Loading...
11/16/2000GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 2000 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on November 16, 2000, at 7:09 p.m., by Chairperson Fran Van Gelder. PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson Doug Wilson, Vice -Chairperson Mary Trainor, Commissioner Maryetta Ferre', Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Director of Community and Economic Development John Lampe, Associate Planner Pat Groeneveld, CEDD Secretary ABSENT: Matthew Addington, Commissioner 7:09 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Call to Order • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Wilson • Roll Call Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Community Development Director. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: NONE This is a time for anyone in the audience to speak on any item which is not on the agenda for this meeting. ITEM 1 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-38-2000 Motion was made by Chairperson Van Gelder to approve the minutes of the October 19, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ferre'. MOTION VOTE PC-38-2000 Motion approved 4-0-0-1. Commissioner Addington absent. ITEM 2 DRAFT ORDINANCE Residential Care Facilities RECOMMENDATION: Review and comment on a Draft Ordinance to control over -concentration of "residential service facilities" — No Public Hearing ACTION: Staff received a consensus from the Planning Commission to move forward with the Ordinance. Certain language in the Draft Ordinance is to be amended. Response from the City Attorney and the State Governor's Office of Planning and Research is to be given careful consideration prior to the scheduling of the Public Hearing. Associate Planner John Lampe presented the Staff Report, advising the matter had been presented to the Commission on August 17, 2000, specifically regarding the DAP (Drug Alternative Program located in the northern portion of the City of Grand Terrace. A copy of the August 17t report was provided to the Commissioners. In review, Mr. Lampe noted one of these uses is licensed by the State of California as an alcohol and drug rehab center; two are not licensed by the State. The State pre-empts local control for alcohol and drug rehabilitation facilities. To Staffs knowledge there is no pre- emption by the State for local control of the uses for the two unlicensed facilities. Staff contacted several other cities to determine how they dealt with these questions, primarily sober living houses. Staff did not find any jurisdiction, with the exception of VA Costa Mesa, that has attempted at a local level to deal with this type of facility. The Costa Mesa Ordinance, provided to the Commission, does not deal with the issue of over concentration of non -licensed facilities. Staff also spoke with Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services in both Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Both counties have formed Task Forces to consider regulation of sober living homes. The Task Forces have not yet completed their studies for the Courts. Both counties are looking only at ways to certify the operators of these facilities, not land use or land use controls. Staff did receive a draft report from the County of Orange, provided to the Commission. All the suggested regulations deal with the operation of the sober living house, not land use, with the exception of requiring the operator to get local zoning approval to operate the home. No standards or any kind land use regulations were specified. Mr. Lampe emphasized that this is a draft report and has not been, in any way, officially sanctioned by the County of Orange. Mr. Lampe reported that Los Angeles County will be preparing a report very similar to Orange County's. The aim appears to provide a voluntary way for operators of these facilities to be certified by the respective counties. The Draft Ordinance attempts to define or distinguish, via the City Zoning Code, between those facilities that receive State licenses where local control is pre-empted, and those facilities that do not receive State licenses, where Staff believes there is still an option for local control of those uses. The Draft deals primarily with the matter of over concentration. Any facilities that are more than 300 feet in radius apart, would be approved as a matter of right. If closer together than 300 feet in radius, then the operators would be required to appear before the Planning Commission for approval of a conditional use permit and demonstrate that there would not be over concentration of these uses in a given area. The City Attorney is still in the process of reviewing the Ordinance, although he stated technically, the procedure and format are fine. The City Attorney is exploring case law before he will recommend the Ordinance go forward to Public Hearing and consideration and adoption by the City Council. Staff will send a letter to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to receive comment from the State regarding the Draft Ordinance. Proposition 36, approved by the voters in November, removes some of the criminal sanctions for drug abuse and requires that these individuals receive proper treatment. It was the comment of the Sheriffs office of Orange County to Mr. Lampe, that given that Proposition's successful passage by the voters we will see more of a demand for these kinds of facilities. Mr. Lampe concluded by asking the Commission for their comments and guidance. Discussion followed on the Draft Ordinance: 3 Chairperson Van Gelder asked for clarification of the term "similar" as it relates to residential care facilities and residential service facilities as stated in the Draft Ordinance phrase " over -concentration, maximum one per 300 feet radius" and if all types of care homes anticipated could be included. Director Materassi suggested clarifying the Ordinance by rewording to "either/or residential service or residential care facility". The Director also noted the proposed Draft Ordinance only applies to facilities not licensed by the State (residential service facility), as the State advises the City when considering a license application for a residential care facility. Although the State uses the 300 foot radius "rule" to evaluate over concentration, it is not bound to it, nor to the individual city's response to their notification. Commissioner Trainor asked how Staff would enforce the Ordinance. Director Materassi responded that according to the Draft Ordinance it would be on a complaint basis as there is no other triggering mechanism. Staff originally tried to establish a triggering mechanism, such as the CUP process. John Harper, City Attorney, after checking case law, strongly recommended against that process. Further, the more research the City Attorney has done, the less encouragement he has offered Staff. It appears case law does not necessarily support the Draft Ordinance. The Director also advised that even when review is required, such as a CUP, it is incumbent upon the applicant to take initiative. If they do not, the City would not necessarily be aware of their activities. Commissioner Trainor suggested an educational process to encourage notification by brokers and agents as part of the purchase or lease process, of the City's Ordinance. After careful consideration by the Commissioners and Staff, it was determined that this approach was not workable. Commissioner Trainor requested the Ordinance be written in a fair and encompassing manner, not focused on a certain group of individuals or a certain type of residential care. Also, the Commissioner asked for language that would make the Ordinance enforceable. Director Materassi referred to her previous statement indicating the reasons why Staff did not include a CUP review process. However, the Director suggested that Staff add a Land Use Clearance clause to the Draft Ordinance. It would enable Staff to check the "radius" boundaries and make immediate approval if no other facility was located within the boundaries. If another facility, as defined by Ordinance, was within a 300 foot radius, then the CUP process would be triggered. Director Materassi asked if the Commission wanted to retain the description of sober living houses that was included in the Draft Ordinance. Commissioner Ferre' confirmed with Staff that the terms residential care and residential service would be used to cover the complete variety of services offered, including care and services to mentally and physically handicapped and recovering individuals. n Chairperson Van Gelder, Commissioners Trainor and Ferre' and Staff discussed the matter, determining the description of sober living houses be eliminated and the Draft Ordinance language be modified to include examples of residential care or residential service types of facilities, with the stipulation "including, but not limited to". Director Materassi asked for a consensus from the Commission. Chairperson Van Gelder, after polling the Commissioners, directed Staff to make the requested and approved changes to language and process and to move forward in preparation for Public Hearing on the Draft Ordinance to control over concentration of residential service/care facilities. 7:47 P.M. ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:47 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION Information from Commissioners Chairperson Van Gelder, on a lighter note, shared an item reported in the press. A couple in Stonington, CT, frustrated that the Historical Society and Planning Board denied their application for an addition to their historic home, painted the house black in protest as an expression of their mourning and pain. Director Materassi noted a similar incident occurred in Grand Terrace when the City requested a couple to trim the severely overgrown trees surrounding their home. In response to the request, all trees were removed from the property and the house was painted a very, very strong green. Chairperson Van Gelder asked Staff to update the Commissioners on the following: - Code enforcement of no smoking law in public buildings - Status of the Barton Road Median - Code enforcement on "Rite Aid" property Director Materassi responded: - Any person who has knowledge/observation of smoking in a public building may call City Code Enforcement who will arrange for a Sheriff's Deputy to counsel the offender. - The Barton Road Median Project is being reevaluated due to a certain level of controversy surrounding the proposal. Planning Staff is researching available funding to reconfigure parking access/spacing as well as landscaping for businesses affected. Staff will also work with the business community to explain the proposed phasing of the project, the 5 benefits of aesthetics and safety and to establish understanding and support before resubmitting the matter for review and action. - No response has been received to the City's request for clean up of the "Rite Aid" project. Staff took a "request" approach, believing that the response would be positive. However, no response was forthcoming and no clean-up has taken place at the site. Commissioner Wilson, supported by the Commissioners as a whole, strongly recommended that a request for clean up of the site, with a specific deadline, be sent to the property owner. If response is not appropriate and timely, the City should clean-up the site and bill back and/or place a lien on the property. Commissioner Ferre' announced this would be her last Planning Commission Meeting. The Commissioner thanked Staff, stating she thoroughly enjoyed working with each Staff member and extended her thanks to the Commissioners. • Information to Commissioners Director Materassi congratulated Commissioner Ferre' on her election to City Council and thanked her for her participation, input and interest in the Planning Commission. A token of appreciation was given to Commissioner Ferre' by Staff, who expressed their thanks and congratulations. The "Ten Principles for Smart Growth", was provided to the Commissioners. Director Materassi came across the principles in the California Economic Development Association publication. These principles are being incorporated into the philosophy of economic development departments in many cities, a distinct change from prevailing antagonism between economic development and planning departments. These principles fit with the concept of sustainable development and similar "principles" are included in the City's General Plan. The Director provided minutes of Retail Recruitment Forum — Session One, for the Commissioner's review. The Director also described the content and presentation of the December 5th Second Session of the Retail Recruitment Forum and invited the Commissioners to attend and participate. 8:07 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 0 NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON DECEMBER 21, 2000. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Patrizia Materassi Fran Van Gelder Director of Community Chairperson, Planning Commission and Economic Development w\pcmeetings\meeting 11-16-OO.doc