Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2002 > April 24, 2002
Shortcuts
State College & Raymond Grade Separation Updates
Water Bill Payment
City Employment
Agendas & Minutes
City Services
Classes
Emergency Preparedness
Online Services
Permits
Public Notices
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

Main Library - Meeting Room B

April 24, 2002

Persons addressing the Planning Commission shall be limited to 10 minutes unless an extension of time is granted by the Chairman, subject to approval of the Planning Commission. When any group of persons wishes to address the Commission, it shall be proper for the Chairman to request that a spokesman be chosen to represent the group.

Public comment will be allowed on agenda items at the time the item is considered.

Public comment will be allowed on matters not appearing on the agenda but within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction, at the end of the agenda. No action may be taken on off-agenda items except as provided by law.

The Planning Commission's approval or denial of any action on this agenda shall become final and effective ten days after its decision unless an appeal is made in writing within this ten-day period to the City Council by either an applicant or an opponent. The filing of an appeal within such time limit shall stay the effective date of the order of the Planning Commission until such time as the City Council has acted on the appeal. Anyone interested in making an appeal should contact the Development Services Department for assistance.

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FULLERTON PLANNING COMMISSION

COUNCIL CHAMBERS - FULLERTON CITY HALL

WEDNESDAY APRIL 24, 2002 4:00 P.M

CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Crane at 4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Crane; Commissioners Savage, Wilson, LeQuire, Price, Stopper, and Griffin

STAFF PRESENT: Chief Planner Rosen, Senior Planner Mullis, Program Planner Linnell, Senior Engineer Wallin and Recording Secretary Garfinkel

ALSO PRESENT: Kimberly Hall-Barlow, Deputy City Attorney

MINUTES:
MOTION by Commissioner Wilson, seconded and CARRIED by a 7-0 vote, that the Minutes of the April 10, 2002, meeting be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.
PUBLIC HEARINGS RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

ITEM NO. 1 PARCEL MAP PM-02-124. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: RICHARD DELANO

Commissioner Wilson excused himself from this item and left the room. Chairman Crane stated that he personally knew the applicant and is a member of his racquet club, and he assisted the applicant in preparing sketches regarding this subdivision request. Commissioner Crane did not feel this would affect his ability to make a judgment on this application.

Staff report dated April 24, 2002, was presented pertaining to a request to subdivide a 40,560-square-foot lot into two parcels on property located at 120 East Las Palmas Drive (south side of Las Palmas Drive between approximately 220 feet and 345 feet east of Harbor Boulevard) (R-1-20 zone) (Categorically exempt under Class 32 of CEQA Guidelines).

Overhead photos and transparencies were shown. Program Planner Linnell stated that the proposal met all of the development standards for a subdivision zoned R-1-20,000, which was defined as a lot that has to be at least 20,000 square feet in size. However, the history of this neighborhood as a rural area with large lots for approximately fifty years causes the neighborhood to want to keep the lots large. Letters in opposition to this subdivision from surrounding neighbors were received. A similar request from 1988, was contained in the staff report showing how the City Council denied the request for the sake of keeping the neighborhood in tact.

Staff recommended denial of the request. If the Commission supported staff's recommendation, staff suggested that the Commission rezone the property to R-1-40,000 so that this situation will not be repeated. The reasons for denial involve a land use policy that involves retaining the existing character of the neighborhood. Another reason for denial is the potential impact to adjacent properties. If the subdivision was approved, the zoning code would require that any existing livestock on adjacent property would need to be relocated so that there is at least fifty feet of separation between them and the habitable dwelling.

Chief Planner Rosen augmented that the policy Program Planner Linnell was referring to is the City's General Plan Policy LU2.5 regarding neighborhood preservation and compatibility that deals with retaining the character of existing residential neighborhoods. The Zoning Code requires setbacks for horses that are fifty feet from houses, and thirty-feet from swimming pools.

Aerial views were shown of the neighborhood in question. Chairman Crane asked if Policy LU2.5 pertained to all neighborhoods. Chief Planner Rosen read the statement . . ."respect and retain the character of existing residential neighborhoods and encourage the establishment of unique identity in new neighborhoods . . . . to assure new construction and public improvements in existing neighborhoods are compatible with the neighborhood's character." He stated that it would apply to all neighborhoods.

Commissioner Stopper questioned Analysis #7 in the staff report and wanted clarification of the compromises mentioned. Program Planner Linnell stated that zoning regulations require horse stables to be set back fifty feet from a residence on adjacent property. Commissioner Stopper asked if this requirement would only affect the property to the immediate east of the property in question. Program Planner Linnell indicated it would also affect the two parcels to the south. Commissioner Stopper indicated that he believed the two properties to the south were not large enough to have horses. Program Planner Linnell indicated that any property over three-quarters of an acre is allowed to have horses. Commissioner Crane asked Program Planner Linnell to clarify the properties in question on the overhead.

Commissioner Price asked if future development could be conditioned to require a fifty-foot setback, and if the current design reflected those set backs. Program Planner Linnell indicated that a review of the specific design of the new residence would be done to protect the properties in question, and that the plan was of a generic nature.

Commissioner Stopper questioned the assessment listed in Analysis #8 regarding the fact that the neighborhood has changed little since 1988. Program Planner Linnell indicated that there had been no development or requests to subdivide the properties since 1988. Room additions and new development have occurred, but property sizes have remained the same. Program Planner Linnell indicated that it would be up to the neighborhood to determine if they want to keep the rural atmosphere of the neighborhood, or if the new owners still have a different mindset.

Chief Planner Rosen added that 'neighborhood character' involves changes to the street edge, designation to the street; the character and orientation of homes; subdivisions, and fundamental changes that affect the rural character. The rural character is present because there are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks; parkways with trees, and the presence of a substantial setback of homes. Chief Planner Rosen indicated that from staff's observation, the neighborhood has changed very little since 1988.

Commissioner Price noted that a recommendation was being made to change the zoning to R-1-40,000, and questioned why this had not occurred after the last two hearings on this issue. Program Planner Linnell did not have a reason why this was not done previously. Commissioner Price asked if the look of the street would change if this subdivision were approved. Program Planner Linnell indicated that neither the parcel map nor rezone would change the rural aspect of the neighborhood in regard to curbs and gutters. Commissioner Price also wanted to know when the applicant acquired the property. Program Planner Linnell deferred to the applicant.

Commissioner Savage wanted clarification whether the issue of rezoning and subdividing were one in the same or separate. Program Planner Linnell indicated they were separate, however, the issue of the rezoning is being brought up in order to put aside any further attempts to subdivide the neighborhood. Commissioner Savage questioned if the rezoning was applicable to the lot in question or to the whole neighborhood. Chief Planner Rosen explained that the issue before the Commission was subdivision, and staff was recommending that if the subdivision were denied, the Commission would direct staff to initiate the zone change.

Chairman Crane questioned if the only properties involved in the future zone change, according to the map, are the eight properties on the south side of Las Palmas and staff answered affirmatively.

Commissioner LeQuire asked if staff had information from the 1972 or 1988 proposals as to why the rezoning was not acted upon. Program Planner Linnell indicated that records show there was never a discussion with regard to implementing a zone change.

Commissioner Price noted that there was property west of Harbor Boulevard that appeared to be flag lots. Program Planner Linnell affirmed that they were. Senior Engineer Wallin also added that the first 350 feet on West Las Palmas Drive is not rural road. This section of property was excluded from the rural road when it was adopted.

Commissioner Griffin asked if there were currently any pools or stables that would be affected by this subdivision. Program Planner Linnell indicated that the property to the east would not be affected. The aerial photograph did not clarify if there were existing stables on the properties to the south. Commissioner Griffin further asked who could initiate a zone change. Chief Planner Rosen stated that a zone change is done through a Resolution of Intent, adopted by the Council or Planning Commission to initiate the process. The Resolution can be triggered by an application from a property owner or from staff. Commissioner Griffin asked if Planning Commission approval is required to initiate a zone change. Chief Planner Rosen answered affirmatively but noted that a property owner can also start the process, but there are application fees involved.

Chief Planner Rosen stated that the issue regarding horses does not involve stables; it involves the inability of livestock to approach a habitable dwelling space within fifty feet. The plan submitted is schematic and the massing and location has been very generalized.

Commissioner Griffin asked if legal counsel had reviewed all findings for denial and approval and if they had an opinion. Legal council responded affirmatively.

Public hearing opened.

Applicant Richard Delano, property owner at 120 E. Las Palmas Drive, believed he was within his right to subdivide his property based on zoning requirements, and he had followed all the steps for this application. He said that Program Planner Linnell had contacted him to let him know that there was neighborhood opposition to the subdivision. Mr. Delano provided photographs to the Commission of the property in question, which he purchased in September of 1998.

Commissioner Griffin asked the applicant if there were horses on this property currently, and Mr. Delano responded negatively. Commissioner Griffin further asked that if someone bought the subdivided lot, would there be room for them to have horses between the tennis court and the home. Mr. Delano indicated there would not be room, in his opinion.

Chairman Crane asked Mr. Delano if he had read and concurred with all the conditions of approval, and if he was in agreement with the conditions. Mr. Delano responded affirmatively. Commissioner Crane asked the applicant if he would be opposed to an additional condition that would require the house to be set back fifty feet from the south side of the property, and Mr. Delano responded negatively.

Commissioner Stopper asked if the applicant currently resides on the property, and Mr. Delano responded affirmatively.

Commissioner Griffin asked the applicant what the use of the second home would be and if it would be sold. Mr. Delano indicated he did not know if he would sell it or manage it. Commissioner Griffin asked if the proposed second structure would be a one or two-story structure. Mr. Delano indicated he did not know at this time. Commissioner Griffin asked the applicant if he had researched the zoning on the property before he bought it. The applicant indicated that he knew the property was zoned for R-1-20,000 when he purchased it in 1998.

Commissioner Price asked when the tennis courts were built. Mr. Delano believed they were built in 1982. Commissioner Price asked if there were lights on the courts originally, and Mr. Delano indicated that he put lights on one of the courts.

Commissioner Stopper referred to item number one under recommendations of the staff report, and wanted clarification regarding the reason necessary to build a new garage before tearing down the old one. Chief Planner Rosen indicated that zoning code requires that all single-family homes have a two-car garage. If they remove a two-car garage from the property, they must replace it. Senior Engineer Wallin clarified that a bond option could apply if using the same footprint for the new garage structure.

The following person spoke in support of the request:

Sandra Sprint, Hermosa Drive.

The point of support was:

  • This horse-property owner does not feel that this subdivision will affect anyone in the area.

The following persons spoke in opposition to the request:

Dawn Gardner, 130 East Las Palmas (next door property owner)
Mr. Olson, 332 Hammel Road
Larry Holmes, 200 East Las Palmas (two doors down from subject property)
Tony Roberts, 318 East Hermosa Drive
Ellie Shutts, 310 East Las Palmas (property is seventh from subject property)
April Wakeman, 300 East Las Palmas (property is sixth from subject property)
Steve Moranz, 300 East Las Palmas (husband of April Wakeman)
Mike Downing, 221 Altura Drive
Robert Flan, 225 East Las Palmas
Jeannie Satler, 225 East Las Palmas
Jane Avalene, 322 Hammel Road
Steve Jones, 320 East Las Palmas (eighth from property in question)
William Anderson, 315 Las Palmas
Hallie Yalsloy, 211 East Las Palmas

The points of opposition were:

  • The rural feel of the neighborhood will change with the subdivision that could be a precursor to other subdivisions.
  • A second residence on the property could affect livestock located on the properties south of the subject parcel.
  • A second residence could take away the privacy of the neighbor immediately to the east of the subject property.
  • Concern was expressed that the subdivision is motivated by financial gain.

Public hearing closed.

Recess was called at 5:35. Meeting resumed at 5:45

Commissioner Price expressed concern for both sides of the issue. The applicant seems to have the right to subdivide, however, he noted the impact on adjacent properties and the General Plan; Commissioner Price declined to support approval or denial at this time.

Commissioner Stopper was pleased to see the public involvement in this meeting. He felt that there were two basic issues. One, that this request complies with the existing ordinance, and that this property is unique due to the fact that it is adjacent to commercial property within the City of La Habra. Second, to maintain the respect and character of the neighborhood, he thought specific design of the residence should be included in the approval of the subdivision. He thought the Planning Commission should make the final approval of the design.

Commissioner Griffin commended the public for voicing their opinions. He did not feel that this would ever be horse property and would not decrease property used for keeping livestock. Commissioner Griffin noted that there would be only an annual gain of about $420 in property taxes, so the City does not benefit significantly when properties subdivide. The proposed project was vague enough that Commissioner Griffin supported denial.

Commissioner LeQuire thanked Mr. Anderson personally for his input. Based on the fifty-year history of the neighborhood and the General Plan policy, Commissioner LeQuire supported denial. He wanted staff to start the process of rezoning the property to R-1-40,000.

Based on Commissioner Savage's recent education regarding the General Plan and zoning, it was his choice to support denial of this subdivision, and he also requested staff to begin the process of rezoning.

Chairman Crane commended the public's involvement. He felt the neighborhood should have started the rezoning process after the last subdivision issue in 1988. Based on the land right issues of the property owner, Chairman Crane supported the subdivision.

The floor was returned to Commissioner Price. With respect to the rights of the applicant, Commissioner Price did not support the subdivision because he felt it was inconsistent with the pattern of the neighborhood.

Chief Planner Rosen read the title of Resolution No. 6961 DENYING a parcel map to allow a subdivision of a 40,500 square-foot lot into two parcels on property located at 120 East Las Palmas Drive and the facts and reasons for denial of Parcel Map 02-124 are hereby found and declared to be as follows:

  1. The proposed subdivision would be inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use LU2.5 to respect and retain the character of the existing residential neighborhoods. The purpose of this policy is to encourage and retain a sense of identity for every neighborhood, and to ensure new construction and other public improvements in existing neighborhoods are compatible with the neighborhood's character;
  2. The proposed subdivision would not be compatible with the pattern of development for the surrounding neighborhood;
  3. The proposed subdivision could set a precedent whereby large lots will be subdivided and change the rural character of the residential neighborhood and adversely impact surrounding horse keeping properties;
  4. The subdivision could impact at least three adjacent properties in keeping of horses because construction of a new single-family house might require that the existing horse maintenance areas on those properties be altered, so that they are at least fifty-feet away from the new residence;
  5. There are seven other properties with similar size lots in this neighborhood and all of them could be allowed to be subdivided in a similar fashion if the subject parcel map is approved.

MOTION by Commissioner Price, seconded and CARRIED by a four-to-two vote, with Chairman Crane and Commissioner Stopper voting no, that the subdivision be DENIED, and with the recommendation to start the rezoning process.

The applicant has the right to appeal, which must be filed within ten days with a fee of $138.00.

OTHER MATTERS

A. COMMISSION REVIEW OF FULLERTON CITY LIGHTS. A second-year review of Fullerton City Lights on property located at 224 East Commonwealth Avenue.

A second-year review of Fullerton City Lights on property located at 224 East Commonwealth Avenue.

Senior Planner Mullis reported that one of the original conditions of approval for this project required a one- and two-year review of the project. Some of the outstanding issues had been addressed at the previous one-year review, including:

  • Additional staff for janitorial service.
  • Expanded office hours were added and the office area was enclosed to provide more security.
  • Repainted first floor common areas with a better brand of paint.
  • Exterior cracks have continued to be monitored and do not pose a concern at this time.
  • Smoke seals for each unit were inspected and replaced where needed.
  • Areas around the exterior vents were power washed.
  • Manager has instituted quarterly inspections of the units, and members of the SRO Committee have gone on quarterly inspections with the manager of the facility.
  • The SRO is fully occupied and with a waiting list.

Four issues have not been completely resolved:

  1. In 2000, water seepage was found on the western half of the north wall of the basement. The owner excavated the area where seepage occurred and installed a new protective barrier on the wall. With the most recent rains, it appears some additional seepage has occurred along the eastern portion of the north wall. The SRO Committee is working with property owner to resolve this issue and will continue to monitor the situation.
  2. There is a lack of fall from the existing trash chute to the conveyor system, resulting in trash backing up in the chute. A new trash chute design was finally approved and permits have been issued. Trash is being collected on a daily basis because the trash chute is still not completed as of this late. Staff has prepared a letter to the property owner giving 30 days from receipt to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the City. If it is not completed, the City will have authority to have the work performed and lien the property to get payment.
  3. When the project was approved, 69 parking spaces (.5 spaces per unit) were required and sixty-nine were provided. While the project is in compliance with the City's existing code requirements for parking, the managers of the SRO report that the facility is short approximately 10 spaces. City staff has requested that this issue be included as part of the Downtown Parking Study.
  4. Calls for service are up, but staff is working with the management company to reduce the calls. Some of the calls which can be reduced are family members who call to have the occupant "checked on." During the month of January, the number of emergency calls was reduced, however the SRO committee intends to continue its effort to find ways to reduce the demand on public services from the facility. One possibility is for the property owner to pay the paramedic service calls on a per bed basis annually. The property owner and the City are discussing this matter.

Because there are still outstanding issues, staff recommended that a third-year review be made by the Commission.

Chairman Crane asked if the numbers used to calculate the parking spaces were based on multi-family requirements. Senior Planner Mullis answered that there are special parking standards for this type of facility, and while they are still 10 spaces short, the 69 spaces do meet the SRO standards.

Commissioner Griffin asked if the problem with the trash chute was based on its design, or the inactivity of finishing the necessary work. Senior Planner Mullis replied that the present design will work, but it is taking an excessive amount of time to complete.

Chairman Crane wondered if staff knew the status of the downtown parking study. Chief Planner Rosen stated that, to the best of his knowledge, it should be completed within 60-90 days.

Commissioner LeQuire questioned whether the City's paramedic fee was charged to each unit, or the entire facility as a whole. Senior Planner Mullis explained that the fee was charged on a per unit basis, and was voluntary. Further, staff was in negotiations with the property owner regarding the possibility of the owner paying the paramedic fee for everyone in the facility, on a reduced fee basis. Commissioner LeQuire expressed concern that the SRO would receive a reduced rate, when the number of calls to the site was excessive. Senior Planner Mullis said that most of the people who live at the SRO cannot afford to pay the emergency fee. Commissioner LeQuire asked if the Planning Commission had the authority to require that the full amount be paid, and Chief Planner Rosen answered that he would have to research the City ordinance which established this fee. This matter could then be brought back to the Commission for further action.

Commissioner Stopper inquired if the Planning Commission had the authority to require an additional year review, and Senior Planner Mullis answered affirmatively. Commissioner Savage asked if it was within the Commission's purview require a review every year. Senior Planner Mullis suggested that the Commission require a review of the facility for the next five years, at which time the condition could be amended.

Commissioner LeQuire requested that copies of all quarterly audits be given to the Commission, and Senior Planner Mullis indicated that she would transmit copies of all future reports to the Commission, including the one submitted by the management company.

Public hearing opened.

Bruce Solari, management company representative, stated that he had no objections to an ongoing review.

Commissioner Price questioned the status of the trash chute repair, and why it has taken so long to complete. Mr. Solari explained that the design cost exceeded the original bid, and an additional $12,000 must be paid to finish the job. The contractor is aware of the time constraints, and hopes to have the work completed within 30, possibly 45, days. Commissioner Price also inquired if Mr. Solari felt that the facility was 10 parking spaces short of the required amount. Mr. Solari was aware of this condition and hoped that more spaces could be available, due to the fact that more and more residents are working and buying cars. At the present time, tenants and visitors must utilize on-street parking.

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner Wilson asked if the solution to the parking shortage would be a simple one, which would not require a great deal of staff time. Chief Planner Rosen reported that the Downtown Parking Study is considering building a new parking structure, to provide an additional 1,000 public parking spaces at the Transportation Center. Also the City presently has the option of purchasing a parking lot on Santa Fe Avenue and constructing a parking structure at that location.

Commissioner LeQuire expressed his concerns with the facility, and was disappointed with the number of unresolved issues, such as parking and the excessive amount of calls for service. He recommended the following:

  • That the City holds the operator responsible for completing the north wall seepage problem, and complete the trash chute within 30 days. He did not wish to extend the completion date to 45 days.
  • That the SRO committee continue to monitor day-to-day operations of the facility.
  • That the Planning Commission receives copies of the quarterly unit inspection reports, as well as the annual inspection report.
  • That the property owner be required to pay all paramedic fees for the entire facility.

Commissioner LeQuire added that, while encouraged by the progress which has been made, there is still ample work to be done.

Commissioner Griffin indicated that, while he did not sit on the Commission when the project was approved, he would agree to allow up to 45 days to complete the trash chute problem, if necessary. He agreed to another review of the SRO, but within six months, rather than one year. He added that he was not confident that paying the paramedic fees would reduce the number of calls, since those fees would not offset the Police Department calls.

Commissioner Stopper reported that he had visited the facility and was pleased with its aesthetics and the opportunity it offers to low-income citizens. He felt that as long as the property owner agreed to another review, it should be after all the outstanding issues are completed, possibly within one year. Commissioner Griffin concurred, adding that a review at staff level would be acceptable to him.

Commissioner Price also agreed to a six-month review. He was satisfied that, if the property owner was aware that the trash chute must be completed within 30 days, staff could monitor and handle the matter. He also agreed that the owner should have some incentive to reduce the number of calls to the site, but was unsure if paying paramedic fees for the entire facility would accomplish this. He was hesitant to go beyond the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. He also requested copies of any and all inspection reports from the SRO committee and management company.

Commissioner Wilson indicated that he had been on the SRO committee for a year, and was extremely discouraged that the same issues were still outstanding. He did not want to extend the 30-day period to 45 days for completing the trash chute. He did want to require the property owner to pay the paramedic fees for the facility, and wished staff to investigate possibly charging a fee for police calls to the site as well. He asked one-year review of the site be continued because of the "bad track record" of the developer.

Commissioner Savage also had visited the site and an SRO committee meeting. He appreciated their comments and sensed frustration by the committee because of the length of time taken by the owner to solve existing problems. He expressed appreciation for the amount of "volunteer talent" of the SRO committee. He recommended that the yearly review continue indefinitely until the SRO committee felt that they were no longer required. Commissioner Savage felt that the 30-day notice imposed by staff was long overdue, and suggested a review in 60 days to ensure that outstanding items were resolved.

Chairman Crane requested that a staff report be made to the Commission within 60 days, and if outstanding items are not completed to the Commission's satisfaction, another public hearing could be set. He concurred that annual reviews should be continued and that the facility pay its fair share of paramedic fees.

Commissioner Griffin suggested that staff could submit an offer to the management company, after discussions with the Fire Department, regarding paying paramedic fees at a slightly revised rate than a typical apartment would have to pay. Chief Planner Rosen cautioned that he was unsure of requiring fees could be imposed on anyone, and felt that staff should be given appropriate time to research the matter.

MOTION by Commissioner LeQuire that staff submit a report to the Commission within 60 days regarding the trash chute and paramedic fee issues, and another review would be scheduled at that time. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilson and CARRIED unanimously.

B. PRESENTATION BY FULLERTON HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

Michael Escalante, Superintendent of the Fullerton Joint Union High School District, gave a brief presentation on the upcoming bond measure. He explained the long-range facility needs assessment to the Commission, and showed a slide presentation of some of the Fullerton high schools. Because of the number of new housing developments, there have been changes in demographics in Fullerton.

He reviewed each of the school sites, showing various needs of repair. He focused on the aging school facilities and the how enrollments have reached capacity. The slide showed district projections and demographic studies, including current and project student population. One of the ways to meet growth demands is to construct one new modular building at each of the high school sites. The project amount of the bond is approximately $70 million, and the cost to install the modular buildings is expected to be $30-$35 million. The remaining monies will be spent to upgrade existing facilities. The last school bond passed in Fullerton was in 1962.

Commissioner Stopper inquired if any bond money would be utilized for earthquake upgrades to school buildings. Mr. Escalante answered affirmatively, adding that all schools would also be brought up to ADA requirements.

Chairman Crane confirmed that he has noted the substandard conditions of various schools within the city, and hoped that the bond would pass.

Commissioner LeQuire asked if bigger, permanent buildings could be constructed, rather than pre-fab modular buildings, and Mr. Escalante answered that only limited dollars are available and they would like to make additional improvements such as updating the science and computer labs.

Mr. Escalante thanked the Commission for allow him to give this presentation in support of the bond issue.

ITEM NO. 2: PECIAL EVENT SE-02-01. APPLICANT: SAM'S CLUB; PROPERTY OWNER: MDC

Commissioner Wilson returned to the Planning Commission meeting.

Program Planner Linnell indicated that this application was the first Special Event Permit brought to the Commission, and is based on a new part of the ordinance that requires the Commission to review the request to have an outdoor event on private property. Surrounding properties must be notified; the Commission will consider public comments and concerns surrounding the proposed event, and thereby place any conditions or restrictions that would safeguard the property. This particular case does not have any issues and is a used car sale to be held on part of the Sam's Club parking lot.

Commissioner Stopper asked if the ordinance requirements are being met, and Program Planner Linnell responded affirmatively. Commissioner Stopper then asked if the applicant had agreed to the conditions listed. Program Planner Linnell deferred to the applicant for response to this question. Commissioner Stopper asked if there was a statement from the Chief of Police, per the ordinance. Chief Planner Rosen indicated that the Police Department does receive a preliminary review of the event, and are aware of this, however, have not raised any issues regarding it. Commissioner Stopper indicated that Ordinance 15.58050, Item 8, #10 indicates that a statement needs to be signed by the Chief of Police. Chief Planner Rosen stated this would be accomplished as a part of the formal permit process.

Public hearing open.

Applicant Al Lomar represents a company that represents 500 Sam's Clubs and their used-car sales events to promote the opportunity to give away memberships to initiate more revenue.

Chairman Crane indicated that a local dealership is listed as the sponsor of the sale. Mr. Lomar indicated that usually this is the case, unless the city involved does not have a local dealership. In the case that the dealership is not local, Mr. Lomar indicated that the state tax laws governing this event require the sales tax be applied to the city where the event is being held.

Commissioner Stopper asked if the dates will be the same. Mr. Lomar indicated there might be a change of dates and will keep the Commission informed. Mr. Lomar also indicated that the sales would be held Thursday through Saturday, and most likely not on Sunday.

There were no public comments.

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner LeQuire was concerned that outside dealers might be brought in for future events and that would be in conflict with local dealers. Due to the fact this does include a local car dealer, Commissioner LeQuire supported the request.

Commissioner Griffin asked if this was a new provision of the ordinance. Chief Planner Rosen indicated affirmatively and added that it is based on large events. It was also confirmed that this is a new process. Commissioner Griffin asked that, if the dates change does it have to come back through the Planning Commission process again, and what happens if the Chief of Police does not approve it after the Commission approves it. Chief Planner Rosen indicated that the event would not happen if the Chief of Police does not approve it, and in relation to the date, the approval is based on a "four-day" period with no specific date.

Commissioner Savage verified with Chief Planner Rosen that a new event would need a new permit. Commissioner Savage did indicate that he would be concerned about approving any future events that did not include local dealers.

There was a consensus of the Commission for approval. The title of Resolution No. 6992 GRANTING a special event permit to display and sell used cars for a four-day period within the surface parking lot of the Sam's Club on property located at 629 South Placentia Avenue was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Wilson, seconded and CARRIED unanimously that the Resolution be APPROVED.

Commissioner Price left the meeting.

ITEM A: COMMISSION REVIEW OF FULLERTON CITY LIGHTS

Senior Planner Mullis, gave a sixty-day review of Fullerton City Lights on property located at 224 East Commonwealth Avenue. The trash chute has been completed, but the waterproofing is not complete. A new contractor has been hired and shoring plans are being prepared.

According to the City Attorney, the City cannot require the property owner to pay the paramedic fee. The Orange County Mental Health department is willing to help with addressing the mental health and substance abuse issues, and is going to have a staff member on-site once a week to help educate residents.

Commissioner Wilson wondered what the ratio of mental health patients are as residents. Senior Planner Mullis indicated that this information was not known since it is confidential. She added that there are only a handful of residents that make the majority of the emergency calls, and if these residents can be educated on how to deal with what they believe are emergencies, a lot of these calls will cease.

Commissioner Savage asked if Senior Planner Mullis was present during the annual survey. Senior Planner Mullis indicated she was not. Commissioner Savage indicated that he was surprised at the number of problems listed in the survey. Senior Planner Mullis indicated that the inspection was for the purpose of maintaining a high level of maintenance and indicated that the situation is improving in comparison to previous years.

Chairman Crane asked how long the inspection takes. Senior Planner Mullis indicated it takes approximately a week, and the inspector is paid through the City's "Affordable Housing Set Aside" funds.

Commissioner Savage posed the question to Chief Planner Rosen of what would happen if the apartments were not maintained to the level agreed upon. Chief Planner Rosen indicated there are remedies that include the City entering the property with proper notice and fixing whatever is broken at the expense of the owner as well as administrative costs, and the final level is a change of ownership with a change of management. Commissioner Savage asked if the City Attorney is comfortable with the processes necessary in case action needs to be taken. Chief Planner Rosen indicated affirmatively. The cost of the City Attorney's office would also be included if the process went that far.

Commissioner Wilson asked Senior Planner Mullis how this apartment compared to other similar complexes. Senior Planner Mullis indicted she is only involved in this project. Linda Morad, the Supervisor for the Housing Division indicated that without looking at other projects side-by-side believes the inspection list only shows minor repair problems and is average. The clutter mentioned is based on the smallness of the units.

Commissioner Griffin asked Senior Planner Mullis how often the SRO Committee meets. Senior Planner Mullis indicated they meet the first Thursday of each month. Commissioner Griffin added that he has only heard good things about the SRO Committee. He wants to make sure that the management follows through with the educational efforts. Commissioner Griffin suggested that the City use some of it's set-aside funds to print the stickers of emergency numbers for the residents.

Diana Johns, 1544 West Yale Avenue, Orange is part of the management for the apartments in question. Ms. Johns indicted that the stickers are in the process of being printed and that management is taking steps to educate and help the residents.

Commissioner Wilson asked if the SRO Committee has been an asset to management. Ms. Johns responded affirmatively. Ms. Johns also indicated that management inspects a floor each week during their quarterly inspections.

Glenna Ax introduced herself as a member of the SRO Committee. She has a son that was in the SRO at it's beginning, and indicated that the circumstances and conditions have improved greatly since it's start. Ms. Ax believes the inspections are necessary and should be ongoing.

Chief Planner Rosen indicated there is a recommended action to require annual reviews of the facility by the Planning Commission until such a time as the Planning Commission deems that it is not warranted.

Commissioner LeQuire agrees with an ongoing review and is concerned that the previous contractors working on the water problem were working without permits and taking dangerous actions. Commissioner LeQuire recommends continuation of monitoring every sixty days as well as copies of reports and documents to the City Council for their information.

Commissioner Wilson commended staff for their follow-up and supported the recommendation.

Chief Planner Rosen pointed out that the inspection report attached to the staff report does not include the resinspection report that shows all the matters were corrected. That report will be provided at the next meeting.

Chairman Crane stated that since the management is doing inspections quarterly, he questions why the inspection report is being done so often. Senior Planner Mullis interjected that the management company and the SRO committee are more focused on maintenance issues, rather than the functional aspects that the building inspector's are interested in.

Chief Planner Rosen recommended a formal motion to provide annual reviews to the Planning Commission until it is deemed not warranted, including sixty-day updates in writing to the Commission.

Chairman Crane, Commissioners Griffin, and Commissioner Wilson proposed quarterly reports for the Commissions review, with a semi-annual review, based on the fact that City funds are used for these inspections.

Commissioner Stopper was impressed with the progress made in the last sixty-days, and complimented the SRO and management. He believes that calls for service and cleanliness are unique to the nature of this type of establishment, and feels the education process will help minimize these issues.

There was consensus of the Commission for requiring a semi-annual review of the subject SRO by a contract inspector, with quarterly reports to be included in the Commission staff report packets. The title of Resolution No. 6963 RECOMMENDING a semi-annual review of a 137-unit single room occupancy residential apartments (SRO) on property located at 224 East Commonwealth Avenue, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Wilson, seconded and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

REVIEW OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
Chief Planner Rosen gave a brief report on recent City Council meetings.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There was no one present who wished to speak on any matter within the Commission's jurisdiction.
AGENDA FORECAST
The next regularly scheduled meeting will be May 8, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. in the newly renovated City Council Chambers.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m.
FacebookTwitterYouTube
RSS for Fullerton NewsFullerton eLists
Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map | Disclaimer & Privacy PolicyCopyright © 2000 - 2014 Community. Development, 303 W. Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832. 714-738-6547