• Duncan will

    Thank you for your excellent article.
    I spent my 3 minutes in front of the City Council and Protesters to counter the article in The Fullerton Rag that stirred up protesters by mis-using terms.

    Words have meaning. Look up “Affordable Housing”; “Gentrification”; “High Rise Building”; “High Density Housing”; “Perspective Drawing”; and other relevant terms.

    I have my full statement and response to the decision at:
    katydiddd.tripod.com/fullerton.html

    Similarly,, a phony image of the proposed Hillcrest Stairs that would cost over a million dollars was circulated. It showed concrete stairs going up the hill, without a railing or landings. Truthfully, the city’s image of the proposed stairs are wooden, have landings, and railings.
    Unfortunately, that image impacted my vote, until I started fact checking.

    After the Meeting, I wrote to the City Council and Red Oak Developers that any genuine objection to the development could be worked out. Additional parking can be obtained using nearby lots, fenced with coded gates. Turning lanes and signal lights can be included.
    I have not heard one valid objection that could not be overcome — if you do not like the style or facade, show me a picture or drawing that would meet with your approval!

    Meanwhile, the city is spending money settling lawsuits, because they take money for helping homeless, without properly using it.
    The Fullerton Rag stated there is “Affordable Housing” in the area, but, according to the OC Affordable Housing List, there isn’t any. In fact, there are ZERO vacancies in Fullerton, and waiting lists are 6 years, 5 years, or closed because they are so long.

    K. Duncan — Fullerton
    katydiddd.tripod.com/fullerton.html

  • Fullerton Rag

    Thank you for covering this story, but your account greatly misses the real significance of the proceedings Tuesday night. Yes, the council declined that night to approve the Red Oak project’s site plan, but they did approve re-zoning the property to allow residential use, and at a density TWICE that specified in the city’s General Plan. That decision is the important one for the property owner and developer(s). Even if Irvine-based Red Oak Investments takes a hike rather than reconfigure their project to include more parking, another builder can submit a plan for the same density. Or, if the city doesn’t like Red Oak’s new plan (if there even are any paltry changes to the old one), the developer can conceivably sue the city in a takings suit, claiming loss of value. The council sold out the residents near downtown, once again.

    Site plan or not, the property is no longer an ex-car dealership. It is now a pad for a mega-apartment complex with no mitigation for accompanying traffic or parking. The Fullerton City Council proved right out of the gate in 2017 that that developers still call the shots around here, and can pretty much get whatever they want, abetted by a planning staff who are on their side and not the side of the residents of the city.

    You neglected to mention that the project was already narrowly approved by the Planning Commission last September, but somehow, despite a relatively light council calendar, did not come before the council until well AFTER the election. And why do you think they delayed the next hearing on the site plan until March…?