FOUNTAIN VALLEY : Board OKs Report on Lighthouse Lane

After hearing arguments from some of the 50 residents attending Wednesday’s meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the final environmental impact report for the controversial Lighthouse Lane project.

Opponents criticized the report as inaccurate, saying that it did not address questions about increased noise and congestion from traffic and the impact of new residents moving into the proposed 140-townhome project.

“This (report) is riddled with fatal flaws and false statements,” resident Jim Sowell told the commission.

But city officials said the list of problems presented has been addressed as required under the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. City planner Andrew Perea added that the report “would not have gotten this far” if it contained wrong information.

Despite their unanimous approval, however, not all the commissioners were pleased with the final report. Said Commissioner John Goodman: “This EIR probably satisfies CEQA, but I’ve seen more complete EIRs in the past.”

Some critics repeatedly veered from focusing on the report and instead found fault with the proposed project. But they were quickly--and sometimes firmly--interrupted and reprimanded by the commission for speaking about an issue not on the agenda. The public hearing on the proposed project is scheduled for Feb. 26.

“This by no means was our stamp of approval on the project,” said Commissioner Zita Wessa.

The controversy stems from the density of the proposed project and the joint venture partnership between Tumanjan Development and the Fountain Valley School District. The district sold the 8.6-acre site, at the northeast corner of Talbert Avenue and Newland Street, as a long-term way to raise revenue.

Resident Ginger Cox has argued that having 16 homes per acre “is unsightly, a burden to police and the surrounding area.” Instead she and several of her neighbors are campaigning for four or five single-family homes per acre.

“We do agree with developing the land, just not with so many homes,” Cox said. “I’m afraid by building so many multifamily homes together, we’re creating a (problem) environment.”

Cox and her group are also asking the district to sell the land and drop plans for the development partnership. They believe the district will actually lose money and will be unable to sell the townhouses.

Under the joint venture agreement, the district expects to pocket half of the profit from the homes, in addition to the profit from the sale of the land. District officials are estimating almost $12 million will come from the development, but opponents say their estimates show the district will earn only one-third of that amount.