CollegeTown, the contentious plan to re-designate 88 acres of land south of Cal State Fullerton for higher density development, comes before the Fullerton Planning Commission Wednesday night, February 10, 7:00 p.m. For months residents in the area surrounding the proposed plan area have organized to better inform their neighbors about the potential impact of creating a Specific Plan to govern dramatically increased development in what is supposed to be a walkable, downtown-like district where CSUF students can live, eat, and shop. Think Westwood in Fullerton, and then take a look at Westwood these days…
Opposition to the plan is so great that there is a website called Our Town Not College Town dedicated to stopping it:
http://www.ourtownnotcollegetown.com
Here is some official language from the agenda item:
“The applications include a General Plan Revision to change existing Community Development Types from Office, Commercial, High Density Residential and School to Specific Plan; Zoning Amendments to change zoning classifications from O-P (Office Professional), C-2 (General Commercial), and R-5 (Maximum Density Multiple-Family) to SPD (Specific Plan District) and to adopt the College Town Specific Plan; Abandonment of a portion of Nutwood and Commonwealth Avenues; and initiation of proceedings for formation of a Parking Management District and Property Based Improvement District.”
It’s the planned closure of parts of Nutwood and Commonwealth Avenues that really has nearby residents up in arms. With traffic already congested at peak (and other) hours in this area, neighbors are livid that the city plans to close parts of two major feeder roads to the adjacent 57 freeway, seemingly without a viable alternative to alleviate the resulting traffic on neighboring streets.
The Planning Commission is generally pre-disposed to approve the plan, in the opinion of the Rag, with some changes, simply because City Hall wants it to happen. The mixture of extreme property rights advocates and Chamber or Commerce cheerleaders will see to it that the developers get a chance to make the massive amounts of money they covet, without the nuisance of formulating an even close to adequate plan for traffic circulation. The rationale given will be that housing students next to the university, and building nearby services for them that won’t require them to drive outside of the district, and will ultimately reduce vehicular traffic, but is there a commitment to public transit anywhere in the plan?
The Rag encourages readers to attend the meeting (which will also be televised locally and live-cast from the city’s website) and let the Planning Commission know that the plan for an endless stream of cars and ever-growing blocks of high density development are not the only ways to plan for a livable future in our city.
fullertonrag.com 
Someone form city staff, the consultant who developed the plan, CSUF, or the Planning Commission really needs to communicate the purpose of this plan and seriously address people’s concerns.
1. I hope there will be some meaningful discussion of alternatives to closing Nutwood as the neighboring community has requested.
2. There needs to be discussion about the impact of building a sound wall in front of people’s homes on Chapman. That would be devastating to me. I would not want this to become an acceptable norm for this city.
3. How will maximizing density on the south side of CSUF benefit surrounding neighborhoods, the city as a whole, and future students?
4. Is there a solid mitigation plan for increased traffic?
5. Is there enough parking in the plan or some guarantee to the surrounding neighborhoods that there will not be overflow parking on their streets?
4. How will transit users access the campus with the closure of Nutwood?
LikeLike
All good points. Also, staff’s estimated $3.5 million bill for remediating adjoining streets to offset the closure of Nutwood is #1) Far too high an expense to justify the very nominal benefit CSF received, and #2) Likely far lower than what the true cost would actually be.
There is no way that $3.5 million estimated bill includes the cost of settling inverse condemnation lawsuits with the homeowners on Chapman who will have an ugly sound wall planted ten feet from their driveway, or the attorney fees to settle that (remember: the City paid $7 million to settle the inverse condemnation lawsuit arising from their alteration of the slope backing up Euclid a few years ago). Also, I seriously doubt that the City could perform any kind of improvements to the underpass at Chapman for less than a million dollars (it took them about that much just to STUDY the issue, for Petes sake). It is heartening to see that the Planning Commission did not go along with the proposal, at least in its current configuration.
LikeLike
In my mind, a sound wall is a sign of failure.
LikeLike
I can’t figure out the rationale for any of this. Somehow building another 3500 units is supposed to remove cars from the streets. It makes no sense: CSUF is a commuter school, a good formula for kids, especially minority students who can’t afford to live in a mid-rise apartment and have to live at home.
This looks like “Jefferson Commons” all over again, sold as “student” housing.
If there is a parking problem and a traffic problem you build parking structures on the CSUF surface lots and leave the streets alone.
This sure looks like a solution in search of a problem.
LikeLike
They want more students to live on campus, but you’re right, it only works for kids who can afford it.
LikeLike
If “they” want more students to live on campus “they” can build a bunch of new dorms on top of the surface parking “they” already have along State College and Yorba Linda.
And who is ‘they?”
Why does the City need to be involved at all?
I just don’t get it.
LikeLike
So the city can capitalize on taxes by being business friendly and facilitating zoning changes that allow businesses the students patronize? Which could make sense, if there was a viable transportation plan, and the new district didn’t wreak havoc on the existing surrounding neighborhoods. Or, it’s just a way for the landowners to make money on newly valuable land…
LikeLike