Archives for category: Core and Corridors Plan
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Live From the Fullerton City Council, Because You Can’t Watch Anywhere Else

August 5, 2014 //
18

20140805-215757-79077443.jpg

9:55 pm

The Fullerton City Council is currently meeting at the Fullerton Public Library’s Public Conference Center instead of City Hall next door. There is no live broadcast of the meeting, although it will be available as a video recording on the city’s website in a few days. The recording will not be broadcast later on television.

The City Council had not yet taken up the Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan. During the public comments period of the meeting, City Council candidate Jane Rands suggested that some council members may need to recuse themselves from participating in the proceedings. Mayor Chaffee did not address her concerns at that time.

10:40 pm

The City Council is taking a short break before taking up the Core and Corridors Specific Plan. Stay tuned…

10:55 pm

To make a long story short, the City Council has decided to continue the entire item to a date uncertain. The Rag calls that a victory for now.

11:10

City Manager Joe Felz explained that the deadlines associated with approval have gone away. The grant that funded the DCCSP can be certified without any timeline dependent on the council approving the plan, or not.

City Attorney Dick Jones suggested that Mayor Chaffee and Council Member Fitzgerald may not have to recuse themselves from the discussion and vote because the general community interest would allow for a variation (more on that idea later). He suggested consulting the FPPC about the issue. One wonders why no one had thought to do so already.

7,000 notices will go out in the mail to alert property owners in the plan areas about the next meeting, whenever it is scheduled, as they ought to have been for tonight’s meeting.

October was mentioned as a possible month for the meeting.

Good night, and thanks for reading. More on the DCCSP and issues of recusal in the coming days.

 

Tags , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories Architecture, Bruce Whitaker, Core and Corridors Plan, Doug Chaffee, Downtown Fullerton, Environment, Fullerton City Council, Fullerton Planning, General Plan, Greg Sebourn, Historic Preservation, Jan Flory, Jennifer Fitzgerald, Uncategorized

Doug Chaffee and Jennifer Fitzgerald Must Recuse Themselves from the Core and Corridors Vote

August 5, 2014 //
3

Chaffee, Douglas 2014 Form 700 Annual.pdfFullerton Mayor Doug Chaffee and Council Member Jennifer Fitzgerald have financial interests in properties near the Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan (DCCSP) area, and should recuse themselves from both the discussion and vote on the controversial plan.

Office holders are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest on California’s Fair Political Practices Commission’s Form 700, filed annually. The most recent Form 700 filings by both Mr. Chaffee and Ms. Fitzgerald show them to have financial interests in properties located near Commonwealth Ave. near the downtown area. All of Commonwealth Ave. is located in the DCCSP.

Mayor Chaffee is listed as a General Partner in the Klimpel Manor Apartments located at 229 E. Amerige Ave.

Jennifer Fitzgerald’s Form 700 shows income from rent on a house she owns located at 449 W. Amerige Ave., located less than 500 feet from Commonwealth Ave.

Fitzgerald, Jennifer 2014 Form 700 Annual.pdf

California law states that public officials must recuse themselves from participating in discussions and decisions regarding property if they have a financial interest in or own property located in or within 500 feet of the area subject to the decision.

The fact that two out of five members of the Fullerton City Council must recuse themselves from one of the most comprehensive and sweeping zoning changes in the city’s history demonstrates that the plan itself is inherently too large, and should be either dropped entirely or broken up into smaller areas for future consideration. Proceeding with a decision with implications reaching decades into the future for the entire city by only three of the people’s representatives does not responsibly serve our democracy.

The government’s definition of what constitutes a financial interest, and when public officials should recuse themselves from discussions and decisions where they are identfied as having a conflict of interest are included below for reference.

“87103. A public official has a financial interest in a decision within the meaning of Section 87100 if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the

official, a member of his or her immediate family, or on any of the following:

(Financial Interests)

(a) Any business entity in which the public official has a direct or indirect investment worth two thousand dollars ($2,000) or more.

(b) Any real property in which the public official has a direct or indirect interest worth two thousand dollars ($2,000) or more.

(c) Any source of income, except gifts or loans by a commercial lending institution made in the regular course of business on terms available to the public without regard to official status, aggregating five hundred dollars ($500) or more in value provided or promised to, received by, the public official within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made.

(d) Any business entity in which the public official is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management.”

(Recusal)

“87105. (a) A public official who holds an office specified in Section 87200 who has a financial interest in a decision within the meaning of Section 87100 shall, upon identifying a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest and immediately prior to the consideration of the matter, do all of the following:

(1) Publicly identify the financial interest that gives rise to the conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest in detail sufficient to be understood by the public, except that disclosure of the exact street address of a residence is not required.

(2) Recuse himself or herself from discussing and voting on the matter, or otherwise acting in violation of Section 87100.

(3) Leave the room until after the discussion, vote, and any other disposition of the matter is concluded, unless the matter has been placed on the portion of the agenda reserved for uncontested matters.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), a public official described in subdivision (a) may speak on the issue during the time that the general public speaks on the issue.”

Tags , , , , ,
Categories Architecture, Core and Corridors Plan, Doug Chaffee, Downtown Fullerton, Fullerton City Council, Fullerton Planning, Jennifer Fitzgerald

Object to Core and Corridors Plan at Fullerton City Council, Tuesday Night, August 5

August 3, 2014 //
1
DCCSP-Map

Too big, too soon.

Update: The agenda for the Fullerton City Council meeting of August 5 does indeed show it to be taking place at in the new Public Conference Center at the library next to City Hall. There will be NO LIVE BROADCAST of the meeting if it is held there.

This Tuesday, August 5, the Fullerton City Council will hold the first public hearing to consider the Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan (DCCSP). If adopted, the DCCSP would represent a huge change in the way properties located along parts of Euclid, Harbor, Commonwealth, Orangethrope, Raymond, and other major streets can be developed. But the larger density projects that would be allowed under the plan would affect all of Fullerton.

The meeting begins at 6:30, but the DCCSP will probably not be heard before 7:00, at least. There is no definite word yet about whether the meeting will be held in the City Council chambers, recently closed for renovations, or the Community Room next door at the library. If the Council Chambers are not yet ready, there will be no live broadcast of the City Council considering the biggest specific plan in Fullerton’s history, in the middle of the vacation season.

The Planning Commission heard the DCCSP in two meetings in July. On July 23 the Planning Commissiion, with at two of its members absent, voted to approve the plan. Some members had serious reservations about various parts of the plan, and, after much discussion amongst themselves and comments from the attending public, voiced oppositiion to the DCCSP. However, rather than stand their ground against Fullerton’s planning staff and the deveopers and land owners who will financially benefit from the DCCSP’s sweeping zoning changes and density allowances, these initially courageous commissioners ultmiately chose to vote in favor of the plan, with the caveat that their concerns would be noted to the City Council.

The idea behind the DCCSP is to prepare for population growth by adopting a comprehensive set of zoning changes ahead to time instead of having to deal with small areas and projects on a case by case baisis over the coming decades. It may make sense, in some ways, on a conceptual level, but what’s actually in the plan for some of the 13 plan areas is an allowance for higher density development without mitigation for more traffic or, in some cases, even the public review such projects would otherwise be required to undergo before being built.

Despite being funded by a Sustainable Communities Planning Grant, the plan acknowledges that there is simply no way to improve mobility at several already choked intersections, and doesn’t provide for any mass transportation options as an alternative to more drivers on the road. Bells and whistles like landscaped medians aren’t going to do much for anyone’s daily commute, made worse by the addition of new residents’ vehicles. The assumption that more residents will work closer to their jobs if we increase housing density doesn’t hold much water when businesses areas are re-zoned for housing, forcing them away from residences. And when was the last time you heard of OCTA expanding bus service?

In short, the DCCSP looks like a huge giveaway to developers of mixed-use retail and housing projects intended to provided a higher property tax base for the city coffers. It should be either broken up into smaller plan areas to be considered idividually over a longer period of time, or dispensed with entirely. The Fullerton City Council should have the courage to do what the Planning Commssion would not—stand up to wealthy land owners and insatiable developers and stand up for Fullerton’s residents instead.

Logo of Friends for a Livable Fullerton

Protect Fullerton’s residents, not big developers.

 

Tags , , , , , , , ,
Categories Architecture, Bruce Whitaker, City Manager Joe Felz, Core and Corridors Plan, Doug Chaffee, Downtown Fullerton, Environment, Fullerton City Council, Fullerton Planning, Greg Sebourn, Historic Preservation, Jan Flory, Jennifer Fitzgerald
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »