
More and more high density housing..,
Here is the good news: Fullerton’s Planning Commission is not scheduled to make any decisions about the newly revived Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan (DCCSP) or the giant mixed-use housing project proposed for the 600 block of West Commonwealth Ave when they meet on the evening of April 27. The bad news is that this two-building project is being proposed in the first place, and that the DCCSP still exists, albeit radically downsized by Community Development Director Karen Haluza and her staff of planners.
Wednesday night’s meeting is instead a study session for both proposals. The four page staff report about this proposed development attached to the agenda explains rather cryptically that, following a preliminary public meeting in September, 2015, “it was acknowledged that this project would be reviewed concurrently with the final design and development components in the revised DCCSP.” The DCCSP itself has undergone quite a change since first approved by the Planning Commission in 2014. Readers will recall that consideration of the massive, and massively inappropriate, plan was halted in its tracks by, among other concerns, revelations shared on this blog that two members of the Fullerton City Council owned property within 500 feet of the plan area. A study session was promised to properly consider the implications of what would have been the largest single Specific Plan in the city’s history. It never happened, and neither did anything public with the DCCSP, but the Community Development planners were evidently hard at work trying to salvage something from it. Two weeks ago, they narrowed it to “three new zoning tools” to “replace the DCCSP” for the Planning Commission. The proposed tools are:
- Mixed-Use Overlay Zone
- Adaptive Re-Use Incentive Zone
- Central Business District
It is the first new tool, Mixed-Use Overlay Zone, that is being considered “concurrently” with a plan by Red Oak Investments to build nearly three hundred living units in two structures on the 600 block of W. Commonwealth Ave. that together would take up most of a city block between Commonwealth on the North and the railroad tracks on the South side. Unfortunately, this tool seems to be more concerned with “appropriate building and frontage type combinations,” quoting the staff report, than it does with the appropriateness of adding so many new housing and retail units to the former car dealership land in the first place.

More apartments, parking spaces.

Reid Fleming has found a traffic solution, how about you?
The DCCPSP may have been downsized, but its purpose seems to have remained the same—to facilitate more and more multistory high density residential developments in the downtown area and along Fullerton’s major transportation corridors, whether the current residents of the city want them or not.
“Readers will recall that consideration of the massive, and massively inappropriate plan, was halted in its tracks by, among other concerns, revelations shared on this blog that two members of the Fullerton City Council owned property within 500 feet of the plan area”. Of course, it figures.
WHY???? Fullerton is not Santa Ana, or some other city that needs a huge amount of marginal or section 8 apartments. I have enough trouble getting home after work in today’s traffic without adding more. Have the two council members agreed (in writing) not to benefit financially, or have they just transferred the properties into someone else’s name?
LikeLike
Just FYI, this proposed development isn’t even CLOSE to meeting the parking requirements under the Municipal Code.
I can’t tell whether this development would be R4 (limited high rise) or R5 (maximum high rise) but in either case the requirements are the same: pursuant to F.M.C. Section 15.070.H, the requirements are: 1.75 spaces for a studio apartment, 2.0 spaces for a one bedroom apartment, 2.5 spaces for a 2 bedroom apartment, and 3.0 spaces for a 3 bedroom apartment.
Now, taking the handy you helpfully provided, we need 21 spaces to account for the 12 studio apartments in both buildings, 300 spaces for the 150 one bedroom apartments, 292.5 spaces for the 117 two bedroom apartments, and 48 spaces for the 16 three bedroom apartments. After rounding up the decimal we wind up with a total number of required spaces of 662 spaces.
Now, these two buildings offer 344 parking spaces in one building and 224 in another. Add them up and back out the 20 spaces reserved for commercial activity and you have 548 spaces. This development is non-compliance with the current FMC Parking Requirements by AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN SPACES. If I lived in this area, I’d have a pretty good theory about where those extra 100+ cars will be parking at night.
By the way, I’ve posted a link to FMC Section 15.070 below. If the link works (fingers crossed) scroll down to table H to confirm my work.
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/fullertn/fullertoncaliforniamunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:fullerton_ca
LikeLike