HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-28-027:00 p.m.
Given
All present
Staff present
Approved
Taken out of order
Adopted Resolution Nos.
3820 and 3821
7:01 p.m.
Willkom
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
o
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 that the
Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-
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, 2002 - Page 1
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 MCAS
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 MCAS
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 MCAS 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 to
accommodate lower income households; stated that the
City has an adequate program and financial resources to
achieve those goals.
Minutes - PLanning Commission 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
MCAS 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 MCAS 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 MCAS 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 MCAS 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 MCAS 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).
Minutes - Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - Page 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
affordability 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 City 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
future.
Stated that Mr. Libertad posed issues similar to Ms.
Ramirez's commentswfor 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.
Minutes - Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - 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 were 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 community; 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.
Ashabi
Director
Pontious
Jennings
Le Aine Dehmer,
applicant
Jennings
Ms. Dehmer
Jennings
Ms. Dehmer
7:45 p.m.
Adopted Resolution No.
3814, as amended
7:46 p.m.
Peterson
Director
The Public Hearing opened.
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.
Added that the incident referred to above took place in
Anaheim.
Invited the applicant to the lectern.
Asked if group events noted in the application will be single
sex.
Responded these groups are primarily teenaged girls and
mother/daughter events.
Asked if the separate dressing and toilet facilities for male
and female clients required by Condition 2.7 will be labeled.
Answered that restrooms and changing rooms are already
labeled.
Asked if the lockers will be located in those areas.
Answered in the affirmative, stating the lockers are already
installed; and, thanked staff for clarifying that the prostitution
occurrence took place in Anaheim.
The Public Hearing closed.
It was moved by Jennings, seconded by Kozak, to approve
staff's recommendation. Motion carried 5-0.
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.
The Public Hearing opened.
Presented the staff report, pointed out specific mitigating
conditions, and referred to two letters and staff responses
attached to the report.
Noted that the Orange County Board of Supervisors
adopted a resolution and an Enabling Ordinance that
established Sober Living Guidelines--a certification and
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 Sheriff's Department to certify and monitor within the
Minutos - Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - Page 6
Davert
Director
Hamilton
Peterson
Jennings
Peterson
Hamilton
Director
Pontious
Peterson
Davert
Anderson
City; under that resolution, there 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 certain 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
Sheriff's 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.
Asked in what respect this project would not comply with
the County Guidelines.
Answered primarily density.
Asked how far off tonight's applicant would be.
Specified that, strictly as an estimate, the applicant would
be within ten people.
Asked if that number referred to the 63 requested.
Replied in the affirmative.
Asked if the applicant would be allowed to come back to
the Planning Commission for a downward revision to allow
certification.
Answered that would require an amended application be
brought back to the Commission for approval.
Asked if the application is approved this evening, the
applicant could still request certification with fewer people
than being asked for tonight.
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.
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.
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
Minutes - Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - Page 7
Davert
Anderson
Director
Holland
Jennings
Director
Peterson
Pontious
Clarence McCollum,
14631 Dartmouth Circle,
Tustin
Len Spivak, owner of the
fourplex at 14681 Carfax
Drive, Tustin
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.
Asked how the on-street parking restriction in Condition
3.5 will be enforced.
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.
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.
Added that another tool is the staffs recommendation that
this would be up for periodic review which would provide
an opportunity to correct problems.
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.
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.
Added that Condition 3.5 states that residents shall
display parking permits.
Invited the public to present testimony.
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
Minutes - Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - Page 8
Davert
Holland
Kevin Robinson, attomey
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 Carfax; 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
Jeff Mason, 14511 Carfax,
Tustin
Kurt Hunt, 14512 Carfax,
Tustin
Jim Brady, 1211 Drayton
Avenue, Tustin
James McKibbin, 1555
Mesa Verde Drive East,
Costa Mesa
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: "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 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.
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.
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 violence 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.
Stated he has lived at the corner of Carfax 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
Carfax; 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 turnovedrotation
will be a problem in a family-oriented neighborhood;
children from his street are already afraid to walk down
Carfax 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.
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 - Page 10
Linda Grunewald, 1162C
Scherer Place, Tustin
8:40 p.m.
Davert
Pontious
Peterson
Anderson
Director
Pontiious
Director
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.
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.
The Public Hearing closed.
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.
Asked staff for their responses to the various speakers.
Asked the Traffic Engineer to respond to the parking
demand analysis and traffic issues.
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.
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.
Asked if those notices went to the owner of record.
Responded in the affirmative--the notice was sent to
properties within 300 feet.
Minutes - Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - Page 11
Davert
Director
Peterson
Kozak
Hamilton
Jennings
Peterson
Jennings
Pontious
Jennings
Peterson
Pontious
Director
Pontious
Stated his awareness that staff also made telephone calls
to individuals who had expressed interest in the item to
advise them of the continuance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stated the trash container, the handicap parking, and the
landscape box do not appear on the site plan.
Answered that conditions are being recommended that
will require the applicant to come back with plans showing
those amenities.
Suggested that the required improvements may take away
at least two parking spaces; and, asked what needs to be
specified.
Indicated the total persons were specified as being
reduced to 57.
Questioned whether or not the proposal is actually for 20
parking spaces if passed as the application stands now.
Answered affirmatively, as conditioned.
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.
Responded the review could be made date certain;
however, if there are no problems, staff would rather not
be required to review the application.
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 - Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - Page 12
Holland
Pontious
Peterson
Hamilton
Davert
Peterson
Pontious
Peterson
Director
Kozak
Director
Director
Director
the property owners the facility will be monitored in its
initial stages.
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 allowed to live in
the facility; owners may need to be certified to receive
referrals, which may work as a limitation.
Stated she assumes the project is in compliance with the
driveway standards.
Indicated that is correct, as conditioned.
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.
Stated he will not be voting for this project due to
insufficient parking.
Suggested additional language be added to Condition 3.8,
which deals with the daily clean up and maintenance of
the properties.
Surmised that the present appearance may be related to
the ongoing upgrade of the property.
Stated staff can ensure notes are added in this regard
when the plans are submitted.
Provided language modifying Condition 1.8 relating to the
review period.
Asked if that means any review with the County program
would move forward and not be a condition of approval.
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.
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
o
Report on Actions taken at the January 22, 2002, City
Council meeting.
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
Minutes - Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - Page 13
Kozak
Director
Jennings
Director
Director
Kozak
Director
Jennings
Davert
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; if 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
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.
Pontious
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.
Director
Indicated the City's graffiti removal service will do so; and,
added that the graffiti removal people are proactively going
to specific problem areas.
9:13 p.m.
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
Minutes - Planning Commission January 28, 2002 - Page 15