Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2002 > August 28, 2002
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

August 28, 2002

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Crane at 4:00 p.m.


Chairman Crane; Commissioners Griffin, Price, Savage, Stopper, Wilson, and LeQuire

STAFF PRESENT: Chief Planner Rosen, Senior Planner Mullis, Assistant Planner Kusch, Program Planner Linnell; Senior Engineer Wallin, and Recording Secretary Stevens


MOTION by Commissioner Wilson seconded and CARRIED by a 7-0 vote, that the Minutes of the July 28, 2002, meeting be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.




Staff report dated June 26, 2002, was presented to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow an increase in enrollment from 76 children to 112 children for a child-care facility at Morningside Presbyterian Church for property located at 1201 East Dorothy Lane (R-1-10,000 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 32 of CEQA Guidelines).

Assistant Planner Kusch reported that since 1970, Morningside Presbyterian Church has operated a childcare center. In 1989, approval was granted to increase the school enrollment from 30 to 76 children. The applicant was now requesting to increase the school enrollment to 112 children. In September of 1995, the California State Department of Social Services approved an increase to 52 children, ages 2 to 5 years and 60 children ages 6-12 years, for a total enrollment of 112. The childcare center's higher level of operation was made known to staff via a resident living along the east property line bordering the playground area. The neighbor was concerned with a recent increase in the noise level of children in the playground area. To mitigate noise from the playground area, the previous Conditional Use Permit modification in 1989 required a six-foot high block wall along the easterly property line that borders the existing residences. A condition to maintain this wall was part of the previously modified CUP application. Since 1994, no noise complaints have been filed with Code Enforcement. The church site has 148 existing parking spaces, and the proposed childcare center will require a minimum 22 spaces. No children will be allowed across Raymond Avenue or Dorothy Lane. Public notices were mailed and staff only received one call inquiring about the request. Chief Planner Rosen also noted that one letter of opposition had been received. Chairman Crane requested to include this letter of opposition as part of the public record.

Commissioner Savage asked for the height of the two surrounding walls, and Assistant Planner Kusch replied that each wall was approximately five feet high.

Commissioner LeQuire asked what capacity the present CUP allowed, and Assistant Planner Kusch answered 76 children. Commissioner LeQuire was concerned that when the enrollment was increased to 112 in 1995, the church bypassed the City's planning department. Assistant Planner Kusch deferred to applicant.

Commissioner Stopper wished clarification regarding the process by which planning received notification when the California State Department of Social Services approves an increase in enrollment. Chief Planner Rosen clarified that when the Fire Department receives a request, they notify the Planning Department. Commissioner Stopper felt like there was a "hole" in the notification process, and there should be a systematic way for all departments to be made aware when annual inspections should be conducted.

Commissioner LeQuire noted that recommended Condition #2 required all Building and Fire code regulations shall be complied with. He asked when was the last Fire and Building inspections had been made. Assistant Planner Kusch answered that it was his understanding the Fire Department did an inspection in 1995, but records did not indicate any approval since then.

Chairman Crane questioned that if standards aren't met, then the occupant load cannot be increased, and Chief Planner Rosen indicated this was correct.

Commissioner Wilson asked if any complaints against the school had been filed since 1989, and Assistant Planner Kusch stated that in 1994 a noise complaint had been received.

Commissioner Savage asked if a double fence, both wooden and block wall, was part of the original CUP. Assistant Planner Kusch explained that a fence was not required with the initial CUP approval in 1970. The wall requirement was part of the CUP modification in 1989. the wall was required along the eastern property line adjacent to the childcare center's playground areas. Commissioner Savage also asked how many children were currently enrolled, and if this number had remained steady over the past few years. Assistant Planner Kusch deferred to the applicant.

Public hearing opened.

John West, Pastor of Morningside Presbyterian Church for 13 years gave a brief history of the site. Over the past 10 years, $300,000-$400,000 in improvements have been made to facilitate the day care center. There is a tremendous demand for childcare, especially after school, and they operate at capacity all the time. Prior to 1995, there was not a sufficient outdoor play area, and when they expanded it in 1989, they were required to put in a six-foot block wall. The two walls are functional, and landscaping was added to assist in sound mitigation. He called the City of Fullerton to find out who to talk to regarding increasing enrollment and was told the Fire Department had to be contacted. No changes have been made to the property in the last seven years, and the child-care center is inspected every year by the Fire Department and state.

Commissioner Price asked Pastor West if the church was in agreement with all of the recommended conditions of approval. Regarding Condition No. 8, Pastor West explained that they would always try to be a good neighbor and mitigate any problems brought to their attention by adjacent residents. One of the board members had even walked the adjacent neighborhoods to inform them of this request and address any concerns the neighbors might have had.

Commissioner Savage was concerned that the children may get beyond the first fence into the planted area from play level to the second fence. Pastor West stated that there was a gate protecting that play area, and staff supervises the children to be sure they do not climb over the fences.

Commissioner Griffin questioned whether enrollment was open to anyone, or if there were restrictions. Pastor West answered that enrollment is open to anyone and many ethnic groups are represented. This is a Christian center and they only ask that whoever attends must comply with the Presbyterian church beliefs. Commissioner Griffin also asked if the church corporation which runs the day care center is a non-profit organization, and Pastor West answered affirmatively.

Commissioner LeQuire questioned if there was any plan to put a fence along the east play area and Hollydale Drive. Pastor West explained that the existing block wall extends to all but two houses on that end, but there is a wooden fence.

Betty Lundgren, 1207 North Hollydale Drive, was the resident who wrote the objection letter. She stated that her house is second in from Dorothy Lane, and there is no fence to protect her from the noise. Mr. Deloof had assured her that the church would never have more than 76 children, and she was concerned that there are already 112 children attending the school. She complained to another pastor that children climbed over the fence into her yard and threw rocks into the pool. Mrs. Lundgren read a prepared statement stating how much of a nuisance the school had been. She called Social Services to express concern about the increased enrollment and was told the state was only concerned about occupant load, and other safety issues. Mrs. Lundgren felt that the church should not compete with day care centers that have to pay taxes and are not non-profit. She called three day care facilities in this area and there were openings. She also indicated that the school caused traffic congestion in the area.

Commissioner Savage asked if there was a block wall separating her property, and Mrs. Lundgren said she installed a six-foot wooden fence, but it does not mitigate the noise. Chief Planner Rosen advised that the code requires a block wall adjacent to any play area, so if the property adjacent to this residence is used as a play area, a block wall must be added as a condition of approval. Mrs. Lundgren indicated that this area is not being used as a play area at this time.

Ann Nanes, realtor with Century 21 Superstars, confirmed that the existing wood fence was leaning and was put in by the owners of 1201 North Hollydale. Most of the Hollydale houses have wood fences, and if a play area is utilized off of Dorothy Lane, adjacent to the residences, a block wall must be installed along the common property line separating the church and residential properties.

Chairman Crane asked for the exact use of the area nearest Dorothy to the east property line. Pastor West explained that there is a utility easement along that property line to the east and there are existing trees. A few years ago, they attempted to work with Edison to remove the trees, but it has been a slow process. This particular area is rarely used except for quiet time. Children do not play adjacent to Mrs. Lundgren's house.

Mildred Glenn, member of Morningside Church spoke in favor of the project.

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner LeQuire did not want to debate the front play area. The pool on Mrs. Lundgren's property can be an attractive nuisance and he was sensitive to the neighbor's concerns. He felt that 112 students is acceptable, but he wished to modify Condition 2 to require that inspections be made by Code Enforcement, as well as the Fire Department, and that time frames be established for inspections and compliance, particularly the fence separating the pool property.

Commissioner Stopper inquired as to what the city has in place for periodic inspections of child care facilities. Chief Planner Rosen answered that the Fire Department conducts annual inspection of such facilities, but was unsure if they would inspect the fencing, unless it was specifically brought to their attention. There were no other annual inspections by any other City department.

In response to an inquiry by Chairman Crane, Chief Planner Rosen added that all play areas must be separated from R-1 properties by a block wall, but the Commission may require additional sound attenuation or extend the wall if deemed necessary. The Code does not distinguish between "quiet play and noisy play".

Commissioner Wilson felt there was a need for quality day care in the area, and approved the use, provided there is a block wall along the east property line.

Commissioner Griffin only wanted to approve the request if the 6' block wall is extended south all the way to the property line, and added as a condition of approval.

Commissioner LeQuire concurred with adding a block wall as a condition of approval. However, he was most concerned with a lack of inspections over the past seven years. He suggested a 30-day time frame for an inspection to be conducted, and perhaps an additional 60 days to bring the facility into compliance.

Chairman Crane suggested requiring a Building and Planning Department inspection to Condition 2, in addition to the Fire Department inspection.

Commissioner Savage also concurred with requiring the block wall, but was concerned about the cost.

Commissioner Price was hesitant about making it a condition of approval due to the potential cost, and if there were a less costly alternative, he would be interested in it. He would be willing to allow the church time to discuss the matter with its board.

Commissioner Wilson wanted to have a block wall installed as soon as possible, because of the 112 children who currently attend and have attended for the past five years.

Chairman Crane - if that area is being used as a play area, it is a code issue and a block wall should be installed. Pastor West advised that they have enough space for the children to play without using the front area, Because they have put $170,000 into the property in the past year, they are strapped for funds at this time. Chairman Crane reminded Pastor West that if they desired to utilize this area, a block wall must be put in at that time.

Commissioner LeQuire did not want to dictate to the church regarding putting in a fence. His first concern was to have the property inspected by the Fire and Building Departments and see what issues come out of those inspections. He made a motion to CONTINUE this matter until both inspections are completed, preferably within 30 days. Commissioner Griffin seconded the motion and asked that a report from staff be given to the Commission regarding the findings from the inspection.

Commissioner Savage supported the motion and also felt that perhaps the neighbors involved could assist with the cost.

Commissioner Price also concurred with continuance because it would give Pastor West a chance to present the issue to his board. Chairman Crane stated that the continuance would also give the applicant a chance to contact the neighbors involved in the block wall issue.

There was a consensus of the Commission to CONTINUE this matter until the October 9, 2002, meeting. The motion was voted upon and passed unanimously.

Commissioner Griffin encouraged Mrs. Lundgren to approach the church regarding sharing the cost of a block wall.


Staff report dated August 21, 2002, was presented pertaining to a request to convert eight on-site visitor parking spaces into eight "resident only" parking spaces on property located at 301-351 North Ford Avenue (southwest corner of Ford Avenue and West Malvern Avenue) (R-5 zone) (Categorically exempt under Class 32 of CEQA Guidelines).

Program Planner Linnell reported that this item was first reviewed in May 2002, but was continued to allow the Fullerton Fountain Homeowner's Association an opportunity to reconsider its request to convert eight on-site visitor parking spaces on the northeast corner to resident only spaces. The 43 Ford Park spaces were addressed and whether those could be used by the residents-the city has place a sign which allows residents to park there without fear of citations and the Association has issued permits to their residents. The Association still desires to have the eight on-site spaces converted to "residential only" parking. Staff still believes that visitor parking should be provided on site and recommended denial of the request.

Commissioner Stopper noted that the sign in Ford Park did not say resident and visitor parking, only "resident," and eight spaces are still needed for visitors. Program Planner Linnell clarified that exemption was for resident overnight parking, and a visitor would be cited if they parked in Ford Park overnight. However, a visitor could park in one of the eight visitor parking spaces overnight. Program Planner Linnell also mentioned that signs had been placed in the eight visitors spaces which read - PRIVATE PROPERTY - VISITOR PARKING. He stated that these were homemade signs and should be more permanent.

Public hearing opened.

Terry Vagadori spoke on behalf of homeowner's association. She explained that there were 147 homeowners who want to park on site. It was her understanding that in 1983, visitor spaces were not required. Program Planner Linnell reminded her that when the original CUP was approved, there were no visitor parking standards, however the original plan, approved by the City Council/Redevelopment Agency, showed eight visitor spaces. Using today's standards, more than double that amount would be required. Staff's denial was based on the original approved Conditional Use Permit, and today's standards.

Chairman Crane asked how many residents presently use Ford Park, and Ms. Vagadori indicated that she was unsure at this time.

Chief Planner Rosen noted that if the eight visitor spaces were removed, current code requirements would render the project more non-conforming than it is currently.

The following persons spoke in favor of keeping the visitor parking.

Terry Glendennen 301 N. Ford, #205
Leticia Valizzy, 351 N. Ford

Douglas Kraft, 351 N. Ford stated that there is no parking problem during the day. The main problem is at night and in conjunction with Ford parking, parking stickers were handed out to residents for themselves and their guests.

The following persons spoke in favor of converting the spaces to resident parking.

Jane Walker, 301 N. Ford stated that when the eight spaces are marked for visitors, the Association loses control over those spaces. The Board of Directors has been authorized to decide how to utilize those spaces, as stated in the CC & R's, This is necessary because it is difficult to determine who is a visitor, and many underaged people park there and take parking away from the residents and visitors who are seniors.

Joe Cooper, 301 N. Ford, #329 stated that the entire development only allows one space per resident, and visitors were abusing the parking. Originally 116 spaces were provided for the 202 residents, and 147 now own cars.

Chairman Crane asked if potential buyers are told how many parking spaces are available per unit, and Mr. Cooper answered affirmatively.

Teddy Garcia, 301 N. Ford, stated that as a former board president and member of the parking committee, she monitors the parking lot and represents the entire association. She clarified that one permit is given to each individual homeowner, not one stall. Also, all eight visitors spaces are not scattered throughout facility, but are all in one location, so people living away from them cannot use them conveniently.

Commissioner Savage asked if a vote had been taken among the residents and Ms. Garcia answered negatively. Board members and parking committee members find it hard to contact everyone.

Commissioner Wilson thought that as a compromise for this project, perhaps eight spaces could be divided so that some could be located near the Wilshire Avenue exit. Visitor parking is important to residents, and visitors would have a hard time finding spaces if all eight were converted. Ms. Garcia suggested that during daytime visitors could park in the Ford lot, and at night they have more of a problem. The complex is underparked for both residents and visitors.

Norma Morrow, (no address given) said that as former board and parking committee member, it is clear that not enough residential spaces were provided for the number of units in the complex.

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner Stopper stated that guests and residents are the same. He felt that the sign should be changed to say visitors and guests in both lots. He wanted to preserve the eight visitor lots, and modify the sign in the Ford Park to state clearly it is for resident and guest parking.

Commissioner LeQuire said he had followed the project since it was built and, as a part of the project, the density was increased to allow more use. The negotiated process produced higher density, with less parking. Because nothing was changed from the original agreement, he concurred with staff's recommendation for denial.

Commissioner Savage said he would not feel safe parking in the Ford lot at night. He felt that area was being under-utilized, however, more things could be done to make it more user friendly for both residents and visitors, i.e. better lighting, more signage, and more permits to the residents. He concurred with staff's recommendation.

Commissioner Wilson concurred with staff recommendation, and it was fair to require eight visitor spaces, but the association should decide where they should be. He also suggested a gate where residents may "buzz in" guests and visitors.

Commissioner Price questioned whether the eight spaces were permanent or if they could be moved. Chief Planner Rosen explained that the original site plan designated the area for visitor parking, and the original site plan would have to be modified. Also, new gates, stacking distances and other concerns would have to be addressed. Commissioner Price sympathized with the Association, but did not think removing the eight visitor spaces was an answer to the problem.

Commissioner Griffin also felt that Ford Park was under-utilized and more lighting, more gates into the complex, etc, would be helpful.

The title of Resolution No. 6986 DENYING a request to convert eight on-site visitor parking spaces into eight "resident only" parking spaces on property located at 301-351 North Ford Avenue, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Wilson, seconded and CARRIED unanimously that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

Commissioner Stopper requested staff to revise the sign in Ford Park to include visitor parking.

Chairman Crane adjourned the meeting at 6:38 p.m. Because of the late hour, Chairman Crane stated that Items 3 and 4 would be heard at the end of Item 5 at the 7:00 p.m. session.

The meeting reconvened at 7:05 p.m.



A request to allow the abandonment of an easement located at 2011 East Chapman Avenue (north side of East Chapman Avenue, approximately 123 feet east from the northeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Mountain View Place) (O-P zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15312, Class 12 of CEQA Guidelines)

Senior Planner Mullis reported that Items 5 and 6 could be heard simultaneously.


A request to consider site and architectural plans for a multi-purpose building, four classrooms and a recreational facilities as part of a proposed expansion of a private school (Ivycrest Montessori); increase enrollment to 324 students; and to create off-site parking to meet the parking requirements for property located at 2007, 2011, 2107, and 2113 East Chapman Avenue and 514 North Mountain View Place (north side of Chapman Avenue approximately between 62 feet and 560 feet east of Mountain View Place and the east side of Mountain View Place between approximately 128 feet and 184 feet north of Chapman Avenue) (O-P and R-1-7,200 zone) (Categorically exempt under Class 32 of CEQA Guidelines).

Senior Planner Mullis presented a Power Point presentation and reported that a revised site plan had been presented in July 2002. The proposal consisted of four new classrooms within a two-story, 5,000 square-foot building, a 2,900-square-foot multi-purpose room, a 250-square-foot office/reception area with a 45-foot high, non-habitable tower element, reuse of an existing single-family structure as a caretaker's unit/teacher's lounge and a drop-off area. She reiterated the issues of concern from surrounding neighbors: traffic impacts to local residential streets, parking drop-off, noise, private and commercial use in a residentially-zoned property.

TRAFFIC: One of the major concerns was the overflow traffic into the residential neighborhood. All access to facility would be from Chapman Avenue, and only staff could access from rear alley. There will be a drop-off area in main parking lot for elementary age students, and staggered start times will be implemented to reduce morning and afternoon conflicts. In addition, there are 125 off-site parking spaces being provided for special events.

NOISE: It is proposed that no more than 12 weeknight or weekend outdoor events shall be held during the school year, and none shall run past 9:30 p.m. An eight-foot high block wall along north property line will be constructed to mitigate noise impacts. The new outside play area shall be located 60 feet from adjacent residences. Doors on the north side of the multi purpose room shall remain closed when in use after 6 p.m.

ALLEY ABANDONMENT: This alley is located on private property at 2011 East Chapman Avenue, and has never been used by the public.

COMMERCIAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE: Four other schools in the City have residential zoning as part of their facility. With a CUP, this use would be permitted at this location, with no zone changes.

In response from a question by Commissioner Stopper, Chief Planner Rosen reported that the code states uses of this type should be 30 feet from residences, but it is at the discretion of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Savage wished clarification on the term "special event." Senior Planner Mullis explained that this would be an event with more than 75 parents and children, occurring outside of normal school hours. Commissioner Savage was confused as to how could this happen more than once a week, and still be considered one event? Senior Planner Mullis clarified that the applicant attempted to break down the larger events (four) into smaller increments so everyone can attend - i.e. preschoolers one night, and older children another night. This would prevent excessive spillover into the residential area, and only 12 of these nighttime activities can be held during the year. She also noted that many of these events are currently held off campus at other facilities.

Public hearing opened.

John Silber, 125 W. Amerige, architect for the project, made himself available for questions. Commissioner Crane asked if any major changes to the site plan had been made since the public workshop, and Mr. Silber answered negatively, However, it was suggested to switch the location of the play structure area to the south and the sports court to the north. This was the only minor change.

In answer to Commissioner Stopper's inquiry regarding building heights, Mr. Silber stated that the height of the multi-purpose room was 16 feet (at the parapet) and the height for the classroom structure was 30 feet.

Holly Constantin, applicant, explained that many events listed on the sheet are held during the day, and sometimes all of them are not held. She felt she has opened all avenues to communicate with the neighborhood. She is open to suggestions and has tried very hard to be accommodating to the neighbors. She and her staff have walked Mountain View Place and Hale Avenue to talk with as many neighbors as possible, and felt that many misunderstandings had been resolved. She asked the Commission to reconsider the off-site parking requirement listed in the conditions of approval from 125 to 100 (approximately 2.5 people per car) because the seating capacity of the multi-purpose room was 240.

Commissioner LeQuire wanted to know how exactly how many events actually happen after 6:00 p.m., and on the weekends, including breaking up one large event into smaller ones. Mrs. Constantin would figure out the exact number and report back to the Commission after the public comments. Commissioner LeQuire also wanted the defined hours of operation. Mrs. Constantin stated that staff arrives at 6:50, and normal school hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00, with staff staying as late as 6:30 p.m. Commissioner LeQuire requested that this be listed in the conditions of approval.

Clyde King, 530 North Mountain View Place stated the following:

  • Concurred that progress has been made.
  • Size and scope of multi-purpose room is his main concern, and felt that it was too massive this close to residential.
  • Did comparables of this type of facility (auditoriums) in the area and reported his findings regarding building setbacks. Passed out photos to the Commission of other schools similar to this in the area. He noted that none have windows or were near residences.
  • Lot coverage of this facility is 85%.
  • Would request no buzzers or bells, no security cameras, and construction of auditorium would be block masonry.
  • Windows and glass doors should be removed from side of the building facing residential areas.
  • Timetable should be put in for completion of multi-purpose room, because it helps with blocking noise.

Dr. Nathan Kvetny, owns the business on the corner of Chapman Avenue and Mountain View Place. He referenced a public alley easement on the rear of his property which is proposed to be returned back to him (abandoned under separate application). The alley is the only access to his business and is not used by the general public. The alley was maintained by the previous owner of his business who also made repairs. He was told that the Fire Department would not utilize the alley for emergency access to the school, and asked that it be returned to him.

Chairman Crane asked Dr. Kvetny if he had approached the Constantins to discuss this matter. Dr. Kvetny indicated that the Constantins desired to use the alley for evacuation of the children, or for delivery trucks. Chief Planner Rosen added that the Constantins are also preparing to place a trash enclosure off the alley on their property at 514 North Mountain View.

Chairman Crane asked if there was a fence in this alley, and Senor Planner Mullis said there was a rolling chain link fence with gate at the end of the alley. She also noted that there shall be a solid six-foot high fence along the west property line, but not across the alley.

Dr. Kvetny pointed out an alternative location on the site plan where the applicant could place a trash enclosure. Senior Engineer Wallin informed the Commission that an additional curb cut would usually not be allowed just for a trash enclosure. Chairman Crane asked if there were a place off Ladera Vista Drive or Central Avenue where the trash enclosure could be placed, and Senior Engineer Wallin said that this an issue that the applicant would have to decide. Commissioner Price expressed concern about approving the site plan with this issue left undecided. Chief Planner Rosen added that trash enclosure locations could always be determined at a later date.

Commissioner Griffin felt that the abandonment and the trash enclosure issue were important components of this site plan and needed further discussion. He also wanted to discuss ingress and egress on the west side of the property.

Mr. Silber said that the applicant desired a trash enclosure at this location because it was easily accessible for the staff. There is presently one on the easterly side of the school, but they needed one on the west side and the location off the alley was ideal. This was a very short alley, was also a practical place for occasional drop offs of equipment and materials for the school.

Chief Planner Rosen reminded the Commission that the abandonment of this alley behind Dr. Kvetny's office was not on the agenda, and they should move forward because this abandonment would not be decided at this meeting.

Mark Reichmann, 741 Oceanview, an attorney and parent of a student at the school, wanted to go on record that the Constantins were not prepared to discuss their rights regarding the abandonment of the alley easement on Dr. Kvetny's property at this time.

Wayne Claire, 520 North Mountain View Place, spoke on the following issues:

  • The plan presented now is far superior to the one on June 26th. The applicant has made sacrifices and he thanked them.
  • He was confused over single events being spread out over many days.
  • Square footage was listed wrong in the staff report. It should be 25,936 square feet, not 40,000 square feet. Mr. Silber confirmed that the square footage was 28,000.
  • Wall was originally proposed to be eight feet, beginning at 20 feet east of westerly property line. The staff report now states that no wall higher than 3 feet would be constructed in the 20-foot setback of Mountain View.
  • Double sided-split face material on the block wall next to his property was suggested and Mr. Constantine agreed. The wall on the eastern boundary was being considered to be raised to eight feet using wood. Mr. Clair would like this to go in as soon as possible to block noise and view of construction.
  • He has no objection to glass on the rear doors of the multi-purpose room. He hoped that special glass could be used to attenuate noise,
  • He opposes R-1 property for business, and felt that 514 North Mountain View should not be used for business purposes. Any expansion of the school should take place on the Chapman Avenue side.

Betty Lundgren, 1207 N. Hollydale, feared that the expansion would increase traffic and noise.

Commissioner LeQuire noted in the minutes of the last meeting, page 109, second paragraph from bottom, that he had asked staff if a restriction could be placed on 514 N. Mountain View Place to remain R-1 zoned. Chief Planner Rosen answered that the Commission may place such a restriction, and modification would be required to the CUP if the school desired to ever change it.

The following persons spoke in support of the project:

Heidi Davis, 1465 Kensington Drive,
Matt Henderson, 640 Princeton Circle East
Mark Davis, 1465 Kensington Drive
Steve Armanino 321 W. Malvern Avenue

Jessie Rickey, 539 N. Hale, spoke against scope of the expansion which she felt was too massive for the parcel. Traffic will increase in the residential area and Chapman Avenue.

Chairman Crane recessed for five minutes at 9:02 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:10.

Mark Smith, a nearby neighbor at 2100 N. Central Avenue stated that never had an excessive noise problem from the school.

Nutrima Jourdon, parent and school spokesperson, spoke regarding the number of special events that would be held and would like to hold 26 indoor events and no more than 12 outdoor events, for a total of 38 maximum. An event is described as 75 people or more on evenings or weekends. Commissioner Stopper asked if Condition 9c would have to be modified, based on this information, and Chief Planner Rosen answered affirmatively.

Chairman Crane advised that Condition 10, concerning the number of off-site parking spaces, also had to be modified. Chief Planner Rosen reminded that Commission that staff had originally requested 125 off-site parking spaces. Ms. Jourdon is asking that this amount be reduced to 100, by including the 25 on-site spaces not utilized by staff. Chief Planner Rosen suggested that, as a compromise staff could revisit this number after it is known exactly how many cars the special events actually generate.

Commissioner Savage was concerned that originally the number of events was listed as 26, and is now 3. Ms. Jourdan understood that the Commission was attempting to obtain a concrete number, but reminded him that the neighbors do not desire high-impact events, so the school was trying to minimize their impact by making smaller events to decrease the number of people. The maximum number of people at any event would be no more than 200.

Commissioner Savage also asked for specifics regarding the glass doors and windows. Mr. Silber said that there are window systems, such as splitting the frame and having dual glazing, which can reduce the sound to a level of what would be heard through a regular wall. Sound transmission coefficients of 45 or 50 stc could be applied as a condition. At ground level the north windows would face a solid masonry wall.

Commissioner Stopper asked if an acoustic analysis of the north wall of the multi-purpose bldg including the kitchen was done. Mr. Silber, answered negatively, but had spoken with an acoustical engineer to address this issue and investigate technology for deadening the sound. Commissioner Stopper was concerned with amplification and sound going over the eight-foot wall. He suggested moving the building farther away than 10 feet from that wall. Mr. Silber was hesitant about moving that building in one direction, because the site would be "squeezed" in the other direction, Chief Planner Rosen added that there is also a five-foot landscaped setback from the wall. Mr. Silber also suggested working at the base of the wall, perhaps three or four feet up, to break up the continuous reflective surface.

Commissioner LeQuire asked if Condition 8 should be modified to read a decorative, masonry terraced wall. Condition 9c, should be modified to read 38 events and what constituted an off-hour event. Condition 9d should define the hours of operation from 6:30-6:30 or whatever the hours are. Chairman Crane added that 10a regarding off-site parking should be changed. Also Condition 8 requiring a 6 foot-high wall, should be modified to read "6 foot high block wall."

Chairman Crane question when construction would take place on the multi purpose building. Mrs. Constantin is anticipating that the multi-purpose building will be started in November. Silber hoped to split the permits so that multi-purpose room and classroom could be done at separate times, within six months of one another.

Commissioner Stopper requested that Condition 7, regarding noise impact assessment, be modified from prior to "occupancy" to "prior to issuance of building permits."

Commissioner Savage suggested that the house on Mountain View remain residential, and added as a condition of approval.

Chairman Crane was unsure if a 50 stc rating was the correct number for sound attenuation. He suggested adding a condition which states "per an acoustical engineer recommendation." Mr. Silber concurred.

Ms. Jourdan thanked the Commission for all of their recommendations which resulted in a new and improved site plan.

Mr. Constantin agreed to add, as conditions of approval, no bells or speakers from the bell tower, no video camera shall review the surrounding residential properties, and wall construction of the auditorium to be block/masonry (per Mr. King's letter).

Senior Planner Mullis summarized the modified conditions as follows:

  1. Prior to issuance of building permit..... (as opposed to occupancy). Also add a sound attenuation coefficient as determined by per an acoustical engineer recommendation.
  2. A block wall, six feet in height, will be constructed along the west property line, excluding the alley.....
    1. The hours of operation of the school shall not exceed beyond 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
    2. A special event shall be defined as an event that brings 75 or more persons to the school who are not students, teachers or administrators. A total of 38 special events shall be permitted per year. Of that total number, no more than 12 shall be permitted outdoors. No event shall exceed 200 persons in attendance.
  3. 100 off-site parking spaces shall be provided.
  4. The multi-purpose building shall be constructed within six months of occupancy of the classrooms.
  5. The existing residence at 514 North Mountain View shall be maintained with a residential architectural character, and shall be used only as a staff lounge or caretaker's unit.
  6. The bell in the tower shall only be used for aesthetics and not be sounded. No speaker or bell simulator will be installed/attached higher than 10 feet on the tower structure.
  7. No camera or imaging device shall view the surrounding residential properties.
  8. The wall construction of the auditorium shall be block/masonry.

The title of Resolution No. 6990 APPROVING site and architectural plans for a proposed expansion of a private school (Ivycrest Montessori); to include an approximately 2,900 square foot multi-purpose building, a two-story, 5,000-square-foot building for four classrooms, a 250-square-foot office/reception area with an approximately 45-foot high non-habitable tower element, reuse of an existing 900-square-foot existing single-family residence for a teacher's lounge or caretaker's unit, increase of enrollment to 324 students; and to create off-site parking to meet the parking requirements for property located at 2007, 2011, 2107, and 2113 East Chapman Avenue and 514 North Mountain View Place, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Wilson, seconded and APPROVED unanimously with a 6-1 vote, with Commissioner Griffin voting no, that said resolution be ADOPTED as AMENDED.

Commissioner Savage commended the neighbors for all of their time and effort in this matter. He felt this was a great school, but that 38 was excessive for the number of events. But if it was acceptable with residents, he would accept that.

Commissioner Griffin stated that this was a great project but would like the multi-purpose building moved farther south. He Commissioner Griffin wanted to go on record as being opposed because he desired to continue the matter until the alley issue was resolved.

Commissioner Stopper concurred with moving the building because of noise. He stated that the applicant and community have both done a great job. He felt that Fullerton's main strength is education and this was a good source for the younger children in the community.

Commissioner Price noted that Condition 1 covered the public nuisance issue expressed by Commissioner Savage.

Commissioner LeQuire thanked all the neighbors for their participation. He concurred that 38 special events were a bit ambitious, but was confident that the neighbors would complain if there were a problem. He felt the final plan was a good compromise and the site plan protects the integrity of Mountain View structure, which will remain as a single-family residence.

Commissioner Wilson was satisfied that the alley issue would be continued to another time. He felt that 38 was a fair number for the special events. He supported the project.

Chairman Crane also recognized compromises and thanked everyone for their participation.

Commissioner Griffin wanted to go on record as being opposed because he desired to continue the matter until the alley issue was resolved.

The title of Resolution No. 6989 APPROVING a request to allow the abandonment of an easement located at 2011 East Chapman Avenue, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION to approve by Commissioner Wilson, seconded and APPROVED by a 6-1 vote, with Commissioner Griffin voting no, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.


Staff report was presented pertaining to a request to change the existing General Plan Land Use designation from "Greenbelt Concept Residential" to "Government Facilities" and change the zone designation from O-G, Oil-Gas to P-L, Public-Land for a proposed reservoir on property located at the terminus of a proposed access road which begins on the north side of a proposed cul-de-sac of Muir Trail Drive east of Eagle Point Drive (previously certified Environmental Impact Report).

Chief Planner Rosen indicated that this was a procedural issue as part of the Hawks Point project.

The title of Resolution No. 6987 RECOMMENDING to the City Council APPROVAL of a request to change the existing General Plan Land Use designation from "Greenbelt Concept Residential" to "Government Facilities" and change the zone designation from O-G, Oil-Gas to P-L, Public-Land for a proposed reservoir on property located at the terminus of a proposed access road which begins on the north side of a proposed cul-de-sac of Muir Trail Drive east of Eagle Point Drive, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Price, seconded and CARRIED unanimously that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS AMENDED, to include the access road as part of the zone change.


Staff report was presented pertaining to a request to consider the disposition of surplus City property identified as parcel number 287-013-23 and its consistency with the General Plan (between 142 and 386 feet west of Camino Centroloma) (Section 65402 of the Government Code).

Senior Planner Mullis reported this property is on the north side of Pioneer Avenue and was a former water well location for Chevron.

Commissioner Stopper asked if anyone other than the adjoining property owners would be interested in purchasing this land and Senior Engineer Wallin answered negatively, because it is not buildable.

Commissioner Savage asked if the property were sold to adjacent owners, would the property then be large enough to subdivide. Senior Engineer Wallin advised that one condition was that the property could not be further subdivided, subject to Council's approval. Commissioner Savage wanted minutes to reflect that he would not be in favor if it could be subdivided.

MOTION by Commissioner Price, seconded and CARRIED unanimously that the disposition of City property identified as parcel number 187-013-23 (north side of Pioneer Avenue, at the terminus of Las Lanas Lane) was consistent with the General Plan .



Senior Planner Mullis reported that all items requested by the Planning Commission are complete, with the exception of adding landscaping to the front portion of the building. A copy of the semi-annual inspection was presented to the Commission.

Commissioner LeQuire requested that this information be presented to the City Council as well. He also asked that the problem with infestation be addressed as soon as possible and that the SRO continue to be monitored.

Chairman Crane asked who conducted inspections, and Senior Planner Mullis answered that the SRO Management Company does a quarterly inspection, and sometimes staff will go along with them. Inspections are also conducted twice a year by the City's housing staff.

Commissioner LeQuire further inquired if safety issues could be addressed as a first priority, and Senior Planner Mullis answered affirmatively.

Commissioner Wilson MOVED to receive and file the report. MOTION was seconded and CARRIED unanimously.


    Chief Planner Rosen gave a brief report of recent City Council meeting


    There were no public comments.


    The next meeting of the Fullerton Planning Commission will be September 11, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.


There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 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