MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS		FULLERTON CITY HALL
Tuesday	April 21, 2005	7:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER :	The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman Daybell
ROLL CALL :	COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:	Chairman Daybell; Vice Chairman Duncan Committee Members Hoban and Coffman
	COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:	Committee Member Johnson
	STAFF PRESENT:	Chief Planner Rosen, Associate Planner Eastman, Planning Intern Bunim and Clerical Staff Norton
MINUTES :	The minutes from April 12, 2005 were deferred to April 28, 2005.

NEW BUSINESS:

PRJ04-00901 ZON04-0004 (Sunrise Assisted Living) APPLICANT: WAYNE SANT; PROPERTY OWNER: OTTO KAHN

A request to develop a 68-unit, two-story assisted living facility for the elderly with 37 parking spaces. The application includes a General Plan revision, changing the General Plan designation from Low Density residential to Medium Density Residential, a Zone Amendment changing the zoning from Single-Family Residential to Specific Plan District, a Specific Plan, a Major Site Plan and a Conditional Use Permit. The property is located at 2226 North Euclid Street (east side of Euclid Street, approximately 690 to 1450 feet south of Laguna Road).

Assistant Planner Sowers presented the staff report dated April 21, 2005 and explained that the applicant is proposing to develop a residential care facility for the elderly. The site is currently used for agricultural purposes and includes a retail stand where strawberries and various types of produce are sold.

She also summarized the request and noted the applications to be processed.

Assistant Planner Sowers stated that staff has reviewed several iterations of these plans since July, 2004 and has consistently informed the applicant that this project would not be supported because it exceeds the level of density (8 units) that is conditionally permitted in a single family residential zone. Also, the zoning code allows for a Specific Plan if the site is larger than 40 acres, or if City Council determines that a site has a unique land use mix, or if there are specific community design objectives. It was staffs opinion that the proposed project is not appropriate for the use of a Specific Plan.

Assistant Planner Sowers reviewed the process of approval and explained that the RDRC will only review the major site plan component of the project. The RDRC will then make a recommendation on the site and architecture components to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission will review other components of the application. The Planning Commission will make recommendations to the City Council who will certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration (the environmental documentation following the project) and make the ultimate decision on the project.

Assistant Planner Sowers described the proposed location and displayed an aerial map and several site photos. She explained ingress, egress and site circulation, landscape setbacks, pedestrian paths, and the location of the residential garden. She explained staffs concerns with the project, i.e., 1) density, 2) lot coverage, 3) open space, 4) retaining wall, 5) building height, 6) roof-mounted equipment, and 7) pedestrian circulation. Staff recommended denial of the major site plan because of their concerns. She discussed the architecture but noted that staff has developed renumbered conditions

Member Hoban asked if dealing with the density, the number of units and parking were within the purview of the RDRC. Chief Planner Rosen stated that it was technically, as it affects the site plan and architecture; however, the required number of units and parking spaces is under the purview of the Planning Commission. The circulation pattern and the site plan relating to pedestrian walkways are under the purview of the RDRC.

Member Hoban asked about a chain link fence displayed in one of the photos. Assistant Planner Sowers explained that it was a fence cutting through the property surrounding a horse stable, not a property line fence.

Chairman Daybell asked why there was a discrepancy between the lot coverage described by the developer and what staff presented. Assistant Planner Sowers stated that the Fullerton Municipal Code includes building footprints, parking and driveway areas. She stated that the applicant was calculating the relationship of building to lot coverage without the parking and driveways. He asked if the developer had seen the latest recommendations and if staff had subsequent discussions with them. Staff answered that they have seen the recommendations and there have not been further discussions.

Public hearing opened.

Applicant, Roger Green, development officer of Sunrise Senior Living, introduced Mark Hendrickson, Hill Partnership architects, Harold Mestinek, I. V. landscape architects, Steve Sheldon and Karen Sulley, Sheldon Group. He explained that Sunrise has been in business for over 20 years in providing luxury, assisted living for seniors in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. He thanked the RDRC for allowing the presentation. He gave an overview of the project, the site location, the selection of architecture and proposed landscape design. He displayed an aerial photo and discussed the proposal, the unique shape of the site, the dedications along Euclid, the drainage channel and the retaining wall. He reviewed the cross sections that were displayed and explained that the Specific Plan designation would lock in the standards for the site. He spoke about specific architectural designs and proposed landscape treatments and displayed photos of other facilities that they operate in Southern California.

He talked about the room size and there will be 40% of common area. The rooms do not have kitchens. He spoke about the unique characteristics of the property, which is why they chose to develop a Specific Plan. He described the retaining wall which tapers down to three feet. He clarified that there will not be a six foot wood fence, as previously noted on the plans.

Mr. Green discussed the differences in staffs calculations using R-3-R standards, compared to what Sunrise is limiting in the Specific Plan.

Density equivalency:
Staff calculates at 50 residential units	Sunrise: capping it at 42.5 residential units. (Based on the mix of units inside the home)
Residence:
Staff calculates at 100 beds	Sunrise: capping it at 85 maximum residents. (Maximum of 68 rooms, 85 maximum residents, not 100 beds)
Usable Open Space:
Staff requires 20,000 square feet	Sunrise: Specific Plan 26,000 square feet (including landscape setback, rose garden, open space garden, courtyard and balconies)
Building Lot Coverage:
Staff requires 59%	Sunrise: Providing 34% (excluding parking turnaround areas, garage ramp, at grade parking spaces - Excluding hardscape as part of the calculations in the Specific Plan)
Building Height:
Staff standard of 30 feet, two stories within 51 100 feet of single family zone	Sunrise: Specific Plan 30 feet two stories within 38 feet of an existing family home, separated by an eight foot high block wall

Mr. Green felt it would be a limited impact to neighbors; he talked about dedications along Euclid, and the Specific Plan which addresses the unique qualities of this site. Mr. Green stated that if the RDRC approved the project, he was concerned with several conditions of approval and would like to discuss them at the appropriate time.

Chairman Daybell asked the committee if they wanted to address the discrepancies between staffs recommendations and the applicants proposal. Member Coffman stated that he preferred that the public speak and then discuss the differences after hearing all public comments.

Doug Chaffee, 315 Marion Boulevard, was concerned with what seemed to be a manipulation of numbers. He discussed:

• The plan shows 68 units and they discussed 42.5 units
• The height of the eight foot retaining wall as it tapers down to three feet
• The appropriateness of the Specific Plan District
• Drainage of the hillside on the southeast portion of the property could alter the placement of the building
• Block wall changing how the water is carried away
• Least amount of open space of residential care facilities in the city
• Out of character for this area
• Developer had a lack of credibility with different percentages, compared to code
• Disputed that it was not needed in the city
• Trying to fit a project for economic reasons
• Not enough landscaping for the area

Catherine Lancaster, 901 Paloma Place, Officer of North Fullerton Homeowners' Association (HOA). She discussed a recent meeting with 100 members in attendance. These residents border the project area. There was unanimous, adamant opposition to the project and any zoning change. She felt it was not compatible for a one-half acre zoned residential community.

She talked about the nearby equestrian center and that the increased traffic could disturb the horses and their riders. She felt this was an extension of a hospital zone.

Dave Hoonsbeen, 2024 Calle Alegria, lives within walking distance from project. He was concerned that the proposed 37 parking spaces would not be sufficient to handle employees, visitors and residents.

Robert Reese, 915 Verona Drive, his home is located up the slope, southeast of project. He rebutted Mr. Greens statement that the homes above the proposed project will not be able to see the roof-mounted equipment. He said that he and his neighbors can view the proposed site from their back yards or from the second story. He asked that the applicant consider their view. He felt it was not right to have a 24 hour commercial business in a residential neighborhood.

Paulette Marshal Chaffee, 131 W. Wilshire Boulevard, discussed:

• The density was too high for such a small site
• There would be high noise levels
• There is inadequate open space
• The amount of seniors planned to occupy such a small site does not serve the residents well
• Not compatible for the neighborhood
• The retaining wall is too massive
• Residents will be impacted, as will passing traffic, pedestrians, and horse riders.
• Building impacts the entire neighborhood (Yuma, Verona, and Laguna Lake park users)
• Displayed photos of the Yorba Linda facility and other local assisted care facilities
• Underground parking with elevator not operating after dusk at another facility
• Residential facilities require larger lots.

Mike Faulkner, 952 Paloma Place, lives east of the proposed project above the hill. He felt that it will look like industrial buildings. His discussed the five new homes built recently and the trees planted to buffer the view. He will still be able to view the entire site from his home and he agreed with others who spoke that it is the wrong project for this site.

Verne Wagner, 731 W. Las Palmas, was afraid of the impact on the equestrian community, the stables and the riding rink. She felt that there would be additional traffic with employees, service deliveries, visitors and residents.

Allen Herschbein, 279 La Travesia, Vice President of the North Fullerton Homeowners' Association, visited another Sunrise center and felt that there was poor parking egress and ingress. He was concerned with the possible failure of the slope and the elderly not being able to evacuate quickly. He stated that there are no other commercial projects on the east side of Euclid from Bastanchury to Harbor.

Brij Mathur, 2231 Yuma Way, he felt his home would be most impacted. He moved in two weeks ago, but has been a resident of Fullerton for over 15 years. He did not think it was an appropriate use. He was told when he purchased his home that this property would also be used for homes. He wanted the staffs recommendation of 54 feet of separation, which would negatively affect the size of the project.

Roger Green responded to Mr. Reeses comments regarding his view of the site. He clarified that the building elevation of a 30 foot faade would not be a direct view impact; he did not mention the rooftop equipment. He stated that the parking code requirements are .5 spaces per unit, and their proposal exceeds that by three spaces.

Assistant Planner Sowers responded that the Engineering department reviewed the parking and staff believes the numbers are adequate.

Mr. Green stated that there will be 40 employees within a 24 hour period. The peak time is between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. with a maximum of 20 employees on staff during those hours. There are no shift changes, but staff is on-site as needed. There will be sales personnel and an administrative assistant in the office from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Chief Planner Rosen spoke to the difference in the density equivalency calculation. The Fullerton Municipal Code states that there is an equivalency for assisted care facilities without kitchens, but with congregate eating. Staff and the applicant differ because the plans show a possibility of 100 beds, they would need to show a restriction of beds to 85.

Paulette Marshall Chaffee spoke about Denver units, which is a bed capable of holding two people.

Mr. Green stated that there are three types of units single, Denver unit (could be for two or single), and double (two bedrooms). Shared Denver units are limited so the mix is set at 85 units.

Chairman Daybell stated felt this issue could be worked out between staff and the applicant if approved.

Verne Wagner, 731 W. Las Palmas, felt that 37 parking spaces were not sufficient for the employees, residents and visitors.

Chief Planner Rosen stated that all the comments would be passed on to the Planning Commission and City Council. The parking meets the code requirement and the proposed Specific Plan requirement, but it is an issue under the purview of the Planning Commission. The adequacy of the zoning requirement is being questioned, but it is also under the purview of the Planning Commission and the City Council

Chairman Daybell stated that his personal experience was that parking was not a problem at a facility where his father lived.

Mr. Green reiterated that there are unique characteristics to work around. He spoke of the 22 feet of dedications, street trees, equestrian trail, and the underground drainage channel. He felt that $3 million of improvements would be an asset to this site.

Member Hoban asked about the type of roofing material and if screening was considered. Mark Hendrickson, Hill Partnership architect, stated that it would be variegated composition and there will be a canopy over the whole roof and a horizontal louver panel.

Associate Planner Eastman asked for a clarification on the type of material to be used for the louver. Mr. Hendrickson stated that an aluminum louver will be painted the same color as the shingled roof and will not be seen from the street.

Member Hoban asked if there was a loading dock for deliveries to the commercial kitchen. Mr. Hendrickson stated that there is a drop off area at the side of the building. He showed the location of the entrance to be used on the side, allowing room for vehicles to pass.

Member Hoban talked about the footprint of the underground parking layout, the retaining wall, if lattice will be used and asked what type of block will be used. Mr. Hendrickson is considering using a crip lock three dimensional block and that lattice would only be used for covering the peak of the gable and not projecting out.

Member Hoban asked about the ground level doors with a barn look. Mr. Hendrickson stated that the triangles are only a denotation of the swing of the doors.

Member Hoban also discussed if there was limited parking at other facilities. Mr. Hendrickson stated that all facilities are parked at this ratio and supporting data shows that it is adequate. Most residents are frail and do not drive.

Steve Sheldon, Sheldon Group, stated that parking does meet the code. He mentioned that staff also recently updated the code regarding parking for senior assisted care facilities. He stated that their state license will require a cap at 85 residents and cannot exceed that number. Staff has held them to a multi-family development standard which has been a challenge and is not the same for assisted living facilities.

Associate Planner Eastman stated that staff did not have an objection to using lattice on the face of the gable, it appeared on the elevations as being two dimensional on the back of the gable.

Member Hoban asked the applicant if this project was approved with all of staffs recommended conditions, could the project be built. Mr. Green stated that they would not be able to build it the way they have designed it and he would like to review each condition.

Chairman Daybell suggested that the applicant review his concerns with the conditions.

Mr. Green stated that on page 6 of the staff report, conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 do not apply because of the Specific Plan document. He asked that the Specific Plan override conditions 1 6 and Condition #8. He agreed with conditions 7, 9 and 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. He asked if it was normal procedure to ask the applicant to return with final construction drawings for RDRC review for conformity.

Associate Planner Eastman stated that on occasion staff has brought projects back for final review of specific details only seen on construction plans.

Mr. Green request that the RDRC consider if he complied with conditions relating to architecture, that it would not be necessary to come back for review again. Mr. Green stated that 17, 18, and 19 were acceptable. He asked for greater details for the required screening materials, height, and landscaping that could be required by the Director of Development Services. He stated that with the recommendation for Condition #21 to be narrowed, he needed additional information because the secondary driveway was designed in accordance with Fire Department standards. Condition #22 requires maintenance of the trail, surface and fencing. He stated that they are not in a position to maintain or be responsible for the trail, surface and fencing and requested signage on their property with a height visible by the street. He stated that Conditions #23 and 24 were acceptable.

Chairman Daybell stated that the signage could be worked out.

Marilyn Doddridge, 890 Rancho Circle, requested the photo of the slope be shown again. Assistant Planner Sowers displayed the photo. She stated that she has lived in Fullerton for 41 years and that the plastic is on the slopes because it is a precarious slope that has failed in the past. She asked for the location of the dumpsters and asked the committee to retain the current sanctuary type conditions of the site.

Chief Planner Rosen responded to the applicants statement that the code does not address this facility specifically. Mr. Rosen stated that there is a specific provision for residential care facilities dealing with the elderly, which deal with not just parking, lot coverage, open space, overall density, appearance, architectural style, usable of open space, and indoor common areas. Staff uses the underlying zoning to determine the appropriate mix and density required for that particular zone. The applicant is offering something different in their Specific Plan and is in contrast to what staff is recommending.

Chief Planner Rosen stated that the geotechnical stability of slopes is being reviewed by staff and a special consultant is reviewing the reports prepared by the applicant and it will be presented to the Planning Commission and is also a great concern to the City.

Chairman Daybell discussed a wall shown in a photo and asked if it was on the property line. Chief Planner Rosen stated that it was on the property line of another residential area that is beyond the subject property, across the ravine.

Member Hoban asked if the developer of the five new homes has finished putting in the sidewalk. Chief Planner Rosen stated that the developer was not conditioned to put in a sidewalk because the homes do not front Euclid. One is not planned for the near future, however, a sidewalk will put in at the citys expense if needed in the future. There was a condition to provide an easement to the subject property across a single family home development. There is no continuous sidewalk on this side of Euclid.

Public hearing closed.

Member Hoban was concerned with:

• The building taking up so much of the lot
• Residents view of the top of the buildings
• Massive retaining wall
• Truck loading and unloading for the commercial kitchen
• Needs more landscaping
• Agreed with staff recommendations
• Design is too large for the space
• Could not support recommending this item to the Planning Commission

Member Coffman supported staffs recommendation to deny. His reasons were:

• Not really a craftsman style
• Stacked structure, aligning in most locations
• Single stories are better than a stacked craftsman
• Prefers to see multiple bungalows
• Reads as one large building, with an institutional look
• Looks too dense
• Building is too large for the site
• Elevation is massive
• Large delivery trucks blocking ingress and egress and access to parking structure
• Does not qualify for a Specific Plan
• Concerned with parking
• This is not the same as a hospital area.

Member Duncan felt that the applicant put together a nice product with a good intent, however, there were too many compatibility problems. The landscaping on the east edge nearest the residences has a minimal amount of buffering. He recommended denial of the project.

Chairman Daybell did not see why the sidewalk would be built when there is a dead end affecting the square footage. He felt there was too much building for such a small lot. He felt that the applicant writing their own specifications for zoning is stretching the limits.

MOTION by Member Coffman to recommend denial, seconded by Member Duncan. Passed by a vote of 3 1, with Chairman Daybell voting against the denial.

MOTION to adjourn by Member Hoban, seconded by Member Duncan.

OTHER BUSINESS:

None

ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:53 PM.