Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2006 > March 8, 2006
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 MARCH 8, 2006 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Savage at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman Savage; Vice Chairman Francis; Commissioners Bailey, Fitzgerald, Hart, Musante and Thompson
STAFF PRESENT: Chief Planner Rosen, Senior Planner Eastman, Senior Civil Engineer Voronel, Associate Planner Allen and Recording Secretary Pasillas.
FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Fitzgerald
MINUTES: Commissioner Bailey requested a change to be made on page 17 in the last paragraph to add the word "not" before being striped and change the word "but" to "and".

MOTION made by Commissioner Musante SECONDED by Commissioner Hart and CARRIED unanimously with one abstention, that the Minutes of February 22, 2006, be APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Chairman Savage recused himself because he was not there for the full meeting.




A request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a 2,200 s.f. hookah café (water pipe smoking lounge) within an existing multi-tenant commercial shopping center, on property located at 1335 East Chapman Avenue (northeast corner of Chapman and Victoria Avenues) (C-1 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines) (HAL).

Chairman Savage recused himself from this item, because he owns property within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project, and turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Francis.

Chairman Savage left the room.

Staff recommended that this item be continued to a date certain.

MOTION made by Commissioner Musante, SECONDED by Commissioner Francis and CARRIED unanimously that said item be CONTINUED to March 22, 2006.

Chairman Savage returned.

Items 2 and 3 were heard in reverse order.


Staff report dated March 1, 2006 was presented pertaining to a request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate an indoor baseball/softball training facility on property located at 1430 East Walnut Avenue (north side of Walnut Avenue at the terminus of Sally Place) (M-G zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines) (JEA).

Senior Planner Eastman reported that the property is located at 1430 E. Walnut Avenue. The Applicant, Jack Lucas, is the business owner. The tentative business name is Up Your Average. The property owner is listed with the County Assessor's Office as The Realty Associates Fund located in Anaheim. The proposal is to construct an interior improvement within an existing building to create a baseball and softball training facility, consisting of eight batting stalls, three pitching stalls and one fielding stall, also referred to as cages.

Vice Chairman Francis left the room.

The property is located in an M-P-100 zone identified on the location map, south of an R-1-6, single-family residential zone. There is a block wall between the R-1-6 zone where these properties back up to Walnut Avenue. The surrounding property is zoned industrial. All property owners within 300' were notified as indicated on the attached. Railroad tracks run along the south side of the property. The only access to the single-family residential homes is on Acacia and Raymond, although an alley connects to the adjacent residential streets. The site contains 172 parking spaces, and staff anticipates there will be some modifications to accommodate emergency egress and ingress. Both the kid's play area and hoop court have been identified as ancillary uses, and there is also an existing space identified as a lounge, within the building. The applicant is not proposing any external modifications to the building, although some signage may be provided, and additional lighting would be provided for safety in the parking lot and entrance area.

Vice Chairman Francis returned.

Staff has included a condition requiring that staff will conduct an evening inspection to determine if additional lighting is needed. Staff has reviewed this location and feels it is appropriate for this type of use. It will be an interior use, so noise would be limited, and a condition that the activities be limited to inside the building has been included. The applicants must submit a security management plan. No alcohol will be permitted at the facility and the hours would be restricted: 12:00 pm to 9:00 pm Monday thru Friday, and 9:00 am to 9:00 pm Saturday and Sunday. Staff believes parking for the facility is adequate. Staff recommends approval of this project subject to eight conditions as outlined in the staff report.

Commissioner Thompson asked why the applicant proposed restricted hours.

Senior Planner Eastman stated that the applicant had submitted the restricted hours to prohibit the late night element and the attraction of the facility as an evening hangout spot. Staff received a number of phone calls as indicated in the staff report and primary concerns were:

  • Parking on the north side of Walnut not to be removed as part of this application.
  • The lighting be contained to the site and not intensified into the residential neighborhood.
  • Drag racing that takes place on Walnut Avenue, particularly at night.
Staff does not anticipate this use would exacerbate these problems and the increase of people in that area would make it less of an attractive nuisance. Commissioner Savage asked if this information had been passed on to the Police Department and Senior Planner Eastman answered negatively, as it had only recently been brought to his attention.

Commissioner Hart asked about the access, ingress and egress of the building itself, whether there was one main entrance that will be open or if there is a rear exit that will remain open or be used for emergencies only.

Senior Planner Eastman answered that there will have to be additional exits for emergency purposes. The applicant has indicated one entrance on the Walnut Avenue side, and other exits would be for emergencies only.

Public hearing opened.

Commissioner Thompson asked the applicant if they desire to change or expand the hours.

The applicant, Jack Lucas, responded that the only change would be during summer, when kids are out of school, they would open earlier on weekdays. The maximum hours of operation would be 9:00 am - 9:00 pm everyday.

Public hearing opened.

The following people spoke against the project:
  • Elizabeth and Juliano Arquin
  • Brian Wightman, 1416 Sudene
The points of opposition were:
  • Increase in traffic on Walnut
  • Increase in traffic in the alley
  • Increased noise
The following person spoke in support of the project:
  • Rex Davidson, 601 N. Harrington
The reason for his support was:
  • Kids and their parents can do something together
  • Keep kids out of trouble
  • No facility like this available in Fullerton
Public hearing closed.

Commissioner Musante's only comment was to suggest that staff contact the Police Department to watch traffic on Walnut and the surrounding area, especially during the first weeks, so that the public will get the message not to speed in this area.

Commissioner Hart questioned staff regarding the capacity for this building. Senior Planner Eastman explained that the applicant proposes to have approximately 20 people at any given time, although staff believes this number to be unrealistic and anticipates the facility could handle 40 to 50 people at one time. Staff attempted to contact other similar facilities but did not receive a consistent response. Commissioner Hart questioned the turnover, the in and out frequency of the public. Senior Planner Eastman stated that the applicant indicated about a one-hour time frame. Commissioner Hart said she was trying to get an idea of the traffic pattern to determine if it will be continuous traffic all day, or an in and out type pattern. Senior Planner Eastman stated, based on his conversation with other similar type facilities in Santa Ana, that peak times typically are after school, for team training, and usually early evening and late afternoon activity.

Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned whether the operator would want to change the hours in the future. Senior Planner Eastman stated that as currently identified those were the hours for the condition of approval. Commissioner Fitzgerald suggested that hours be 9:00 am - 9:00 pm, seven days a week.

Vice Chairman Francis did not believe traffic would be a problem, and also noted that if an industrial type business were to locate in this facility, it could possibly have a far greater impact on traffic and noise. He indicated he would support this project.

Commissioner Bailey agreed with Vice Chairman Francis' comments on possible industrial use and noted that without coming before the Commission a 24-hour business could move in. He stated he would be supporting this project, including the amendment to the hours.

Commissioner Hart believed that there could be worse things in this building and that this project is a light use for an industrial area. While there would be more traffic than an empty building, the City would be doing something for our young people in the area. She indicated she would be supporting this project.

Commissioner Thompson added that he believed it to be a great use and he would be supporting the project.

Chairman Savage spoke of this project being a fairly light use of an industrial area, and agreed to support the project with the 9:00 am - 9:00 pm hour's modification.

Commissioner Musante motioned to add a condition for the 9:00 am - 9:00 pm hours.

Commissioner Thompson moved to accept staff's recommendation with a modification that the hours be changed from 12:00 pm - 9:00 pm to 9:00 am - 9:00 pm.

The title of Resolution No. PC-06-08 APPROVING a Conditional Use Permit to operate an indoor baseball/softball training facility on property located at 1430 East Walnut Avenue was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Thompson, SECONDED by Commissioner Hart and CARRIED unanimously that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS AMENDED.

Chairman Savage explained the appeal process.


Staff report dated March 1, 2006 was presented pertaining to a request to construct a mixed-use project comprised of 27 residential condominium units above 5,400-square-feet of retail space and a parking garage, (the application includes a major development project, zoning adjustment for a minor encroachment into the setback from the north property line for portions of the third, fourth, and fifth floors, a tentative tract map for condominium purposes, and a zoning adjustment for a portion of the fourth and fifth floors to encroach into the required setback to a residential zone) on property located at 345 East Commonwealth Avenue (northwest corner of Commonwealth Avenue and Lawrence Avenue) (C-3 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15332 of CEQA Guidelines) (HAL).

Associate Planner Allen explained that this project is for a mixed-use, and entitled "Metro". It is currently vacant land located on the northwest corner of Lawrence and Commonwealth Avenues. In 2004 a 16 unit apartment complex was approved on this site, but the property was subsequently sold to New Castle Development prior to construction. The applicant is proposing a 27 residential unit, mixed use project on four stories above a ground floor commercial space, with 5,400 square feet of retail. The retail will be oriented to the corner facing Lawrence and Commonwealth Avenues. Parking is proposed on two levels, with ground floor parking provided for guests and commercial users and a subterranean level provided for residents.

Staff has worked significantly with applicant on four main design elements, with the first being the pedestrian area on the street. The applicant is proposing what will become a 20' sidewalk on the street sides and the architecture reflects a complimentary pedestrian element to provide interest at the ground floor level. The second element is the property to the west being a local landmark building identified with a previous project, and carrying this forward in the current project. One requirement of the current project is that it be set back to accommodate visibility to the building that is a local landmark. The project has a street setback of approximately 20' along both street frontages, and at the western portion of the building it is stepped back and set back in line with the local landmark building. The third element that is important in the design is differentiating commercial space from the residential space above, and also having a product that is believed to be viable in the commercial market. The applicant has increased the originally proposed height of the commercial space and also increased the depth to get the largest possible commercial spaces that the site would accommodate. The building is proposed with four stories of residential above commercial. The building rises to generally a 64' height level, with one area in front (common recreation room) rising to 67', which is consistent with the Fullerton downtown strategy that encompasses this area. The last component staff and the developer worked on is the architecture. One additional main focus of the Fullerton downtown strategy is quality architecture that is authentic and uses materials the way they are intended to be used as shown in the renderings. Materials include a stucco exterior with stone accents on the ground floor, unfinished corrugated metal in the penthouse area, and metal roofs. Accent elements carry the aluminum finish throughout. Associate Planner Allen provided specifics on the site plan bounded by Commonwealth and

Lawrence Avenues, and also on the North by the alley. Predominant access for commercial users will either occur off Lawrence Avenue through the alley into the "at grade" parking or through Commonwealth Avenue to the "at grade" parking. Access for residents will occur off the alley down a ramp into the underground garage which provides 57 spaces for residents. The surface parking provides 22 spaces to accommodate commercial users as well as guest parking. To put the project in prospective in relation to other similar projects downtown, City Pointe and Pinnacle both have "at grade" parking, which is entirely shared between residential guests and commercial users. This project would be similar and does not need all the spaces to be shared to meet the parking requirement. The floor area that is proposed for the project is also consistent with what is anticipated in the downtown strategy, and does meet the development standards for the zone. The open space provided exceeds what is required.

The second application is a zoning adjustment, to address the small deviation in the setback between the north property line and the residential-zoned property to the north, separated from the project by the alley. What is zoned R-3 property is actually occupied by more of a single-family type dwelling. The zoning code does have a requirement that causes the stepping of the building as is abuts residential. Staff referred to an elevation and stated that the request is to approve the encroachment at the triangular portions above this line. This would technically encroach into the setback required for being in proximity to residential when there is a commercially-zoned property. Zoning code requires the building to be stepped back one foot for each one foot in height above ten feet. The building reflects this with the exception of the triangular area portion on the third floor; the fourth and fifth floors have these areas as well. The intent is to prevent a large building that would block an existing residential property. Staff believes this stepping is generally consistent and is within what can be requested as a zoning adjustment.

The third application is a tentative tract map for condominium purposes. This property, including commercial space, is proposed as for sale condominiums. The nature of having condominiums means there would be an owner's association which would govern building maintenance, landscape maintenance, trash pickup, signage, and would require the owners of both the residential and commercial space to abide by the conditions of the CC & R's.

The conditions that are placed on this project are essentially to implement what staff believes is a significantly well designed site plan and architecture as proposed. The RDRC reviewed the proposed site plan and architecture as proposed and recommended approval. A materials board was provided to review the quality of the materials proposed.

Chairman Savage asked staff to expand on the shared parking at the Pinnacle and City Pointe.

Associate Planner Allen answered that when those projects were proposed, the code was slightly different. At that time, the residential parking standards that were applied to a mixes-use project had one requirement for resident parking, one requirement for guests, and a calculation for commercial. The guests spaces were separately identified and were all proposed to be unrestricted, meaning "at grade" and available at all times. The commercial parking demand was generally met by sharing with the residential guest spaces. The proposed "at grade" spaces would be available as unrestricted for both guests and commercial users as well.

Vice Chairman Francis questioned how parking would be regulated as a private building. He asked if our Parking Control Officers would be able to go there and cite people. He questioned what would happen if someone buys a condo and has one or two spaces but has three cars. .

Associate Planner Allen stated that the CC & R's would have the overall regulations. To avoid the guest spaces being filled by storage of vehicles staff is recommending overnight guests obtain a permit from the owner's association. There are 2.1 residential spaces per unit.

Vice Chairman Francis asked if there would be parking on the street.

Associate Planner Allen stated that there is currently parking on both Lawrence and Commonwealth Avenues, but not overnight parking.

Vice Chairman Francis stated that for the benefit of the retailers it is more convenient to pull up on the street and get out of your car to go into the coffee shop than try to find a parking space behind the building.

Associate Planner Allen reiterated that there is daytime parking available on Commonwealth and Lawrence Avenues.

Vice Chairman Francis commented that he drives down Commonwealth ten times a day and there are never any cars parked on that street in that area, although there is no building there now. The majority of the people coming in for this kind of retail, a coffee shop, a smoothie shop, perhaps a Togo's, are going to be quick. He believes that street parking would be beneficial.

Associate Planner Allen indicated that the commercial spaces will be essentially neighborhood type businesses, so parking spaces would turn over fairly quickly.

Commissioner Fitzgerald asked a question about the alley, and the way the residents get in and out of the underground parking. She was concerned about so much traffic going down the alley.

Associate Planner Allen explained that a traffic analysis was conducted. Traffic analysis results for pm peak generation for the residential component would be a total of 14 trips, and 12 trips at am peak. In comparison, retail trips would be 12 during the pm peak. The retail trips would not coincide with am traffic peak. The trip generation overall would be greater for the retail with 204 trips vs. 158 trips for the residential. Chief Planner Rosen added that these were total trips in a 24-hour period.

Associate Planner Allen stated that the main advantage of the residential parking off the alley was that it segregated the residential traffic from the commercial traffic. It was similarly configured to the Pinnacle project in that the residential takes access from a separate location off a smaller street, and the commercial takes access off the more arterial street.

Commissioner Hart asked for clarification of the parking calculation. Associate Planner Allen clarified that there is a ten space difference as a result of the ten shared commercial spaces. The commercial users and the residential guests will come to the location at different times, accommodating the sharing of the spaces. The site is adequately parked for the commercial. It does have all the 22 spaces that that square footage would require. It also has offsite capacity if there is a bit of overflow.

Commissioner Hart asked what would happen on the weekends. Associate Planner Allen answered that there are 2.1 spaces per unit so regular weekend guests would have a space.

Commissioner Hart asked if there was subterranean guest parking. Associate Planner Allen answered that it would not be designated as guest parking. The way that parking is calculated currently for this zone is a blended rate, so resident tenant vs. guest spaces are not specifically identified. She further explained that if the site had no sharing, each 2 bedroom unit would have 2.5 spaces and the 1 bedroom units would have 2 spaces. The shortage is being made up by the "at grade" spaces. Commissioner Hart commented that she is still concerned about the parking, but understands the calculations better.

Chairman Savage offered the applicant a chance to speak or take questions.

Ryan Gregory, the applicant, stated that Associate Planner Allen did a good job of covering the information and he did not have anything to add. He went on to say that Fullerton used to be all orchards and when housing was needed the orchard was plowed and housing built. There are no more orchards left, but we need to provide housing. It is not the future of going up, it's the present. He believes the city has recognized this with their downtown strategy and took that into account with the design of this building. He stated that his family has been in Fullerton for a long time and he truly loves this city and looks forward to seeing more projects like this.

Commissioner Bailey had a question regarding landscaping. From the photos he has seen it appeared that there was a significant landscaping plan for the front of the building. He wondered if this is just a rendering or if a lot of trees and open space would be provided.

Mr. Gregory answered that the rendering is pretty close to what will be done, but referenced the landscape plan that shows exactly what will be provided. He indicated that staff instructed them to match the Pinnacle project landscaping, with the stamped concrete and alternating magnolia and palms. The corner was left open to create a pedestrian plaza area.

Senior Planner Eastman stated that the rendering accurately reflects what is being proposed. There will be a 20' sidewalk, a 10' set back and a 10' right-of-way, so 20' of open space. A plaza is proposed at the corner as indicated with some palm trees. There is an alternating magnolia and Washingtonian Palm street scheme which is the same as the BRE project. The spacing of the trees is somewhat closer than is typical with street trees, but that is because of the varying heights of the two plants. It is also somewhat similar to what is in front of the police department. The intent is to ultimately landscape Commonwealth Avenue all the way down to the police department from this location.

Commissioner Thompson inquired if the code required the sidewalk to be setback that deep. Senior Planner Eastman answered that 10' from the property line is required. There is 20' of open space from curb because there is a 10' right-of-way with the setback.

Vice Chairman Francis questioned if it was a wood frame building or a metal frame.

Mr. Gregory answered that the first level in the subterranean will be concrete podium and above that would be wood. He added that the metal that would be seen was aesthetic.

Public hearing opened.

The following people spoke against the project:

  • Patti and Alec Smith, 114 N. Lawrence Avenue
  • Kimberly Causka, 119 N. Lawrence Avenue
The points of opposition were:
  • Parking demands - already a problem with college parking
  • Size of the project
  • Flow of traffic, noise pollution, alley traffic
  • Placement of utilities - it would create goodwill if utilities were moved underground
Commissioner Musante asked if the telephone poles in the alley would be buried or are other utilities being buried.

Senior Civil Engineer Voronel explained that utilities on the development frontage on Lawrence are conditioned to be placed underground (Edison and telephone poles). If there are any overhead utilities crossing the site, they have to be undergrounded as well.

Commissioner Musante commented that it would be a significant improvement.

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner Bailey questioned the alley, specifically the residential egress and digress of vehicles. He asked if vehicles could make turns out of the alley, and could vehicles pass each other.

Senior Civil Engineer Voronel answered that the alley has a standard width of 20'. Throughout Fullerton there are alleys similar to this, 20' wide. Twenty feet is standard and allows maneuvering in the alley.

Commissioner Bailey commented that his alley is 20' and requires slowing down to pass, which helps control the speed in the area. He questioned the zoning for the area to the north.

Senior Planner Eastman indicated it is R-3. He also added that the project has an additional five feet of setback off the alley accessed parking stalls provided to allow for a 25' backup for these parking spaces. The actual alley width at the location will appear wider because of the additional five feet of backup space.

Commissioner Bailey indicated he understood the wider appearance and increased ability to move around.

Senior Planner Eastman spoke of the landscaping fingers and other minor landscaping along the alley. Additional open space would provide additional maneuverability at the location.

Commissioner Bailey wanted confirmation of the R-3 zone and asked if apartments could be built there.

Senior Planner Eastman confirmed the R-3 zoning of the adjacent properties on Lawrence Avenue, adding that apartments could be built provided the development standards could be met.

Commissioner Bailey asked the applicant about the security plans and Chairman Savage stated that the public hearing was closed.

Associate Planner Allen added that if the commission desired, security could be addressed within the CC & R's.

Vice Chairman Francis felt this project was a major improvement over the application that was approved in 2004. He likes the sidewalks in the front, the landscaping, and the architecture of the building. He feels the project expands the downtown, and is part of the downtown. There is pride in ownership, and he was pleased the units are not all rentals. He has no major concerns as long as staff and RDRC are comfortable. He believes it to be a great project and will be supporting it.

Commissioner Hart indicated she had reviewed the plans and was pleased with the architecture and the layout. She acknowledged the neighbors concerns, but felt they could be mitigated. Her biggest issue was parking, she felt the project was under parked, and agreed with the residents that parking on Lawrence Avenue was very much impacted with the college. She supported the project, but wants additional parking.

Commissioner Fitzgerald supports the project, including the set back from the street, the landscaping, and the materials used. She complemented the developer on working with staff and the RDRC to make this a stunning project and a good addition to the downtown. She agreed with Commissioner Hart that there are definite parking problems related to the college students downtown, but did not feel that it was the developer's problem to solve. She will not require any additional parking in order to support the project, but commented that the City and the college need to continue working on the parking issue to ensure the students are not encroaching on other people's spaces. She will support the project as is.

Commissioner Musante believed this to be a quality project, and an extension of the downtown. He commended the architects, developer, and staff for coming up with such a beautiful design. He supported the project.

Commissioner Thompson will also support the project. He does not see this project as adding to the parking problem downtown and agreed with Vice Chairman Francis that there was probably enough street parking to accommodate the type of businesses that are going to occupy the first floor. He was undecided on whether he liked the architecture, but did say he does not like the Metro sign. He complemented the Smiths on their presentation and empathized with them regarding the size of the building, but stated that it was a reasonable project and use.

Commissioner Bailey had an opportunity to meet with the applicant to look at the project a few days ago, and initially he was concerned with the architecture as well, but only had seen one drawing. After reviewing several drawings he was very comfortable with the architecture and thinks it will be a nice view coming into the downtown. He also does not like the Metro sign, but would support the project.

Chairman Savage explained that the downtown study completed several months ago stressed the City's desire for high quality architecture. He believes this fits the bill, although it is not in his taste, but architecturally it is a beautiful building, with the upper floor detail, the different setbacks, and the curves of the building. He believes this will be one of the nicest buildings in the City of Fullerton. He can't think of a better architecture for this project other that the Chapman Building, which he admires. He does not think Craftsman style, as suggested by the neighbors, would fit a building of this size. He likes the setback streetscape, and commented that it is set back further than a lot of the taller buildings and adds ambience to that part of Fullerton. He believes this will be a positive thing for the neighboring properties. The City of Fullerton does have an eclectic architecture. He is going to support the project, adding that he voted against the previous project because of parking. He agreed that there is still a parking problem with the college but that was not the problem of the applicant.

Commissioner Hart stated that she disagreed with the non-responsibility regarding parking issues related to the college. If everyone is not responsible for overall parking she believes we will have a big problem. She felt like the project is under parked, but she liked the project. She indicated that she wanted to be on record saying the parking was not adequate. She will support the project but wants her concerns with the parking issue noted.

The title of Resolution No. PC-06-07 APPROVING a major development project, zoning adjustment, and tentative tract map for condominium and lot consolidation purposes to construct a mixed-use project comprised of 27 residential units above approximately 5,400 square feet of retail space and a parking garage in the community improvement district (CID) overlay zone was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Fitzgerald, SECONDED by Commissioner Thompson and CARRIED unanimously that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

Chairman Savage explained the appeal process.




Chairman Savage stated he would be out of town for the meeting on April 12, 2006.

Chief Planner Rosen noted that there was a note in the paper that the NUF (Neighbors Uniting for Fullerton) meeting next Monday had him scheduled to speak, but he has a previous commitment so Senior Planner Eastman will be doing the presentation.


Chief Planner Rosen gave an overview of the March 7, 2006 City Council meeting.


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


The next regularly-scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be March 8, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Chief Planner Rosen reviewed the items scheduled for this meeting.


There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.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