Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2000 > August 23, 2000
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



WEDNESDAY AUGUST 23, 2000 4:00 P.M.

The meeting was called to order by Chairman LeQuire at 4:00 p.m.
Chairman LeQuire, Commissioners Allred, Crane, Godfrey, Munson, Sandoval and Simons

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

MOTION by Commissioner Simons, seconded and CARRIED unanimously that the Minutes of the July 26, 2000, meeting be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.


Staff report dated August 16, 2000, was presented pertaining to a request to subdivide a one-acre parcel into three lots on property located at 807 North Woods Avenue (northwest corner of Woods and Union Avenues) (R-1-7,200 zone) (Categorically exempt under Class 32 of CEQA Guidelines). A vicinity sketch was displayed.

Program Planner Linnell reported that the existing parcel has a single-family home on it which would remain and continue to have access from Woods Avenue. The two new lots would take access from Union Avenue and would share a common driveway. The project complies with all city standards and staff recommended approval of the project with six conditions, including those listed in the engineering letter requiring improvements and dedications.

Public hearing opened.

Malcom Aton, reported that he is the contractor who will construct the two proposed residences, which will be 2,500 square foot, two-story structures, modern Craftsman style, with porches, steep roofs and dormers. He will occupy the home at the rear of the lot, and indicated that he had read and concurred with all recommended conditions of approval.

Greg Vaughn, 817 N. Woods Avenue, voiced the following concerns:

The development will change the "flavor" of the neighborhood because most of the other homes in the neighborhood are single-story. Also, a fire truck would be unable to get into the ravine to fight a fire. Program Planner Linnell clarified that the gully to the west of the subject property is owned by the school district, and cannot be addressed with this application. The applicant will provide a driveway from Union Avenue, east of the ravine, to the subject properties. Further, a grading plan and retaining walls will be provided, but because the ravine drains from the school site, this application would not solve any drainage problems on the school district's property.

Because Mr. Vaughn lives north of the site, he wanted to see where the retaining walls would be and asked if any walls would be constructed on the north property line. Senior Civil Engineer Wallin pointed out the location of the retaining walls on the vicinity sketch. The natural drainage on the north end of the subject property drains onto Mr. Vaughn's property and the proposed grading plan would not affect this existing drainage pattern.

Mr. Vaughn stated that prior to notification of the public hearing for this matter, a new fire hydrant was installed on the corner of Union and Woods Avenues. Mr. Vaughn asked why a new fire hydrant would be installed, because it was his understanding that the applicant had to use the existing water system. He was concerned that work on the project had already begun, without approval by the Planning Commission. Chief Planner Rosen stated that he was unsure if the hydrant was connected to this project. He added that views are not protected and the applicant may construct two-story structures if he so desires.

Senior Civil Engineer Wallin explained that the new residences must tap into the existing sewer system, and the fire hydrant was not associated with this project. Chief Planner Rosen added that to date no grading or sewer permits had been issued, but that a fire hydrant could be installed regardless of whether or not the project was approved.

Mr. Vaughn asked if staff had given any consideration to the increased traffic on Union Avenue. Chief Planner Rosen answered that two additional homes would not be measurable in any traffic models for a development of this size. Over a 24-hour period, only approximately ten additional trips would be generated. Program Planner Linnell added that Union Avenue would be improved and widened with this development from its current condition.

Roger Ratican, 716 West Union Avenue, had concerns about water shed area, because it is hard to anticipate how much water drains through this lot. During the past rainy season, six inches of water flowed through the gully and the city had to be called to remove all the mud. All the water that drains off of this area and Golden Hills School, comes down through the gully and the proposed driveway will direct it into a much smaller area, ultimately causing erosion to adjacent hillsides. He has already experienced some of this erosion on his own property. The water drains off city property as well as school property. He felt that at a minimum, a drainage study should be conducted before any permits are issued.

Commissioner Crane asked if Mr. Ratican had reviewed the grading plan, and Mr. Ratican answered negatively. Commissioner Crane pointed out that the drainage issue had been addressed in the plan and the project may help the condition because it takes the lot in question "out of the woods." Mr. Ratican emphasized that he would like to review any records regarding past water flow.

Cheryl Rose, 667 North Woods, stated she purchased her lot for privacy and did not support the proposed lot split. She said that the new plan does not conform to surrounding older houses and the two new structures would be an eyesore and would reduce property values.

Bill Meyer, 821 North Woods Avenue, showed photographs to the Commission which were taken from the rear of his lot. He described how the two homes would take away the view of trees that other homeowners presently enjoy. He concurred that the design of the new houses would not blend in with the neighborhood. He and his neighbors are frustrated because one owner claimed he was told by staff that the project was a "done deal." Mr. Meyer further stated that he did not feel sufficient notification was received by property owners.

Chairman LeQuire informed Mr. Meyer that staff had fulfilled the legal requirements for notifying the public, and that approximately 25 or 30 notices had been mailed.

Carleen Lawler, 678 West Glenwood Drive, said the storm drain under Union Avenue drains to her lot. She has lived there since 1986 and the area fills up with dirt and has become grassy. She also felt that a further drainage study should be conducted. The lot on the corner is not maintained properly, but she would not be adverse to seeing improvements on Union Avenue.

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner Godfrey asked if the Engineering Department reviews the effect of drainage on other properties in the area. Senior Civil Engineer Wallin stated that the Master Drainage Plan for the City is studied and approximately 1-2 additional cubic feet per second (cfs) will not affect the overall drainage of any area. Because the sidewalk is placed along Union Avenue, the applicant must channel and bring out the water runoff to the curb on the street. There is a stretch west of the site where the mud is coming from, and improvement of the property will help alleviate this. He added that this is a "big picture" problem, and will not be exacerbated because of the lot split.

Commissioner Crane questioned whether there was anything in the Master Plan which addresses this problem. Senior Civil Engineer Wallin replied that the current deficiency of major problems will take between 25-50 years to fix. Commissioner Crane further asked if any of the neighbors could come to City Hall and look at drainage plans and Senior Civil Engineer Wallin answered affirmatively.

Commissioner Simons concurred that the corner lot was not maintained properly. He assumed that quality landscaping would be a condition of approval. He felt that the city should pursue and mitigate drainage problems in this area. He also felt that the appearance of the area would be dramatically improved with this project.

Commissioner Munson thanked the neighbors for making their concerns known to the Commission. He was curious as to whether the neighbors opposed any development, or just the fact that the homes would be two story in height. He was confident that any drainage problems would be addressed by the Engineering Department.

Commissioner Allred also believed that any drainage problems would be addressed with the grading plan. She also felt that the project would not negatively impact sale value, but would enhance property values in the area.

Commissioner Sandoval also supported the project and noted that the Engineering letter states that a detailed grading plan must be submitted prior to recordation of the map.

Chairman LeQuire also supported the project as presented. He did not feel the problems would increase, but was concerned about on-going drainage problems. He also felt that the size of the lots would be consistent with the area.

Commissioner Godfrey reminded those in attendance that there is a process which all applications must go through and there is never a "done deal" with any projects within the city. The Planning Commission hears all the evidence before ever making a decision.

There was a consensus of the Commission for approval. The title of Resolution No. 6883 GRANTING a parcel map to subdivide a one-acre parcel into three lots on property located at 807 North Woods Avenue, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Sandoval, seconded and CARRIED unanimously that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

Chief Planner Rosen advised that this item may be appealed within ten days.

Staff reported that the applicant requested that this item be continued until the next regularly-scheduled meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Sandoval, seconded and CARRIED unanimously, that said item be CONTINUED until September 13, 2000.
Staff report dated August 16, 2000, was presented pertaining to a request to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow for a high school and increased enrollment of 80 students at an existing school and church facility on property located at 2505 East Yorba Linda Boulevard (northwest corner of Yorba Linda Boulevard and Almira Avenue) (R-1-10,000 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15314 of CEQA Guidelines).

Assistant Planner Kusch reported that this was a request to modify a Conditional Use Permit for Eastside Christian Church. In 1986, a CUP was issued to expand the church's multi-purpose room for use as an education facility. As a condition at that time, these spaces could not be used concurrently with the elementary school. The proposed modification would amend this to allow a high school of no more than 80 students. Staff was first concerned about the amount of parking available for the use. A parking analysis indicated 85 surplus spaces and this application would not change the parking requirement for Sunday services. The original conditions of approval are still in compliance. The property was posted and notices mailed to owners within 300 feet of the site. Staff received two phone calls with regard to the proposal: one was to update existing records; the other was a concern from the condominium association adjacent to the property. Staff recommended approval of the request with four conditions of approval.

Commissioner Simons' understanding was that Cal State University leases the grassy area along Yorba Linda Boulevard to the church during the week, and asked if the school would be allowed to use it. Assistant Planner Kusch explained that the traffic engineer was concerned with egress and ingress and a traffic study would have to be conducted. In addition, to be utilized as a permanent parking lot, the area would have to be paved.

Commissioner Allred wished clarification regarding holding physical education classes at Acacia Park. Assistant Planner Kusch reported that in the past, Eastside Christian School had rented this park for physical education classes. For long-term physical education purposes, one of the conditions would be that Eastside must enter into a lease agreement with the City of Fullerton. This has not been pursued to his knowledge.

Public hearing opened.

Rich Davis, Assistant Principal for Eastside Christian Schools, gave a brief history of the existing school. During the past year, Eastside Christian Schools had a opportunity to take over an existing high school in Anaheim with a one-year lease. They tried unsuccessfully to renew the Anaheim lease, and began a search for a new location for the high school. Eastside Christian Church graciously extended an invitation for a two-year lease while the school searched for another location. Staff from the school talked to the surrounding neighbors to solicit their input regarding the new high school. As of this date, the school has reached its cap of 80 students, and a waiting list has been established. They also wanted to designate student/faculty parking where the congestion would be placed away from line of site of adjacent neighbors, on the opposite side of the building. Mr. Davis also informed the Commission that the City's Community Services Department had granted them a lease for Acacia Park.

Bruce White, Associate Pastor of Eastside Christian Church, 1425 West Avenue, thanked staff for their assistance. He stated that the church welcomes the school to its site and feels it will be an asset to the community. He clarified that Eastside owns a portion of the grassy area and does park on this area periodically. Further, a year-to-year lease with CSUF is maintained regarding the church's portion of the grassy area, which is utilized for parking on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. The school parking shall be maintained within the paved portions of the church parking lot.

Commissioner Simons asked if the church had permission to park in the lot across the street on CSUF property, and Mr. White answered affirmatively. Commissioner Simons also inquired if the church was interested in purchasing the entire grassy area along Yorba Linda Boulevard. Mr. White stated that they had entered negotiations to do so, but had not been brought to a satisfactory conclusion as of this date.

Commissioner Allred questioned how the school will prevent students from parking on the grassy area. Mr. Davis answered that one of the admissions requirements is that students follow all rules and expectations placed upon them.

Public hearing opened.

Les Walls, President of the Southern California College of Optometry, stated he had always found Eastside to be wonderful neighbors. They have shared facilities and parking on many occasions and he had no opposition to this request.

Debbie Wiley, 2436 East Almira Avenue, lives adjacent to the church, and the playground is west of her house. She inquired if the bathroom facilities and eating areas for the younger children would be separate from the high school students. The younger children now eat on the west side of the church behind the existing homes and it is extremely noisy during the day. She asked what time classes will start, where the children will congregate in the morning and if they will be supervised. There is already a heavy volume of traffic and noise from cars, vans, buses and trucks which enter and exit the church property. She has already experienced problems with the noise because it makes it impossible for her to work out of her home. She reported that she has been awakened as early as 5:00 a.m. and the noise has continued throughout the day until as late as 10:30 p.m. Students entering off Yorba Linda Boulevard will create a problem with CSUF students, and it will be difficult for Almira residents to make a left-hand turn onto Yorba Linda Boulevard.

Don Nyberg, 2326 Almira Avenue, lives to the rear of this property. In addition to the noise generated from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., he has repeatedly told church personnel that he had been experiencing problems and noise from the playground area until late at night after the school is closed. He also felt that this would be too much of a traffic increase for this neighborhood. The grassy area along Yorba Linda Boulevard was not aesthetically pleasing with cars parked on it, and the church had already removed some of the trees which helped soften the view from the street. He felt that the high school would be a traffic hazard because of the increased cars that the school will generate.

David Wiley, 2436 Almira Avenue, wanted to know if there would be any other hearing on this matter. Chairman LeQuire answered that only if the matter was appealed to the City Council would there be another hearing on the matter.

Rich Davis, again spoke before the Commission. He wants to maintain a good relationship with the neighbors in the area. Internal issues like bathrooms and eating facilities are addressed in a supplemental report. The high school starting time will be 7:50 a.m. and the elementary school will begin at 8:10 a.m. School will end at 2:50 p.m. for the high school and 3:00 p.m. for the elementary school. A traffic pattern will be established and will be given to the new students. He concurred that parking on the grass lot is an eyesore, but was confident that, after a few weeks into the new semester, vehicles would no longer park there. Finally, the upper playground below Mr. Nyberg's fence will be locked at the end of the school day, which would keep students away in the evening hours.

Commissioner Simons questioned whether the playground noise could somehow be mitigated during the day. Mr. Davis, answered affirmatively, adding that with adjustment of schedules and the new lease for Acacia Park, this will remove physical activity away from homes during certain times of the day. The church will try to do whatever they can to reduce the level of noise, and noted that basketball activities have already been moved to the First Evangelical Free Church of Fullerton.

In response to a question by Commissioner Munson, Mr. Davis reminded the Commission that they would be looking for a permanent home within two years for both the high school and junior high.

Public hearing closed.

Chairman LeQuire and Commissioner Godfrey made public the fact that they attended Eastside Christian Church. Chief Planner Rosen said because this was disclosed, and there was nothing for them to gain or lose, they could vote on the matter. Commissioner Godfrey stated that because Fullerton is known as an education community, he would support the project.

Commissioner Crane, also supported the project and hoped that school and church would work with the neighbors to mitigate issues.

There was a consensus of the Commission for approval. The title of Resolution No. 6884 MODIFYING an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow for a high school and increased enrollment of 80 students at an existing school and church facility on property located at 2505 Yorba Linda Boulevard, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Simons, seconded and CARRIED unanimously, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

6:00 P.M. Session

Staff report dated August 14, 2000, was presented pertaining to a request for a General Plan revision including changing the Land Use designation from Industrial to Specific Plan, an amendment changing the zoning from MP-200 to Specific Plan District, an Amendment to modify the Zoning Ordinance creating a Specific Plan Zoning District, a Tentative Tract Map subdividing a 280.7-acre site into 35 lots, a specific plan for the construction of 1250 dwellings, 500,000 square feet of retail, 450,000 square feet of research and development, an elementary school, open space, and renovation of a 300,000 square-foot office building, a commercial center conceptual site plan, a Development Agreement; abandonment of public right-of-way/easements and review and consideration of a Final Environmental Impact Report, on property located at 1901 West Malvern Avenue (northeast corner of Malvern Avenue and Gilbert Street) (MP-200 zone) (Environmental Impact Report).

Director Dudley gave a brief overview of the Hughes property and a history of how the north half of the property was negotiated to the plan being presented. In the early 1990's, the City was approached by Hughes Aircraft regarding the possibility of developing the north half of the property. Over a two-year period, negotiations were conducted, public community meetings were held, but before it went to a public hearing, Hughes announced that they would be closing the entire Fullerton site. Although city leaders were concerned about loss of tax base and jobs, they discussed a way to utilize the entire piece of property. Meetings were held with school officials and other community leaders. This lead to a study by the Urban Land Institute in 1995, in an effort to market the property. This included involving various community members, local school boards, members of the City Council and Planning Commission, community college, CSUF, business community and various recreational interests.

At the end of this process, ULI concluded that there was little hope to find a user for the existing buildings on the property. Hughes conducted an 18-month effort to market this property, but to no avail. Hughes approached the city to proceed with a land use plan for the entire property. Staff investigated the industrial base, as well as a housing development. The goal was to make the plan an integral part of the surrounding community. This meant that the development could not be gated, nor could the open space areas be blocked off from the community at large.

The consultant working with Hughes at that time brought in Peter Calthorpe, who was a national leader in a neo-traditional planning concept. Original talks included 40 acres of industrial and 100,000 square feet of commercial. Hughes then sold the property to Raytheon, who ultimately sold the property to LSF II Fullerton.

Over the past 18 months, staff has been successful in maintaining a non-gated community, with open space available to the city at large. A major 400,000 square-foot commercial center was also developed, as well as property for industrial mixed-use developments, including retaining the 618 Building. This will create space for a software business, which will employ approximately 1,000 people.

When the process began, staff informed both Hughes and Commonwealth Partners that they needed to work with both school districts to accommodate their needs. At that time, under court rulings, as part of the EIR, school impacts had to be investigated and those needs addressed. In 1998, SB 50 was passed, which stated that cities could no longer make land use decisions based on needs of schools because the bond money was there to accommodate school growth. The new plan provides for a new elementary school and is being negotiated between LSF and the Fullerton Elementary School District.

Chief Planner Rosen gave a Powerpoint presentation on the Amerige Heights Specific Plan, depicting:

History of the Site
Amerige Heights Design Principles
Environmental Impacts
Existing Condition
Project Features
Issues Regarding Extension of Pioneer Avenue, Density & Schools
Development Agreement
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Community Participation, Implementation & Recommendations

Bob Gardner, Robert Charles Lesser & Co. gave a brief report on the fiscal impacts of the Amerige Heights project. He also displayed a Powerpoint presentation showing the revenue impact, minus the municipal expenditure impact and equaling the net fiscal impact. He explained how the process was conducted, including budget analysis, interviews with city staff, project expenditures and revenue projections. The net positive fiscal impact to Fullerton each year after development would be between approximately $900,000-$1,000,000.

Commissioner Simons noted sales estimates by both SunCal and the City of Fullerton, and felt that the City's estimates were more realistic.

Commissioner Crane noted that one of the largest impacts was to the Police Department services, yet the staff report had listed the impact to police services as "no significant impact". Mr. Gardner stated that in speaking with the Police Chief, an amount was created showing cost impacts to the City. Chief Planner Rosen added that because of the new fire station, there would be a physical impact to the Fire Department, but the Police Department did not identify any physical impact needs from the additional officers required. This was why the EIR only identified impacts to the Fire Department as significant.

Commissioner Simons asked if the entire area was developed as industrial, would it have had to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and Chief Planner Rosen answered that it would not have unless a lot split were involved.

Larry Lazar, LSF II Fullerton, LLC, 5109 E. La Palma, Suite D, Anaheim, showed a video presentation on the Amerige Heights Development. Mr. Lazar explained the inception of LSF II Fullerton, and how the partnership came to acquire the Hughes property site. A booth was set up by LSF II Fullerton at the Thursday Fullerton Market in an attempt to receive public input. Former elected officials, business leaders, and school representatives have been meeting once a month to discuss the project in detail. A street naming committee of five former mayors was established to name all of the streets, lanes and parks after Fullerton citizens who have made a contribution to the City of Fullerton. To date, approximately 150 names have been chosen and will be implemented into the final plan.

Several neighborhood meetings soliciting public input have been held. Mr. Lazar noted that the homes will have unique architectural features and will shy away from "cookie-cutter" type developments. Each builder will be required to offer three or more different plans in each block. Also, the size of homes will vary from small, first-time homebuyer sized homes, to larger, custom-lot types. Further all types of these homes will be integrated, and not segregated into "all large" or "all small" homes. The parks within the development will be available to all citizens of Fullerton and not just to the homeowners.

Fifty percent of the homes will have front porches or balconies, and 50% will have rear-access garages. The streets will be narrower and will be heavily landscaped. A two-story elementary school will be developed and will be a focal point in the middle of Amerige Heights. He emphasized that this will not be a gated community, and the community will have access to a sports park, and other amenities within the project. Amerige Heights will also maintain all of the streets within the project, even though they will be accessible to the entire city. The retail center will provide a solid tax base for the city.

Commissioner Simons felt that that the "residential over commercial" units would be beneficial to the merchants, and supported the "green court" concept, and the two-story elementary school. He asked if the sports park will be constructed on city property. Mr. Lazar indicated that LSF II Fullerton will be paying for the land on Bastanchury Road, but the City will still own and maintain the sports park itself. Also, as part of the Development Agreement, a technology grant will also be given to the Library Foundation for upgrading of certain facilities within the Library system.

Commissioner Godfrey asked if the applicant has had any discussions with any retailers. Mr. Lazar said they had spoken with a leading retail developer in an attempt to secure retail entities. To date, a high-level software company will be utilizing the 618 Building, and staff has already had meetings with tenants such as Target, Barnes & Noble, Trader Joe's, Orchard Supply Hardware, Old Navy, Linens & Things, Hallmark, Pier One, and Albertsons grocery store. Restaurants such as Macaroni Grill, Houstons, California Pizza Kitchen, Chilis, and Rubio's Fish Tacos, have also been approached.

Public hearing opened.

Patricia Godfrey, Assistant Superintendent with the Fullerton School District, supported the project. The proposed elementary school will be the first new school built in over 30 years. She indicated that there had been a number of positive discussions with the developer and was pleased with the negotiations thus far. Effective January 1, 2000, the State of California placed far more stringent requirements for public schools. She introduced Melanie Houk, attorney for the school district, who gave some open issues still outstanding regarding the EIR document.

Ms. Houk reported that there are two primary areas of concern associated with this project. The first is the hazardous materials impact to both existing schools and the proposed school. New legislation requires a new level of investigation and approval of all school sites by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and this organization has not yet approved the site for a new elementary school. The DTSC letter requires that a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment must be submitted which states that hazardous materials will not pose a threat to public health or the environment. The evidence thus far does not support a finding that if hazardous materials are on or near the proposed site, that those impacts have been fully mitigated. For that reason, the School District proposed that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to the City Council with a requirement that some additional mitigation measures be included in the EIR document. Further, the District requests that prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for residential units within the project, that the CA Dept. of Education and DTSC approve the school site, or some alternative mechanism for housing the increased student population resulting from the project shall be achieved. Secondly, the school district is requesting that Raytheon and/or the developer shall agree to fully remediate those impacts. CEQA Code Section 21151.8 requires a school district to make certain findings regarding hazardous materials before certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report by the lead agency. This will certify that no facility within a quarter-mile radius of the school shall emit any toxic emissions or that they be mitigated.

Specific safety issues of concern were: greenbelt areas and landscaping plans near the school. The District requests that a plan be submitted for district approval. Pedestrian safety should also be addressed, and that the school have final approval of any school bus stops within the project area, as well as circulation flow. Also, they requested that the school site shall be referred to as "10 net usable acres" throughout the EIR document.

Commissioner Godfrey inquired regarding contractual occupancy permits and whether this would be an agreement between the district and the city or the district and the developer. Ms. Houk stated that the district is asking the Planning Commission to forward their comments to the City Council. They are optimistic and this matter can be resolved with the developer. It was her understanding that occupancy permits would not be applied for until 2002.

Commissioner Crane asked if the developer would be responsible for the SB 50 fees, even if the site were found to be unbuildable, and Ms. Houk answered affirmatively.

Chief Planner Rosen reported that regarding the satisfaction of the DTSC requirements, staff has added a condition requiring the findings be made prior to acceptance of the elementary school site by the school district. Staff is only reserving a school site, but not conditioning the developer to construct an elementary school, and it is not a condition of approval. A contractual relationship with the developer must be established by the school district, and before any permits are issued, the fees must be paid or a contractual agreement is demonstrated to staff. Staff is also concerned about landscaped and buffer areas being safe, and would add another level of review by the school, if the City can approve landscaping around the entire perimeter of the school site. Staff concurs with the bus stop issue, noting that the city does not designate bus stops. The net usable 10-acre issue can be changed.

Commissioner Simons asked if the Chevron development will be required to construct an elementary school. Chief Planner Rosen stated that an elementary school site is identified in the West Coyote Hills Development project. It is unknown whether both schools will be necessary at this point.

Ms. Houk again spoke and clarified that the school district is not in disagreement with the city, rather, they are attempting to make explicit in the EIR document that the DTSC requirements above and beyond the health hazard risk assessment, be satisfied as a condition.

Frederick Mason felt that this was an excellent project as presented and thanked staff for their cooperation. He did express concern about the presence of 1,1-DCE on the property. He had spoke with the water board and listed short and long-term effects of this chemical as liver and kidney damage, and cancer. The most recent numbers after remediation efforts show that the amount of 1,1-DCE has been reduced. He wished to include a condition which states that nothing be approved until acceptable levels of 1,1-DCE remain.

Barbara Kilponen, Fullerton Joint Union High School District Board of Trustees, thanked the developers for working with the district. She listed the names of the high schools in the District and stressed the importance of Fullerton being known as the "education community." Two issues of concern are: (1) maintaining educational quality at Sunny Hills High School, with the additional 225 students generated by the project; and (2) who will pay for the cost of these additional students?

George Giokaris, Fullerton Joint Union High School District Assistant Superintendent questioned how Sunny Hills High School would maintain high quality programs and who will pay for it. The Board is committed to maintaining high quality programs, and to date they are already 150 students over capacity and resources are strained. The developer expects SHHS to absorb these students, when an additional eight acres would be necessary to supply parking and space for these students. Currently, there is no state bond money available to match developer fees, and he feared that the Fullerton taxpayers would shoulder the burden. He asked that SunCal provide an additional six and one-half acres to the district, at no cost, to meet the needs of these additional 225 students.

Commissioner Simons noted that page 24 of the staff report states that under state law, the City cannot require dedication of the additional requested property. Further the developer will supply 135 additional parking spaces for Sunny Hills High School. He asked if a second story could be added to some of the school buildings with SB 50 fees ($1,650,000). Mr. Giokaris did not feel this was an ample amount to cover the cost of adding additional buildings, and Ms. Kilponen added that most likely any one-story structure would have to be demolished before a second story could be added. Mr. Giokaris added that Proposition 1A matching funds are no longer available.

Commissioner Crane understood that some schools within the city will take students who live out of Fullerton's boundaries and, if this applies to Sunny Hills High School, how many students fall within this category? Mr. Giokaris answered that approximately 25 students at SHHS who do not live within the attendance area.

Kimberly Hall Barlow, Deputy City Attorney, reiterated that SB 50 prohibits the City from requiring mitigation for the schools beyond payment of the fees. Also, the City cannot deny the application on the grounds that inadequate mitigation is met by payment of those fees. Chief Planner Rosen further stated that the school district conducts needs assessments and may raise the fees charged against the new development at two different levels, depending on what kind of funds are available from the state and other factors. The developer is offering to provide a higher level of funding to the elementary school district and he was unsure if it has been offered to the High School District.

Hal McDonnell, Fullerton resident, supported the project, and wanted the $1,000,000 anticipated revenue to stay in Fullerton.

Sueling Chen, 2023 Foothill Drive, serves as member of the leadership council of Amerige Heights, and complimented the developer on having a leadership team which meets once a month. She favored the diversified architectural design of the project, and the street-naming committee. She requested that the 135 parking spaces be accepted from the developer, and hoped that in the future space at SHHS would be limited to Fullerton students.

Melinda Guinaldo, 781 N. Carhart, opposed the project. As a proponent of open space, she opposes development, and felt that the density of this project was too high. It is the wrong place for retail of this type and a project of this magnitude. It will interfere with the quiet, peacefulness of this area and will bring too many people into the area, causing traffic problems and air pollution.

Shawn Francis, Vice President of the Downtown Business Association, supported the project to bring more people into the area.

Bill McGarvey, 305 Permission Place, supported the project and applauded the cooperation between the City and the developer. He concurred that sales tax dollars should stay in Fullerton.

James Antenow, 801 Rolling Hills Drive, felt that the lots were too small, the single-car driveways were too small, and he feared that the lanes to the rear of the properties would not be maintained.

Bob Root, felt that staff did a "remarkable" job in researching a project of this magnitude and supported it. He also did not feel the project should be "held hostage" by the school district.

Katherine Lancaster, 901 Paloma Place, one of the directors of the North Fullerton Homeowner's Association, expressed concern about contamination issues on site, such as dumping and untested areas. She reported that specific individuals have spoken to her, who wish to remain anonymous, that they have witnessed dumping on the site and were fearful of coming forward because of retaliation from former employers.

Bill Gillespie, felt that if efforts are being made to clean up the site in question according to code, he supported the project. He understood Fullerton has a shortfall in its infrastructure and something must be done to improve the financial base of the City. He favored a two-story elementary school.

Jim Blake, Chairman of the Fullerton Business Council, noted the stagnation of retail sales in the city. He urged the Commission to look at the "big picture" of how a project such as this would benefit the City's infrastructure.

Corinne Adams, voiced concerns about the residential plan; particularly, the neo-traditional plan in this area which includes narrow streets, alleys and driveways. She feared that zoning laws which other citizens must abide by, such as no overnight parking, would be allowed in this new district. Crime and childhood safety issues were also noted, because the green space areas will be open to the public, but maintained by the homeowners. The alleys will become traffic hazards, and parking provisions are insufficient. The "living units" over garages will not make adequate provision for which code will govern them, and may be ultimately used as "room rentals." The density will be greater than what is allowed in the surrounding residential area. Regarding the retail/commercial area, the noise will be exacerbated by large trucks delivering to the commercial area.

Edward Moorlock, 113 Rose Drive, was concerned about the increased traffic on Basque Avenue, as well as on Bastanchury, Malvern and Gilbert. He also suggested that Brookhurst Road be pushed through to accommodate the new development.

Charles Shute, 1727 Peacock Lane, concurred that the City needs an increased tax base, but had an issue with the density. He also felt that the environmental concerns had not been adequately addressed, and the mitigation measures to ensure safety of the site, could ultimately be detrimental to surrounding residents.

Jeff Harris, was concerned about the toxic problems on site. He questioned whether the downtown would suffer loss of revenue when the new commercial area was developed. He felt the density was too high for the residential area, and wanted all information regarding this process to be made available to the public.

Victor Marekofsky, 1322 Valley View Drive, wanted the increased traffic through his residential area mitigated. Also, the noise from the construction should be minimized as much as possible. The project will also take away from the rural atmosphere that residents in north Fullerton presently enjoy.

Perry Cromwell, 1932 Conejo Lane, also felt the project was too dense and would adversely impact Parks Junior High and Sunset Lane Elementary School. The new retail/commercial area would be detrimental to the shopping center on the southwest corner of Euclid/Rosecrans. The developer should consider building a stadium for Sunny Hills High School.

Bill Heaton, Chamber of Commerce representative, supported the project, because growth is critical to the city.

Buck Catlin, also supported the project as presented.

Sharon Kennedy, was concerned about water quality, and the radiation on site, particularly the ground under Building 614. She asked staff to direct the consultant to conduct the necessary radiation tests.

Barbara Marr, was concerned about toxic dumping on site and emphasized that radiation testing should occur.

Public hearing closed.

Dr. Eric Walther, Vice President of TRC, was asked to respond to issues regarding contamination on the site. He reported that this firm was hired for its professional expertise. They found that radio-isotopes and solvents had previously been used on site. Existing reports were studied, plus an independent survey of radioactivity. They concluded from data collected that the studies were done well, but pointed out that not every single area can be studied or tested—only in those areas where there is the most probability of finding anything, such as radioactivity. Isotopes were used heavily in Building 614, but the radioactivity was less than global background level. Radioactive materials were tracked, carefully removed and recorded as to where they were removed to. He further explained that radioactivity exists in natural materials, and if such material is in the bedrock, the amounts are usually immaterial. The report and data from Building 614 is available to the public. Regarding the water, hundreds of samples from the perch layer and aquifers show 1,1-DCE, but the levels are not a health risk because of the levels of concentration and where they are found. Their presence in quality and location are not a risk to public health. The only new data their firm has produced was a radioactive survey, and other studies regarding environmental contamination, soil/water measurements or the human health risk assessment, were correct in their findings.

Commissioner Godfrey asked if he was restricted in the way the studies were conducted, and Dr. Walther answered negatively. They used fundamental principles of science and engineering of where samples were taken. If anyone could show a credible reason why certain areas may be more contaminated than others, a special sampling would be conducted there. The plume of the solvents has been well mapped and has a normal path through water and soil.

Commissioner Simons wanted the definition of "global standards." Dr. Walther answered that given the nuclear age we live in, a reference level of natural radioactivity has been devised to monitor levels.

Chief Planner Rosen responded at this point to a few concerns that had been raised during the public comment section of the hearing. (1) The major streets into the project are standard width. Internal streets are two feet less than typical width streets which allow parking on both sides. The smaller internal streets tend to slow traffic down; (2) Regarding the front-yards (green courts), they will be owned by homeowners, and the greenbelts shall be owned by the association; (3) Parking meets all city standards and overnight parking is allowed on private streets; and (4) Cut-through traffic is addressed in a condition of approval which states: "Based on comments received regarding potential traffic impacts on existing residential streets, including Basque Avenue, the city will survey these streets for current traffic volume and speeds, and will continue to monitor these streets in the future. If traffic conditions exist or develop in the future which would warrant mitigation, staff will recommend appropriate mitigation measures to the Transportation and Circulation Commission. A traffic signal will be installed at Parks/Pioneer.

Director Dudley added that the tenants in the proposed commercial center would not compete with downtown merchants, rather, they will compete with Brea. Trader Joe's has indicated they did not desire to go into Fullerton's downtown, and as a tenant they may chose where they wish to locate.

Andrew Keller, Environmental Consultant for LSF II Fullerton, stated that Raytheon had implemented a voluntary remediation program to remove the 1,1-DCE solvents and other materials from the soils directly beneath Building 609. This included a soil vapor extraction system, and the perch water site is about 80 feet beneath the surface and water has been extracted from this area for two years. The DTSC has been involved in this area since 1996 throughout the entire investigation process. The entire system was shut off in June of 2000, after 90% of the mass beneath the ground was removed. The remaining concentrations are not a risk to human health or the environment. He added that DTSC has an anonymous hot line and no one has left any messages on this line regarding this site.

Commissioner Godfrey asked if any remaining water would be dangerous to surrounding residents. Mr. Keller answered no, that from all computations and data from monitoring wells, for both regional water and city water, test wells were dug and they are still "clean" as of this date.

Commissioner Crane asked if chemical levels are found to be too high to build the school site, who would be responsible, and Mr. Keller replied Raytheon would be responsible to clean it up. There had been sampling on the proposed school site when Hughes looked to develop the site in 1992. Testing was done for pesticides and heavy metals and none were found. Commissioner Crane also inquired how long would it take to mitigate any problems there and Mr. Keller answered approximately two to three years.

Larry Lazar summarized by saying he was pleased with the progress made with the city thus far, and the project will meet the needs of the City of Fullerton.

Commissioner Simons thanked those in attendance for taking the time to come to the meeting and give their comments. He supported the project because: there is a need to improve tax base, it's a good tenant mix, the residential over commercial is a good idea, there is good internal circulation, and he favors the community center and day care facility. The smaller lots of the proposed homes are conducive to the times, where people wish to get away from yard work. Traffic, especially for large trucks along Gilbert, should be reviewed further, and the applicant may wish to consider underground parking for retail. The extension of Pioneer Avenue will be a benefit to the City and an improvement to the area. He was pleased that there was no endangered species concern, and added that traffic would be less than it was when Hughes was at its peak. He thanked staff for all of their work on this project.

Commissioner Sandoval also thanked staff for inviting a project like this to Fullerton. She stated that there are always traffic problems around any school site, and it is very hard to verify addresses for high school attendance, so she believed that the number of students who live outside Fullerton's boundaries is higher than what was reported. She supported the project because she felt it was a good transition from residential to commercial. She inquired whether the Development Services Department ends up with the ultimate responsibility of following up on the mitigation measures and Chief Planner Rosen answered affirmatively.

Commissioner Munson thanked the members of the public for their input. While he agreed that an increased tax base is needed in the city, he did not think a substandard project was being presented to accomplish this. He had some concerns regarding traffic issues, but was certain that they would be addressed. He pointed out the potential for noise problems, especially at the corner of Gilbert/Malvern and recommended that staff carefully monitor the situation. He was confident that the developer and school district would arrive at an agreement. He too was concerned about the environmental issues, but encouraged citizens to monitor the mitigation measures concerning water and soil contamination.

Commissioner Crane thanked staff for their time and effort. There are minor refinements to be worked out concerning the site plan, particularly the truck delivery of retail to the north and hours of operation should be carefully looked into, and perhaps an addition condition added. The project will be a great economic benefit to the city. He hoped that school district can work with the developer to arrive at an agreement, and suggested that a further review of the impact of the project to Parks Junior High be conducted.

Commissioner Godfrey's original concern when Hughes closed its operation was what kind of project would come in to generate revenue, and he was impressed by the proposed project and its mixed use. He was satisfied that everything has been done to protect the environment and surrounding property owners.

Commissioner Allred supported project and thanked staff for their hard work. Although there are minor concerns, she felt that there was nothing that couldn't be mitigated. The project provides a much needed tax base and reflects the original Fullerton, and the narrower streets help to slow traffic down.

Chairman LeQuire also thanked staff for all of their hard work, the negotiations by Director Dudley, and the work by Engineering and the Development Services staff. He expressed his appreciation to LSF II Fullerton, LLC for selecting Fullerton for this project. He thanked those in attendance and those who viewed the meeting at home. The project provides a balanced use for the site and the residences are unique in their design. New jobs will be generated by the project. When Hughes Aircraft left the city a lot of people were concerned about the loss of revenue, and the condition of the soil. This project addresses and answers those concerns.

MOTION by Commissioner Godfrey, seconded and CARRIED unanimously that the project conforms to the General Plan as amended.

MOTION by Commissioner Simons, seconded and CARRIED unanimously that the City Council CERTIFY the Environmental Impact Report and ADOPT the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring Program.

The title of Resolution No. 6885 RECOMMENDING to the City Council adoption of a Development Agreement, as defined by Section 65865.2 of the California Government Code, between the City of Fullerton and LSF II Fullerton, LLC pertaining to the Amerige Heights project located at 1901 West Malvern Avenue, was read and further reading was waived. The title of Resolution No. 6886 as amended RECOMMENDING to the City Council approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide an approximately 280.7 acre site into 28 numbered and seven lettered lots and abandonment of certain public easements on property located at 1901 West Malvern Avenue, was read and further reading was waived. The title of Resolution No. 6887 RECOMMENDING to the City Council approval of a General Plan Revision to amend the General Plan Land Use, Circulation, Resource Management and Community Services elements by changing the land use designation from Industrial to Specific Plan District; modifying the Master Plan of Bikeways Map to show the proposed realignment of adjacent Class I and Class II Bikeways, adding text describing a new "Specific Plan District" land use designation, and updating various text, tables and maps to recognize the proposed Amerige Heights Specific Plan, and to change the zoning designation from MP-200,000 to Specific Plan District on property located at 1901 West Malvern Avenue, was read and further reading was waived. The title of Resolution No. 6888 RECOMMENDING to the City Council modification of the Zoning Ordinance creating a "Specific Plan District" zoning classification was read and further reading was waived. The title of Resolution No. 6889 RECOMMENDING to the City Council adoption of the Amerige Heights Specific Plan allowing the construction of a residential district with up to 1250 dwellings, elementary school, open space, a mixed-use district with up to 500,000 square feet of retail, 450,000 square feet of research and development, 200 residential units over commercial, and renovation of a 300,000 square foot office building, was read and further reading was waived.

MOTION by Commissioner Sandoval, seconded and CARRIED unanimously that said Resolutions be ADOPTED AS AMENDED.

Chief Planner Rosen gave a brief report on recent City Council meetings
PUBLIC COMMENTS There was no one present who wished to speak on any matter within the Commission's jurisdiction.
The next regularly-scheduled meeting will be September 13, 2000 at 4:00 p.m.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m.
Becky Stevens
Clerk to the Planning Commission
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