Barry Levinson
I was disappointed but not surprised that the Planning Committee voted for the 32-unit development by Melia Homes on a scant 3.3 acres. One committee member had the audacity to state that the traffic in and around the Laguna Road Elementary School was not the developer’s problem (but it most definitely should be the city of Fullerton’s problem along with the Fullerton School District).
Fitzgerald appointee and sock puppet Larry Bennett
By voting for the zoning change the developer is requesting, you are allowing him to make the traffic problems worse. Therefore, the serious traffic congestion at the beginning and end of each day at Laguna Road School is in fact in part the developer’s problem. The commissioners are making that property much more valuable to the landowner by voting for the zoning change from office/medical space to attached housing, yet giving him a pass on the added traffic congestion and added parking problems the developer will create for the surrounding neighborhood. It seems that as commissioners you are not thinking clearly and certainly ignoring the very legitimate concerns of the community.
Seaborne appointee Gambino that voted to ruin Fullerton with the yes vote on the DCCSP
Dunlap
It is most definitely the city’s responsibility and obligation to make a decision that does not harm any of the residents. This commissioner along with the other 3 voting for its approval, have abdicated that role. This project will exacerbate the traffic congestion and the potential for additional accidents in and around the Laguna Road School.
Big developer puppet Silber who hates cars and loves high density with a yes vote on the disastrous DCCSP
Yes it is also a FSD issue but the last time I looked it is in and within the City of Fullerton. The next traffic injury or death is on the four-committee members, who voted for this (Peter Gambino, Larry Bennett, Silber and Dunlap). It should be noted that this very important vote was made with 2 of the 7-committee members not in attendance, namely Kevin Pendergraft and Ma‘Ayn Johnson.
Agenda 21 SCAG operative Ma’yaan Johnson voted yes for the DCCSP was a no show on this mess
A committee concerned about doing the right thing would have at least postponed the vote until they could get all of the committee members to actually meet their obligation and duty to represent the good people of Fullerton. The way this city conducts business is both indefensible and deplorable.
Bruce’s repeated no show appointee Pendergraft who missed the vote on the DCCSP and missed the vote on this spot zone change-two huge decisions and he decides to stay home-fire this guy and appoint Barry
The “Boss” Joe Felz
P.S. There was not one bit of evidence asked for by the committee or given by Melia Homes that demonstrated that a smaller single-family development was not financially feasible on that 3.3-acre site. The public did speak to a new single-family development across from Laguna Road School of 7 houses on about 3 acres of land. That is obviously financially viable but we are to believe the sales BS of Melia Homes that they need a minimum of 32 homes on 3.3 acres to be financially viable, only a short few hundred feet away. For all the degrees and education represented on this Planning Commission, they sure seem to lack of whole bunch of common sense and objectivity.
Here is the description of the other project from the City of Fullerton.
The project is a residential development that proposes seven single family detached houses on a 2.97 acre lot, with a gross density of 2.57 dwelling units per acre. The lots will range in size from 17,620 square feet to 20,879 square feet. Vehicular access to the houses would be from Laguna Road via gated private drive that would be constructed
September 16, 2014
City of Fullerton – Initial Study Checklist
#1 by Barry Levinson on June 25, 2016 - 12:23 pm
It is amazing to me that our go along with the developer Planning Commission never asked for any documentation that the developer needed a minimum of 32 homes to be financially viable. The committee ignored the fact that a few hundred feet away another developer is all too happy to build 7 single family homes on 2.97 acres of land. Why even bother with any committee, if they are not going to challenge the developer’s assertions? They ask the developer to make modest changes and then pat themselves on the back for doing such a good job. The committee jumped from the assertion that medical space is not needed at that site to accepting a very high density attached homes community of 32 homes for that neighborhood.
A substantive discussion of the viability of single family residences at the site was brushed over by the committee. I will bring this point up at the next Planning Committee meeting and ask why none of the committee members who bothered to show up (only 5 out of 7) did not demand specific numbers from the developer to prove his financial assertions.
I just loved the new terminology used by the city and the committee members calling it an “edge” property in a shameful attempt to minimize its impact to the surrounding single family residential community. Lastly, I want to say to those opposed to this development to not give up hope. We need a 100 plus residents to show up when the council puts this to a final vote.
One more time for the factually challenged in our city government. Private property rights does not include allowing the owner to do anything they want with there property. That is why for well over a hundred years, cities and towns throughout these United States have had zoning laws. A developer or a flipper does not have the legal right to buy a specific piece of property whose market value is based on its current zoning and then automatically get the zoning changed. It is called crony capitalism Fullertonians. You or I would not be allowed to subdivide our single family home lots into 5, 10 or 20 separate homes. But these developers are special friends of the city. What is in it for the city? Only short term one-time fees/taxes in the form of $11,700 per unit of any size called a Park Dwelling Fee. Studies have been done and it is well known that retail, commercial and industrial properties net more revenue to a city than residential units. The city of Fullerton only has 6% commercial/retail and instead of trying to grow this minuscule percentage, the city for its short term greed is doing the exact opposite.