Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2003 > September 24, 2003
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

September 24, 2003


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


Chairman Price, Commissioners LeQuire, Crane, Francis, Savage, Stopper

ABSENT: Commissioner Griffin

STAFF PRESENT: Chief Planner Rosen, Senior Planner Mullis, Associate Planner Eastman, Assistant Planner Sowers, Senior Civil Engineer Wallin, and Recording Secretary Bird.

ALSO PRESENT: Director of Community Services Hunt, Park Projects Manager McDaniel, Community Services Manager Felz


Commissioner LeQuire


MOTION by Commissioner Savage, seconded and carried by a 6-0 vote, that the Minutes of August 13, 2003 be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.




Staff report dated September 24, 2003 was presented pertaining to a request to demolish an existing historically significant market, consolidate three lots into one, change the zoning from C-2 to C-3, clarify the General Plan and construct a new mixed-use building comprised of 7,000 square feet of retail on the first floor and eight dwelling units on the second floor, on property located at 343 East Commonwealth Avenue (northwest corner of Lawrence and Commonwealth Avenues) (C-2 zone) (Negative Declaration).

Associate Planner Eastman reviewed the project in detail, displayed a current zoning map, a noticing map of the area, and a detailed sketch of the site elevations. He reported that no inquires had been received regarding the project, and that there was a local historical landmark building on property to the west of the site which was not a part of this project. The applicant was proposing to demolish the small, less significant market in the center of the project site. The proposal is for a multi-tenant retail on the ground floor and garages for residential tenants off the rear alley. The second floor would include eight residential dwelling units with open space. The project was presented at the September 11, 2003, Redevelopment Design Review Committee (RDRC) meeting, where the committee recommended approval of a revised project, to include more stucco on the rear of the building, but no changes to the front or side elevations. The RDRC felt the proposed architecture was consistent with the neighborhood and recommended approval to the City Council subject to conditions as outlined on page 5 of the staff report.

Staff recommended that the Planning Commission make a recommendation for approval to the City Council (including 36 conditions of approval) for the following reasons:

  • The project complies with all aspects of the City's development standards for a C-3 zone;
  • The proposed project consolidates lots and creates a more unified streetscape on Commonwealth Avenue,
  • The project creates a clear area for Local Landmark No. 22 by orienting the garages toward the residential uses across the rear alley, and providing visibility and landscaping at the intersection of Commonwealth and Lawrence.

Associate Planner Eastman explained that a Conditional Use Permit was required for any mixed use project with seven or more residential units, and staff believed a mixed use was appropriate at this location.

The "significant historic building" targeted for demolition was known as "Grumwald's Tin Shop" as listed in the 1979 Historic Building Survey. In the 1980's, the market was altered and staff believed that the architectural character of the building had been significantly degraded. The difference in regards to changing the zone from C-2 to C-3 was the maximum floor area ratios and permitted land uses as outlined in the staff report.

Chief Planner Rosen clarified that the Commission was convening as both the Landmarks and Planning Commission. Commissioner Crane asked if they should discuss the items separately as two separate bodies. Chief Planner Rosen answered that the Commission could convene and discuss both items simultaneously, and the actions could be bifurcated.


Commissioner Francis asked to see the design of the Landmark No. 22 building, a picture of the nearby water store and questioned how far the building was set back. He felt that the proposed building was designed incorrectly, and should be moved forward with the parking in the back. Associate Planner Eastman reported the setback was 10 to 15 ft; there was discussion regarding the parking with the RDRC, and the project could have worked with the parking in the front or the back, but the concern was the residential areas to the north. Having parking in the back could cause problems with light, trash, and noise to the neighbors and the building was being utilized to help buffer the noise from Commonwealth Avenue.

Commissioner Savage questioned if the building adjacent to Landmark No. 22 was originally a mixed use. Associate Planner Eastman reported that it was used as mixed use, a market and a residence.

Commissioner Stopper asked for clarification on the overhead of where the existing residences were located; and noted that one of the recommendations was that a permanent plaque or monument be put into place before demolishment. He asked if the City had come up with any specifications as to how big or small it should be, and if there would be photo documentation. He also noted that Fullerton Heritage installed a plaque and felt there should be some consistency with plaques within the City. Associate Planner Eastman stated he was not aware of any plaques or monuments; there are a variety of ways it can be handled and he has been in contact with Fullerton Heritage for their input. Senior Civil Engineer Wallin stated that he believed the LaVeta building at Harbor and Valencia may have such a plaque.

Commissioner Stopper inquired if photo documentation were done, where the photos would be stored. Associate Planner Eastman stated this was also discussed with Fullerton Heritage; the photos could be stored at the Library, or with Fullerton Heritage.

Commissioner LeQuire questioned if the area was mixed use with commercial and residential, and if there would be a restriction on the types of businesses that would be allowed on the property. He felt there seemed to be more conditions on this project than on most, and questioned if some of the conditions were part of the Building Code, and if Condition #35 of the staff report was really necessary. Associate Planner Eastman reported there may be Building Code restrictions; venting for a restaurant would create difficulty; but the architect has created a revised plan with the exterior shafting to include insulated ductwork, so a restaurant could go into the center. He further explained that Condition #35 was a standard condition, that most of the conditions are standard or requirements by other City Departments, as well as some imposed by the RDRC. Chief Planner Rosen added there were special conditions added to this project, since this was a mixed use development, as well as a Conditional Use Permit and a development project application.

Commission Crane concurred with Commissioner Francis in regards to the location of the building on the site; stated he was not sure if this was a transitional project; and questioned if staff had given any thought to going back to look at overlay areas; and did staff look at the issues long term. Chief Planner Rosen noted there was a very lengthy internal discussion with staff on this issue with regards to how commercial use would affect residential use, and staff decided, with this particular site, it was best to keep parking and delivery on the street.

Chairman Price felt the parking was appropriately placed for this project.

Commissioner Savage questioned if the 7,000 square feet included the garages, and asked what the square footage of each apartment would be. Associate Planner Eastman stated that the commercial tenant space was 7,040 square feet, which did not include the garages. He noted the total square footage of the second floor was between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet. Chief Planner Rosen noted the front page of the site plan showed that the apartments would range in size from 850 to 1,000 square feet.

Commissioner Francis inquired if there was another building like the proposal with a parking lot and shops down below. He felt it was a terrible design, and a cheap way of getting residential and commercial without underground parking. He felt the design should compliment that of the Downtown because the Downtown is headed towards this area and would eventually become part of it. Associate Planner Eastman noted this was a typical development with no subterranean parking. Ultimately, in time, with the allowable increase in FAR, the owner could develop the proposed front parking area with subterranean parking, and intensify the use on the property.

Commissioner Savage asked if subterranean parking was allowed on a property zoned C-3. Associate Planner Eastman answered affirmatively and noted that the C-3 zone allowed for higher floor area ratios (FAR). He noted there was a front yard setback of 10 feet, which is not required in the Downtown.

Commissioner Francis asked if changing the zone to C-3 allowed for higher density; because he was a fan of high density in the Downtown, but the owners needed to build the right projects. Once again, he felt this was a poor design.

The public hearing was opened.

Project Architect, Ali Haidar, explained that he and the owner want the best project for the City and they would prefer to have the parking in the front of the building for the retail and safety reasons.

No one else requested to speak, and the public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Francis stated that although technically the project was not in the Downtown, in his opinion it was; he felt the project had a bad design and he would not support it.

Commissioner Crane noted that he was not opposed to the zone change or General Plan amendment, but felt the project was not architecturally the right design and they should look at other alternatives.

Commissioner Savage stated he did not have a problem with the building or design, but was concerned with increasing the density in the area.

Chairman Price felt the project was nicely designed. He understood Commissioner Francis' and Crane's concerns, but felt the owner had the right to develop their project as they chose. He noted that if this was a purely commercial project, there would be no need for a zone change or CUP, and if there was no residential involved, this item would not be before the Commission. He felt that adding eight dwelling units in close proximity to the Transportation Center and Downtown was a positive move for the City. He stated that the RDRC had worked hard to address design issues, with many requested changes. Overall, he felt it was a nice project and a huge improvement over what presently exists.

Commissioner Stopper stated the issue was how the project fit in with what the Commission projected Downtown Fullerton to be. He felt the project was close to the Downtown and an inappropriate design for the location.

Commissioner LeQuire noted he would not support the project for fundamental reasons; there were two very big mixed use projects new to the Downtown area, and he wanted to see what the impact of those projects are going to be on the Downtown.

Commissioner Crane clarified that he was not opposed to the General Plan amendment and the zone change, only to the location of the building.

Commissioner Crane suggested a continuance, noting the options are to deny it and send it to Council; or give the applicant an opportunity to come back and get a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Chairman Price commented that, in regards to the density issue, there were currently eight dwellings, and he did not feel it would create greater density, although it might create greater order on the lot. He asked the applicant's representative whether he wanted to vote on the project at this time, or consider continuing this matter to let him go back to staff and the RDRC to address placement of the building.

Mr. Haidar replied that he liked it the way it was; but would prefer a continuance to explore other options, rather than a recommendation of denial.

Commissioner Savage asked for a point of discussion because this project would be an improvement for the area, but felt the subject of density should be explored.

Chairman Price said that although there would be a zone change, this property was encumbered by a Conditional Use Permit, so any change in the size of a development for any potential developer would have to come back to the Planning Commission for a modification to the CUP.

MOTION by Commissioner Crane, seconded and carried by a 6-0 vote to CONTINUE this item to a date uncertain.



Staff report dated September 24, 2003 was presented pertaining to a request to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow for off-site parking for Calvary Chapel on property located at 112 East Walnut Avenue (south side of Walnut Avenue, between 107 and 357 feet east of the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Walnut Avenue) (M-G zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15332 of CEQA Guidelines).

Assistant Planner Sowers reported that CUP-1001 was approved in 1998, which established a church in an industrial zone and provided for 73 on-site and off-site parking spaces. The proposal was to eliminate all on-site and off-site parking of the parking plan to facilitate the redevelopment of an adjacent five-acre parcel. The Fullerton Transportation Center was the closest transportation area to the site, and a detailed review of the parking inventory and occupancy for weekend and weekday parking was given, as well as a summary of the church use. Presently, there are 151 public parking spaces available that are close to the project site, and have no time limits. Staff's recommendation was to approve the request to modify CUP-1001, to eliminate Condition #3, provide parking as per the parking plan and Condition #6, and to execute a joint parking and access agreement with 110 E. Walnut Avenue. Assistant Planner Sowers received confirmation from the Pastor at Calvary Chapel that he was aware of the request and supported the project.

Commissioner Crane noted that five years ago a transportation study was conducted, and asked if increased use on the weekends, and the long-term effects, were taken into consideration. He felt that allowing a private owner to give up on-site parking and utilize public parking spaces was not the best solution. He felt there was plenty of room south of the tracks for private parking, and they should look more closely at the impact to long-term public parking.

Commissioner Stopper asked if the maximum attendance figures in Table 4 were part of the initial CUP; if the request was to eliminate the parking provision, and if there were different rules or procedures for projects in the Redevelopment area. Staff replied that the church had been contacted and the figures in Table 4 were accurate, although usually at the Sunday evening service there are only about 50 people. Chief Planner Rosen noted there were typically special conditions regarding site and plan review, but there were also provisions which allowed for special exceptions when there are Development Agreements or Owner Participation Agreements with the Redevelopment Agency. This would provide relief for parking requirements or different kinds of parking requirements, which is part of the reason this project was brought forward. This project has been tied together with the adjacent property and is still in negotiations. Since 1988, the City has been attempted to facilitate the Redevelopment of this adjacent parcel. The plans for the adjacent parcel will be brought forward to the Commission for consideration upon formal submittal of an application.

Assistant Planner Sowers added that there was a condition attached to the approval of this project that this modification to the CUP would only be made if the proposed five-acre redevelopment were approved. Staff was not suggesting that an approval take away the parking that is currently provided, unless the application for redevelopment was approved.

Commissioner LeQuire asked if project were to be approved at a later time, would the applicant of the five-acre parcel need to provide the same amount of parking in addition to what was required for that project. Chief Planner Rosen replied that for a transaction on an adjacent parcel, they could conditionally provide some public parking, although that would be a difficult condition to implement and would be unlikely.

Commissioner Savage asked if the property lines of the Ice House building and parking areas were separate parcels. Staff replied the building and parking areas are currently one parcel, and would have to go through a lot line adjustment to separate the parking lot.

Commissioner Francis noted that if the Ice House didn't have parking next to it, it wouldn't be any different than the Imperial Ballroom or Heroes. He asked if this area would be considered part of the Downtown, and where the people would park. Staff reported that this parcel fell outside of the Downtown area, but was directly outside of the Transportation Center. Chief Planner Rosen noted that the Imperial Ballroom and Heroes fall within the area of the Downtown Parking District, which is why they are not required to provide parking. This project did not fall within the Parking District, and they would have to use the public parking areas that are used by the surrounding community when not used by commuters.

Chairman Price asked how many parking spaces are required for a 216-seat capacity church, and staff replied 72 spaces are required.

Commissioner Stopper questioned if any historical status was given to the Ice House. Staff replied it had been designated as a local landmark, and could fall within the purview of the Landmarks Commission if the building were being modified.

Commissioner Savage asked how many parking spaces would be required for the size of the Ice House building if it were being built today. Assistant Planner Sowers noted the church building would require 72 spaces. The use would have to remain compatible, and would be locked in until additional parking was made available in the area, and eventually there will be additional parking south of the tracks.

The public hearing was opened.

Tony Bushala, speaking on behalf of the applicant, noted this was an important piece of property, and this is an important project in the Downtown area. They were in negotiations with the Olsen Company and plan to develop the entire five-acre site. The approval of amending CUP-1001 was contingent on a larger project on which the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to voice their concerns. If the Commission did not move forward, the negotiations with the Olsen Company would end. He noted this was an important location in the Redevelopment area. The Redevelopment Agency operates off of property and sales tax which is funded by the increment of property tax. If the Olsen project is acceptable to the City and it goes forward with the development of 124 condominiums, the expected property tax would increase by $500,000.00 per year to the Redevelopment Agency. He stated that if somewhere down the road a parking structure was needed, the Redevelopment Agency could buy the Ice House building and his office to build a parking structure. He noted there was also the Edison substation that could be considered for parking. The request to allow the Calvary Church to use parking stalls during the specific hours of operation would not be in conflict with the commuter parking plan. He urged support of the request to modify CUP-1001.

No one else requested to speak, the public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Savage questioned if changing the property line would be considered a subdivision. Senior Civil Engineer Wallin reported it would be a lot consolidation or lot line adjustment that could be handled by staff.

Chairman Price asked if the Commission agreed to this request, would it be impossible to impose on the developer the stipulation that they provide parking spaces for a property that is adjacent and separately owned from their parcel. Chief Planner Rosen answered affirmatively.

Commissioner Francis felt this was an exciting project, noting there was a lot to lose as well as a lot to gain with this project; and stated that on Sunday morning there was plenty of parking in the Transportation Center.

Commissioner Crane commented that once the parking was gone, the only parking available would be public parking, and no one can assure that this would be always be a church use. He felt it would cause long-term problems, and would not support the project.

Mr. Bushala requested to speak in regards to Commissioner Crane's comment.

Chairman Price reopened the public hearing.

Mr. Bushala noted there was an existing Conditional Use Permit and the only way the building could change to another use would be for someone to come to the Planning Commission and request modification of the CUP.

The public hearing was closed.

Chief Planner Rosen noted the CUP was for a religious use only, and it would require a release from the Planning Commission for that condition to change.

Commissioner Crane commented that he understood the process, but if the church goes out, and another applicant comes in, the Planning Commission would have no choice but to approve it. He was looking at the long-term best interest for the City, and felt the applicant was asking for free parking.

Commissioner LeQuire stated there was some protection with Condition #1 which makes this contingent upon the approval of the five-acre development. Condition #3 would require a new CUP which provides protection; but overall he concurred with Commissioner Crane that for the long term it could provide difficulty if another church or new applicant came in and there would be no parking at all. Because of precedent that would be set, he was not in support of the request.

Commissioner Savage stated he would not support the project because it would make the building very hard to use in the future, which could end up turning it into a parking structure. He felt the Ice house was one of the nicest buildings in Fullerton. If a developer were to build a new building, they couldn't without having any parking adjacent to it; there is a problem with using the rest of the Downtown for parking; and felt this would set a precedent that the City would provide parking for businesses.

Commissioner Stopper stated was a strong supporter of the project; he had no problem moving forward because this project is contingent upon another project. He felt it would take this area that is recognized as blight in the City, clean it up and improve the area. It was his opinion that giving up a few parking spots was an insignificant loss for what the potential gain would be. He recognized that the Redevelopment project may not go through and then nothing would happen, but if it does go through it would improve the area, add people to the Downtown and revitalize the City.

Commissioner Francis stated that he attends the Downtown merchant meetings and the sign of a successful Downtown is a full parking area. He strongly supported the project and he was confident the City Council would approve the project due to the potential Redevelopment revenue.

Chairman Price felt parking should not be completely abandoned for the size of the building when in other instances churches have had to follow the 3-1 parking ratio. He felt if the five-acre parcel was developed it would create greater stress on the existing parking area and cause greater problems. For these reasons he would not support the request.

The title of Resolution No. PC-03-28 DENYING approval of a request to modify a Conditional Use Permit to allow for off-site parking for Calvary Chapel on property located at 112 E. Walnut Avenue, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Savage, seconded and CARRIED by a 4-2 vote, with Commissioners Francis and Stopper voting no, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

Chief Planner Rosen reported that this decision could be appealed to the City Council by filing an appeal within ten days.


Staff report dated September 17, 2003 was presented pertaining to a request to exceed the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the M-P zone from .40 to .45, for an industrial warehouse addition measuring approximately 48,498 square feet, on an existing 68,805 square foot building, on property located at 1900 East Orangethorpe Avenue (south side of Orangethorpe Avenue between approximately 200 feet and 624 feet east of the southeast intersection of Orangethorpe Avenue and Acacia Street) (M-P zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15332 of CEQA Guidelines).

Assistant Planner Sowers gave a background of the proposed site. Built in 1972, the site plan for the proposed construction is in an industrial zone. Access to the site will be from Orangethorpe Avenue; the amount of required parking is 180 stalls, and this proposal provides 239 stalls. Sketches were displayed showing the elevations for the building. It was staff's recommendation to approve the site plan and CUP subject to the conditions contained in the staff report.

Commissioner LeQuire asked if this building was currently used for both auction and retail purposes, and if a financial analysis was completed. Assistant Planner Sowers reported that the company discontinued the auctions two years ago, and no financial analysis had been done.

Commissioner Stopper asked what the additional elevation was over the current building, and staff reported it was 10 feet taller.

Commissioner Francis questioned what the additional space would be used for; because he was concerned it would be like a giant K-Mart store, and questioned if the parking provisions were different for retail versus warehouse. Staff reported it was to be more warehouse space and it did not exceed what was required for warehouse/retail and office use.

The public hearing was opened.

Applicant Eddie Fisher stated that less than half of the building is used for retail; the amount of retail space would not increase, it would stay the same. The majority of their business is wholesale; the retail is a very small part--$6 million a year of their total $30 million in revenue. He noted the reason for the difference in the height was that the building had different types of ceilings and roofs, and with the storage and racking to make proper use of the fire sprinklers, they had to increase the height.

Chairman Price asked Mr. Fisher if he had seen the staff report and if he was in agreement with the conditions of approval. Mr. Fisher answered affirmatively.

Commissioner Savage asked if there were any conditions the applicant would accept, but not be totally satisfied with. Mr. Fisher replied he would prefer to not have the 10-foot sidewalk on the street, because he felt it would not be used. There were no other sidewalks in the area, and this would be an island sidewalk.

No one else requested to speak, the public hearing was closed.

The title of Resolution No. PC-03-29 RECOMMENDING approval of a site plan for an industrial warehouse addition measuring approximately 48,498 square feet, on an existing 68,805 square foot building, and a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the M-P zone from .40 to .45 on property located at 1900 East Orangethorpe Avenue be approved, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Crane, seconded and CARRIED by a 6-0 vote that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.



Commissioner Crane recused himself from discussion on this item as his architectural firm was the architect for the project.

Chairman Price asked for a five-minute recess.

The Landmarks Commission reconvened at 6:11 p.m.

Staff report dated September 24, 2003 was presented pertaining to a request for an addition to the Fullerton Museum Center of a 1,167-square-foot storage room, including two single-occupancy restrooms that open to the Plaza, on property located at 301 North Pomona Avenue (northwest corner of Pomona Avenue and Wilshire Avenue) (P-L zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines).

Associate Planner Eastman gave a background of the museum and reviewed the proposal as outlined in the staff report. It was noted that the interior renovations would include a new kitchen; the proposed addition would add 1,167 square feet of storage and restroom facilities to the adjacent Plaza Park. The proposal also requires the demolition of an existing courtyard wall, removal of a tree and modification of landscaping along Plaza Park. It was noted that the new addition would not be structurally attached to the museum; the downspouts and gutters would be matched, and the stained glass windows would be preserved.

A detailed analysis of the review procedure for local historical landmarks was discussed; the Landmarks Commission was to determine the compatibility of the addition and make a recommendation to the City Council. It was also noted that the addition would not destroy the historical properties of the building as described in the "Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties" from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.

The Redevelopment Design Review Committee (RDRC) reviewed the project on August 14, 2003 and recommended that the Landmarks Commission and City Council approve the proposed project with two additional conditions as outlined in the staff report.

It was staff's and the RDRC's recommendation that the Landmarks Commission recommend approval subject to the eight conditions as outlined in the staff report.

Commissioner Stopper asked why the City was paying for these improvements if Fullerton College owned the building. Community Services Manager Felz reported the City used to own the building, then the college purchased the building thinking they were going to use it. The education code prohibited it, so the City took back occupancy on the lease and currently has 25 years left on a $1 a year lease. The City Council has directed staff over the last several years that if a swap becomes available, the City may buy it back from the college.

Commissioner Stopper asked if the City was trying to get full ownership of building back. Manager Felz reported there was a provision in the lease that if the college takes back the building they have to reimburse the City for all of the improvements made since 1987.

Commissioner Stopper inquired if the three-inch separation on the buildings that was described in the staff report would be visible. Associate Planner Eastman noted this was part of the discussion by the RDRC, and there would be some type of flashing over it to keep water and trash out.

Commissioner Stopper asked what the cost of this project was to the City of Fullerton. Manager Felz reported this project was approximately $300,000.00, and overall the City has spent approximately $1.2 million since 1987 for the entire renovation, bringing the total to $1.5 million dollars.

Commissioner Savage inquired if the downspout was functional or decorative, and would they have to replicate it exactly. Associate Planner Eastman reported he was not sure if it would be identical or just similar; an exact replication was not necessary, but needs to be compatible with the existing building.

The public hearing was opened

Commissioner Stopper asked the project architect, Steve Kalhoff, for the purpose of the 3" gap. Mr. Coltoff responded that this addition was designed to be a separate building due to the seismic design. They are intending to fill in the gap with some kind of flashing over two parapets, and inserting flashing or an expansion piece, so when looking at the building the gap would not be visible.

The public hearing was closed.

Chairman Price complimented the architectural work and staff for their work on this project.

Commissioner LeQuire asked if the restrooms would be open to the public, or if there would be regulated hours; and questioned security in the area. Manager Felz noted the Museum has full time Community Services staff that would unlock the restrooms in the morning, provide regular checks, and lock it at closing. In addition, there would be a security camera in the plaza.

Commissioner LeQuire was supportive of the project.

Commissioner Savage was also supportive of the project because it preserves the Museum.

Commissioner Stopper expressed support for the project and complimented Community Services for their efforts.

Director Hunt acknowledged Randy McDaniel for his efforts with this project. Initially, this building was the library, and after the new library was built, it was the City policy to not keep unused buildings, which is why it was sold it to the college. She stated staff was hopeful there would be a remedy in the future to obtain the museum again as City property.

Chairman Price complimented Director Hunt on the pocket park across the street from the museum.

The title of Resolution No. PC-03-30 RECOMMENDING to the City Council approval of site and architectural plans for a storage and public restroom addition to the Fullerton Museum (Local Landmark No. 11) on property located at 301 North Pomona Avenue, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner LeQuire, seconded and CARRIED by a 5-0 vote that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.



Chairman Price noted a request that this item be continued to the October 22, 2003 meeting.

MOTION by Commissioner Savage, seconded and carried by a 6-0 vote, to CONTINUE this item to the October 22, 2003 meeting.



    Chief Planner Rosen reported that the West Coyote Hills Draft EIR was being mailed and released to the appropriate officials. The official comment period begins Monday, September 29, 2003. At an upcoming Planning Commission meeting, there will be a discussion about the EIR process. A community workshop had to be rescheduled around the school district's schedule. There will be one regular meeting in December and, if things proceed as planned, a special meeting at a different location would be held on December 17, 2003.

    Commissioner Crane suggested that the December 17, 2003 meeting have an earlier start time since it is so close to the holidays and would probably be long.

    Chairman Price acknowledged receipt of a letter from Don Means in regards to comments made about West Coyote Hills and questioned if the Commission needed to take any action. Chief Planner Rosen stated that no response was necessary; it was for informational purposes only.


    Chief Planner Rosen gave a brief report on recent City Council meetings.


    There was no one from the public present who wished to speak on any matter.


    The next meeting of the Fullerton Planning Commission will be October 8, 2003, at 4:00 p.m.


    There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:52 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