Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 APPEAL P.C. DENIAL 03-04-02 NO. 1 AGENDA REPORT .t, 0'3';04'02 MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 2002 600-20 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION NOS. 00-001 AND 00-002 CARFAX DRIVE) AND APPEAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE (14511 AND 14512 CARFAX DRIVE) DENIAL OF USE (14511 AND 14512 OF PLANNING COMMISSION PERMITS 01-017 AND 01-018 SUMMARY On March 12, 2001, the Planning Commission denied Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 finding that the uses that have been established at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive are not apartments and are boarding houses which require approval of conditional use permits. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision. Although the applicant appealed this decision, he also submitted an application for conditional use permits for boarding houses, consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code. On April 16, 2001, July 16, 2001, October 15, 2001, and February 4, 2002, the City Council continued the Use Determination appeal hearing at the applicant's request so the conditional use permit process could be completed. Staff is recommending that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision determining that the uses that have been established at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive are not apartments and are boarding houses which require approval of conditional use permits. On January 28, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permits 01- 017 and 01-018 authorizing two (2) boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive. (Recommended Action No. 1, below.) On February 4, 2002, the City Council appealed the Planning Commission's decision. Staff is recommending that the Council deny the appeal but approve the Conditional Use Permits consistent with either Recommendation No. 2A or 2B listed below. Applicant: Marc Kassoff and Nick Spadafino, S & K Properties Property Owner: Marc Kassoff and Nick Spadafino, S & K Properties RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 02-14 upholding the Planning Commission's decision denying Use Determinations 00-001 and 00-002; and, City Council Report Appeal of UD 00-001 & 00-002 and CUP 01-017 & 01-018 March 4, 2002 Page 2 That the City Council take one of the following actions: 2A. Adopt Resolution No. 02-17A upholding the Planning Commission's decision approving Conditional Use Permits 01-017 and 01-018; or, 2B. Adopt Resolution No. 02-17B modifying the Planning Commission's decision approving Conditional Use Permits 01-017 and 01-018; or, 2C. Direct staff to prepare a resolution setting aside the Planning Commission's decision and denying Conditional Use Permits 01-017 and 01-018, with appropriate findings. FISCAL IMPACT The applicant has paid applicable fees for the appeal of Use Determinations 00-001 and 00-002. There is no fiscal impact associated with consideration of the appeal of Conditional Use Permits 01-017 and 01-018. ENVIRONMENTAL That appeal of Use Determinations 00-001 and 00-002 are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act) which states that projects that are rejected or disapproved by a public agency are not subject to CEQA. The appeal of Conditional Use Permits 01-017 and 01-018 are Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act). USE DETERMINATION 00-001 AND 00-002 On March 12, 2001, the Planning Commission considered information regarding the use of the residential properties at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive (Attachment 1 - Location Map). Upon consideration of the staff report and testimony at the meeting, the Planning Commission denied Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 finding that the uses that have been established at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive are not apartments and are boarding houses which require approval of conditional use permits (CUP)(Attachment 2 - Staff Report, Minutes, and Resolution No. 3772). On March 15, 2001, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision (Attachment 3) citing the reasons listed below. A staff response to each point is provided. City Council Report Appeal of UD 00-001 & 00-002 and CUP 01-017 & 01-018 March 4, 2002 Page 3 1. The Planning Commission adopted the staff report of the Planning Department. The Planning Commission considered information contained in the staff report, which is based upon the applicant's application materials, information provided by the applicant, and staff analysis. The Planning Commission also received public testimony from the applicant and other interested parties prior to adopting Resolution No. 3772. The Planning Commission failed to take into consideration the evidence presented at the hearing by the property owner. Although Use Determination applications do not require public hearings, the Planning Commission received public testimony from the applicant, his attorney, the operator of Pacific Park Recovery Center, and one (1) interested individual prior to adopting Resolution No. 3772, and the Planning Commission considered such evidence before it rendered its decision. The Planning Commission failed to take into consideration the applicable federal laws, including but not limited to, the United States Constitution, the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) The applicant erroneously believes that his proposed use of the property cannot be regulated in any manner by the City or other land use regulatory agency and that the City is attempting to deny him of the ability to maintain his proposed use of the property. The City's policies and ordinances, including its program of regulating boarding houses are consistent with all laws, including the Constitution, FHA, and ADA. The City's regulatory program provides a reasonable oppOrtunity for the applicant to apply for and receive a conditional use permit for a boarding house and that such CUP could reasonably and substantially accommodate the applicant's proposed use of the property while mitigating any negative impacts on the neighborhood. The Planning Commission erroneously adopted the recommendation finding that the uses of these properties are a boarding house. The Planning Commission considered information contained in the staff report, which is based upon the applicant's application materials, information provided by the applicant, and staff analysis. Although the applicant and his representative was afforded the opportunity to present evidence and testimony at the Planning Commission's meeting, the applicant did not provide verbal or written information prior to or at the Planning Commission meeting which indicated that the facts or operational characteristics of the uses presented in the staff report or at the meeting were incorrect. In addition, the applicant's attorney submitted a letter in September 1999 requesting that the City adopt an ordinance to accommodate his client's proposed uses. On January 17, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance City Council Report Appeal of UD 00-001 & 00-002 and CUP 01-017 & 01-018 March 4, 2002 Page 4 No. 1225 conditionally permitting boarding houses in the Suburban Residential (R- 4) zoning district. The Planning Commission and Planning Department failed to agree to a reasonable accommodation as required under the Federal Fair Housing Act. The Federal Fair Housing Act's provisions related to "reasonable accommodation" are not applicable to the current situation. Even if such provisions were applicable, the City's amendment of its Zoning Ordinance to allow the applicant's proposed use through the conditional use permit process applicable to boarding houses, should be viewed as an attempt to provide the applicant with a vehicle for securing approval of the applicant's proposed use. The development standards for boarding houses allow two (2) persons for each parking space. With twenty-two (22) parking spaces, a total of forty-four (44) persons could be accommodated. The Planning Commission and the Community Development Department are arbitrarily and capriciously discriminating against handicapped persons. As outlined in the Planning Commission staff report, the Planning Commission considered the operational characteristics of the uses that have been established at the properties rather than the types of individuals residing at the properties prior to rendering a decision. In addition, Commissioner Jennings noted that the uses are an asset to recovering individuals and the community and Commissioner Pontious noted her respect for sober living facilities. In addition, the Planning Commission found, in Resolution No. 3772, that boarding houses are necessary components of a City's housing stock. The Planning Commission and the Planning Department arbitrarily and capriciously applied an unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous zoning ordinance. Based upon information provided by the applicant, staff, in conjunction with the City Attorney's office, determined that a boarding house was the most closely related use that would legally accommodate the uses that have been established at the properties. In September 1999, the applicants' attorney suggested that the City process a zone change to accommodate boarding houses in the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district. Staff proposed to list boarding houses as conditionally permitted uses in the R-4 zoning district to establish a legal way and the process for applicants to seek approval to operate their uses at the properties. Staff provided a copy of the proposed Ordinance to the applicant and held the appropriate public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The applicant did not object to the public hearings or provide verbal or written testimony regarding the vagueness or ambiguity of the proposed Ordinance. On January 17, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1225 City Council Report Appeal of UD 00-001 & 00-002 and CUP 01-017 & 01-018 March 4, 2002 Page 5 conditionally permitting boarding houses in the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district. The definitions for apartments and boarding houses are clear and understandable. o The Planning Commission and Planning Department have deprived the owner of the property of his right to use this property and therefore it is an unconstitutional deprivation of property. The Planning Commission found that the uses at the properties more closely resemble boarding houses than apartments. As boarding houses, the applicant may submit conditional use permit applications in accordance with Section 922865 of the Tustin City Code. The staff report and staff comments at the Planning Commission meeting indicated that conditional use permits could be approved if the development standards can be met, environmental impacts are mitigated, and the uses do not impair the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. On January 28, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permits 01-017 and 01-018 authorizing boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility. In addition, the property owner has been leasing his properties since 1999 and has not been deprived of the right to use the property. The Planning Commission and Planning Department failed to consider the community support for the use of these properties. The Planning Commission received public testimony from one (1) interested individual and the applicant, his attorney, and the operator of Pacific Park Recovery Center prior to rendering a decision by adopting Resolution No. 3772. In addition, Commissioner Pontious noted her appreciation for the testimony and sober living facilities and Commissioner Jennings noted that the uses are an asset to recovering individuals and the community. On March 26, 2001, staff received a letter from Kevin Robinson, attorney for the applicant, proposing to comply with the development standards for boarding houses under a building permit rather than a conditional use permit process (Attachment 3). Since boarding houses are listed as conditionally permitted uses to mitigate potential adverse impacts, issuing a building permit for the uses would not be appropriate or consistent with the Tustin City Code. Staff consistently advised the applicant to submit conditional use permit applications for the uses that have been established at the properties. The conditional use process offers reasonable accommodation to uses that will not adversely impact the public health, welfare, and safety. At the request of the applicant, the appeal hearing was continued on April 16, 2001, July 16, 2001, October 15, 2001, and February 4, 2002, so conditional use permit applications could be processed and heard. On June 18, 2001, the applicant submitted conditional use permit applications for two (2) boarding houses at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive and on City Council Report Appeal of UD 00-001 & 00-002 and CUP 01-017 & 01-018 March 4, 2002 Page 6 January 28, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permits 01-017 and 01-018 authorizing boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility. The applicant has not provided any new information that modifies or eliminates the facts regarding the operational characteristics of the uses that have been established at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive. Therefore, Resolution No. 02-14 upholding the Planning Commission's decision is included in Attachment 6 for the City Council's consideration. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 01-017 AND 01-018 On January 28, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permits 01- 017 and 01-018 authorizing two (2) boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility at 14511 and 14512 Carl:ax Drive (Attachment 4 - Staff Report, Minutes, and Resolution No. 3814). On February 4, 2002, Council Member Lou Bone requested an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision based on concerns regarding parking. At the public hearing held by the Planning Commission, several speakers noted there is an existing parking problem on Carfax Drive and the proposed facility would exacerbate these problems. In addition, Planning Commissioner Davert voted against the project stating he was not satisfied with respect to parking issues. Section 9228 of the Tustin City Code conditionally permits boarding houses which are defined as, "a dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." As described in the Planning Commission staff report, the facility would provide sober, supervised housing accommodations for men who wish to remain sober and are willing to share living facilities with others. Section 9228 of the Tustin City Code requires one (1) parking space for each two occupants. However, the applicant submitted a parking demand analysis demonstrating that the actual parking needs of the proposed facility is .35 parking spaces for each person. In preparation for the Planning Commission public headng, staff accepted the information presented in the parking analysis, which was prepared by a licensed traffic engineer. To mitigate potential parking problems associated with the facility, the Planning Commission imposed the following conditions of approval: Condition No. 3.4: The applicant shall ensure that no more than .35 of the persons accepted to reside at the facility maintain a vehicle at the site. Condition No. 3.5: Residents shall park all vehicles on the properties at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive within designated parking spaces as shown on the approved site plan and shall display parking permits issued by the applicant and/or on-site managers. The applicant shall submit a parking permit plan for residents and managers, for review and approval of the Community Development Department. On-street parking will not be allowed. City Council Report Appeal of UD 00-001 & 00-002 and CUP 01-017 & 01-018 March 4, 2002 Page 7 Condition No. 2.5: The applicant shall obtain permits for and complete installation of the approved parking configuration within sixty (60) days of approval. Condition No. 3.6: The applicant shall record a reciprocal parking and access agreement or deed restriction, as applicable, for 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive. Condition No. 3.7: The applicant shall record a deed restriction within sixty (60) days of approval which states that the garages shall be used for vehicular storage by the occupants of the sober living facility. Condition No. 1.8: The Community Development Department shall monitor the facility for compliance with the conditions of approval and prepare a status report for the Planning Commission's review within one (1) year of the approval. By imposing these conditions, and a number of other conditions related to the operational characteristics and appearance of the facility, the Planning Commission found that potential negative impacts of the boarding houses due to the reduced vehicular parking requirements could be mitigated. Staff anticipates that compliance with all of the conditions of approval will reduce the number of parking spaces to twenty (20) or less. Using a ratio of .35 parking spaces per person, a total of fifty-seven (57) residents could be accommodated. However, given that concerns about parking were the basis for the City Council's appeal, staff has further analyzed the parking demand analysis submitted by the applicant. On the basis of this further review, staff has identified concerns (Attachment 5). As noted in the study, the applicant's traffic engineer found that one (1) of the three (3) facilities that were surveyed for the parking analysis offered similar operational characteristics. The other two (2) facilities were found to somewhat be dissimilar to the proposed use since they are less intensive than the proposed facility and serve six (6) or fewer persons. As such, one (1) similar case study, the Phoenix House in Santa Ana, was used to determine that the parking demand of the proposed facility would be .35 parking spaces per person. As noted in Attachment 5, staff contacted the Phoenix House directly and learned that this facility does not have similar operational characteristics to the proposed facility and, therefore, does not offer an equivalent facility for analysis. It appears that sober living facilities are so varied in their operational characteristics that parking demand studies may not provide adequate information on which to base parking requirements. The parking requirement for boarding houses in the Tustin City Code was based on a survey of typical parking requirements from many cities and offers a consistent approach to establishing parking requirements for all boarding houses. Using the Tustin City Code requirement of one (1) parking space for every two (2) persons, and assuming twenty (20) parking spaces could be accommodated on-site, a total of forty (40) residents would be allowed. ALTERNATIVES Determine that the proposed use is a boarding house rather than an apartment by adopting Resolution No. 02-17 upholding the Planning Commission's decision denying Use Determinations 00-001 and 00-002; and, City Council Report Appeal of UD 00-001 & 00-002 and CUP 01-017 & 01-018 March 4, 2002 Page 8 Take action on Conditional Use Permits 01-017 and 01-018 by choosing one of the following alternatives: Ao Adopt Resolution No. 02-14-A upholding the Planning Commission's decision approving Conditional Use Permits 01-017 and 01-018. Assuming there are twenty-two (22) parking spaces, this alternative would allow a maximum of sixty-two (62) persons to reside at the facility using a parking ratio of .35 parking spaces for each person. However, as noted in the report, staff anticipates that compliance with all of the conditions of approval will reduce the number of parking spaces from twenty-two (22) to twenty (20) or fewer. Using a ratio of .35 parking spaces per person, a total of fifty- seven (57) residents could be accommodated if twenty (20) parking spaces are provided. Adopt Resolution No. 02-14-B modifying the Planning Commission's decision approving Conditional Use Permits 01-017 and 01-018. To address concerns regarding the parking demand analysis, this alternative would modify Condition No. 3.1 to require the use of the parking requirement for boarding houses contained in the Tustin City Code rather than the parking demand analysis submitted by the applicant. Assuming there are twenty- two (22) parking spaces, this alternative would allow a maximum of forty-four (44) persons to reside at the facility using the parking ratio defined in the Tustin City Code for boarding houses which is one (1) parking space for every two (2) persons. Co Direct staff to prepare a resolution setting aside the Planning Commission's decision and denying Conditional Use Permits 01-017 and 01-018, with appropriate findings. The resolutions are included in Attachment 6. Karen Peterson Senior Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map USE Community Development Director DETERMINATIONS 00-001 and 00-002: March 12, 2001, Planning Commission Staff Report March 12, 2001, Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Resolution No. 3772 3. Appeal Letter received March 15, 2001 City Council Report Appeal of UD 00-001 & 00-002 and CUP 01-017 & 01-018 March 4, 2002 Page 9 Letter received March 26, 2001 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 01-017 and 01018: January 14, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report January 28, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Resolution No. 3814 5. Engineering Review of Parking Demand Analysis 6. City Council Resolution Nos. 02-014, 02-017A, and 02-17B ccreport/cup01-017&Sappeal.doc CITY COUNCIL REPORT ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map .__ LOCb ION WALNUT AVENUE ;--"1 .:],';~'/,,~ i! CC;;,; ,?A C,' . Z,~ 7,:.' ., 1460~ ~ i ~4sn2m ~ '.'L 2:i '/. '.7 Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive CITY COUNCIL REPORT ATTACHMENT 2 March 12, 2001, Planning Commission Staff Report March 12, 2001, Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Resolution No. 3772 Report to the Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MARCH 12, 2001 USE DETERMINATION NOS. 00-001 AND 00-002 MARC KASSOF S & K PROPERTIES 14511 AND 14512 CARFAX DRIVE (LOTS 14 AND 15 OF TRACT 5028) SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4) THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15270 OF TITLE 14, CHAPTER 3 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (GUIDELINES FOR THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT) WHICH STATES THAT CEQA DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS REJECTED OR DISAPPROVED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY. REQUEST TO DETERMINE THAT THE USE OF 14511 AND 14512 CARFAX DRIVE IS A RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT USE RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3772 denying Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 applications for a determination that the uses on the affected properties are apartment uses and finding that such properties are being used for boarding house uses, which require approval of a conditional use permit. BACKGROUND On April 2, 1964, the County of Orange issued Certificates of Use and Occupancy for a four-unit dwelling and two (2) two-car garages on each property located at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive (Attachment A - Location Map). This area was annexed to the City in 1980. Planning Commission Report Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 March 12, 2001 Page 2 On July 30, 1999, Nick Spadafino and Marc Kassof, owners of the Pacific Park Recovery Center, met with representatives from the Community Development Department and Redevelopment Agency to outline a proposed sober living facility at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive within the Multiple Family Residential (R-4) zoning district. Nick Spadafino and Marc Kassof provided the following information: The facility would provide sober transitional housing accommodations for men completing drug or alcohol rehabilitation programs in hospitals or treatment facilities. A typical length of stay is nine (9) months. The facility would not exclude men who had not been through rehabilitation programs provided they agreed to remain sober during their stay. The facility would accept men who were referred by the court to the facility as an option to jail. A total of thirty-two (32) participants and one (1) manager would reside at each four (4) unit property for a total of sixty-six (66) occupants in both facilities. Participants would be supervised 24 hours a day by the managers in a structured living environment which includes: Signing an agreement to remain sober during their length of stay; Participating in mandatory periodic off-site drug testing; Observing 10:00 p.m. curfew; Performing house chores; and, Buying and cooking their own food. No accessory rehabilitative or medical activities would occur at the housing facility. Counseling or group therapy sessions would occur off-site. Drug testing would most likely occur at a treatment center certified by the State operated by the sober living facility which is located within walking distance of the property (14151 Newport, #201). Participants would pay approximately $400.00 per person per month in rent. The facility would accept insurance coverage as compensation. · Existing tenants would be given 30-day notices to vacate as of August 1, 1999. On August 3, 1999, the Community Development Department notified the applicant that staff had determined that the proposed sober living facilities are considered boarding houses under the Tustin City Code and would require Use Determination and Conditional Use Permit applications. The Use Determination process was required Planning Commission Report Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 March 12, 2001 Page 3 since boarding houses were not listed as permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the R-4 zoning district. On September 8, 1999, staff received a letter from the applicant's attorney, Kevin Robinson, suggesting the City process a zone change to accommodate his clients proposed uses. Consistent with and pursuant to Mr. Robinson's request, the City Council, on January 17, 2000, adopted Ordinance No. 1225 expressly permitting boarding houses within the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district, subject to a conditional use permit. On February 17, 2000, Marc Kassoff submitted Use Determination applications requesting that the Planning Commission determine that the uses at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive are "apartments" rather than "boarding houses". DISCUSSION Through Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission determine that the use of 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive is an apartment use which is permitted in the R-4 zoning district (Attachment B). The Suburban Residential District (R-4) permits one-family dwellings, two or more detached one-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, group dwellings, multiple-family dwellings, and apartment houses. These uses are defined by the Tustin City Code as follows: Single Family Dwelling: A building designed for, or used to house not more than one family, including all necessary employees of such family. A "family" is an individual or two (2) or more persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. A "dwelling" is a building, or portion thereof, used exclusively for residential occupancy. Two Family Dwelling: A building containing not more than two (2) kitchens, designed and/or use to house not more than two (2) families, living independently of each other, including all necessary employees of each such family. Multiple Dwelling: A building, or portion thereof, used and designed as a residence for three (3) or more families living independently of each other and doing their own cooking in said building, including apartment houses, apartment hotels and flats, but not including motels, boarding houses, and hotels. Apartment House: A building or portion thereof which is designed and built for occupancy of three (3) or more families and described under "Multiple Dwelling". Planning Commission Report Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 March 12, 2001 Page 4 Group Dwelling: A group of two (2) or more detached one-family, two-family, or multiple dwellings occupying the a parcel of land in one ownership and having any yard or court in common, but not including automobile courts. In addition, the R-4 district conditionally permits public boarding houses, utility facilities, churches, museums, libraries, schools, private parks, and day care facilities. Boarding houses are defined as follows: Boarding House: A dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation. Based on information provided in the applications for Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 (Attachment C - Application Materials and Plans), information provided by the applicant in 1999 (under Background), and observation by City staff, the uses that have been established at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive are not consistent with the definition of an apartment house for the following reason: The use of the property is not consistent with the definition of an "Apartment House" which is a building, or portion thereof, designed and built for the occupancy of three (3) or more families living independently of each other. A family is an individual or two (2) or more persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. In the immediate case, each of the dwelling units at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive can accommodate eight (8) persons who pay rent separately and will be individually responsible for complying with the Sober Living Rules (Attachments C and D - Plans and Sample Contract/Sober Living Rules). Although residents would share bedrooms and dwelling units, the eight (8) individuals in each unit would function independently of each other resident. In accordance with the sample contract and the Sober Living Rules, the residents of each unit would not comprise a single housekeeping unit since they would reside at the properties for various lengths of times and pay rent as separate individuals. In addition, each resident would be solely responsible for abiding by the terms of residency, including remaining sober, participating in drug testing, observing curfew, performing chores, and cooking his or her own food. An individual could be expelled for non-compliance with the terms of residency without an eviction process or affecting the residency of other individuals in the same dwelling unit or bedroom. To meet the definition of an apartment house, a single individual or family functioning as a single housekeeping unit would need to inhabit each dwelling unit. In an apartment situation, there would not be multiple leases or rental agreements for occupancy of one unit and compliance with regulations is a Planning Commission Report Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 March 12, 2001 Page 5 "joint and several" obligation - if one resident fails to comply, then all residents are evicted. The uses are consistent with the definition of a boarding house for the following reasons: Lodging would be provided for compensation for more than three (3) individuals on each property, each dwelling unit, and each bedroom which is consistent with the definition of a boarding house which is "A dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." A total of 32 single beds would be provided in each four-unit complex and Bedroom 2 in Unit C would presumably accommodate a resident manager on each property; all other bedrooms would accommodate four (4) individuals and each dwelling would accommodate eight (8) individuals. Residents are not entitled to the use of garage spaces. Residents may rent garage spaces under separate financial arrangements. Residents would be supervised in a structured living environment which includes such obligations as: Signing an agreement to remain sober during their length of stay; Participating in mandatory periodic off-site drug testing and counseling; Observing a 10:00 p.m. curfew; Agreeing to not leave the property prior to 5:00 a.m.; Agreeing to having no visitors; Allowing searches of their personal property; Agreeing to work for a company or contractor forty (40) hours per week; Performing house chores; and, Buying and cooking their own food. Although this type of structure may be found in boarding houses, individuals or families residing in apartment houses and acting as single housekeeping units are not typically subject to such restrictions or limitations. Residents would reside at the properties as independent persons and would not form single housekeeping units. Residents do no select their bed assignment and do not select other individuals to reside with in a room or unit. Female residents are excluded from residing at these properties. Although residents would be required to perform house chores, they would buy and cook their own food and operate autonomously as individuals rather than as single housekeeping units. All of the residents would reside within a particular dwelling Planning Commission Report Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 March 12, 2001 Page 6 unit or property for various lengths of time under separate agreements and individual residents could be asked to leave within forty-eight (48) hours for non- compliance with the terms of residency without initiating an eviction process or affecting the residency of other individuals in their unit. The actions of each resident would affect only his or her residency. The desired residents are male individuals who wish to remain sober and are willing to share bedrooms with others; families have been asked to move out of the properties and females are not accepted. In December 1999, families who had lived in Units C and D of 14511 Car[ax Drive and Unit A of 14512 Car[ax Drive were told they would need to find other housing. Females are referred to other housing opportunities. Managers of apartment houses typically pursue families and individuals regardless of gender as desired tenants for separate dwelling units. Although the application indicates that the rent would be $1,600.00 for a two- bedroom unit and $1,800.00 for a three-bedroom unit, the applicant has indicated in the past that residents would pay approximately $400.00 per person per month. The Sober Living Rental Agreement (Attachment D) indicates that each individual would pay $500.00 per month. Staff has learned that some individuals have paid $15,000.00 for a 90-day term in rent for the use of a single bed and common areas. The amount of rent for some individuals may exceed the average market rents in Tustin which are approximately $400.00 to $500.00 for the sole use of an entire bedroom with kitchen privileges and $1,251.00 per month for a two-bedroom and two-bathroom unit and $1,641.00 for a three- bedroom and two-bathroom unit (per the Orange County Register and Preliminary Draft Housing Element Technical Memorandum). In addition, insurance coverage would be accepted as compensation which is not typically accepted for apartment rental payments. There is an off-site commercial component that is integral to the uses at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive. The office located at 14151 Newport Avenue is used as as a point of mail collection for residents, a counseling center for the residents of 14511 and 14512 Carl=ax Drive, and as a management office for these properties. Residents of 14511 and 14512 Car[ax Drive are required to receive their mail at 14151 Newport Avenue to avoid the risk of receiving drugs through the mail. Counseling and drug testing are terms of residency for individuals residing at the 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive. Off-site mandatory mail service as well as social and medical services are not typically associated with apartment houses in which Planning Commission Report Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 March 12, 2001 Page 7 individuals arrange their own mail service and establish and maintain their own social and medical services. FINDINGS Staff believes the uses that have been established at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive are boarding houses rather than apartment houses for the reasons outlined above and included in Resolution No. 3772 (Attachment E). In addition, Section 9298 of the Tustin City Code requires the Planning Commission to consider the following when considering use determinations: Effect upon the public health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood involved and the City at large; Effect upon traffic conditions; and, Effect upon the ordedy development of the area in question and the City at large, in regard to the general planning of the whole community. A total of 32 persons living independently within a building designed to accommodate multiple families has the potential to impact the welfare of the neighborhood on Carfax Drive with increased activity, noise, and traffic. A concentration of these uses at two separate properties has the potential to erode the character of the multiple family residential neighborhood existing on Carfax Drive and nearby streets. In addition, staff believes the environmental impacts associated with apartments are different than those associated with boarding houses (e.g. potential impacts on infrastructure including sewer, water, traffic, parking, etc. and noise). If the Planning Commission were to approve the uses as apartment houses, the Planning Commission would need to find that the established uses create the same or similar environmental impacts as apartments and that approving the uses as apartments is Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act since the use is not changing and only customary maintenance and repair work would be conducted. Since boarding houses are necessary components of a City's housing stock yet have the potential to adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare, the City Council, through Ordinance No. 1225, has deemed that boarding houses should be conditionally permitted and subject to environmental review. Conditional use permits provide for reasonable conditions of approval that mitigate the negative impacts of uses. Planning Commission Report Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 March 12, 2001 Page 8 Under the conditional use permit process for boarding houses, the applicant would need to show compliance with the development standards set forth in Section 922865 of the Tustin City Code, including the following: Requirements of Section 922865 Minimum Off-Street Parking: One space for each two (2) occupants. (1) Minimum Common Open Space: 300 square feet per boarding house and 50 square feet per occupant. Minimum Private Open Space: 25 square feet per occupant of partially enclosed areas assigned to individual occupants and/or rooms. Provided at Each Property For 33 persons, a total of 17 parking spaces would be required. A total of four (4) covered and five (5) open independently accessible spaces are )rovided. For 33 persons, a total of 1,950 square feet of common open space would be required. Since this area may not include driveways, parking area, or required front or side yard setback areas, the applicant has not provided plans which identify sufficient square footage for common open space for 33 persons. For 33 persons, a total of 825 square feet of private open space would be required. The applicant has not provided plans which identify sufficient area for pdvate open space. The original intent of the properties at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive were to accommodate four (4) independent families each. As such, the existing developments may not meet the needs of the proposed uses. If the applicant were able to comply with the development standards for boarding houses and mitigate any potential impacts, staff may be able to support conditional use permits for the proposed uses. Karen Peterson Senior Planner Attachments: Ao B. C. D. E. Location Map R-4 Zoning Application Materials/Plans Sample Contract/Sober Living Rules Resolution No. 3772 ATTACHMENT A Location Map .... L.OCAT! L ON MAP,../' WALNUT AVENUE ~ _.~/-~___ .: ~ ,. ~ ~ ~: · _ __ : ,'i,;' :': ', ;,' Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 1451] and 14512 Carfax Drive ATTACHMENT B R-4 Zoning .... ,, TUSTLN CITY CODE ZO.N"LNG 9227bll !1. _~_rchitectural approval: .All recreational and service structures, landscaping and the axzerior fence constructed in a mobile home or travel trailer park shall be approved by the .t~rchitectural Committee. - (Ord. No. 329, Sec. 2) 9228 SLq3UI{BAN RESIDENTI_~L DISTRICT iR-4) a Permitted Uses in the Suburban Residential District (R-4) none but the following uses, or uses wki~ in the opinion of the Planning Commission are similar, will be allowed, subject to the development suandards of this Chapter. 1. General farming of agricultural crops oh the land and =~razing, but not including any pou]~-?' or animal raising enzerprise conducted on a commercial basis. 2. Public recreation areas and buildings, parks, playSelds and playgrounds. 3. One-family dwellings, two (2) or more detached one-f~ml]y dwellings, ~vo-fami]y dwellings, mul~iple-f~ml]y dwellings and aparzment houses, all of a pemanent character-, placed in permanent locations. (Ord. No. 1225, Sec. 2, 1-17-00) 4. Accesso,~.- buildings, structures and uses, including recreational structures opp. to dwellings normally accessoQ, and incidental to the use of a building or premises for any of the uses permitted in this Section. 5. Home occupations in accordance ~-ith this Chapter. (Ord. No. 330.. Sec. 2a) 6. L~rge family day care homes, caring for seven (7) to twelve (12) children subject to the standards contained in the R-1 District re~ulations, Section 9223a.6. (Ord. No. 911. Sec. 5, 5-21-84) b Conditionally Permitted Uses The following are pe:xnitted uses, subject to the issuances of a use permit therefor, as prescribed in Section 9291: 1. Electric distribution substations, gas metering and regulating stations and other s~m~]ar public utility, structures and uses rendering direct serxdces to the public in a local azea. 2. Churches, museums, libraries, public schools and colleges, private schools and colleMes. 3. Private parks and recreation areas, recreation buildings, playfields and play~ounds, but not includin~ amusement parks or other par'~ of a commercial nature. Day nursez~' or nursery, school (a) M.qwimum height: 30 feet (b) Minimum building s~te area: 10,000 square feet REX'. ?-00 LU-2-23 TUSTLN CITY CODE ZONING 922864~ c ~ icl Minimum lot width a: property line: 100 feet (d) Mivimum fxont yard setback: 20 feet (e) Miu;mum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet Minimum rear yard setback: 25 feet (g) Off-sWeet parking: One (1) space for each staff member plus one (1) loading space for each eight (8) children. Loading spaces shall be located for easy ~rculation and shall not interfere with other required pazking. ih) Building requirements and indoor and outdoor space required p~ chi]d are established by the City of Tus~n Uni~%rm Building Code and by the State Department of Social Welfare. ii) Outdoor play areas shall be screened ~rom sm~rounding properties by a sLx-foot eight-inch high so]id wa]] or fence, except when play areas abut public park or pl a.~u~eld. Structares proposed for use as a day nurse~' or a nurse.~- school shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department prior ~o occupancy. (Ord. No. 372, Sec. 3 and 4) 5. Boarding Houses (a) M~.~mum height: 2 stories or 35 feet (b) Minimum building site: 7,500 square feet (c) M.~irnu_m lot coverage: 75 percent (d) Minirau~n front yard setback: 20 feet (e) Minhnum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet. Interior lot ]Lue: 5 feet Minimum rear yard setback: 25 feet (g) Minimum off-street parking: One (1~ par-k~.g space for each t~vo occupant~. Off-street parking shall be improved consistent ~5Cn the Ci~"s "Parking and Landscaping Developmen~ Standards," and each off-sweet pa~king spa~e shall be independently accessible. (h) ,M_j~;mu_m common open space: 300 square feet per boarding house and 50 square feet per occupant. Common open space shall consist of unenclosed or partially enclosed areas set aside for passive and active recreational uses. Common open space shall not include driveways, parking areas, or required front and side yard setback areas. (i) Minimum private open space: 25 square feet per occupant. Private open space shall consist of partially enclosed areas set aside for passive and a~-~ve recre- ational uses that are assigned to inclividual occupants and/or rooms, such as private patios or balconies. (Ord..No. 1225, Sec. 5, 1-17-00) Development Standards 1. Mm:imm height: 2 stories of 35 feet REV. 7-oo LU-2-24 TUSTL-N CITY CODE ZO_~LNG 922862 2. Minimum building site: 7200 square feet 3. Minimm front yard setback: 20 feet 4. Minimum side yard setback: Comer lot line: ] 0 feeti Inte.~or lot line: 5 feet 5. l%~inimum rear yard setback: 25 feet 6. ~Iinimum lot area per family unit: 3.000 square feet. (Ord..No. 202) 7. Off-sweet par-king: A minimum of t~vo (2) assi~_~ned covered parking spaces shall be prox-ided per unit. Additional]3; one (1) unassigned open guest parking space shall be prox-ided for eveQ' four (4) units. (Ord. No. 733, Sec. 6; Ord..No. 906, Sec. 7, 2-21-84) d Maylrnum Height, Excep~on No~vithszanding any provision ~o the conu~ary conzained in this Section 9228, when a lot in the R-4 Dis~'-ict abu~ at any point along its property lines or is directly across a s~eet or alley from prope.~y zoned R-A, E-4 or R-I (developed or undex'eloped), no main building shall be erected on said R-4 lot to a height to exceed one (1) story, and/or twenty (20) fee:, whichever is more res~rictive, within one hundred fifty (150) feet of said R-A, E4 or R-1 zoned propert-y, unless t'ne Planning Ageno, shall ~OTant a conditional use permi~ £nereof. (Ord...No. 862, Sec. 4, 12-21-81) P.E~: 7-00 LU-2-24.1 ATTACHMENT C Application Materials/Plans (Plans available at meeting and also provided in briefcases) DEVELOP[tENT APPLI0_ATI0kl :'~:::~.~:::'..:'. [oRu A.F~!is:.?~ (i~ difr,°ere.~-r): I'<cme Address Ci?y Pk, cne( cr Ccn?-~c? (if Nzme Ccm.~c.~y Address Ci?¥ ) For Office l/se Only Ne~ De" ~ ~.?.,c. 5¥ l Fees~c'd sheer if ne=ess.cry) f,nt lA and 15 of Tract Number 5028 in the city of Tustin, per Map recorded in Book 178, Pages 21 and 22 of Miscellaneous Maps RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2000 COMltfU//ITY OEVEL§PME ir'iUNITY/ O. AHPAICN O_.ONTRIBLITION ~T.~Te ¢_~ f~llo,w_~ in order To 6,.TecT comFiiznce with,, ~over~menT Code ~e~cn ~0~ ~. ~ec ~in ~e Ic~T ~eive 02),,m¢~-,,,, = I hove,mcd_~ ~e fcli~inc_ ccmF=i~n c2m~ibudom~ ~c _~ member 'd Lice.-..~_e E Permit i1 I:::lc n,-.i m_~ Commi_=_=ion I de~lore under P__xecuted 'rhi_~ Ccliforni¢. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTSIENT 300 Centennial ~[~; Tustin, CA 92780 (7]4) 573-3105 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To Be Completed by Applicant) I. GENEtL&L :fiNFOI:~'~L&TION Name and Address of Developer or Project Sponsor: Address of Project: ,,/ address mhd telephone number of person, to. be contacted concerning this project: Nme/:.~_ .4 ~c /44 s~ o ~-k- 7D.x 7-/4,' ; E.4 ~o~ 7~Yo 7/'4 -7,_q q Indicate the type of permit applications for the project to which this form pertains: 6. List and describe an)' other related permits not listed above and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: 7. Existing zoning district: 8. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): £nvironmental ]t~ormation Form I Il. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site size: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Square footage: Number of floors of construction: Amount of off-street parking provided: Proposed scheduling: Associated project: Anticipated incremental development: '7 If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected: ~-~ ~ ~'.o~2~,~>,~ Z~P-~-. / ,.~'~-~,~o~,~ ,,4~. 9. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities: 10. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilties: 11. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities and community benefits to be derived from the project: 12. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: Ill. ENVIRONMENTAL ~VIPACTS Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss all items checked yes on additional sheets and attach as necessary. 1. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 2. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing rdsidential areas, public lands or roads. © ® Environmental Information Form 2 YES lqO 3. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 0 ~ 4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 0 ~ 5. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in the vicinity. 0 ~ 6. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 0 ~' 7. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 0 (~ 8. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. C) (~ 9. use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic, flammable or explosive substances. 0 (~ 10. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, solid wasteYrecyclables, etc.). 0 ~ 11. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). (~ (~ 12. Relationship to a larger project or series ofprojects. C) ~ 13. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be acceptable. '7"yro 14. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.) intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. ~0g L tp r'Td,~"'e-- ~ ~L~p~-'~"~ ~-~ ,,,q ~- Environmental Information Form 3 IV. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date Signature Name Title ENVlNFO PM5 3701A Environmental Information Form 4 · Project Address: 14511 Carfax Ave., Tustin, Ca. 92780 Proposed Use: This 4 Plex apartment building has been leased to Pacific Park RecoveD, Center for use by their clients as a place of residence during their recoveD', It was previously used as an apartment and will continue to be used for that same purpose. Improvements: All improvements to the property are interior in nature with the exception of upgrading to the landscaping, security lighting, exterior painting and repaving the parking area. A block wall will be constructed to replace the existing wooden fence. RECEIVED FES 17 2000 COMMUNITY DEYELOPMENT ) ~'tc're C~.-,~uitzn-, s." C:n'r:,-.':' (if N-.c me ,~,ddress For O#ice Use Oniy LOt. 15 and 15 of Tract Number 5028 in the City of Tustin per MaD recorded in Book 178, pages 21 and 22 of Miscellaneous Maps. 7/c_6 RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2000 COAglifUN/)'), DEVELOPAIE BY NT ,.-1 ZNT [~).EPA~r-fiF__NT.... ..: ;:~.:::~::::...: ~.A~PAIQN ~.ONTRIBLITION ir, ~smmec~,',om wi~;, ~m~ ,-s ~ ~c,'-r c'F m,¥ ~-~lslic~f, sn for ~1 Ci,-y Csur.;il ~ Plo m,-.i r,~c Ccmmiss;sn I::: r'i,-.T Nome Project Address: 14512 Carfax Ave., Tustin, Ca. 92780 Proposed Use: This 4 Plex apartment building has been leased to Pacific Park Recover,,' Center for use by their clients as a place of residence during their recover'. It was previously used as an apartment and will continue to be used for that same purpose. Improvements: All improvements to the propertbj are interior in nature with the exception of upgrading to the landscaping, security, lighting, and exterior painting. Their currently exists a covered parking area that has a bathroom facility and previously housed filter and pumps for the pool that no longer is present. The future plan for this area is to turn this into a storage faciliD, for tools gardening supplies and equipment. ]'he plan is to enclose the front portion with a wooden wall. In addition, we propose to erect a cinder block wall in front of this structure as additional security for the storage faciliD'. The area where the pool had previously been (now filled in with dirt and gravel) is scheduled to be paved and used for parking. All the appropriate permits will be pulled once the use determination process is completed. RECEIVED FEB 1 ? 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEHT BY ~- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3105 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To Be Completed by Applicant) I. GENERAL 12~'FORMATION Name and Address of Developer or Project Sponsor: d q/.5 f .~V~-z__.~P Po,~ 7~ ./] ~ ,~ ~ ~ f 2. Address ofrroject: 3. Assessor's Parcel Number: ~,~. I ~-----~. (~ Name, add. re.ss and telephol3e number of person to be contacted concerning this project: ./vi A zc ~/4..5,_s-~ Indicate the type of permit applications for the project to which this form pertains: List and describe any other related permits not listed above and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: 7. Existing zoning district: 8. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): Environmental b~formation Form 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Site size: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Square footage: Number of floors of construction: Amount of off-street parking provided: Proposed scheduling: Associated project: / d./.~'// Anticipated incremental development: If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type ofhousehold size expected: _~ ace ,~1:)~1_ i3,?T.s. / ,~.B}P,.,n. ,t~-)w If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities: 10. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilties: 11. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities and community benefits to be derived from the project: 12. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: IlL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss all items checked yes on additional sheets and attach as necessary. YES NO 1. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 0 ~ 2. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas, public lands or roads. O Environmental Information Form 2 YES NO 3. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. (~) 4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. (~) 5. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in the vicinity. 6. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 7. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. (~) 8. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. (~) 9. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic, flammable or explosive substances. 10. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, solid waste/recyclables, etc.). 11. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 12. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. 13. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be acceptable. ~'"'y Pr,"~ ~ ~ P~,~-'r"~c' ,r0,D,g~'A~FI~'x~''~'' 14. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.) intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. Environmental Information Form 3 IV. CERTIYlCATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are tree and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature Name Date Title I:=NVINFO.PId$ $701A Environmental Information Form ~ 4 ATTACHMENT D Sample Contract/Sober Living Rules SOBER LIVING FINANCIAL _CONTRACT Cost of services rendered at the sober living is as follows: CLIENTS NAME STARTING DATE Phase II SOBER LIVING ONLY. $$00.00 PER MONTH Structured Jiving environment, 12-step participation & guidance and 24 hour access to staff. A 10% late fee will be charged to any.late payments. There is a three-day grace period for any late payments. CLIENT SIGNATURE DATE GUARANTOR S IG NATU RE DATE NO REFUND POLICY I, & FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A LEGAL AND BINDING CONTRACT AND AGREE WITH THE FINANCIAL TERMS LISTED IN THIS CONTRACT. SHOULD THE CLIENT BE ASKED TO LEAVE (OR) VOLUNTARILY DISCHARGE HIM/HER SELF, I WILL UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, BE ENTITLED TO (OR) RECEIVE ANY REFUND WHATSOEVER. CLIENT WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE REMAINING TIME AVAILABLE AFTER CLIENT HAS AGREED TO CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR. I HAVE READ AND RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS CONTRACT. Payee Initials Guarantor Initials Total Fee Due for: Phase !1 ..... $500.00 per month CHECKS MUST BE PAYABLE TO Pacific Park Recovery Center Client Signature Guarantor Signature Staff Signature Date Date Date Sober Living Rules THE FOLLO'.'.'ING AGREEMENT IS P,~IADE BETWEEN AND PACIFIC PAR1( FOE THE PI~O'.JISION OF SOEVER LIVING SEA',,'ICES DESIGNED 10 ASSIST PERSONS t,'.'1 TH ADDICTION PROBLEMS. GROUNDS FOR DISCHARGE IF YOU ARE AWARE THAT ANY CLIENT 1S IN VIOLATION OF ANY RULE LISTED BELOW. YO[J WILL BE CONSID.~i~ED IN VIOLATION OF THE SA~IE I~ULE AND HELD RESPONSIBLE. 6. 7. 8. 11. 12. 13. .15. 16. 17. 1~]. 19. 20. 21. 22. 2]. EVIDENCE OF DRUG OR ALCOHOL USE AFTER YOU NAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO THE FACILITY. NO VlSI[ORS ALLOWED ON PACIFIC PARK P~0PERi"r', (TILE VISIT0I~S WILL ASKED TO LEAVE THE PREMISES.) PARAPHERNALIA (SYRINGES. PAPERS. PIPES. SPOONS. ETC) ASSOCIATED VVITI. t DRUG USE ON PREMISES. CLIENT ARRIVING ON SIGHT UNDER THE INI~LUENCE WILL lnE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY AND WILL EIE TER~IINATED FROg'1 THE PROGRA~:. ALSO HISIHEF~ PAROLE OFFICER ANO THE COURTS I;VILL BE NOTIFIED. I~EI:USAL TO SUDMIT TOA DRUG TEST WHEN/~EQUESTED DY STAFF. DENYING ROOM AND PROPERTY SEA,Cfi I,~I, iEN T1EOUESTED. · EH'~ING1NG WEAPONS, DRUGS. OR ALCOHOL INTO THE FACILITY. PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. (ANY VIOLATION OF PtlYSICAL DOUNOARIES TO ANOTHER CLIENT OR STAFF REPEATED DISRESPECT TO STAFF. REPEATED BEHAVIOR THAT THREATENS TIlE [VIENTAL, PHYSICAL HEALT[.I OR WELL BEING OF OTHERS IN THE FACILITY. WILFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. (PROPERTY IVIEANS ANYT}IING THAT IS NOT YOURS). YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FINANCIALLY FOR ANY 13AI'~AGE CAUSED ElY YOU. CLIENTS REMOVING O~ DEFACING PACIFIC PARK PROPERTY. (~:ur~NITLmE. WALLS. APPLIANCES, ETC.). CLIENTS AI:IE NOT ALLOWED TO STORE FURNITURE. CARS. Orl ITEMS NOT BEING UTILIZED ON A DALLY DASIS. }tAVING PETS OF ANY KIND AT PACIFIC PA'RK (STATE HEALTH AND WELFARE COPE) FAILURE TO OBSERVE CURI:EVV. (CURFEW IS 11,00PM SUNDAY THROUGH TI, IURSOAY. 'I}~OOAM F~IDAY AND SATURDAY. FA1LURE TO O~SERVE LIGHTS OUT CURFEW. (LIGHTS.OUT IS 12,~OAL', SUND.",Y THROUGH TI'IUD. SOAY. 1OOAM FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, SEX WITH ANOTHEP~ CLIENT AT PACIFIC: PARK. OPPOSITE SEX A~E NOT ALLOWED TOGETHEr: (t','IEN WITH I'.'IEN' ',.',rO:.'lE~,~ V.'l TH v,' o M E N) I','tE,~,,; VISITING 1,',/OMEN'S HOUSE. O~ WOLIEN V/SITING I'.IEN'S HOUSES. ('HANGING.OUT' IN THE DOO]::IWAY OR STAIRS CONSTITUTES I",/O POR,"4OGRAPHIC I'.'IATERIALS OF AI';Y ],,.'I/N~D V/ILL P-E ALLO'.'/EO. PATIO. U;~IC. OURTEOUS T1EH;.VIOR TO Ah;'t'O.";E VISITI~;G. OR ST~'.'Yh";G I:~ PACIFIC PARI.: OR THE SURI~OU~,;DI:;G F,c. CILI I'Y. ,~0. 32. 34. 38. 40. 41. 42. 44. TATTO0,~, PIERCING. OR OTHER TYPES 01: PHYSICAL ALTERATION ARE NOT ALLOWED, CLIENTS ORIVING VEHICLES OR l%IOTORCYCLES ~'~LJST POSSESS AND PROVIOE COPIES OF CURRENT CDL. INSURANCE AND ~EG1ST~ATION. TArDiNESS OR ~,s~SSING 1~ STEP ~.SEETINGS ~'JITHOUT PRIO~ PE~P, tlSSlON STAFF. DISRUPTING CO?.1~g~JTY h~EE/ING. NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO USE OTHER CLIENTS ROOF.!S O~ IHEI~ BELONGIHGS (~NCLUDINGFOOD). r.~lSgS~ OF Tv, ~OTO~ VEHICLES. 0~ LOUD vOICES. WHICH D~STURB5 OTHERS THE FACILITY. ~'O STEREO EOUIP,%IENT IE~ GurTAR~. ~00~ ~OXES O~ AN~PLTFr~R~. KEEPING LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY PRESCRIBED ~EDICATroNs. ALL ~EOICATIONS ~IUST BE ~EPO~TEO AND TURNED IN TO STAFF UPON AO~ISSION (INCLUDING OVE~ THE COUN[ER ~IEOICATIONS]. FAILURE TO PERFOR~ 0~ SATISFACTORILY CO~IPLETE ASSIGNEO HOUSE CHORES. ALL APART~4ENT5. INCLUDING BED~OO~L BATHrOOm% KITCHEN AND LIVING ~ooM. r4UST ~E ~E~T CL~N ~T ~LL T~ES ~0 ~XCeP~ONS. CLIENTS OF APART~q~NTS THAT O0 NOT ADHERE TO THESE STANDARDS WILL LOS~ ALL P~IV1LEGES UNTIL CL1ENT CAN ~EEP HE,miS APARTmeNT CLEAN. YOU h~UST HAVE AN APPROVED SPONSOR. (REQUI~E~,~ENTS ~O~ A SPONSOR ~UST HAVE A ~NI~U~4 OF TWO YEARS SOBRIETY AND H~S WORKED ALL STEPS). CLIENTS ARE ~XCLUD~D FRO~ SPONSORING OTHER CLIENTS. CLIEN[S ~EQUESTING AN OVERNIGHT PASS ~qUST EITHER BE ~qAR~I~DORllAVE FAMILY IN THE AR~A. EACH CASE WILL BE EVALUATED 0N AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. OVER NIGHT PASSES ARE CONSIDERED ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S OVERALL P~OG~A~ PE~FOR~ANCE. ATTITUDE ETC. ~ORROWING OR LENOING ~ONEY WILL ~OT ~E TOLERATED. SALE OF ~NY ITEM TO ANOTHER RESIDENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. CLIENTS OF PACIFIC PA~K A~E NOT PERMITTED TO WORK FO~ OTHER CLIENTS. ~O EXCEPTIONS. CLIENTS WHILE ~T PAC1F1C PAR~ ~VILL ~E REQUIRED TO WORK FO~ OR CONTRACTOR. IE~ 8 HOURS A DAY. 40 HOURS A WEEK. NO CLIENTS WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE SELF E~PLOYEO, EXCEPT IF CLIENT H~S A ~US~NESS LICENSE, COMPANY O~ OUSINESS WELL ESTABLISHED CLIE~TSAREPROHIBITEDFRO~FREQUENTINGANY~A~.NIGHTCLUO CONCE~T DURING YOUR STAY AT PACIFIC PARD. Ct. lENTS A~E NOT ALLOWED TO SLEEP ON COUCHES DURING THE DAY. ~O ONE IS ALLOWED OUT OF THE APARTNtENTS ~EFORE 5~00 Ar, t. (EXCEPT WHEN VgOR~SCHEOULE APPLIES) CLIENT AGREES TDL[AVE PACIFIC PARK IF ANY OF THESE STANDARDS AND CO,%'tl','II TI%IE."~ TS ARE I~,~O T r,IET COB. IPLE 1ELY. FURTHER. THE CLIENT AGREES TO ABSENT SELF FROF,". PREI'.'~ISES Ir,'~P./tED[ATELY UPON DE~,InND OF STAFF ','./Il'fl THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS NO REFUNO OF I','IONE Y L','flATSOEVER WHEN DISCHARGED. CLIENT IS RESPO.~,/SIBLE FOR REPLACING AI',~Y I',I!S$1NG OR OAI',IAGED ITEP,IS T~II',T ARE SUPPL1ED BY PACIFIC PARK. SIGNATURE O~TE STAFF V.'l I' r;E SS I.agree that upon my discharge from Pacific Park Recovery Center I have 48 hours in which to remove all my belongings. If I do riot have my things removed they will be donated to the nearest charity. Pacific Park Recovery Center will not store or be held responsible for anyone's personnel belongings. No matter what the circumstances may be. Client ...................................... Staff ...................... PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER I II I ..... Personal Data ADMISSION DATE CDC# 'REFERRED BY PAROLE OFFICER CLIENT NAME ADDRESS NUMBER STREET STATE HOME PHONE( ).__ S.S.# -__ M__F AGE. BIRTHDAY__/ CLIENT EMPLOYED BY BUSINESS ADDRESS OCCUPATION BUSINESS PHONE¢ ( ) - CONTACT IN CASE OF EMERGENCY RELATIONSHIP REASON FOR GE'i-rING SOBER PAST HISTORY WITH CHEMICALS CITY - SEX MARITAL STATUS ZIP PHONE#L.__) - LENGTH OF USE LEGAL INFORMATION- ARRESTS DUI'S DIP'S ATTORNEYS NAME PHONE #( ) __ PLEASE SIGN TO INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ AND AGREE WITH THE ABOVE STATED INFORMATION CLIENT SIGNATURE DATE __/ I STAFF SIGNATURE DATE DATE I / CLIENT NAME DL # I III ADDRESS NUMBER HOME PHONE( ).__ ~GE~ BIRTHDAY~ CLIENTEMPLOYED BY BUSINESS ADDRESS I / STREET CITY SEX M F MARITAL STATUS STATE ZIP OCCUPATION BANK REFERENCE CHECKING ACCT NO. DATE' / / GUARANTOR NAME mm mm BUSINESS PHONE #( )__ ADDRESS SAVINGS ACCT NO. I II B GUARANTOR INFORMATION DL# S.S.# mm ADDRESS NUMBER HOME PHONE( }__ AG ~- BIRTHDAY GUARANTOR EMPLOYED BY BUSINESS ADDRESS / / STREET CITY SEX M F MARITAL STATUS STATE ZiP NUMBER STREET CITY OCCUPATION BUSIN¢.SS PHONE # ( GUARANTOR REI.~TIONSHiP TO CLIENT BANK REFERENCE ADDRESS CHECKING ACCT NO. STATE )__ PHONE#( ZIP SAVINGSACCTNO. PLEASE SIGN TO INDICATE THAT ALL INFORMATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE CL!ENT SIGNATURE GUAP~NTOR SIGNATURE STAFF StGN.~.TURE DATE I I DATE_ /,__/__ DATE__l__/__ PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER MANDATORY MEETING SCHEDULE (REVISED05/08/00) DAY OF THE WEEK SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY tVEDNESDA Y THURSDAY FRIDAY SA TURDA Y MORNING 6:00 AM A_a, Meetiug 130 W. blain St. 6:00 A.M. AA bleating 130 W. blain St. 6:00 A.M. AA MeetinR 130 W. blain St. 6:00 A.bl.. AA Meeting 130 W. blain St. 6:00 A.M. AA Meeting 130 W.. Main Street Olall) 6:00 A.M. AA Meeting 130 W. Main St.' (llall) EVENING L "/:30 P.M. Speaker bleeting Tustin Hospital Newport Ave 8:30 PM bLANDATORY HOUSE bIEETING 7:00 P.bI. men's stag Irvine OPEN blEETING NIGHT All PPRC Clients must attend thc meeting of their choice. 6:00 A.bl. AA Meeting 130 W. Main St. (Halt) 10AM Relapse Prevention Group 8:00 P.M. AA Discussion Meeting .. 130 V,'. Main St. {Hall) 7:30 PM 395 SOUTH TUSTIN AT THE CHURCH OPEN MEETING NIGHT Ali PPRC Clients must attend the meeting of their choice. March 12, 2001, Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH .12, 2001 7:00 p.m. Given All present Staff present Approved Adopted Resolution No. 3770 7:03 p.m. Adams Jodi Kulzer, Applicant 7:05 p.m. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney Karen Peterson, Senior Planner Patty Adams, Assistant Planner Eloise Hams, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS - None CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2001, REGULAR MEETING It was moved by Bell, seconded by Pontious, to approve the Minutes of the February 26, 2001. Regular Meeting. Motion -,carded 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-034 A REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO OPEF:;~A'I'E A GYMNASIUM/LEARNING CENTER FOR CHILDREN AND PARENTS. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 13112 NEVVPORT AVENUE, SUITE I, IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PC-C) ZONING DISTRICT. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 00-034 by adoptinG Resolution No. 3770. The Public Headng opened. Presented the staff report. Stated her wish to continue her work at this location. The Public Hearing closed. It was moved by Jennings, seconcied Dy Bell, to approve Conditional Use Permit 00-034 by adoptin~c Resolution No. 3770. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes - Planning Commission March 12. 2001 - Page 1 Continued Adopted Resolution No. 3772 Peterson Director CODE AMENDMENT NO. 000-01 - DRIVEWAY CODE AMENDMENT A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DRIVEWAYS AND SITE ACCESS WITHIN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission continue Code Amendment No. 00-01 to the April 23. 2001, Planning Commission meeting. It was moved by Miller, seconded by Pontious, to continue this item to the April 23, 2001, Piannin9 Commission meeting. Motion carried 50. REGULAR BUSINESS USE DE'I'ERMINATION NOS. 00-001 AND 00-002 A REQUEST TO DETERMINE THAT THE USES 14511 AND 14512 CARFAX DRIVE ARE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT USES. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 14511 AND 14512 CARFAX DRIVE (LOTS 14 AND 15 OF TRACT 5028) IN THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4). Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3772 denying Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 determining that the uses that have been established are not apartment uses and are boarding houses which require approval of a conditional use permit. Presented the staff report. Stated in July 1999, staff met with applicants, prior to the curTent use determination process, and outlined a procedure to legally establish their uses at this location; staff identified it as R-4 zoned property that did not allow sober living facilities or boarding houses; staff reviewed the Zoning Code in conjunction with the City Attorney's office and identified that boarding house was the most closely related use that would legally accommodate applicants' proposed use; staff suggested that the owners submit a use determination and conditional use permit application; however, in September 1999, staff received a letter from the applicants' attorney suggesting that the City process a zone change to accommodate the client's request; staff proposed to list boarding houses as conditionally permitted uses in the R-4 zoning district to establish a legal way for applicants to seek approval to ope, ate their use at these properties; staff provided a copy of the proposed Ordinance. held the appropriate public heatings before the Planning Commission and the Cib,.' Councit; staff received no objections to those public heatings; staff provided applicants ample opportunity in advance of those meetings to provide staff with comments: no comments were received nor were there any objections at any of the public hearings; staff sent numerous letters regarding information that would be Minutes - P~anning Commiss~n March 12,200~ - Page 2 Kozak Kevin Robinson, property owner's attorney Marc Kassoff, S & K Properties Nick Spadafino, Pacific Park Recovery Center Kenneth Hunt, recovering alcohol/drug abuser needed to bdng conditional use permit applications to the Planning. Commission for consideration; however, the applicants elected to submit a use determination application instead of a conditional use permit application; staff has not received a completed application; therefore, staff is bdnging this incomplete application forward for the Commission's consideration; if staff receives a plan showing compliance with the development standards identified in Ordinance 1225, staff may be able to support approval of a conditional use permit for boarding houses at the properties. The established uses are not apartments, and staff is recommending denial of the application. Invited applicants' representatives to speak. Stated applicants' belief that this recommendation for denial is not about apartment/boarding house definition but whether or not Tustin will allow recovering addicts/alcoholics to reside in the City; stated these residents are protected under the Federal Fair Housing Act as handicapped persons as well as 42 U.S.C. Section 3602; provided copies of a letter from a psychiatrist stating that recovering alcoholics/addicts need sober living facilities for recovery; stated applicants have the blessing of the County and State in providing this housing; delivered a petition showing support of neighbors; and, indicated he had requested through the City Attorney that the City reach an acceptable accommodation for his clients that would benefit the County and the City. Stated that when he purchased the property, there were 10-15 occupants in each apartment, far exceeding the current number; referred to spending approximately $100,00.0 to bring the property beyond the standards of the neighborhood; stated the use has not changed from the time of purchase; stated there have been no complaints from neighbors; stated this is a facility which provides a proper sober-living environment for people with nowhere else to go; and, asked the Planning Commission to reconsider stafrs recommendation. Asked that the Planning Commission let the City Council know this facility is a benefit to the City; stated he works closely with the Department of Corrections, the Parole Department, and the Tustin Police Department; stated that the Police Department has been invited to inspect the property whenever they choose, and these police visits have never produced any evidence of illegal activity; stated this is a very structured program, and residents cannot stay if they revert to drug or alcohol use; and, stated there were several residents in attendance who wished to give testimony. Stated a brief history of his life in and out of the prison system and his inability to stay clean and sober before arriving at the Carfax facility. Minmes - Planning Commission March 12, 2001 - Page 3 Mr. Robinson Indicated that other representatives could tell similar stories but felt that Mr. Hunt's testimony was sufficient. Kozak Director Kozak Ponfious Mr. Kassoff Mr. Spadafino Miller Asked staff for a definition of a boarding house. Indicated that definition was provided in the staff report, reread the definition, and acknowledged that it is a broad definition allowing for several uses within this broad class; stated there is no attempt to zone out or restrict the establishment of sober living environments; indicated staff is asking applicants to comply with reasonable regulations to legally establish such uses, including sufficient parking, sufficient private open space areas, and sufficient common open space areas; if applicants could meet these standards required for any land use, staff could support the proposed use at this location. Stated his belief that a sober living environment is beneficial for recovering individuals; noted this is a land use issue which requires compliance to establish a permitted use under R-4 with a conditional use permit; states that the application is incomplete; and, supported staffs recommendation of denial. Concurred w"~th the Chairman's comments; and, supported the staff recommendation. Returned to the lectem to state that by pidgeonholing applicants into a boarding house description, staff is changing what the use of the property is; there was never any parking requirement other than an apartment house which is the same the length of Caffax Drive; new owners buying fourplexes on Carfax Drive do not have to submft a conditional use permit; staffs claim that appiicants' use is other than an apartment house is incorrect since nothing has changed; applicants are being singled out; no other owner has been required to go through this process; and, asked why the City is discriminating against the applicants. Returned to the lectern to make a comparison with the building at 14555 Caffax Drive, which is housing fifteen people in one bedroom while his facility houses a maximum of eight people in two bedrooms; stated there is no counseling or therapy provided at the applicants' location; stated many of the residents at applicants' facility do not own automobiles so parking is not an issue; stated the residents of 14555 Carfax Ddve have numerous "junkers" sitting on the street; and, asked why the City is not pursuing the use of 14555 Cadax Drive. Asked if the applicant is running a business of keeping people sober which is different from a random group cooperating and paying rent in an apartment house; and, asked if the property was originally designated as a boarding house and then designated as a apartment house. Minutes - P;anning Commission March 12.2001 - Page 4 Mr. Kassoff Mr. Robinson Pontious Kozak Jennings Continued Responded that all apartment houses are run as businesses; stated this facility exists under a master lease to Pacific Park Recovery for a building owned by S & K Properties: provided the example of IBM signiqg master leases for workers to have a place to stay while on special projects; and, stated the monies paid by Pacific Park to S & K Properties are on a per- bed basis--S200 Der month per bed--which extrapolates to $1,600 per month for a two-bedroom apartment and falls well within the parameters prescdbed by the City. Referred to earlier meetings with staff dudng which the boarding house/apartment designation was discussed; stated his understanding that the City Council was amenable to changing the R-4 zoning to allow boarding houses would solve the problem; and stated that, rather than being pidgeonhoied one more time into a use applicants did not agree with, filing a use determination application before the Planning Commission seemed he ap~)ropdate action to resolve the situation. Stated her appmciatbn for the testimony and her respect for sober living facilities; stated that when presented with similar recovery facilities, there have always been conce,'ns and conditions in place regarding, the number of people involved, traffic concems, etc.; as important as the facility, is, there is more that can be do,~e to bring it into compliance; and, concurred with st, aff's recommendation denying the application. Pointed out that a conditional use permit has been the procedure in previous situations. Stated her feeling tha; such facilities are an asset to the recovering individuals and to the community; however, it is necessary to reach compliance; and, supported staffs recommendation. It was moved by PontJous, seconded by Jennings, to adopt Resolution No. 3772 denying Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 determining that the uses that haYe been established are not apartment uses and are boarding houses which require approval of a conditional use permit. Motion carded 4-1. Miiler abstained. Pointed out there is a seven-day appeal period winch expires at the close of business, March 19, 2001. CONTINUED DESIGN REVIEW 01-001 A REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO REPAINT THE BUILDING -~VTERIOR INCLUDING THE FASCIA, PARAPET WALLS, AND WAINSCOT WITH PEACH AND ORANGE COLORS. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 1091 OLD IRVINE 3OUL_--VARD WITHIN THE C-1 RETAIL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT. Minutes - P~anrang Commission March ~2. 2C~3~ - Page 5 Director Director repoAed Recommendation: That the Planning Commission continue Design Review 01-001 to the April 9, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. It was moved by Miller, seconded by Bell, to continue Design Review 01-001 to the April 9, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Added for the benefit of the applicants and owners that this may be appealed to the City Council; the Citv would need to receive the appeal, the reasons for the appeal, and the appropriate fee by the close of business Monday, March 29, 2001. 6. STAFF CONCERNS The City Council initiated amendments to the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan. Jennings Director Bell Director Pontious Miller The City Council tabled Ordinance No. 1234 amending terms of office of members of the Audit Committee. Noted that the current Pianning Commissioners will remain until their successors are appointed; there is not yet a date set for Planning Commissioner interviews. COMMISSION CONCERNS Asked if there has been any progress with Acorn Naturalists or the Tustin Car Wash. Answered that grading permits have been issued for the car wash; time has expired for Acorn Naturalists at that site, but there may be a plan for an Old Town location. Asked if there are plans for the small businesses burned at Larwin Square. Indicated ptans have been submitted into plan check tc expedite the issuance of permits and will follow the Vons amhitecture. Encouraged everyone's attendance at City Council meetings and speaking out to show support on the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan. Stated the Suffas Furrier appeal notice seemed ambiguous regarding the site address. Kozak Thanked staff for their assistance with Item No. 4 on this evening's agenda. Asked if there is any way s~aff, can facilitate Iow-interest loans for the small businesses at Larwin Square. Asked if measures can be implemented, such as holding the property owner accountable for permit Minutes - Planning Commission March 12.2001 - Page 6 requirements and notifying tenants of those requirements, to prevent situations like Item No. 2 on the agenda this evening. Diremor Indicated that staff will look into those issues and provide outreach wherever possible. Kozak Reported a box spring leaning against the dairy on Old Irvine Boulevard; and, sTated the ddveway access in that whole area is crumbiing. 8:12 p.m. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Bell. to adjoum to April 9, 2001. Motion carded 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, April 9, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. ~estie A. Pon'tious Chairpemon · ,...---; Elizabeth A. Binsack Planning Commission SecreTary Minutes - Planning Commission March 12, 2001 - Page 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3772 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 25 29 RESOLUTION NO. 3772 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DENYING USE DETERMINATION NOS. 00-001 AND 00-002 AND DETERMINING THAT THE USES AT 14511 AND 14512 CARFAX DRIVE ARE NOT APARTMENT HOUSES AND ARE BOARDING HOUSES WHICH REQUIRE APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS SUBJECT TO SECTION 9228(b)(5) OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby find as follows: Ao That applications, Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00- 002, were filed on February 17, 2000, by Marc Kassof requesting that the Planning Commission determine that the uses at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive (Lots 14 and 15 of Tract 5028) are apartment houses. Bo That the properties are located within the "Suburban Residential" zoning district and "High Density Residential" land use designation of the General Plan. That pursuant to Sections 9228(a) and 9298(b) of the Tustin City Code, the Planning Commission is authorized to determine whether uses are similar in character to the permitted and conditionally permitted uses of a particular zoning district. Do That the uses that have been established at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive are not consistent with the definition of an apartment house for the following reasons: The use of the property is not consistent with the definition of an "Apartment House" which is a building, or portion thereof, designed and built for the occupancy of three (3) or more families living independently of each other. A family is an individual or two (2) or more persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive are used and occupied in a way that accommodates eight (8) persons who are individually and separately responsible for the payment of rent. In addition, each person/resident is individually responsible for complying with the rules of the house. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 lg 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Resolution No. 377- Page 2 3. Although residents would share bedrooms and dwelling units, the eight (8) individuals in each unit would function independently and would not comprise a single housekeeping unit since they would reside at the properties for various lengths of times and pay rent as separate individuals. Each resident would be solely responsible for abiding by the terms of residency, including remaining sober, participating in drug testing, observing curfew, performing chores, and cooking his or her own food. An individual could be expelled for non-compliance with the terms of residency without an eviction process or affecting the residency of any other individuals in the same dwelling unit or even bedroom. To meet the definition of an apartment house, a single individual or family functioning as a single housekeeping unit would need to inhabit each dwelling unit. E,o That the uses that have been established at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive are consistent with the definition of a boarding house and constitute boarding house uses within the definition and meaning of the City's ordinances. Boarding house uses are permitted in the zoning district applicable to the subject properties, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 9228(b)(5) of the Tustin City Code. Under the City's land use regulatory program which would be applicable to the subject properties: Lodging would be provided for compensation for more than three (3) individuals on each property, each dwelling unit, and each bedroom consistent with the definition of a "Boarding House" which states, "A dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." In addition to a resident manager, a total of four (4) single beds could be provided in each room, eight (8) single beds could be provided in each dwelling unit, and thirty-two (32) single beds could be provided in each four-unit complex. Residents would not be entitled to use garage spaces; residents could be able to rent garage spaces under separate financial arrangements. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 lg 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Resolution No. 3772 Page 3 Residents could be supervised in a structured living environment which includes signing an agreement to remain sober during their length of stay, participating in mandatory periodic off-site drug testing, observing a 10:00 p.m. curfew; agreeing to having no visitors, allowing searches of personal property, performing house chores, buying and cooking their own food, and other types of rules. Residents would not select their bed assignment nor select other individuals to reside with in a room or unit. Female residents could be excluded from residing at these properties. Although this type of occupancy may be found in boarding houses, individuals or families residing in apartment houses and acting as single housekeeping units are not typically subject to such restrictions or limitations. Residents would reside at the properties as independent persons and would not form single housekeeping units. Although residents could be required to perform house chores, they could buy and cook their own food and operate as individuals rather than as single housekeeping units. All of the residents could reside within a particular dwelling unit or property for various lengths of time under separate agreements, pay rent as individuals, and individual residents could be asked to leave for non-compliance with the terms of residency without initiating an eviction process or affecting the residency of other individuals in their unit. The actions of each resident would affect only his or her residency and an on- going turnover of individuals is customary. The desired residents are individuals who wish to remain sober and are willing to share bedrooms with others; families have been asked to move out of the properties. Females are referred to other housing opportunities. In December 1999, families who had lived in Units C and D of 14511 Carfax Drive and Unit A of 14512 Carfax Drive told they would need to find other housing. Managers of apartment houses typically contract with individuals regardless of gender and families as desired tenants for separate dwelling units. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Resolution No. 377;, Page 4 5. Although the application indicates that the rent would be $1,600.00 for a two-bedroom unit and $1,800.00 for a three-bedroom unit, the applicant has indicated in the past that residents would pay approximately $400.00 per person per month and staff has learned that some individuals have paid $15,000.00 for a 90- day term in rent for the use of a single bed and common areas. The Sober Living Rental Agreement indicates that each individual would pay $500.00 per month. The amount of rent for some individuals may exceed the average market rents in Tustin which are approximately $400.00 to $500.00 for the use of an entire bedroom with kitchen privileges and $1,251.00 per month for a two-bedroom and two-bathroom unit and $1,641.00 for a three-bedroom and two-bathroom unit (per the Preliminary Draft Housing Element Technical Memorandum). In addition, insurance coverage would be accepted as compensation which is not typically accepted for apartment rental payments. o There is an off-site commercial component that is integral to the uses at 14511 and 14512 Can"ax Drive. The office located at 14151 Newport Avenue is used as a point of mail collection for residents, as a counseling center for the residents of 14511 and 14512 Can"ax, and as a management office for these properties. Residents of 14511 and 14512 Can"ax Drive are required to receive their mail at 14151 Newport Avenue to avoid the risk of receiving drugs through the mail. Counseling and drug testing are terms of residency for individuals residing at the 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive. Off-site mandatory mail service as well as social and medical services are not typically associated with apartment houses in which individuals arrange their own mail service and establish and maintain their own social and medical services. Section 9298 of the Tustin City Code requires the Planning Commission to consider the effect upon the public health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood involved and the City at large; the effect upon traffic conditions; and the effect upon the orderly development of the area in question and the City at large, in regard to the general planning of the whole community. A total of 32 persons living independently 1 2 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 15 14 15 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 Resolution No. 3772 Page 5 within a building designed to accommodate multiple families has the potential to impact the welfare of the .neighborhood on Carfax Drive with increased activity, noise, and traffic. A concentration of these uses at two separate properties has the potential to erode the character of the multiple family residential neighborhood existing on Carfax Drive and nearby streets. Since boarding houses are necessary components of a City's housing stock yet have the potential to adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare, the City Council, through Ordinance No. 1225, has deemed that boarding houses should be conditionally permitted. Conditional use permits provide for reasonable conditions of approval that mitigate the negative impacts of uses. Go That the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act) which states that projects that are rejected or disapproved by a public agency are not subject tO CEQA. The Planning Commission has considered the Staff Report, dated March 12, 2001, and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing on this application for determination held on March 12, 2001. The Planning Commission hereby resolves as follows: The applications for Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00- 002, requesting that tt~e uses at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive be determined to be apartment houses, are hereby denied. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of March, 2001. ELIZABETH A BINSACK- Planning Commission Secretary 1 2 6 7 Il 9 10 II 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 '~ 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Resolution No. 377z Page 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTYOF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3772 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of March, 2001. Planning Commission Secretary CITY COUNCIL REPORT ATTACHMENT 3 Appeal Letter received March 15, 2001 Letter received March 26, 2001 Kar. n Granoff Ce. rtifi~xi Par, Ingal March 14, 2001 KEVIN E. ROBINSON Attorney at Law Wellington Square 070 Wear 17~h St., 8oit. D ~anta Aha, CA 92706 Telephone: (714) 245-O210 Fax: (714) 9730244 Elizabeth Binsack Director of Community Development CITY OF TUSTIN 300 Centennial Way Tusfin CA 92780 Re: Use Determination Application Nos. 00-001 and 004302 Appeal from the City Planning Commission RECEIVED HAR 1 2001 !~~ DEYELOPMENT Dear Ms. Binsack: This letter will serve as the appeal from the City Planning Commission to the Tustin City Council. On March 12, 2001 the City Planning Commission denied the Use Determination Applications numbered 00- 001 and 00-002 submitted by Marc Kassoff on behalf of S&K Properties, Inc., the owner of the properties located at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Avenue in the City of Tustin. The specific grounds for the appeal include but are not limited to the following: 1. The City Planning Commission adopted the staff report of the Planning Department. The City Planning Commission failed to take into consideration the evidence presented at the hearing by the property owner. The City Planning Commission failed to take into consideration the applicable federal laws, including but not limited to the United States Constitution, the Federal Fair Housing Act and the American Disabilities Act. The City Planning Commission erroneously adopted the recommendation finding that the uses of these properties are a boarding house. The City Planning Commission erroneously found that the uses of these properties are not as an apartment house. The City Planning Commission and the City Planning Department failed to agree to a reasonable accommodation as required under the Federal Fair Housing Act. The City Planning Commission and the Community Development Department are arbitrarily and capriciously discriminating against handicapped persons. March 15, 2001 Page 2 o The City Planning Commission and the City Planning Department arbitrarily and capriciously applied an unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous zoning ordinance. The City Planning Commission and the City Planning Department have deprived the owner of the property of its right to use this property and therefore it is an unconstitutional deprivation of property. 10. The City Planning Commission and the City Planning Department failed to consider the community support for the use of these properties. The fee of $125.00 for appealing this matter as represented by the Planning Department is enclosed herewith. KEVIN E. ROBINSON KER:kog cc: PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER C:\FILF~\Paeifie ParkkAPPEAL Kar~n Granoff Certified Paraleg~l KEVIN E. ROBINSON Attorney at Law Wellington Square 970 West 17th St., S~itz D Santa Aha, CA 92706 Telephone: (714) 245-0210 Fax: ('/14) 973-0244 March 20, 2001 City Planning Commission Attention: Stephen Kozak, Chairman 300 Centennial Way Tusfin.. CA 92780 RECEIVED MAR 2 6 2001 CO NiTY, DEVE .OPA, iENi Community Development Director City of Tustin Attention: Elizabeth A. Binsack 300 Centennial Way Tustin CA 92780 JASON E. RESNICK Asst. City Attorney Woodruff Spradlin & Smart 701 S. Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92868 Re: Use Determination Applications 004301 and 00-002 Dear Sirs and Madam: On behalf of my clients, we would propose the following reasonable accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act. We have compared the requirements under the boarding house restricfiens that the city would like us to comply with and would make the following offer. This ie~r is in no way to be interpreted that my clients agree that they are operating a boarding house at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Avenue in the City of Tustin. As we understand the requirements that the City of Tusfin would like us to comply with is: (1) Minimum common open space of 300 square feet per boarding house and 50 square feet per occupant. (2) Minimum private open space of 25 square feet per occupant of partially enclosed areas. (3) Minimum off-street parking, one space for each two occupants. Currently the properties can meet the following requirements. (1) In reference to minimum common open space, 14511 has at least 2,187 square feet of common open space. 14512 has approximately 1,950 square feet of common open space. March 20, 2001 Page 2 This does not include any set backs or side yards. This would qualify both properties under the minimum common open space requirement. (2) We believe the properties can also qualify under the minimum private open space of 25 square feet per occupant. Currently 14512 has approximately 50 square feet of partially, enclosed patio, 225 square feet of lawn area and 792 square feet of front lawn common area. 14511 has 260 square feet in five patios and an additional 565 square feet of lawn area. Again, this meets or exceeds the 825 square feet of private open space. These areas are not included in the above common open space and all can be dedicated to private open (3) As we understand, the current requirements for off-street parking are one space for every two occupants. At this time the properties have 18 parking spaces and my clients believe that an additional six parking spaces can be provided for a total of 24 parking spaces. If the city would agree to a 'variance" allowing my clients to operate with a one to three ratio, then we would fulfill the parking space requirement. I believe it is also important for the City to realize that a substantial number of residents of the properties are newly released from prison and only approximately 20% of them have motor vehicles to drive. Considering this fact, we believe that the three to one parking space ratio would be more than adequate. Finally, my clients would need approximately six months in which to complete the enclosing of the private open space and the construction of the additional parking spaces. My clients would apply for and be issued the appropriate building permits for any work that requires the same. Therefore, we would request that the City of Tustin accommodate my clients in issuing a permit to operate this sober living facility conditioned upon completing the above construction of the private open space and the parking spaces within a reasonable time. Also the pending litigation would be dismissed and/or continued while the above process is completed. Please consider this offer fully and respond to this office.  _y0_urs, .... ... KEVIN E. ROBINSON KER:kog cc: Nick Spadafino, Pacific PaP~ Rccovcry Center C:\FlLES\PacificPark\City-Resnick letter CITY COUNCIL REPORT ATTACHMENT 4 January 14, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report January 28, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Resolution No. 3814 ITEM #3 aport to the Planning Com mission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: JANUARY 14, 2002 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-017 AND 01-018 MARK KASSOF S & K PROPERTIES 10175 SLATER AVENUE, SUITE 170A FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92706 14511 AND 14512 CARFAX DRIVE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4) THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301, CLASS 1 OF TITLE 14, CHAPTER 3 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (GUIDELINES FOR THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT). REQUEST TO ESTABLISH BOARDING HOUSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING A SOBER LIVING FACILITY RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3814 approving Conditional Use Permit Nos. 01-017 and 01-018 to establish boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility. BACKGROUND On April 2, 1964, the County of Orange issued Certificates of Use and Occupancy for a four-unit dwelling and two (2) two-car garages on each property located at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Ddve (Attachment A - Location Map). This area was annexed to the City in 1980. On July 30, 1999, Nick Spadafino and Marc Kassof, owners of the Pacific Park Recovery Center, met with representatives from the Community Development Department and Redevelopment Agency to outline a proposed sober living facility at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive within the Multiple Family Residential (R-4) zoning district. Planning Commission Repod CUP Nos. 01-017 & 01-018 Januaw 14,2002 Page 2 On August 3, 1999, the Community Development Department notified the applicant that staff had determined that the proposed sober living facilities are considered boarding houses under the Tustin City Code and would require Use Determination and Conditional Use Permit applications. The Use Determination process was required since boarding houses were not listed as permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the R-4 zoning district. On September 8, 1999, staff received a letter from the applicant's attorney, Kevin Robinson, suggesting the City process a zone change to accommodate his clients proposed uses. On January 17, 2000, adopted Ordinance No. 1225 expressly permitting boarding houses within the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district, subject to a conditional use permit. On February 17, 2000, the applicant submitted Use Determination applications requesting that the Planning Commission determine that the uses at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive are "apartments" rather than "boarding houses". On March 12, 2001, the Planning Commission considered information regarding the use of the subject residential properties and denied Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 finding that the uses are not apartments and are boarding houses which require approval of a conditional use permit. On March 15, 2001, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision. Prior to the appeal hearing, the applicant informed staff that he intended to submit conditional use permits to establish sober living facilities and requested that the appeal hearing be continued. The City Council continued the appeal hearing from Apdl 16, July 16, and October 15, 2001, to February 5, 2002, to allow the applicant time to complete his conditional use permit applications, which were submitted on July 18, 2001. On December 10, 2001, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the conditional use permit applications to January 14, 2002. DISCUSSION Section 9228 of the Tustin City Code conditionally permits boarding houses which are defined as, "a dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." The facility would provide sober, supervised housing accommodations for men who wish to remain sober and are willing to share bedrooms with others. A total of sixty- three (63) residents including (2) managers are proposed to reside in the two (2) residential buildings at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive (Attachment B - Submitted Plans). Each building has four (4) separate residential units. However, as discussed under the "Parking and Access" section, there is sufficient parking for only sixty-two (62) persons based upon the provision of twenty-two (22) parking spaces and the applicant's proposed ratio of .35 parking spaces for each person. In addition, it is recommended that the facility be required to provide a common trash enclosure for the facility Planning Commission Repod CUP Nos. 01-017 & 01-018 Janua~ 14,2002 Page 3 (Condition No. 2.9) and disabled parking (Condition No. 2.6), which may reduce the number of parking spaces, and thus the total number of residents. Staff estimates that the trash enclosure and disabled parking may require the removal of two (2) parking spaces, which would reduce the total number of persons to fifty-seven (57). The desired residents are male individuals; females would not be accepted and would be referred to other housing opportunities. Participants would pay approximately $400.00 per person per month in rent and the facility would accept insurance coverage as compensation. A typical length of stay would be ninety (90) days. The facility would accept men who had been through rehabilitation programs provided they agreed to remain sober during their stay and would accept men who were referred by the court to the facility as an option to jail. The facility would operate under "Sober Living Facility Rules" included as Exhibit B of Resolution No. 3814 (Attachment E) and summarized below: · Residents · Residents · Residents times. · Residents Residents would be required to sign an agreement to remain sober during their length of stay and participate in off-site counseling and mandatory drug testing. Residents would not be able to have visitors. would not be able to visit other units within the facility. would be required to observe curfews. would be required to maintain their units in a clean condition at all would not be able to engage in inappropriate or disruptive behavior. Residents would be required to work at least eight (8) hours a day or forty (40) hours a week. Residents would need to be approved to maintain vehicles at the properties. Residents would reside within a particular dwelling unit or property for various lengths of time under separate agreements and individual residents could be asked to leave within forty-eight (48) hours for non-compliance with the terms of residency without initiating an eviction process or affecting the residency of other individuals in their unit. To mitigate potential impacts associated with the proposed use, the following conditions of approval are recommended: Condition No. 3.1: The use would be limited to no more than sixty (60) residents and two (2) on-site managers and the operator would be required to provide a roster of names and identification of current tenants to the Community Development Director upon request to verify tenancy. Condition No. 3.2: The operator, managers, and residents would be required to abide by the "Sober Living Facility Rules" as submitted by the applicant. Any changes would need to be approved by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission. Planning Commission Report CUP Nos. 01-017 & 01-018 January 14, 2002 Page 4 Condition No. 3.3: A manager would be required to be on-site 24 hours a day for each complex Condition No. 1.8: The use would be reviewed on an annual basis or more often, if necessary, to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. Traffic, Parking, and Access The proposed facility would be located on a local street with an estimated capacity of 2,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day and estimated usage of 700 vehicles per day. The proposed project would add approximately 145 daily tdp ends per day to the street, which is below the capacity of the street. As such, the addition of project traffic is not anticipated to result in any significant traffic impacts. Section 9228 of the Tustin City Code requires one (1) parking space for each two occupants. Using this ratio, the facility could accommodate a total of forty-four (44) persons. However, the applicant submitted a parking demand analysis to demonstrate the actual parking needs of the proposed facility (Attachment C). The Planning Commission will need to determine that the proposed parking is adequate for the facility. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed and accepted the submitted parking analysis which requires .35 parking spaces for each resident. For a total of sixty-three (63) persons, a total of twenty-three (23) parking spaces are required. The site plan indicates that there will be only twenty-two (22) parking spaces; fourteen (14) unenclosed spaces and eight (8) enclosed garage spaces. Condition No. 3.1 would require that the applicant provide an additional parking space or reduce the number of occupants by one (1) person to meet the ratio of .35 parking spaces for each occupant as provided in the parking analysis. To mitigate potential parking problems associated with the facility, the following conditions are recommended: Condition No. 3.4: The applicant shall ensure that no more than .35 of the persons accepted to reside at the facility maintain a vehicle at the site. Condition No. 3.5: Residents shall park all vehicles on the properties at 14511 and 14512 Cad:ax Drive within designated parking spaces as shown on the approved site plan and shall display parking permits issued by the applicant and/or on-site managers. The applicant shall submit a parking permit plan for residents and managers, for review and approval of the Community Development Department. On-street parking will not be allowed. Condition No. 2.5: The applicant shall obtain permits for and complete installation of the approved parking configuration within sixty (60) days of approval. Condition No. 3.6: The applicant shall record a reciprocal parking and access agreement for 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive. Planning Commission Repod CUP Nos. 01-017 & 01-018 Janua~ 14,2002 Page 5 Condition No. 3.7: The applicant shall record a deed restriction within sixty (60) days of approval which states that the garages shall be used for vehicular storage by the occupants of the sober living facility. Open Space Tustin City Code Section 9228b(5) requires 300 square feet of common open space per boarding house and 50 square feet of common open space per 'occupant. The applicant has provided a total of 4,229 square feet of common open space, which exceeds the required amount of 3,750 square feet for 63 occupants. Private enclosed open space is required at a ratio of 25 square feet per occupant. The applicant has provided a total of 1,694 square feet, which exceeds the required amount of 1,575 square feet for 63 occupants. Consistent with the site plan, Condition No. 2.2 would require the applicant to install fencing around private open space areas within sixty (60) days of approval. Driveway Standards and Landscaping Currently the driveway areas within the required front yard area of both properties are entirely paved. Tustin City Code Section 9271bb(a) limits the amount of paving in the required front yard setback to no more than seventy-five (75) percent for cul-de-sac properties. Condition No. 4.1 would require the applicant to reduce the paving within the required front yard area by providing landscaping that would not obstruct ingress and egress to the sites. Site Conditions There is an existing shed located at 14512 Carfax Drive. The site plan indicates that the existing storage/recreation building will be demolished. Condition No. 2.3 would require the applicant to obtain a demolition permit and complete demolition of the shed within sixty (60) days from approval. In addition, the following conditions are recommended: Condition 2.9: The applicant would be required to install a common trash enclosure. Condition No. 3.8: The property owner, operators, and managers would be responsible for daily and regular cleaning and maintenance. Condition No. 3.9: No outdoor storage would be allowed. Public Comments On December 13, 2001, the Community Development Department received a comment letter in response to the public noticing for the proposed use. The letter and staff responses are included as Attachment D. Planning Commission Report CUP Nos. 01-017' & 01-018 January 14, 2002 Page 6 ANALYSIS In considering the approval of Conditional Use Permits 01-017 and 01-018, the Planning Commission must find that the establishment, and the maintenance or operation of the use applied for, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. A decision to approve Conditional Use Permits 01-017 and 01-018 can be supported by the following findings: 1) The proposed use is consistent with the definition of a boarding house in that lodging would be provided for compensation for more than three (3) individuals on each property, which is consistent with the definition of a boarding house which is "A dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." 2) The proposed use complies with the development standards for a boarding house as required in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9228b(5), with the exception of parking. A parking demand analysis has been provided that demonstrates .35 parking spaces are needed for each resident given the nature of the use and clientele. If the use operations deviate from the parking demand analysis or the conditions of approval, and if there are parking problems associated with the use, the applicant would be required to identify and mitigate any impacts or discontinue the use. 3) As conditioned, the proposed use would be compatible with uses in the surrounding area and will not be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity or to the welfare of the City in that the nature, operation, and scale of the sober living facility is compatible with surrounding residential uses. Karen Peterson Senior Planner Attachments: B. C. D. E. Location Map Submitted Plans Parking Analysis Public Comment Resolution No. 3814 ATTACHMENT A Location Map LOCATION MAP ; .~,~ PROJECT NO. --.-- ADDRESS ' ~""' 14512. I~+ , CITY I ATTACHMENT B Submitted Plans .qAEI(I !! I : Il, FLOOR PLANS PROPERTIES -~ ~ ....._: I .";' FLOOR14*~*I~ CAI~FAXpT.~j~.~ DRIVE ]? ,~' S & K PROPERTIES I I l~ I I i. 14511 & 14512 CARF~ DRJVE ~' TUS~N, CA~FORNIA .> S & K PROPERTIES 14511 & 14512 CARF,~X DR.WE TUST!N. CALIFORNIA EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S & K PROPERTIES 1.;511 & 14512 CARFAX DRIVE TL'STIN, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C Parking Demand Analysis FROM: DA'ri'.: loc ~ CARFA~ -S~ L/VING PARKL'NG C~x $ob=r tivi~ i~ pzopom~ a .~-y in Tus~in. Au-~-Foust A~oo:ates, -"nc. (Al=A) ofTu~'~ do~s ~lot I3z~ a =od~ ,"e. qi6r=~emr whi~ ~ rbis uniquo rppc cr~ us~. examined 1. Phoe. n:~ Hous~ ~. ~o1~ L,iv'mg by tl~ ~a 12177, Ymit Sing..et, Sanest ,~,a 13682 Yn.-ba Scr~---'t, Tmrtin ~11 Villa Wa/,.; bl~w,-~ort :B~ch Hotme prov;~io~ a ~r-ilar .--u-~ki~nt prol~'am. That i.~, x~l~m (client) xm:y' ar f~e ia.~y ~;~r~ Don= C. C-ttmor= Com.oany Pase 2 SepTember 11, 2001 three reside=cs, CazTm~ Sob~ L/viul~ facility in Tam= ~ =r~a~= · need for 0.35 par~nl~ .mac=s for each rcsideat. A~ [ 5:~ S~ 8 ~ 2:00 17 ~) 3O 21 ~9 ATTACHMENT D Comment Letter and Staff Responses CiB' of Tustin Planning Commission Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 December 4. 2001 Sir: This is in response to the Ci~, of Tustin Official Notice of Public Hearing published in the Tustin Weekly, 11/29/01. The notice was for a Conditional Use Permit 01-017 and 01-018. Following are issues that I believe should be addressed by the Planning Commission prior to their authorization for a sober living facili~' at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Avenue: Is there a sober living facility, at those locations at the present time? [] If there is, what b'Pe of authorization are they operating under? [] Is there a specific legal description of a "sober living facilib~'? [] lfthere is a legal description does the current facility meet all the standards? [] >a'e the standards measurable? [] Is the sober living facility being operated by a for-profit or a nonprofit organization? [] Whal is the record of the organization regarding compliance of all city, count', state, federal laws/regulations in other sober living facilities they operate or have operated? [] Have all participants in the organization been identified and had a background check? Have any of these participants been involved in any other sober 1Mng facility that was cited, or fined, or closed for any violation of eiB', counB,, state, federal law/regulation? [] Is the organization required to have insurance that would cover the actions of the "sober"' person both in the facility.' and at-large. [] Who determines which "sober" persons are 'allowed residency? [] Is there a specific criteria? [] Are those "sober"' persons allowed to bring personal items to the faciliB'? [] >d-e there specific roles that determines what is a weapon among personal effects? [] Who makes the inspection of the personal effects to determine if there are any weapons? [] What are the statistics of Law Enforcement response, types of crimes, arrests, etc., for 14511 and 14512 Carfax fi.om the time the facilities were opened until the present? [] How many "sober" persons are living in the two locations? [] Since "sober" would mean absence of addiction just what are the persons living in the facilities "sober" fi.om, alcohol, drugs, sex. etc.? r-, What are the statistics of Fire Deparunent response, fire, medical, inspection, etc.. [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] for those locations from the time the facilities were opened until the present? Have there been documented ciV,., code inspections m the facilities? Are the number of city. code inspections consistent with proper enforcement of eit3.' codes? If city code violations were discovered what were the violations, and the disposition of those violations? Have there been documented count3: health department inspections at 'the facilities? Are the number of count3' health department inspections consistent with proper enforcement of county health re~mflations? If county health department violations were discovered what were the violations, and the disposition of those violations? What type of supervision is provided,, live-in 24/7/365, da.vtime only, nighttime only? What type of training are the "supervisors" required to have? Have the "supervisors" had back~ound checks to veri~, their qualifications? Have any of the "supervisors" had problems with "sober" persons that had to be reported to any agency of the ci~', count3', state? What is the frequency of the reported problems? How were the reported problems resolved? Are any of the "sober" persons on parole or probation? What are the crimes the "sober" persons were convicted of?. Have any of the "sober" persons violated the terms of their parole/probation in the past? lfthere have been parole/probation violations what .type of monitoring do the "sober" persons have to comply with, check-in/check-out, ankle monitor, house arrest, etc.? Are there provisions for search without warrant for those on parole/probation? Have any of the "sober" persons ever been lawf-ully committed/voluntarily committed to anv mental facility an)wvhere? Are any of the "sober" persons under the supervision of any court? Are securit3, guards hired to maintain seeuritx' on the premises and vicinity? V, rhat Lype of training/licenses are the securit3' guards required to have? Have the securi~, guards had back.m'ound checks to verif>' their qualifications? Do the "sober" persons commute to other locations for worlc U'eatment, training, etc.? If'the "sober" persons commute, is their transportation provided for by vans, taxis, etc., that would pick them up at the facility and return them to the facility or do they use public transportation (buses) or do the3' have their own vehicles? What would the traffic impam be on the area? Ifthere is no sober living facility at the two locations then the above list of questions should be used as a planning tool to determine if the neighborhood in question is the proper location tbr the treatmenl of the "sober" persons. The neighborhood is designated as high density residential and a tour of the area would veri~ that fact. Public u'ansportation is not immediately available so these "sober" persons would be in close contact with the residents of the area in their movement to and from p~blic transportation. David O. Finney,.. f" ATTACHMENT D (CONTINUED) STAFF RESPONSES Letter dated December 4. 2001. from David Firmer: Is there a sober living faciliD' at the locations at the present time? If there is, what D'pe of authorization are they operating under? The applicant has operated a sober living facility at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive since 1999. The City does not rebmlate "sober living facilities;" however, the nature of the use has been characterized by the City as a boarding house, which is a use permitted subject to a conditional use permit. Ihe applicant has filed an application for a conditional use permit to operate a boarding house at these locations. ge Is there a specific legal description of a sober living facility? If there is a legal description, does the current facility meet all the standards? Are there measurable standards? Under the Tustin City Code, the proposed use is considered a boarding house. Section 9228 of the Tustin City Code conditionally permits boarding houses wh/ch are defined as, "a dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and:or meals for three (3) or more persons is pro~4ded for compensation." Boarding houses are regulated through conditional usc permits granted by the City. Slaff is unaware of any license or permits that are required for the proposed use since medical treatment is not proxrided at the properties. The facility meets the development standards for boarding houses with the exception of parking. However, the applicant has submitted a parking demand analysis to demonstrate the actual parking needs of the facility and the Planning Commission will determine whether sufficient parking is provided. is the sober living facility being operated by a for-profit or a non-profit organization? The City is unaware of whether the facility, is operated "for-profit" or "non-profit." The City does not regulate sober living facilities as such and the City Attorney has advised the Community Development department that such consideration is not relevant to the City's land use regulations and obligations. 0 e What is the record of the organization regarding compliance with all ciO', count).', state, and federal la~vs/regulations in other sober living facilities they operate or have operated? The Tustin City Code does not require submittal of information related to another facility that the applicant may have operated. The Planning Commission must consider whether the proposed use is appropriate for thc proposed location. Have all participants in the organization been identified and had a background check? Have any of these participants been involved in any other sober living facility that was cited, or fined, or closed for an)' violation of city, count3.', state, or federal laws/regulations? The applicant and property owner is Marc Kassoff. The Tustin City Code does not require background checks to be conducted for applicants for conditional use permits. Is the organization required to have insurance that would cover the actions of the "sober" person both in the facility and at-large? The Tustin City Code does not require an applicant to obtain insurance to operate a boarding house. Who determines which "sober" persons are allowed residency? Is there specific criteria? The applicant would determine who may reside at the premises in accordance with the conditions of approval stipulated in the conditional use permit. Are those sober persons allowed to bring personal items to the faciliB'? Are there specific rules that determine what is a weapon among personal effects? Who makes the inspection of the personal effects to determine if there are any weapons? If approved, the facility would be required to operate in accordance with the conditions imposed on the conditional use permit. Weapons would be prohibited by Condition No. 3.2 which imposes the "Sober Living Facility Rules" provided by the applicant. The property owner, operator, and managers would be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions and rules. ~'hat are the statistics of Law Enforcement response, types of crimes, arrests, etc., for 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive from the time the facilities were opened until the present? The Community Development Department does not have any information regarding these issues. The City does not regulate sober living facilities and the City Attorney has advised that such considerations are not relevant to the City's land use decision making process. 10. How man)' sober persons are living in the two locations? The facility would provide sober, supervised housing accommodations for men who wish to remain sober and are willing to share bedrooms with others. A total of sixty-three (63) residents including (2) managers are proposed to reside in thc two (2) four (4) unit residential buildings at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive, however, there is sufficient parking for only sixty-~vo (62) persons, if approved, the applicant would be required to provide additional parking or reduce the number of residents. 11. Since sober would mean absence of addiction just what are the persons living in the facilities sober from? The applicant has indicated that residents must abstain from drugs and alcohol. 12. What are the statistics of Fire Department response, fire, medical, inspection, etc.? The Community Development Department is not aware of any unusual activity or response at the properties. 13. Have there been documented city code inspections at the facilities? Are the number of cil?' code inspections consistent with proper enforcement of city codes? If city code violations were discovered, what were the violations and the disposition of those violations? The properties have been the subject of a number of code enforcement inspections and actions for Uniform Building Code and zoning code violations. By pursuing approval of conditional use permits, the applicant is showing pro~ess in recti~ring the outstanding violations. 14. Have there been documented county health department inspections at the facilities? Are the numbers of count3.' health department inspections consistent with proper enforcement of county health regulations? If count? health department violations were discovered, what were the violations, and the disposition of those violations? The proposed facility is not regulated by the Orange County Health Care Agency and does not require inspections. 15. What ~'pe of supervision is provided? What type of training are the supervisors required to have? Have the super~'isors had background checks to verify their qualifications? The applicant is proposing to provide two (2) managers that will be on the premises 24 hours each day. 16. Have any of the supetw'isors had problems with sober persons that had to be reported to any agency of the city, counW, or state? Vqhat is the frequency of the reported problems? How were the reported problems resolved? The Community Development Department does not have any information regarding these issues. The City does not regulate sober living facilities and the City Attorney has advised that such considerations are not relevant to the City's land use decision making process. 17. Are any of the sober persons on parole or probation? What are the crimes the sober persons were convicted of?. Have any of the sober persons violated the terms of their parole/probation in the past? If there have been parole/probation violations, what type of monitoring do the sober persons have to comply with? Are there provisions for a search with a warrant for those on parole/probation? The Community Development Department does not have any information regarding these issues. The City does not regulate sober living facilities and the City Attorney has advised that such considerations are not relevant to the City's land use decision making process. 18. Have any of the sober persons ever been lawfully committed/voluntarily committed to any mental facility an?vhere? The Community Development Department does not have an)' information regarding these issues. The City does not regulate sober living facilities and the City Attorney has advised that such considerations are not relevant to the City's land use decision making process. 19. Are any of the sober persons under the supervision of any court? The Community Development Department does not have any information regarding these issues. The City does not regulate sober living facilities and the City' Attorney has advised that such considerations are not relevant to the City's land use decision making process. 20. Are security guards hired to maintain security on the premises and vicini~'? What type of training are the security, guards required to have? Have the guards had background checks to veriB' their qualifications? The applicant is proposing to maintain m'o on-site managers. No security guards are proposed. 21. Do the sober persons commute to other locations for work, treatment, training, etc.? If they commute, is their transportation provided for by vans, taxis, etc. that ,a'ould pick them up at the facility and return them to the facility or do the), use public transportation or do they have their own vehicles? The applicant submitted a parking demand analysis to demonstrate the actual parking needs of the proposed facility, which indicates that one space for every .35 occupants is needed. For a total of sixty-three (63) persons, a total of twenty-three (23) parking spaces are required. The site plan indicates that them will be only m, enty-Iwo (22) parking spaces; fourteen (14) unenclosed spaces and eight (8) enclosed garage spaces. Condition No. 3.1 would require that the applicant provide an additional parking space or reduce the ntm~ber of occupants bv one (1) person to meet the ratio of one space for ever)..' .35 occupants as provided in the parking analysis. However, Section 9228 of the Tustin City Code requires one (1) parking space for each two occupants. Using this ratio, the facility could accommodate a total of forty-four (44) persons. The Planning Commission will need to determine that the proposed parking is adequate for the facility. 22. What would be the traffic impact be on the area? The proposed facility would be located on a local street with an estimated capacity of 2,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day and estimated usage of 700 vehicles per day. The proposed project would add approximately 145 daily trip ends per day to the street, which is well below the capacity of the street. As such, the addition of project traffic is not anticipated to result in any significant traffic impacts. 7:00 p.m. Given All present Staff present Approved' Taken out of order Adopted Resolution Nos. 3820 and 3821 7:01 p.m. Lisa D. Ramirez, 510 South C Street, Unit C, Tustin, a public interest attorney with Catholic Charities MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 28, 2002 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney Doug Anderson, Project Manager-Transportation Karen Peterson, Senior Planner Minoo Ashabi, Associate Planner Justina Willkom, Associate Planner Matt West, Assistant Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS -- None CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of January 14, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. It was moved by Davert, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 02-001 (HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE), UPDATING THE TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3820 recommending that the City Council certify 1hat the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal and Reuse of MOAS- Tustin (Program EIS/EIR for MCAS-Tustin) is adequate for the Housing Element Update. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3821 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 02-001, updating the Tustin Housing Element. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Presented a letter addressed to Mayor Thomas and Council Members, which she prepared detailing her concerns regarding the lack of housing, overpayment, and overcrowded conditions for very Iow income residents; there do not appear to be affordable housing sites in Old Town or East Tustin; it seems unrealistic that affordable housing will be created by 2005 on the MCAS Tustin site, Minutes - Planning Commission January 28, 20C2 - P;~.go I Pontious Christine Shingleton Scott Darrell, Executive Director, The Kennedy Commission, 5800 El Toro Road, Suite 400, Lake Forest Armando De La Libertad, 1818 North Linwood Avenue, Santa Ana 7:23 p.m. Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager given the pending litigation and the 20-year timeframe referred to in the Housing Element; asked if the City can provide more accurate data to indicate the household income level and the specific rental prices of individual units; and, asked if the 25 percent density bonus for developers to create more affordable housing is accurate and being implemented. Stated the 25 percent density figure has been applied; and, asked if staff wished to comment at this point. Indicated staff would address public input issues and questions after all the testimony was presented and the Public Hearing closed. Referred to a letter submitted by The Kennedy Commission; thanked staff for reviewing the letter and providing comments in response; indicated the Commission has worked successfully with other jurisdictions to assist in putting together programs that help meet the Housing Element law and produce large family units for very Iow income households; and, stated The Kennedy Commission would like to work with staff to increase that level of affordable housing production. Stated he represents a financial institution that focuses on construction finance for affordable housing; he has been watching the Housing Element process in various cities; based on the current status of development at MOAS Tustin, stated that it seems unrealistic for the City to meet its housing objectives; the current litigation and legislation may impact the City's ability to provide the housing; and, sites other than the Base should be prioritized to fill affordable housing needs. The Public Hearing closed. Thanked Ms. Ramirez for attending; stated the City had previously worked with Catholic Charities in development of the homeless accommodation program for MOAS Tustin; referenced The Kennedy Commission letter and staff written responses and asked that the letter and staff responses also be incorporated into the record by reference as addressing not only Mr. Darell's concerns, but also concerns expressed by Ms. Ramirez and Mr. De La Libertad; stated the City has been successful in meeting its housing goals and that past performance data included in the Element indicates the City has taken seriously the defined goals; stated that, with respect to the allocation of specific units by type of income level, projections have been based upon the Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") numbers provided by the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG"); and those units have been allocated by site location based upon the available inventory of underutilized or vacant property within the in-fill areas of the City and vacant property at the MOAS Tustin; stated there is no prioritization required or given to any individual resource locations, all locations are given equal weighting in terms of the objectives and programs.; stated there are a set of programs designed to reach goals ts accommodate lower income households; stated that the City has an adequate program and financial resources to achieve those goals. Minutes --- Planning Comrnissk)n January 28, 2002 - Page 2 Regarding the number of households paying more than a 30 percent of their income on rent at the lower income household levels, the City has inventory information that has been provided based upon the current rent levels for single one-bedroom units and large-family units; the City has seen indications in the recent market in South Central Tustin, in particular, that some of the 2-, 3-, and 4- bedroom units are available at lower rent levels than identified when the market information was collected for the Element; that preparation of the Element has been an 18-month process during which time there has been some dilution in market values; as a result of the closure of MOAS Tustin and the relocation of Marine Corps personnel, many Marines who lived off the base in Tustin rental neighborhoods were forced to leave the City. We witnessed that this created a higher vacancy factorthese neighborhoods than previously existed; a number of programs are included in the Element to address the issue related to lower income households overpaying for rent; for example, the City's housing rehabilitation programs require that the City restrict the rent levels to affordability levels as defined by HUD at the very Iow, Iow- and moderate-income levels; there are covenant restrictions that the City can also purchase to write down rent levels as needed to accommodate affordability which have been successful. Regarding the statement concerning the MOAS Tustin project being over a 20-year timeframe and that it is not realistic to project that a certain number of units might not be constructed within the 5-year RHNA quantified objectives, there are 3,298 new construction units identified Citywide for the 5-year timeframe; approximately 2,500 are identified for the MOAS property; based upon market demand studies, there is an immediate market for these units; the City is in the solicitation process on a number of the housing sites and is ready, upon conclusion of a real estate transaction with the Navy, to move forward in developing those sites despite any representation to the contrary; there are other sites which are already underway at MOAS Tustin; the Navy has recently issued a quit claim for an approximate 6-acre site to the City, and the City has ground leased the site to the Orange County Rescue Mission to permit 192 very Iow income homeless accommodation units; the Planning Commission has approved all the entitlements for the project and the Rescue Mission is in the process of renovating units now and hopes to have occupancy of those units soon; there is also at the MOAS a transitional housing site that will be developed by Orange County Social Services to include 60 units; these units are currently under design; the City also has agreements with homeless service providers for transitional housing along Harvard Avenue; occupancy of these sites to accommodate 50 units of very Iow income housing will be implemented by the City or upon direct conveyance to the homeless providers of sites by the Navy; the City will also work over the rest of the 5-year timeframe toward the goals identified in the Element; it needs to be also reinforced that the Element is a document that does not reflect any actual progress since January 2000; any new construction that has taken place since this time frame will be credited against the identified goals; no delays are expected that would result in the City not working toward its affordable housing goals (by the end of 2005). Minules - Plann:ng Commission January 28, 2002 - I-~a.~e 3 Director Director Jennings Regarding the question of records relating to individual rent levels, a property owner holds the leasehold agreement which is not subject to a records search by the City; therefore, the City generally only has access to rental information available from the market from sources like brokerage firms and local market consulting firms; since the State knows the City cannot always substantiate actual rent levels on all sites, the State has provided a suggested standard that can be applied to determine affordabilJty based on a density range. Regarding the 25 percent density bonus, it was pointed out that projects have moved forward recently in the City which have received density bonuses; the CiLy has adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance; during the last few months the Planning Commission has approved a 25 percent bonus; there are a number of projects coming forward which will provide for additional consideration. Staff's written responses to a letter from The Kennedy Commission have been provided to The Kennedy Commission; those responses are entered into the record by reference; the City appreciates The Kennedy Commission's willingness to work with the City on the implementation of Housing Element programs in the fu tu re. Stated that Mr. Libertad posed issues similar to Ms. Ramirez's comments--for example, he stated that the Housing Element prioritizes development of housing at MCAS Tustin; Mr. Libertad's assumptions were refuted, and it was stated that not all of the 3,298 new construction goals were intended at MCAS Tustin and that this information can be found in the Element; all other issues Mr. Libertad raised that were similar to Ms. Ramirez' comments were referred to in the response to comments made to Ms. Ramirez. Stated the senior housing project allowed a 25 percent density bonus consistent with State law; the parking requirement was reduced; the setback requirements, which would normally reduce density, were modified. The City aggressively monitors at-risk and restricted units; for example, the 20-unit project on Mitchell Avenue which was deed restricted to 62 years or older was discovered to be renting to younger individuals; the City worked with the owner of the property and entered into a settlement agreement--not to evict people, but to assure a gradual compliance back to 62 years or older; the City allowed this project a 50 percent parking reduction to accommodate senior housing. In terms of enforcement, these types of situations are taken seriously; when projects are approved or deed restricted, the City makes every effort to ensure they are in compliance. Regarding the Assistant City Manager's comment about the 192 units at the Rescue Mission, asked what other Orange County organization was referred to. Minutos - Planning Commission January 28, 20¢)2 -- Page 4 Shingleton Jennings Shingleton Pontious Davert Jennings Kozak Hamilton Pontious Adopted Resolution No. 3819 Answered that the Orange County Social Services Agency is proposing 60 units which are identified in the Element; an additional 50 transitional units will be integrated into the family housing on Harvard Avenue. Asked how many of the Warmington units wore very Iow income. Answered 8 of 38, which is well above the proportionate obligation for regional housing as distributed or for Redevelopment Agency obligation. Thanked staff and brought the matter back to the Commission for comment. Thanked staff for the thoroughness of the Housing Element document; regarding comments on the Base, that is the only large parcel of land left in the City making it logical to assume that is where the bulk of future development is going to be; regardless of ongoing litigation, the City anticipates housing to be developed within the planning period set forth in the Element; stated his confidence in the document; and, recommended approval. Agreed with Commissioner Davert; stated she met with staff last week to discuss the Element further; expressed her confidence in the Element; and, stated her approval as recommended by staff. Added that he believes it is a thorough, thoughtful document and the process one that addresses the very Iow income needs of the communi[y; the examples given of projects already approved are a credit to the City; and, stated his support of staff's recommendation. Stated the documents contain the elements the City needs in its housing plan; the senior facility and Rescue Mission projects are prime examples of the City's efforts; and, added his support for approval. Agreed with the other Commissioners that the City has done a good job over the past few years; and, stated her confidence that the Housing Element can be implemented. It was moved by Davert, seconded by Jennings, to approve staff recommendation. Motion carried 5-0. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-018 FOR AUTHORIZATION TO EXPAND AN EXISTING SPA FACILITY THAT PROVIDES MASSAGE AND SMALL GROUP EVENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH SALON SERVICES INTO THE ADJACENT TENANT SPACE FOR A TOTAL AREA OF 2,888 SQUARE FEET. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 13911 CARROLL, WAY, SUITES D AND E, IN THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1), P ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3819 approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 00- 018. Minutes .- Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - Page 5 7:40 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Ashabi Presented the staff report, noting that a telephone comment was received from Sylvia Faria, a resident at 13831 Fairmont Way, the residential neighborhood north of the retail center, who expressed concern regarding massage establishments and prostitution in general and referred to an incident in a chiropractor's office. Director Added that the incident referred to abovo took place in Anaheim. Pontious Invited the applicant to the lectern. Jennings Asked if group events noted in tho application will be single sex, Le Aine Dehmer, applicant Responded these groups are primarily teenaged girls and mother/daughter events. Jennings Asked if the separate dressing and toilet facilities for male and female clients required by Condition 2.7 will be labeled. Ms. Dehmer Answered that restrooms and changing rooms are already labeled. Jennings Asked if the lockers will be located in those areas. Ms. Dehmer Answered in the affirmative, stating the lockers are already installed; and, thanked staff for clarifying that the prostitution occurrence took place in Anahoim. 7:45 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. It was moved by Jennings, seconded by Kozak, to approve staffs recommendation. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted Resolution No. 3814, as amended CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 01-017 AND 01-018 A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH BOARDING HOUSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING A SOBER LIVING FACILITY. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 14511 AND 14512 CARFAX DRIVE IN THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4) ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3814 approving Conditional Use Permit Nos. 01-017 and 01- 018 to establish boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility. 7:46 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Peterson Presented the staff report, pointed out specific mitigating conditions, and referred to two letters and staff responses attached to the report. Director Noted that the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution and an Enabling Ordinance thaf established Sober Living Guidelines--a certification ant monitoring program; the Orange County Sheriff's Department will oversee the program County-wide; staff anticipates the City will adopt a similar resolution to allow the Shoriff's Department to cedify and monitor within the Minulos - Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - Page 6 City; under that resolution, th.ere are certain requirements the City must fulfill: i.e., ensure the properties are consistent with proper zoning and building codes, fire code requirements are met, on-site facilities are maintained in a cer[ain way, and there are certain square footages available to each occupant; if certification were in place now, the item before the Planning Commission this evening would not be in compliance; the County Guidelines and the certification process will be voluntary; facilities can be operated without going through the SherifFs Department or getting any kind of City inspection pertaining to a certification process; however, the County court system and the Probation Department will no longer refer individuals to non-certified sober living facilities; the Ordinance took effect on January 17, 2002; although it is effective immediately, there will be a phasing process as the County expects several applications at once; any individual or group that receives County referrals would need to be certified by October 2002; the Tustin City Council will be considering adopting the Sober Living Guidelines on February 4, 2002. Davert Asked in what respect this project would not comply with the County Guidelines. Director Answered primarily density. Hamilton Asked how far off tonight's applicant would be. Peterson Specified that, strictly as an estimate, the applicant would be within ten people. Jennings Asked if that number referred to the 63 requested. Peterson Replied in the affirmative. Hamilton Asked if the applicant would be allowed to come back to the Planning Commission for a downward revision to allow certification. Director Answered that would require an amended application be brought back to the Commission for approval. Pontious Asked if the application is approved this evening, the applicant could still request certification with fewer people than being asked for tonight. Peterson Indicated that would be correct; however, because this application is proposing specific conditions regarding density, staff would recommend the applicant come back for a re-review at such time applicant chooses to seek certification. Davert Stated that the parking survey does not alleviate his primary concern; and, asked the Traffic Engineer what benchmarking was used in terms of looking at similar facilities to arrive at this figure. Anderson Answered that staff directed the applicant's engineer to find a similar facility that would provide empirical data of the type of parking generated by this type of use; this is not atypical within the industry; industry references typically have fast food but do not break it down to McDonalds, Taco Bell, etc.; this procedure was followed with the Linda Evans facility on Irvine Boulevard by Minutos - Planning Commission January 28, 2002 -- Page 7 comparing other Linda Evans developments around the County in order to arrive at a traffic generation rate that was consistent with what we felt was more indicative of that type of development; the same type of reasoning was used for this project. Davert Asked how the on-street parking restriction in Condition 3.5 will be enforced. Anderson Stated that restriction is difficult to enforce; suggested the only way to enforce the restriction would be to permit certain individuals to use the street, but not others; the Police Department may have a mechanism for enforcement; the City has allowed permit parking in other areas; those decisions are now being looked at more closely and being scrutinized by the City Attorney before the City can go forward with any more applications; and, added there probably is not a way to enforce the restriction effectively. Director Noted that the planning staff envisioned that residents admitted to the facility would .be required to display a parking pass within the vehicle; the only way to monitor that is to assess the problem and enforce compliance; one of the homes the Traffic Study refers to is Cornerstone on Yorba where there are ongoing over-parking problems; enforcement costs could be recovered from the applicant if this location becomes a problem. Holland Added that another tool is the staff's recommendation that this would be up for periodic review which would provide an opportunity to correct problems. Jennings Stated this neighborhood is already heavily impacted with cars; to be fair to the neighborhood as well as the sober living facility, asked if something should be included in Condition 3.5 stating that any vehicle owned by a resident of the facility must have a permit. Director Indicated that Condition 3.5 requires that the applicant submit a parking permit plan for the residents and managers; a separate document would identify the permit. Peterson Added that Condition 3.5 states that residents shall display parking permits. Pontious Invited the public to present testimony. Clarence McCollum, 14631 Dartmouth Circle, Tustin Len Spivak, owner of the fourplex at 14681 Carfax Drive,-I' ustin Stated he owns a fourplex in the cul-de-sac where the proposed facility is located; his tenants complain about visitors coming to the facility, parking in their cars, and waiting for the tenants to come out; there is often no parking spot for residents; the traffic survey stating 2,000 to 3,000 cars per day on Carfax Drive seems inaccurate for a cul-de-sac; the parking study seems inadequate; the staff report states there will be no impact, but no one asked the residents how they felt; originally, the City provided a report regarding guidelines for rehab centers; that report stated six people per single family dwelling; this site is not a single family dwelling, it is two fourplexes. Stated he is an on-site owner; one of his tenants showed him a flyer which was the first he knew of this project; noted his tenants did not attend the meeting because they are not fluent English speakers; stated he toured the Minules - Planning Corr~missio~ Janu~Jry 28, 2002 -- Pago 8 Davert Holland Kevin Robinson, attorney for S & K Properties, the applicant Nick Spadafino, owner of S & K Properties and Pacific Park Recovery Davert Mr. Spadafino Jennings Mr. Spadafino applicant's facility last year, and there were only two people per bedroom--30 people per building plus a staff member seems unreasonable; stated parking and safety are issues; and, added that 60 sexually challenged individuals living at the end of the street are a major concern. Asked to clarify whether the individuals planned for the site include convicted sex offenders. Answered there are none that staff knows of; reminded the Commission that the fact that residents may be former parolees and/or currently probationers or that they may be recovering alcoholics or drug addicts is not relevant to the issues before the Commission; land use and public health and safety issues are relevant, but the character of the occupants is not a relevant consideration for Planning Commission deliberations. Stated that Nick Spadafino, one of the officers of S & K Properties, and several of the residents of the sober living facility were in attendance; took exception to the facility being referred to as a boarding house; the facility is exempt from the process under the Federal Fair Housing Act; read and submitted a letter of support from Lisa Van Tassell, a next-door neighbor to the facility who could not attend the meeting; stated that the applicant was diligent in hiring an engineer to provide a valid traffic study; and, stated the applicant is willing to comply with all the conditions set forth by staff. Thanked staff for their hard work over two years; stated he is also concerned about the neighborhood; referred to a meeting held by Joe Day, another property owner on Carfax, regarding the gang activity on Carl'ax; his clients are aware that no such behavior will be tolerated in his facility; indicated many of his clients do not have cars; there will be sufficient parking based on the conditions, which require tearing down parking of the structure to provide more parking to provide 22 additional parking spaces; there is staff on-site 24 hours a day; breaking the rules means being escorted out; he is giving these men the same chance he was given 12 years ago; he recently had to put his own son into treatment and is only trying to help other people as he was helped in the past. Asked if Mr. Spadafino would be applying for County certification. Answered that the facility is licensed by the State and is a structured environment with cleanliness rules; Joe Day indicated the sober living facility apartments are nicer than his; the facility works closely with the Tustin Police Department; he has a lot of money invested and wants to protect his property, just as his neighbors do theirs; gang activity is a much larger problem on Carfax than parking or density. Asked how many residents and cars presently exist at the site. Asked his manager, Sue, to answer that question: 46 clients, 14 cars. Minutes - Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - Page 9 John Grunewald, 1162C Scherer Place, Tustin Stated his residence is within 300 feet of the buildings being discussed this evening; he owns and has been a resident since 1972; the traffic report used only daytime hours and therefore seems unreliable; this facility is within a 1000 feet of schools; there are many children in the neighborhood; the gentlemen staying there are in residence in lieu of jail; read from the report: "Tho Community Development Department does not have any information regarding these issues. The City does not regulate sober living facilities, and the City Attorney has advised us such conditions are not relevant to the City's land use decision making process." Mr. Grunewald agreed that many of the questions do not pertain to the Planning Commission, but they do pertain to the residents and the owners; asked who, then, is going to consider these things; stated he has called many people within the City and the County and cannot get answers; suggested the average stay for clients will be 90 days-- that means there will be 200-240 men entering and leaving the facility every year; stated his belief that permit parking will not work, and the extra cars will wind up on the street. Jeff Mason, 14511 Cad=ax, Tustin Stated he has been a resident of Pacific Park Recovery since March 2000 when he was released from prison; prior to living at this facility, he did not know how to live without drugs and alcohol; he is now an on-site manager; having been there 22 months, he believes the facility provides good neighbors; the facility vastly improved his life; most of the neighbors are in support the facility. Kurt Hunt, 14512 Carfax, Tustin Stated he has lived at the facility for more than a year; Nick, Sue, and others at the facility have shown him how to live without drugs and alcohol; he has no violenco on his record; no violence is tolerated at the facility; he has a job; he goes to work, attends required meetings, and goes to bed; the tenants do not bother the neighbors and abide by the rules; the program saved his life. Jim Brady, 1211 Drayton Avenue, Tustin Stated he has lived at the corner of Cad=ax and Drayton for four years; this is a nice neighborhood; he does not embrace a "Not In My Backyard" point of view; he has been sober about thirteen years; he did not go through the process being discussed here; he has gone to the Orange County Jail once a month for the past eight years to speak to inmates; parking is already a problem; often cars park in front of his house to walk across the street toward Cad=ax; without any more people, there are already parking problems; there are 41 houses on his cul-de-sac, and things have been getting better with people buying and upgrading; expanding this sort of facility promotes the wrong trend for the neighborhood; the odds are against recovery for many of these people; the turnover/rotation will be a problem in a family-oriented neighborhood; children from his street are already afraid to walk down Cad=ax because it feels unsafe; for-profit facilities can lead to abuse; one person managing 24 does not seem adequate; the certification process should be required because checks and balances are necessary for these facilities. James McKibbin, 1555 Mesa Verde Drive East, Costa Mesa Stated he was referred to Nick Spadafino and Pacific Park Recovery in June 2000 when he was living in Palm Springs; he had not been in jail but came to the facility on Minutes -- Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - Pago 10 his own due to a drug and alcohol problem; he learned how to become a productive member of society at the facility; he stayed one year, during which he kept a job and got back on his feet to move out to reside and work in Costa Mesa where he is a business owner employing 15 people; he is registered with the Better Business Bureau; Pacific Park and its structure were responsible for his success; the residents in this area should be proud of the work being done by Pacific Park Recovery. Linda Grunewald, 1162C Scherer Place, Tustin Stated she owns, has lived in this neighborhood for 20 years, and still enjoys living there; the amount of cars and available parking are the issues of concern; there are many children on the street who are at risk; while she wants the people in recovery to be well, this location is not good because of the large numbers of children and proximity to schools; this seems like a business more suited to another location; she lives in one of the biggest units in which the there is only one shower; it is hard to imagine nine people in the same size unit coordinating getting ready for work each morning. 8:40 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. Davert Stated that the facilities fulfill a community need; commended the residents for turning their lives around and coming to speak this evening; noted that he is satisfied the program is a good one and that the restrictions are sufficient; suggested that more than one- third of the residents will have automobiles; referred to the code requiring one parking space for every two residents; questioned why the City would depart from that requirement with minimal justification; concerning the on- street parking restrictions, the parking permit will not be effectively invoked; stated that approval of this project will add to the parking problems in the neighborhood; and, added that requirements should be included for improvements to the exterior. Pontious Asked staff for their responses to the various speakers. Peterson Asked the Traffic Engineer to respond to the parking demand analysis and traffic issues. Anderson Stated that 2,000-3,000 vehicles per day is a typical assumption for a cul-de-sac; although traffic was not counted for this study, the most recent count was 695 vehicles per day; in comparison, a through residential street has a maximum capacity of 8,000-9,000 vehicles per day; the range provided for this report is an estimated number for a cul-de-sac. Director Indicated that staff also has concerns about the parking; staff resources will be impacted if parking becomes a problem; the statement that no public input was solicited is a concern, because this project was noticed twice as a public hearing; an additional courtesy notice was sent when the continuance was requested so that residents wishing to attend would not come to the January 14, 2002, meeting expecting a presentation. Pontiious Asked if those notices went to the owner of record. Director Responded in the affirmative--the notice was sent to properties within 300 feet. Minutes - Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - Page I I Davert Stated his awareness that staff also made telephone calls to individuals who had expressed interest in the item to advise them of the continuance. Director Responding to the applicant's attorney objecting to being called a boarding house, sober living facilities are defined as boarding houses; the City has a general classification within which various uses fall; for example, the City does not identify Wendy's or McDonald's, but fast food businesses. Peterson Responding to Mr. McCollum's question regarding the difference between this facility and the State guidelines, which refer to six or fewer in a congregate care facility, stated those facilities are exempt from local regulation. Kozak Thanked residents, property owners, and residents of the sober living facility for their comments; stated he is having difficulty with the land use and public health and safety issues in a dense area; stated many of the land use impacts have been mitigated; and, noted his concerns related to the parking impacts and the exterior condition of the property. Hamilton Thanked the residents for their input; stated that Pacific Park Recovery is a good program, and the prompt response to questions indicates the quality of the staff at the facility; stated that the parking study indicates that the facility falls within the .35 ratio staff recommended; and, stated that density is a problem the entire area faces. Jennings Stated the trash container, the handicap parking, and the landscape box do not appear on the site plan. Peterson Answered that conditions are being recommended that will require the applicant to come back with plans showing those amenities. Jennings Suggested that the required improvements may take away at least two parking spaces; and, asked what needs to be specified. Pontious Indicated the total persons were specified as being reduced to 57. Jennings Questioned whether or not the proposal is actually for 20 parking spaces if passed as the application stands now. Peterson Answered affirmatively, as conditioned. Pontious Pointed out the need for sober living facilities is obvious; the planning issues involved are difficult; density is a problem everywhere; the most dense parking problems in this area seem to be away from this facility; asked if Condition 1.8 could be modified to make the review time more specific to allow the property owners to know exactly when the review will take place. Director Responded the review could be made date certain; however, if there are no problems, staff would rather not be required to review the application. Pontious Indicated a review at the end of one year with a report to the Planning Commission would be appropriate and thereafter only if problems arise; it is important to reassure Minutes - Plan;~ing Commission January 28, 2002 - Page 12 the property owners the facility will be monitored in its initial stages. Holland Suggested it may be appropriate to bring the item back after the County Sober Living Guidelines have gone into effect; it is anticipated the guidelines will have an impact on the number of people who would be all')wed to live in the facility; owners may neod to bo certified to receive referrals, which may work as a limitation. Pontious Stated she assumes the project is in compliance with the driveway standards. Peterson Indicated that is correct, as conditioned. Hamilton Suggested that the point is accountability; if the facility performs its responsibilities and promises, there will be no problem; it is important that the residents also have a voice in the accountability process. Davert Stated he will not be voting for this project due to insufficient parking. Peterson Suggested additional language be added to Condition 3.8, which deals with the daily clean up and maintenance of the properties. Pontious Surmised that the present appearance may be related to the ongoing upgrade of the property. Peterson Stated staff can ensure notes are added in this regard when the plans are submitted. Director Provided language modifying Condition 1.8 relating to the review period. Kozak Asked if that means any review with the County program would move forward and not be a condition of approval. Director Answered that it cannot be a condition of approval because it is a voluntary certification; if the applicant chooses not to be certified, the facility can continue to operate as a sober living facility; however, if the applicant seeks certification, the facility would not comply as presently proposed. Jennings moved, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 3814, as amended. Motion carried 4-1. Davert opposed. Director Stated there is a seven-day appeal period; if anyone wishes to appeal, reasons must be filed and a fee paid to the City Clerk's office prior to the close of business one week from today. REGULAR BUSINESS - None STAFF CONCERNS Report on Actions taken at the January 22, 2002, City Council meeting. Director The City Council adopted Resolution No. 02-06, a request that the Board of Supervisors approve Environmental Impact Report 582 consistent with Scenario 1, which is an Minuto,'; - Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - Page 13 Kozak Director Jennings Director Director Kozak Director Jennings Hamilton Kozak: extension of the John Wayne Airport Extension Agreement; several individuals are concerned about allowing for any future development at the John Wayne Airport; Scenario 1 allows for limited expansion but would maintain a curfew for a longer period of time; if this agreement is not approved, all restrictions will be removed; the City Council also directed staff to prepare a resolution supporting Measure W, the Great Park and Natural Reserve Initiative; staff prepared a resolution that incorporated the John Wayne Airport Scenario 1. Asked what types of improvements or modifications are planned under Scenario 1. Answered there may be retail improvements and additional capacity; and, offered to bring the Measure W and Settlement Agreement' information to the next Planning Commission meeting. Asked for the timeframe on Scenario 1. Stated 2016. Reported staff will be taking the Sober Living Guidelines establishing a County certification program to the City Council on February 4, 2002; and, added there will be a nine-month period before the guidelines are in place. Asked if the County is funding that program or whether State and/or Federal monies will be involved. Responded that this is a certification program, and the County would collect the appropriate fees from facilities which choose to be certified; il' there is an enforcement issue, there will be a provision in the program for reasonable cost recovery; if a Section 200 review is required by the City, the City would charge a reasonable inspection fee. COMMISSION CONCERNS None None Stated he attended the Metrolink opening festivities and enjoyed seeing Commissioners Davert and Kozak and Traffic Engineer Doug Anderson there. Stated he attended the Tustin Old Town Association meeting this evening and enjoyed Doug Anderson's presentation regarding the Old Town streetscape plan. Thanked staff for the hard work on the Housing Element and Carfax reports this evening. Commended staff on the Housing Element document which was very detailed and in keeping with the goals and past accomplishments of the City and the City Council. Thanked staff for their work on the Carfax issue. Noted that he also enjoyed the Metrolink grand opening. Minutes -. Planning Commission ,January 28, 2002 - Page 14 Kozak Pontious Director 9:13 p.m. Noticed the east-facing elevation of the liquor store on Tustin Avenue is a palette for graffiti; referred to the time and effort expended by the City to cover graffiti; offered the suggestion that perhaps future plans could focus on ways to eliminate these target areas--for example, placing staircases inside structures; and, noted that the Weyerhauser industrial buildings along the north side of the I-5 have already been hit again. Stated the utility box on Red Hill across from Stater Bros. and the fire hydrants on Red Hill and Nissan seem constantly covered by graffiti; and, asked if the Fire Department could clean that up. Indicated the City's graffiti removal service will do so; and, added that the graffiti removal people are proactively going to specific problem areas. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, February 11, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. /' Leslie A. Pontious Chairperson Elizabeth A. Binsack Planning Commission Secretary Minute. s Planning Commission January 2,-3, 2002 -- Page 15 RESOLUTION NO. 3814 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 01-017 AND 01-018 AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BOARDING HOUSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING A SOBER LIVING FACILITY LOCATED AT 14511 AND 14512 CARFAX DRIVE. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Proper applications, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 01-017 and 01-018 were filed by Marc Kassoff of S & K Properties, requesting authorization to establish boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility located at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive, within the Suburban Residential Zoning District (R-4) and "High-Density Residential" General Plan land use designation. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation "High-Density Residential," which provides for a variety of residential uses. The project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. The proposed facility is a boarding house and is subject to approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9228(b)5. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on December 10, 2001, and continued to January 14, 2002, by the Planning Commission. As conditioned, the proposed use as a boarding house to accommodate the operation of a sober living facility will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing in or working in the neighborhood in that: ? 1) The proposed use is consistent with the definition of a boarding house in that lodging would be provided for compensation for more than three (3) individuals on each property, which is consistent with the definition of a boarding house which is "A dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." 2) The proposed use complies with the development standards for a boarding house as required in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9228b(5), with the exception of parking. A parking demand analysis has been provided that demonstrates .35 parking spaces are needed for each resident given the nature of $ 9 I0 16 20 22 76 Resolution No. 3814 Page 2 the use and clientele. If the use operations deviate from the parking demand analysis or the conditions contained herein, and, if there are parking problems associated with the use, the applicant would be required to identify and mitigate any impacts or discontinue the use. 3) As conditioned, the proposed use would be compatible with uses in the surrounding area and will not be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity or to the welfare of the City in that the nature, operation, and scale of the sober living facility is compatible with surrounding residential uses. This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act). II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit Nos. 01- 017 and 01-018 authorizing the establishment of boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility located at 14511 and 14512 Carl:ax Drive, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 28t' day of January, 2002. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary LESLIE A. PONTIOUS Chairperson STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3814 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 28~ day of January, 2002. Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-017 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-018 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL (1) ~.1 (1) 1.2 (1) 1.3 (1) 1.4 (1) 1.s The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped January 28, 2002, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code. Approval shall become null and void unless building permits are issued and conditions are complied with as specified in this Exhibit. Time extensions may be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. All conditions in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for this project or as specified, subject to review and approval of plans by the Community Development Department. Approval of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 01-017 and 01-018 are contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk-Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge of the City's approval for this project. (1) (2) (3) (4) SOURCE CODES STANDARD CONDITION CEQA MITIGATION UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S DESIGN REVIEW EXCEPTIONS (5) (6) (7) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES PC/CC POLICY Exhibit A Resolution No. 3814 Page 2 (1) 1.6 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the imposition of a civil penalty of $100.00 for each violation, or such other amounts as the City Council may establish by ordinance or resolution, and for each day the violation exists. (1) 1.7 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorneys fees. (1) 1,8 Conditional Use Permit 01-017 and Conditional Use Permit 01-018 shall be reviewed within one (1) year of approval and on an annual basis thereafter, or more often if necessary, by the Community Development Director. A status report shall be provided to the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director shall review the use to ascertain compliance with conditions of approval. If the use is not operated in accordance with Conditional Use Permit 01-017 and Conditional Use Permit 01-018, or is found to be a nuisance or negative impacts are affecting the surrounding neighborhood, the Community Development Director shall impose additional conditions to eliminate the nuisance or negative impacts or may initiate proceedings to revoke the Conditional Use Permits. Costs associated with additional reviews shall be borne by the applicant. PLAN SUBMITTAL (3) 2.1 Within sixty (60) days of approval, the applicant shall submit four (4) sets of accurately scaled and dimensioned site, floor, and construction plans prepared by a licensed engineer/architect to demonstrate compliance with the conditions contained herein. In addition, the applicable codes, City, State, and Federal laws and regulations shall be listed on the title sheet, including the following: · 1998 California Building Code; · 1998 California Mechanical and Plumbing Codes; · 1998 California Electrical Code; · City of Tustin Grading and Security Ordinance; · City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines; and, · City of Tustin Private Improvements Standards. If compliance with this condition reduces the amount of private or common open space or parking spaces, the total number of occupants shall be reduced accordingly. 2.2 The private open spaces shall be completely enclosed with fences or walls not to exceed six (6) feet eight (8) inches in height. A site plan shall be provided to the Community Development Department for review and approval of any new fencing and/or walls prior to construction. Permits for the new fences and/or walls must be obtaineci and the fences and/or walls shall be constructed within sixty (60) days from approval. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3814 Page 3 (***) 2.3 Show the existing location of the storage/recreation building and identify on the site plan that the building shall be demolished. The site plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. A demolition permit shall be obtained and the building shall be demolished within sixty (60) days from approval. (3) 2.4 Smoke detectors shall be provided and maintained in all sleeping rooms and in common hallways between sleeping rooms. In addition, escape windows, exiting, and minimum egress requirements, in accordance with the 1998 California Building Code, shall be provided and maintained in each building. An inspection by the Community Development Department shall be conducted to verify and approve the location of the smoke detectors, escape windows, exiting, and minimum egress requirements within sixty (60) days from approval. (***) 2.5 The applicant shall obtain permits for and complete installation of the approved parking configuration within sixty (60) days of approval. (7) 2.6 Parking for disabled persons is required and shall be shown on the site plan and provided to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to installation. Applicant shall provide one (1) of the parking spaces shall comply with the requirements for the disabled. Parking for the disabled must have an additional five (5) foot loading area with striping and ramp and disabled persons shall be able to park and access the building without passing behind another car. At least one (1) accessible space shall be van accessible served by a minimum 96-inch wide loading area. If the addition of a parking space for the disabled reduces the number of off-street parking spaces, the number of residents shall be reduced accordingly. (3) 2.7 Within sixty (60) days of approval, the applicant shall obtain permits for any improvements that have been constructed without permits. (3) 2.8 A note shall be placed on the plans that no field changes shall be made without prior approval from the Building Official and architect or engineer of record. (1) 2.9 A trash enclosure and trash bins and recycling bins shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of Federal Disposal to avoid health issues for neighboring commercial and residential areas within sixty (60) days of approval. The enclosure shall be constructed with a solid decorative wall consistent with the adjacent building's material and finish and solid metal, self-closing, self-latching gates, be a minimum height of six feet, and be screened from view on Carfax Drive with landscaping materials. A plan depicting the details and location of the enclosure and types of screening and details of the enclosure shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department. The location of the bin, size and quantity shall be reviewed and accepted in writing by Federal Exhibit A Resolution No. 3814 Page 4 Disposal. If compliance with this condition requires the removal of parking spaces, the total number of occupants shall be reduced accordingly. (1) 2.10 To facilitate City of Tustin compliance with the State of California Waste Recycling requirements, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Public Works Department a Project Recycling Plan within sixty (60) days of approval for a Project Recycling Plan to accomplish recovery and recycling of a least fifty (50) percent of the total waste generated by the project. The plan shall included the following requirements: In a narrative form, describe efforts which will be utilized to minimize the generation of waste during the project; Provide an estimate of the total amount of waste to be generated for the entire duration of the project; Provide and estimate of the total amount of recyclable materials generated by the project, identified by recyclable material type; Identify waste hauler(s) to be utilized during the project. Note: The City has an exclusive waste collection franchise with Federal Disposal Service of Santa Ana. No other haulers are to be utilized pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 4322; Identify recyclable material processing facilities which will be utilized to process materials generated by the project; Demonstrate that no waste generated by the project will be sent directly to any landfill; and, Prior to the issuance of a Notice of Completion of a Certificate of Occupancy, a final report shall be submitted to the Public Works Department detailing actual quantities of the items listed above as well as a narrative summary of the recycling efforts implemented during the project. USE ¢*3 3.1 No more than thirty-one (31) persons including thirty (30) residents and one (1) on-site manager shall reside at each of the premises at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive at any one time. Off-street parking at a ratio of .35 parking space for each resident, including managers, shall be provided and off-street parking spaces shall be a minimum of nine (9) feet in width and twenty (20) feet in length. The twenty-two (22) off-street parking spaces provided shall accommodate a maximum of sixty-two (62) residents, including the managers. If compliance with the conditions of this resolution requires the removal Of parking spaces, the total number of occupants shall be reduced accordingly. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3814 Page 5 (***) 3.2 ('~*) 3.3 (***) 3.4 ('**) 3.5 (***) 3.6 (***) 3.7 The off-street parking shall be installed within sixty (60) days from approval. Upon request, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with this condition to the Community Development Department, including providing a roster of names and identification of current tenants to the Community Development Director upon request to verify tenancy. If, in the future, the use deviates from the parking demand analysis or the City determines that parking problems exist on the site or in the vicinity, upon notification by the Community Development Department, the applicant shall immediately discontinue the use until an updated parking analysis has been accepted by the City of Tustin and all required mitigation has been implemented. The applicant/property owner shall bear the cost of the preparation of the updated parking demand analysis and implementation of any mitigation measures. The property owner, operator, managers, and residents shall abide by the "Sober Living Facility Rules" as submitted by the applicant and included as Exhibit B to this resolution. Failure to comply with such rules shall be deemed a violation of this conditional use permit. Any changes shall be approved in writing by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission. A manager for each complex at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive shall be on- site 24 hours a day. The property owner, operator, and managers shall be responsible for ensuring that the number of residents, including managers, owning, operating, or maintaining a motor vehicle at or in the vicinity of the site shall not exceed the total number of parking spaces on the site, as described in Section 3.1 above. All residents shall park their vehicles on the properties at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive within designated parking spaces as shown on the approved site plan and shall display parking permits issued by the applicant and/or on-site manager. The applicant shall submit a parking permit plan for residents and managers for review and approval by the Community Development Department. Residents shall not use on-street parking. A shared parking and reciprocal ingress and egress agreement between the two properties shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to recordation with the County of Orange. A recorded agreement is necessary to allow shared vehicular access and parking between the two properties. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be provided to the Community Development Department within sixty (60) days of approval. All garages on the site shall be used for the parking of vehicles owned, operated, or maintained by residents of the facility. A deed restriction shall be recorded within sixty (60) days of approval, which states that the garages Exhibit A Resolution No. 3814 Page 6 shall be used for parking of vehicles by the residents of the sober living facility. The deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to execution and recordation with the County of Orange. (***) 3.8 The property owner, operator, and managers shall be responsible for daily clean-up and maintenance of the properties at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive, including the removal of debris and trash, landscape maintenance, and maintenance of the buildings and site amenities. The properties shall be maintained in good repair and in a clean condition at all times. (***) 3.9 There shall be no outdoor storage. (***) 3.'10 The property owner, applicant, and/or manager shall ensure that residents who are terminated from the program leave the vicinity in a safe manner. LANDSCAPING (1) 4.1 The pavement within the front yard area shall be reduced to a maximum of 75 percent of the total required front yard to improve the residential character of the properties. The required front yard is the area between the front property line adjacent to Carfax Drive, extending north twenty (20) feet. To meet this objective, a landscape planter shall be added in the front yard along the common property line of 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive. Details of the landscape planter shall be provided to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to installation. The landscape planter shall be installed within sixty (60) days from approval. If compliance with this condition requires the removal of parking spaces, the total number of occupants shall be reduced accordingly. NOISE (7) 5.'1 All construction operators including engine warm-up shall be subject to the provisions.of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance, as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Saturday unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and that public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time of the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3814 Page 7 FEES (1) 6.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to, the following. Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule. (2) 6.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of $43.00 (forty-three dollars) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION 3814 SOBER LIVING FACILITY RULES Sober Living Facility Rules Pacific Park Recovery Center THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENT IS MADE BETWEEN AND PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER FOR THE PROVISION OF SOBER LIVING SERVICES DESIGNED TO ASSIST PERSONS WITH ADDICTION PROBLEMS. FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING RULES IS GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE DISCHARGE FROM THE PROGRAM OR OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION. IF YOU ARE AWARE OF ANY PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER CLIENT (S) IN VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE RULES LISTED BELOW, YOU WILL BE CONSIDERED IN VIOLATION OF THE SAME RULE AND HELD RESPONSIBLE. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 20. 21. 22. ANY EVIDENCE OF DRUG OR ALCOHOL USE FOLLOWING ADMISSION TO THE FACILITY. CLIENTS ARE RESTRICTED FROM HAVING VISITORS AT THE PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. NO VISITORS ARE ALLOWED ON PACIFIC PARK PROPERTY AT ANY TIME. VISITORS WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PREMISES, AND APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINARY ACTION WILL BE TAKEN WITH THE OFFENDING CLIENT (S). ANY PARAPHERNALIA (SYRINGES, ROLLING PAPERS, PIPES, SPOONS, ETC) ASSOCIATED WITH ILLEGAL DRUG USE ON THE PREMISES IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. ANY CLIENT(S) ON SITE THAT APPEARS TO BE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL/DRUGS WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY AND IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED FROM THE PROGRAM. THE CLIENTS PAROLE OFFICER (S), THE COURT SYSTEM OR OTHER APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES WILL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY UPON DISCHARGE (IF APPLICABLE). ANY REFUSAL OF A CLIENT TO SUBMIT TO A DRUG TEST WHEN REQUESTED BY STAFF. DENYING STAFF ACCESS TO ANY ROOM AND/OR PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR SEARCH WHEN REQUESTED. ANY CLIENT THAT BRINGS WEAPONS, DRUGS, OR ALCOHOL INTO THE FACILITY WILL BE IMMEDIATELY DISCHARGED AND THE PROPER AUTHORITIES NOTIFIED (IF APPLICABLE). ANY PHYSICAL VIOLENCE OR THREAT OF VIOLENCE (ANY VIOLATION OF PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES) TO ANOTHER CLIENT OR STAFF MEMBER'S PERSON OR PROPERTY. REPEATED DISRESPECT TO PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER STAFF. REPEATED BEHAVIOR THAT THREATENS THE MENTAL, PHYSICAL HEALTH OR WELL BEING OF OTHERS IN THE FACILITY. THE WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY. (PROPERTY MEANS ANYTHING THAT IS NOT YOURS). ANY CLIENT (S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE/THEFT OF ANY PERSONAL PROPERTY SHALL BE FINANCIALLY LIABLE FOR THE REPAIR/REPLACEMENT COST OF THE DAMAGED PROPERTY. ANY CLIENTS REMOVING OR DEFACING PROPERTY AT PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER (FURNITURE, WALLS. APPLIANCES, ETC.) WILL BE TERMINATED FROM THE PROGRAM AND PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW. CLIENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO STORE FURNITURE, CARS OR OTHER ITEMS NOT UTILIZED ON A DAILY BASIS ON THE PACIFIC PARK PROPERTY OR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. NO PETS OF ANY KIND WILL BE ALLOWED AT PACIFIC PARK. FAILURE TO OBSERVE CURFEW. (CURFEW IS 11:00 PM SUNDAY - THURSDAY 12:00 A.M. FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. PHASE I CLIENTS CURFEW IS 10AM SUNDAY - THURSDAY 11:00 AM FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. FAILURE TO OBSERVE LIGHTS-OUT CURFEW. (LIGHTS-OUT IS 12:00 A.M. SUNDAY-THURSDAY, 1:00 A.M. FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. SEX WITH ANOTHER CLIENT AT PACIFIC PARK. ALL CLIENTS ARE RESTRICTED TO THEIR OWN UNITS. NO CLIENTS ARE TO "VISIT' ANY OTHER UNIT. NO PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIALS OF ANY KIND WILL BE ALLOWED. SMOKING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED IN ANY UNIT. AT ANYTIME. (SMOKING IS ONLY ALLOWED ON OUTDOOR PATIO) RUDE AND DISCOURTEOUS BEHAVIOR TO ANYONE WHILE ON PACIFIC PARK PROPERTY OR IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD IS PROHIBITED. 23. 2~. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. ANY FRATERNIZING THA'~ .~ VIEWED AS BEING INAPPROPRIATE A~D UNHEALTHY BY PACIFIC PARK STAFF IS PROHIBITED. PACIFIC PARK CLIENTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM ANY PHYSICAL ALTERATIONS TO THEIR PERSON (I.E. TATTOOS, PIERCING, UNUSUAL HAIR CUTS AND/OR COLOR, OR OTHER TYPES OF PHYSICAL ALTERATIONS ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED WHILE YOU ARE ENROLLED IN THE PROGRAM. PHASE I CLIENTS ARE RESTRICTED FROM DRIVING, PARKING OR MAINTAINING A MOTOR VEHICLE AND/OR MOTORCYCLE AT PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER. ONLY APPROVED PACIFIC PARK CLIENTS MAY DRIVE, PARK OR MAINTAIN A MOTOR VEHICLE AND/OR MOTORCYCLE. ALL APPROVED CLIENTS MUST POSSESS A CURRENT CALIFORNIA DRIVERS LICENSE, PROOF OF INSURANCE AND CURRENT VEHICLE REGISTRATION, AND PROVIDE LEGIBLE COPIES OF SAME. ALL INFORMATION RECEIVED WILL BE VERIFIED FOR ACCURACY PRIOR TO AUTHORIZATION. ANY TARDINESS OR ABSENCE FROM REQUIRED 12-STEP MEETINGS WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM STAFF IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. CLIENTS ARE TO REFRAIN FROM DISRUPTING (INCLUDING CROSS TALK) DURING ALL MEETING. NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO USE ANY OTHER CLIENTS ROOM OR PERSONAL BELONGINGS (INCLUDING FOOD/TOWELS/TOILETRIES ETC). MISUSE OF TV, MOTOR VEHICLES, OR LOUD VOICES, WHICH DISTURBS OTHERS IN THE FACILITY. NO STEREO EQUIPMENT IE: GUITARS, BOOM BOXES OR AMPLIFIERS. KEEPING LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY PRESCRIBED MEDICATIONS. ALL MEDICATIONS MUST BE REPORTED AND TURNED IN TO STAFF UPON ADMISSION (INCLUDING OVER THE COUNTER MEDICATIONS). FAILURE TO PERFORM OR SATISFACTORILY COMPLETE ASSIGNED HOUSE CHORES DAILY. ALL APARTMENTS, INCLUDING BEDROOM, BATHROOM, KITCHEN AND LIVING ROOM, MUST BE KEPT CLEAN AT ALL TIMES NO EXCEPTIONS. CLIENTS OF APARTMENTS THAT DO NOT ADHERE TO THESE STANDARDS WILL LOSE ALL PRIVILEGES UNTIL CLIENT CAN KEEP HIS APARTMENT CLEAN. YOU MUST HAVE AN APPROVED SPONSOR. (REQUIREMENTS FOR A SPONSOR MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS SOBRIETY AND HAS WORKED ALL 12 STEPS). CLIENTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM SPONSORING OTHER CLIENTS. CLIENTS REQUESTING AN OVERNIGHT PASS MUST EITHER BE MARRIED OR HAVE FAMILY IN THE AREA. EACH CASE WILL BE EVALUATED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. OVER NIGHT PASSES ARE CONSIDERED ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S OVERALL PROGRAM PERFORMANCE, ATTITUDE ETC. BORROWING OR LENDING MONEY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. SALE OF ANY ITEM TO ANOTHER RESIDENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. CLIENTS OF PACIFIC PARK ARE NOT PERMITTED TO WORK FOR OTHER CLIENTS, NO EXCEPTIONS. CLIENTS WHILE AT PACIFIC PARK WILL BE REQUIRED TO WORK FOR A COMPANY OR CONTRACTOR IE: 8 HOURS A DAY, 40 HOURS A WEEK. NO CLIENTS WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE SELF EMPLOYED, EXCEPT IF CLIENT HAS A BUSINESS LICENSE, COMPANY OR BUSINESS WELL ESTABLISHED. CLIENTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM FREQUENTING ANY BAR, NIGHTCLUB OR CONCERT DURING THEIR STAY AT PACIFIC PARK. CLIENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SLEEP ON COUCHES DURING THE DAY. NO ONE IS ALLOWED OUT OF THE APARTMENTS BEFORE 5:00 AM. (EXCEPT WHEN WORK SCHEDULE APPLIES) NO CLIENT IS ALLOWED TO CLIMB OVER WALL. ALL CLIENTS MUST WEAR PROPER ATTIRE. (SHOES AND SHIRTS AT ALL TIMES) CLIENT AGREES TO LEAVE PACIFIC PARK IF ANY OF THESE STANDARDS AND COMMITMENTS IS NOT MET COMPLETELY. FURTHER, THE CLIENT AGREES TO ABSENT SELF FROM PREMISES IMMEDIATELY UPON DEMAND OF STAFF WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS NO REFUND OF MONEY WHATSOEVER WHEN DISCHARGED. CLIENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING ANY MISSING OR DAMAGED ITEMS THAT ARE SUPPLIED BY PACIFIC PARK. SIGNATURE DATE STAFF WITNESS CITY COUNCIL REPORT ATTACHMENT 5 Engineering Review of Parking Demand Analysis dated February 27, 2002 lnter-Com ~ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 27, 2002 KAREN PETERSON, SENIOR PLANNER DOUG ANDERSON, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER - TRANSPORTATION ADDITIONAL PARKING STUDY INFORMATION - CONVERSION OF TWO MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AT 14511 AND 14512 CARFAX AVENUE INTO A SOBER-LIVING FACILITY Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has re-reviewed the Parking Study for the proposed project te convert existing multi-family residential units to a boarding house use for recovering alcohol and substance abusers located at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Avenue. The Study was prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) and is dated September 11, 2001. Based upon additional review the following comments have been prepared: Staff has contacted the Phoenix House (the study facility included in the 9/11/01 AFA study) to learn more about their operations and determine their comparability to the proposed facility at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Avenue. The following information was obtained from the Phoenix House on February 22, 2002. - The Phoenix House has approximately 85 adult residents as identified in the AFA parking study. There is, however, an adolescent unit of approximately 40 patients that are also housed at the site. In addition, there is an out patient program that also operates at the Phoenix House. The Phoenix House was described as being a Hospital, which would differ from a sober living facility. Of the current adult residents, it was indicated that 4-5 presently have vehicles at the site. In order to have a vehicle at the site, residents must have outside employment, obtain Phoenix House permission and use the vehicle for work purposes only. Residents may seek employment after eight (8) months if they are in the "one-year" program and after 50 days if they are in the "90-day program". The total programs at Phoenix House are actually for two years (one year as a resident and one year as a "live out" - resident off-site, but returns for treatment) or 180 days (90 days in residence, 90 days off-site). Approximately 74 residents are currently in the two-year program and 11 in the 180-day program. The "live out" people in the program return on Tuesday evenings. Note: the AFA parking study indicated the "client return" occurred on (Wednesday) August 29th, 2001 when the peak parking (39 vehicles) was observed - it is not known if the operations were different at the time of the study (Wednesday vs. the current Tuesday). S:\Doug & Traffic\Development ReviewS001\14511 Carfax Response.doc In addition to the "client return" it was indicated there is an outpatient program that occurs on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. These sessions begin at 7:30 PM. These sessions were not part of the parking study data. There are approximately ten (10) employees at the site for the adult program, during the day. The Phoenix House representative did not know the number of adolescent program related employees. Most residents of the facility come from the Orange County area. The residents leave the facility for doctor appointments, to pick up donations for the facility, for some field trip type excursions, and work if in that stage of the program. Otherwise, travel off-site is very restricted and does not occur often. The facility does have van/bus type transportation available. Visitors are restricted to the last Thursday of the month. Children of residents may visit on all Sundays during specified periods. Visitors are not allowed during other periods, other than by special permission. (Note: a Sunday parking demand count was not included in the analyses). Engineering staff has significant concerns with the Parking Study (9/11/01) based on the new information obtained and described above. It appears the Phoenix House facility is not representative of the proposed project operations and the peak parking demands may not be adequately addressed by the analyses. Parking studies can provide beneficial information when the levels of confidence in the parking analysis results exceed the confidence in the utilization of standard parking Codes. The recent research and analyses (AFA and City) suggests that the description "sober living facilities" can relate to a number of operations that may or may not be similar to one another. This is highlighted in the AFA Parking Study where the "Cornerstone" and "Sober Living by the Sea" facilities were concluded as not similar to the proposed project. In addition, there are now significant concerns that suggest that the Phoenix House should not be used as a comparable use. The Parking Study showed a peak of 39 vehicles parked, but concluded that the actual "typical peak" should be used (30 vehicles). The maximum peak (39 vehicles - Wednesday at 3:00PM) is now suspected to result from other factors; not necessarily the returning clients for the "refresher course" as assumed in the study. As noted above, the Phoenix House representative indicated the "refresher course" occurs on Tuesday evenings. There are now significant concerns regarding the assumed Parking Study demand (0.35 parking spaces per resident). This conclusion cannot be justified based on the current known information. o City staff also conducted a survey of some neighboring Cities regarding their approaches to parking requirements for a use similar to the proposed project at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Avenue. Information was obtained from the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Cypress, Irvine, La Habra, and Santa Ana. The parking requirements used by these Cities was found to be consistent with the City of Tustin's "Boarding House" parking rate. In addition, the majority of City staff and/or decision makers in these Cities have the S:\Doug & Traffic\Development ReviewS001\14511 Carfax Response.doc discretion to rely upon applicable City Codes to describe parking requirements for a "sober living facility" type project. Engineering typically allows the presentation of technical analyses by qualified consultants to supplement City of Tustin Code parking information. In the case of the "Carfax Sober Living Parking Study" (9/11/01) there is new information available that was not readily apparent through the initial review of the Parking Study. The new information raises significant concerns with the conclusions of the Study and the findings should be reconsidered. Overall, the Tustin City Code is concluded to provide the most applicable parking requirement for the proposed project. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed project. If you have any questions, please contact Steve Sasaki, of my staff, or me. S:\Doug & Traffic\Development ReviewS001\14511 Car[ax Response.doc CITY COUNCIL REPORT ATTACHMENT 6 City Council Resolution Nos. 02-014, 02-17B 02-017A, and 6 7 8 9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 RESOLUTION NO. 02-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING USE DETERMINATION NOS. 00-001 AND 00-002 AND DETERMINING THAT THE USES AT 14511 AND 14512 CARFAX DRIVE ARE NOT APARTMENT HOUSES AND ARE BOARDING HOUSES WHICH REQUIRE APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS SUBJECT TO SECTION 9228(b)(5) OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby find as follows: That applications, Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00- 002, were filed on February 17, 2000, by Marc Kassof requesting a determination that the uses at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive (Lots 14 and 15 of Tract 5028) are apartment houses. That the properties are located within the "Suburban Residential" zoning district and "High Density Residential" land use designation of the General Plan. That pursuant to Sections 9228(a) and 9298(b) of the Tustin City Code, the Planning Commission is authorized to determine whether uses are similar in character to the permitted and conditionally permitted uses of a particular zoning district. That on March 12, 2001, the Planning Commission denied Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3772. That on March 15, 2001, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision. Fo That a public headng on the appeal was duly called, noticed, and held on April 16, 2001, by the City Council and continued to July 16, 2001, October 15, 2001, and February 4, 2002, at the request of the appellant. Go The City Council has considered the Planning Commission staff report dated March 12, 2001, the minutes of the March 12, 2001, Planning Commission meeting, Planning Commission Resolution No. 3772, the City Council staff report dated March 4, 2002, and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing held on March 4, 2002. 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I" 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Resolution No. 02-14 Page 2 That the uses that have been established at 14511 and 14512 Carl:ax Ddve are not consistent with the definition of an apartment house for the following reasons: The use of the property is inconsistent with the definition of an "Apartment House" which is a building, or portion thereof, designed and built for the occupancy of three (3) or more families living independently of each other. A family is an individual or two (2) or more persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit at 14511 and 14512 Car[ax Drive is used and occupied in a way that accommodates eight (8) persons who are individually and separately responsible for the payment of rent. In addition, each person/resident is individually responsible for complying with the rules of the house. Although residents would share bedrooms and dwelling units, the eight (8) individuals in each unit would function independently and would not compdse a single housekeeping unit since they would reside at the properties for various lengths of times and pay rent as separate individuals. Each resident would be solely responsible for abiding by the terms of residency, including remaining sober, participating in drug testing, observing curfew, performing chores, and cooking his own food. An individual could be expelled for non-compliance with the terms of residency without an eviction process or affecting the residency of any other individuals in the same dwelling unit or bedroom. To meet the definition of an apartment house, a single individual or family functioning as a single housekeeping unit would need to inhabit each dwelling unit. That the uses that have been established at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive are consistent with the definition of a boarding house and constitute boarding house uses within the definition and meaning of the City's ordinances. Boarding house uses are permitted in the zoning district applicable to the subject properties, subject to the approval of a conditional 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 I b 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Resolution No. 02-14 Page 3 use permit in accordance with Section 9228(b)(5) of the Tustin City Code. Under the City's land use regulatory program which would be applicable to the subject properties: Lodging would be provided for compensation for more than three (3) individuals on each property, each dwelling unit, and each bedroom consistent with the definition of a "Boarding House" which states, "A dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." In addition to a resident manager, a total of four (4) single beds could be provided in each room, eight (8) single beds could be provided in each dwelling unit, and thirty-two (32) single beds could be provided in each four-unit complex. Residents would not be entitled to use garage spaces; residents could be able to rent garage spaces under separate financial arrangements. Residents could be supervised in a structured living environment which includes signing an agreement to remain sober during their length of stay, participating in mandatory periodic off-site drug testing, observing a 10:00 p.m. curfew; agreeing to having no visitors, allowing searches of personal property, performing house chores, buying and cooking their own food, and other types of rules. Residents would not select their bed assignment nor select other individuals to reside with in a room or unit. Female residents could be excluded from residing at these properties. Although this type of occupancy may be found in boarding houses, individuals or families residing in apartment houses and acting as single housekeeping units are not typically subject to such restrictions or limitations. Residents would reside at the properties as independent persons and would not form single housekeeping units. Although residents could be required to perform house chores, they could buy and cook their own food and operate as individuals rather than as single housekeeping units. All of the residents could reside within a particular dwelling unit or property for various lengths of time under separate agreements, pay rent as individuals, and individual residents could be asked to leave for non-compliance with the terms of residency without initiating an 2 3 7 I0 11 12 14 I§ I? 19 20 21 2.3 24 2b 27 2~ 29 Resolution No. 02-14 Page 4 eviction process or affecting the residency of other individuals in their unit. The actions of each resident would affect only his or her residency, and an on- going turnover of individuals is customary. The desired residents are individuals who wish to remain sober and are willing to share bedrooms with others; families have been asked to move out of the properties. Females are referred to other housing opportunities. In December 1999, families who had lived in Units C and D of 14511 Carfax Drive and Unit A of 14512 Carfax Drive were told they would need to find other housing. Managers of apartment houses typically contract with individuals regardless of gender, and families as desired tenants for separate dwelling units. Although the application indicates that the rent would be $1,600.00 for a two-bedroom unit and $1,800.00 for a three-bedroom unit, the applicant has indicated in the past that residents would pay approximately $400.00 per person per month and staff has learned that some individuals have paid $15,000.00 for a 90- day term in rent for the use of a single bed and common areas. The Sober Living Rental Agreement indicates that each individual would pay $500.00 per month. The amount of rent for some individuals may exceed the average market rents in Tustin which are approximately $400.00 to $500.00 for the use of an entire bedroom with kitchen privileges and $1,251.00 per month for a two-bedroom, two-bathroom unit and $1,641.00 for a three-bedroom, two-bathroom unit (per the Preliminary Draft Housing Element Technical Memorandum). In addition, insurance coverage would be accepted as compensation which is not typically accepted for apartment rental payments. There is an off-site commercial component that is integral to the uses at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive. The office located at 14151 Newport Avenue is used as a point of mail collection for residents, as a counseling center for the residents of 14511 and 14512 Carfax, and as a management office for these properties. Residents of 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive are required to receive their mail at 14151 Newport Avenue to avoid the risk of receiving drugs through the mail. Counseling and drug testing are 5 6 7 8 9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2-~ 28 29 Resolution No. 02-14 Page 5 terms of residency for individuals residing at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive. Off-site mandatory mail service as well as social and medical services are not typically associated with apartment houses in which individuals arrange their own mail service and establish and maintain their own social and medical services. Section 9298 of the Tustin City Code requires the approval body to consider the effect upon the public health, safety,and general welfare of the neighborhood involved and the City at large; the effect upon traffic conditions; and the effect upon the ordedy development of the area in question and the City at large, in regard to the general planning of the whole community. A total of 32 persons living independently within a building designed to accommodate multiple families has the potential to impact the welfare of the neighborhood on Carfax Drive with increased activity, noise, and traffic. A concentration of these uses at two separate properties has the potential to erode the character of the multiple family residential neighborhood existing on Carfax Ddve and nearby streets. Since boarding houses are necessary components of a City's housing stock yet have the potential to adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare, the City Council, through Ordinance No. 1225, has deemed that boarding houses should be conditionally permitted. Conditional use permits provide for reasonable conditions of approval that mitigate the negative impacts of uses. That the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act) which states that projects that are rejected or disapproved by a public agency are not subject to CEQA. The City Council hereby resolves as follows: The applications for Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00- 002, requesting that the uses at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive be determined to be apartment houses, are hereby denied. The Council's action denying applicant's applications for use determinations should not be viewed as a denial of any applicable entitlement to accommodate the applicant's proposed used of the property. In denying the use I 4 5 6 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 27 28 29 Resolution No. 02-14 Page 6 determinations and concurring with the Planning Commission to deny the application, Council has also recognized that the applicant has the right to file applications for conditional use permits to use the subject properties as boarding houses to accommodate his proposed use of the properties. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 4th day of March, 2002. Jeffery M. Thomas Mayor Pamela Stoker City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 02-14 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 02-14 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 4th day of March, 2002 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Pamela Stoker, City Clerk I0 I! !2 13 14 15 16 17 1~; lO 20 21 22 23 24 2~ 26 27 2,'4 29 RESOLUTION NO. 02-17A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 01- 017 AND 01-018 AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BOARDING HOUSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING A SOBER LIVING FACILITY LOCATED AT 14511 AND 14512 CARFAX DRIVE. The City Council does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: Proper applications, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 01-017 and 01-018 were filed by Marc Kassoff of S & K Properties, requesting authorization to establish boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility located at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive, within the Suburban Residential Zoning District (R-4) and "High-Density Residential" General Plan land use designation. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation "High-Density Residential," which provides for a variety of residential uses. The project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. The applicant's attomey submitted a letter to the Community Development Department in September 1999 requesting that the City adopt an ordinance to accommodate his client's proposed uses. On January 17, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1225 conditionally permitting boarding houses in the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district. Despite adoption of Ordinance No. 1225 conditionally permitting boarding houses in the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district, the applicant submitted Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 requesting that the uses that had been established at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive were apartments and not boarding houses. On March 12, 2001, the Planning Commission denied Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3772 finding that the uses that had been established at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive were boarding houses. The applicant submitted conditional use permit applications in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9228(b)5 which lists boarding houses as conditionally permitted uses in the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district. I 2 4 5 ? 9 lO 12 14 15 lO 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 27 28 29 Resolution No. 02-017A Page 2 That a public headng was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on December 10, 2001, and continued to January 14, 2002, and January 28, 2002, by the Planning Commission. On January 28, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permits 01- 017 and 01-018 authorizing boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Ddve. Ho That the Planning Commission's decision was appealed on February 4, 2002, by the City Council. That a public hearing on the appeal was duly called, noticed, and held on said appeal on March 4, 2002, by the City Council. As conditioned, the proposed use as a boarding house to accommodate the operation of a sober living facility will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing in or working in the neighborhood in that: 1) The proposed use is consistent with the definition of a boarding house in that lodging would be provided for compensation for more than three (3) individuals on each property, which is consistent with the definition of a boarding house which is "A dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." 2) The proposed use complies with the development standards for a boarding house as required in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9228b(5), with the exception of parking. A parking demand analysis has been provided that demonstrates .35 parking spaces are needed for each resident given the nature of the use and clientele. If the use operations deviate from the parking demand analysis or the conditions contained herein, and, if there are parking problems associated with the use, the applicant would be required to identify and mitigate any impacts or discontinue the use. 3) As conditioned, the proposed use would be compatible with uses in the surrounding area and will not be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity or to the welfare of the City in that the nature, operation, and scale of the sober living facility is compatible with surrounding residential uses. This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act). II. The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's decision approving Conditional Use Permit Nos. 01-017 and 01-018 authorizing the establishment of boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living 5 8 I0 Il 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Resolution No. 02-017A Page 3 facility located at 14511 and 14512 Carl:ax Drive, subject to the conditions imposed by Planning Commission Resolution No. 3814 included as Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 4th day of March 4, 2002. JEFFERY M. THOMAS Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 02-17A PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 02-17A was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 4m day of March, 2002. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION 01-17A RESOLUTION NO. 38'!4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 01-017 AND 01-018 AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BOARDING HOUSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING A SOBER LIVING FACILITY LOCATED AT 14511 AND 14512 CARFAX DRIVE. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Proper applications, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 01-017 and 01-018 were filed by Marc Kassoff of S & K Properties, requesting authorization to establish boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility located at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive, within the Suburban Residential Zoning District (R-4) and "High-Density Residential" General Plan land use designation. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation "High-Density Residential," which provides for a variety of residential uses. The project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. The proposed facility is a boarding house and is subject to approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9228(b)5. Do That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on December 10, 2001, and continued to January 14, 2002, by the Planning Commission. As conditioned, the proposed use as a boarding house to accommodate the operation of a sober living facility will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing in or working in the neighborhood in that: 1) The proposed use is consistent with the definition of a boarding house in that lodging would be provided for compensation for more than three (3) individuals on each property, which is consistent with the definition of a boarding house which is "A dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." 2) The proposed use complies with the development standards fo: a boarding house as required in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9228b(5), with the exception of parking. A parking demand analysis has been provided that demonstrates .35 parking spaces are needed for each resident given the nature of $ 9 14 27 2~ 2 Resolution No. 3814 Page 2 the use and clientele. If the use operations deviate from the parking demand analysis or the conditions contained herein, and, if there are parking problems associated with the use, the applicant would be required to identify and mitigate any impacts or discontinue the use. 3) As conditioned, the proposed use would be compatible with uses in the surrounding area and will not be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity or to the welfare of the City in that the nature, operation, and scale of the sober living facility is compatible with surrounding residential uses. This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act). Il. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit Nos. 01- 017 and 01-018 authorizing the establishment of boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility located at 14511 and 14512 Caffax Drive, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 28th day of January, 2002. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary LESLIE A. PONYIOUS Chairperson STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3814 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 28th day of January, 2002. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-017 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-018 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL (1) 1.1 (4) (4) 1.3 (1) 1.4 (1) 1.5 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped January 28, 2002, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code. Approval shall become null and void unless building permits are issued and conditions are complied with as specified in this Exhibit. Time extensions may be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. All conditions in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for this project or as specified, subject to review and approval of plans by the Community Development Department. Approval of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 01-017 and 01-018 are contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk-Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge of the City's approval for this project. (2) (3) (4) SOURCE CODES STANDARD CONDITION CEQA MITIGATION UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S DESIGN REVIEW EXCEPTIONS (5) (6) (7) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES PC/CC POLICY Exhibit A Resolution No. 3814 Page 2 (1) 1.6 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the imposition of a civil penalty of $100.00 for each violation, or such other amounts as the City Council may establish by ordinance or resolution, and for each day the violation exists. (1) 1.7 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorneys fees. (1) 1,8 Conditional Use Permit 01-017 and Conditional Use Permit 01-018 shall be reviewed within one (1) year of approval and on an annual basis thereafter, or more often if necessary, by the Community Development Director. A status report shall be provided to the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director shall review the use to ascertain compliance with conditions of approval. If the use is not operated in accordance with Conditional Use Permit 01-017 and Conditional Use Permit 01-018, or is found to be a nuisance or negative impacts are affecting the surrounding neighborhood, the Community Development Director shall impose additional conditions to eliminate the nuisance or negative impacts or may initiate proceedings to revoke the Conditional Use Permits. Costs associated with additional reviews shall be borne by the applicant. PLAN SUBMITTAL (3) 2.1 Within sixty (60) days of approval, the applicant shall submit four (4) sets of accurately scaled and dimensioned site, floor, and construction plans prepared by a licensed engineedarchitect to demonstrate compliance with the conditions contained herein. In addition, the applicable codes, City, State, and Federal laws and regulations shall be listed on the title sheet, including the following: · 1998 California Building Code; · 1998 California Mechanical and Plumbing Codes; · 1998 California Electrical Code; · City of Tustin Grading and Security Qrdinance; · City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines; and, · City of Tustin Private Improvements Standards. If compliance with this condition reduces the amount of private or common open space or parking spaces, the total number of occupants shall be reduced accordingly. 2.2 The private open spaces shall be completely enclosed with fences or walls not to exceed six (6) feet eight (8) inches in height. A site plan shall be provided to the Community Development Department for review and approval of any new fencing and/or walls prior to construction. Permits for the new fences and/or walls must be obtained and the fences and/or walls shall be constructed within sixty (60) days from approval. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3814 Page 3 (***) 2.3 Show the existing location of the storage/recreation building and identify on the site plan that the building shall be demolished. The site plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. A demolition permit shall be obtained and the building shall be demolished within sixty (60) days from approval. (3) 2.4 Smoke detectors shall be provided and maintained in all sleeping rooms and in common hallways between sleeping rooms. In addition, escape windows, exiting, and minimum egress requirements, in accordance with the 1998 California Building Code, shall be provided and maintained in each building. An inspection by the Community Development Department shall be conducted to verify and approve the location of the smoke detectors, escape windows, exiting, and minimum egress requirements within sixty (60) days from approval. (***) 2.5 The applicant shall obtain permits for and complete installation of the approved parking configuration within sixty (60) days of approval. (7) 2.6 Parking for disabled persons is required and shall be shown on the site plan and provided to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to installation. Applicant shall provide one (1) of the parking spaces shall comply with the requirements for the disabled. Parking for the disabled must have an additional five (5) foot loading area with striping and ramp and disabled persons shall be able to park and access the building without passing behind another car. At least one (1) accessible space shall be van accessible served by a minimum 96-inch wide loading area. If the addition of a parking space for the disabled reduces the number of off-street parking spaces, the number of residents shall be reduced accordingly. (3) 2.7 Within sixty (60) days of approval, the applicant shall obtain permits for any improvements that have been constructed without permits. (3) 2.8 A note shall be placed on the plans that no field changes shall be made without prior approval from the Building Official and architect or engineer of record. 2.9 A trash enclosure and trash bins and recycling bins shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of Federal Disposal to avoid health issues for neighboring commercial and residential areas within sixty (60) days of approval. The enclosure shall be constructed with a solid decorative wall consistent with the adjacent building's material and finish and solid metal, self-closing, self-latching gates, be a minimum height of six feet, and be screened from view on Carfax Drive with landscaping materials. A plan depicting the details and location of the enclosure and types of screening and details of the enclosure shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department. The location of the bin, size and quantity shall be reviewed and accepted in writing by Federal Exhibit A Resolution No. 3814 Page 4 Disposal. If compliance with this condition requires the removal of parking spaces, the total number of occupants shall be reduced accordingly. 2.10 To facilitate City of Tustin compliance with the State of California Waste Recycling requirements, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Public Works Department a Project Recycling Plan within sixty (60) days of approval for a Project Recycling Plan to accomplish recovery and recycling of a least fifty (50) percent of the total waste generated by the project. The plan shall included the following requirements: In a narrative form, describe efforts which will be utilized to minimize the generation of waste during the project; Provide an estimate of the total amount of waste to be generated for the entire duration of the project; Provide and estimate of the total amount of recyclable materials generated by the project, identified by recyclable material type; Identify waste hauler(s) to be utilized during the project. Note: The City has an exclusive waste collection franchise with Federal Disposal Service of Santa Aha. No other haulers are to be utilized pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 4322; Identify recyclable material processing facilities which will be utilized to process materials generated by the project; Demonstrate that no waste generated by the project will be sent directly to any landfill; and, Prior to the issuance of a Notice of Completion of a Certificate of Occupancy, a final report shall be submitted to the Public Works Department detailing actual quantities of the items listed above as well as a narrative summary of the recycling efforts implemented during the project. USE 3.1 No more than thirty-one (31) persons including thirty (30) residents and one (1)on-site manager shall reside at each of the premises at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive at any one time. Off-street parking at a ratio of .35 parking space for each resident, including managers, shall be provided and off-street parking spaces shall be a minimum of nine (9) feet in width and twenty (20) feet in length. The twentv-two (22) off-street parking spaces provided shall accommodate a maximum of sixty-two (62) residents, including the managers. If compliance with the conditions of this resolution requires the removal Of parking spaces, the total number of occupants shall be reduced accordingly. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3814 Page 5 The off-street parking shall be installed within sixty (60) days from approval. Upon request, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with this condition to the Community Development Department, including providing a roster of names and identification of current tenants to the Community Development Director upon request to verify tenancy. If, in the future, the use deviates from the parking demand analysis or the City determines that parking problems exist on the site or in the vicinity, upon notification by the Community Development Department, the applicant shall immediately discontinue the use until an updated parking analysis has been accepted by the City of Tustin and all required mitigation has been implemented. The applicant/property owner shall bear the cost of the preparation of the updated parking demand analysis and implementation of any mitigation measures. 3.2 The property owner, operator, managers, and residents shall abide by the "Sober Living Facility Rules" as submitted by the applicant and included as Exhibit B to this resolution. Failure to comply with such rules shall be deemed a violation of this conditional use permit. Any changes shall be approved in writing by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission. 3.:3 A manager for each complex at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive shall be on- site 24 hours a day. 3.4 The property owner, operator, and managers shall be responsible for ensuring that the number of residents, including managers, owning, operating, or maintaining a motor vehicle at or in the vicinity of the site shall not exceed the total number of parking spaces on the site, as described in Section 3.1 above. 3.5 All residents shall park their vehicles on the properties at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive within designated parking spaces as shown on the approved site plan and shall display parking permits issued by the applicant and/or on-site manager. The applicant shall submit a parking permit plan for residents and managers for review and approval by the Community Development Department. Residents shall not use on-street parking. 3.6 A shared parking and reciprocal ingress and egress agreement between the two properties shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to recordation with the County of Orange. A recorded agreement is necessary to allow shared vehicular access and parking between the two properties. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be provided to the Community Development Department within sixty (60) days of approval. 3.7 All garages on the site shall be used for the parking of vehicles owned, operated, or maintained by residents of the facility. A deed restriction shall be recorded within sixty (60) days of approval, which states that the garages Exhibit A Resolution No. 3814 Page 6 shall be used for parking of vehicles by the residents of the sober living facility. The deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to execution and recordation with the County of Orange. ("'**) 3.8 The' property owner, operator, and managers shall be responsible for daily clean-up and maintenance of the properties at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive, including the removal of debris and trash, landscape maintenance, and maintenance of the buildings and site amenities. The properties shall be maintained in good repair and in a clean condition at all times. (***) 3.9 There shall be no outdoor storage. (~**) 3.10 The property owner, applicant, and/or manager shall ensure that residents who are terminated from the program leave the vicinity in a safe manner. LANDSCAPING (1) 4.1 The pavement within the front yard area shall be reduced to a maximum of 75 percent of the total required front yard to improve the residential character of the properties. The required front yard is the area between the front property line adjacent to Carfax Drive, extending north twenty (20) feet. To meet this objective, a landscape planter shall be added in the front yard along the common property line of 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive. Details of the landscape planter shall be provided to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to installation. The landscape planter shall be installed within sixty (60) days from approval. If compliance with this condition requires the removal of parking spaces, the total number of occupants shall be' reduced accordingly. NOISE (7) 5.1 All construction operators including engine warm-up shall be subject to the provisions.of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance, as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Saturday unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and that public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time of the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3814 Page 7 FEES (1) 6.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to, the following. Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule. (2) 6.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of $43.00 (forty-three dollars) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality ACt could be significantly lengthened. EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION 3814 SOBER LIVLNG FACILITY RULES Sober Living Facility Rules Pacific Park Recover3' Center THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENT IS MADE BETWEEN AND PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER FOR THE PROVISION OF SOBER LIVING SERVICES DESIGNED TO ASSIST PERSONS WITH ADDICTION PROBLEMS. FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING RULES IS GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE DISCHARGE FROM THE PROGRAM OR OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION. IF YOU ARE AWARE OF ANY PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER CLIENT (S) IN VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE RULES LISTED BELOW, YOU WILL BE CONSIDERED IN VIOLATION OF THE SAME RULE AND HELD RESPONSIBLE. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 20. 2!. 22 ANY EVIDENCE OF DRUG OR ALCOHOL USE FOLLOWING ADMISSION TO THE FACILITY. CLIENTS ARE RESTRICTED FROM HAVING VISITORS AT THE PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. NO VISITORS ARE ALLOWED ON PACIFIC PARK PROPERTY AT ANY TIME. VISITORS WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PREMISES, AND APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINARY ACTION WILL BE TAKEN WITH THE OFFENDING CLIENT (S). ANY PARAPHERNALIA (SYRINGES, ROLLING PAPERS. PIPES, SPOONS, ETC) ASSOCIATED WITH ILLEGAL DRUG USE ON THE PREMISES IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. .. ANY CLIENT(S) ON SITE THAT APPEARS TO BE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL/DRUGS WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY AND IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED FROM THE PROGRAM. THE CLIENTS PAROLE OFFICER (S), THE COURT SYSTEM OR OTHER APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES WILL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY UPON DISCHARGE (IF APPLICABLE). ANY REFUSAL OF A CLIENT TO SUBMIT TO A DRUG TEST WHEN REQUESTED BY STAFF. DENYING STAFF ACCESS TO ANY ROOM AND/OR PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR SEARCH WHEN REQUESTED. ANY CLIENT THAT BRINGS WEAPONS, DRUGS, OR ALCOHOL INTO THE FACILITY WILL BE IMMEDIATELY DISCHARGED AND THE PROPER AUTHORITIES NOTIFIED (IF APPLICABLE). ANY PHYSICAL VIOLENCE OR THREAT OF VIOLENCE (ANY VIOLATION OF PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES) TO ANOTHER CLIENT OR STAFF MEMBER'S PERSON OR PROPERTY. REPEATED DISRESPECT TO PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER STAFF. REPEATED BEHAVIOR THAT THREATENS THE MENTAL, PHYSICAL HEALTH OR WELL BEING OF OTHERS IN THE FACILITY. THE WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY. (PROPERTY MEANS ANYTHING THAT IS NOT YOURS). ANY CLIENT (S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE/THEFT OF ANY PERSONAL PROPERTY SHALL BE FINANCIALLY LIABLE FOR THE REPAIR/REPLACEMENT COST OF THE DAMAGED PROPERTY. ANY CLIENTS REMOVING OR DEFACING PROPERTY AT PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER (FURNITURE, WALLS, APPLIANCES, ETC.) WILL BE TERMINATED FROM THE PROGRAM AND PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW. CLIENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO STORE FURNITURE, CARS OR OTHER ITEMS NOT UTILIZED ON A DAILY BASIS ON THE PACIFIC PARK PROPERTY OR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. NO PETS OF ANY KIND WILL BE ALLOWED AT PACIFIC PARK. FAILURE TO OBSERVE CURFEW. (CURFEW IS 11:00 PM SUNDAY - THURSDAY 12:00 A.M. FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. PHASE I CLIENTS CURFEW IS 10AM SUNDAY - THURSDAY 11:00 AM FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. FAILURE TO OBSERVE LIGHTS-OUT CURFEW. (LIGHTS-OUT IS 12:00 A.M. SUNDAY-THURSDAY, 1:00 A.M. FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. SEX WITH ANOTHER CLIENT AT PACIFIC PARK. ALL CLIENTS ARE RESTRICTED TO THEIR OWN UNITS. NO CLIENTS ARE TO "VISIT" ANY OTHER UNIT. NO PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIALS OF ANY KIND WILL BE ALLOWED. SMOKING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED IN ANY UNIT, AT ANYTIME. (SMOKING IS ONLY ALLOWED ON OUTDOOR PATIO) RUDE AND DISCOURTEOUS BEHAVIOR TO ANYONE WHILE ON PACIFIC PARK PROPERTY OR IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD IS PROHIBITED. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. ANY FRATERNIZING THA', .¢ VIEWED AS BEING INAPPROPRIATE A~L} UNHEALTHY BY PACIFIC PARK STAFF IS PROHIBITED. PACIFIC PARK CLIENTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM ANY PHYSICAL ALTERATIONS TO THEIR PERSON (I.E. TATTOOS, PIERCING, UNUSUAL HAIR CUTS AND/OR COLOR, OR OTHER TYPES OF PHYSICAL ALTERATIONS ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED WHILE YOU ARE ENROLLED IN THE PROGRAM. PHASE I CLIENTS ARE RESTRICTED FROM DRIVING, PARKING OR MAINTAINING A MOTOR VEHICLE AND/OR MOTORCYCLE AT PACIFIC PARK RECOVERY CENTER. ONLY APPROVED PACIFIC PARK CLIENTS MAY DRIVE, PARK OR MAINTAIN A MOTOR VEHICLE AND/OR MOTORCYCLE. ALL APPROVED CLIENTS MUST POSSESS A CURRENT CALIFORNIA DRIVERS LICENSE, PROOF OF INSURANCE AND CURRENT VEHICLE REGISTRATION, AND PROVIDE LEGIBLE COPIES OF SAME. ALL INFORMATION RECEIVED WILL BE VERIFIED FOR ACCURACY PRIOR TO AUTHORIZATION. ANY TARDINESS OR ABSENCE FROM REQUIRED 12-STEP MEETINGS WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM STAFF IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. CLIENTS ARE TO REFRAIN FROM DISRUPTING (INCLUDING CROSS TALK) DURING ALL MEETING. NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO USE ANY OTHER CLIENTS ROOM OR PERSONAL BELONGINGS (INCLUDING FOOD/TOWELS/TOILETRIES ETC). MISUSE OF TV, MOTOR VEHICLES, OR LOUD VOICES, WHICH DISTURBS OTHERS IN THE FACILITY. NO STEREO EQUIPMENT IE: GUITARS, BOOM BOXES OR AMPLIFIERS. KEEPING LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY PRESCRIBED MEDICATIONS. ALL MEDICATIONS MUST BE REPORTED AND TURNED IN TO STAFF UPON ADMISSION (INCLUDING OVER THE COUNTER MEDICATIONS). FAILURE TO PERFORM OR SATISFACTORILY COMPLETE ASSIGNED HOUSE CHORES DAILY. ALL APARTMENTS, INCLUDING BEDROOM, BATHROOM, KITCHEN AND LIVING ROOM, MUST BE KEPT CLEAN AT ALL TIMES NO EXCEPTIONS. CLIENTS OF APARTMENTS THAT DO NOT ADHERE TO THESE STANDARDS WILL LOSE ALL PRIVILEGES UNTIL CLIENT CAN KEEP HIS APARTMENT CLEAN. YOU MUST HAVE AN APPROVED SPONSOR. (REQUIREMENTS FOR A SPONSOR MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS SOBRIETY AND HAS WORKED ALL 12 STEPS). CLIENTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM SPONSORING OTHER CLIENTS. CLIENTS REQUESTING AN OVERNIGHT PASS MUST EITHER BE MARRIED OR HAVE FAMILY IN THE AREA. EACH CASE WILL BE EVALUATED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. OVER NIGHT PASSES ARE CONSIDERED ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S OVERALL PROGRAM PERFORMANCE, ATTITUDE ETC. BORROWING OR LENDING MONEY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. SALE OF ANY ITEM TO ANOTHER RESIDENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. CLIENTS OF PACIFIC PARK ARE NOT PERMITTED TO WORK FOR OTHER CLIENTS, NO EXCEPTIONS. CLIENTS WHILE AT PACIFIC PARK WILL BE REQUIRED TO WORK FOR A COMPANY OR CONTRACTOR IE: 8 HOURS A DAY, 40 HOURS A WEEK. NO CLIENTS WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE SELF EMPLOYED, EXCEPT IF CLIENT HAS A BUSINESS LICENSE, COMPANY OR BUSINESS WELL ESTABLISHED. CLIENTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM FREQUENTING ANY BAR, NIGHTCLUB OR CONCERT DURING THEIR STAY AT PACIFIC PARK. CLIENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SLEEP ON COUCHES DURING THE DAY. NO ONE IS ALLOWED OUT OF THE APARTMENTS BEFORE 5:00 AM. (EXCEPT WHEN WORK SCHEDULE APPLIES) NO CLIENT IS ALLOWED TO CLIMB OVER WALL. ALL CLIENTS MUST WEAR PROPER ATTIRE. (SHOES AND SHIRTS AT ALL TIMES) CLIENT AGREES TO LEAVE PACIFIC PARK IF ANY OF THESE STANDARDS AND COMMITMENTS IS NOT lvlET COMPLETELY. FURTHER, THE CLIENT AGREES TO ABSENT SELF FROM PREMISES IMMEDIATELY UPON DEMAND OF STAFF WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS NO REFUND OF MONEY WHATSOEVER WHEN DISCHARGED. CLIENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING ANY MISSING OR DAMAGED ITEMS THAT ARE SUPPLIED BY PACIFIC PARK. SIGNATURE DATE STAFF WITNESS 5 6 7 8 9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2-~ 28 29 RESOLUTION NO. 02-17B A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, MODIFYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 01- 017 AND 01-018 AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BOARDING HOUSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING A SOBER LIVING FACILITY LOCATED AT 14511 AND 14512 CARFAX DRIVE. The City Council does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: Proper applications, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 01-017 and 01-018 were filed by Marc Kassoff of S & K Properties, requesting authorization to establish boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility located at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive, within the Suburban Residential Zoning District (R-4) and "High-Density Residential" General Plan land use designation. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation "High-Density Residential," which provides for a variety of residential uses. The project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. The applicant's attomey submitted a letter to the Community Development Department in September 1999 requesting that the City adopt an ordinance to accommodate his client's proposed uses. On January 17, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1225 conditionally permitting boarding houses in the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district. Despite adoption of Ordinance No. 1225 conditionally permitting boarding houses in the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district, the applicant submitted Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 requesting that the uses that had been established at 14511 and 14512 Carl:ax Drive were apartments and not boarding houses. On March 12, 2001, the Planning Commission denied Use Determination Nos. 00-001 and 00-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3772 finding that the uses that had been established at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive were boarding houses. The applicant submitted conditional use permit applications in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9228(b)5 which lists boarding houses as conditionally permitted uses in the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 i.~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Resolution No. 02-17B Page 2 That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on December 10, 2001, and continued to January 14, 2002, and January 28, 2002, by the Planning Commission. On January 28, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permits 01- 017 and 01-018 authorizing boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility at 14511 and 14512 Carl:ax Drive. That the Planning Commission's decision was appealed on February 4, 2002, by the City Council. That a public headng on the appeal was duly called, noticed, and held on said appeal on March 4, 2002, by the City Council. Jo As conditioned, the proposed use as a boarding house to accommodate the operation of a sober living facility will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing in or working in the neighborhood in that: 1) The proposed use is consistent with the definition of a boarding house in that lodging would be provided for compensation for more than three (3) individuals on each property, which is consistent with the definition of a boarding house which is "A dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." 2) The proposed use complies with the development standards for a boarding house as required in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9228b(5). Although a parking demand analysis was provided to demonstrate that .35 parking spaces are needed for each resident given the nature of the use and clientele, the analysis was based on the parking needs of one (1) facility that cannot be considered as an equivalent facility since it presents different operational characteristics as noted in the review dated February 25, 2002, by the Senior Project Manager, Transportation and incorporated herein by reference. As stated in the parking study, one (1) of the three (3) facilities that were surveyed offered similar operational characteristics (referred to as the Phoenix House). The other two (2) facilities were found to be dissimilar to the proposed use since they are less intensive than the proposed facility and serve six (6) or fewer persons. In addition, staff contacted the Phoenix House directly and learned that this facility does not have similar operational characteristics to the proposed facility and, therefore, does not offer an equivalent facility for analysis. As such, the parking study did not provide sufficient analysis to justify a deviation from the requirements of the Tustin City Code, which requires one (1) parking space for each two (2) residents. In addition, sober living facilities are so varied in their operational characteristics that parking demand studies do not provide adequate 5 10 II 12 13 14 I$ IO 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 28 29 Resolution No. 02-17B Page 3 information on which to base parking requirements. The parking requirement for boarding houses in the Tustin City Code was based on a survey of typical parking requirements from many cities and offers a consistent approach to establishing parking requirements for all boarding houses, including the proposed facility, and should be applied to the proposed project. 3) As conditioned, the proposed use would be compatible with uses in the surrounding area and will not be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity or to the welfare of the City in that the nature, operation, and scale of the sober living facility is compatible with surrounding residential uses. This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act). II. The City Council hereby modifies the Planning Commission's decision approving Conditional Use Permit Nos. 01-017 and 01-018 authorizing the establishment of boarding houses for the purpose of operating a sober living facility located at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive, subject to the conditions included in Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 4th day of March 4, 2002. JEFFERY M. THOMAS Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Resolution No. 02-17B Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 02-17B PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 02-17B was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 4th day of March, 2002. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 02-17B CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-017 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-018 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL (1) 1.1 (1) 1.2 (1) 1.3 (1) 1.4 (1) 1.5 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped March 4, 2002, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code. Approval shall become null and void unless building permits are issued and conditions are complied with as specified in this Exhibit. Time extensions may be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. All conditions in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for this project or as specified, subject to review and approval of plans by the Community Development Department. Approval of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 01-017 and 01-018 are contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk-Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. As a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 01-017 and 01- 018, the applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third-party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the (1) (2) (3) (4) SOURCE CODES STANDARD CONDITION CEQA MITIGATION UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S DESIGN REVIEW EXCEPTIONS (5) (6) (7) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES PC/CC POLICY Resolution No. 02-17B Page 2 (1) (1) (1) (3) Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, conceming this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in the defense of any such action under this condition. 1.6 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the payment of a civil penalty of $100.00 for each violation, or such other amounts as the City Council may establish by ordinance or resolution, and for each day the violation exists, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. 1.7 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorneys fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. 1.8 Conditional Use Permit 01-017 and Conditional Use Permit 01-018 shall be reviewed within one (1) year of approval and on an annual basis thereafter, or more often if necessary, by the Community Development Director. A status report shall be provided to the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director shall review the use to ascertain compliance with conditions of approval. If the use is not operated in accordance with Conditional Use Permit 01-017 and Conditional Use Permit 01-018, or is found to be a nuisance or negative impacts are affecting the surrounding neighborhood, the Community Development Director shall impose additional conditions to eliminate the nuisance or negative impacts or may initiate proceedings to revoke the Conditional Use Permits. Costs associated with additional reviews shall be bome by the applicant. PLAN SUBMITTAL 2.1 Within sixty (60) days of approval, the applicant shall submit four (4) sets of accurately scaled and dimensioned site, floor, and construction plans prepared by a licensed engineer/architect to demonstrate compliance with the conditions contained herein. In addition, the applicable codes, City, State, and Federal laws and regulations shall be listed on the title sheet, including the following: · 1998 California Building Code; · 1998 California Mechanical and Plumbing Codes; · 1998 California Electrical Code; · City of Tustin Grading and Security Ordinance; · City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines; and, · City of Tustin Private Improvements Standards. If compliance with this condition reduces the amount of private or common open space or parking spaces, the total number of occupants shall be reduced accordingly. Resolution No. 02-17B Page 3 (***) 2.2 (***) 2.3 (3) 2.4 (***) 2.5 (7) 2.6 (3) 2.7 (3) 2.8 (1) 2.9 The private open spaces shall be completely enclosed with fences or walls not to exceed six (6) feet eight (8) inches in height. A site plan shall be provided to the Community Development Department for review and approval of any new fencing and/or walls prior to construction. Permits for the new fences and/or walls must be obtained and the fences and/or walls shall be constructed within sixty (60) days from approval. Show the existing location of the storage/recreation building and identify on the site plan that the building shall be demolished. The site plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. A demolition permit shall be obtained and the building shall be demolished within sixty (60) days from approval. Smoke detectors shall be provided and maintained in all sleeping rooms and in common hallways between sleeping rooms. In addition, escape windows, exiting, and minimum egress requirements, in accordance with the 1998 California Building Code, shall be provided and maintained in each building. An inspection by the Community Development Department shall be conducted to verify and approve the location of the smoke detectors, escape windows, exiting, and minimum egress requirements within sixty (60) days from approval. The applicant shall obtain permits for and complete installation of the approved parking configuration within sixty (60) days of approval. Parking for disabled persons is required and shall be shown on the site plan and provided to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to installation. Applicant shall provide one (1) of the parking spaces shall comply with the requirements for the disabled. Parking for the disabled must have an additional five (5) foot loading area with striping and ramp and disabled persons shall be able to park and access the building without passing behind another car. At least one (1) accessible space shall be van accessible served by a minimum 96-inch wide loading area. If the addition of a parking space for the disabled reduces the number of off-street parking spaces, the number of residents shall be reduced accordingly. Within sixty (60) days of approval, the applicant shall obtain permits for any improvements that have been constructed without permits. A note shall be placed on the plans that no field changes shall be made without prior approval from the Building Official and amhitect or engineer of record. A trash enclosure and trash bins and recycling bins shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of Federal Disposal to avoid health issues for neighboring commercial and residential areas within sixty (60) days of approval. The enclosure shall be constructed with a solid decorative wall consistent with the adjacent building's material and finish and solid metal, self-closing, self-latching gates, be a minimum height of six feet, and be Resolution No. 02-17B Page 4 screened from view on Carfax Ddve with landscaping materials. A plan depicting the details and location of the enclosure and types of screening and details of the enclosure shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department. The location of the bin, size and quantity shall be reviewed and accepted in writing by Federal Disposal. If compliance with this condition requires the removal of parking spaces, the total number of occupants shall be reduced accordingly. (1) 2.10 To facilitate City of Tustin compliance with the State of California Waste Recycling requirements, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Public Works Department a Project Recycling Plan within sixty (60) days of approval for a Project Recycling Plan to accomplish recovery and recycling of a least fifty (50) percent of the total waste generated by the project. The plan shall included the following requirements: In a narrative form, describe efforts which will be utilized to minimize the generation of waste during the project; Provide an estimate of the total amount of waste to be generated for the entire duration of the project; Provide and estimate of the total amount of recyclable materials generated by the project, identified by recyclable material type; Identify waste hauler(s) to be utilized during the project. Note: The City has an exclusive waste collection franchise with Federal Disposal Service of Santa ^na. No other haulers are to be utilized pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 4322; Identify recyclable material processing facilities which will be utilized to process materials generated by the project; Demonstrate that no waste generated by the project will be sent directly to any landfill; and, Prior to the issuance of a Notice of Completion of a Certificate of Occupancy, a final report shall be submitted to the Public Works Department detailing actual quantities of the items listed above as well as a narrative summary of the recycling efforts implemented during the project. USE 3.1 No more than forty-four (44) persons, which number shall include any on-site managers, shall reside at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive at any one time. Off-street parking at a ratio of one (1) parking space for each two (2) residents, including managers, shall be provided and off-street parking spaces shall be a minimum of nine (9) feet in width and twenty (20) feet in length. The twenty-two (22) off-street parking spaces provided shall accommodate a maximum of forty-four (44) residents, including the Resolution No. 02-17B Page 5 managers. If compliance with the conditions of this resolution requires the removal of parking spaces, the total number of occupants shall be reduced accordingly. The off-street parking shall be installed within sixty (60) days from approval. Upon request, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with this condition to the Community Development Department, including providing a roster of names and identification of current tenants to the Community Development Director upon request to verify tenancy. If, in the future, the use deviates from the parking demand analysis or the City determines that parking problems exist on the site or in the vicinity, upon notification by the Community Development Department, the applicant shall immediately discontinue the use until an updated parking analysis has been accepted by the City of Tustin and all required mitigation has been implemented. The applicant/property owner shall bear the cost of the preparation of the updated parking demand analysis and implementation of any mitigation measures. 3.2 The property owner, operator, managers, and residents shall abide by the "Sober Living Facility Rules" as submitted by the applicant and included as Exhibit B to this resolution. Failure to comply with such rules shall be deemed a violation of this conditional use permit. Any changes shall be approved in writing by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission. (***) 3.3 A manager for each complex at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive shall be on-site 24 hours a day. 3.4 The property owner, operator, and managers shall be responsible for ensuring that the number of residents, including managers, owning, operating, or maintaining a motor vehicle at or in the vicinity of the site shall not exceed the total number of parking spaces on the site, as described in Section 3.1 above. 3.5 All residents shall park their vehicles on the properties at 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive within designated parking spaces as shown on the approved site plan and shall display parking permits issued by the applicant and/or on-site manager. The applicant shall submit a parking permit plan for residents and managers for review and approval by the Community Development Department. Residents shall not use on-street parking. 3.6 A shared parking and reciprocal ingress and egress agreement or deed restriction, as applicable, between the two properties shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to recordation with the County of Orange. A recorded agreement or deed restriction is necessary to allow shared vehicular access and parking between the two properties. ^ copy of the recorded agreement or deed restriction shall be provided to the Community Development Department within sixty (60) days of approval. 3.7 All garages on the site shall be used for the parking of vehicles owned, operated, or maintained by residents of the facility. A deed restriction shall be recorded within sixty (60) days of approval, which states that the garages shall Resolution No. 02-17B Page 6 be used for parking of vehicles by the residents of the sober living facility. The deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to execution and recordation with the County of Orange. (***) 3.8 The property owner, operator, and managers shall be responsible for daily clean-up and maintenance of the properties at 14511 and 14512 Carrax Drive, including the removal of debris and trash, landscape maintenance, and maintenance of the buildings and site amenities. The properties shall be maintained in good repair and in a clean condition at all times. (***) 3.9 There shall be no outdoor storage. (***) 3.10 The property owner, applicant, and/or manager shall ensure that residents who are terminated from the program leave the vicinity in a safe manner. LANDSCAPING (1) 4.1 The pavement within the front yard area shall be reduced to a maximum of 75 percent of the total required front yard to improve the residential character of the properties. The required front yard is the area between the front property line adjacent to Carfax Drive, extending north twenty (20) feet. To meet this objective, a landscape planter shall be added in the front yard along the common property line of 14511 and 14512 Carfax Drive. Details of the landscape planter shall be provided to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to installation. The landscape planter shall be installed within sixty (60) days from approval. If compliance with this condition requires the removal of parking spaces, the total number of occupants shall be reduced accordingly. NOISE (7) 5.1 All construction operators including engine warm-up shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance, as amended, and may take place only dudng the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Saturday unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and that public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time of the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. Resolution No. 02-17B Page 7 FEES (1) 6.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to, the following. Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. ao Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule. (2) 6.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of $43.00 (forty-three dollars) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour pedod that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. KEVIN E. ROBINSON f 't Attorney at Law Karen Granoff Wellington Square Telephone: (714)245-0210 Certified Paralegal 970 West 17th St.,Suite D Fax:.(714)973-0244 Santa Ana, CA 92706 February 27, 2002 ` r VIA FACSIMILE TO: 714/573-3113 b C CE` V ED ELIZABETH BINSACK mAR CI ti. 2at2 Community Development Department '�d��`�pMENj City of Tustin r g k 300 Centennial Way Tustin CA 92780 CITY COUNCIL City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin CA 92780 Re: 4511 and 14512 Carfax, Tustin, California CUP 01-017 and CUP 01-018 Dear Ms. Binsack and the Council Members: On behalf of my client Pacific Park I hereby formally request a continuance of the appeal of the City Planning Commission's denial of the Use Determination Applications in front of the City Council. The reasons for the request are as follows. The Community Development Department and myself had agreed in the past to continue the City Council appeal until such time as the Conditional Use Permit process was completed,which would allow my client time to evaluate the advisability of continuing with the appeal. At this point the Conditional Use Permit process is not complete and therefore until the City Council acts on the appeal of the C.U.P., my client will be unable to evaluate the effect of the denial of the Use Determination Application. Finally, it makes more sense of time and economy for my office and the City Council to not expend hours on both an appeal of the Use Determination and the C.U.P. process. Assuming we go forward with the Use Determination, it would be my intention to spend a substantial amount of time in presenting this appeal to the City Council. Therefore, based on all of the above reasons I request that the appeal of the Use Determination Application is continued for approximately thirty days. Ve ily yet KEVIN E. ROBINSON KER:kog C:\FILES\PacifiePark\Binasack-Council L01