Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2002 > June 26, 2002
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

June 26, 2002


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


Chairman Crane; Commissioners Griffin, Price, Savage, Stopper, Wilson, and LeQuire

STAFF PRESENT: Chief Planner Rosen, Senior Planner Mullis, Program Planner Linnell, Assistant Planner Kusch, Senior Engineer Wallin, and Recording Secretary Garfinkel


Page 65, should show Commissioner Price as showing abstention.

Page 70, Commissioner Griffin, 3rd paragraph, should read Commissioner LeQuire, not Commissioner Griffin.

Page 71, the last paragraph, indicated that only the neighbors from the west would benefit. Please add that Commissioner Griffin asked if the applicant's answer is "no", and that the applicant confirmed that it was "no." She would not be willing to forego fifteen feet.

MOTION by Commissioner Wilson seconded and CARRIED by a 7-0 vote, that the Minutes of the June 12, 2002, meeting be APPROVED AS AMENDED.



Staff report dated June 26, 2002, was presented to allow a 76,000 square-foot medical and administrative office space, a parking structure with 387 off-street parking spaces, access ways and a visitor drop-off area; to adopt development regulations for a specific plan for the site, and modify the Land Use Element of the General Plan to permit specific plans as a means to implement property which has a Commercial designation, for property located at 2151 North Harbor Boulevard (Bastanchury Road to the north; North Harbor Boulevard to the east; Valencia Mesa Drive to the south; Laguna Road to the west) (C-2 zone) (Mitigated Negative Declaration).

Senior Planner Mullis gave a report on the subject property and included aerial views, and photos. She indicated that the new building occupancy would be limited during the construction of the parking garage due to limited available parking. In addition to a Site Plan, a General Plan Revision and Zone Amendment are also needed to allow the construction of the facility at this location. She stated that two Mitigation Measures would be added to the Resolution, which are referenced in the Errata for the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. The two new Mitigation Measures address traffic and air quality issues. No public comments or concerns had been received to date. Staff recommended approval of the request.

Commissioner Savage questioned a discrepancy with the Zoning Ordinance, Section 15.21.020B. Senior Planner Mullis indicated that the Zoning Ordinance had been amended. Paragraph B, 15.21.020 had been revised in the new code. Senior Planner Mullis indicated that she would check to see if the new Zoning Ordinance books were available for the Commissioners.

Commissioner Savage asked what triggered a Specific Plan request. Senior Planner Mullis stated it was a request with a discretionary action by City Council and it had to be a reasonable request. Commissioner Savage asked if the only deviation from the Zoning Law was the ratio. Senior Planner Mullis responded affirmatively. Commissioner Savage inquired why a variance was not used. Senior Planner Mullis indicated that the application could have been handled a variety of ways, however, the applicant requested a Specific Plan. She stated that the Specific Plan boundary could be appended if St. Jude expanded into new development areas.

Commissioner LeQuire asked if the "Virginia K. Crosson Cancer Center" building across from St. Jude on the south side was larger or smaller than the proposed building. Senior Planner Mullis deferred the question to the applicant.

Commissioner Price asked if the five parcels of this project would be consolidated and if it was a condition of approval. Senior Planner Mullis indicated, that a lot consolidation would be added as a condition of approval. Commissioner Price asked if the main entry would be off of Laguna Road. Senior Planner Mullis indicated that customers would be directed in from Harbor Boulevard and staff would use Laguna Road. Commissioner Price asked in relation to the building of the bridge, if there would be any mitigation measures with respect to traffic. Senior Planner Mullis indicated there was an encroachment permit that would be needed from Engineering and mitigation during construction would be incorporated into that permit. Senior Engineer Wallin added that in the Engineer's letter, it was noted that the encroachment permit would need to go to City Council.

Commissioner Stopper asked about "traffic mitigation fees". Senior Planner Mullis indicated that Measure M was a countywide program that was fee-based on the type of use-per-square-foot. The monies are put into a pool to pay for other improvements in the community due to traffic congestion.

Commissioner Wilson asked if the Mitigated Negative Declaration would have an impact on schools. Senior Planner Mullis indicated that the only impact would be by employees who could potentially choose to transfer children to local schools based on their job location. Commissioner Wilson further asked about the "earthquake seismic issues" and the two specific questions on the Initial Study Check List. Senior Planner Mullis indicated that this was standard language in California and did not necessarily mean the subject property was near an active fault.

Public hearing opened.

Applicant Steve Sheldon of the St. Joseph's Health System Planning Team approached the podium and indicated that they were in agreement with the conditions of approval and the staff report.

Chairman Crane asked the applicant if they were in agreement with the added condition of lot consolidation. The applicant responded affirmatively.

Denny Bean, 1529 Yermo Place, Fullerton

In relation to paragraph 3, page 3, of the staff report concerning bike lanes, there was an item that had not been heard by the Bicycle Users Subcommittee. Senior Engineer Wallin indicated that the Bike Committee and City Council took a standard item off the Master Plan that had already been reviewed. Since it did not make sense to construct only 300 feet at this time, the right-of-way would be dedicated for future construction, but the lane would not be constructed at this time.

Commissioner LeQuire asked about the comparative size of the proposed building to the "Virginia K. Crosson Cancer Center" building. The applicant responded that they would be similar in size.

There were no public comments.

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner Wilson asked if the recommendations were in place regarding a traffic study for Valencia Mesa. Senior Planner Mullis noted that those recommendations were discussed on page 4 of the Errata, inside of the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration, Installation of Protected left turns (Transportation/Circulation). Air quality would also be added as a mitigation measure.

Commissioner LeQuire was in favor of deleting items "a" and "b" in Condition #2. He felt that Fullerton was blessed to have St. Jude Hospital and did not feel a review by the Redevelopment Design Review Committee was necessary.

Commissioner Griffin agreed this was a great project. He believed that the parking structure could look better and suggested, "stamped concrete". Commissioner Griffin would favor this site plan.

Commissioner Stopper appreciated being part of the presentations made by St. Jude Hospital on more than one occasion, and knew that the Master Plan would cost several million dollars, much of which was required by the State of California in relation to earthquake preparation. Commissioner Stopper recommended approval.

Commissioner LeQuire noted that the last paragraph under condition #2b stated that a cash bond agreement shall be provided to the Development Services Department to comply with the one-year maintenance bond requirement specified in Section 15.56.260C of the Fullerton Municipal Code. Commissioner LeQuire felt that since St. Jude had been in Fullerton a long time, it was not necessary for them to put up a bond. Chief Planner Rosen noted that this was simply a reiteration of City code and was standard language.

Commissioner Savage agreed it would be nice to remove some of the burden of costs for such a worthwhile project and recommended approval of the Site Plan.

Chairman Crane also recommended approval and agreed that the architecture of the garage structure was lacking.

The title of Resolution No. 6975 RECOMMENDING to the City Council APPROVAL of a request to modify the Land Use Element of the General Plan to permit specific plans as a means to implement property which has a commercial designation, change the zoning for the property from C-2, General Commercial to SPD, Specific Plan District, adopt development regulations, and allow the construction of a three-story, 75,264 square-foot medical and administrative office building, a parking structure with 389 off-street parking spaces, the construction of a pedestrian bridge to cross Harbor Boulevard, and a visitor drop-off area on property located at 3151 North Harbor Boulevard, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Wilson, seconded and CARRIED unanimously that said Resolution be APPROVED AS AMENDED adding a condition of approval requiring a lot consolidation, and adding two mitigation measures.


Staff report dated June 26, 2002, was presented to allow an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from .52 to .62 and to modify the existing site plan to maintain 116,860 square feet of industrial buildings and to construct 113,205 square feet of an RV/self-storage facility for property located at 800 South Raymond Avenue (southeast corner of Kimberly Avenue and Raymond Avenue) (MP-200 zone) (Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 of CEQA Guidelines).

Assistant Planner Kusch presented the staff report and showed photos, aerial views and maps of the subject property. To date, no comments were received in regard to this application.

The existing site retains 116,800 square feet of the existing building and would include five single-story, self-storage buildings, and one two-story, self-storage building. The total square footage proposed was 113,205, with 21 parking spaces reserved for recreational vehicle storage.

The applicant proposed to use a unified architectural theme. Additional photos were shown of the proposed elevation of the office building. Also, the railroad spur along Kimberly Avenue would be removed. This item was noted in the Engineering letter as recommended Condition #1 in the staff report. One of the conditions of approval was that parking spaces encroaching into the required 20-foot street setback along Kimberly Avenue should be converted to landscaping. The landscape irrigation plan would be subject to approval by the Development Services Director. There would also be sidewalk improvements along Raymond Avenue and Kimberly Avenue.

The Conditional Use Permit requirement was a Zoning Code implementation for the City's General Plan and traffic model. FARs are tied to the General Plan's traffic generation and road improvement projections. Proposals to exceed the base FAR limits are evaluated based on projected traffic generation, available roadway capacity, and future roadway improvements. Except for payment of the standard traffic impact mitigation fee, the Engineering Department had determined that there were no traffic mitigation requirements for the development.

The staff report discussed the traffic model as it related to the City's traffic analysis zones and development monitoring report. The City was divided into 63 traffic analysis zones. Based on a development monitoring report, this project would further exceed the allowable industrial square footage for the project's traffic analysis zone. However, two adjacent traffic analysis zones have excess industrial development square footage available.

Commissioner Savage asked about the dock doors and their placement. Assistant Planner Kusch noted that tenant improvements might require additional entries. At this time, it was not known if the applicant had a tenant in mind that would need the dock doors. Senior Planner Mullis noted that the structure had grade level doors accessible from Raymond Avenue for the industrial building located on the west.

Commissioner Stopper noted that, at the north end of the building, there was a rail spur that matched the rail loading dock. Assistant Planner Kusch indicated that if unused, the rail spur would be removed and converted to landscaping and removed from Kimberly Avenue. Chief Planner Rosen noted that this was a request from the applicant, and not a requirement to abandon the rail spur.

Commissioner Griffin noted that there was currently a shed on the north and west side of existing parking and asked if it would be removed. Assistant Planner Kusch responded affirmatively. Commissioner LeQuire asked if there was electrical equipment in the shed. Assistant Planner Kusch deferred to the applicant.

Public hearing opened.

The applicant, Dave Ball approached the podium and indicated that this was a proposed mixed-use project that would allow the business to expand to meet growing clientele and projects. The renovation would be on the interior with a new office building on Raymond Avenue. Parking is off of Kimberly Avenue. It would include an extension of glass with more current architectural colors to make it welcoming to the street and friendlier to customers. There would be 113,000 square feet of mini-warehouse space that was new construction and state-of-the art in security and marketing by the way it opened up to the public. It would have a separate entry off of Raymond Avenue and would not compete with the other two entry points. The surrounding site would be re-landscaped. There would be streetlights on Raymond Avenue, and Kimberly Avenue would have sidewalks. The rail spur would be removed, as the proposed tenants would not need it. Portions of the building that have been remodeled and are not up to code would be removed and rebuilt with steel frame instead of wood.

The applicant indicated that he had read the staff report and asked for minor modification of the fourth paragraph of the Engineering letter requesting a 27-foot turning radius to be changed to a 21-foot turning radius. Senior Engineer Wallin indicated that due to conflicts with power poles, fire hydrants and catch basins, Engineering would be willing to accept a 21-foot radius curb return if it would fit without requiring relocation of poles, hydrants, etc.

The applicant also noted that the storage shed housed a booster pump for a fire prevention system that would not be necessary, and that shed would be removed.

Chairman Crane asked the applicant if he read the conditions and agreed and accepted them. The applicant answered affirmatively.

Commissioner LeQuire asked if the increments of square footage per tenant could be less than 50,000 square feet. The applicant responded affirmatively.

There were no public comments.

Public hearing closed.

The title of Resolution No. 6976 APPROVING a request to maintain 116,860 square-feet of industrial buildings and to construct 113,205 square-feet of an RV/self-storage facility and a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the M-P zone for property located at 800 South Raymond Avenue, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Savage, seconded and CARRIED by a 6-1 vote with Commissioner Wilson voting no, that said Resolution be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.


Staff report dated June 26, 2002, was presented to consider changing the zone classification from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000 for the properties on the south side of East Las Palmas Drive from 120 East Las Palmas Drive through 320 East Las Palmas Drive (south side of East Las Palmas Drive from the Fullerton City limits on the west to the railroad right-of-way on the east) (Negative Declaration).

Commissioner Wilson recused himself from this matter.

Program Planner Linnell gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding an amendment for a zone change that stemmed from a request in April to subdivide one of these properties. The subdivision was denied by City Council, and as a result property owners in the area sought rezoning.

Staff recommended approval. Program Planner Linnell also indicated that a recommendation for an expanded area for rezoning would be presented later in the meeting through two Resolutions of Intention.

Commissioner LeQuire asked if the current amendment and the two Resolutions of Intention could be combined to save confusion. Program Planner Linnell made a commitment to initiate the rezoning. Chief Planner Rosen stated that City Council gave clear direction to move forward with the rezoning on these properties and did not have this direction on the other properties. Staff felt it was appropriate to move forward.

Commissioner Savage asked if any of the residents on East Las Palmas voiced an opinion opposing the rezoning. Program Planner Linnell noted that only a petition by property owners had been received (copies were provided to the Commissioners in their packets) in support of rezoning. Chief Planner Rosen spoke with Mr. Delano, property owner at 120 East Las Palmas, who did not support this application.

Chairman Crane asked if the two lots not heard from could be pinpointed. Program Planner Linnell believed one of the lots to be in the middle of the block.

Commissioner Stopper asked that each lot that petitioned, be designated on the map. Program Planner Linnell recounted the following addresses and names:

{120 East Las Palmas Drive - 1st lot on south - Mr. Richard Delano (against rezoning)} Not on petition
130 East Las Palmas Drive - 2nd lot from south - John & Dawn Gardener - (petitioned for rezoning)
200 East Las Palmas Drive - Larry C. Holmes - (in favor of rezoning)
230 East Las Palmas Drive - Vince & Cheryl Basta - (in favor of rezoning)
310 East Las Palmas Drive - Valerie J. Schutz - (in favor of rezoning)
320 East Las Palmas Drive - Steve & Jane Jones - (in favor of rezoning)

Chairman Crane asked if the one property owner that had not responded received notification regarding the zoning. Staff responded that notification was sent to the property owners on the assessor's rolls as well as to the situs addresses.

Program Planner Linnell added that one person whose name was not on the petition, spoke at the City Council meeting regarding this subject property in opposition of the lot split.

A map was shown whereby the property owners that approached the podium could point out their lots.

Commissioner Price brought up the possibility of combining this rezoning effort with the other rezoning issues regarding R-1-40,000 for a combined effort. He asked staff how long of a delay that would create. Chief Planner Rosen responded that it could be scheduled in approximately 30 days.

Chairman Crane asked if there was a timing issue relative to legal matters regarding this rezone or if the City Council asked that this rezoning be brought to the Planning Commission in a speedy fashion. Chief Planner Rosen responded that there were no pending applications that would be affected by this action and that City Council did not put a time frame on this action.

Commissioner Griffin asked if the property owner at 120 East Las Palmas, had exhausted his efforts to appeal. Chief Planner Rosen replied that there were two paths; one, he could ask for reconsideration by the City Council; or, two, he could choose to go to court. Staff recommended that he reapply, however, at this time he had not chosen to do so.

Commissioner LeQuire supported the idea of combining the two rezoning issues. He asked if staff could be directed not to accept any applications in the entire area due to a pending action. Chief Planner Rosen replied that staff could not legally do that. There would have to be a moratorium placed on rezoning this area by City Council. Based on that information Commissioner LeQuire suggested that this rezoning effort be voted on at the present time.

Commissioner Griffin encouraged that the Commission receive public response before proceeding.

Chairman Crane asked staff about spot zoning and how the rules may or may not apply to this situation. Chief Planner Rosen noted that there were prohibitions against spot zoning in law and in jurisprudence. Spot zoning traditionally takes an area that is residential and introduces another use on a lot in the middle of the block, such as commercial or industrial. It was staff's and the court's interpretation, that spot zoning did not include modifying a residential zone into different lot sizes within a district. This prevents special favor from the City.

Chairman Crane asked if all the lots being considered for rezoning are 40,000 square feet or more. Program Planner Linnell answered that most of the lots are less than 40,000 square feet. Chief Planner Rosen noted that this would allow some of the smaller parcels to consolidate in the future with the ability to subdivide.

Chairman Crane again asked if staff was confident that the one property owner that had not responded, knew about the hearing. Staff replied that the proper notification was made.

Public hearing opened.

Larry Holmes, 200 East Las Palmas
  • Lot #3 - in favor
  • Mr. Hoffman is the property owner who had not responded

Chairman Crane asked Mr. Holmes if he had had the opportunity to talk to with a real estate professional to determine what a rezone might do to property values. Mr. Holmes believed he is knowledgeable of real estate and felt the rezone would be a positive.

Wanita Hoffman - 214 East Las Palmas
  • One of the missing property owners (has horses)
  • Opposed because she felt flag lots should be disallowed, not lot splits
  • She had a gate on the back of the property for horses and a barn with access to Hideaway Lane
  • Property value would remain the same whether subdivided or not
Dawn Gardner - 130 East Las Palmas
  • In favor of rezoning
  • Had spoken to realtor, it would decrease property being next to lot split
Arch Shutz - 310 East Las Palmas
  • In favor of rezone
  • Owned property
Steve Moraz and April Wakeman - 300 East Las Palmas
  • In favor of rezoning
  • There were CC&R's that precluded the R-1-20,000 zone
  • When the area was annexed from the County by the City, existing residents may have felt they were protected by the CC& R's that were then expired

Commissioner LeQuire asked if they signed the petition. The speakers indicated they signed a petition, perhaps not this one.

Steve Jones -320 East Las Palmas
  • In favor of rezoning
Rich Delano -120 East Las Palmas
  • Opposed to rezoning because it brings down the value of the properties
  • Wants to divide lot, sell it and make money

Chairman Crane asked Mr. Delano if he felt the property was worth more as two lots. Mr. Delano responded affirmatively due to the fact it is next to a commercial lot.

Cheryl Bostick - 230 East Las Palmas
  • In favor of rezoning
Bob Olson - 3321 Hammell Road
  • In favor of rezoning

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner Griffin was not opposed to moving forward on this rezone, but agreed with Commissioner Price's point that waiting and dealing with the whole area at once would be better.

Commissioner Price agreed on waiting.

Commissioner Stopper felt that since all eight of the property owners were not in favor of the rezone, the rezone should not move forward. He suggested that this should be looked at in a broader sense.

Commissioner LeQuire did not want to delay the rezoning process and was in favor of the rezone.

Commissioner Savage agreed with Commissioner LeQuire and did not want to keep the residents on hold.

Chairman Crane was concerned that two property owners did not want to rezone and would like to explore some other creative options.

Chief Planner Rosen showed a map that showed the zoning for the entire area.

Commissioner LeQuire reiterated that the original finding of the Commission was that the lot split was not consistent with the character of the neighborhood.

The title of Resolution No. 6977 APPROVING a request to change the zone classification from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000 for the properties on the south side of East Las Palmas Drive from 120 East Las Palmas Drive through 320 East Las Palmas Drive, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION to approve by Commissioner Savage, seconded by Commissioner LeQuire and FAILED by a 2-4 vote, with Chairman Crane; and Commissioners Price, Stopper, and Griffin voting no.

Commissioner Price requested that the item be continued to be included in an overall rezoning effort with the Intentions of Resolution. Chief Planner Rosen indicated that since a vote was made on this action, this action could not be continued.

Commissioner Price withdrew his motion and no other motions were made based on the determination that this matter would go before the City Council with a copy of the minutes and information expressing the concerns of the Planning Commission regarding this matter.


Staff report dated June 26, 2002, was presented to allow an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from .41 to .58 to modify the existing site plan to maintain 16,317 square feet of industrial buildings and to construct an additional 6,680 square feet of warehouse space for property located at 2418 Cypress Way (south side of Cypress Way between approximately 245 and 370 feet east of the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Cypress Way) (M-G zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15332 of CEQA Guidelines).

Commissioner Wilson returned to the meeting.

Assistant Planner Kusch initiated his report on the subject site plan by showing photos of the site.

Two existing sheds at the rear of the property would be replaced with the proposed addition. The proposed addition consisted of the expansion of the office space and the warehouse. Staff recommended approval with conditions.

Commissioner Stopper asked why there was no Engineering report. Senior Engineer Wallin indicated that there was only one Engineering condition; regarding upgrading the water, and it was included in Planning's staff report.

Commissioner Wilson asked if there was any direction in regard to the type of material used for construction. He expressed concern about the building being made of metal rather than concrete-tilt-up. Assistant Planner Kusch indicated that there are currently no design guidelines to address building materials.

Commissioner Savage asked if the Benner Metals buildings were also made of steel. Staff replied affirmatively, they were both of the same construction. Chief Planner Rosen noted that typically, the use of metal construction was not encouraged; however, this was a minor addition without an impact to the streetscape.

Chairman Crane expressed concern about the numerous areas with drive backups he felt did not work.

Public hearing opened.

Applicant, Sean Duvey, approached the podium and identified himself as the managing partner of the builder, and the owner/operator that operates the business out of that facility. The business had been in operation for ten years. He responded to the question posed regarding the metal building, the way the property was set up, how the building was shoehorned in and that the area that was visible to the street was stucco. The metal portion being added on was at the back and would not be visible from the street. The applicant noted that they were just trying to keep it consistent with the existing building.

Commissioner Price asked the applicant if he had read the conditions of the staff report. The applicant answered affirmatively and had two comments. The first comment addressed the detailed landscaping plan. The applicant pointed out that most of the property was concrete. The only area that could accommodate landscaping was in the front of the building where there was currently grass, which would continue to be maintained. The second item was the detailed grading and drainage plan that the applicant noted had been reviewed with Assistant Planner Kusch. Because the property was concrete, it currently drained toward and into the street. The applicant did not feel the grading would be necessary.

Commissioner Price asked staff what their expectations were for the landscape and grading plans. Assistant Planner Kusch indicated that the two conditions mentioned were standard. The existing landscaping in front was sufficient as long as it was maintained with timed irrigation. Staff believed they could accommodate the applicant in regard to the drainage and grading plan. They would be required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan that addressed the drainage of the property.

Chairman Crane asked the applicant if he was willing to comply with those conditions as explained. The applicant responded affirmatively.

Commissioner Stopper asked the applicant if he was expanding the building because the business was growing. The applicant responded affirmatively, and identified the business as a manufacturing plant for filtration equipment.

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner LeQuire noted to staff that the number of parking spaces mentioned in the staff report and the number of parking spaces shown on the overhead photo did not match. It appeared that a storage site on the premises took the place of some parking spaces. Assistant Planner Kusch indicated that the existing storage material would have to be relocated so that it did not occupy needed parking spaces.

Commissioner Wilson voiced his support of the application.

The title of Resolution No. 6978 APPROVING a request to construct an additional 6,680 square feet of warehouse building and a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the floor area ratio (FAR) for the MG Zone for property located at 2418 Cypress Way, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Savage, seconded and CARRIED unanimously that said Resolution be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.

Meeting recessed at 6:20 p.m.


Meeting reconvened at 7:00 p.m.


Staff memorandum dated June 26, 2002 was presented to consider site and architectural plans for a multi-purpose building, four classrooms and recreational facilities as part of a proposed expansion of a private school (Ivycrest Montessori); to allow the installation and use of a temporary modular building for classrooms while the permanent classrooms are under construction; and to create off-site parking to meet the parking requirements of the proposed expansion for property located at 2007, 2011, 2107, and 2113 East Chapman Avenue and 514 North Mountain View Place (north side of Chapman Avenue approximately between 62 feet and 560 feet east of Mountain View Place and the east side of Mountain View Place between approximately 128 feet and 184 feet north of Chapman Avenue) (O-P and R-1-7,200 zone) (Categorically exempt by Class 32 of CEQA Guidelines).

Program Planner Linnell reported that the application should be expanded to include 2025 East Chapman Avenue. There were currently 204 children enrolled at the preschool and elementary school. The expansion would be to accommodate an additional 120 school-aged children. A map of the property was shown. There were also two additional lots proposed for staff parking. The school currently owned two single-family residences with parking in back. Aerial views, building plans and a colored site plan of the proposed expansion were shown.

With the expansion of the existing property, the proposal called for the consolidation of the three lots to the west, with the existing buildings demolished. There would also be a consolidation of the two lots to the east, which would be used for additional parking.

In addition to the expansion request and off-site parking, the applicant was also requesting approval of a modular building for interim classrooms for approximately one year while the permanent structure was being built.

In June, the applicant had a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed plans and to discuss concerns or comments. Approximately 20 neighbors attended and three basic concerns were raised:

  1. Increased traffic on North Mountain View Place
  2. Outdoor play area and noise generated by children
  3. Applicant's proposal to host outside events for large amounts of people on weeknights and/or weekends.

The applicant had made several revisions to their original plan to address these issues. They had devised a plan where all access to the school would come from Chapman Avenue; they would provide a drop-off area, which would allow parents to drop-off their children and leave in a more efficient and quicker manner than it was currently. Staff did not anticipate any need for people to use residential streets to access the school.

The plans showed a six-foot block wall would be constructed along Mountain View Place, 20 feet back from the property line. This would provide sound attenuation for the residents north and west of the site and along the property line between the subject property and the single-family residence to the north. The applicant proposed to use their sports court on Mountain View Place as an area for overflow parking for special events. Staff recommended conditioning Montessori to be limited to no more than six special events during the year as a way to cut down any impact from these events on the neighborhood.

Staff was recommending approval of the expansion with 17 conditions. Condition #9 addressed specific restrictions in the operation of the school. Conditions #6 and #7 addressed consolidation of property and required that the applicant consolidate and tie them together with the existing school property. This helped guarantee that there would not be a split of property in the future.

Two letters that were received on this subject were given to the Commissioners. One letter was from the applicant's architect that was received too late to be included in the staff report. The other was a letter from Mr. Clair, property owner to the north requested no action be taken, and that this item be continued so that he had further time to study the proposal. Some reasons were given, however, staff did not find grounds for continuance based on those reasons.

Commissioner Stopper asked about the land being abandoned by the City as mentioned in Condition #6. Chairman Crane asked if that related to Condition #5 as well. Program Planner Linnell showed the land in question on an overhead. The small sliver owned by the City was meant to be a future alley that was no longer needed, therefore, the City could give the property back to the property owner by the action of abandonment. Staff was recommending that all of these properties be consolidated. The other part to the west, also owned by the City, was being used as an alleyway that provided access to the optometrist on the corner of Chapman Avenue and Mountain View Avenue. Commissioner Stopper inquired if the previous property owner could request abandonment of the second alley. Program Planner Linnell answered affirmatively

Senior Engineer Wallin clarified for Chairman Crane that the original dedication of property that was being abandoned, appeared to have come from the property owned by the applicant.

Commissioner Price asked if there was any recommendation from staff regarding the noise that could affect the corner lot to the west (the optometrist) along Chapman Avenue from the outdoor play area. Program Planner Linnell understood this was not a concern by the owner of that property.

Commissioner LeQuire noted that the Commissioners were in receipt of four different documents; architect's report, homeowner's letter, and various others items that should be included in public record. Specifically, a letter dated June 24, 2002 from Mr. Wayne Claire of 520 North Mountain View Place which, made note of the legal noticing of this public hearing. Commissioner LeQuire asked staff if noticing had been done according to legal requirements. Planner Mullis noted that the original notices for the first meeting in June, were noticed approximately more than 10 days ahead of time. Courtesy notices were sent when the item was continued and subsequent notices were sent to indicate it would be a night meeting. All of this exceeded what is legally required, and staff had met all legal obligations.

Commissioner Griffin asked for the date of the original meeting and noticing. Planner Mullis noted the meeting was June 12th and that the item had been postponed per the applicant's request.

Program Planner Linnell made reference to the Engineering letter included in the staff report, and indicated it should be dated June 20th not June 19th.

Chairman Crane asked if there was a standard for the amount of traffic noise that reaches a playground area that cannot be exceeded. Chief Planner Rosen indicated there are guidelines in the General Plan, but no specific noise standards in the Zoning Code.

Commissioner LeQuire asked what the record of auto accidents was in this area. Senior Engineer Wallin researched records back to 1995, and found there had been six mid-block accidents. The information provided did not indicate where in the block these accidents occurred, or if they were related to the Montessori school. He added that this count was not unusual for a driveway, on an arterial street, but would be significant if it were six or more accidents in one year.

Commissioner Stopper asked if a recent traffic volume on Mountain View Place had been done. Senior Engineer Wallin responded that the City only provides counts on arterial streets and Mountain View Place was not an arterial street.

Commissioner Savage asked what the planned number of people at special events would be and what the plans for parking would be. Program Planner Linnell deferred to the applicant.

Public hearing opened.

The applicants Holly and Michael Constantin of 2119 N. Moody Avenue, Fullerton, gave a brief history of Ivycrest Montessori. Nutrima Jourdon, 1248 Yukon Circle, a resident of Fontana and a parent of a Montessori student, continued the presentation for Mrs. Constantin and noted that the reason for the expansion was to support the growth of the students by providing a fine arts program.

The proposed expansion would provide an elementary school with four new classrooms and a multi-purpose room for a fine arts program. The applicants have worked with an architect, the City and neighbors to develop a plan that would take into consideration the needs and interests of all concerned.

Ms. Jourdan indicated that the Constantin's had read the staff report, believed it to be a competent assessment of the subject property, and were pleased with the findings. Overall, they felt most of the conditions were acceptable, however, they wanted to discuss four specific conditions.

  1. Conditions #6 and #7 dealt with the consolidation of three westerly lots and two easterly lots. (Mention was made that the 2119 Chapman Avenue address should be 2107 Chapman Avenue). These two conditions would provide undue financial hardship to the applicants. The applicants have contacted their lenders and banks and they have not been able to provide an economically feasible method to address this condition. There was currently a five-year, pre-payment penalty on their current property, so the new construction loan could not be consolidated with the current loans. The lender was not willing to take one-half of a secured interest in one property. Other lenders contacted were not willing to loan on a project for which another bank had an interest.

    Regarding Condition #7, the Constantins were willing to revisit this issue when a project was planned for the development of the properties on the east side of the school. Currently, they were not incorporating these properties in to the current expansion. The applicants believed the consolidation would cause such a severe financial hardship, that they would not be able to make the planned expansion happen.

    The applicants were open to other conditions that would address the concerns that prompted these conditions, and were looking to the Planning and Building Department for help with this issue.

  2. In regard to Condition #9c, which dealt with the amount of special events, the Constantins agreed with the latter part of the agreement that prohibited the rental or lease of the facility to other groups, however, questioned the first sentence limiting the events to six annual events. The applicants proposed that the impact of the events to the surrounding neighborhood be limited, versus the number of events per year. This could be accomplished by staggering events, limiting the duration of the events and the limited seating in the multi-purpose room. Smaller groups would limit students, parking, and traffic in the neighborhood. Local businesses in the area have agreed to allow the school to use their parking lots as offsite event parking. The school would be directing the parents to use the drop-off lane and park at designated offsite parking spots. There are reciprocal parking agreements with Helen Rogers, 2205 East Chapman Avenue (6 spaces), St. Stephens Lutheran Church, 2311 East Chapman Avenue (130 spaces). The Senior's Golf Association had allowed the school to use their 12 parking spaces for many years for overflow parking. All of these properties were located on the north side of East Chapman Avenue. The applicants were also in the process of negotiating an agreement with Valentine Chiropractic for use of their 40 parking spaces. Valentine Chiropractic was drawing up an agreement to be viewed by their attorney.

  3. For the record, last year the school had ten weekend and weekday events. Cost, time and staff would keep the number of events down. The applicant's architect, Mr. Silber, would address Condition #17.

Commissioner Stopper asked if the issue associated with Item #6 was the latter part of that condition which was consolidation with 2025 East Chapman. Ms. Jourdan responded affirmatively. She confirmed that consolidating the three lots was not an issue. Commissioner Stopper in regard to Condition #7 asked if it was the same issue. Ms. Jourdan indicated that when the prepayment penalty expires, instead of one piece of property, it would be acceptable to have three pieces of property with the other two lots.

Chief Planner Rosen noted that the applicant led him to believe there was an issue with the consolidation of the other two lots. Ms. Jourdan noted it was okay once they were ready to develop the property, but not at this time.

Chief Planner Rosen clarified to the Commission that the applicant did not mind consolidating the three westerly lots together, but did not want to tie them to the existing parcel that's already developed. In addition, they would like a deferral on the consolidation of the two lots along the alley that were currently being proposed to use for parking, to a future date when a plan comes forward to re-develop those properties.

Commissioner Stopper asked if the redevelopment of the two easterly parcels would come to the Planning Commission. Chief Planner Rosen responded affirmatively.

Architect for the applicant, John Silber, of 125 West Amerige Avenue, Fullerton, approached the podium. In regard to Condition #17, which addressed the Engineering Department letter, the following modifications were requested:

  1. "Utilities" talked about a new fire service and hydrant. It appeared this condition was imposed based on building and fire code requirements, therefore, if the Fire Department did not feel a fire hydrant was required, it would not be necessary.
  2. Mr. Silber did not believe the building would be required to be sprinkled by code.
  3. Improvements to the alley were requested to be delayed, as there were no current plans to improve the properties.
  4. The parking scheme for lots to the east for staff parking showed that the layout did not require that the property line be straddled. The lots would continue to be used as a simple row of parking stalls perpendicular to the alley.

As the project architect, Mr. Silber believed that a good faith and extensive effort had been made to communicate with the community to address their concerns. Changes were made to the plans to reflect the input received in consideration of those concerns; the design was adjusted to use Chapman Avenue for all student related traffic and parking; a drop-off lane was proposed for all elementary school children; and noise was addressed with plans to build block walls and setbacks.

Emphasis was made that the historic house prevented the City from building the alley. Properties on Mountain View Avenue were typically 76 feet wide. The property nearest to Ivycrest at one time, agreed to tie an additional 30 feet along the southerly edge of the Mountain View Property so that the property is 106 feet wide and at this time, the house did not occupy any of that 30 feet. There was a wide buffer between the school and the nearest adjacent property owner.

In addition to the formal meeting with the neighbors mentioned earlier, Mr. Silber had met with Mr. Claire and Dr. Kivetney regarding the project as the plan was developed and modified. This was a unique situation with a local business owner who had been a good steward to this historic building and had been a good neighbor. "Streets are rooms of public accommodation," therefore must be shared. Commissioner Savage asked that the two letters giving parking assistance to the school be part of the conditions. Chairman Crane indicated that could happen, and also clarified that these letters become part of the public record.

Program Planner Linnell noted that the reason for submitting the letters was to have the Planning Commission consider changing Condition #9C to another number for events.

Chief Planner Rosen stated that if the Commission adds this as a condition, these agreements not be specified but rather the number of parking spaces within the area be noted, so that if there was a change of circumstances, this would not have to return to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Wilson agreed that the agreements are licenses that can be revoked at any time.

Chief Planner Rosen requested that a number of parking spaces be provided for special event parking. He noted that the City could demand compliance at any time. Mr. Silber requested that there be a benchmark that is recognized such as one space for every three persons in the occupancy so that there would not be a uniquely high number to attain. Chairman Crane asked what the occupancy was. Mr. Silber noted it was approximately 200-250, which would equate to the need for approximately 80 parking spaces, with the inclusion of onsite parking. Commissioner Savage asked how many onsite parking spaces there were, and Mr. Silber answered approximately 39. Chairman Crane indicated that a condition might need to be applied to show it was available.

Senior Engineer Wallin responded to the architect's comments regarding the Engineer's letter by noting that utilities would be added, "If required." The alley would need to be constructed, but the City would concede to allow two years instead of one; and lot consolidations would be amended to what the Commission required.

The following persons spoke in opposition to the project:

Phyllis Morgan -545 North Mountain View, has 4 children and a small family daycare at her home
Dena Harris -605 North Mountain View - new resident as of January 2002
Tony Florentine - 626 North Mountain Place
Ed Plate - 534 North Mountain View Place, resident on this street for 23 years
Tom Loftus - (no address given)
Jessie Ricky - 539 North Hale
Gary Baker - 608 North Hale
Dave Morgan - 545 North Mountain View Avenue
Clyde Richardson-King III - 530 North Mountain View Avenue, 2nd house from affected property
Tom Casper, 353 North Hill Avenue, 4-1/2 years
Steve Makia - 604 North Hale, lived there since 1976
Liz Frobesher - 601 North Wilshire

The following points were made in opposition of the proposed site plan:

  • Against R-1 encroachment into neighborhood
  • Tremendous loss of privacy and quiet
  • Neighborhood was single-family, and custom homes with architecture dating from 1920's to present day, lots are to acres
  • Montessori made offer to buy 520 North Mountain View
  • With known violations of current CUP what was City's responsibility to respond; i.e. yard used without a permit Seems City, planners and Constantin's were working hard to do this and as a homeowner did not feel they were given time to deal with this
  • Several neighbors aggressively approached to sell their homes to the school
  • Traffic concerns with children
  • Concerned about devaluation of home
  • Concerned about bringing more people from outside areas
  • Doesn't fit neighborhood
  • Public notification map was shaded by Planning Department showing a large number of properties impacted by this project
  • Circulating petition to protest project
  • Project was short 54 parking spaces, and neighborhoods would be used for parking
  • Noted concern over the lack of handicapped parking spaces
  • Observed that parents and children were taking access from the alley
Wayne Clair, 520 North Mountain View Avenue

Mr. Clair's property borders Ivycrest for approximately 193 feet, and his property was the most impacted by the proposed project. Mr. Clair was requesting the project be denied for the following reasons:

  • Noise (semi-retired so he is home a lot)
    • First a problem when lunch area was established
    • Playground makes the noise an unbearable problem
    • December 2000, the playground was constructed
    • Advised that he objected to noise level that would be created by playground equipment installed by Mr. Constantin
    • Noise was generated by martial arts classes, parent exercise classes and children at play
    • Callers could hear noise over telephone
    • He does not have air conditioning so no closed windows
    • Loss of privacy with a proposed second-story business having view of yard
    • Play equipment gave children direct line of view at back door (pictures shown)
    • Moving the children's equipment would give a view of living room and kitchen
    • Continual trash and toys come across fence into his property
    • Disagree with staff that this was compatible with neighborhood - staff suggested a setback of five feet - since there was a window on the north side of the multi-purpose room, therefore the building should be setback 30 feet
    • Project was having affect on mental and physical health
    • No objection to what was created along Chapman Avenue- but not in his backyard
    • If approved wants some considerations and protections such as:
      • A thirty-foot setback from all noise sources
      • A decorative masonry fence with a height of 8 feet running continuously to the existing concrete block wall at the applicant's western boundary instead of ending at the multi-purpose room corner
      • Also, if the existing house garage could be allowed to remain, it would maintain the continuity of the neighborhood and could serve as the applicant's caretaker's house
      • Restrictions on use of bells, buzzers, PA systems, etc., and that no noise be generated from the proposed bell tower
      • Significant protection from the children's eyes

Commissioner Wilson asked for a copy of Mr. Claire's list. Staff made copies to distribute.

Commissioner Price asked Mr. Claire how long he had lived at the property, and Mr. Claire replied since July of 1974. Commissioner Price asked if the subject property to the south was a single-family home when Mr. Claire purchased his property. He replied, "yes", that it was currently occupied and had been a rental for approximately ten years.

Chairman Crane asked Ms. Frobesher if she had had the opportunity to read the conditions of approval, and Ms. Frobesher answered negatively. Chairman Crane pointed out Item #4 which indicated that if the business sustained three or more verifiable complaints, it would be grounds for revocation of the CUP.

Chief Planner Rosen clarified the condition on the original CUP-540, Condition #N, added by the City Council on appeal of that expansion, "Entry though door on the east side near parking space 27 would be used only by employees who park in the designated spaces along the alley. This door would not be opened as an entrance for parents and children.

Meeting recessed at 9:03 p.m.

Meeting reconvened at 9:12 p.m.

Nathan Kivetney - optometrist corner of North Mountain View and Chapman Avenue
  • Lucky to exercise rights as individuals
  • As homeowner would side with neighbors
  • As business owner, side with Constantins as a business
  • Wiling to give them his parking spaces when needed
  • Proposed fence at alley because balls and toys could be thrown over into parking area

The following individuals spoke in support of the Conditional Use Permit:

Jim Sheldon, 2563 Threewoods - parent w/daughter at Montesorri
Jennifer Taylor - former resident and homeowner
Susan Alexander 409 West Jacaranda - son attends school
Tierra Foster - resident w/daughter attending school
Heidi Davis -1465 Kensington Drive, Fullerton resident 30 years, child enrolled
Gina Monteron - staff teacher, commutes from Covina, child attending school
Mark Davis - resident for 35 years, one child in school, one on waiting list
Ida King - Corona /Director of Ivycrest
Rashna - Fullerton for 14 years
Chuck Campbell - 1203 Kramer Drive, Corona - has student at Montessori
Virginia Chung - employed at Montessori School and 2 children attend
Peter Ofner - 600 North Mountain View, lived there 25 years

Following are points made in support of the proposed site plan:

  • On North Mountain View real estate sales brochures for homes remarks to make home desirable, stating 'close to schools'
  • Statistics support sales at 100% of listed price. The average length of homes on the market was 26 days
  • Son had attended since one year old
  • Respectful of neighbors
  • As a parent, would comply with the requests of the school
  • 203 registered families, 97 live in Fullerton, 19 live outside Fullerton, but work in Fullerton
  • Fullerton's tradition of education should be continued by approval
  • Project was sensitive to neighbor's needs
  • Staff report indicated there would be no impact to traffic
  • Subjective study - counted on a Wednesday cars- majority were teenagers from Troy High School
  • Integrating performing arts
  • Expansion could offer everything to develop potential.
  • Suggested applicant provide incentive to neighbors of a discount tuition
  • Felt that rules had been circumvented on zoning
  • More neighbors should have been notified
Michael Constantin, applicant
  • Did not intend to expand school past 514 North Mountain View
  • Did ask for resident's to sell for the purpose of living in the houses
  • Did have staff (some with children at school) that access back alley and gates - parents or visitors did not have access
Wayne Claire
  • Constantin's attempt to purchase property had been going on for about a year and a half
  • Started with a 30-foot frontage, 20-foot frontage, 10-foot frontage, and recently to lease backyard

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner LeQuire noted that Fullerton was a town of unique neighborhoods and good education. He did not want to give the school an advantage or disadvantage over public education. Commissioner LeQuire appreciated the noise issue. One finding was to determine if the development would be a compatible use adjacent to single-family residences. Upon seeing the encroachment into the R-1 zone, Commissioner LeQuire did not feel it fit. Children's events are heavily attended and parking would be a significant problem. Onsite parking should not be part of the parking calculation due to the large amount of staff parking required for school events. Commissioner LeQuire did not support the project. If this expansion is approved, Mr. LeQuire suggested rewording Condition #9c.

Commissioner Savage believed that Chapman Avenue would be greatly improved. He met with Mrs. Constantin and was impressed with the school. Encroachment into the R-1 zone was a problem. It was sad neighbors were not supportive of this expansion. Commissioner Savage did not see a traffic problem.

Commissioner Wilson thanked everyone who came out and supported the fact that Fullerton was an education community and the Constantin's right to expand their business. Traffic was not an issue. Parking for special events in neighborhoods was a small price to pay. Onsite parking should not be counted. Commissioner Wilson did not feel the expansion would hurt property values. There were code enforcement mechanisms to protect from loud noises. He also believed it would be a huge improvement to Chapman Avenue. Commissioner Wilson, though in support of this project, believed that privacy was a serious concern. He also did not like the encroachment of commercial use into the R-1 property zone. Commissioner Wilson felt this project needed to be continued.

Commissioner Price noted that the Constantin's should be applauded for a terrific school. He was in favor of quality education, however, could not support the project for the same reasons stated by Commissioner LeQuire. R-1 encroachment was a concern. If not approved, a future CUP should be considered to a configuration that would face south.

Commissioner Stopper commended all who attended. Encroachment into the neighborhood was of concern. Privacy, the domino effect, property values, parking for events, and loud noise were all issues that had been brought up. Commissioner Stopper felt the two greatest concerns were privacy and the intrusion of noise. The applicant did not address all concerns of the community to a level that was sufficient. Commissioner Stopper encouraged the applicant to reconsider plans and encouraged the expansion in a non-residential area. Commissioner Stopper would not support this project.

Commissioner Griffin echoed the sentiments of his fellow Commissioners. He applauded all who had spoken, because everyone's opinion was important. Commissioner Griffin encouraged the applicants to re-review plans with their engineer to exclude 514 North Mountain View, from the proposal. Perhaps that residence could be the caretaker's house. He noted concern about the ingress and egress drop-off at Chapman Avenue and the potential back up that could be caused on Chapman Avenue. Commissioner Griffin was glad to see the cooperation of surrounding businesses. He believed staff should call another neighborhood meeting to review the new plans. Commissioner Griffin would not support this project.

The title of Resolution No. 6979 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE a request to allow site and architectural plans for a multi-purpose building, four classrooms and recreational facilities as part of a proposed expansion of a private school (IvyCrest Montessori); to allow the installation and use of a temporary modular building for classrooms while the permanent classrooms are under construction; and to create off-site parking to meet the parking requirements of the proposed expansion for property located at 2007, 2011, 2107, and 2113 East Chapman Avenue and 514 North Mountain View Place, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Price, seconded and CARRIED unanimously that said Resolution be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.



    1. LRP02-00003 (ZONING AMENDMENT) APPLICANT: CITY OF FULLERTON. A request to change the zone classification from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000 for identified property along Altura Drive and East Las Palmas Drive as shown on the attached map.
    2. LRP02-00004 (ZONING AMENDMENT). APPLICANT: CITY OF FULLERTON. A request to change the zone classification from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000 for identified property along East Hermosa Drive, Hideaway Lane and Hamell Road as shown on the attached map.

    The title of Resolution No. 6980 to consider changing the zone classification from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000 for identified property along Altura Drive and East Las Palmas Drive as shown on the attached map and the title of Resolution No. 6981 to consider changing the zone classification from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000 for identified property along East Hermosa Drive, Hideaway Lane and Hamell Road as shown on the attached map were read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner LeQuire, seconded and CARRIED unanimously that said Resolutions be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.


    MOTION was made by Commissioner Wilson to appoint Commissioner Stopper as a Representative to the Underground Utilities Commission, was seconded and CARRIED unanimously.


    The Planning Commission will not meet on August 14, 2002.


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



    The next meeting of the Fullerton Planning Commission will be July 10, 2002 at 4:00 p.m.


There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:57 p.m.

RSS for Fullerton NewsFullerton eLists
Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map | Disclaimer & Privacy PolicyCopyright © 2000 - 2015 Community. Development, 303 W. Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832. 714-738-6547