HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 9-26-17 MINUTES ITEM #1
REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mason
Present ROLL CALL: Chair Smith
Chair Pro Tem Kozak
Commissioners Lumbard, Mason, Thompson
None PUBLIC CONCERNS
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
Minutes of the
September 12, RECOMMENDATION:
2017 meeting, as
amended. That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the September 12,
2017 Planning Commission meeting, as provided.
Motion. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Thompson, to approve the Minutes of
the September 12, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, as amended. Motion
carried 5-0.
2. TEMPORARY SIGNS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
Continued item
to the October On August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission held a second workshop
24, 2017 on the topic of temporary signs within the public right-of-way and
Planning discussed three (3) code amendment options addressing the regulation
Commission of temporary signs in the public right-of-way in light of the United States
meeting. Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ. The
Commission received public input and directed staff to return with a
modified option for Commission consideration prior to public notification
and the publication of public hearing notices.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission direct staff to draft an ordinance
addressing temporary signs in the public right-of-way based on a
modified version of Options One and Two and conduct required public
noticing and targeted noticing to impacted properties prior to the
Planning Commission public hearing.
Smith Smith asked the Commission to continue the item until the second meeting in
October due to additional issues and concerns that have been raised.,
therefore, additional time is needed to review the item.
Motion. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak, to move the item to the
October 24, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0.
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 1 of 18
7:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING:
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2017-15
APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER:
Wesley Okamoto Robert Ko
Martinez & Okamoto Architects Ko's Packers Square Inc.
15487 Seneca Road, Suite 203 747 S. Lemon Ave.
Victorville, CA 92392 Walnut, CA 91789
LOCATION: 13132 Newport Avenue
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
This project is categorically exempt (Class 1) pursuant to Section 15301
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
REQUEST:
To amend a previously approved CUP (CUP 94-15) relative to the hours
of operation and to amend CUP 2015-27 for a Joint Use Parking
Demand Analysis relative to the adequacy of the existing 269 parking
spaces at Packers Square shopping center to accommodate a 7,600
square foot mental health out-patient crisis service facility.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4349 (Attachment 1)
approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2017-15 to authorize the
establishment of a 7,600 square foot mental health out-patient crisis
facility with 269 parking spaces within the first floor of an existing medical
office building located at 13132 Newport Avenue.
Demkowicz Presentation given. Demkowicz shared with the Commission eighteen (18)
written responses received by the Community Development Department and
the areas of concern were listed as follows: operational characteristics,
locational concerns, impact to existing businesses, traffic impacts, property
values, re-zoning, and adequacy of parking demand analysis. She referred to
the specific Conditions of Approval addressing the concerns previously
mentioned.
Binsack Binsack clarified Condition No. 1.8. In the event there were negative impacts
and/or issues related to the Conditions of Approval, the Community
Development Department could not automatically revoke the permit, but could
initiate the revocation proceedings, which would be brought to a hearing
before the Commission. The Commission would then make a
recommendation to the City Council.
Smith Smith asked staff that if the conditions are not being met, then there could be
additional conditions placed to address those issues. He added that if there
are challenges with those issues being addressed, then there is a process of
a revocation hearing of the CUP that would take place to address those
issues.
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 2 of 18
Binsack Binsack further added that any applicant, who receives a CUP or entitlement,
and if there is a revocation proceeding, receives due process which entails a
public hearing. The only difference would be that if there is a revocation, then
it is a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council is the body that
would actually revoke the CUP. Binsack also clarified that this item was not
considered a re-zoning. This type of use is considered a conditionally
permitted use within the zone.
Thompson Thompson asked for clarification on the hours of operation being the main
focus. He asked about the allowed operational hours of similar uses in the
area, since the applicant is asking for 24 hours a day/7 days a week
operation. Thompson also asked about the traffic study, which assesses the
site and how it is used and if the parking study was based on the center (if it
were fully leased out, which currently it is not). Thompson referred to the
current Exodus Culver City office and asked if there was further information
(i.e. hours of operation, any noise complaints) in order to gain a better
understanding of the facility.
Demkowicz In response to Thompson's questions, the hours of operation are currently
7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m. (per the CUP for a medical facility in Packers Square).
Demkowicz confirmed that the parking study was based on the center being
completely leased and during the week.
Celano Chief Celano visited Exodus Recovery center in Culver City, spoke with LAPD
about potential impacts, and asked if there were complaints from the
community. He is confident the proposal would be a well-run facility. He stated
he would not endorse an application that he believed would be a negative
impact to the community. Chief Celano confirmed that the Culver City facility
is a 24-hour/7 days a week facility. There would be no lights/sirens during
drop off.
Smith Smith shared that he sometimes works in Culver City and that he reached out
to one of the Assistant City Managers and asked similar questions Celano
mentioned previously. Per Smith, Culver City's Assistant City Manager stated
she had positive interactions with that facility and it had a positive impact with
the community. It has not proven to be a problem or an area of concern for
city staff nor have they had any noise complaints in that area.
Mason Mason asked for one point of clarification from St. Joseph's with regards to
the layout of the facility, specifically the entrance and the exit, as well as the
operation.
Lumbard Lumbard asked what the impact would be by law enforcement with
lights/sirens (during an emergency) when clients are being dropped off at the
facility. He asked Chief Celano how he would anticipate law enforcement
interaction with the community. Lumbard also asked Chief Celano if this type
of facility would help Tustin Police Department do their job better. He
requested there be clarification from the applicant with regards to the floor
plan (orientation of the building is facing the wrong direction, per the
PowerPoint presentation).
Celano Chief Celano explained the process and the purpose of this type of facility,
which is an "urgent care center" for mental health. Currently, Tustin officers
do not have a resource for mental health services; therefore this type of facility
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 3 of 18
would save time for officers. As for the sirens, the Tustin Police Department
does not turn the sirens on unless there is an emergency so the lights and
sirens would not be turned on during drop off/pick up at that facility. Per
Celano, this facility would be a tremendous benefit and resource to the Tustin
Police Department and the community. Emergency rooms are not equipped
to house people in a mental health crisis, which means officers are required to
stay with an individual anywhere from 2-3 hours. With this type of facility, an
officer can be back out in the field within 10-15 minutes protecting the
community and preventing crime. This is a tremendous benefit and resource.
Thompson Thompson referred his fellow Commissioners to Page 86 in the agenda
packet which shows the correct orientation of the floor plan.
7:37 p.m. Opened up the Public Comments Section.
Mr. Wesley Okamoto, architect for the project, made favorable comments to
Demkowicz on her assistance through the process of the project. He
reiterated that the occupancy is an allowed use within the land zoning and that
the CUP is a request for an amendment with the parking to be joint use, as
well as for the 24 hours a day/7 days a week.
Thompson Thompson referred to one of the conditions which states "priority" or
"preference" is given to the Tustin Police Department for individuals that they
might bring to the facility. He asked how the screening process would work if
it were Orange County Sheriff or the City of Irvine bringing clients to the
facility. Thompson referred to the 24 hours a day/7 days a week operation
and asked about the minimum number of hours needed to operate the facility
since alternative facilities (non-emergency rooms) are not open 24 hours a
day.
In response to Thompson's question, Ms. Luana Murphy, from Exodus
Recovery, provided the following information, in general: Exodus would give
priority to all of law enforcement bringing in clients to Exodus, which is
approximately forty (40) percent of the clientele that enter; other individuals
come directly from hospitals, or are walk-ins; Exodus has been in business for
twelve (12) years; Exodus would not reject a law enforcement referral, but
they could reject an emergency room since that individual is in a safe place;
when space is available, then Exodus would contact the emergency room and
take in that individual; as per the minimum number of hours needed, Exodus
runs similar to an emergency room so they must be open 24 hours a day (i.e.
an individual in crisis arrives at 7:00 p.m. could take several hours to stabilize
that individual); there is no other way to operate than to be open 24 hours a
day; an individual who "walks in" to the facility (i.e. an individual in need of
medication when they have run out) eliminates a crisis in the making.
Kozak Kozak asked the applicant to share what a typical day in an Exodus facility
might look like (i.e. number of individuals entered and staffing).
Ms. Murphy stated the following, in general: Exodus is a secured environment
for individuals brought in during a crisis; clients must be released ("delayed
egress"); there are security guards at each door trained to handle the mentally
there are nurses, RN's, LVN's, nurse practitioners, psychiatrists, social
workers, and mental health staff on site at all times; she provided intake
process whenever an individual arrives at the Exodus facility; discharged
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 4 of 18
patients are driven to specific locations; discharge locations include: family,
home, shelter, rehabilitation center, hospital; relationship between Exodus and
St. Joseph, St. Joseph contacted Exodus because they identified the need for
a crisis facility; approximately 18 percent of Exodus clients, across five (5)
counties, are homeless individuals; Exodus develops a network of discharge
facilities when they established within a city; Exodus does not release any
individual onto the streets; an Exodus employee releases an individual to
whichever facility Exodus is discharging this individual to; unless the individual
is having a "real crisis (i.e. hallucinating), that individual will get medicated
first; each case is different therefore there is no "typical" day; Ms. Murphy
stated Exodus had 35,000 patients in 2016 and not one (1) complaint was
received by neighbors; she referred to Napa Valley facility (opened only a few
months ago) and Culver City (opened 3 years ago).
Mason Mason asked how Ms. Murphy determined the average 16 — 20 patients per
day and if it was based on maximum occupancy. She also asked if Exodus or
law enforcement decides when an individual is a 51/50 (mental health hold).
Mason asked Ms. Murphy to explain "discharge location" as well as an
individual who decides not to take Exodus up on their services offered. She
asked about the services the social workers provide (not only for shelters).
Mason asked what percentage of the patients are exited as 51/50 and those
individuals that leave on their own. She also asked about the relationship
between St. Joseph's Hospital and Exodus and if someone is brought in as a
51/507 if they are returned to St. Joseph's or a psychiatric facility.
Ms. Murphy's response to Mason's questions generally included: the average
number of patients is based on years of data from Exodus, which includes:
number of homeless, how many are on Medicaid, number of patients
delivered to shelters, how many hospitalized, etc.; as for determining if an
individual is a 51/50, it can be either law enforcement or the hospital the
patient came from; Exodus has staff that can place an individual on a 51/50
status; discharge location can be "home with mother, home with wife, to a
shelter, rehab center, etc."; Exodus keeps track of every discharge from their
facilities; the social workers will do an assessment of the individual, provide a
referral to a psychologist in the community, a mental health organization, and
schedule the appointment for that individual before they leave Exodus;
approximately twenty (20) percent of clients are 51/50 therefore they are
discharged to a hospital; of all individuals that arrive at Exodus, approximately
twelve (12) percent are hospitalized; provided examples of the relationship
between St. Joseph's Hospital and Exodus (i.e. mental health crisis in the
emergency room) as well as how the two (2) entities work together.
To further respond to Mason's last question, Mr. Glenn Raup, Executive
Director for Emergency Behavioral Health at St. Joseph Hospital, stated they
contacted Exodus to partner with them since they are one (1) of six (6)
designated psychiatric facilities in Orange County. Therefore there are not
enough inpatient beds or outpatient services. Mr. Raup also provided
background information on the services St. Joseph Hospital provides.
Mason Mason also inquired as to the time of day or night individuals are discharged
from Exodus (i.e. middle of the night).
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 5 of 18
In response to Mason's last question, Ms. Murphy stated that Exodus does
not discharge individuals in the middle of the night. Generally speaking, the
psychiatrists make their rounds at approximately 6:00 a.m. to ensure that the
individuals who have stayed overnight are stable enough to be discharged or
still need to be hospitalized. Individuals are generally discharged between
8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. and if the individuals are on a 51/50, they do not have
a choice. However, if an individual walks in voluntarily and refuses services,
then Exodus cannot hold them against their will.
Smith The audience became disruptive during the public hearing portion of the
meeting, therefore, Chair Smith briefly informed the audience of the public
hearing format, as well as it being a process to allow the applicant a fair
hearing.
Lumbard Lumbard asked for both Exodus and St. Joseph to clarify what happens to
patients who refuse services (i.e. policy and procedures as far as directing
them where to go). He also asked if they can control where the 51/50
individuals are going. Mental illness does not equal homelessness. Lumbard
stated that there are nearby residents who fear that this type of facility will
attract the homeless who will then not want to leave the neighborhood. He
asked Ms. Murphy how the security officers play a role in monitoring the
facility. Lumbard asked about the admitting/discharging procedures and the
impact it could have to the neighborhood. He also wanted clarification on the
location of the entrances as to which direction they are facing.
In response to Lumbard's questions, Ms. Murphy stated the following, in
general: Exodus does work with the individuals refusing services and that it is
very rare that cases like this occur, but again reiterated that Exodus cannot
force an individual to remain at the facility; as for the fear of the homeless
individual, almost always law enforcement brings the homeless individual into
Exodus; the proposed facility will not be a homeless shelter; in her
experience, there have never been homeless encampments near and around
an urgent care center; security guards cannot force a person to go
somewhere, but they will encourage people to move along and if they happen
to be belligerent, then they would contact the police; Exodus can talk to
clients, assist them, which they do, but there is no loitering issue; and Ms.
Murphy compared individuals walking in to Exodus just like a person walking
into a therapist's office.
Mr. Raup added that St. Joseph's Hospital sees the largest volume of
homeless and psychiatric patients in the county. The homeless issue is a
challenge with every health care institution, every city, hence the reason there
is a need for this type of facility. Mr. Raup echoed the point: "homelessness
does not equal mental illness". The better part of the mentally ill patients are
not homeless.
In response to Lumbard's clarification question on the entrances to the
building, Mr. Okamoto stated that the main entrance (walk-in) faces Newport
Avenue. There is no entrance to the north. To the south, it is the ambulance
drop off. He stated that the layout within the packet was correct and that the
one in the Power Point presentation was incorrect. Mr. Okamoto provided
input on the Background slide from the Power Point presentation, so the
Commission could have a better understanding of the layout.
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 6 of 18
Smith Smith asked the applicant if there was a needle exchange program in the
proposed facility. He also asked that the applicant provide a distinction
between Exodus and a rehabilitation facility, which are commonly located in
neighborhoods.
Ms. Murphy's response generally included: there is no needle exchange
program within the proposed facility and that it is not a chemical dependency
program; a rehabilitation facility is a "long-term" placement facility; an
individual may start out at a Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) and then get
referred to a rehabilitation facility; Exodus closes the walk-in doors at
approximately 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. and then re-opens in the a.m.; for a crisis
situation, anybody can enter through the ambulance entrance 24 hours a day
7 days a week; and the walk-in door is not open 24 hours a day/7 days a
week.
Lumbard Lumbard requested further clarification on the short-term stay and if there is a
maximum stay.
Ms. Murphy stated that there is a maximum stay of 23 hours and 59 minutes
which is by State law.
The public's comments/concerns generally included the following:
o Mr. Craig Thiede - Business owner (upstairs from the proposed
location) spoke against the proposed use; warned the applicant
that they are signing a lease with the owner of Packers Square
and that he has been in litigation with the owner for nine (9)
years; claims Packers Square building is "falling apart" which
lead to a lawsuit against the owner of Packers Square; and he
was concerned with the possible negative impact to businesses.
o Jim Damon — attorney representing Mr. Thiede and other
tenants at Packers Square; echoed Mr. Thiede's comments
previously made; owner of Packers Square failed to comply with
the court order; he discussed the ongoing litigation with the
property owner, mentioned Code Enforcement Officer, Brad
Steen and requested the Commission get further information
from him; and he felt there was lack of procedure on noticing.
o Peter Schneider — resident: Chief Health Science counselor at
UCI Medical Center in Irvine; claimed the City had not contacted
UCI Medical Center in Irvine regarding release/transfer of
patients, there is no agreement in place; with no guarantee of
placement of 51/50 individuals, he asked if risk analysis had
been conducted; said psychiatric patients "elope" and do not
"hang around" they are likely to leave facility; great idea- wrong
place; he asked how many facilities are within 100 feet of
residential development; and no record of complaints is helpful
but not determinative.
o Ronda Flores — spoke in favor of the proposal; stated mental
illness patients are more harmful to themselves than to others;
shared personal experience with mental illness and
homelessness; and family members need these services.
o Sharmain Bodini — owner of a business in Packers Square; is
sympathetic for the cause, but feels it is in the wrong location;
Packers Square is a family oriented center; she mentioned the
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 7 of 18
two (2) security guards for the facility, but how about for the rest
of the center; concern for her clients safety; questioned if the
proposed facility is or is not a clinic; asked if Exodus will
dispense medications; and if there is a similar facility like this
and if it is located in a shopping center.
o Diane Triantis — resident in Packers Circle condos: stated
Exodus is a business, not a medical facility; paid for by State
funds; will be making money regardless of the negative impacts;
she lives 200 feet away and is worried about Exodus' inability to
control clients when they leave; and is concerned this facility will
be detrimental to the property value in the area.
o Betty Mackintosh — Registered nurse of 39 years: has concerns
for the safety of the patients coming to the facility and people in
surrounding areas; worried about patients being given IV drugs
with no concern on their reaction; in the event the patients have
seizures, cardiac arrest from medication she was concerned the
facility would not be equipped with a heart monitor; and most of
these facilities she has seen are in free-standing centers, not
shopping centers.
o Christian Bredeson — He submitted a letter on behalf of Village
Homes and Tustin Homeowners Association and his concerns
were: 24 hours a day/7 days a week operations; safety; noise;
Exodus was not sharing all data and the number of walk-ins
who walk out; the number of repeat clients; Packers Square is
not a 24 hours a day/7 days a week center, it closes down at
night and is quiet; no solid plan for the discharge; no security for
surrounding areas; nearby daycare facilities; believes parking
analysis is not adequate; and Packers Circle is a private drive
and will be used by ambulances.
o Mark Perew — Spoke in support of the facility and has had
family members who have needed facilities such as this; people
need to be compassionate; overstating risk of the "unfamiliar";
alluded to people in the audience probably know more people
who have been in a car accident rather than injured by a mental
health facility.
o David Larson — resident: stated "if you build it, they will come";
not desirable for mental health patients to come to the area;
concern 7,000 people would come to the area; will attract the
wrong element from all around the county; had an encounter
with a mentally ill person in front of Ruby's in the past who was
confrontational and he feared for his family's safety; and the
applicant needs to come up with a plan along with the County of
Orange.
o Katy Erickson — resident and teacher nearby: stated her
concern for the safety of the kids at her school walking to and
from school and fears they may bump into a 51/50 patient who
walked out of the facility.
o Cora Burke — business owner in the center questions/concerns
included: asked if there would be a doctor at the facility 24
hours a day/7 days a week; if Exodus is under a County
contract or if run by St. Joseph's; Exodus is a drug rehab
center; she was attacked by a drunk person in Packers Square;
claimed Tustin Police "never" respond to her calls; reconsider
location of facility; and safety.
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 8 of 18
o Pam Erickson — resident and teacher in Tustin: asked if the
Tustin Unified School District had been informed of the
proposal; asked what the impact on Tustin schools might be;
asked if clients can choose a discharge center; safety issue.
and if clients are going to be discharged at a separate facility,
why not just start at that facility in the first place.
o Tim Koenig- homeowner nearby — understands need for facility,
but does not want to share space with a facility like this; safety
concern; if not approved for 24 hours a day/7 days a week
asked if the applicant would look for a new location; and if the
security guards will be roaming the surrounding area as well as
more regular Tustin Police Department patrols.
o Travis Harold — opposed to item - sympathetic to needs; wrong
location, quiet area; the noise it would bring in would be a
detriment to the area; opposed to any 24 hours a day/7 days a
week facility coming in so close to his residence; Conditions of
Approval 2.9 references loitering and security guards, where
does Exodus'jurisdiction end?
o Melissa Baum — owns small business in the area (orthodontics)-
family-oriented center; also in a lawsuit with landlord therefore
relocated business across the street; is compassionate, but her
concerns are with homeless population worsening; unsafe area;
homeless breaking in to equipment closets; and neighboring
businesses would suffer.
o Mary Palafox— north Tustin resident: spoke in favor of proposal;
comments previously made were stereotypical and wants to
raise awareness of what mental illness really is; understands
concerns, appreciates law enforcement in dealing with her son
who has a mental illness; not just homeless people have mental
illness; criminal activity is different than mental illness; those
opposed are creating fear; and there are illnesses everywhere.
o Whitney Ayers — Regional V.P for the Hospital Association in
Southern California and Tustin resident: spoke in favor. Stated
Tustin's CSU would provide an important link in continuum of
care; within six (6) months there is a plan to deploy three (3) to
five (5) CSU's throughout Orange County; Tustin would not be a
"dumping ground"; need to support alternative models of care;
frees up emergency beds for heart attack patients for example;
and consider having alternative models of care through CSU's
and support the proposed facility.
o Cindy Eagen: her nephew committed suicide; has experience
with mental health; the wrong location for these services; and
should keep the clients in a hospital setting or center, not a
retail center.
o Mark Eagen: his brother has mental health issues and has been
his caregiver for 42 years; facility should be located near a
hospital and used in conjunction with a hospital; his brother
would not be suitable for released in 24 hours a day/7 days a
week, and there is a need in the community but in a different
location.
o Sheina Innocente — Tustin resident and social worker: Supports
the project: has served those with mental illness and
homelessness; Orange County is underperforming; need more
services in Orange County; discussed NIMBYism; and residents
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 9 of 18
arguments are fear-based and opinions.
o Linda Lad works in Packers Square: opposed the project;
served on the board for Tustin Dollars for Scholars; wrong
location; discussed lawsuit in the center; discussed parking and
the trouble of parking near Building K (accidents); she "loves"
the Tustin Police Department, but has gotten no support when
calling the Tustin Police Department for assistance (i.e. called
three (3) times and no response); and police cannot be
everywhere.
o Dennis Duffield - a California police officer: Has worked with
mental health crisis patients; Chief Celano "did his homework,
brought facts, we do need a place for them, but wrong location";
suggested Tustin Legacy as a better location; fear the clients
will be escorted off the property and then will wander the
community; and concern with children's safety and health
hazard.
o Anne Gill — works in salon adjacent to Packers Square: moved
from Costa Mesa and was near a CSU; the CSU nearly put her
out of business; the clients do not come in and then leave, they
stay and loiter, she used to have to step over bodies to get to
cars or businesses; she is afraid for her safety at night when
throwing away trash; and the wrong location for the facility.
o Opal Richardson — Tustin Village Homes resident: wrong
location for facility; has worked with Code Enforcement (Brad
Steen) and the Tustin Police Department on homeless issues;
City wants business tax dollars by letting the business in; also
suggested Exodus look at Tustin Legacy; and safety issue.
o Barbara Howel - resident since 1988: Pilates instructor in
Packers Square; worried since security is indoor with homeless
traffic in the alley; she leaves work at 10:00 p.m. therefore a
safety concern; thinks the facility would be good in Tustin but
not in this area; concerned with the facility being at full-
occupancy and possible loitering in parking lot; and wrong
location.
o Harriet Fain — resident off of Newport Avenue: works in public
health; according to statistics, 4% of U.S. adults have a mental
illness, they are Tustin residents too; mental illness is already
our problem; Exodus is a treatment center not an asylum; and
she supports the application.
o Ryan Rigsbee — the facility is less than a 24-hour hold facility
but a 51/50 is a 72-hour care; not homeless issues but there
were statistics that some mentally ill are homeless; these
services should not be provided for free to homeless people;
and, wrong location.
o Paul Albarian — stated the use is in wrong location; proper
location is in an area where there are hospitals; people from
other communities will be brought here and discharged into
"our" community.
o Georgiann Kruger — opposed: she asked the Commission why
the City is eager to give these exemptions to get permits when
there are so many other areas that are zoned for it without
needing a CUP; why the need for two (2) security guards 24
hours a day/7 days a week and what weapons will they have;
Exodus' involvement with AB 109; how much flexibility does
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 10 of 18
Exodus have in adjusting their service offerings once CUP is
approved, as opposed to Exodus not following the guidelines.
o Leslie — works in downtown Santa Ana: there is a need for a
mental health facility, but the wrong location; after hearing the
Commission's discussions, it appeared to be a "done deal";
mentioned the Santa Ana Police Department being "ineffective";
and the Commission needs to listen to community concerns.
9:44 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section.
Smith Smith called for a five (5) minute recess.
9:49 p.m. Reconvened meeting.
Thompson Thompson's questions/comments for the applicant generally included:
safety; noise; hours; negative stereotyping; need additional information
regarding Exodus' role, responsibility; security guards roles, responsibility,
authority and their relationship with the Tustin Police Department
(Condition 2.2); need a better understanding of what the Commission is
considering; asked staff to explain the noticing process including who
received a notice; discussion regarding hours, if it were not for the hours
the item would not even be up for consideration; better understanding of
the entry point into the residential area and whether or not it can be moved
towards Newport Avenue; need additional time to make a decision; asked
how people are referred to Exodus, length of stay, (to clear the ambiguity
of the 72 hour stay); asked if the surrounding schools have an impact and
if they are part of the decision-making process; and the divide between the
"no's" and the "yes's".
Kozak Kozak's questions/concerns generally included: felt there is a need for this
type of facility; need additional information on agreements with hospitals;
need further information regarding transport on exit and discharge plans;
how to go about providing community safety related to hours of operation;
asked how Packers Circle would be used, if used at all, by ambulances; is
Exodus a county facility; what are Tustin Unified School District's
concerns; what is the role of the security guards and how do they interface
with the Tustin Police Department; drop off on south side facing homes;
increased homeless population in Packers Square - would release of
clients contribute to the homeless encampments; alternative locations for
this facility - does the applicant have any alternatives in mind; when at full
capacity what happens to a drop-off; need additional information with the
connection between Exodus and AB 109; noise impacts; and staff and the
Commission need more time to look at these issues to be better informed
before making a decision.
Mason Mason's comments/concerns generally included: an emotional and
personal issue; she is a conservator for her sister and has no place to take
her; wants to have meaningful conversations on the topic; not "they"
versus "us"; we need to come together on the issue; need to look at the
CUP use, and is it appropriate for the area; wants to have more
information too before making a decision; and why the applicant chose that
location.
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 11 of 18
Lumbard Lumbard's comments/concerns generally included: understands it is
difficult to have a long hearing; the Planning Commission's role and doing
what is right for the community; the Commission does not consider mental
illness vs. homeless issue, they are looking at the hours of operation of the
facility and is it the right application of extended hours; requested more
insight to the County's plan - 3-5 facilities planned for the County; Tustin
does not want to take the full burden; the Commission does not have the
authority to tell Exodus where to move; we could do a better job at defining
what Exodus does (i.e. homeless, how it will impact the community); also
needs questions answered before making a decision; why is this a good
location.
Smith Smith shares similar questions as fellow Commissioners; clearly there is a
concern about this type of facility and what it means; a lot of unanswered
questions noted that the Tustin Police Department does not feel there will
be any concerns and a value add to the community; need to address
public safety questions; data presented shows that the project is a
warranted pursuit; there is no data evidence to support otherwise; and it
would be helpful to have a community conversation.
Lumbard Lumbard agreed with Smith based on the document and evidence (or
facts) that were presented, but the Commission has also heard
overwhelming sentiment from the community's concerns. Without data to
perhaps disprove those concerns, Lumbard felt uncomfortable moving
forward without attempting to address those concerns.
Smith Smith sensed, from his fellow Commissioners, there is lack of confidence
that the Commission would get to a resolution on the nature of the
questions they want answered. He asked the Chair Pro Tem, Kozak if this
was an accurate description.
Kozak Per Smith's previous description, Kozak was in agreement with him. Kozak
felt the Commission needed a report back with all of the answers to questions
asked at the meeting.
Mason Mason also agreed that more data is needed in order to help with the
Commission's decision making.
Thompson Thompson echoed Mason's comments. He suggested that the applicant
"clarify the plan" and provide examples of how another similar facility is
operating. Additional time is needed; therefore, he did not feel comfortable
considering the item that evening.
Kozak Kozak suggested the applicant work with staff to address some of these
issues and bring a staff report back to the Commission. He further stated, on
behalf of his fellow Commissioners, that they want to make the right decision,
but felt they need to make it in the right way. Kozak again reiterated more
information is needed in order to make the right decision.
Smith Smith was in support of Kozak's previous statement. He invited the
Commission to make a motion in order to take an appropriate action.
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 12 of 18
Mason On behalf of her fellow Commissioners, Mason asked staff if they could pull
together the questions to make sure the context is set and then would move
with a response through working with staff and returning to the Commission
with an additional conversation that the public would be made aware of then
the item can be continued for discussion for a future date.
Thompson Thompson added further clarity to Mason's motion and stated the item be
continued to a date that is either two (2) to four (4) weeks out, depending on
the time necessary to answer the questions that have been presented to
supplement the report given to the Commission.
Lumbard Lumbard was unsure if there was a motion or a second. He requested taking
an opportunity to discuss some of the issues being that some of the public
may not be able to return to the next meeting. Lumbard mentioned noticing
and asked that staff clarify what was done to notice that meeting in order to
alleviate any concerns. He also asked if the County representative could
discuss their strategies.
Smith After the Commission's deliberation, Smith stated that regardless of the
information received that evening, the Commission will be intending to
continue the item to a date to be determined which may be three (3) to four (4)
weeks out to the next first or second meeting in the month of October. He
asked the Commission if this was an accurate description, which the
Commission collectively agreed it was. Smith informed the public that the
Commission was going to proceed forward with a series of questions for the
applicant and staff. He also added that the Commission would not be making
a decision that even given the current sentiment reflective of the Commission.
Smith stated that the public could expect to hear the item at a further date to
be continued.
Lumbard Lumbard suggested the Commission vote first, and then answer questions.
Smith Smith's final statement after hearing from his fellow Commissioners, there
was a motion to continue the item to a future Planning Commission date
where they will have a follow up presentation with information provided by the
applicant, provide additional context and information to the Commission, in
order to make a decision.
Kendig Per Kendig, if the item is going to be continued to a date certain, the
Commission needs to select a date.
Smith Smith selected the October 24, 2017 Planning Commission meeting date.
Binsack Per Binsack, staff would recommend that the item be continued for two (2)
weeks, then staff can meet with the applicant and if staff is able to come back
to the Commission with a report, in that amount of time, then they will. If staff
is not able to return at that time, then they will request a continuance from the
first meeting in October.
Lumbard Lumbard added an amendment to the motion. He asked that staff notify the
speakers present when that meeting will take place via email or telephone
call.
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 13 of 18
Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason that the item be continued to
the October 24, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-1 with
Smith dissenting.
The questions and answers portion of the meeting continued with the
applicant.
Smith As asked previously, Smith asked what the parameters of the security guards
would be.
Ms. Murphy's responses/comments with regards to the security guards
generally included: there would be a minimum of two (2) security guards, but
that does not mean there would be only two (2) and that it would depend on
the acuity; if the acuity increases, then they would have more than two (2)
security guards; in terms of what the security guards would do, or how they
would interact, currently, they are interior and they are to protect the clients
and the staff if anything should occur; it is rare, but the security guards act as
an integral part of the therapy; the security guards are trained in mental health
first aid, management of assault and behavior, and use de-escalation
methods rather than confrontation; the security guards are unarmed and it
"works well"; in terms of the perimeter and the outside of the facility, Ms.
Murphy has not provided security in the parameters to any of their facilities;
other than occasionally if someone is loitering in front of the facility, the
security guards will try to move them along but cannot force them to leave;
and in terms of what would be done in Tustin, Ms. Murphy would like to have
Exodus' Chief of Security talk with the Chief of Police to see what he would
like the roles to be for the security guards.
As per the question on AB 109, Ms. Murphy stated occasionally a patient will
be brought in who is an AB 109 recipient but Exodus does not have anything
to do with AB 109.
Lumbard Lumbard asked Ms. Murphy if she had any statistics on patients or clients and
the numbers being related to AB 109.
Ms. Murphy does have statistical information on the Exodus patients who
receive AB 109. They are specifically contracted to serve that population in
Los Angeles County and is not a specific requirement with the contract in
Orange County.
Smith Smith requested clarification with regards to a 51/50 client versus a 52/50
client and 24-hour hold versus 72-hour hold.
Ms. Murphy's response to Smith's question generally included: with regards to
a 51/50 client, law enforcement can transport clients to any designated facility,
which Exodus will be a designated facility; the overall goal of a CSU is to
reduce hospitalization and to get the suicidal client stabilized within 24-hours
and then they can be discharged to a lower level of care; a 51/50 means you
can keep a client for 72-hours but it does not say you must keep a client for
72-hours; that hold can be released by the treating psychiatrist; Exodus
releases approximately 80 percent of the holds that go into the facility; and per
the 52/50 clients, only hospitals can handle those patients.
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 14 of 18
Smith Smith asked what occurs when the facility is at "full occupancy".
Per Ms. Murphy, she has never in 12 years, since their facility has been
operating, had a facility at full occupancy. Every chair might be full, but they
always have a bed on reserve. If St. Joseph calls the facility and has a client
in their emergency department, the moment they discharge somebody, they
can receive that client. If law enforcement walks into the facility with a client
and the chairs are full, they will pull another chair. Again, they cannot say "no"
to law enforcement.
Per Ms. Murphy — the idea of the CSU is to keep law enforcement on the
streets protecting the community.
Smith Smith referred to an earlier comment made by one of the speakers regarding
a similar facility in Costa Mesa.
Ms. Murphy said that during the hearing they tried looking that information up
on the Internet and they could not find anything so it must not be a CSU
facility.
Smith Smith mentioned the importance of bringing distinction and perhaps
identification on various facilities out there so Exodus has a way of
distinguishing themselves as being different than a rehabilitation facility or a
needle exchange program. He also asked Ms. Murphy if a doctor would be
present 24 hours a day/7 days a week.
Ms. Murphy's stated that a doctor is not present 24 hours a day/7 days a
week. There is a doctor or a nurse practitioner on-site approximately twelve
(12) hours a day. They also have a network of tele-psychiatry. In each of
their CSU's if a doctor is not on-site they have the ability to tele psych to a site
that does have a doctor. There is also a doctor available by phone 24 hours a
day.
Smith Smith asked the applicant to explain the similarities and differences between
size and nature of services between the Culver City facility and the proposed
Tustin facility.
Murphy provided the following in general: the Culver City facility is smaller (5K
square feet) than the proposed Tustin facility (6,700 square feet); number of
clients expected to see per day = 16-20; Culver City facility does not take in
adolescents but they are going to at the proposed facility in Tustin.
Smith Smith asked Murphy to bring clarity on the variety of discharge processes in
place (i.e. for homeless, 51/50).
Ms. Murphy stated the following with regards to the discharge process: 51/50
clients are handled the same way regardless of the referral source (either law
enforcement, hospital); a person who remains on a 51/50 after 23 hours and
59 minutes, is always hospitalized; the State is working on a plan with regards
to the overstay issue; 51/50 clients will not be discharged if they are unstable
and will remain long enough until they are stabilized; clients who walk-in and
are not on a hold who need help, receive the help and are referred elsewhere
or they walk out on their own; and if homeless is given help and they choose
not to receive it, they cannot be held (less than 5 percent of St. Joseph's
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 15 of 18
population do not take them up on their resources to go somewhere);
Smith/Lumbard Both Smith and Lumbard asked about the County's one (1) year, two (2) year,
and three (3) year plan ("vision") as well as the location of the other facilities in
the County.
Linda Molina, County representative, stated the following, in general: CSU's
are "sorely needed and are actively being expanded through the County's
Health Care Agency's efforts"; Exodus is the first of four providers that the
County has finished their contract negotiations with; due to the County's
procurement rules Ms. Molina was limited as to what she could share with the
Commission; there were four (4) other proposals that were deemed
responsive and were in various stages of negotiations with three (3) others but
she was not at liberty to go into detail with the Commission.
Ms. Whitney Ayers (who spoke earlier in the Public Comments portion) added:
confirmed there is a coalition of County and hospital leaders working on this
issue and she was told there are actionable plans to add three (3) to five (5)
CSU's within the next 3-6 months. She, too, did not have the authority to tell
the Commission which cities in the County the CSU's would be going to.
Mr. Raup stated that there was a strategic plan as to how they are locating the
multiple sites. The applicant did look at multiple sites, investigated multiple
locations, met with multiple owners, businesses and buildings to look at the
outside, inside in Tustin and this site was selected.
Mason Mason asked the applicant why they selected the proposed location being that
it is a retail center. She also asked if there were any incidents (i.e. safety,
police reports) at any of their other CSU facilities.
Mr. Raup simply stated, "There is no wrong location. Mental illness affects
one (1) in five (5) individuals across the U.S. There is no wrong location when
talking about our friends, neighbors, loved ones." When they looked for a
location, they looked for what might fit (i.e. access, geographical area,
resource availability, building size, lease, square footage, etc.). The applicant
looked at Tustin, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, etc.
Ms. Murphy did mention one (1) incident, but keeping in mind that they serve
35,000 clients a year. The incident was in South Central Los Angeles — a
client managed to get into the facility with a gun and shot one of Ms. Murphy's
employees. The employee is fine and still works for Exodus. Since then,
metal detectors have been installed.
Thompson Thompson asked about the south facing entry and why the entry was not
further off of Newport Avenue. He urged the applicant to re-evaluate the
entrance because to him, it did not make sense because of the concern with
the operating hours and the 24-hour doors are facing south and the doors that
close at normal hours are facing Newport Avenue. Thompson also asked for
a better understanding of what is happening during the hours being evaluated
(between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.) and what impact the noise will have (i.e.
car doors slamming, people talking). If the applicant wants the hours to be
24-hours there is obvious concern with the nearby residents. Thompson also
asked about Packers Circle and whether or not it is a private or public road.
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 16 of 18
Mr. Okamoto stated that they looked at space planning; the different
components and the function of the program could fit. Being that the
proposed project will serve both the adults and youth, the youth has to be
separated and the ambulance entrance wants to be between the adults and
the youth when transporting. There are also common areas within the
building and with the parameters and layout of the building; there was no
other way to make it work with another entrance. Mr. Okamoto stated that
they "did" already look at the building in every direction and this was still the
best layout plan.
Smith Smith asked if there was data on the different admission times (averages)
across similar locations to see what the typical behavior plan is. He
encouraged the applicant to stay after the meeting to answer any questions
the remaining public might have. Smith brought the item to a close since it is
being continued to the next Planning Commission meeting.
Willkom Willkom stated that Packers Circle is a private street.
STAFF CONCERNS:
Willkom Willkom reminded the Commission of the upcoming Planning Director's
Association of Orange County (PDAOC) Planning Official Forum on October 5,
2017.
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
Mason Mason attended the City's 90th Anniversary Celebration. Mr. Mason will be
attending the City's CERT Program (Emergency Response Training). Mason
thanked the applicant and the community for attending the meeting.
Lumbard Lumbard attended the City's 90th Anniversary Celebration. He thanked the
residents, the Tustin Police Department, and applicant for being at the meeting.
Thompson Thompson attended the following events:
• 9/18 OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee
• 9/19 Bicycle Pedestrian Committee
• 9/19 Tustin Patriots Dedication Ceremony in Tustin Ranch
Asked staff about the possibility of having a future discussion item request how
to decorate the street name signs to reflect the branch of military service (i.e.
token, medallion being added to the sign)
• 9/24 The City's 90th Anniversary Celebration
• 9/25 Green Room reception for Lindsay Sneider Ellingson, CEO of In-
N-Out Burger at Biola University
• 9/26 Special presentation "Working Well Under Pressure" at Cal State
Long Beach
Thompson will be attending a ULI Conference in Los Angeles the week of
October 23rd
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 17 of 18
Kozak Kozak attended the following events:
• 9/14 Tustin Legacy's 10 Year Anniversary
• 9/19 Tustin Patriots Dedication Ceremony in Tustin Ranch
• 9/24 The City's 90th Anniversary Celebration
• 9/24 Totally Tustin Food and Wine Festival
Kozak also thanked everyone for their participation at the meeting.
Smith Smith thanked the residents for their attendance and made favorable comments
for all parties involved and the public.
11:05 p.m. ADJOURNMENT:
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for
Tuesday, October 10, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300
Centennial Way.
Minutes—Planning Commission September 26, 2017—Page 18 of 18