    The applicant is proposing to keep the garage door and it would be individually owned, staff would request the tract map be revised to identify that it was owned by an individual unit and that individual would be responsible for citations, etc. The City would enforce the storage and parking issues.

    Remove the garage door and remove the criteria that it be guest parking and make it an individual unit space. It would be an open space, tenants could park and own it, there would be no garage door and the storage issue is removed.

    Commissioner Savage said that either it was or was not common space. Associate Planner Eastman said that since the tract map indicates it as a common space, the CC & Rs would have to clarify the ownership of it.

    Commissioner Cowen asked if staff had more latitude in working with the property owner if Condition #8 remained.

    Associate Planner Eastman said that the condition was written so that there is no latitude, it would be guest parking and striped as such. Staff's concern was related to storage. It would be parking either way, which is required by code. The two guest parking spaces for the four units would typically not be adequate for an R-3 or R-4 zone. It is an R-5 zone so it does not specify that it be guest parking or tenant-owned.

    Commissioner Stopper revised the motion so that Condition #8 states that: Prior to building occupancy and recordation of the final map, the construction documents approved for the building currently under construction shall be revised by converting the "common area" garage to a carport. This shall be accomplished by removing the garage door.

    Associate Planner Eastman stated that code requires the striping of compact parking stalls.

    The title of PC-05-24 GRANTING a one-lot subdivision to create four individual condominium units on property located at 312 West Wilshire Avenue was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Stopper, seconded by Commissioner Savage to approve this project with the tentative tract map and conditions as stated in the staff report, with the exception of revising Condition #8 to state, "Prior to building occupancy and recordation of the final map, the construction documents approved for the building currently under construction shall be revised by converting the 'common area' garage to a carport. This shall be accomplished by removing the garage door."

    Associate Planner Eastman stated that the applicant would have to clarify the final tract map.

    All in favor and passed unanimously by voting members present 6 - 0.

    Senior Planner Mullis told the applicant that this decision could be appealed to the City Council.

    ITEM NO. 5
    A request for a zone change from M-G, General Industrial to R-3, Limited-Density Multiple Family Residential; a General Plan Revision changing the land use designation from Industrial to Medium Density Residential; a tentative tract map, and a major site plan for a 50-unit town home development on property located at 1600 W. Commonwealth Avenue (southwest corner of Commonwealth Avenue and Basque Avenue) (proposed R-3 zone) (Mitigated Negative Declaration)

    Assistant Planner Kusch presented the staff report and an aerial photo was displayed. He discussed the surrounding uses, and showed photos of the area. He gave a background of the site and explained that it is currently vacant. The property is zoned M-G industrial.

    Assistant Planner Kusch described the site plan and explained that after meeting with staff and because of the need to meet the City's development standards, the plan was reduced to 49 units. He discussed the noise limitations and the plan to build a sound wall from 12 - 16 feet in height on the southern perimeter. He described the main access point on Basque, a pedestrian access on Commonwealth, and two access points to the railroad property for emergency purposes. The open space for the project includes a pool, a recreational building, and a tot lot on the west.

    A sample architectural elevation was displayed which showed the proposed Craftsman-style building. Staff recommended the RDRC review the final architectural, landscaping and site plan. The zoning would be changed from M -G to R-3 limited multi-family residential. Pursuant to the CEQA study, an initial study was prepared by an independent consultant to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with this project. The initial study identified several potential significant environmental impacts, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. The environmental assessment included an air quality assessment, an acoustical analysis, and a traffic impact analysis.

    Assistant Planner Kusch said that the mitigation measures were recommended to reduce the potential impacts to a level that is "less than significant". These measures were incorporated in the staff report as conditions of approval for the project. The public was notified within a 300 foot radius and expanded to the north and along the Basque Avenue corridor to Malvern Avenue. In June, 2004 and July, 2005, staff and the applicant held community meetings. Residents expressed general concerns over the project regarding existing and possible increases in traffic along Basque Avenue. Staff received several calls from the residents to the north on these traffic issues.

    Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they Certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigated Monitoring Program, approve the General Plan revision to change the land use designation from Industrial to Medium-Density Residential, approve a Zone Amendment to change the zone from (M-G) General Industrial to R-3 Limited Density Multiple-Family Residential, and approve a Tentative Tract Map and a Major Site Plan, subject to the Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval contained in the Staff Report and on Resolution PC-05-25.

    Commissioner Bailey asked if it was feasible to move the pedestrian access to the west side near the overpass. Assistant Planner Kusch stated that there is also a man-gate at the emergency access gate at the west end where residents could exit only. There will also be a keypad incorporated with the Knox box to allow entry at that point.

    Commissioner Savage asked if staff had studied the vacancy rates for industrial properties in the City. Assistant Planner Kusch answered that he was not sure what current the figures were and did not have the numbers readily available.

    Commissioner Stopper asked staff to revise Condition #25 to include a review by the RDRC of the final architectural site plan and landscape plans as listed in the second paragraph of page 4 in the staff report. Assistant Planner Kusch stated that staff had neglected to include that condition.

    Commissioner Stopper also asked about Page #10, Item #4 where staff was not recommending whether this would be a gated community or not. Assistant Planner Kusch stated that staff was neutral on that position because it was not requested by the applicant. It could be problematic for a fire access standpoint and for maneuverability. Staff also did not want to establish a separate, isolated community.

    Senior Planner Mullis stated that a typical design at the entrance to a gated community cannot be accommodated in the current site plan, it required a turn-around. This driveway was not long enough or wide enough to accommodate a gate with the City's requirements.

    Public hearing opened.

    Srima McQuillan, Director of Development of The Olson Company, thanked staff for working with them over the past year. She gave a history of the Olson Company and explained that this was the third development they had planned in Fullerton. An aerial photo of the site was displayed along with photos of the existing site and surrounding uses. Photos of other similar Olson Company developments were displayed and the proposed floor plans were discussed as well as landscaping, paving, and lighting.

    The two main concerns resulting from the community meetings were the speed and flow of traffic. She received a traffic count from the Engineering Department and presented the results. Speed radar feedback signs were being considered for the northbound and southbound lanes on Basque Avenue between Commonwealth and Malvern as effective methods of reducing the speed.

    Traffic consultant, Joe Faust of Faust and Associates, discussed trip generations. He reviewed the numbers collected during the traffic study. Mr. Faust said that the existing traffic flow on Basque was 300 vehicles per hour. He felt the radar feedback signs were a very useful, successful tool and displayed photos of traffic along Basque. He stated that this project would add less traffic than an industrial development. He discussed there would be 10 trips a day from this project, with a 30% increase in traffic to the west, a 50% increase towards Euclid north and south, and 20% forecasted increase on Basque Avenue. He stated in the morning that there are 150 inbound vehicles at the intersection of Basque and Commonwealth Avenue. There are about 300 outbound vehicles an hour during peak hours of 7:30 - 8:30 a.m. at the same intersection. Those numbers reverse in the afternoon peak hours. He predicts a daily fluctuation of about 30 - 50 vehicles. Mr. Faust displayed photos of the Basque and Commonwealth intersection.

    Commissioner Stopper asked if the higher level of traffic in the 1990's was attributable to Hughes traffic. He also asked if the radar feedback signs record a traffic count by the time of day. Mr. Faust answered that Hughes traffic contributed to that number. He also said that the signs have the capability of recording traffic counts.

    Commissioner Savage asked about the FAR (floor area ratio) allowing 72,000 feet of industrial use at the site. As currently zoned, there is the potential to generate the same amount of traffic as a residential use. Mr. Faust stated that residential afternoon traffic has more trips outbound in the afternoon than in the morning. Industrial traffic would have more inbound trips in the morning and outbound in the afternoon. He suggested that a residential development would cause a more calming traffic than commuters.

    Commissioner Bailey asked if there were other traffic-calming techniques. Mr. Faust said that the most common way was to make the roadway appear narrower, paint a centerline stripe, stripe a bike lane, and add chokers at the intersection to not allow passing. Speed bumps are not allowed in the City.

    Chairman Griffin left the room for a brief time.

    Vice-Chairman Savage welcomed public comments.

    Chairman Griffin returned.

    John Weber, a nine year resident, was excited about the project and thought that it would be a wonderful attribute to a "dead" area. His opinion was that the argument was minimal regarding the increased traffic because it is a thoroughfare.

    Bernadette Dunleavy, lives on Basque Avenue, was not against the project, in general. Her immediate concerns were regarding traffic and perhaps inaccurate figures being used for 1998 (per Mark Miller in Engineering). She had a professional statistician review the study and there were concerns with the average daily trips (ADT) reported and the number of trip generations calculated. She suggested a traffic diversion plan of striping the intersection so that traffic can only turn right or left from Basque Avenue heading north.

    Kyle Stava, 217 N. Horton, did not want medium or high-density housing so close to his neighborhood. He felt the design was not compatible with their neighborhood. He felt that high-density housing was not in the best interest of their neighborhood.

    Deanna Romano, 416 N. King, President of Fern Drive Elementary Site Council, was concerned with the amount of traffic on Basque affecting the 300 -350 children walking on Basque and crossing Malvern to attend school, and asked if more crossing guards would be added, especially at Basque and Commonwealth and who would pay for that. She spoke of the amount of traffic from Amerige Heights. She asked which schools the children would attend.

    Commissioner Stopper asked which schools are in the immediate area. Ms. Romano told him that they are Fern Drive Elementary, Parks Jr. High, and Sunny Hills High School.

    Evelyn Braun, 55 year resident, spoke of the traffic increase that she has witnessed. She talked about how drivers use the alleys as alternate ways to avoid the congestion; and accidents due to the speeding traffic. She asked if enforcement could be increased. She also stated that there are City trucks that do not heed the 150,000 pound limit on Basque. She was concerned with the noise and vibrations from the trains and the exhaust fumes from the traffic. She was also concerned that in case of an emergency, would the condominium residents be able to evacuate quickly and safely with one main exit. She asked if the signals at Basque and Commonwealth could be adjusted.

    Jeanette Brown, 1634 Gregory, asked if the noise study covered a 24 hour period, because the trains are very active at 4 a.m. She was concerned if residents moved out, could this become low-income apartments. She asked what the price range of the condos would be. She was concerned with the height of the condos and would residents be able to view into her back yard. She was also concerned with the number of vehicles that run the red light at that intersection. She felt it would be necessary for a crossing guard at that location.

    Austin Cano, lives west of Basque, asked if there would be sufficient room for a left turn lane. He also asked if the developer was required to set aside funds for future traffic improvements.

    James Spraggins, 213 N. Basque, traffic has increased since Amerige Heights was built. He felt Basque is used as a short cut for school and shopping traffic. Traffic can be backed up to 100 feet from the corner. He did not want more traffic impacting Basque. He suggested lowering the speed limit, or making it a one-way street.

    Paul McKay, 221 Winneta Place, was concerned with the trucks and equipment necessary for building, demolition and building materials being delivered. How will they handle the increased volume of large vehicles bringing in various materials. What time of day would materials be delivered and when does the developer project completion of the construction.

    John Skeehan, Martha Place, felt there were only two ways out of their neighborhood off of Chapman and Gregory. He spoke of the increase of foot traffic at Adlena Park and how that would be affected.

    Karen Skoog, Martha Place, disagreed with the traffic consultant regarding the rating of the signal. She spoke of her husband being carjacked at that signal, how the duration of the signal is too long and it should be adjusted. She agreed with a former speaker who suggested a left or right-turn only onto Commonwealth.

    Bernadette Dunleavy left a copy of the results of her study with the Planning Commission. She asked if staff could request that the developer come up with a traffic mitigation plan. She also asked for a way to avert peak hour traffic from making a right turn down Gregory. Chairman Griffin answered that the Planning Commission has the authority to impose a condition with specific suggestions.

    Joyce Finch, resident on Amerige for 51 years, was concerned with the store on Gregory. Patron's cars are parked on each side of Basque and Amerige in the afternoon. It is difficult to exit the alley with the parked cars on both sides of the street and the traffic being produced by the patrons of the store. She spoke of the school traffic increasing during the school year.

    James Ugai, lives on Amerige and his home backs up to Commonwealth. He asked if the developer would be required to improve the north side of Commonwealth. He suggested that the developer consider the affects of the train vibrations as they build because it has cracked his driveway and his home.

    Public hearing closed.

    Chairman Griffin asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to ask questions or deal with the questions of the audience first.

    Commissioner Stopper recommended answering the audience questions first.

    The following questions from the audience were answered:

    Is there a condition for the developer to make any improvements on the north side of Commonwealth. Assistant Planner Kusch said no.

    Requiring installation of a signal activation system at Basque and Commonwealth. Senior Civil Engineer Voronel answered that the mitigation of traffic signals and a protected left turn on Commonwealth is being considered.

    Mr. Faust said there is a condition to re-stripe for the north and south left turn lanes on Basque, part of which is a detection system in the left turn lanes. Some street parking will be removed. Chairman Griffin asked how much parking would be eliminated. Mr. Faust answered that it would be approximately 100 feet of north Basque on the north. South Basque currently has a red curb.

    Mitigation measures are being required regarding the traffic on Gregory. Senior Planner Mullis said that there are none being required.

    The general foot traffic currently in the neighborhood of Adlena Park. Senior Planner Mullis said that the park may be utilized by a local private school for outside activities. It should be brought to the attention of the Community Services Commission, who approves the use and could respond to that issue.

    Were the traffic counts done after Amerige Heights was completed. Mr. Faust responded that the counts were done in April, 2005. The counts displayed peak hour and day long traffic for six days.

    Construction volume, traffic and time frame. Tom Moore, Vice President of Operations, said that work will be done during the hours allowed from 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. The completion of the project will be driven by the pace of the sales. Construction is not begun until the units are sold.

    Commissioner Bailey asked about plans for dust abatement. Mr. Moore stated that they are subject to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, which addresses sediment and dust control on the streets to be approved by Senior Civil Engineer Voronel. The City maintains and monitors it.

    Chairman Griffin mentioned the statistics being challenged by a speaker who had a third party claim that the background data did not support it. Mr. Faust spoke of general trip rates and statistics for apartments and condominiums and felt that his estimates were fair.

    Senior Planner Mullis stated that the City's Traffic Engineer was not able to attend the hearing, but had attended a meeting with some residents. Senior Planner Mullis stated that Traffic Engineer Miller reviewed the study for completeness and accuracy and felt that it was consistent with traffic policy.

    What schools would the children attend? Ms. McQuillen stated that Commonwealth was a dividing line. School-aged children would attend Pacific Drive Elementary, Nicholas Junior High, and Sunny Hills High School.

    City trucks over the weight limit going down Basque. City staff would follow up on this item.

    Train noise, vibration, noise studies and noise mitigation measures. Julie Cho, Consultant, said that the train noise was considered over a 24 hour period. She said that the mitigation measure required was the noise attenuation wall, which will be at a height of 16 feet on the south side.

    Sound attenuation measures. Double pane windows with glazing. Mr. Moore said that the sound attenuation wall, in addition to the windows with a STC (sound transmission class) 29 rating, dual glazed windows. Additional drywall insulation and having outside air ventilation will also help.

    Chairman Griffin asked for price ranges. Ms. McQuillan said they would be in the high $400,000s.

    Height of the building. Ms. McQuillan said that it will be a "tuck-under" product, lowering the grade so that it appears as a two-story residence from the street, but from the alley it will be three stories. The garage is graded down.

    Lighting on Commonwealth. Ms. McQuillan discussed the site lighting plan assessing the lighting on site which would not negatively impact adjacent properties.

    Overflow parking from the Olson development possibly into the neighborhood across Commonwealth. How many spaces are assigned per unit. Ms. McQuillan said that two-car garages and one guest space per unit are assigned and there will be 49 on the site. CC & Rs state that residents must park in their garage and cannot use it for storage. The Homeowners' Association are the most effective monitors.

    Possible to convert to apartments or low-income apartments. Senior Planner Mullis stated that, technically, one person could own all 49 units and rent them out. That is not how the Olson Company operates, they build and sell, predominantly. The market for condominiums is good.

    Emergency equipment ingress and egress. Senior Planner Mullis said that the Fire Department reviewed the plans several times. Originally, the emergency vehicle access was at a different location, the conditions require two points of access to the rail line through the 16 foot wall. There are two access points for emergency vehicles, personnel and residents.

    Were single family homes ever considered. Senior Planner Mullis said that staff typically did not want to put single-family homes next to heavily used rail lines. Senior Planner Mullis reviewed the application and regarded what an appropriate land use would be. The property is very unusual because it is so isolated from other uses. She felt it was a good transitional use between the rail and single family homes to the north and it would help to buffer noise for the residents to the north.

    Ms. McQuillan discussed the height of the sound wall, the City requested that it be lowered four feet because it was too intimidating, an acoustical expert suggested a sound sponge and the developer is exploring that idea. The cost impact would be the same, they are also considering the aesthetics.

    Commissioner Savage discussed the left and right hand turn only off of Basque Avenue. Mr. Faust said that he had done the traffic study on Malvern and Burning Tree and it resulted in having a left and right turn only. He felt it would only divert the traffic from the City yard and the condos, which is insignificant and would not reduce the 5,000 trips coming south on Basque currently.

    Senior Planner Mullis related to creating a diversion for traffic to head north on Basque. Traffic Engineer Miller had stated that a physical barrier, such as a raised median would affect the ability to go north on Basque for the local residents who would be impeded from getting to and from their homes. A broader analysis would be necessary and unforeseen consequences could arise, so additional neighborhood meetings would be necessary. This should be agendized for the Traffic and Circulation Commission to discuss their concerns regarding traffic. Then City Council could direct staff to do a broader study. Mr. Miller had never received a complaint in writing or by phone regarding Basque traffic.

    Commissioner Savage asked if there was any railroad service or spurs for industrial users at this site. Staff did not believe there were any.

    Commissioner Hart asked how they are parked and how would they deal with guest parking. Senior Planner Mullis stated that they meet the code, it is an isolated project and there are 49 on-site parking spaces. Commissioner Hart also asked about any environmental hazards from the previous use, if there was any soil contamination.

    Ms. Cho said that there was a phase I and II environmental site assessment. One was broad and the subsequent assessment was more detailed and the soil was determined to be safe.

    Commissioner Hart also asked about the long range impact on the General Plan and Master Plan. Senior Planner Mullis stated that staff did not feel that this would be a negative impact on the community. She felt that improving this part of Commonwealth would be positive.

    Chairman Griffin asked how residents could convey their concerns regarding the traffic on Basque. Senior Planner Mullis said that Dave Langstaff or Teri Carlson in the Engineering Department are the support staff for the Traffic and Circulation Commission. Traffic Engineer Miller had previously suggested the radar feedback signs and believed it would be the most effective initial step to slow traffic. There is not a good location for other types of physical improvements.

    Commissioner Bailey felt that traffic-calming techniques must be backed up by statistical data. Senior Planner Mullis said that radar signs do not require any backup data. Commissioner Bailey stated that the City would be liable for any improvements that were not legitimately warranted and an injury occurred.

    Commissioner Savage asked if industrial users would pay school fees, etc. Senior Planner Mullis answered that they were exempt.

    Commissioner Stopper stated that the purpose of the Planning Commission is land use and traffic is not their responsibility. The Planning Commission can recommend to the Transportation and Circulation Commission to study of Basque between Malvern and Commonwealth. He was supportive of the General Plan revision to change the land use from commercial to residential and M-G to R-3. He had no objections to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommended approval of the Tentative Tract Map. In favor of supporting the project. He recommended a review of signage by the Transportation and Circulation Commission to limit vehicle weight or advise the City yard staff of the complaints.

    Chairman Griffin asked if the radar signs and left-turn pockets were not a condition. Senior Civil Engineer Voronel stated that in the Engineer's letter the condition mentions mitigation of the signal which meant a protected left-turn pocket on Commonwealth. Assistant Planner Kusch directed the Commission to page 11 of the staff report, item 15.1 which mentions a protected left turn on Commonwealth.

    Commissioner Savage felt it was a nice complex but was not going to support the project. The site is obviously a perfect site for industrial use. He felt that industrial space was needed and there was not a shortage of residential zoning in the City. He was concerned with the close proximity of the yard and the railroad tracks to a residential complex.

    (The Planning Commission voted to insert the verbatim transcript discussing the motion on Item #5)

    Commissioner Cowen appreciated the community's concerns and recommended that the Traffic Department look at this community. She felt it was a good project improving Commonwealth and Fullerton, in general. The zoning amendment is good and she would be supporting it.

    Commissioner Bailey - I believe the traffic is going to be very minimal on this project, I really like the idea that the citizens came up with the splitting of the traffic, but I understand that it's probably not the best use for the space, for this intersection, but I understand and appreciate the creative ideas. I think this is a good use for the space and good for the transition from, I think it was Melanie who said it, for the transition to a more dense use to a single family across the street. I think it will give a nice, this is a corridor, beautification corridor coming into the City. So, it's going to look really nice coming in underneath that scenic corridor. It's a good use for the space so I'm going to support it.

    Commissioner Hart - I also I will be supporting this project, but I want to make a few comments. The land use, I feel there's a negative issue with the land use, it's going to be noisy. There's no if ands or buts and I know the Olson Company is doing one at the Transportation Center but that makes, for me it makes more sense because if people want to catch a train at least they can walk to catch the train and they maybe more have the air about putting up with the noise because at least they can get on the train and go somewhere. And, it's I think more sustainable in the downtown area that my only, one of my concerns, is the sustainability of a unit like this, in 20 years will be people think I don't want to live there or maybe they don't have any other choice for affordability, which then on the upside I would say that this is some work force housing that is desperately needed in the City. I have more positive than negative on this and I'm very happy that someone didn't come in with another specific plan district and can fit within the guidelines of an R-3. So, I'm pretty happy about that. I will be supporting it, approving the land use portion, the rezoning, the mitigated negative declaration and also the tract map.

    Chairman Griffin - it appears we have a consensus, a question I have is whoever wants to make a motion on this remember that we don't have any condition about the two radar signs and the left turn pockets on Basque. I'm not suggesting or trying to push it, but those things were talked about so if someone wants to make a motion to and include those in a condition or not include them, whatever you want to do.

    Commissioner Bailey - I'll make a motion and I don't know if I'll be out of line to kind of go a little bit over that I would almost like to see that the Olson, the developers put in the left turn pockets that they've said, but also maybe any other upgrades that our Traffic Engineer seems are appropriate. You mentioned putting things in the ground, magnetic, cameras, I'm not familiar with everything, but if those left turns aren't going to work with something not being there, I want to make sure that Olson pays for that something and I don't know what that something might be. I would just leave it in Mark Miller's hands, the City Traffic Engineer, to recommend and have Olson follow. With that, I'll make a motion to accept staff's recommendation and add to that the addition traffic enhancements, as presented, and any additional enhancements that the City Traffic Engineer sees fit.

    Senior Planner Mullis, can I ask a question? A couple of hours ago, Commissioner Stopper brought up a concern about modifying Condition #25 regarding RDRC review.

    Commissioner Bailey - yes, actually I have a note about that, let's see, to add final architecture, site plan, and landscape plans, seconded by Commissioner Stopper.

    Chairman Griffin - I would like to have a little discussion about, I'm all for your comment, but it's a very broad statement to say, or anything else that Mark deems, that could be that Mark wants six lanes in each direction. He wouldn't be, but that's a very broad statement, I'm not sure the Olson Company would.

    Senior Planner Mullis - is the goal to attempt to reduce the amount of impacts to Basque, specifically, is that your goal of "whatever else Mark wants"?

    Chairman Griffin - I don't think that that goal is attainable. Senior Planner Mullis no, I know but I'm trying to narrow down you know, the improvements that might be do-able that would reduce traffic from this project to Basque Avenue.

    Commissioner Bailey - I'm not a Traffic Engineer. Senior Planner Mullis I know, I'm not suggesting that you are.

    Chairman Griffin - may I make a suggestion that we specifically say that they're going to pay for the two radar signs and that we specifically say that they're going to do left turn pockets on Commonwealth and Basque, in other words, all four directions and that they will upgrade that signal so that it is as automated, as sensitive as possible to traffic coming to it.

    Commissioner Bailey I know what you're trying to get at, I just don't know what the technologies are now a days.

    Senior Civil Engineer Voronel - can I clarify I talked to Mark before this meeting I wanted to understand the situation a little bit better. I was not with this project from the beginning. He thought that if you read the condition that the mitigation of traffic signal on Commonwealth not even warranted as of today. If you read the condition carefully, if it's warranted, we are actually asking for $20,000 to be deposited. In future, it it's warranted it will be used. So, Mark's idea of improving this intersection, he doesn't think that this particular project, impacts already a bad situation on Basque.

    Chairman Griffin - I appreciate the input, my goal here was to fix what I saw being a problem, Olson was willing to do that. I think that a resident pointed out that we have a problem that when you pull up to Commonwealth when you are on Basque, nothing trips, you just sit there. I've been there.

    Senior Civil Engineer Voronel - that is correct and I also asked Mark about this potential solution to the problem such as adding radar signs and adding left turn pockets, which is not on Basque right now and about 100 feet of parking how does he like this idea. He said that was acceptable and is a good idea and we could add it to our conditions.

    Chairman Griffin - I don't know if I helped or not.

    Commissioner Bailey - I would just say the left turn pockets and any additional upgrades to make those, any other upgrades to the intersection to make those left turn pockets and these upgrades feasible. I just would hate to have a left turn pocket with no camera, you mentioned, or no metallic, no ring or anything, so I don't know if the box could handle that. You know, the box may need to be upgraded to handle the signal right there. The lights need to be.

    Commissioner Cowen - can't we just say a mutually agreeable, and other mutually agreeable enhancements.

    Chairman Griffin - thank you Jennifer Cowen.

    Commissioner Bailey - Make that motion.

    Chairman Griffin - I've got a motion and I've got a second to that motion.

    Commissioner Stopper and I'll accept that modified motion.

    Chairman Griffin - it also includes upgrading number #25 so that RDRC is taken care of, I think you understand what we're going for, so we have a motion and second, and before we vote I didn't tell everyone what I'm doing, I'm going to be supporting the project but my feelings are what Pat Hart's feelings are about some of the concerns and I would echo everything you said, Pat, pretty much verbatim. But I do think the benefits outweigh some of the negatives I've seen so I'll be voting in favor of the project. And I do think it's a beautiful project myself, I think it's going to be beautiful. So, having said that, all in favor of the project as it's been moved and seconded with the amendments say aye, and those opposed say nay.

    Commissioner Savage - Mr. Chairman, may I say something. If this particular triangle gets, since it's being converted, not "if", I would say this is about as nice a setup you could put in that little triangle, it is a nice project.

    Chairman Griffin - for the benefit of those that are left, what we just did is voted to recommend to the City Council that they approve this project. In other words, we're not the final approval place, this will go to City Council for final approval. I don't know if a date has been set, Senior Planner Mullis no, Chairman Griffin public notification will occur. Senior Planner Mullis it may be a couple months off.

    Chairman Griffin - typically when we vote on something and say we've approved it, we talk a bout an appeal period. I don't think it would be to anyone's benefit to appeal a recommendation because you have a right to go to the City Council meeting, in other words the project is not approved until the City Council approves it, so I don't think there's any need for you to file an appeal of our recommendation.

    Senior Planner Mullis I would suggest that those residents that are here on traffic issues please follow up with the Traffic Commission about them and get started on that discussion.

    The title of Resolution PC-05-25 RECOMMENDING approval of a Site Plan to construct a 49 unit residential condominium project, which includes a tentative tract map, a change in the General Plan Land Use Designation from "Industrial" to "Medium-Density Residential", and a change in the zoning designation from "M-G" (General Industrial) to "R-3" (Limited-Density Multi-Family Residential) on property located at 1600 West Commonwealth Avenue was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Bailey to accept staff's recommendation and add additional feasible upgrades to the intersection traffic enhancements, add final architectural, site plan, landscape plans, and other mutually agreeable enhancements, seconded by Commissioner Stopper and passed by a vote of 5 - 1 with Commissioner Savage opposing.

    ITEM NO. 6
    PRJ05-00293 - LRP05-00005. APPLICANT: CITY OF FULLERTON.
    A request to clarify and amend Sections 15.30 (Commercial Zone Classifications) and 15.40 (Industrial Zone Classifications) of the Zoning Ordinance in conjunction with a previously adopted comprehensive code update.

    Assistant Planner Sowers presented the staff report dated July 27, 2005. She stated a comprehensive code update was done in 2001. Since then staff has identified areas specifically in the commercial (15.30) and the industrial (15.40) sections which needed modifications and clarifications. She highlighted the modifications and noted that the changes addressed items that were either already applied in practice or were typographical errors.

    Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the zoning amendment.

    Commissioner Stopper asked if auto rental agencies remained a separate use. Assistant Planner Sowers answered affirmatively.

    MOTION by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Cowen and passed by a vote of 6 - 0.



    Commissioner Stopper said he would send an e-mail reminder of the fourth and final community meeting update of the Transportation Center Study Plan scheduled for August 25, 2005 at the Library, not the Senior Center. He would send an e-mail reminder notice.

    Commissioner Savage stated that he would be on vacation for the August 10, 2005 meeting.


    There were no items to review.


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


    The next Planning Commission meeting will be August 10, 2005 at 4 p.m. Jacaranda will not be on the 4 p.m. session because environmental noticing issues have delayed the item.


    There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:32 a.m.

    RSS for Fullerton NewsFullerton eLists
    Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map | Disclaimer & Privacy PolicyCopyright © 2000 - 2015 Community. Development, 303 W. Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832. 714-738-6547