November 19, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Price at 4:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Price, Commissioners Francis, Griffin, LeQuire, Savage, Stopper
ABSENT: Commissioner Crane
STAFF PRESENT: Chief Planner Rosen, Senior Planner Mullis, Associate Planner Eastman, Assistant Planner Sowers, Senior Civil Engineer Wallin, Housing Program Supervisor Morad, and Recording Secretary Bird.
FLAG SALUTE:
Commissioner LeQuire
MINUTES:
MOTION by Commissioner Griffin, seconded and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commissioners Stopper and LeQuire abstaining, that the minutes of October 22, 2003 be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.
4:00 P.M. SESSION
PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM NO. 1
PRJ03-00592 - ZON03-00055. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: MARION HOMES FOR THE HANDICAPPED
Chairman Price announced that this item was continued to a date uncertain.
ITEM NO. 2
PRJ03-00432 - PM2003-193. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: ALI RAMEZANI.
Chairman Price announced that this item was CONTINUED to December 10, 2003.
MOTION by Commissioner Savage, seconded and CARRIED by a 6-0 vote, to CONTINUE Item 1 to a date uncertain and Item 2 to December 10, 2003.
ITEM NO. 3
PRJ03-00665 - ZON03-00058. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: NUBY SEARS.
Staff report dated November 19, 2003, was presented pertaining to a request for a major site plan for the redevelopment and expansion of an existing restaurant for conversion into three restaurant tenant spaces with a pedestrian-oriented outdoor space on property located at 501 North State College Boulevard (northwest corner of Chapman Avenue and State College Boulevard) (C-2 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines).
Assistant Planner Sowers reported that in 1968 the site was developed as two restaurants. In 1998, one of the restaurants was converted into three tenant units and a building was added to the site. The applicant is now proposing that the remaining original restaurant (Coco's) be replaced with three additional tenant spaces and outdoor dining area patios. The proposal meets all zoning codes and the proposed project matches the current architecture. The Redevelopment Design Review Committee (RDRC) reviewed the proposal at its November 13, 2003 meeting, and subsequently recommended approval with conditions which have been incorporated into the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the project with conditions as outlined in the staff report. It was noted that one inquiry was received requesting additional information, and one letter of opposition was received by fax from Mr. Dwight Odle.
Chairman Price stated that a letter dated November 19, 2003 from Dwight Richard Odle was received and should be made a part of the record.
Chief Planner Rosen noted that a petition had been presented to staff, and was expected to be presented to the commission.
The public hearing was opened.
Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Andrew Bello, Senior Project Manager, gave a background of the project, reiterated that Mr. Sears would like to demolish the building and replace it with an updated retail space that holds three restaurant spaces and will fit into the new design standards around Fullerton.
Chairman Price asked if Coco's lease was up; and inquired as to what type of restaurants would be moving in. Mr. Bello stated he did not know the answer to either of those questions as he was not involved in the leasing aspects, although he believed it may be a Rubio's, Sensei, and Juice It Up.
Joan Grady, Fullerton, presented a petition with over 1,000 names from people who go to Coco's on a regular basis and do not want to see it closed. She noted that Coco's was a place to have a nice dinner or lunch, and not a fast food place. She stated the parking was bad enough now without adding three more fast food restaurants, which would just turn this center into another strip mall.
Edna Brown, Fullerton, noted that all of the citizens are very proud of East Fullerton and want to keep it that way. Coco's means a lot to the senior citizens in the area, because many are getting to the point where they cannot drive but they can walk to Coco's, and it is one of the only sit down restaurants in East Fullerton.
Megan Tancredi, a senior at Cal State Fullerton stated she was here to represent numerous classmates who use Coco's to meet and study for school projects. She noted it was the only sit down restaurant by the school and more fast food restaurants are unnecessary. If the applicant wants to update the center, they should update the architecture of Coco's.
Commissioner Francis asked if Coco's wanted to stay. Chief Planner Rosen reported that staff is not privy to lease negotiations, but it was their understanding that Coco's lease is coming due shortly. Commissioner Francis stated that the Commission has no control over the lease, and if Coco's is not going to renew their lease there is nothing the Commission can do.
Richard Cameron, Manager of Coco's restaurant, reported that Coco's wants to stay; they had signed an extension with Mr. Sears and paid an increased price. He noted they have no problem doing anything that Mr. Sears wants, within a reasonable amount, although it was his understanding that Mr. Sears does not want them as tenants. He stated they have employees who have been there for 28 years and over 50% of the staff has been employed with them for over 10 years. He added that Coco's was supportive of community projects, fundraisers and they would be more than happy to stay. He also noted that more fast food restaurants would increase the noise factor, something the homeowners don't want would also require more parking.
Chairman Price asked if an extended lease was already in place. Mr. Cameron answered that he was not privy to the date the lease expires.
Commissioner Francis reiterated that this was not an issue of whether Coco's should stay or go, what is before the Commission was a proposal for an expansion of an existing restaurant, and everything with regards to Coco's is beyond the control of the Commission.
Mr. Cameron pointed out that there are 15 fast food restaurants in the area already, and Coco's had been there for 30 years.
Commissioner Francis asked how the parking situation had been since Starbucks and the others moved in. Mr. Cameron replied that it is increasingly heavy, and many Coco's patrons have to park in the back. They have, however, eliminated some of the parking issues by getting the Cal State students to not park in the lot when they go to class.
Richard Reese, Fullerton, noted that he was a loyal supporter of Coco's and there are too many fast food restaurants in the area already.
John Archer, supported keeping Coco's because a lot of disabled people go to the restaurant.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Francis was concerned about the number of parking spaces, and inquired whether the proposed project would meet the parking requirements of the center. Chief Planner Rosen reported that the project would meet the total parking requirement of 131 spaces, by providing135 spaces (as proposed).
Commissioner Savage asked how much square footage would be added, if the buildout would remove the five handicapped parking spaces, and if the configuration of the parking lot would change. Staff reported there would be an additional 900 square feet, referred to the site plan with regards to the parking lot and noted that four spaces, including two handicapped spaces, are to be relocated.
Commissioner Griffin asked if there were any provisions in the code that dealt with the number of fast food establishments in a given area. Chief Planner Rosen reported there was no such provision in the code.
Commissioner LeQuire stated that he understood both sides of the issue and the owner's right to develop, but he expressed concern because with the college nearby there would always be an issue with traffic congestion. If parking is a critical issue now, those problems should be addressed before the problem becomes worse. He noted that the parking lot contained a nice blend of uses, restaurants, fast food and video, and he would not support the project.
Commissioner Francis echoed Commissioner LeQuire's sentiments, noting he would not support the project as it would be a recipe for disaster and he didn't feel it was going to be a good use for the property.
Commissioner Griffin asked if, in order to deny the project, the Commission had to make specific findings. Chief Planner Rosen noted he would urge them to do such and the findings stated so far could be traffic congestion, parking lot, configuration of the site plan and circulation issues.
Commissioner Price asked if the overriding finding was that the project was not reasonably compatible with the surrounding development. Chief Planner Rosen noted that could be a primary issue as well.
Commissioner Griffin also supported the comments made, he expressed disappointment that the applicant was not present to answer questions, and he felt he did not have clear enough information, therefore he would not support the project. He stated that if this project comes back to the Commission it would be greatly appreciated if Mr. Sears were present to answer questions.
Commissioner Savage did not see a great deal of change with the parking, and he did not believe the traffic was going to change, or that the project would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Because it was the applicant's property, and he could develop it as he chose because the Commission had nothing to do with the lease for Coco's, he would support the project.
Commissioner Stopper stated that while Coco's had been a welcomed place for his family, the Commission did not have the authority to decide what business would be allowed, if that business met the ongoing ordinances, codes and requirements of the city. The findings by staff are realistic, compelling findings, and he felt he had no latitude rather than to accept the findings and support project.
Chairman Price begrudgingly supported the project. He noted that Coco's was an asset to the corner, but the Commission was not in the business of deciding what type of business a property owner leases to. From information received, he could not find that this project was not reasonably compatible with the neighborhood, and would be injurious to health, safety and welfare of neighborhood.
Chairman Price reported a split vote, and questioned if a motion needed to be made, and if a tie vote was deemed as a denial. Chief Planner Rosen advised that a motion needed to be made, a tie vote is deemed a denial, and was appealable to the City Council within ten days.
The title of Resolution No. PC-03-33 DENYING a major site plan for the redevelopment and expansion of an existing restaurant for conversion into three restaurant tenant spaces with a pedestrian-oriented outdoor space, on property located at 501 N. State College Avenue, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Savage, seconded and TIED by a vote of 3-3, with Commissioners Francis, Griffin, LeQuire voting yes, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.
ITEM NO. 4
PRJ03-00693 - ZON03-00059. APPLICANT: MVE & PARTNERS ARCHITECTURE
Staff report dated November 19, 2003, was presented pertaining to a request for approval of an eight-unit affordable housing condominium project located on two separate sites (308 West Truslow Avenue and 413 West Valencia Drive), granting of affordable housing incentives, a zone amendment from R-3 and C-2 to R-2 (Truslow) and R-3 to R-2 (Valencia) and a General Plan Revision from Medium Density Residential and Commercial to Low-Medium Density Residential (Truslow) and Medium Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential (Valencia).
Associate Planner Eastman reported this project is part of and affordable housing project which is a joint project between the City and Civic Center Barrio Housing Corporation. He clarified that the official applicant was MVE & Partners Architecture, 1900 Main Street, 8th floor, Irvine, CA 92614. The City was helping to process this application because the City is involved with affordable housing in the area.
It was explained that the request was to recommend approval of the development project for a proposal of eight affordable housing units for low and moderate income families at two separate sites, 308 West Truslow Avenue and 413 West Valencia Drive. A detailed explanation was given of the proposed project which includes four units on the Truslow property and four units on the Valencia property, zone changes, a General Plan reduction to low-medium density residential and reduction in development standards as part of affordable housing incentives. It was noted that there were no inquiries received from the public.
He gave a background of the project area noting the "Richman Park" area was identified in 1999 as needing special attention. In 2002, the City adopted the Richman Park Enhancement Plan. Currently, the Redevelopment Agency is partnering with the property owner to provide redevelopment grant funding.
The project was reviewed on October 23, 2003, by the Redevelopment Design Review Committee (RDRC) who recommended approval. The Staff Review Committee reviewed the request and the Fire Department required modifications to the Truslow site to permit emergency access. The Engineering Department has provided a letter with conditions of approval, all of which have been incorporated into the staff report. Staff believed that the project would be an improvement to the area with the pedestrian orientation, increased private open space, ownership housing, distinctive and detailed architecture, and a leaseholder maintenance agreement.
Associate Planner Eastman explained that the applicant was requesting incentives for providing affordable housing, which has been detailed in the staff report. Staff supported the proposed lower density zoning and General Plan, and recommended approval of the project, subject to the 15 conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Commissioner Francis asked why staff combined these projects and brought them before the Commission at the same time. Associate Planner Eastman explained that the projects have one applicant that is tied to the same loan agreement, same processing, and the issues relevant to both properties are similar. He also noted that the proposed buildings are similar.
Commissioner Stopper asked if this was part of a Redevelopment project, if there was a 20% set aside for low and moderate income housing, if the City was financing the project and what would be the outlay from the City, or a ballpark figure. City Housing Program Supervisor Morad replied that it was part of a Redevelopment project, there was a 20% set aside, and the financing agreement was still in negotiations, but it is estimated to be about a million dollars.
Associate Planner Eastman reported that the City would receive a partial repayment on the loan once the units are sold, although there will be a loss to the City. He stated that the property would be owned by Civic Center Barrio, but once the structures are built and sold, the money will come back to the City. Chief Planner Rosen interjected that it is all subject to negotiations.
Commissioner Stopper asked if Civic Center Barrio was very active in the City of Fullerton and if there was any consideration given for a 99-year land lease. Chief Planner Rosen reported they are very active in the city; this is a unique project, most of the ownership has been linked to the first-time homebuyer program; and a lot will depend on how the leases are structured. This project provides ownership benefits to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Savage questioned if there would be tandem parking, if there was a provision in the zoning ordinance that would prevent somebody from building out the tandem spaces as a bonus room, what was the square footage of the units, and what was the logic for the incentives. Associate Planner Eastman noted that the zoning code can do little regarding illegal conversion of garages. He stated, however, that the homeowners will have an agreement with the landowner that the area will be maintained for parking. He noted the units are 1,500 square feet and that does not include the garage. He explained that there were several criteria that they were trying to achieve with this project, and the development incentives related to the garages was decided upon to maintain the garages without taking up open spaces.
Commissioner LeQuire asked what was the potential for the units to be sub-rented or subleased, and what kept them from renting to several more individuals. Housing Program Supervisor Morad reported that there would be paperwork in place that will restrict the occupancy of the units in the CC & R's, and it will be something that the Civic Center Barrio will monitor.
Chairman Price asked if other areas have the 99-year lease program, and questioned if it would be preferable to have the loan agreement in place before amending the Zoning Map and General Plan. Housing Programs Supervisor Morad explained that this request would have to go to the City Council for approval. Chief Planner Rosen explained that the Council needs to review and approve the General Plan and Zone changes.
Commissioner Griffin supported the project and recommended approval to the City Council.
Associate Planner Eastman explained that the agreements would be in place goes before project goes to the City Council.
Chairman Price asked about the monument sign on Truslow. Staff noted the Truslow site is very prominent and the project will be a gateway to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Stopper questioned if approval could be conditional on the reaching of an agreement. Chief Planner Rosen noted that the zoning cannot be conditional, but the site plan cannot go forward unless the zoning is in place.
Commissioner Savage asked if a homeowner buys a house, but the property is leased for 99 years, what happens if they don't pay on the lease payment. Housing supervisor Morad explained that the Civic Center Barrio Corporation would put a lien on the properties, if the owner defaulted.
The public hearing was opened.
Connie Barron, Fullerton, owns the auto repair facility on Truslow and Highland, and she questioned how many parking spaces are allowed for the properties being demolished versus those being built.
Associate Planner Eastman stated that currently there are two lots involved in the zoning for the properties. The corner lot is a commercial lot and the parking is based on individual commercial uses, while the other lot is a single-family residence that may have a single-car garage. The parking requirements are based on the number of bedrooms per unit and the number of spaces required would depend on the development. R-2 duplex zoning would require that they have a two-car garage per unit, and the CC & R's would limit the number of families.
Chairman Price asked Ms. Barron if there were overnight parking restrictions on Truslow Avenue. Ms. Barron replied there were overnight parking restrictions, and they had been to the City Council in the past, but the parking was not sufficient for the area due to the overcrowding. She stated that she doesn't think it will be too different, but felt bad for some of the families that live in the area because they will lose their housing and will not be able to afford to come back and buy the housing.
Chief Planner Rosen noted that there were state laws that restricted the City from enforcing occupancy; but, when a contract with the developer and the future home owner is in place, occupancy restrictions placed on the property can be enforced.
Joyce Simental stated that she was concerned with the parking situation on the Truslow/ Highland property noting that if the units have visitors there will be no street parking, she felt the alley was not safe and currently the parking is taken up by the auto shop and families with more than two cars. She stated that she was all for improving the corner but felt there were too many units on that corner.
Richard Espinoza noted that the neighborhood is improving, although the parking is terrible, but his concern was with making the community safe.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Griffin asked if the CC & R's would require the garages or parking spaces to be used for automobile storage and not for any other purpose, and would this be an area that could be enforced on a regular basis. Housing Supervisor Morad replied that Civic Center Barrio would be responsible for regularly-scheduled physical inspections of the properties.
Commissioner Francis supported the project but suggested that since the projects are on different sites, it would be helpful if in the future projects like this were presented to the Commission separately.
Commissioner Griffin understood the concerns of the neighborhood, but was very supportive of the project.
Commissioner Stopper felt this was a real opportunity to do something in Fullerton that would provide a great start for many people, provide major improvements in the community, and he was very supportive of the project.
Commissioner Savage felt this was a great looking project and he would support it.
Commissioner LeQuire stated there were many unanswered questions, the CC & R's were not well defined, and for those reasons he would not support the project.
Chairman Price understood the concerns about parking and density, but was hopeful the land owner would be diligent in enforcing the CC & R's. He felt it was a good opportunity for affordable housing and would supported the project.
The title of RESOLUTION No. PC-03-34 RECOMMENDING approval of an eight-unit affordable housing condominium project located on two separate sites, granting of affordable housing incentives, a zone amendment from R-3 and C-2 to R-2 (Truslow); and R-3 to R-2 (Valencia) and a General Plan Revision from Medium Density Residential and Commercial to Low-Medium Density Residential (Truslow) and Medium-Density Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential (Valencia) on property located at 308 West Truslow Avenue and 413 West Valencia Drive was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Stopper, seconded and CARRIED by a 5-1 vote that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.
OTHER MATTERS
-
COMMISSION/STAFF COMMUNICATION
Commissioner LeQuire announced his decision to resign from the Planning Commission effective November 21, 2003. He explained that he and his wife, Linda were relocating out of the City of Fullerton. He expressed appreciation for the opportunity to serve the community, and thanked his fellow commissioners for their debates on issues, and staff members for all their great work.
Commissioner Francis noted that Commissioner LeQuire took his job as a Commissioner seriously and was very dedicated to his appointment and would be missed.
Chief Planner Rosen expressed staff's appreciation for Mr. LeQuire's participation on the Planning Commission and invited him to attend the December 10, 2003, meeting for recognition of his service.
Chairman Price echoed Commissioner Francis and Chief Planner Rosen's sentiments and wished Commissioner LeQuire well.
Chief Planner Rosen reported that the Coyote Hills Hearing has been tentatively rescheduled for January 21 and 22, 2004, beginning at 6:00 p.m. at the Wilshire auditorium.
Commissioner Francis questioned why two days were scheduled for the hearings. Chief Planner Rosen noted that two nights have been scheduled in the event the meeting runs too long the first night. He reported that two nights have also been tentatively reserved for the City Council hearings on February 24 and 25, 2004.
Commissioner Stopper inquired since these were going to be lengthy sessions if it would be possible to get the staff report and back up material earlier than the Friday prior to the meetings; and noted that he had asked for a copy of the Specific Plan for West Coyote Hills and received only a drawing. Chief Planner Rosen noted the drawing is the extent of the Specific Plan, the text was on the back of the map. He indicated that staff would do their best to get them the information regarding West Coyote Hills as soon as possible.
Commissioner Stopper asked when the Commissioners would receive their updated General Plan. Senior Planner Mullis reported that only three copies were received back from the Commissioners, it takes time to reproduce all of the maps and go through the General Plan to make sure that every page is updated, and she is hopeful they will be completed soon.
Commissioner Francis asked if only one meeting could be scheduled for one night for the West Coyote Hills project stating that if you advertise for two nights it could provide the potential for an endless stream of people, and questioned if they could reduce the comment time. Chief Planner Rosen noted the meetings could be lengthy. In the past they had scheduled two nights for Amerige Heights and were done in one, and they would bring a timer.
Commissioner LeQuire noted that with the Amerige Heights hearings they started at 4:30 or 5:00 p.m. with a planned break and suggested that the commission consider that type of format to avoid repeat speakers.
Chief Planner Rosen noted they could maybe start at 5:30 p.m. Senior Planner Mullis suggested starting earlier with a study session that was public.
Chairman Price brought up the Chairmanship issue noting there had been discussion about when to elect a new chairman. He noted that by practice the new chairman is elected the first meeting of the year, but because of the gravity of this hearing if the Commission wanted him to he would stay on as chairman for these hearings and the Commission could then elect a new chairman after the hearings.
Commissioner Griffin asked when the first scheduled planning meeting was in January. He questioned if the Commission could come to terms with a new chairman at the December 10, 2003 meeting to be effective the first meeting in January. Chief Planner Rosen reported the first scheduled meeting is January 14, 2004. There is no rule on when it has to be, typically the vice chair takes over the Chairman position, but since Vice-Chairman LeQuire has resigned a new Chairman will need to be selected.
Commissioner Francis stated that to chair a Commission you have to have some skills and it takes a good month or so to get the meetings running smoothly and felt a person with experience should run the West Coyote Hills meeting.
Chairman Price stated he will do whatever the Commission desires.
Chief Planner Rosen stated the easiest way to handle it would be to postpone the election of chairman until the second meeting in January unless there is an objection from the Commission.
Commissioner Stopper noted the hearings were moved to January 21-22, 2004 from December and questioned what is keeping it from being rescheduled again. Staff explained the comment period was extended which postponed the hearing date.
Commissioner Griffin suggested nothing be put on the agenda for December 10, 2003.
Chief Planner Rosen noted that the election of the Chairman is an agendized item and there would be further discussion at a later time.
-
REVIEW OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
Chief Planner Rosen reported on recent City Council action.
-
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
-
AGENDA FORECAST
The next meeting of the Fullerton Planning Commission will be December 10, 2003, at 4:00 p.m.
-
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:12 p.m.
