Loading...
MIN 02 08 2016_Item 2_Dave_emFEBRUARY 8, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 1 of 5 PC 02-08-2016 ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05825 VARIANCE NO. 2015-05054 (DEV2015-00102) Location: 928-930 West North Street Request: To permit and retain an existing transitional living facility within an existing single family home and accessory detached residential unit with fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption. Continued from the January 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Resolution No. PC2016-013 (Caldwell / Seymour) Approved, modified Condition No. 1 to reduce the permitted number of residents on-site from 32 to 25. VOTE: 4-2 Chairman Lieberman and Commissioners Bostwick, Caldwell and Seymour voted yes. Commissioners Henninger and Ramirez voted no. Commissioner Dalati was absent. Project Planner: Amy Stonich astonich@anaheim.net Amy Stonich, Contract Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated February 8, 2016, along with a visual presentation. In concluding, she stated that staff received an email and a phone call expressing concerns related to the subject request. Commissioner Henninger referred to the conditions of approval in the draft resolution, and he asked staff why ADA improvements are required when the number of residents is increased. David See, Principal Planner, responded that staff had met with building and fire department staff and they indicated per the code they are limited to 16 residents per unit, and to exceed that it would create a different occupancy, which changes from a R-3 to a R-4, and R-4 is equivalent to more multi-family housing and under that occupancy they are also required to comply with the ADA requirements. Commissioner Henninger asked if the city code that refers to storage not being allowed in garages, if it can be enforced. Mr. See responded that a complaint to code enforcement would trigger an enforcement issue. Commissioner Seymour asked for clarification related to the number of residents allowed in each unit. FEBRUARY 8, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 2 of 5 PC 02-08-2016 Mr. See responded that they are applying the building and fire codes which allows 16 per unit, which allows flexibility on the site in that some units might have more and some units might have less. Jonathan Borrego, Planning Services Manager, stated staff worded the condition of approval in a manner to provide maximum flexibility to the applicant. But, when the applicant speaks the commission will have a better understanding on the number of residents they would reasonable expect to include within the other structures, and he recommended that they condition it accordingly. Chair Lieberman asked what happens when the existing tenant moves out, does it need to be converted back. Mr. Borrego stated that the way that it is currently developed that it does comply with code in terms of what would be required of a typical single family home and an accessory living unit; and as they are using the garage as storage there isn’t permanent construction within the garage that would prohibit them from being re-used as single family homes. Therefore, if it becomes vacant it would be a code compliant structure because they haven’t built any improvements within the garage that would preclude the use of a garage in the future. Furthermore, he indicated that the second garage is for the accessory living unit and they are required to provide one garage space, and it is in code compliance. Chair Lieberman opened the public hearing. CJ Amstrup, 700 E. Ocean Boulevard #J503, Long Beach, stated he is representing Grandma’s House of Hope and that they have reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement with the staff report. He provided detailed information relating to the living arrangements for the proposed thirty-two residents. Commissioner Seymour expressed concerns relating to the second unit’s living arrangements as described by Mr. Amstrup, as it doesn’t seem to provide a reasonable quality living environment. Je’net Kreitner, Founder and Executive Director of Grandma’s House of Hope, 12191 Santa Rosalia Street, Garden Grove, stated she agrees it is not an ideal living environment but they are trying to help as many unaccompanied homeless women as they possibly can, who would otherwise be sleeping in the park, on a bus stop and/or terminals where their safety is at risk. Commissioner Caldwell asked Ms. Kreitner how the program is funded. Ms Kreitner stated they are largely funded by private foundation grants; and about 75% of the grants they apply for are funded because of the unique circumstances of the population that they serve. Their mission is to empower the invisible, to help women who don’t meet the typical criteria of other programs and are not eligible for assistance. Furthermore, she stated that they do have a program fee based on a sliding scale and about 65% of the client’s fees are paid by sponsors; and clients who are on social security may pay based on a sliding scale. FEBRUARY 8, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 3 of 5 PC 02-08-2016 Commissioner Caldwell asked Ms. Kreitner if they receive additional funding if additional clients are added to the program. Ms. Kreitner responded yes, and also indicated there are clients who are unable to pay and who do not have a sponsor, and they don’t turn anyone away for lack of funding. Commissioner Ramirez asked if inspections of the units are completed prior to them receiving funding from the private foundations. Ms. Kreitner responded yes, their Lemon Street campus location has passed all certifications and licensing requirements for the Orange County Health Care Agency, and once they obtain their conditional use permit they will be applying for the subject site to be operated in the common manner as their Lemon Street campus. Furthermore, they do have yearly audits and semi-annual site visits in order to ensure that the establishment is in compliance. Commissioner Bostwick asked Ms. Kreitner what their clients do if they have a vehicle. Ms. Kreitner responded that they are able to limit the number of vehicles being allowed on site, and may ask the client to store their vehicle with a family member, and for those clients they assist them with public transportation options. Also, the property is ADA compliant and wheel chair access accessible, therefore the vehicles allowed on-site will be assigned to those clients. Commissioner Bostwick asked what space is available for women with children. Ms. Kreitner responded that they only accept women who do not have children living with them on a full-time basis; and for women who are at a late-term pregnancies and after the babies are born they are able to remain at the facility for up to two years, but staff does immediately try to transfer them into a family program which has more services available for the children. And, she further explained that they do accept women who need to have visits with their children and eventually there are overnight and weekend visits in order for the mother to establish the capability of taking care of her children so that eventually they would be allowed into a family program. But, no children live on site full time unless they are babies and typically they are moved to another program within two to four months following the birth of a child. Chair Lieberman asked Ms. Kreitner what is a client’s typical day. Ms. Kreitner responded that all of the women are required to be up and dressed with their beds made by 9:00 a.m., and they have a check-in meeting with their community leaders and staff to inform them of what they have planned for the day. A lot of the clients go to a day program every day and they leave at 8:00 a.m. and return about 4:00 p.m. Their clients are required to be in a program from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., every day, with them accomplishing something. Therefore, most of the clients are gone during the day unless they are staying on site for case management or counseling services. FEBRUARY 8, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 4 of 5 PC 02-08-2016 Commissioner Seymour asked Ms. Kreitner if she agrees to meet the building code requirement of no more than 16 residents per unit. Ms. Kreitner responded yes, she does agree. Chair Lieberman asked if anyone else was present to speak on the subject item. Virginia LaFortune, 1008 Karen Place, Anaheim, she expressed opposition related to the proposed number of residents as it would negatively impact the neighborhood. Amy Talaganis, 1015 W. Karen Place, Anaheim, she expressed opposition related to the proposed number of residents as it would negatively impact the neighborhood. She asked staff if the proper permits were obtained to design the house as it is currently constructed, and she asked are they currently in code violation. She expressed frustration that their neighborhood is being saturated by such type establishments and that the subject request is proposing too many residents. Mr. Amstrup stated that it is a large house but that it is not inconsistent with the zoning code that would preclude it from serving as a single-family residence. He stated that Ms. Kreitner signed the lease for the home and checked with the city in order to ensure that a transitional housing facility of such size would be permitted under the zoning code and she then proceeded to go forward with the application process. Commissioner Henninger asked Mr. Amstrup if the house is currently being occupied by residents of Grandma’s House of Hope. Mr. Amstrup responded yes, Grandma’s House of Hope has been in operation since November 2014. Chair Lieberman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Caldwell expressed opposition to the proposed number of residents, as he is not in favor of allowing thirty-two residents on site. And, he stated he would support the item with the current twenty-five residents. Mr. See referred to the public’s testimony and stated that staff has researched the permits issued for the subject home, and stated that the front unit has had multiple permits pulled for various expansions and it is currently code compliant. The second unit with the kitchen is also in code compliant. The third structure was a detached garage which was converted without permits, and that the owner has since went through the process of obtaining permits and is now in code compliant. Ms. Stonich stated that the definition of transitional housing facilities differs from group homes and typically transitional housing clients are not receiving medical treatment, and they have off-site activities. Also, the clients are usually at the transitional housing facility from approximately six months to eighteen months. And, they are not licensed through the State, therefore the maximum number of residents is per the building code restrictions. FEBRUARY 8, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 5 of 5 PC 02-08-2016 Mr. Borrego stated that generally if a home has seven or more residents in a treatment facility or care facility then it would trigger a different level of review under the local zoning laws; and if there are six or fewer residents in a facility then State law precludes local regulation of those uses and they are allowed by right and are to be treated as a single-family home. And, generally those types of facilities are to be 300’ apart from each other. Commissioner Henninger expressed support of approving the item based on the staff report and staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Ramirez expressed support of approving the item based on the staff report and staff’s recommendation, and she also suggested adding a condition of approval that quarterly inspections be conducted by the Code Enforcement Division. Commissioner Seymour stated that inspections would be conducted by the Orange County Health Care Agency as indicated by the applicant. Further discussion amongst the Commission and staff took place relating to what the process is for reviewing and/or revoking a conditional use permit. Commissioner Caldwell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Henninger and Ramirez voted no, and Commissioner Dalati was absent), recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the February 8, 2016 staff report, with the modification to reduce the permitted number of residents on-site to twenty-five residents, and determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05825 and Variance No. 2015- 05054 (DEV2015-00102). Eleanor Morris, Secretary announced that the resolution passed with four yes votes. Chair Lieberman and Commissioners Bostwick, Caldwell and Seymour voted yes. Commissioners Henninger and Ramirez voted no, and Commissioner Dalati was absent. OPPOSITION: Two persons spoke expressing opposition related to the proposed number of residents to be allowed on-site. A piece of written correspondence was received expressing opposition to the subject request. IN GENERAL: During the public hearing staff noted that a phone call was received expressing concerns related to the subject request. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour (5:02 to 6:02 p.m.)