Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 06-26-23 ITEM #1 MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBER& VIDEO CONFERENCE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 26, 2023 6:00 P.M. 6:01 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER. Given. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Mello Present. ROLL CALL: Chair Kozak Commissioners Douthit, Mason and Mello Absent. Chair Pro Tern Higuchi None. PUBLIC INPUT. Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no public input received. Approved the CONSENT CALENDAR. May 23, 2023 meeting minutes. PUBLIC MEETING: Adopted Reso. 1. APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR DISABILITY-RELATED No. 4476, as REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION (14851 YORBA STREET AND provided. 165 NORTH MYRTLE AVENUE) APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: KELLY BRUNO-NELSON DAVID TANG EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CALAIM, YORBA MYRTLE LLC CALOPTIMA HEALTH 16027 BROOKHURST 505 CITY PARKWAY WEST STREET, STE. 1341 ORANGE, CA 92868 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 LOCATION: 14851 YORBA ST. & 165 N. MYRTLE AVE. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes—June 26, 2023 Pagel ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This appeal is Categorically Exempt (Class 1) pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. REQUEST: An appeal of the City's denial of the Request for Disability-related reasonable accommodation (RA) pursuantto Section 35.130(b)(7)(i) of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations to accommodate the proposed Project that would temporarily house and otherwise serve elderly (55 years and older) low-income patients with physical and/or behavioral health impairments that substantially limit major Life activities as those terms are defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") (28 C.F.R. 35.108). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4476 denying the request for disability-related accommodation of policies, practices and procedures related to a proposed Recuperative Care, Post-Hospitalization Housing and "Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly" at 14851 Yorba Street and 165 N. Myrtle Avenue. Allison E. Presentation given. Burns, Special Legal Counsel Alan B. Mr. Alan B. Fenstermacher (Rutan & Tucker - Land Use Counsel for Fenstermacher CaLOptima) generally spoke on the following: the proposed health center for seniors; proposal to reoccupy two (2) existing vacant buildings for acute care and skilled nursing uses; no square footage changes; no changes to the bed count, but only update/enhance the interiors to facilitate a clinicaVmedical use; he asked the Commission to make a determination that the proposed use is just like the prior use (a conditionally permitted use) under its existing zoning and under the RA request; proposed project's patients will in fact be disabled; he defined American's with Disability Act (ADA) although no legal requirement necessary to prove the actual disability; stated the City did not specify that the RA would result in an undue burden; provided CaLOptima background information; waiving zoning requirements is a proper RA request; the proposed project should Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes—June 26, 2023 Page 2 Alan B. not be treated any differently than the prior use of the buildings that was Fenstermacher approved under a CUP;the City cannot make any determinations based on who the users are, and must make its determination based on the use; and if the appeals are granted,the City will have plenty of discretionary review since CaLOptima is not requesting the proposed project be deemed a permitted use but would still be subject to a CUP process. David Tang Mr. Tang, property owner, explained the sale of the project site to CaLOptima. He mentioned the prolonged entitlement process and financial burden has caused for Mr. Tang and his partners. He made favorable comments about CaLOptima and he asked the Commission to approve CUP 2022-0019. Burns In response to Mr. Tang's statement regarding the CUP, Ms. Burns explained to the Commission that the CUP was not being considered by the Commission for approval at this special meeting. The RA request was the only item being considered by the Commission at this public meeting. Rebecca Ms. Rebecca Rolland, Mountain View Drive resident, generally spoke on Rolland the following: issue there will be increased traffic on Mountain View Drive; fearful of more issues with the proposed project; concern with the patients Leaving the facility (where would they go? concern with loitering); there is currently a homeless issue on Mountain View Drive; concern with employees parking on Mountain View Drive (employees of the previous use would park in the residential area); and concern with overall safety and property value. Mark Mauer Mark Mauer, Rim Investments 14841 Yorba St., stated he did not know that "disability" is a criterion and how a disability would distinguish this type of facility (i.e. ADA aspect) to require a reasonable accommodation. Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no additional public input received. Douthit Douthit thanked staff and the applicant for presentation. He stated the facility appears as if it is trying to be an "exception" not an "accommodation". He touched on the City's due process. Mello Mello disclosed he had met with the applicant several months ago. He generally stated the following: great idea for homeless; did not believe a RA would be necessary for this item; and there needs to be an approach for more reasonably reflective land use requirements for the City. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes—June 26, 2023 Page 3 Kozak Kozak stated the proposal was a viable project for Myrtle and he was in support of the project. Mason Mason added that the RA was not relevant in this case. In support of adopting the resolution, as presented by staff. Mello Mello concurred with Mason's previous statement. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Mello,to adopt Resolution No. 4476, as presented. Motion carried 4-0-1. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted Reso. 2. APPEAL FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S USE No. 4477, as DETERMINATION (UD 2023-0002) provided. APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: KELLY BRUNO-NELSON DAVID TANG EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CALAIM, YORBA MYRTLE LLC CALOPTIMA HEALTH 16027 BROOKHURST 505 CITY PARKWAY WEST STREET, STE. 1341 ORANGE, CA 92868 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 LOCATION: 14851 YORBA ST. & 165 N. MYRTLE AVE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This appeal is Categorically Exempt (Class 1) pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. REQUEST: An appeal of the Community Development Director's Use Determination (UD 2023-0002). The applicant's appeal is as follows: • Thatthe proposed project should be considered one integrated use and characterized as "a `hospital' or`similar' use to a hospital" and therefore a Conditionally permitted use on the project site. The applicant's appeal includes a statement that all aspects of the Use Determination are appealed, except for the determination that the PACE Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes—June 26, 2023 Page 4 aspect of the project is a conditionally permitted use under the site's zoning district and general plan land use designation. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4477 denying the appeal and upholding the Community Development Director's Use Determination (UD 2023-0002). Barragan Presentation given. Michael Hunn Michael Hunn (CaLOptima CEO), touched on the following: CaLOptima Health's services (i.e. to provide support for older adults to have access of doctors/clinics (recuperative/PACE); asked the Commission to consider and support their project; discussed in detail the proposed living center, recuperative care, and CaIAIM; the proposed center would be re-occupying the exact same site to provide care for older adults, particularly to those unhoused until they can establish their next place of living; recuperative care was developed by health plans; CaLOptima Health history and qualifications. Kelly Bruno- Kelly Bruno-Nelson, CaLOptima and MediCal Executive Director, generally Nelson spoke on the following: her background with CaLOptima and the timeline and status of their application process; proposed project is an opportunity to care for the elderly; shared the similarities between "Tustin Community Living Center" with the existing CUP; provided Power Point presentation; timeline of the project and process with the City; and Tustin Community Living Center background. Alan B. Alan B. Fenstermacher stated the following, in general. All of the legal Fenstermacher bases are detailed in their appeals, in writing; however, added that it is up to the Commission to interpret what is "hospital-like" and based on the record, the proposed use is very similar to a hospital use. The PACE Program, City staff believes is similar to a hospital use. If the Commission were to look at the recuperative care aspect alone, the Commission would still be within its discretion to determine that the use is also similar to a hospital use. The applicant is being required to submit a brand-new application for zone changes because of the differences in terms "medical oversight" and "medical services". The proposed uses are an institutional medical use and are similar to a hospital use such that it would be conditionally permitted. In fact, the City's General Plan specifically states Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes—June 26, 2023 Page 5 Alan B. that limited residential uses are permitted in the public and institutional Fenstermacher zone as long as they are associated with the institutional use. If the appeal is granted,the applicant would still need to go through a discretionary CUP process and will come back to the Commission and would be subject to any conditions the Commission may impose. What the applicant is asking is to allow the CUP application to proceed to a hearing, rather than starting the process entirely over. Burns Burns re-emphasized to the Commission that the City is not recommending denial of the project, only denial of the appeal on land use determination that the proposed recuperative care and post hospitalization are not similar to hospital . She referred to the "health facilities" section within the TCC along with the characteristics — licensing and hours of operation. Mello Mello asked the applicant and staff: 1) to clarify if recuperative center guests are free to choose the PACE program; and 2) if the patients would be free to come and go as they please or mandated to remain until checked out like in a hospital. Kelly Bruno- In response to Mello's questions, Ms. Bruno-Nelson stated the following, Nelson in general: everyone has freedom of choice; cannot make anybody participate in PACE (per their operations plan); anticipate the vast majority of the members in the recuperative care program will participate in the PACE Program; and how the current senior living facilities in Tustin differ from the proposed project. Mello Mello asked staff about the senior living facilities within the city and how they are zoned and if zoning differs from a hospital use. Willkom In response to Mello's questions, Willkom stated that many of the assisted Living/senior facilities, convalescent homes are typically located in commercially zoned areas, and are licensed by the Department of Healthcare and are required to receive approval of a CUP. Senior living facilities is not listed as a conditionally permitted use, but hospitals are Listed as such in the P&I zone. Mason Mason asked the applicant to explain the difference between acute care and the PACE Program. She asked if the applicant would be providing any medical services outside the PACE Program. She also asked if the proposed project would be a skilled nursing facility. Mason also asked why recuperative care is not mandated by the State and licensed. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes—June 26, 2023 Page 6 Bruno-Nelson In response to Mason's previous questions, Ms. Bruno-Nelson stated the following in general: subject to medical care plan (outlined in the operations manual); physicians assistants are on staff; recuperative has only existed for 15 years which is why no mandate for licensing — the population did not exist before; financial healthcare for the homeless; they have advocated recuperative care should be licensed; explained in detail slide #10 in the applicant's Power Point "Staffing and Security Information"; each POD will have 20-25 people and its own RNs, LVNs, safety associate, etc. and its own individual medical staff. Douthit Douthit asked why there is a need for two (2) directors. What if the guest has been deemed medically appropriate for discharge, but no permanent housing is available. What happens at that point? He also commended CaLOptima for their services. Bruno-Nelson Ms. Bruno-Nelson explained that there is one (1) director of recuperative care and one (1) director of the PACE Program, and she would oversee the entire facility. Each department has a director overseeing different areas. Ms. Bruno-Nelson stated they are dedicated in ensuring members leaving the facility have permanent housing, which is why the importance of the PACE program. This would allow the frail patients to remain in their own home with the support services PACE has to offer. Michael Hunn Mr. Hunn spoke on the following: how this facility would compare to acute care/recuperative care (i.e. convalescent homes) and that it is not a shelter. He explained, in detail, services that hospitals, such as Hoag Hospital, provide in order to compare with recuperative care. Mr. Hunn added that acute care is nothing like it used to be. Mark Mauer Mr. Mauer, representative of Rim Investments, commented on the following: he supported the PACE aspect use; sees recuperative care differently than the applicant's definition (per the program's brochure — average stay is one 1 year); project does not fit with the current existing zoning; concern with the facility's curfew; and concern with guests loitering on his property. Sasha Ms. Richards, resident of Mountain View Drive, voiced her concern with the Richards increased homeless issue in Tustin; safety; parking; property values; increased crime rate; and she asked the Commission to consider the ramifications of this facility in this area. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes—June 26, 2023 Page 7 Hillary Kay Ms. Kay, tenant of 150 Yorba Street, voiced her concern with the current homeless issue; safety; and she would not be opposed if there was extra security on the proposed facility. Bruce Mr. MacKenzie, resident of Mountain View Drive, voiced his concern with MacKenzie the members participating in the PACE Program; proposed facility being next door to residential; and the increased homeless issue. Allison Burns Ms. Burns shared with the Commission the nature of the original CUP of the property which stated it authorized hospital beds for neurological or convalescent care only. 8:04 p.m. Closed the Public Hearing. Mello Mello reminded the Commission of the item being presented. This is two (2) separate uses or one (1) hospital like use. He was in favor of the Community Development Director's recommended action. Douthit Douthit stated that considering that this use is not a hospital, he, too was in agreement with upholding the Community Development Director's recommended action. Mason Mason thanked the applicant and the community for speaking, and agrees that the uses are not an integrated use. She was also in support of the Community Development Director's decision. Kozak Kozak concurred with his colleagues; however, if the items are brought back to the Commission, he asked if the conflicting items can be worked out to assist with decision making. Burns In response to Kozak's questions/comments, Ms. Burns provided information and clarification on the motion. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Douthit, to adopt Resolution No. 4477. Motion passes 4-0-1. None. REGULAR BUSINESS. STAFF CONCERNS: Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes—June 26, 2023 Page 8 Willkom Willkom reminded the Commission of tomorrow's regular Planning Commission meeting beginning at 7pm. COMMISSION CONCERNS: The Commission did not have any concerns. 8:15 p.m. Meeting adjourned. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes—June 26, 2023 Page 9