Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2005 > March 23, 2005
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

MARCH 23, 2005


The meeting was called to order by Chairman Griffin at 7:02 p.m.


PRESENT: Chairman Griffin, Board Members Bailey, Francis, Hart, Price, Savage, Stopper

STAFF PRESENT:Chief Planner Rosen, Senior Planner Mullis, Senior Civil Engineer Voronel, Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren, Code Enforcement Officer Alvarado, Code Enforcement Officer Fulton and Recording Secretary Baker


Chairman Griffin


Chairman Griffin asked that on page 39 the word he be replaced with the applicant.

MOTION by Board Member Stopper, seconded by Commissioner Savage, and CARRIED by a 7-0 vote that the Minutes of March 9, 2005, be APPROVED AS AMENDED.




Staff report dated March 23, 2005 was presented pertaining to an appeal as a result of a public nuisance hearing that took place on January 31, 2005, with City Manager Chris Meyer sitting as the hearing officer, in accordance with Section 6.01.100 of the Fullerton Municipal Code. The appeal was filed by Robert Brown, property owner of 923 E. Commonwealth Avenue. Assessors Parcel number is 033-172-28.

Senior Planner Mullis stated that, as a point of process, she would be swearing in any members of the audience, staff and the Appellant who may be speaking or testifying on this matter. All members who would be speaking or testifying were sworn in.

Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren asked if anyone in the audience was legal counsel representing Appellant Robert Brown. No one from the audience responded.

Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren informed the Board of Appeals that the Appellant was notified by mail and also given a notice in person by Code Enforcement Officer Alvarado, but was not currently present. Chairman Griffin asked legal counsel if the Appellant was required to attend the meeting.

The initial proceeding is for staff to present the case to the Board. This proceeding is de novo, where everyone would be hearing everything new again. Staff would be presenting all facts and the entire case as a new proceeding. The Appellant filed a written appeal, so it did not matter if he was in attendance. This new hearing would be the same as what was presented before the hearing officer originally. It was required that for this proceeding: a tape recording be kept of the meeting; those speaking are sworn in; and a notice was given to the Appellant. The uniform housing code provisions would apply. The standard for the proceeding was not formal; the Board would be taking evidence and hearing testimony from witnesses. It was not a normal court, hearsay evidence would be admissible, and she told the Board of Appeals to not rely on hearsay evidence alone for findings. She asked the Board of Appeals if they needed an explanation of hearsay. The Board understood the concept.

Deputy City Attorney Jee stated that anything relevant could be brought before the Board of Appeals; however, redundancy should be excluded. She also explained that the order of the meeting would be kept according to Board of Appeals code of conduct. Staff would present all their evidence, and the Appellant would be given the opportunity to cross examine any witnesses, and to rebut or challenge any evidence presented. Since the Appellant was not in attendance, she wanted the record to show that the opportunity was given, even if he did not take advantage of that. If the Appellant were present, he could present evidence, ask questions and present witnesses. The decision must be in writing, however, Deputy City Attorney Jee was not sure of when the decision has to be made but it must be sent in writing within five workings days of the decision.

Chairman Griffin asked how staff would present the decision in writing back to the Appellant. Senior Planner Mullis stated that a resolution has been prepared and if there were any changes made during the hearing, staff would prepare a new resolution.

Senior Planner Mullis introduced Code Enforcement Supervisor Kirke Warren, Code Enforcement Officer Steve Alvarado and City Prosecutor Elena Gerli.

Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren asked Code Enforcement Officer Alvarado to give a presentation of conditions found at the Appellants property.

Code Enforcement Officer Alvarado reported that the Appellant lives at 923 E. Commonwealth Avenue in Fullerton. He gave a slide presentation and explained each photo, advising that the events had been recorded during a timeline of two years. Photos were displayed showing:

  • excessive outside storage in public view,
  • a dilapidated picket fence,
  • bamboo fencing leaning into the public right of way,
  • fencing lying on the lawn,
  • some items blocking the public right of way,
  • and an unapproachable front entrance.
  • the garage that it is shared with a neighbor.

The photos presented were taken from public view of the front yard, side yards and back yard and the dates the photos taken were:

April 30, 2004 November 23, 2004
May 12, 2004 January 22, 2005
June 11, 2004 January 31, 2005
July 29, 2004 February 28, 2005
September 14, 2004 March 17, 2005
October 26, 2004 March 23, 2005

Code Enforcement Officer Alvarado noted that Appellant Brown pled guilty on January 13, 2005 to one misdemeanor count of Fullerton Municipal Code 6.01.030 (X) and he read the code applying to the Appellant. Code Enforcement Officer Alvarado stated that Appellant Brown was placed on probation and ordered to comply by February 28, 2005. He explained that there are currently two active cases and five administrative citations which have been issued over the last two years, totaling $800 in fines, with no compliance. The March 3, 2005 probation violation arraignment was filed for a failure to comply with probation guidelines.

Board Member Price asked if the fines had been paid and if the violations were being pursued. Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren answered that the fines had not been paid. City Prosecutor Gerli noted that she was handling the criminal prosecution, and would be elaborating on that later in the proceeding.

Board Member Francis referred to the letter in the agenda packet sent by Appellant Brown to the Director of Development Services on February 11, 2005. Board Member Francis asked even if the truck was not registered, why Mr. Brown was not allowed to park it in his driveway. Code Enforcement Officer Alvarado informed the Board that the code states the vehicle must be currently registered and operable, or stored out of public view in a garage or behind a solid fence.

Board Member Francis also asked why the City had not cleaned up the yard and what would be done if the Appellant claimed value to a particular item.

Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren explained that a public nuisance hearing must be held first and then the Board of Appeals must uphold the decision of the hearing officer before the City can go to court to be allowed to get the yard cleaned up. After 30 days, he would be required to bring it into compliance. If he does not, then staff can get a warrant to allow access to the property for the removal of items. The abatement contractor historically throws all items away, which are photographically documented. If there are items where a value is determined, short-term storage can be arranged. Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren stated that, in his opinion, all items should be discarded. He also stated that the Appellant had the right to file a claim at a later date.

Board Member Stopper asked if the home was habitable and if the Fire Department had investigated the conditions at the property. Code Enforcement Officer Alvarado believed that Mr. amp; Mrs. Brown resided at this location, because Mr. Brown had come out of the residence on previous occasions when Officer Alvarado was delivering citations. Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren stated that Tom Thompson of the Fire Department wrote a letter on July 12, 2005 stating that the material stored was combustible and a fire hazard. Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren stated that additional items have been stored in the yard since July. He read from the letter which was attached to the staff report stating that the Fire Department determined safe access in or out of the house in the case of a fire, would be impossible. They were also concerned that a potential fire could spread quickly to the neighboring residences, due to the volume of items stored against the house, fence and yards, making it very difficult to defend the Appellants home and his neighbors. Staff was also concerned with a potential for rats, vermin and mosquitoes to gather where water is standing, in addition to the negative aesthetics of this property.

Board Member Stopper asked if the Board of Appeals denied the appeal and authorized a 30-day grace period to remove all the items, could staff enter the home to determine additional fire hazards or unsafe living conditions on the interior. Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren stated that historically staff has taken the position that how people chose to live inside their property (other than an unsafe condition for a child or an incompetent adult) is the residents choice. This proceeding was only dealing with the exterior conditions.

Board Member Stopper asked if the Fire Department would want to inspect the interior. Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren stated that the Fire Department had a limited amount of authority in an R-3 zone, because it was not a public facility. The surrounding area had been declared a fire hazard, because of the storage problem. He stated that it was a jurisdiction issue, and discussed the property rights of the homeowners.

Board Member Savage asked what the laws were regarding having possession of several shopping carts and were they considered stolen property. Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren stated that staff calls a service, also used by major retailers, to retrieve shopping carts. It would require a warrant and staff would have to witness Appellant Brown taking the carts. Board Member Bailey stated that per the Business and Professions Code, it was a misdemeanor to possess a shopping cart.

Board Member Hart asked under what conditions staff would enter to view the interior, if it became a health hazard to the community. City Prosecutor Gerli answered that the City recognizes the privacy issue, unless there is a threat to the health and safety of the occupants. An inspection warrant is required, and the policy of approaching residences would have to be changed to apply evenly to all residents. She stated that it was a possibility, but not a probability, and the Board of Appeals should not be concerned with the interior of the home now. City Prosecutor Gerli stated that this appeal was regarding the outside of the residence, and it would require a separate proceeding with another notice to the Appellant.

Deputy City Attorney Jee added that a previous proceeding with another Appellant was instituted as a civil litigation case. It was against a homeowner regarding excessive trash and debris inside and outside. That proceeding was initiated as a civil injunction and accomplished the same thing, but in a different manner. This proceeding is limited to the outside storage problem.

City Prosecutor Gerli explained that she is the attorney who is handling the criminal prosecution and addressed some concerns of the Appeal Board. She responded to Board Member Francis concern with throwing away personal property. She reminded the Board that Mr. Brown had been given every opportunity to take his possessions somewhere else. This condition is a threat to Mr. Browns health and safety. If he was not able to remove the items, the City would. She also clarified the 30-day period as stated in Section 6.01.110 (B) of the Fullerton Municipal Code. The Appeals Board must give 30 days to comply with the abatement of nuisance. After that time period, staff can request a warrant to abate directly. The City does not have 30 days, the Appellant has 30 days from the time the Board mails the order of compliance. She also addressed the issue of the shopping carts as stolen property; staff cannot assume that they were stolen by the Appellant. Because there is no evidence to that, it is not an item in this hearing. She asked the Board to officially notice all the codes mentioned in appeal, pursuant to Uniform Housing Code 1304.7.2 . The following codes were cited:

  • 6.01 Fullerton Municipal Code - Nuisance Abatement
  • 15.17.070 (A)
  • 16.11.010 (A) and C
  • Fire Code 1201.1 and 207-F, as adopted by Section 13.20.010 of the Fullerton Municipal Code
  • 1001.8 Uniform Housing Code, as adopted by 14.13.010 of the Fullerton Municipal Code

Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren advised the Board of Appeals that Mr. Brown arrived at 7:37 p.m.

Chairman Griffin asked if the Board of Appeals needed to take any action with respect to the codes. City Prosecutor Gerli asked that the Board of Appeals noted the codes and their existence.

Board Member Francis asked if the City cleaned up the property, would they throw away the debris and personal possessions. He also asked if there was a process to store it for a limited time, and was the Appellant charged for cleanup. Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren stated that it has not been the policy to store items. If there is something of value, staff would make arrangements. The truck would be abated under State vehicle abatement standards. He referred to the service authority for abandoned vehicles. Property of any value could be impounded and stored at the yard for a short period of time. Staff would add 30% for administrative fees to the contractors bill for property removal, and subsequently bill the property owner. Staff would notice legal or registered owners of the vehicle before abatement.

City Prosecutor Gerli asked the Board if there were any questions regarding the criminal case and informed them that she had a certified copy of the guilty plea form.

Chairman Griffin asked Mr. Brown to be sworn in by Senior Planner Mullis.

Mr. Brown, Appellant, stated that his reason for the appeal was based on evidence received in the agenda packet. He stated that the hearing officer, City Manager Chris Meyer, was presented evidence that the Appellant was not aware of. Appellant Brown complained that this matter had been handled inappropriately, and he felt staff was not cooperating with him. He mentioned notices of violation from March 10, 2004. He claimed he was setting up for a yard sale, and has complied with the notices of violation. He said he was unemployed, the truck was operable but not registered, due to financial reasons. He stated that items are constantly changing and moving. He has complied with the violations and felt that other neighbors are not cited when their vehicles block public right of way. He displayed photos of neighboring properties.

Chairman Griffin told Appellant Brown that the Board needed to have a better understanding of his situation. Appellant Brown reiterated that he could not afford to register the vehicle, and the rains have delayed cleanup of his property.

Board Member Francis requested Code Enforcement Officer Alvarado to read Section 6.01.040 B.2 of the Fullerton Municipal Code again for Appellant Brown. Board Member Francis reiterated that if Appellant Brown stored his vehicle in the garage it would be out of public view.

Board Member Bailey asked if Appellant Brown could pay the Planned Non-Operational fee. Staff stated that if a vehicle has not been registered for more than 30 days, it was not possible to have a Planned Non-Operational without paying back fees.

Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren asked Appellant Brown if he had a garage. Appellant Brown stated that the garage was full and he had no other place to store the vehicle.

Board Member Bailey asked if his major concern was the vehicle, and Appellant Brown answered affirmatively. He had understood that the cleanup date was flexible, due to weather conditions.

Board Member Bailey asked how long he would need to clean up the property and if he had not voluntarily cleaned it up, would he be favorable to the City cleaning it up. Appellant Brown stated that he needed 30 days, and he would agree to the City cleaning it up because he did not want additional fees.

Board Member Bailey asked how he has been cleaning it up over the last two years. Appellant Brown stated that he has been having yard sales every day.

Board Member Francis asked staff since Appellant Brown felt that city staff was not working with them, could they discuss how many violations, citations and man hours have gone into this case. Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren stated that several code enforcement officers have put in considerable time, in addition to the legal staff.

Appellant Brown stated that staff does not always talk to him, many cases are cited while driving by. He felt that staff should be speaking with him about violations.

City Prosecutor Gerli stated that the Code Enforcement Officer does not need to talk to him. If he is in violation of the law, that is enough notice. There have been many proceedings and notices and now there is a criminal case. It does not change the violation if the officer speaks with the Appellant, such is the case with every law.

Appellant Brown stated that he agrees with the law but felt that everybody has some minor code violation on their property and would not fix it until the City advises them of the violation.

Board Member Bailey reminded Appellant Brown that the hearing was not for his neighbors, but for him.

Appellant Brown felt that the case has been built up silently. He stated that the last notice he received was on March 10, 2004, regarding mowing his lawn and he complied with that notice.

City Prosecutor Gerli stated that an office conference letter was sent out several weeks before the criminal case was filed. The letter addressed the violations and asked Appellant Brown to come and discuss the situation. The codes were accessible, and he could call staff to inquire as to how to bring his property into compliance. The criminal complaint is notice. It has been a month and there has been no change to the property. He pled guilty, and as part of the probation he agreed to bring the property into compliance. City Prosecutor Gerli stated that since the office conference letter was sent on February 28, 2005, there has been no improvement. A notice of violation was given to Appellant Brown prior to the abatement hearing, 30 days appealed, knows what is going on. He knows what the city is requesting, he understood the law from the beginning.

Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren referred to Administrative Citation #0429 given on February 24, 2004 which states that storing of materials other than outdoor furniture is prohibited.

Board Member Francis stated that the condition of the yard has worsened and Appellant Brown would have 30 days after the letter was sent to clean it up.

Board Member Price asked if the ongoing probation violation matter was going to be prosecuted in North Court. City Prosecutor Gerli answered affirmatively, and noted that the start of the case was July, 2004. They did not seek a plea until January, 2005, during which time staff and legal counsel attempted repeatedly to get voluntary compliance. The probation violation was filed on March 3, 2005 and the arraignment date was March 18, 2005. The pretrial date is set for April 1, 2005 and the hearing date would be April 14, 2005. If Appellant Brown brings the property in compliance, there would be no further hearings.

Deputy City Attorney Jee gave Mr. Brown the opportunity to ask questions of staff and cross examine. Appellant Brown was concerned about the possibility of losing his truck and not being able to pay for registration. Board Member Price asked what the cost of registration would be and if he owned the property. Appellant Brown stated that he is not aware of what the total would be, including penalties and he did own the property.

Appellant Brown stated that he had no questions of staff.

Board Member Stopper referred to the January 31, 2005 nuisance hearing determination and findings. He asked if Appellant Brown was aware of the five findings and the statement regarding failure to comply would cause the City to take action. Appellant Brown stated that without a full understanding of fire or health hazards, he would not know what the City considered hazardous.

Board Member Price asked Appellant Brown if he had a public defender. Appellant Brown stated she had been reassigned and had no further contact with her. Board Member Price stated that the Board cannot give legal advice. Appellant Brown stated that he needed a definition of the details of compliance.

Board Member Stopper suggested that dialogue between City staff and the Appellant would clarify the details of compliance. He referred again to the Notice of Determination and Findings which clearly states the five corrective actions listed on page 2. Board Member Stopper asked Code Enforcement Officer Alvarado to display the photos shown at the beginning of the meeting.

Appellant Brown stated that boxes on the front porch were ready to go. He wondered how staff was able to take photos from his front yard without permission. Code Enforcement Officer Alvarado stated that the front yard was not a gated, restricted area, and is in public view.

Board Member Bailey asked since Appellant Brown stated that boxes are ready to go and he could not use his truck to move it, would he like the City to move it. Appellant Brown stated that what he meant was that there were boxes to be filled and moved and a desk to be sold. He stated that he was cleaning out closets and many items were from storage units.

Chairman Griffin asked for members of the public who wished to speak to this matter.

Tom Dalton, 200 N. Cornell Avenue, stated that he and his wife have spent their time making the city a better place. He has worked closely with the Planning Commission and the City Council developing the Citys first preservation zone. He has seen a steady improvement in his neighborhood, with the exception of Mr. Brown. He felt Mr. Brown has created a junk heap and the pictures speak for themselves. He felt that Code Enforcement had done an excellent job of documenting the case. He also felt it was evident that Mr. Brown was not going to clean it up. Code violations have been ignored, and he felt confident that the Board would not want it in their neighborhood, as he did not want it in his neighborhood. He felt it was incumbent on the City to help citizens in this condition.

City Prosecutor Gerli pointed out that Mr. Brown left the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren informed the Board that Senior Planner Mullis advised Appellant Brown of his right to question the speakers before he left the meeting.

Board Member Stopper asked Mr. Dalton what he thought the root cause was. Mr. Dalton stated that he did not want to make a diagnosis, but his experience has shown documented cases of people who collect items with no value and are not able to let them go. He was concerned with the inability to access the front door. He felt that further citations would not result in a cleanup, the City would have to take it in their hands.

Jim Ranii, 123 Cornell, has lived at this address for 25 years. He felt Mr. Brown would not clean up the property. He felt that it was a long and difficult process for government to seize personal property, and a serious thing to do. He was concerned with how dangerous this situation has become. The homes in the area are older, with wood frames and this fire hazard cannot be allowed. He witnessed the Appellant bringing more items into the yard, not taking them away. He was concerned that the problem would start again after the City takes action.

Douglas Cummings, 119 N. Cornell, felt this was a perpetual problem. Mr. Cummings has witnessed Mr. Brown putting his garbage in a shopping cart and storing it in Mr. Browns yard. He has also not seen anything leave the yard.

Katie Dalton, 200 N. Cornell, stated that the neighbors have been more than patient. She asked the Board to have empathy for the process that has taken three years since the initial filing of Code Enforcement complaints. The lawn and weeds seem to be mowed every 6 weeks only after citations are given. She is concerned that if it is not corrected, this blight could spread to other areas of the neighborhood if it is not abated. As she understood the code, the Appellant must have items out of public view behind permanent fencing, not a bamboo shade.

Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren stated that staffs concern was that Mr. Browns fencing was attached to a dilapidated three-foot high picket fence, that was not properly installed and leaning into the public right of way. There was no good definition of adequate fencing. There is another homeowner in the City who has attached the same type of bamboo to an upright chain link fence and is acceptable to staff.

City Prosecutor Gerli said that this is not just an issue about fencing or hiding the items behind a fence, but it is a serious fire hazard. Katie Dalton added that it was also an aesthetic nuisance.

Board Member Hart asked Katie Dalton how long she has lived on Cornell. Mrs. Dalton said that she has lived there since 1976. Mrs. Dalton asked staff how long Appellant Brown has lived at his residence. Mrs. Dalton felt it had been poorly maintained for the last seven or eight years.

Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren stated that records indicated that Appellant Brown purchased the home on July 3, 1997.

Helen Green said that she has lived four doors down from Appellant and complained of the condition of Appellant Browns home. She was desirous of a beautiful neighborhood with a vintage home. The amount of items increases weekly, and even some items from her trash have ended up at his residence. She asked staff to help alleviate the eyesore and the continuing problem.

Public hearing closed.

Deputy City Attorney Jee asked that the record show that Appellant Brown was no longer at the hearing.

Board Member Bailey asked if recommendation #2 in the staff report directing Appellant Brown to comply within 30 days was a required statute. City Prosecutor Gerli confirmed that it was a statute in the nuisance abatement code.

Board Member Savage understood the frustration of the neighbors, however, his heart went out to Appellant Brown. He asked if the City or County could provide social service personnel to counsel him about this situation. Code Enforcement Supervisor Warren understood that Appellant Brown would have to request the assistance. Board Member Savage recommended that Appellant Brown seek counseling and that the Board deny the appeal.

Board Member Stopper felt that the two-page letter of determination and findings stated very clearly exactly what was needed for compliance. Appellant Brown had stated that he was at the hearing and received a copy of the determination and findings, but was still not sure what would be necessary for compliance. Board Member Stopper also understood there was a degree of distress financially, and possibly socially. There are many organizations in this City that could provide Appellant Brown with assistance and brighten his future. This situation could no longer be ignored, and it was absolutely a safety hazard for Appellant Brown and his wife, who are living there in jeopardy. The Citys course of action is clear and Board Member Stopper supported the denial of the appeal and asked the City to clean it up.

Board Member Price agreed to deny the appeal. He concurred with staffs recommendation and felt sorry for Appellant Brown, but also for the neighbors. He felt Appellant Brown would not modify his behavior unless he lost his liberty or lost his property. The neighbors and staff have been more than patient, and he recommended that staff continue to pursue this vigorously in criminal court and follow through with this proceeding, because he felt this would be the only way to have Appellant Brown respond and correct the problem.

Board Member Hart concurred with other Board Members and favored denying the appeal. Appellant Brown has owned the property since 1997 and it has deteriorated exponentially. Something is definitely wrong and it is getting worse, and it seems that Appellant Brown has not been able or willing to rectify the situation. She felt that the vehicle could be stored in the garage satisfactorily after items were removed. She sympathized with the neighbors.

Board Member Francis had no comments.

Board Member Bailey felt that obviously there was a problem and he supported staffs recommendation to deny the appeal.

Chairman Griffin supported staffs recommendation also. He felt that staff has well documented this case and it needed to be resolved.

Deputy City Attorney Jee clarified that the code suggests a minimum time period of 30 days, however a longer time period could be determined.

MOTION by Board Member Francis, seconded by Board Member Savage that staff direct the property owner to comply within 30 days of all the corrective actions ordered in the Notice of Determination and Findings of February 2, 2005, and direct the Director of Development Services to obtain proper legal authorization to enter the premises for the purpose of abating the nuisance, if the property is not brought into compliance with all conditions imposed in the Notice of Determination and Findings within 30 days of the date of mailing to the property owner, and that the Board deny the appeal and uphold the Notice of Determination and Findings dated February 2, 2005.

The motion passed unanimously.

City Prosecutor Gerli asked the Board to notice the codes mentioned in the appeal.

The title of Resolution PC-05-11 DENYING an appeal of a Notice of Determination and Findings dated February 2, 2005 to abate a public nuisance at 923 East Commonwealth Avenue was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Board Member Francis, seconded by Board Member Savage and CARRIED by a vote, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.




A staff report was presented pertaining to a request for a zoning amendment to rezone the north side of the 200 block of West Santa Fe Avenue from M-G ROD (Manufacturing, General - Restaurant Overlay District) to C-3 ROD (Central Business District Commercial - Restaurant Overlay District) and a General Plan Revision to change the General Plan designation from Industrial to Downtown Mixed Use on property located on the north side of West Santa Fe Avenue between Highland and Malden Avenues.

Senior Planner Mullis reported that the Resolution of Intention was the first step toward a zone change and a General Plan amendment. This represented the final block of the area studied in the 1995 transportation study. The area is currently zoned M-G, with restaurant overlay district. Staff was proposing to change it to C-3, with a restaurant overlay district. One proposal has been submitted for a mixed use project in the subject area.

Commissioner Francis asked Deputy City Attorney Jee if there was a conflict of interest because he owned a business on the next block, approximately 400 500 ft. away from the subject area. Deputy City Attorney Jee asked what radius was noticed, and Senior Planner Mullis stated that staff did not send a notice for a notice of intent. Deputy City Attorney Jee asked if he owned a business and Board Member Francis answered affirmatively. Deputy City Attorney Jee suggested that he recuse himself, at this time, even though this was only to consider a future hearing on the matter. Deputy City Attorney Jee stated that she have a definitive answer for him by the time that matter comes back to the Planning Commission.

The title of Resolution PC-05-12 DECLARING the Planning Commissions intention to consider a request for a zoning amendment to rezone the north side of the 200 block of West Santa Fe Avenue from M-G ROD (Manufacturing, General Restaurant Overlay District) to C-3 Rod (Central Business District Commercial Restaurant Overlay District) and a General Plan Revision to change the General Plan Designation from Industrial to Downtown Mixed Use on property located on the north side of West Santa Fe Avenue between Highland and Malden Avenues was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Board Member Bailey, seconded by Board Member Hart and CARRIED by a 6-0 vote, that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.


    Commissioner Stopper discussed the intent of the Mayor to have the Planning Commission involved in a study of the downtown. A Consultant would be hired to do a study. The Redevelopment Director held a meeting, with Chief Planner Rosen and other staff to share ideas regarding the objectives of the study. He wanted to keep the Planning Commission informed of the progress.

    Chairman Griffin stated that he received a call from Redevelopment Director Zur Schmiede about the downtown plan, and his perception of the direction. He asked which member of the Planning Commission would be appropriate to attend the meeting. He suggested Commissioner Stopper was the right person and asked if any other Board Member were interested in being assigned to the downtown committee. Commissioner Price felt that Board Member Stopper was perfect. Commissioner Francis asked that business owners, restaurant owners, and community people should also be invited. Commissioner Stopper stated that at the meeting over 50 names were listed of organizations, businesses, commission and committee members names.

    Commissioner Stopper asked if any Board Members were interested in having a copy of the Arroyo Group study from 1995. Commissioners Hart and Savage requested a copy.

    Chairman Griffin asked for periodic updates at meetings. Commissioner Stopper stated that he would give a report based on the frequency of meetings and a need for the report.

    Commissioner Savage stated that Mr. McGarvey called him after the last meeting and was impressed with the conduct of the meeting.


    Senior Planner Mullis reminded the Planning Commission of the community meeting schedule for Tuesday March 29 regarding the Sunrise assisted living center. The Providence community meeting and RDRC meeting is scheduled for April 12 and the notice was not sent yet. The Community Meeting forum would be at 5:30 and the RDRC meeting would begin at 7 p.m.

    City Council approved the modification to Senior parking standards by a 5-0 vote at the last City Council meeting. The second reading would be at the next meeting and 30 days after it will be effective. Also, the Richman abandonment was approved.


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


    The next regularly-scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be April 13, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.


There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:06 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