Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - - Additional Documents - 10/3/2017ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR CC -2 WARRANT INFORMATION 10/03/17 Payment Date Remittance to: Remittance Payment Explanation of payment Ref. ID: Amount 0206936 09/22/17 Art & Learning Conservatory 0000025595 $2,500.00 What is this for? - Adams School Program This is a grant through the Costa Mesa Grant Foundation for an after school play ("Annie") at Adams Elementary School. 0206965 09/22/17 Ensign Fund - Grant -After 0000025732 $2,000.00 What is this for? School Program This is a grant through the Costa Mesa Foundation to provide bus service to Costa Mesa students that want to participate in a afterschool dance class, but need bus service home in order to do so. 0206985 09/22/17 KOCI - NMUSD Xmas Gift 0000025733 $1,500.00 What is this for? Program KOCI has a holiday party for families in need. The Costa Mesa Foundation granted money to purchase gifts for the children of those families. 0207019 09/22/17 Revival Animal Health & 0000024761 $197.96 What was this for? Great Companions - The Revival Animal Health disinfectant is for Disinfectant our temporary animal control kennels at the police department. Used for cleaning. 0207035 09/22/17 Susan W Case Inc. - Map, 0000001601 $4,900.00 What was this for? List, Certification Susan Case provided a list of addresses for property owners & occupants that are within 500 feet of fourteen group homes pending SUP applications. Ordinance 17-05 mad changes to the municipal code to require notifications to those owners & tenants 1 days prior the SUP application hearings. Future applicants will be required to prepay the mailing labels as part of their application package. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 APPEAL OF PA -16-41 AND PA -16-44 AGAIN ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 Robert K Kerr Sept 28. 2017 rkkerr0l@gmail.com Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 I am unable to attend the meeting scheduled for October 3, 2017 pertaining to CUP PA -16-41 and CUP PA -16-44. I am opposed to these apartment buildings being used as a sober living facility. Each building consisting of four two bedroom units. According to the proposal, each building would house 14 recovering patients, and some kind of supervision, I presume. It would require each apartment to accommodate 3 or 4 unrelated adults to live a small 2 bedroom unit. The proposed CUP's would create 8 of these treatment environments. That would be a difficult situation for anyone to live, especially someone attempting to change their lifestyle. Twenty eight people all milling around all day every day, trying to forget their bad habits. This property has the highest occupancy density of anywhere in this immediate area, before this proposal. The constant arrival of new residents and the departure of others would give the property the appearance of a transient base. Over crowding. The front yards of these two properties are cluttered with numerous cars each, plus dumpsters. There are garages, but not used for vehicles. Not everyone who seeks treatment at Casa Capri would have a vehicle; there are no more than a dozen parking spots on the combined properties, so more street parking on an already crowded street would be required. Inadequate parking. It is interesting to note that the facility is less than 200 yards from the preeminent liquor store in the area, less than that to a park usually full of toddlers and young children. Wrong neighborhood. Sincerely, Robert K. Kerr Owner 266 16th St ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 TRAYLOR, MARIAN From: Mtn Hombre <mtnhombre@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2017 4:11 PM To: CITY CLERK Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - 271 16TH PL - Appeal of CUP Denial - CUP PA -16-44 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Red Category Dear Costa Mesa City Council, This letter is in regards to the Appeal by Casa Capri, LLC of the denial of their CUP for 271 16th Pl. I have been the owner of 256 16th Place for more -than 20 years. I have lived in the neighborhood and I know it well. I do not think the use proposed by the applicant for a sober -living facility is appropriate for this block or neighborhood, which is completely residential. The make-up of the residents has changed a lot over the years due to demographic and economic factors, but the current residents are not a good fit with this use. I am supportive of these types of facilities in the right location, but with the immediate area made up of single and multi -family residential use, this use and the high density of occupants proposed is inappropriate. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Daniel Arrowood 303 250 2920 256 16th Place Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 September 29, 20.7 RE: CUP PA-16-44� Dear Planning Commission: and mam. - .o the 271 16th IM , * Commission decision on November 14, 2016. I have been in the apartr manage four other prop eight unit building with z we have owned the buil( I'm against the planning living faci ity at 271 16th a CUP is tie oc cy 11 265 16th Place=tly granted a CUP, thO two a of 28 ten- nts in a pace I had and ill continue to a n d t ra ffiii. ent business for nearly 40 years and currently own/ rties in Costa Mesa. Our building at 277 16th place is ar mproximately 9000 sq. ft. of living space. In the 14 years !ng, we have never had more than 17 tenants. #mmission reversing their decision regarding a sober 1. The issue I have with the 271 16th Place being granted vel and the impact it has on the surrounding properties. ias 14 tenants occupying 4 units. If 271 16th Place is jacent properties will have a combined occupancy level iat is 1/3 the square footage of our building. This has i:ave a significant impact on street parking, noise level ne commission on November 14, 2016 (actual y Nov. 15t and my conotrns remain the same. Unfortunately I will not be able to cerson on Oct. 3, 2017 so please consider this letter my response to the 271 16th Place appeal to 'the Planning Commission's decision of November 14, 2016. Naturally, if you have any'Iquestions feel free to contact me at 949 400-7404. M r1T=— VA TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: RE: SLH ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 On Sep 30, 2017, at 1:27 PM, Carolyn Kuechler <carolyngodswordna,icloud.com> wrote: We are declaring our opposition to PA -16-41 and PA -16-44 Thank you! Brad and Carolyn Kuechler Sent from my iPhone TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: RE: Sober living homes ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 On Sep 30, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Marsha Stachowiak <mstachowiakna,claycon.com> wrote: Please do not approve any more locations for Sober Living Homes- we have enough in our town. Regards, Marsha Stachowiak TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: RE: Opposition to PA -16-41 and PA -16-44. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 On Sep 30, 2017, at 12:11 PM, Tom Bruno <brunotom@icloud.com> wrote: Dear Ms Foley, My wife and I have become residents of Costa Mesa within the past 3 years. In that short time we have noticed an increasing amount of homelessness and drug addiction in our city. It is clear to us that the high rate of Sober Living Homes concentrated in our city is a large part of the reason for this. We are not against the premise of SLH in general - in fact our own son recently attended one right around the corner from our house. What is distressing is the ever increasing number of SLH that are to blame for the decreased quality of life in our area. For this reason we vehemently oppose PA -16-41 and PA -16-44 (269 and 271 16th Place.) Costa Mesa has more than its fair share of SLHs and to insert a facility for 28 clients in the midst of a residential neighborhood is neither safe nor wise and will have a detrimental effect on property values in our city. Furthermore, having that high a concentration of clients in a single facility is not conducive to successful recovery. I urge the city council to look out for the quality of life of it's homeowners and reject the proposal to add yet another SLH to community which has done more than enough to assist those individuals who need to recover from their ills. Respectfully, Tom Bruno 309 Shadow Bay Drive TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: RE: New sober living housing ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 On Sep 30, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Joanna Justice <joannai ,epicurcn.com> wrote: Hello council members, Katrina, Sandra, John, Allan and Jim. I am a resident of Eastside, Costa Mesa and I am writing to beg you to PLEASE oppose PA -16-41 and PA -16-44. The overwhelming amount of theft we have had and are still experiencing to this day is clearly attributed w/ these housing programs. The sober living communities are mainly court ordered individuals who are unsupervised, untrustworthy and just barely sober. I am not accusing all to be liars and thieves but it only takes a couple to disrupt and distroy an entire community. When you are dealing with people who have a history of drug addiction with that lifestyle naturally comes lies and theft. They have tunnel vision and carry a lack of consideration of any consequences or lives that they may be disrupting. Our community is extremely family oriented and trying to throw these people into our neighborhoods, who do not hold the same outlook or the common well being for our community, is showing itself to be disastrous. God forbid a simple theft goes wrong and someone is home or at the wrong place at the wrong time. It happens everyday I just don't want it to happen in our backyard. The people that are lending there properties to facilitate this kind of housing are not the ones living with these people as their neighbors. For them the tax benefit they are receiving outweighs the truth behind what is really going on. Please hear our communities common voice and stand behind that we know what we are talking about and what's right to keep our neighborhood clean and safe. Let's try to push this kind of housing as far away as possible. Enough is enough. Thank you, Joanna Justice TRAYLOR, MARIAN To: GREEN, BRENDA Subject: RE: 269, 271 16th PI. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 From: Julie Patterson <iuligpatterson007Ca sbcglobal.net> Date: September 30, 2017 at 7:21:02 PM PDT To: <katrina.foleykeostamesaca.gov> Subject: 269, 271 16th PI. Hello Katrina, I want to remind you of the commercial businesses and residences that are continually affected from all of the fall out of these recovery homes in all of Costa Mesa, especially the East Side. There is now solid evidence that shows the large number of human beings that just simply refuse to go back to their home residence which is OUT OF STATE. They do not want to recover so they just live on the streets and reek havoc on all of the resources. Homeless task $$$$$ Fire Department calls $$$$ Police responders to calls $$$$. I am sick and tired of being FORCE FED recover homes in this neighborhood. I am a commercial land owner of THE HARP INN and THE ROW on East 17th street. We are sick and tired of picking up HUMAN SHIT on our property after these young drug addicts decide to break the lock on the dumpster and go in to the locked dumpster and shoot up heroin and then just shit everywhere. The city of Costa Mesa needs to supply round the clock security guards in commercial spaces and PAY FOR IT WITH THE CITIES OWN MONEY, and not out of the business owners pocket. If you are going to accept the $$$$ from these sober living operators then follow up with a plan to protect the people who support and do business here in Costa Mesa. We the tax payers should not have this ugly burden. We as commercial and residential land owners are fed up with this!!! NO MORE EXCUSES! Frankly the city is out of EXCUSES. Please reject and refuse these sober living operators their applications!!! Now the city has evidence and knows what occurs in this neighborhood (major theft) when accepting and approving applications for more dirty businesses to open up in this community. It is a form of Manan trafficking to load them up a bring them to COSTA MESA from all over the United States. No it has become reverse discrimination for the commercial and residential home owner here. We as a community are fed up and now we have documented enough evidence against the City Of Costa Mesa. Do not allow anymore of this here!!! And the dirty $$$$$$. Please reply to this letter. Thank you, Paul Riebley, Julie Patterson. TRAYLOR, MARIAN To: GREEN, BRENDA Subject: RE: OPPOSE PA -16-41 and PA -16-44 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 On Oct 1, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Susie Sampson <Redfoot@road runner.com> wrote: I will be unable to attend the upcoming city council meeting, but I wish to express my concerns over the proliferation of sober living homes in Costa Mesa. I oppose the applications on 161h Place. Please do not grant permission. The health and safety of the citizens of Costa Mesa should come first. Thank you, Susie Sampson 487 Magnolia Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: RE: CUP PA -16-41, PA -16-44 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 -----Original Message ----- From: Tony Goodrum [mailto:tonygoodrum@msn.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 6:04 PM To: CITY CLERK <CITYCLERK@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Cc: Erik <erik@depropertiesoc.com>; Christopher Savage <chrissavage@sbcglobal.net> Subject: CUP PA -16-41, PA -16-44 To Whom it may concern: I am the owner of 272 and 276 E 16th Place, Costa Mesa and have owned and operated these units since 1973. 1 object to the proposed business across the street from my property. My attorney has indicated that I may need to disclose this business when renting out my units. While I have no objection to having addicts and alcoholics attempting to recover in the neighborhood, the practical reality is that the relapse rate is high. Add to that the concentration of 28 people at the facility, and you may have a undue burden placed on the residents nearby. This is especially true with the on street parking situation which is already acute during evening hours. The Council may wish to inquire of the petitioners the financial aspects of the business. What compensation will they receive, what compensation will the property owner receive, and what will the residents pay? Thank you for the opportunity to present my views. I repeat my objection to the proposed business across the street from my property. Very Truly Yours, E. Goodrum TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: RE: Sober Living ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 -----Original Message ----- From: Debra Yoder [mailto:calyoda@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 1:24 AM To: CITY CLERK <CITYCLERK@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: Sober Living Costa Mesa is slowly becoming the "Sober Living California -Let the Healing Begin" as noted by the Orange County Living for Men advertises. You might as well have all of the people that just want to have a family and live in a quiet residential community move out of the city! By letting this larger facility be permitted the City Council is opening up the opportunity to open larger sober living facilities in our city. We are already inundated by the current problems that exist by these money making, high priced sober living facilities conducting a business next to family residences. Why would you let them now combine and become larger by waiving the 650 feet proximity to another facility? Stop making the owners of these properties richer! This is a money making business and if you let them combine and waive the rule you will now have created an even bigger problem. Debra Yoder Sent from my Pad TRAYLOR, MARIAN From: kat.smith49@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 9:24 AM To: CITY CLERK Subject: Sober living facilities PLESE, NO MORE Sober Living Facilities! Concerned Citizen! Sent from my Phone TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: RE: Conditional Use Permits PA -16-41 and PA -16-44 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 From: David Smith [mailto:onedlsmith@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 4:59 PM To: ANGEL, KATIE <KATIE.ANGEL@costa mesaca.gov> Subject: Re: Conditional Use Permits PA -16-41 and PA -16-44 Katie, as a Costa Mesa homeowner (788 Wesleyan Bay) I remain opposed to MORE sober living facilities. I realize that code and STATE regulations allow their use beyond the City's control, however our city already has enough of these facilities - my sympathies for their approval and their need are overshadowed by the shear numbers in our city. [It also seems, especially when it comes to our SOBECA area where bars and breweries get approved by changing parking and food regulations, that the city is determined to create more drunks to fill these facilities. Is this really where we want the City to go?] These facilities cause security, traffic, and noise for neighbors and, although I am all for people getting sober, WE HAVE ENOUGH IN COSTA MESA. David Jordan Smith, ALA, CSI Architecture - Construction Management 788 Wesleyan Bay Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 392-3834 Cell onedismith(a gmail.com RE: City Council Agenda Item Number; PH -4 (Conditional use permit PA -16-44 and PA -16-44) Dear City Council, My name is Robert Melange, I am a 35 year resident of Newport Heights and 6 year resident of 1630 Santa Ana Ave, Costa Mesa, CA. I, as well as my neighbors, are strongly against the approval of Conditional Use Permits PA -16-41 and PA -16-44. The properties in question are located one block from my residence. The city council has done justice for the residents of Costa Mesa by denying these conditional use permits in the past. We vote in our city council members to help keep our community safe and to uphold the laws that are agreed upon by the community. For Profit sober living facilities like Casa Capri have made a negative, permanent impact on our neighborhood. From the increase in homelessness, decrease in parking, the increase in trash, to increase in drug use in our community. I remember when I used to be able to leave my front door unlocked during the day and now my son's locked car has been broken into 3 times in the last year. Every morning I have to pick up trash and beer bottles from the sidewalk and my neighbors are now afraid to walk to Circle K at night because of the homeless people living outside. Casa Capri is the EXACT reason these laws exist. They will take away too many permanent living spaces in the neighborhood and create an unfavorable density of sober living facilities. The city has already gotten this decision correct and needs to uphold the decisions of the past. Costa mesa law LIMITS sober living facilities to ONE PARCEL and does not allow sober living facilities within 650 Ft of each other. Casa Capri does not comply with the law and does not comply with the needs of our community. Approving these conditional use permits will set a precedent in our community that any investor can now bypass the law by purchasing multiple adjoining properties and open a sober living facility as large as they want. Casa Capri is trying to bully their way and bend the law for their financial gain with complete disregard for the families and residents of the neighborhood. Casa Capri would be a contributor to the decrease in safety and increase in lawlessness in our community. Thank you for listening, Robert Melange 1630 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92627 TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: RE: Sober Living Business ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 From: Mayor of Costa Mesa -Katrina Foley [mailto:folev4costamesa@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 10:06 AM To: Ian Hendricl<s <hendrickskia@sbcgloba1.net> Cc: MANSOOR, ALLAN <ALLAN.MANSOOR@costa mesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.gov>; STEPHENS, JOHN<JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.goy> Subject: Re: Sober Living Business Thanks. I will forward to Brenda to include in the record. Katrina Foley Mayor- City of Costa Mesa On Oct 2, 2017, at 8:25 PM, Ian Hendricks <hendrickskiana,sbcglobal.net> wrote: Here are the pictures I have. I've been over there a few times taking pictures but was actually a little afraid to have them see me, so I apologize you may have to zoom in. I also saw girls running back and forth across the courtyard to apartments - perhaps no big deal, but looks more like a sorority with little to no privacy for the present clients. What if someone really wanting to be sober moves into a situation like that? Doesn't look conducive at all. I spoke to a lady walking her dog who lives a street away and she said the girls have been on her street and are 'rough' and are very aggressive with bad language. For what it's worth. Legally? It's an over concentration and not doing any of them any good. On Monday, October 2, 2017 3:19 PM, "MANSOOR, ALLAN" <ALLAN.MANSOORCC costamesaca.gov> wrote: Thank you Kim. -----Original Message ----- From: Kim Hendricks [mailto:hendrickskia&sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 12:03 PM To: FOLEY, KATRINA<ICATRINA.FOLEY(a,costamesaca.gov>; STEPHENS, JOHN <JOHN. STEPHENSgcostamesaca. gov>; KATRINA FOLEY <foley4costamesa( gmail.com>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS(@,costamesaca.gov>; MANSOOR, ALLAN <ALLAN.MANSOOR a costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM <JIM.RIGHEIMER cr,costamesaca.gov> Subject: Sober Living Business Greetings Mayor Foley and Council Members, Please uphold the Planning Commission's denial of applicants for agenda items PA -16-41 and PA -16-44 for 28 girls to live at 16th Place. This is an over concentration and is not conducive to recovery. I have been by and have taken pictures. Looks more like a partying sorority than a recovery home. This one should NOT be passed. Please uphold the Planning Commission's denial. Thank you, Kim Hendricks t o 269`1 iy �. _: �=a� ,,�•,� I h F hyjtil� w �s � h 't •eek l r 't •eek I r ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 APPEAL OF PA -16-41 AND PA -16-44 tAVOR TRAYLOR, MARIAN To: GREEN, BRENDA Subject: RE: Approval of CUP PA -16-41 and PA -16-44 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -4 On Oct 1, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Terry Chamberlain <an eg lterry(a,att.net> wrote: Good afternoon City Council Members, I am in support of the approval of the CUP for the facilities at 269 and 271 16th Place in Costa Mesa. I live on 16th Street and have for 14 years. I have had no complaints or problems with this particular facility which is located directly behind my property. I support all well run SLH facilities in the community. I am not a supporter of the over -saturation and badly run facilities. I have been sober for 31 years and my daughter 6 years. For the past 4 years we have held a meeting in our home once a week. The attendees over the 4 year period have been young local and out of state ladies. My daughter has sponsored and mentored a number of young ladies and the success rate has been high based on the experiences in my home. Many of these young people have gone on to become successful members of our community while some have returned home to become successful members of their communities. A number of these women have come from this particular property. I have been a supporter of well managed SLH facilities online and as such have been discriminated against as a recovered addict, personally attacked, and accused of being paid by the SLH industry to attack some of the citizens in Costa Mesa that are against ALL SLH facilities. Several residents have made it clear on multiple online forums that NO SLH facilities belong in this area . Based on my personal experience there have been a lot of incorrect information and misrepresentations of the addict community. Some of these individuals will be submitting emails and appearing in front of you with little to no proof that they have any direct problems with this particular facility. I urge you to please take some of this information with a grain of salt. Members of TBON have repeatedly urged all Costa Mesa residents to deny all SLH facilities. Due to the heroin epidemic I feel it is important that Costa Mesa support the well run facilities. As a result I am in total agreement with the approval of 1 or possibly both CUPs for these facilities. Regards ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR OB -1 ILLEGAL FIREWORKS TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: Ordinance No 17-14 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR OB -1 From: Flo Martin [mailto:flomama@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 12:59 PM To: RIGHEIMER, JIM <JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; FOLEY, KATRINA <KATRINA.FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.gov>; alan.mansoor@costamesaca.gov; STEPHENS, JOHN <10HN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; SHELTON, KELLY<KELLY.SHELTON@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>; TRAYLOR, MARIAN<MARIAN.TRAYLOR@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Ordinance No 17-14 Dear City Councilmembers, I am in favor of the proposed amendment (adding the word, "possess") of Ordinance No. 17-14, Section 9-190 of Chapter II of Title O of the Municipal Code, relating to the sale, use and discharge of fireworks within city limits. Chief Sharpnack deserves all our support in the "fight" to keep our city safe during the Fourth of July celebrations around town. Flo Martin 2442 Andover Place Costa Mesa, CA 92626 949.933.3699 "It is when we are alone that we are the least alone." St. Augustine 1