Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2006 > May 24, 2006
Shortcuts
State College & Raymond Grade Separation Updates
Water Bill Payment
City Employment
Agendas & Minutes
City Services
Classes
Emergency Preparedness
Online Services
Permits
Public Notices
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

CALL TO ORDER:

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Savage at 4:04 p.m.

PRESENT:


ABSENT:

Chairman Savage, Commissioners Bailey, Fitzgerald, Hart, Musante and Thompson

Vice Chairman Francis

STAFF PRESENT:

Acting Director of Development Services Rosen, Director of Engineering Hoppe (4:00 p.m. session only), Acting Chief Planner Eastman (7:00 p.m. session only), Senior Planner St. Paul (7:00 p.m. session only), Acting Associate Planner Kusch (7:00 p.m. session only) and Recording Secretary Pasillas.

FLAG SALUTE:

Commissioner Thompson

MINUTES:

MOTION made by Commissioner Musante SECONDED by Commissioner Fitzgerald and CARRIED 5-0, with Commissioner Thompson abstaining, that the Minutes of the MAY 10, 2006 meeting, be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

ITEM NO. 1

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

To consider the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (Fiscal Years 2006-2007 – 2010-2011) and its consistency with the General Plan.

Director Hoppe gave an overview and slide presentation of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and explained the “Proposed Appropriations 2006-07” report that was provided to the Commissioners.

Commissioner Bailey commented on the proposed installation of video cameras in the downtown, and explained that, at the Los Angeles airport, many times the dispatchers were so busy they did not have time to watch the videos.Director Hoppe stated that the City was trying not to hire additional staff as part of the downtown video project.

Chairman Savage asked if it would be possible to watch the video on the internet and Director Hoppe responded that this had not been discussed. Commissioner Thompson asked what issues in the downtown prompted the idea and Director Hoppe explained that increased graffiti, public confrontations, the ability for police to know the situation they were going into, and photographic evidence of people vandalizing were reasons for installing video surveillance.

Commissioner Thompson asked if the Planning Commission was being asked to decide on these various projects without full knowledge of the details.Chairman Savage explained that the Planning Commission’s duty was to decide if these projects were consistent with the General Plan, not if they were a good use of the money.Acting Director Rosen confirmed this was correct.

Commissioner Thompson asked what the resolution was, and Acting Director Rosen responded that this was a minute action, a motion that the items in the CIP were consistent with the City’s General Plan.Chairman Savage explained that going through the plan point-by-point did not fit what the Planning Commission’s duty was.

Commissioner Musante brought up the idea of using the internet to view the videos from the downtown area, and believed it a good idea that could be manned by volunteers.Chairman Savage explained that, at the airport, owners could look at their planes on the internet and keep an eye on the area.

Director Hoppe explained that the minutes from this meeting would be forwarded to the City Council with Planning Commission comments on the various projects included.

Commissioner Hart asked what types of allocations for local streets were in the CIP.Director Hoppe explained the various allocations that were included.

Acting Director Rosen clarified what the Planning Commission was looking at were amendments to previously approved budget items that had already been found consistent with the General Plan. These were additional items that were modifying the existing approved budget.

Director Hoppe continued with his presentation.He discussed improvements to Chapman Avenue.

Commissioner Bailey asked if there had been any discussion on the possibility of covering the flood control channels along Chapman Avenue, and Director Hoppe stated that no discussion had been held because the channels are owned and operated by the Orange County Flood Control District. In order to cover the channel it would have to be expanded significantly, which would not be cost effective.

Commissioner Hart asked about Lakeview Park / Laguna Lake; she wanted to know about the horse arena, stating that it was very dangerous for horses and people, and was not being properly maintained.Director Hoppe indicated he would pass this information to the Parks & Recreation Department.

Commissioner Thompson left the room 4:28 p.m. and returned at 4:30 p.m.

Commissioner Bailey asked if the City was paying for the Fox Theater restoration.Director Hoppe answered that Redevelopment Agency funds were being used, but he was unsure as to the percentage they were contributing.Chairman Savage asked the total dollar amount the City had committed to the Fox Theater project. Director Hoppe did not have the total figure, but would get it if there was interest.Chairman Savage stated he would be interested in the amount, even though it was not a Planning Commission decision.

Chairman Savage asked what was planned for the civic center project.Director Hoppe answered that it was his understanding that someone needed to look collectively at the various projects, not individually.Chairman Savage asked if it would include the Boys & Girls Club, and Director Hoppe answered that it would include looking at everything in the downtown area owned by the City, in order to create a comprehensive civic center.

Chairman Savage verified that the money allocated here was for the study only, and Director Hoppe answered affirmatively, that $200,000 was for the study of the civic center, with $125,000 already obligated for the library space study, and $100,000 obligated for Amerige Park.

Acting Director Rosen further explained that there was already an approved master plan for expansion of the Senior Center; the library then came forward to request money for realignment of their facility.In addition, there were questions about the Boys & Girls Club and their long term relationship with the Senior Center, thus creating a need for a comprehensive plan.

Chairman Savage asked if the Boys & Girls Club owned the land they were located on now, and Acting Director Rosen responded that it was owned by the City and leased to the Boys & Girls Club.

Acting Director Rosen stated there had been some questions regarding long-term parking issues with the Police Department, employee parking, integration of parking structures and housing, etc. as part of the study.

Director Hoppe explained that there were several other projects included in the booklet but not in the slides, and that he would be happy to answer any questions.

Commissioner Fitzgerald wanted to understand the decrease in funding for street improvements.Director Hoppe responded that the City was cutting back on the number of projects, and it was a shifting of money held in reserves until all projects were identified.Acting Director Rosen added that some of these funds represented advancements to this fiscal year and removal from next year’s budget.

Commissioner Hart asked if there had been an opportunity to analyze the Governor’s transportation bond to see what money the local level would receive.Director Hoppe stated he had not completed a detailed analysis yet, but the minimum was $4 million per city, and based on Fullerton’s population and road mileage it should be significantly more.

Chairman Savage asked how the sewer videoing was coming, how far along the City was to having a real number for the repair of the City’s sewer system.Director Hoppe responded that it was actually Maintenance Services which was capturing the data. He did not believe all the sewers had been videoed, but they had identified a number of areas that needed work and would require at least four years of the funding that was being provided through the new sewer fee.

Chairman Savage stated he was concerned that the State would mandate that the sewer system be repaired, or fines would be imposed on the City, which would require getting the money from the taxpayer’s. He asked if the City would get to the repairs before the State imposed a fine.Director Hoppe responded that Director of Maintenance Services Bob Savage had all of the dates, but it was his understanding that the plan was already in place and the City was obligated to repair the sewer lines and have a program in place.He did not believe the State would force the City to float a $300 million bond to repair everything overnight, which logistically could not happen.The City had identified areas where there were problems in terms of sewer overflows, high cleaning problems, and infiltration during rain events. These projects were being analyzed through Maintenance Services.The City will develop projects to replace pipes and manholes, and Maintenance Services will put together a program to do slip lining of sewer lines that were fractured and had leaks in them, but were not structurally unsound.

Chairman Savage stated he was not optimistic that the State would not have immediate requirements.Director Hoppe explained that requiring every city in California to have six months to repair all sewer lines that leak would be physically impossible.Chairman Savage believed the videoing to be draconian, and thought even three years to have the repairs completed would be unacceptable.Director Hoppe commented on how much pipe would have to be produced to be used by the State of California’s municipalities to replace their lines.

Director Hoppe explained that the reason the City of Fullerton was listed as having so many leaks, sewer back ups and overflow into drains in comparison to other cities, was because the City reported everything, while other cities did not. During presentations by the State and the Water Resources Board, Fullerton was used as a model for what incidences need reporting.

Commissioner Bailey stated that the City needed to keep an eye on the streets, even though funding was reduced by the State in the last five years or so.He added that he heard many complaints from citizens regarding the condition of the City’s streets.

Commissioner Hart asked if there was any money allocated for the Euclid Trail reconstruction.Director Hoppe answered no, that it was not the City’s slope, nor its dirt. The advice from the City attorney was, if the City engaged in repairs to the slope they would have to accept responsibility for the long-term maintenance of the slope. The City was looking for ways to encourage the residents to remove the material from the trail.

Commissioner Thompson asked for an explanation regarding the Fox Theater block improvement, and whether the funding was out of the general fund or the redevelopment fund.Director Hoppe stated that the $4 million was Redevelopment money, and was for Phase 1, which was Redevelopment’s obligation to assist in the relocation of McDonalds.

Commissioner Thompson asked if the lists that add up to $20 million were all of the increases.Director Hoppe explained that for the most part they were added projects to what was the previously approved in the 2006-2007 CIP budget, and not listed in the previous published document. They were existing projects with more money or new projects with new money.

Commissioner Thompson asked if the Planning Commission were to go through the items one by one as to what portion of the General Plan they complied with, would an answer be available.Director Hoppe answered that the CIP listed the General Plan element reference the items were applicable to.Acting Director Rosen added that various sections of the General Plan that deal with economic development and redevelopment of the downtown, etc. were generalized without the details.

Commissioner Thompson asked if staff recommended approval, could they explain their justification on how the Fox Theater block improvement fit within the miscellaneous capital items element of the General Plan.Commissioner Thompson stated he was also interested in the WiFi system upgrade.He was interested in staff’s opinion, as was Chairman Savage.

Acting Director Rosen commented that staff believed all items found in the document dealing with the amendments to the CIP were consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan.The Planning Commission individually or collectively may have concerns with the projects, and their feasibility or priority, and staff will pass the comments to the Council.He explained the history of why the Planning Commission was required to take this action.

Commissioner Thompson stated that in general, years ago, the City said there were a couple hundred million dollars of infrastructure shortfalls, mostly hardcore street, sewer, and plumbing.As he watched the City Council and people asked about libraries and parks, it did not seem like they were focused on the core issue of fixing the infrastructure shortfall.They appeared more interested in pacifying special interest.He was curious as to how, in good conscience, these items fit in the General Plan.

Acting Director Rosen stated the focus area of downtown was listed in the General Plan as a specific goal to revitalize the downtown, further increasing property taxes and the availability of funds to do other capital projects.He further explained that through the redevelopment of the block, use will intensify so that in the long term, development on the north side of Chapman Avenue will spill over, all the way up north Harbor Blvd. Private sector economic investment will occur, further increasing property taxes, and further increasing the availability of funds to complete other capital projects.

Commissioner Thompson agreed with the premise, but did not believe that private development would spill up north on Harbor Blvd. because there was no place to park.Acting Director Rosen clarified that part of this plan was to create a significant increase in public parking.

Commissioner Thompson asked the other Commissioners if they approved this budget as being in alignment with the General Plan, but believed certain aspects were a bad idea, was it the contention of everyone on the Commission that it was not relevant.

Commissioner Musante questioned the amount of money needed for sewer repairs, and whether revenues took care of repairs and bonded indebtedness for capital improvements.Director Hoppe stated there was a new sewer fee that had augmented a nearly 30 year old drainage fee.Commissioner Musante asked if the new sewer revenues took care of the operation and capital improvements of the sewer system, and Director Hoppe answered affirmatively.

Commissioner Hart asked Commissioner Thompson if what he was alluding to was the possibility that the money allocated here should go to infrastructure emergencies prior to redevelopment plans.Commissioner Thompson responded that the Planning Commission was not the City Council, but he was trying to influence better fiscal responsibility through his comments.

Commissioner Bailey verified that they were not setting a budget.Acting Director Rosen stated the Planning Commission was not approving amounts, just whether the CIP was consistent with the General Plan.

A MOTION was made by Commissioner Bailey, SECONDED by Commissioner Fitzgerald and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present to consider the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (Fiscal Years 2006-2007 – 2010-2011) consistent with the General Plan.

Adjourned at 5:13 p.m.

7:00 P.M. SESSION
Re-adjourned at 7:02 p.m.

ITEM NO. 2

PRJ06-00115 – ZON06-00021.APPLICANTS:BOB SATTLER AND COUNTY OF ORANGE; PROPERTY OWNER:WESTCO CENTER ENTERPRISES  Staff report was presented pertaining to a request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate an adult mental health and alcohol and drug abuse service center on property located at 1871 West Commonwealth Avenue (north side of Commonwealth Avenue, between approximately 704 feet and 862 feet west of the northwest corner of Commonwealth Avenue and Brookhurst Road) (C-M zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines) (AKU).

Acting Associate Planner Kusch gave a brief overview of the project, and slides of the project location were shown.This type of business was classified as a “Human Services Agency”, which required a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).Parking and traffic were significant considerations, and Acting Associate Planner Kusch explained that staff-to-patient ratios and office hours were taken into consideration when staff calculated parking spaces needed.The various site improvements staff was recommending were explained.

Acting Chief Planner Eastman added that the residential apartments shown across the street were actually a motel and zoned commercial.

Commissioner Thompson asked staff the amount of loitering and crime that took place in the general vicinity, and Acting Director Rosen stated he had no specific knowledge, but added the existing facility had an exemplary record with the City and police department.

Commissioner Musante stated that on the surface this particular site appeared ideal to him and asked if, based on the nature of this business, staff considered this site to be ideal. Acting Associate Planner Kusch answered that the site was not near residential, public transit was readily available, and staff believed the location to be ideal.

Commissioner Bailey asked for confirmation that the facility was outpatient only, and Acting Associate Planner Kusch responded affirmatively.

Chairman Savage asked how many facilities of this type were in the area, and Acting Associate Planner Kusch responded that he was unaware, but the applicant could possibly answer the question.

Public hearing open.

Bob Sattler, the property manager, explained that when the County first requested this use for the property, he went to see two other similar businesses in similar type industrial settings.A letter was sent to the current tenants and no complaints were received.He felt that the location, and the surroundings, made an ideal location for this type of business.

Commissioner Bailey asked for an idea of what types of tenants were currently in Buildings A, B, and C.Mr. Sattler responded that Building A was an electronics company which made photo imaging machines. This business also used a portion of Building B. The remainder of Building B was a multi-tenant use (two dental labs, a recording studio, a painting contractor, and a frozen food distributor).

Chairman Savage asked Mr. Sattler if he had a problem with any of the recommended conditions, and Mr. Sattler responded that in general no, but the fire hydrant, condition five, was confusing because there was already a fire hydrant across Commonwealth Avenue.Acting Chief Planner Eastman gave a brief explanation of the condition.He indicated that it was not a requirement at this time, but would be determined by the Fire Department during plan check.

Chairman Savage asked if the hydrant was a deal breaker, and Mr. Sattler responded that it would add a significant cost, which would be a concern.Acting Chief Planner Eastman clarified that if the use was approved, the applicant could work with the Fire Department to determine if a hydrant would be required, but staff was not conditioning it as part of the CUP request.

Commissioner Bailey asked why the county was moving its facility.Mr. Sattler stated it was his understanding that they were out of space and it would be more cost effective to move into a larger facility.

Chairman Savage asked where their clients come from. Sandra Fair, a representative from the Orange County Health Care Agency, responded that over 40% lived in Fullerton, and 26% came from La Habra, Buena Park, and surrounding communities.The county operated one facility in the area and had outgrown this facility, which also did not meet ADA requirements.This clinic will be for adult mental health and alcohol and drug abuse clients, and also adolescents for the alcohol and drug abuse clinic.

Commissioner Bailey asked about the level of service provided, whether it was immediate need, extended need, medical care, etc.Ms. Fair responded that it was not a medical clinic, only a behavioral clinic providing outpatient services.Referrals came from hospitals, police departments, families, and court referral programs.No medication was provided on site.

Commissioner Bailey asked if the facility was a methadone clinic, and Ms. Fair answered negatively. There was a privately owned methadone clinic in Fullerton, but the County only operated one such facility, that was not in Fullerton.

Commissioner Musante asked if there was emergency type housing in Fullerton, and Ms. Fair responded that they did not offer emergency housing.

Commissioner Hart wanted clarification that no medication was provided onsite, and Ms. Fair explained that if medication were required, it was provided by script written by an on-staff psychiatrist, which the patient would have filled at a pharmacy.Commissioner Hart asked about lab testing and Ms. Fair stated that urine and blood work were provided by contract companies.Very little medical service was provided.If an injection were required it was brought in by a pharmacy and given at that time.No medication was stored at the facility for distribution to the public.

Commissioner Thompson asked if many of the patients were there on court order and Ms. Fair stated that most patients had been in the system for some time, and came to the center through self referral, family referral, or primary care physician referral.The drug court program was voluntary only, and by request, and those clients were well behaved because they were on probation.

Commissioner Thompson asked if this was similar to the CARE program.Ms. Fair stated they were the mental health plan for the county and were funded by Medi-Cal, State and County funds, and a few patients paid for services.

Commissioner Thompson asked for clarification on loitering and Ms. Fair stated that loitering was not allowed.She added that if you went to the current clinic you would not even notice it there.

Gary Slade, 207 S. Wanda Drive, spoke against the project.His concerns were:

·300’ notification went to businesses, excluded the church and neighboring schools within a mile of the property; should have been an expanded notification area.

·Access via the railroad tracks, which also attracts the homeless.

·Downtown Restaurant Association knew about the project and was able to put a letter in the Staff Report, he found out via today’s paper.

·Many patients were court-referred and just going through the motions in order to stay out of jail.

·Does not want this type of facility in his neighborhood.

·Restaurant Association does not want to keep this use in the downtown area, wants downtown to be a “safe, family oriented area”.Mr. Slade wants this for his neighborhood, too.

·What about patients waiting for busses, walking to public transportation, walking near schools.

·Felt West Fullerton was a dumping ground for projects others did not want in their area.

Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Slade to point out where he lived on the Public Notification Map, and Mr. Slade indicated near the church and school, but his home was not shown on the map.

Commissioner Thompson asked the number of homeless and vagrants in the area.Mr. Slade stated that it increased during the winter because the armory on Brookhurst provided shelter for the homeless.

Mr. Slade added that when the church was built one of the sidewalks was removed, and people coming out onto Commonwealth going southbound would cross where there was no crosswalk.

Juan Reynoso, 1842 W. Commonwealth Avenue, and the owner of a bar and restaurant across the street, did not feel it would be a good idea to have this type of facility in the area, near a bar, a motel, and a restaurant.

Steve Borshein, 1850 W. Commonwealth Avenue, asked what the proposed hours were.Acting Chief Planner Eastman responded 7:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Friday.

Mr. Borshein explained he had an auto sales business next to the bar and wanted to be certain that there would not be a parking issue.He stated there was a homeless problem in the area and did not want to add to the problem.He had noticed some improvement recently and knew this type of business was needed, he simply did not want to have a parking or loitering problem.

Commissioner Hart asked Ms. Fair where the facility was currently located, and she responded 211 W. Commonwealth. Commissioner Hart asked if there were bars in the area, and Ms. Fair responded affirmatively. Commissioner Hart commented that there would be a decrease in the number of bars near the facility at the proposed location.

Commissioner Hart asked the square footage of the current building and Ms. Fair responded 10,000 - 12,000 square feet. She added that the new facility would be approximately 13,000 square feet, and would also have wider hallways and access to an elevator, which were required by law.

Commissioner Hart asked what percent of patients were homeless. Ms. Fair responded if the patient was homeless when they initially came in for services, they would be put into a home, unless they absolutely refused.There were also new services coming out that would target the homeless mentally ill, so that population would be going to other providers.Ms. Fair stated about 10% of their patients were homeless at any given time.

Commissioner Fitzgerald asked where the nearest bus stop was and Acting Associate Planner Kusch showed an overhead picture and indicated the facility and the bus stop.Acting Director Rosen clarified that OCTA had been known to change bus stop locations when needed, based on usage.

Commissioner Thompson asked what attracted the county to this facility.Ms. Fair responded it was in a good location; they had been trying to relocate for approximately eight years and had come before the Planning Commission and City Council previously, but were rejected because the proposed facilities were too near residential areas.The current facility was cramped and did not meet ADA requirements, but the proposed facility would.

Commissioner Thompson asked if there were other possible facilities that were further from residential areas.Ms. Fair explained that they had looked at numerous locations, including those that staff had recommended, and agreed that this would be a good location.They had worked with realtors in the area, and the Board of Supervisor’s representative from the area office had also helped.

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner Thompson explained that he felt the notification area was too small and did not touch the residential area.Chairman Savage clarified that a 300’ notice area was legal.Commissioner Thompson stated that the estimated 10% of patients that may be homeless would be a concern to the nearby residents.He would like to see a continuance with a larger notification area.

Commissioner Musante said his experience with mental health was in Massachusetts in the 1980’s.He had been at 15 to 20 public hearings regarding the relocation of mental health facilities, and had never seen a site as ideal as this one appeared to be.He would support the proposal.

Commissioner Bailey stated that he was approached by citizens about homelessness and vagrancy in the area, and did not believe all people needing mental health services were homeless. He did not know they were at their current location for some time, and had kept an eye on the facility in last few years and never saw a homeless or loitering problem. He thought this was a good location and would support the proposal.

Commissioner Fitzgerald understood the resident’s concern, but did not think a wider noticing of this project would change anything.This was a “by appointment facility”, a maximum of 25 clients there at a time, and no one would be living there; most patients were not court referred. She thought it was a good project, appreciated the patience of the county and property owner in working it out, and would support the project.

Commissioner Hart echoed the sentiments of the other commissioners.She added that residents were much closer to the current facility, the bus stop at the proposed facility was in a good location, there was nothing to loiter for (in comparison to the existing downtown location), and she would support the project.

Chairman Savage also supported the project.He wondered about the monitoring of the facility and bringing in people from outside Fullerton, but he saw no reason for there to be problems at this facility.

The title of Resolution PC-06-15 APPROVING a request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate an adult mental health and alcohol and drug abuse service center on property located at 1871 West Commonwealth Avenue was read and further reading waived.MOTION by Commissioner Musante, SECONDED by Commissioner Fitzgerald and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

OTHER MATTERS

ITEM A

RESOLUTION OF INTENTION.PRJ06-00000 – LRP06-00008.APPLICANT:CITY OF FULLERTON  A request to expand the northern boundary of the existing Restaurant Overlay District to coincide with the same boundary of Commercial Zoned Property in the Central Business District, on properties generally located on the north side of the 100 blocks of West and East Chapman Avenue and the 500 blocks of North Harbor Boulevard and Pomona Avenue to the Channel and Ellis Place.(C-3 and R-3 zones) (Categorically exempt under Section 15162 of CEQA Guidelines)

Acting Chief Planner Eastman explained the request and provided a brief explanatory presentation.He showed a map indicating the existing Restaurant Overlay District, the Central Business District boundary and the proposed expansion.This project was for commercially zoned property only; the two residential properties zoned R-3 were not included.This project will come before the Planning Commission June 14, 2006 at a public hearing, and the City Council will review it at a date to be determined.

Commissioner Thompson asked what the purpose of the Restaurant Overlay District was and Acting Chief Planner Eastman explained that it allowed restaurants to use public parking, rather than requiring on-site parking.

Acting Director Rosen explained that the details should not be debated as this was only a hearing to establish the intent to consider a rezone.He clarified that in the downtown area, restaurants that could not provide on-site parking were approved on an individual basis through the Conditional Use process, but there was a cost to apply for the waiver of the parking requirement.The Restaurant Overlay District allowed staff to make these determinations administratively.

Commissioner Hart asked if parking areas would be eliminated if the expansion of the Restaurant Overlay District was approved.Acting Director Rosen stated it was not anticipated that any parking spaces would be eliminated.

Acting Chief Planner Eastman explained that a staff report would be provided with details when the issue came before the Planning Commission at a later date, presuming this resolution passed.

The title of Resolution PC-06-16 APPROVING a declaration of intent to consider a request to expand the northern boundary of the existing Restaurant Overlay District to coincide with the same boundary of Commercial Zoned Property in the Central Business District, on properties located on the north side of the 100 blocks of West and East Chapman Avenue and the 400 blocks of North Harbor Boulevard and Pomona Avenue to the Channel and Ellis Place was read and further reading waived.MOTION by Commissioner Bailey, SECONDED by Commissioner Fitzgerald and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

COMMISSION/STAFF COMMUNICATION

Commissioner Bailey stated he would not be present for the June 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

Acting Director Rosen reported that a community meeting was held May 23, 2006 regarding the EV Free project and was attended by approximately 120 people.He explained the City Council process to rehear the project.

Commissioner Thompson stated people had been asking him if he was upset that the City Council overturned the Planning Commission’s decision, and commented on the effort the church had done to get this project put through.

Acting Chief Planner Eastman explained a City letter included in the Planning Commission packet, which was a response to a letter received at the last Planning Commission meeting.

REVIEW OF COUNCIL ACTIONS

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There was no one from the public who wished to speak on any matter within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

Agenda Forecast

The next regularly-scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be June 14, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:14p.m.

_______________________________

Janelle Pasillas

FacebookTwitterYouTube
RSS for Fullerton NewsFullerton eLists
Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map | Disclaimer & Privacy PolicyCopyright © 2000 - 2014 Community. Development, 303 W. Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832. 714-738-6547