August 13, 2003

CALL TO ORDER

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

ROLL CALL

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

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

Deputy City Attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow arrived at 4:05 p.m.

FLAG SALUTE:

Commissioner Crane

MINUTES:

Commissioner Griffin asked for a change on page 100, first paragraph, after the public hearing was closed to insert "due to their efficiency compared to open parking lots" after the words, parking structures.

MOTION by Commissioner Crane, seconded and carried by a 6-0 vote, with Chairman Price abstaining, that the Minutes of July 9, 2003, be APPROVED AS AMENDED.

4:00 P.M. SESSION

PUBLIC HEARINGS

ITEM NO. 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP-771A - APPLICANT: HOMEAID ORANGE COUNTY; PROPERTY OWNER: FULLERTON INTERFAITH EMERGENCY SERVICES

Staff report dated August 13, 2003, was presented pertaining to a request to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit by demolishing a 504-square foot laundry room and four-car carport, and adding 1,925 square feet of habitable space (four bedrooms and a common cooking/dining area) and a four-car garage, on property located at 508 and 514 West Amerige Avenue (south side of Amerige Avenue between 60 and 195 feet west of Richman Avenue) (R-3 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines).

Associate Planner Eastman gave a background of the shelter's operation. Each bedroom accommodates one family; currently the shelter provides housing for 11 families, and the proposed project would increase this to 14 families. There would be a total of 16 bedrooms, including one for the on-site manager, and one to be used as an office at 514 W. Amerige Avenue. Prior to residency, a family must go through an interview process, where only the families most likely to succeed are chosen for this 90 to 120-day program. The families must abide by established house rules and responsibilities.

Associate Planner Eastman reported that the Fullerton Police Department and Code Enforcement had been contacted, there have been no significant problems with the site, and they are not opposed to the project. The issue of parking was also discussed, noting that the proposed additional parking would not impact the adjacent properties. Currently, there are nine parking spaces, a three-car garage, a four-car carport and two uncovered spaces, with the proposed project adding one additional uncovered space. There would be minimal impact to the adjacent properties, since most of the families would be in transition and many do not have cars or visitors to the site.

The project has open space available, is close to many public amenities including the Library, Boys & Girls Club, Senior Center, and a City park. Public transportation is also provided by the bus line running east/west on Commonwealth Avenue. Staff recommended approval of the request.

Commissioner Savage asked what the requirements would be if this was a multi-family apartment unit. Associate Planner Eastman referred to Item #17 of the staff report; which states that if a multi-family unit were proposed, it would be a six-unit development with a total of 16 parking spaces.

Chairman Price noted that the staff report indicated Fullerton Interfaith did not provide housing for people with alcohol or drug tendencies, and questioned if this was a condition of approval. Associate Planner Eastman replied that this was not a condition of approval, and the representatives from the shelter could provide a better answer to this type of question.

Commissioner Francis questioned why there was not a breakdown in the staff report of the number of Fire Department service calls, because he was concerned this could be a similar facility to the Fullerton SRO. Associate Planner Eastman replied that fire service calls were not included due to the nature of the project, it is not providing services for seniors or people with disabilities, and staff's primary concern was police activity.

Chief Planner Rosen reported that staff works closely with the Fire Department in terms of staff committees. The Fire Department was very good about identifying problem areas to the Planning Department, and these properties had never been identified as excessive.

The public hearing was opened.

Barbara W. Johnson, Executive Director of Fullerton Interfaith Emergency Services (FIES), gave a background of the organization. This is a non-profit organization providing transitional housing for homeless families, and have served approximately 700 families since they opened. The City of Fullerton has been very helpful to their program over the years with CDBG funds that have helped provide funding for their program. She noted they have other facilities for battered women, people with mental illness, and drug or alcohol abuse, since the long-term success of this transitional living program depends on the residents being drug and alcohol free. The shelter works collaboratively with the schools and other organizations to provide life skills, transportation and other types of assistance for the residents to help them succeed in life. With regards to the parking issue, the latest studies show that only 60% of the residents have a vehicle, and no guests or visitors are allowed without special arrangements made in advance.

Chairman Price asked if FIES was agreeable to the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Mrs. Johnson deferred the question to Scott Larson.

Scott Larson, Executive Director of HomeAid Orange County, commented that they were a non-profit corporation organized by the Building Industry Association to work with homeless care providers for building or renovating shelters in Orange County. They have assisted Fullerton Interfaith in the past, and worked with City staff to come up with an acceptable proposal for this project. He noted that all work is done pro-bono, they seek donations from community members to build a cost-effective project, and they have recruited Brookfield Homes, a major homebuilder, for this project.

Chairman Price asked if the applicant was agreeable to the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Mr. Larson requested that Condition No. 8 be modified to state that any retrofitting with regard to the utilities, should only apply to the new construction, and not the older existing buildings.

The public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Griffin recommended approval, noting he did not have any concerns, the project looks good and he was agreeable to Mr. Larson's request for modification to Condition #8.

Commissioner Stopper supported the project because it contributes to the caring of the City and is should be considered the 6th strength of the city.

Commissioner Crane stated he fully supports the project; they have done an excellent job, and was glad to see all of the organizations donating time, money and effort to make this project a success.

Commissioner Francis supported the project and agreed that Condition #8 was unreasonable with regards to the older buildings.

Chairman Price expressed support for the project and noted that he was in agreement of modifying Condition #8.

Senior Civil Engineer Wallin replied that Condition #8 was an engineering condition and code requirement, and the City is looking at updating the water meters on the entire site. He also stated that putting the utilities underground is the goal for future formation.

Commissioner Crane stated that he felt it was acceptable to require that electrical and cable TV utilities be placed underground on construction of the new units, but felt the water meters should be replaced if that is required by Engineering.

Commissioner Savage noted there were safety concerns with the electrical of old buildings, which is why they are being made obsolete throughout the City. Senior Civil Engineer Wallin reported it is more of a visual blight and a concern for Edison, especially during rainstorms.

Chairman Price explained that there was a consensus that the Planning Commission would waive retrofitting of any lines, but advised the applicant that there might be an issue with respect to water meters. Mr. Larson replied they had no problem addressing the issues with regard to water and noted the water meters look newer.

Commissioner LeQuire stated that he would probably support the project; he had visited the property and was pleasantly surprised by the condition of the property. However, he was concerned about the number of police calls, and felt 16 calls in two years was a high amount of activity.

The title of Resolution No. PC-03-27 RECOMMENDING approval of a modification to an existing Conditional Use Permit by allowing demolition of an existing 504-square-foot laundry room and four-car carport and adding 1,925 square feet of habitable space (four bedrooms and a common cooking/dining area) and a four-car garage on property located at 508 and 514 West Amerige Avenue, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Savage, seconded, and carried by a 7-0 vote, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS AMENDED.

Chief Planner Rosen noted there was a 10-day appeal period and no permits would be issued for 10 days.

OTHER MATTERS

1. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FULLERTON COLLEGE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN

   Chief Planner Rosen introduced Janet Portolan, Vice President, Fullerton College to present the proposed Fullerton College Master Plan.

   Ms. Portolan reported that the proposed Master Plan was developed in 1999 and Board approved under College President, Dr. Viera, in 2000. The college then commissioned TBP Architecture to revise the plan and develop a campus image plan. Last spring, the college was able to refine the capital projects project, provide new projects, and modify other buildings with bond money.

   Debra Shepley, a principal of TBP Architecture provided a general overview of the master plan, noting the primary goal was to improve the image of the campus. Other goals included zoning, enhancing and developing the core of the campus, shifting parking to the outer perimeters, and developing clear and precise athletic facilities and fields. A major project scheduled to begin soon is the new library learning resource center be at the north end of the quad. The next major project will be the construction of the Lemon Street parking structure. The structure will have four levels, although it will appear to be three stories tall, and will have 1,400 parking spaces. The parking structure would blend in with the fabric of downtown Fullerton, and enhance that end of the campus. Another recommendation for the Master Plan is to develop a new area for maintenance and operations, which is proposed to be to the east of the existing education center off of Berkeley. This will be a one-story building, and would not obstruct or change the view for the residents directly above this proposed site.

   Chairman Price asked if there would be any screening from Berkeley and what the landscape plan was. The commissioners all contributed to a discussion regarding developing landscape for the area.

   Carol Minnie, TBP Architecture, senior project manager, noted that a wrought iron and pilaster fence would be installed and the building would be a concrete block design. The fence would be 3-4 feet back from the sidewalk, and both would adapt to the residential character and surrounding area.

   Commissioner Crane asked whether ground materials and fertilizers would be stored outside, and what the relationship of the college property was to the adjacent property. Ms. Minnie replied that ground keeping materials would not be stored on this property; the shops would be the electrical, plumbing, paint and automotive shops. The area behind their property was a pipeline easement belonging to Chevron, and there was no intention of abandoning the property.

   Commissioner Crane asked how wide the easement was, if traffic was going to be an issue, how many properties were to the north of this proposed building, and what would be in the storage bins referred to in the site plan. Ms. Minnie responded that there are two 25 ft. easements, they do not feel that traffic is going to be an issue, since the area is mainly for vehicle storage at night, except for the automotive location which is going to be used primarily for repair of the school vans; there are several houses above the property; and the storage areas will be to store used oil and possibly welding bottles.

   Ms. Shepley noted that the majority of the instructional space was on the campus north of the area of Chapman Avenue. The Master Plan identified the need for additional space; they will be constructing new classroom/office buildings on the south side of Chapman around the interior courtyard, at the corner of Wilshire Avenue and Lemon Street. In the center of this area is the Wilshire Theater, which initially they were going to renovate, but in looking at the cost to renovate the facility, in terms of functionality, this may not be feasible. She noted that at this time the theater facility does not meet community needs in terms of size, seats, size of stage, and back of the house functions in the building, height of the stage, size of the lobby, and number of restrooms. Currently there are over 250 events per year and many times there are a number of requests to use facilities on campus. These requests are typically denied because when applicants look at the facility, it is inadequate and does not meet their needs. She gave an overview of the proposed new theater facility.

   Ms. Shepley reviewed the time line, noting construction of the library was scheduled to begin the following week with a completion date of January 2005; the maintenance facility is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2004 with completion in early summer 2004; the parking structure will begin in the summer of 2004 with completion in the spring of 2005; the classroom office building is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2005 as well as the theater block area.

   Commissioner Savage asked what the current seating capacity was in the theater, and what the proposed theater seating would be. Ms. Minnie explained that the building was constructed as a junior high school auditorium. Currently there are 390 seats, but that was not an optimum arrangement since many of the seats are uncomfortable because of the stage thrust. She noted they are still in the early planning stages, but seating would be between 250 and 350. She also noted that in order to make the lobby large enough they would have to move it back into the audience seating area.

   Chief Planner Rosen explained that the purpose of this item was to provide a broad overview to the Commission who would have a considerable amount of time to deliberate on the components, particularly those within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction as outlined in the staff report. This was not a public hearing, and the Commission was only to receive and file the report. The college representatives will be invited back at a noticed public hearing on the outlined items and the Commission can deliberate in more detail at that time.

   Commissioner Crane asked if comments could be given at this time. Assistant City Attorney Barlow noted there was no notice of public hearing, although the item had been agendized. If the Commission felt strongly that some component of the plan was not acceptable, it could be conveyed to the college, but it was preferable that the Commission speak in broad strokes, in terms of what the college should bring back to the Commission at a public hearing.

   Commissioner Francis asked what the square footage of the current auditorium and the proposed auditorium was, and if any thought had been given to adding on rather than demolishing the theater. Ms. Minnie replied that she did not have the specifics on that information, but the proposed auditorium was about one third larger than the existing theater, probably around 35,000 to 40,000 square feet in area. A study was done with regards to remodeling the theater, and it was determined that they would have to move in all four directions, all walls would have to be moved, and then there would be a problem with the roof.

   Chief Planner Rosen asked that the community college provide a discussion about adaptive reuse of the area and building a theater in another area.

   Commissioner LeQuire stated that the community college was a real asset, and the proposals were going to make it even better. However, he hated to lose the Wilshire Theater building, asked if the theater could be built somewhere else, and they could find another use for the current theater building.

   Assistant City Attorney Barlow noted that the building was a historical landmark and the Planning Commission would make the decision on the building. She recommended that the Commission ask the college to come back with enough information at a public hearing.

   Chairman Price stated that he liked the elevations for the parking structure and the structure of the library. He also felt there would be a lot of people against the proposed Wilshire Theater plan, and suggested they exhaust every issue for a reuse.

   Commissioner Stopper felt the long-range plan reflected the present geography, questioned if they were planning any remote sites, and how far the $150 million dollar bond issue would take them through planning and construction. Ms. Portolan replied there were no immediate plans for remote sites, but the intention was to build out the college to 26,000 students, up from the current enrollment of 21,000 students. She stated that the old district offices were available, since they have moved to their new location.

   Ms. Shepley added that the state capital outlay funds have provided for a number of projects and the bond money augments those funds. Currently they are in the process of analyzing the budget, which is a continuous process, and the goal was to match the needs that have been identified today.

   Commissioner Stopper questioned where they would be in 2005. Ms. Shepley replied that the entire bond program was scheduled for completion in the year 2006-07, and most of the construction would be completed before then. At this time, the science building is the only scheduled renovation to take place in 2006-07.

   Commissioner Crane stated the facility was a great asset, parking is a huge concern, and he hoped the structure would solve the parking issues. He felt the maintenance building location was wrong, that it should not be put on the north side of the street, and he had great concern about the loss or potential loss of the Wilshire Theater and was hopeful that numerous alternatives would be discussed.

   Chairman Price thanked the Fullerton College staff for their presentation.

   The matter was opened for public comment.

   Judith Kaluzny expressed concern over the parking issue, and stated she attended a preliminary hearing at the college in April and was concerned that there was more planning being done with automobiles in mind rather than people. She felt they should be more aggressive in promoting and encouraging public transportation.

   Bruce Hostetter had a number of concerns in relationship to the college and high school, mainly the intersection of Lemon and Chapman Avenues. This area was serving a growing population of citizens, and he felt the area should be looked at as an education district, with questions concerning the proposed parking structure and the level of amenity it would present. He felt the college needs to take another look at its proposal with regards to the theater as well as alternatives for the faade of parking structure that are more contemporary and "fitting" to the area. He felt the faade of the proposed parking structure would not wear well.

   John Olmsted, a member of the TC&C and the Bicycle Users Subcommittee, felt these two committees and the Planning Commission should collaborate and cooperate better than previously with regards to bicycle access and facilities. He noted that while the proposed facilities are very handsome, they do not make it easy on foot and bicycle traffic. He also noted that Cal State Fullerton was developing a bicycles users plan due to their parking problems. He questioned if this issue fell under the Planning Commissions purview or that of the TC&C. He urged better cooperation between the two. He agreed that the Wilshire Auditorium was a terrible place to perform, and there was no way to make it an appropriate theater, but suggested developing an alternate use plan.

   Vince Buck, stated that Lemon Street was one of the uglier, critical streets in the City and felt the City had an obligation to make this a more attractive street. He appreciated that the college would help make it have a more attractive outward appearance, but felt the proposed maintenance yard was too close to his own personal property and not appropriate. He also encouraged the use of non-motorized transportation and public transportation, and with regards to bicycle use, there is no safe route for bicycles to get in and out of the college.

   The matter was closed for public comment.

   Chairman Price noted the report was Received and Filed.

2. COMMISSION/STAFF COMMUNICATION

   Commissioner Stopper noted that the August 27th meeting was cancelled and he would not be able to attend the September 10, 2003 meeting. Chief Planner Rosen explained that the September 10th meeting had also been cancelled.

   Commissioner Crane spoke on the issue of parking relative to the college and the high school and questioned what other departments were doing to be proactive rather than reactive. Chief Planner Rosen explained that the City traffic engineer was in close communication with both of the colleges and the high school in attempt to address the situation. Currently, the City was helping the college look for temporary parking and the use of shuttle systems.

   Senior Civil Engineer Wallin clarified that the Traffic Engineer had met several times with the college and the high school, because of on-going construction projects, and the impact this would have on Lemon Street. They were looking for alternate solutions, both on-campus and off-campus, which include possibly striping Berkeley, and possibly closing Lemon between Chapman and Berkeley for up to a year.

   Chief Planner Rosen noted the issue with regards to Fullerton College would come back to the Commission at a future public hearing.

   Commissioner LeQuire questioned if a solution to the downtown/college parking issues would be to use one of the parking lots at Grace Ministries as a staging site and have people shuttled over. Chief Planner Rosen reported this suggestion had already been discussed with the college.

   Commissioner Savage asked if the zoning of college district had been looked at. Chief Planner Rosen noted the zoning south of Chapman was low on the list for review, unless the Commission requested that it be brought back as a discussion item.

3. REVIEW OF COUNCIL ACTIONS

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

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

5. AGENDA FORECAST

   The next meeting of the Fullerton Planning Commission will be September 24, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. The August 27, 2003 and September 10, 2003 meetings have been canceled.

6. ADJOURNMENT

   There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.