HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 23-10 __________________
Resolution 23-10
Page 1 of 12
RESOLUTION NO. 23-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN UPHOLDING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION BY DENYING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (CUP) NO. 2022-0009, A REQUEST TO OPERATE AN OUT-PATIENT
TREATMENT AND COUNSELING CENTER FOR OPIOID USE DISORDER
UTILIZING MEDICATED-ASSISTED TREATMENT (MAT) IN COMBINATION
WITH COUNSELING AND BEHAVIORAL THERAPIES AT 535 E. FIRST
STREET, SECOND FLOOR
The City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application was submitted for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
to allow the establishment of an out-patient treatment and counseling center
(Comprehensive Treatment Center or CTC) for opioid use disorder utilizing
medicated-assisted treatment (MAT) in combination with counseling and
therapies at 535 E. First Street, Second Floor, on behalf of Acadia Healthcare
Co. Inc., a subsidiary of California Treatment Services, LLC and Brian
Spalding, the authorized agent at the time of filing.
B. That the project site is located within Development Area (DA-3) of the DCCSP
and has a DCCSP General Plan land use designation where the proposed
use is permitted with the issuance of a CUP pursuant to DCCSP Table 3.1.
C. That on April 12, 2022, pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9298b
and DCCSP Section 6.1.7, the Community Development Director issued a
land use determination that determined that a proposed Comprehensive
Treatment Center/Clinic (CTC) that would treat opioid abuse disorders
through outpatient and opioid maintenance treatment care, using the
medically assisted treatment (MAT) method, which is a treatment reliant upon
medication and behavioral therapy, is similar to the medical land use category
that includes clinics for out-patients only, including medical clinics, healthcare
centers, and urgent care, which is allowed in the DCCSP - DA-3 zone with the
approval of a CUP.
D. That pursuant to TCC Section 9291c and DCCSP Section 6.1.4, the Planning
Commission is authorized to make determinations on application requests for
CUPs and shall hold a public hearing, take public input, and shall determine
whether or not the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied
for, will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the
health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or whether it will be
injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or
the general welfare of the City.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B27854A-AE96-4B5D-813B-3E2987B706B5
__________________
Resolution 23-10
Page 2 of 12
E. That the public hearing for CUP 2022-0009 was initially noticed as a public
hearing before the Planning Commission for August 23, 2022. On August
15, 2022, the applicant submitted a request to continue the public hearing for
at least thirty (30) days and on August 23, 2022, the Planning Commission
opened the public hearing, heard public input, and continued the public
hearing to September 27, 2022.
F. That on September 20, 2022, staff received a request for a disability-related
reasonable modification to the City of Tustin’s policies, practices, and/or
procedures to allow the applicant to establish the proposed CTC pursuant
to Section 35.130(b)(7)(i) of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
G. That on September 27, 2022, the Planning Commission opened the public
hearing, heard public input and continued the public hearing to a date
uncertain.
H. On October 21, 2022, the City denied the request for Disability-related
Reasonable Modification/Accommodation of the City’s policies, practices,
and/or procedures (RA) for the proposed project and determined that a
modification of the City’s policies, practices, and/or procedures is not
necessary to accommodate the proposed project and that the CUP process
provides a pathway for a fair hearing, and it would be improper to assume that
the City process will ultimately yield an outcome that violates the requirements
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
I. That on October 28, 2022, the applicant filed an appeal of the City’s denial of
the Request for Disability-related RA.
J. That on January 10, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the appeal
request and determined that a modification of the City’s policies, practices,
and/or procedures is not necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of
disability and therefore approval of a CUP is required for the proposed
project.
K. That a public hearing was duly called and held for said application on January
10, 2023, by the Planning Commission.
L. That on January 10, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
4456 denying a request for CUP 2022-0009 to establish an outpatient
treatment and counseling center for opioid use disorder utilizing medicated-
assisted treatment (MAT) in combination with counseling and behavioral
therapies at 535 E. First Street, Second Floor.
M. That pursuant to TCC Section 9294b, any decision of the Planning
Commission may be appealed to the City Council by any person and that the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B27854A-AE96-4B5D-813B-3E2987B706B5
__________________
Resolution 23-10
Page 3 of 12
appeal hearing shall be de novo and the City Council shall approve, approve
with conditions, disapprove the project, or remand the matter to the Planning
Commission with direction from the City Council.
N. That on January 19, 2023, the appellant filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 4456 denying the project. The
written appeal states that: (1) the decision of the Planning Commission
denying the project should be reversed and that the Conditional Use Permit
No. 2022-0009 be approved, pending revision of the proposed Conditions
of Approval; (2) City staff has been unwilling to meet the applicant or
property owner in order to discuss the proposed use, most notably
regarding the conditions of approval prior to only making them available
less than six (6) days prior to the Planning Commission hearing date,
thereby blocking any input; (3) after the motion by the Planning
Commission to deny the proposed use, the Planning Commission Chair
did not follow proper procedures in allowing any discussion on motion on
the floor, and instead, pushed ahead to vote on the motion; (4) the
information presented to the Planning Commission by staff was done so
without their clear understanding of the facts; (5) the City Attorney's office
promised to provide public records as they become available, but failed to
do so; and (6) there has been a gross violation of proper procedure.
O. That a public hearing was duly called and held on the appeal of the Planning
Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 4456 denying the project on March
7, 2023, by the City Council.
P. That pursuant to TCC 9291c, DCCSP Section 6.1.4, and 9294b, the City
Council shall determine whether or not the establishment, maintenance or
operation of the use applied for will, under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare
of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use,
or whether it will be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in
the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
Q. That pursuant to TCC 9291c and DCCSP Section 6.1.4, and 9294b, the City
Council has determined that based on the review of the operator’s past
performance at its Santa Ana CTC location, it is reasonable to conclude that
the operator is not able to prevent or effectively mitigate nuisances.
Because the operational characteristics of the proposed CTC would more
or less mirror the approach taken in the City of Santa Ana by the same
applicant, it is also reasonable to conclude that if the requested CUP is
approved, the establishment, operation and maintenance of the proposed
project by the same operator, would result in similar nuisance conditions
and impacts that would be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort,
and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B27854A-AE96-4B5D-813B-3E2987B706B5
__________________
Resolution 23-10
Page 4 of 12
of the proposed use, injurious or detrimental to the property pursuant to the
following:
1. An analysis of the Santa Ana Police Department “calls for service”
logs for the Santa Ana CTC location for the following time period:
January 1, 2020 through June 1, 2022 (29-month period)
demonstrates that there is a high demand for police services at
the Santa Ana CTC location. In total, 164 calls for service were
received during the twenty-nine (29) month period. Table 1
identifies the type of police calls for service which include: patrol
checks, narcotic activities, disturbances, pedestrian checks and
calls to assist the fire department. Other police calls for service
generated at the site include, but were not limited to, trespassing,
stolen vehicle, domestic violence, battery, and person with a
deadly weapon. Table 1 below generally summarizes the data:
2. Figures 1 through 5, shown summarize the police calls for
service, year by year for 2020, 2021 and January 2022 through
June 1, 2022, spanning the twenty-nine (29) month period.
These graphs confirm a pattern of repeated crime activity
associated with the facility as operated by the applicant in the City
of Santa Ana, which has similar operational characteristics to
those proposed for the project site.
Table 1
Santa Ana Comprehensive Treatment Center
2101 E. 1st. Street, Santa Ana, CA
(1/1/20-6/1/2022)
Type of Police Service No. Calls for Service
Patrol check 27
Narcotic activity 25
Disturbance-transient 17
Pedestrian check 17
Assisting fire department 10
Other 68
TOTAL 164
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B27854A-AE96-4B5D-813B-3E2987B706B5
__________________
Resolution 23-10
Page 5 of 12
Figure 1 – Police Calls for Service (1/1/20-12/31/2020) - 2101 E. 1st St., Santa Ana
Figure 2 – Police Calls for Service (1/1/21-12/31/2021) - 2101 E. 1st St., Santa Ana
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B27854A-AE96-4B5D-813B-3E2987B706B5
__________________
Resolution 23-10
Page 6 of 12
Figure 3 – Police Calls for Service (1/1/22-6/1/2022) - 2101 E. 1st St., Santa Ana
Figure 4 – Police Calls for Service by Type - 2101 E. 1st St., Santa Ana
Figure 4 shows the 164 police calls for service arranged by type
and the volume of requests for Police calls for service for the
twenty-nine (29) month period described in Table 1. In total, there
are thirty-nine (39) different types of calls for police services at the
Santa Ana location totaling 164 in a twenty-nine (29) month period.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B27854A-AE96-4B5D-813B-3E2987B706B5
__________________
Resolution 23-10
Page 7 of 12
Figure 5 – Police Calls for Service Within/Outside Operating Hours
2101 E. 1st St., Santa Ana
Figure 5 demonstrates calls for service within and outside operating
hours which clearly demonstrate the applicant’s lack of control of
activities occurring at the property.
Figure 6 – Police Calls for Service Comparison with Other Clinics
Figure 6 demonstrates that the location in Santa Ana generates
over eighty-two (82) percent more calls for police services than any
of the three (3) health care clinics in Tustin. A comparison of the
data also shows that three (3) Tustin locations combined had less
than fifty (50) percent of the calls for services than those associated
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B27854A-AE96-4B5D-813B-3E2987B706B5
__________________
Resolution 23-10
Page 8 of 12
with the Santa Ana location, during the same time period
3. Incompatibility with adjacent Residential and Other
Sensitive Uses.
a. Hours of Operation: The proposed hours of operation
and characteristics are incompatible with the adjacent
residential uses and other sensitive uses. The proposed
use is adjacent to and within 300 feet of residential uses.
The early hours of operation starting at 5:00 a.m. (patients
may arrive prior to opening) combined with 100-300
patients rotating through the facility at short four (4) to six
(6) minute intervals in a condensed three (3) hour window
of peak operations will create noise, pedestrian and
vehicular activities that are uncharacteristic and
incompatible with the adjacent residential uses.
b. Safety and Potential Nuisances: The applicant proposes
to treat upwards of 140 to 300 patients Monday through
Saturday during a compressed schedule with only one (1)
security guard to monitor the interior and exterior of the
facility. As can be seen by criminal activities shown on the
records obtained from the Santa Ana site, the operator
appears to not have complete control of activities
occurring at their property both during and after business
hours. Since the same operator will occupy and operate
at the Tustin site with comparable operating
characteristics, similar nuisances such as loitering,
narcotic activities, trespassing, and other disturbances
requiring police assistance will occur at the proposed
project site. These nuisances and disturbances would
impact not only the safety of residential uses and CTC
patients but also surrounding businesses.
c. Curbside Dosing: The proposed CTC includes “curbside
dosing” in the parking lot. The applicant has not indicated
in their proposal any details to manage traffic/circulation,
staging, or queueing related to curbside dosing, nor the
number of curbside dosing expected at the site. The
curbside dosing proposed to take place in the parking lot
is inconsistent with TCC 9271(ff) which requires all uses
be conducted within a completely enclosed building except
those that are specifically permitted and effectively
screened from view, via CUP process. There are
exceptions for off-street parking, loading area, outdoor
storage when screened in the industrial areas, approved
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B27854A-AE96-4B5D-813B-3E2987B706B5
__________________
Resolution 23-10
Page 9 of 12
temporary uses, or outdoor dining in conjunction with an
eating establishment.
d. Impacts to Schools: The proposed use is located within
an approximate one (1) mile walking distance to various
educational uses listed in Table 2. A total of 3,762 students
attend schools within an approximately 1.1-miles radius of
the project site. Many of the streets within the area are
used by students walking to and from school. The
weekday proposed hours of operation are from 5:00 a.m.
– 2:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The police calls for
service, as shown on Table 1 and Figures 1 through 5,
indicate that of the incidents, fifty-four (54) percent or
eighty-nine (89) of the total 164 incidents occurred within
the business hours of operation of 5:00 a.m.- 2:00 p.m.
These incident hours coincide with the schools’ start and
end times and children could be exposed to crime and
unsafe conditions such as narcotic activities, disturbances,
indecent exposures, theft and robbery. As such, the
proposed use would be incompatible with the nearby
sensitive educational uses as listed in Table 2.
Table 2
Number of Students within Approximately One (1) Mile
to Proposed CTC at 535 E. First St., Tustin
School Name
Number
of
Students
Location
Walking
Distance to
Project Site
School Start School Out
Columbus
Tustin Middle
School
694
17952
Beneta
Way
0.8 miles
Gate Open:
7:40 a.m.
Start: 8:00
a.m.
12:43 p.m. or
2:42 p.m.
Helen Estock
Elementary
School
464 14741 N.
B Street 0.7 miles 8:00 a.m.
Between
1:09 p.m. – 2:23
p.m.
Barbara Benson
Elementary
School
310
12712
Elizabeth
Way
1.1 miles 8:10 a.m.
Between
1:05 p.m. to
2:35 p.m.
Tustin High
School 2,294
1171 El
Camino
Real
0.9 miles 7:28 a.m. 3:20 p.m
TOTAL STUDENTS: 3,762
4. Incompatibility with other Businesses. The proposed use
would be incompatible with the nearby existing businesses and
would negatively affect the economic viability of the existing and
future businesses in the immediate area. The proposal lacks a
security plan to mitigate loitering and secondary criminal activity
for the over two (2)-acre site as demonstrated at their current site
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B27854A-AE96-4B5D-813B-3E2987B706B5
__________________
Resolution 23-10
Page 10 of 12
in Santa Ana. Further, the early hours of operation starting at
5:00 a.m. combined with 100-300 patients rotating through the
facility at short four (4) to six (6) minute intervals in a condensed
three (3) hour window of peak operations and curbside dosing,
would create operational conditions that commercial businesses
do not typically encounter or expect.
The proposed CTC includes “curbside dosing” in the parking lot.
Curbside dosing is a business operation that would take place
outside of a building, however, TCC requires business activities
to take place solely inside a building per TCC 9271(ff) and
therefore curbside dosing is not allowed. Allowances for outside
activities fall under temporary celebratory activities that take
place with such health fairs and special product sales for on-site
businesses. Additionally, because specific information about the
frequency and location of curbside dosing on the project site was
not provided, the activity’s potential impacts on vehicle queuing,
parking and pedestrian access are unknown.
5. Police Calls for Service. Negative impacts to the neighborhood
can be anticipated as evidenced by the police calls for service
data received relative to a similar use operated by the applicant
in Santa Ana just one-mile away (refer to Table 1, Figures 1
through 5). The data shows that nuisance incidents and criminal
conduct have actually accompanied this applicant’s operation of
the proposed use. In light of the proposal to conduct the
operation in the same manner that has drawn nuisance and
criminal conduct to the facility’s existing location, it is anticipated
that the proposed relocated operation would produce a significant
increase in calls for service to the Tustin Police Department as
compared to other health care facilities in Tustin. The increase in
calls for service would divert police resources from the rest of the
Tustin community. Furthermore, the applicant would utilize only
one (1) security guard to patrol the interior and exterior of the over
two (2)-acre site. This is the same approach to security used at
the Santa Ana site. However, the proposed site is three (3) times
larger than the Santa Ana site and is located on the second story
of the building, which means the CTC’s sole security guard would
be spread thinner, making incident prevention and rapid
response more difficult.
R. Based on the review of the operator’s past performance at its Santa Ana CTC
location, the operator appears unable to prevent or effectively mitigate
nuisances associated with the project as operated. Because the operational
characteristics of the proposed project would more or less mirror the
approach taken in Santa Ana by the applicant, it is reasonable to conclude
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B27854A-AE96-4B5D-813B-3E2987B706B5
__________________
Resolution 23-10
Page 11 of 12
that if the requested CUP is approved, the proposed relocated project
operated by the same operator in Tustin, would result in similar nuisance
conditions and impacts that would be detrimental to the health, safety,
morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in
the neighborhood of the proposed use, injurious or detrimental to the property
and improvements in the neighborhood and to the general welfare of the City.
S. This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and of the California Code
of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act).
II. The City Council hereby denies a request for a CUP 2022-0009 to establish an
outpatient treatment and counseling center for opioid use disorder utilizing
medicated-assisted treatment (MAT) in combination with counseling and behavioral
therapies at 535 E. First Street, Second Floor.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on
the 7th day of March, 2023.
LETITIA CLARK,
Mayor Pro Tem
__________________________
ERICA N. YASUDA,
City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B27854A-AE96-4B5D-813B-3E2987B706B5
__________________
Resolution 23-10
Page 12 of 12
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Erica N. Yasuda, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is 5; and that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 23-10 was duly
passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 7th day of March,
2023, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Clark, Gallagher, Schnell (3)
COUNCILMEMBER NOES: (0)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: Lumbard (1)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Gomez (1)
____________________
ERICA N. YASUDA,
City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B27854A-AE96-4B5D-813B-3E2987B706B5