Loading...
PC 2021/08/30.pdf City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, August 30, 2021 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California • Chairperson: Natalie Meeks • Chairperson Pro-Tempore: Dave Vadodaria • Commissioners: Kimberly Keys, Lucille Kring, LuisAndres Perez, Steve White • Call To Order - 5:00 p.m. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Comments • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates • Discussion • Adjournment For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary. A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report is also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday, August 26, 2021, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the Planning and Building Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, during regular business hours. You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net August 30, 2021 Page 2 of 4 ACCESSIBILITY: If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, in order to observe and/or offer public comment may request such reasonable modification, accommodation, aid, or service by contacting the Building and Planning Department at 714-765-5139 or planningcommission@anaheim.net, no later than 8:00 a.m. on the day of the scheduled meeting. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk. The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M. Public Comments This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or provide public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. August 30, 2021 Page 3 of 4 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04917B (DEV2020-00163) Location: 1401 West Ball Road Request: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit amendment to remodel an existing 99-bed skilled nursing facility to convert to: (1) a 13,900 square foot memory care and assisted living unit with 30 beds; and (2) six independent senior living units consisting of a 21,800 square foot area Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether the proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Nick Taylor njtaylor@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06106 (DEV2021-00122) Location: 626 North West Street and 945 West Pioneer Drive Request: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to permit a transitional housing facility for 20 residents plus one house lead resident within a single family residence. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether the proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Nick Taylor njtaylor@anaheim.net Adjourn to Monday, September 13, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. August 30, 2021 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 5 p.m. August 26, 2021 (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: _________________________ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification, accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning and Building Department either in person at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later than 8:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting. La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos los miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal. Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo. Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha modificación, ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad ya sea en persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714) 765-5139, antes de las 8:00 de la mañana un día hábil antes de la reunión programada. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 30, 2021 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04917B LOCATION: 1401 West Ball Road APPLICANT/AGENT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and owner is John M. Woodward of Front Port Communities and Services, and the agent is Diego Lastres. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit amendment to remodel an existing 99-bed skilled nursing facility to convert to: 1. a 13,900 square foot memory care and assisted living unit with 30 beds; and 2. six independent senior living units consisting of a 21,800 square foot area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15301, Class 1 – Existing Facilities), and approve Conditional Use Permit 2004- 04917B. BACKGROUND: The project site is approximately 7.74 acres in size and is currently developed with a 156 dwelling unit independent senior living facility, a 28-bed memory care facility, a 99-bed skilled nursing facility (now closed), surface parking, and a 208 space underground parking structure. The project site is located in the “RM- 4” Multiple-Family Residential zone, and is designated for Medium Density Residential land uses by the General Plan. The surrounding uses include single-family residences to the north, east across Walnut Street, and south across Ball Road, and apartments and a school to the west. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04917B August 30, 2021 Page 2 of 5 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes an interior remodel of the existing 37,000 sq. ft. former skilled nursing facility. The former 99-bed skilled nursing facility would be converted to a 30-bed memory care unit and six independent living units. The independent living units would range from 1,128 to 1,518 square feet. Site Plan The proposed remodel would also include a number of amenity areas for memory care residents such as a courtyard, lounge, kitchen, laundry facilities, and storage areas. The proposed new independent living units and memory care facility would be staffed on a 24 hour basis, with a total staff divided into three 8-hour shifts (14 staff between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., one staff between 3 p.m. and 11 p.m., and nine staff between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.). The project would include a total of 256 on-site parking spaces. Two hundred and eleven (211) spaces would be within the parking structure, including the proposed conversion of approximately 350 sq. ft. of storage area to provide an additional three spaces. Forty-five (45) spaces would be available in two surface parking areas on the property, including one lot located on the east side of the property off Walnut Street, and one lot on the south side off Ball Road. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04917B August 30, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Vehicle ingress and egress would be provided by three gated driveways, two on Walnut Street and one on Ball Road. No changes are proposed to the driveways on Walnut Street, while the Ball Road access would include a new gated entry that would be setback approximately 60 feet from the Ball Road right-of-way, and a new three foot wrought iron fence would be installed along the Ball Road frontage to secure the property. No exterior work is proposed other than the remodel of interior courtyards, wrought iron fencing, and the vehicular gate along Ball Road. The Applicant’s letter of request and the project plans are provided as Attachments 2 and 3 to this report, respectively. Aerial Photo FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve the conditional use permit (CUP), it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this code; 2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; 3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and 5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04917B August 30, 2021 Page 4 of 5 A “Senior Living Facility (Large)” is an allowed use in the “RM-4” Multiple-Family Residential zone subject to approval of a CUP to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The existing Walnut Village senior citizen’s apartment retirement community, which includes independent living, assisted living, and the former 99-bed skilled nursing facility, were permitted by CUP No. 2004-04917. This application requests an amendment to CUP No. 2004-04917 to allow for the conversion of the former skilled nursing facility to the proposed independent living and memory care facility. The operation of the proposed facility would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses as the main purpose of the facility is to provide independent senior living and accommodations to senior residents in need of certain assistance in their daily lives. The independent living and memory care facility which would be similar to, but less intensive from a staffing and service perspective, the former 99-bed skilled nursing facility. No exterior changes are proposed with the exception of the interior courtyards and new fencing and gate along Ball Road. The size and shape of the project site is sufficient to allow the full development of the proposed use, as the proposed project complies with all required development standards applicable to the site (i.e. setbacks, lot coverage, height), as there would be no site plan changes. In the past, there were parking problems observed with overflow parking occurring on public streets and within surrounding neighborhoods. The applicant has provided a parking study that has been peer reviewed by a traffic engineer for the proposed facility. Whereas the 99 bed skilled nursing facility had a peak parking demand of 45 parking spaces, the parking study demonstrates that parking demand for the proposed facility would be 20 spaces. Therefore, while the existing CUP required 174 parking spaces, the amended CUP requires 256 parking spaces. The project proposes 256 on- site parking spaces pursuant to demand demonstrated in the parking study. Overall, the project would reduce the number of beds by 69, decrease the peak staffing intensity from the prior operation of the skilled nursing facility by 31, and provide 14 more parking spaces than provided in 2004. Therefore, staff believes that parking for the proposed facility would be sufficient. The applicant also has a valet parking plan that was previously approved, and although it is not expected to be needed, it could be implemented if necessary. Therefore, staff does not anticipate any adverse parking impacts. Lastly, in order to ensure the proposed facility operates in a responsible manner that is not detrimental to the surrounding area, staff has included conditions of approval in the draft resolution, requiring adherence with operational details specified in the letter of request and the parking study (i.e. number of beds, number of employees). Community Outreach: The applicant conducted a virtual community meeting on May 25, 2021, and 11 people attended. A summary provided by the applicant is included as Attachment 5. The applicant also provided 20 letters of support included in Attachment 6. Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed project are Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). The Class 1 exemption consists of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of the use beyond that existing at the time of this determination. The proposed project is a request for approval of a remodel of an existing skilled CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04917B August 30, 2021 Page 5 of 5 nursing facility into a memory care facility and independent living units. No exterior work is proposed other than the remodel of interior courtyards, wrought iron fencing, and vehicular gate along Ball Road. Pursuant to Section 15300.2 (c) and 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed project would be categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that, as designed and with the proposed conditions imposed, the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and would provide a quality living environment for its future residents and clients. The conditions of approval requiring adherence with the letter of request and the parking study would ensure that the proposed project would not be detrimental to the surrounding area. In addition, the proposed project meets the goals of the General Plan to continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs. Based upon these reasons, staff recommends approval of this request. Prepared by, Submitted by, Nick Taylor, AICP Niki Wetzel, AICP Senior Planner Deputy Planning and Building Director Attachments: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 2. Letter of Request 3. Project Plans 4. Parking Study 5. Applicant’s Outreach Meeting Summary 6. Public Correspondence 7. Vicinity Map 8. Aerial Map [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 - 1 - PC2021-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2021-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04917B, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2020-00163) (1401 WEST BALL ROAD) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04917B to amend a conditional use permit to allow an interior remodel of a portion of an existing senior living facility and conversion of a 99-bed skilled nursing facility, which is no longer in operation, to (i) a 30-bed memory care unit, (ii) and six independent living units; (herein referred to as the “Proposed Project”) on that certain real property generally located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Walnut Street, and commonly referred to as 1401 West Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 7.74 acres in size and is currently developed with a 156 dwelling unit independent senior living facility, 28-bed memory care facility, 99-bed skilled nursing facility (now closed). The Property is located in the “RM-4” Multiple- Family Residential zone, and is, therefore, subject to the zoning and development standards described in Chapters 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones). The Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Medium Density Residential land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 30, 2021, at 5:00 p.m.; notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedures, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the effects of the Proposed Project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The Proposed Project would permit a remodel of an existing skilled nursing facility into a memory care facility and independent living units, and does not include any physical expansion of the existing residence. Pursuant to Section 15300.02 (c) and 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the Proposed Project that would - 2 - PC2021-*** cause a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the Proposed Project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing pertaining to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04917B, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The Proposed Project, which is classified as a “Senior Living Facility – Large” is an allowable use within the "RM-4" Multiple-Family Residential Zone under Section 18.06.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) of the Code, subject to a conditional use permit. 2. The request to permit the Proposed Project would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area because the main purpose of the proposed facility is to provide independent living, living accommodations to seniors in need of certain assistance in their daily lives, and memory care services. In addition, the conditions of approval contained herein will mitigate potential impacts to surrounding residential properties. 3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the Proposed Project in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area nor to the health and safety, because the project would not include any exterior improvements with the exception of a wrought iron fence and vehicle gate. Further, based on the parking study prepared for the project, the proposed 256 on-site parking spaces are sufficient to accommodate the parking demand for the proposed use. 4. The traffic generated by the Proposed Project would not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by the Proposed Project will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the future uses. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the Proposed Project, with conditions of approval contained herein, would operate in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, this Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that negate from the findings made in this Resolution. This Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the aforesaid findings and determinations, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim does approve and adopt Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04917B, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property in order to - 3 - PC2021-*** preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation of the permits may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 30, 2021. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) - 4 - PC2021-*** COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Laverne Ortiz, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on August 30, 2021, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 30th day of August, 2021. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2021-*** - 6 - PC2021-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04917B, (DEV2020-00163) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 1 Final landscaping plans in compliance with all Code requirements, including clearance with the line of site triangle, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department. The said landscaping plan must be in conformance with the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance (Chapter 10.19) and the Zoning Code. Landscaping shall be installed prior to the final zoning inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 2 All above-ground utility devices including, but no limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, air condition facilities, and etc., shall be located outside all required street setbacks and screened. Location of such devices shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatment of each device (i.e. landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.) and shall be subject to the review and approval of all appropriate City departments. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS 3 The applicant shall paint all curbs red adjacent to the drive aisles to prohibit parallel parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled on building plans. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 4 Fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted by the applicant for building permits. Public Works, Traffic Engineering GENERAL CONDITIONS 5 Ongoing during project operations, the applicant shall ensure that vehicle deliveries including loading and unloading shall be performed on site. Delivery vehicles shall not block any part of the public right of way. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 6 Ongoing during project operations, the applicant shall ensure that resident pick- up/drop-off shall be performed on site and shall not take place on any part of the public right-of-way. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 7 Ongoing during project operations, no vehicles associated with this site shall park on any public street, including the adjacent residential neighborhood. Should vehicle associated with the facility be found be parking on public streets, the applicant may be required to meet with the City of Anaheim to discuss corrective measures. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 8 Ongoing during project operations, the driveway gate on West Ball Road shall be monitored at all time by on-site receptionist or security personnel to allow queuing vehicles to circulate the site and exit the property as needed. Public Works, Traffic Engineering - 7 - PC2021-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 9 All new landscaping shall be installed in conformance with Chapter 18.46 “Landscape and Screening” of the Anaheim Municipal Code and shall be maintained in perpetuity. Landscaping shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Planning and Building Department, Code Enforcement and Planning Services Divisions 10 The facility shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Request and Parking Study submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the facility operation as described in these documents shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and Parking Study and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Planning and Building Department Planning Services Division 11 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department and as conditioned herein. Planning and Building Department Planning Services Division 12 Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above shall be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For example, conditions of approval that are required to be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans submitted for building plan check. This requirement applies to grading permits, street improvement plans, water and electrical plans, landscape irrigation plans, security plans, parks and trail plans, and fire and life safety plans, etc. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 13 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 14 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division ATTACHMENT 2 PROPOSED TENANT IMPROVEMENT AND CHANGE OF USE TO R2.1 PORTION OF EXISTING 99-BED SKILLED NURSING CARE CENTER BUILDING TO BE CONVERTED TO INDEPENDENT SENIOR LIVING. EXISTING WALNUT VILLAGE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY PROPOSED TENANT IMPROVEMENT AND CHANGE OF USE TO R2 PORTION OF THE EXISTING 99-BED SKILLED NURSING CARE CENTER BUILDING TO BE CONVERTED TO MEMORY CARE UNITS. TYPE VA CONSTRUCTION CARE CENTER SUPPORT BUILDING JURISDICTION TRANSFER THE 2-STORY SUPPORT BUILDING ADJACENT TO THE CARE CENTER WAS UNDER OSHPD'S JURISDICTION AND HAS BEEN TRANSFERED TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM JURISDICTION NO IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGE OF USE ARE BEING PROPOSED TO THIS AREA PERIMETER FENCING. PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATES AND APROXIMATELY 600' OF A 3 FT HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE ALONG BALL RD AND THE ALLEY TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY. THE INTENT IS FOR THE GATES TO MATCH THE EXISTING GATE DESIGN ON THE NORTH EAST CORNER AND FOR THE FENCE TO MATCH THE EXISTING DESIGN ON THE COMMUNITY FENCE ALONG WALNUT RD.PROPERTY LINE (Aprox Location) W A L N U T S T W BALL RD APROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND PARKING : REFER TO PARKING STUDY AND EXISTING CHAPEL EXISTING SENIOR LIVING COTTAGES: 6 UNITS TOTAL EXISTING SURFACE PARKING AREAS. REFER TO PARKING STUDY AND : EXISTING SENIOR LIVING COTTAGE: 6 UNITS TOTAL A003 1 A004 1 1 / A002 2 / A002 SUBJECT PROPERTY 1401 W Ball Rd APN#: 03607234 W BALL ROAD WA L N U T S T DISNEYLAND I - 5 F R E E W A Y N ZONING: RM-4 GENERAL PLAN: RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM ADDRESS: 1401 W Ball Rd APN:03607234 NO. C24405 T E CR HI T C I A L I F O NR D C E N S E L I OF S T A T E C A A REN. 1-31-21 G E R A L D W.HU N T E R Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state of Signed: Name: License No.: Registration Drawing Package 1030 G Street, San Diego, CA 92101 www.cuningham.com 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 4 :1 6 :0 1 P M B I M 3 6 0 ://1 9 -0 5 6 0 - W a l n u t V i l l a g e A s s i s t e d L i v i n g A n a h e i m /P R 1 8 -5 6 0 _W a l n u t V i l l a g e .r v t Cover Sheet G001 2021 SUMMERHOUSE II AT WALNUT VILLAGE California C24405 Gerald Wayne Hunter PR18-0560 2021.05.11Schematic Design WH Development Application Contacts Name: Contact: Address: Phone: E-Mail: Front Porch Communites -Walnut Village Walnut Village Retirement Community Executive Director 891 S. Walnut Street 714) 507-1303 NROISMAN@frontporch.net OWNER / APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE Anaheim, CA 92802 Nadine Roisman • Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow: Modification of the previously approved use and layout of the facility Name: Contact: Address: Phone: E-Mail: Watry Design, Inc. Doug Ventura 17310 Red Hill Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 (833) 917-7215 DVentura@watrydesign.com PARKING CONSULTANT Suite 100 Vicinity Map Name: Contact: Address: Phone: E-Mail: Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. Diego Lastres 1030 G Street 6198491080 dlastres@cuningham.com ARCHITECT San Diego, CA 92101 Name: Contact: Address: Phone: E-Mail: Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. Jonathan Chambers 555 West 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 (213) 683-0088 TRAFFIC CONSULTANT Suite 3375 Sheet Index SHEET #SHEET NAME G001 Cover Sheet A001 Architectural Site Plan A002 Existing and Propsed On-Grade and Underground Parking A003 Overall Existing and Demolition Floor Plan A004 Overall Conversion Floor Plan A005 Gate and Fence Details A200 Conceptual Renderings Project Information OWNER: FRONT PORCH COMMUNITIES - WALNUT VILLAGE OCCUPANCY: GROUP R2.1 and R2 DESCRIPTION OF USE: INDEPENDENT LIVING AND MEMORY CARE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE V-A SPRINKLERED ALLOWABLE AREA TABLE 506.2: 36,000 SF SPRINKLERS: YES NUMBER OF STORIES:2 CLIMATE ZONE: 8 AREA OF REMODEL (1st Floor Only):R2.1: 13,909 SF R2: 21,778 SF TOTAL: 35,687 SF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON THIS APPLICATION CONSISTS OF A CHANGE OF USE AND INTERIOR REMODEL OF THE VACATED 99-BED SKILLED NURSING FACILITY (WALNUT VILLAGE CARE CENTER) LOCATED ON THE SOUTH-WEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. APROXIMATELY 13,900 SF OF THE CARE CENTER BUILDING (NORTH HALF) IS BEING PROPOSED AS AN R2.1 MEMORY CARE AN ASSISTED LIVING UNIT WITH 30 BEDS, SUPPORT AREAS AND AN OUTDOOR PATIO . THE OTHER HALF OF THE BUILDING (APROX 21,800 SF) IS PROPOSED TO BE CONVERTED INTO SIX INDEPENDENT SENIOR LIVING UNITS (R2) . THE REMODEL DOES NOT REQUIRE WORK ON THE EXTERIOR BUILDING OTHER THAN THE RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING INTERNAL COURTYARDS. ADDITIONALY AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION ,THE CONSTRUCTION OF A VEHICULAR ENTRY GATE FOR THE BALL RD SURFACE PARKING LOT IS BEING PROPOSED TO PROVIDE SECURITY TO RESIDENTS. THE GATE DESIGN INTENT IS TO MATCH THE EXISTING FENCE ON PART OF THE SOUTH AND EAST SIDES OF THE PROPERTY. ADDITIONALLY , THIS APPLICATION PROPOSES THE TRANSFER OF THE ADJACENT 2-STORY CARE CENTER SUPPORT WING FROM OSHPD TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM'S JURISDICTION. NO CHANGE OF USE OR REMODELS OF ANY KIND ARE BEING PROPOSED FOR THE CARE CENTER SUPPORT WING. REFER TO AERIAL IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY BELOW FOR A GRAPHIC SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED WORK: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PROJECT NAME: WALNUT VILLAGE SUMMER HOUSE II CONCEPTUAL REVIEW REFERENCE: PRE2020-00007 (DEV2020-00163) CITY OF ANAHEIM - PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION Scope of Work THIS PROJECT SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING CODES AND REGULATIONS: C.C.R. - CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 19 - PUBLIC SAFETY CODE TITLE 24 - CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE 1. BUILDING CODE:2016 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (CAC), PART 1, TITLE 24, C.C.R. 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC), PART 2, TITLE 24 C.C.R. BASED ON THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) 2. ELECTRICAL CODES:2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC), PART 3, TITLE 24 C.C.R. BASED ON THE 2014 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (NEC) 3. MECHANICAL CODES:2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC) PART 4, TITLE 24 C.C.R. BASED ON THE 2015 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE (UMC) 4. PLUMBING CODES:2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC), PART 5, TITLE 24 C.C.R. BASED ON THE 2015 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE (UPC) 5. FIRE CODE:2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, PART 9, TITLE 24 C.C.R. BASED ON THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE (IFC) 2016 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS, PART 12, TITLE 24 C.C.R. TITLE 19 C.C.R., PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE FIRE MARSHAL REGULATIONS. 6. NFPA:NFPA 13, 2016 EDITION FOR INSTALLATION OF SPRINKLER SYSTEM PER NFPA 14 STANDPIPE 2016 EDITION NFPA 17A WET CHEMICAL SYSTEM 2016 EDITION NFPA 24 PRIVATE FIRE MAIN 2016 EDITION NFPA 72 NATIONAL FIRE ALARM 2016 EDITION NFPA 80 STANDARD FOR FIRE DOORS 2016 EDITION NFPA 99 HEALTH CARE FACILITIES 2012 EDITION CODE ENFORCEMENT:City of Anaheim, California NOTE: ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE STANDARDS AND ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL ORDINANCES. WHERE CODES CONFLICT, THE MORE RESTRICTIVE SHALL APPLY AS DETERMINED BY THE CODE ENFORCING AUTHORITY. Governing Codes General Notes • Address number shall be positioned so as to be readily legible from the street. Main numbers no less than 12" in height, and illuminated during hours of darkness. • "No Trespassing 602(k) P.C." posted at entrances of parking lots/structures with min sign requirements 12" W x 24" H, with white background and black 2" lettering • Rooftop address numbers for police helicopter no less than 4' in height and 2' in width. Lines of numbers to be minimum of 6" thick, spaced 12-18" apart, painted or constructed in contrasting color to roof material, not visible from ground level, and numbers to face street. • All entrances posted with signs per 22658(a)C.V.C. to assist in removal of vehicles at property owner's request • Adequate lighting of parking lots/structures, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided. • Minimum recommended lighting level in all parking lots in 0.5 ft-candle maintained, with max to min ration no greater than 15:1 • Common rooms (e.g. gym, recreation, laundry, conference rooms etc) should have transparent doors, view panels installed in solid doors, or windows installed next to doors • Doorways, alcoves, etc should not be recessed to the extent that a place is created for a person to stand and go unobserved. • Detailed emergency action plan shall be provided to Police & Fire Dept, including Emergency Evacuation/Escape Plan and Shelter in Place Plan CUP2004-04917B/DEV2020-00163 No. Date Description ATTACHMENT 3 E1 EXISTING 99-BED CARE CENTER (SNF). APROX. 37,000 SF. VACATED E2 EXISTING POOL TO REMAIN E3 EXISTING GYM TO REMAIN E4 EXISTING SUMMERHOUSE I (MEMORY CARE) AT GROUND LEVEL E5 EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING TO REMAIN. 11,000 SF AREA; CONSTRUCTION TYPE II-N ; OCCUPANCY B E6 EXISTING VACATED CARE CENTER ENTRY E7 EXISTING SURFACE PARKING. REFER TO A002 AND PARKING STUDY FOR PARKING TABULATION AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. E8 EXISTING LOADING AND RECEIVING E9 EXISTING SUMMERHOUSE I ENTRY LOBBY E10 EXISTING COURTYARD E11 EXISTING KITCHEN TO REMAIN E12 EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESS GATE E13 EXISTING ACCESS TO BELOW GRADE PARKING - REFER TO A002 E14 EXISTING WALNUT VILLAGE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY. TYPE V-A CONSTRUCTION E15 EXISTING SERVICE YARD TO REMAIN E16 EXISTING CHAPEL E17 EXISTING PLANTER TO REMAIN. TYPICAL ALL PATIOS E18 EXISTING SENIOR LIVING COTTAGES E19 EXISTING WALNUT VILLAGE COMMUNITY MAIN ENTRY E20 EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESS 2 EXISTING TWO-STORY BUIDLING TRANSFERED FROM OSHPD TO CITY OF ANAHEIM JURISDICTION. CONSTRUCTION TYPE: II -N ; OCCUPANCY: B 1 CARE CENTER INTERIOR REMODEL. CONVERT 99 SKILLED NURSING BEDS TO 30 MEMORY CARE BEDS AND 6 SENIOR INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS 3.1 MEMORY CARE COURTYARD AREA: SCOPE IN THIS AREA INCLUDES MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING HARDSCAPE LAYOUT. APROXIMATE AREA OF HARDSCAPE TO BE 1500 SF. REFER TO ENLARGED DEMOLITION AND PROPOSED PLANS 4 NEW COVERED PATIO 5 APROXIMATE 600 LF OF 6' NEW HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCING 6 NEW VEHICULAR GATES. REFER TO A005 FOR ENLARGED PLAN AND LETTER OF OPERATION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 3.2 INDEPENDENT LIVING COURTYARD AREA SCOPE: PROJECT PROPOSES THE REFRESH OF THE EXISTING COURTYARD OF APROXIMATELY 2000 SF. THE SCOPE REQUIRES THE DEMOLITION OF APROXIMATELY 400 SF OF CONCRETE TO ALLOW FOR NEW LANDSCAPE SPACE. EXISTING DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. REFER TO ENLARGED DEMOLITION AND PROPOSED PLANS 7 PICK-UP / DROP-OFF. MINIMAL DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SIDEWALK 3 2 0 '-1 " A003 1 A004 1 ADJACENT PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL SENIOR LIVING W BALL RD WA L N U T S T PR O P E R T Y L I N E OUTLINE OF UNDERGROUND PARKING STRUCTURE. REFER TO SERVICE ALLEY E15 E7 E4 E2 E5 2 E1 E3E9 E11 E7 E7 E13 E12 E12 E20 1 5 E10 E10 E10 E10 E10 3.1 6 3.1 E8 E14 E14 E16 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 2-STORY BUILDING 3-STORY BUILDING 3-STORY BUILDING 3-STORY BUILDING 1- STORY VACATED CARE CENTER BUILDING 1- STORY (E) FITNESS CENTER 2 / A002 E18 E18 E18 E18 E7 E6 E19 20' SETBACK LINE 5 23 ' - 1 1 " 23 ' - 1 1 " 23 ' - 1 1 " 23 ' - 1 1 " 23 ' - 1 1 " 23 ' - 1 1 " 23 ' - 1 1 " 23 ' - 1 1 " 23 ' - 1 1 " 23 ' - 1 1 " 23 ' - 1 1 " 26 2 ' - 1 1 1 3 / 1 6 " 9/32" 2- STORY (E) BUILDING 2' - 0" PROPOSED FENCE PROPERTY LINE 2'-0" ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL CENTER LINE 13'-11"23'-9"23'-9"13'-9"6'-7"3'-5"23'-9"23'-9"23'-9"23'-9"23'-9"23'-9"1 2 '-3 " 1 2 '-3 " 1 2 '-3 " EXISTING SIDEWALK 7 T Y P 1 8 '-0 "TYP 8'-6" AL L E Y D1 EXISTING COURTYARD TO BE DEMOLISHED AS NECESSARY FOR NEW LAYOUT. NO GRADING WORK REQUIRED. EXISTING STORM DRAIN AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. REFER TO ENLARGED DEMOLITION PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS D2 EXISTING DINING AND SUPPORT AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED D3 EXISTING SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED AS REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR THE NEW DROP-OFF AREA CONSTRUCTION D4 EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN TO BE REMOVED NO. C24405 T E CR HI T C I A L I F O NR D C E N S E L I OF S T A T E C A A REN. 1-31-21 G E R A L D W.HU N T E R Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state of Signed: Name: License No.: Registration Drawing Package 1030 G Street, San Diego, CA 92101 www.cuningham.com 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 4 :2 6 :2 8 P M B I M 3 6 0 ://1 9 -0 5 6 0 - W a l n u t V i l l a g e A s s i s t e d L i v i n g A n a h e i m /P R 1 8 -5 6 0 _W a l n u t V i l l a g e .r v t Architectural Site Plan A001 2021 SUMMERHOUSE II AT WALNUT VILLAGE California C24405 Gerald Wayne Hunter PR18-0560 2021.05.11Schematic Design WH Development Application EXISTING PROPOSED A001 1" = 30'-0" 1 Architectural Site Plan DEMOLITION N No. Date Description LEGEND A002 NOT TO SCALE LEGEND NOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALE NO. C24405 T E CR HI T C I A L I F O NR D C E N S E L I OF S T A T E C A A REN. 1-31-21 G E R A L D W.HU N T E R Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state of Signed: Name: License No.: Registration Drawing Package 1030 G Street, San Diego, CA 92101 www.cuningham.com 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 4 :2 7 :1 5 P M B I M 3 6 0 ://1 9 -0 5 6 0 - W a l n u t V i l l a g e A s s i s t e d L i v i n g A n a h e i m /P R 1 8 -5 6 0 _W a l n u t V i l l a g e .r v t Existing and Propsed On-Grade and Underground Parking A002 2021 SUMMERHOUSE II AT WALNUT VILLAGE California C24405 Gerald Wayne Hunter PR18-0560 2021.05.11Schematic Design WH Development Application Parking Study - Existing On-Grade Parking Parking Study - Existing and Proposed Below Grade Parking No. Date Description 1' - 2 3 / 8 " AREA OF TENANT IMPROVEMENT WORK: APROX. 37,000 SF AREA NOT IN SCOPE D1 D1 D2 E15 E5 SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM LAUNDRY SOILED LINEN CLEAN LINEN SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM PUBLIC TOILETS TUB RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM ACTIVITIES STORAGE STAFF LOUNGEST. OFFICE DINING REC ST. ST. TUB ROOM CLEAN LINEN SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM SNF PATIENT RM OFFICE OFFICE STOR. CENTRAL SUPPLY UTILITY RM OFFICE OFFICE RECEPTION OFFICE PHYSICAL THERAPY EL. OFFICE TUB RM ENTRY LOBBY MEDICAL REC. UTILITY RM.EL CHARTING NURSES STATION STOR. ST O R . NURSE ST.ME D S E7 PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIOPATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO DINING/ACTIVITY RM NURSE STATION STAFF LOUNGE MEDS SERVICE ACCESS ALLEY AC C E S S D R I V E W A Y W BALL ROAD OFFICE EXISTING 4-HR FIRE WALL AND SMOKE BARRIER EXISTING 2-HR FIRE WALL E17 E2 E3 E4 E4 E9 E6 E6 E1 F Y S B 2 0 '-0 " 2 A005 A003 2 A003 4 D3 D4 D1 EXISTING COURTYARD TO BE DEMOLISHED AS NECESSARY FOR NEW LAYOUT. NO GRADING WORK REQUIRED. EXISTING STORM DRAIN AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. REFER TO ENLARGED DEMOLITION PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS D2 EXISTING DINING AND SUPPORT AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED D3 EXISTING SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED AS REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR THE NEW DROP-OFF AREA CONSTRUCTION D4 EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN TO BE REMOVED E1 EXISTING 99-BED CARE CENTER (SNF). APROX. 37,000 SF. VACATED E2 EXISTING POOL TO REMAIN E3 EXISTING GYM TO REMAIN E4 EXISTING SUMMERHOUSE I (MEMORY CARE) AT GROUND LEVEL E5 EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING TO REMAIN. 11,000 SF AREA; CONSTRUCTION TYPE II-N ; OCCUPANCY B E6 EXISTING VACATED CARE CENTER ENTRY E7 EXISTING SURFACE PARKING. REFER TO A002 AND PARKING STUDY FOR PARKING TABULATION AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. E8 EXISTING LOADING AND RECEIVING E9 EXISTING SUMMERHOUSE I ENTRY LOBBY E10 EXISTING COURTYARD E11 EXISTING KITCHEN TO REMAIN E12 EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESS GATE E13 EXISTING ACCESS TO BELOW GRADE PARKING - REFER TO A002 E14 EXISTING WALNUT VILLAGE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY. TYPE V-A CONSTRUCTION E15 EXISTING SERVICE YARD TO REMAIN E16 EXISTING CHAPEL E17 EXISTING PLANTER TO REMAIN. TYPICAL ALL PATIOS E18 EXISTING SENIOR LIVING COTTAGES E19 EXISTING WALNUT VILLAGE COMMUNITY MAIN ENTRY E20 EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESS NEW WALL EXISTING PARTITION INTERIOR PARTITION GRAPHICS SCOPE OF WORK AREA DEMOLITION SCOPE OF WORK REMOVE ALL FLOORING, BASES, SOME DOORS AND WINDOWS AS PER THE DEMOLITION PLAN (SALVAGE FOR REUSE WHEN FEASIBLE). DEMOLISH ALL KITCHEN/WETBAR PLUMBING FIXTURES AND COUNTERTOPS . NEW CONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF WORK THE WORK CONSIST OF THE REMODEL OF A 99 BED SKILLED NURSING FACILITY (SNF) AND CONVERT IT INTO A 30 BED MEMORY CARE / ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY + 6 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS. NOT IN CONTRACT DEMO PARTITION DOORS TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB TO REMAIN AND PREPARED TO RECEIVE NEW HARDSCAPE FINISH. DRAIN TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE AND ADAPTED TO NEW PROPOSED PAVING FLOOR EXISTING DINING AREA STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED SELECTIVE DEMOLITION OF BEARING WALL TO ALLOW FOR LOCATION OF NEW PATIO COVER SUPPORTS. EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB TO BE REMOVED AS REQUIRED FOR PLANTERS. APROXIMATELY 500 SF DINING AREA STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING STORM DRAIN OUTLETS TO REMAIN EXISTING STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN TO REMAIN, TYP RAISED PLANTER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DRAIN TO REMAIN, TYP EXISTING TRELLIS TO REMAIN EXISTING STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. (E) RAISED PLANTER (E) LANDSCAPE EXISTING TRELLIS ABOVE (E) LANDSCAPE (E) LANDSCAPE (E) RAISED PLANTER GRASSY AREAS TO BE PREPARED TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL HARDSCAPE APROXIMATELY 180 SF (E) LANDSCAPE (E) RAISED PLANTER RAISED PLANTER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TRELLIS COLUMN EXISTING DRAIN TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING STORM DRAIN (E) LANDSCAPE(E) LANDSCAPE (E ) L A N D S C A P E (E) LANDSCAPE (E ) L A N D S C A P E NO. C24405 T E CR HI T C I A L I F O NR D C E N S E L I OF S T A T E C A A REN. 1-31-21 G E R A L D W.HU N T E R Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.: PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state of Signed: Name: License No.: Registration Drawing Package 1030 G Street, San Diego, CA 92101 www.cuningham.com 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 4 :2 8 :1 7 P M B I M 3 6 0 ://1 9 -0 5 6 0 - W a l n u t V i l l a g e A s s i s t e d L i v i n g A n a h e i m /P R 1 8 -5 6 0 _W a l n u t V i l l a g e .r v t Overall Existing and Demolition Floor Plan A003 2021 SUMMERHOUSE II AT WALNUT VILLAGE California C24405 Gerald Wayne Hunter PR18-0560 2021.05.11Schematic Design WH Development Application N A003 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 OVERALL EXISTING AND DEMOLITION FLOOR PLANPLAN DEMOLITIONEXISTING SYMBOLS A003 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 South Courtyard -Memory Care -Enlarged Demolition Plan A003 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 North Courtyard -Independent Living -Enlarged Demolition Plan No. Date Description 245.47 SF STAFF BREAKROOM 337.47 SF STORAGE 465.26 SF LAUNDRY 287.62 SF M.S. RES. RM 286.92 SF M.S. RES. RM. 287.56 SF M.S. RES. RM 287.55 SF M.S. RES. RM 284.05 SF M.S. RES. RM 274.52 SF M.S. RES. RM 285.11 SF M.S. RES. RM 284.97 SF M.S. RES. RM 289.20 SF M.S. RES. RM 313.51 SF M.S. RES. RM 141.40 SF WOMEN'S RR 125.49 SF MEN'S RR 75.35 SF RR HALLWAY 2744.90 SF M.S. COURTYARD 115.56 SF CLEAN LINEN 120.63 SF SOILED LINEN 332.10 SF M.S. RES. RM. 292.76 SF M.S. RES. RM. 286.91 SF M.S. RES. RM. 289.71 SF M.S. RES. RM. 286.84 SF M.S. RES. RM. 288.72 SF M.S. RES. RM. 288.13 SF M.S. RES. RM. 289.49 SF M.S. RES. RM. 286.20 SF M.S. RES. RM. 319.91 SF M.S. RES. RM. 287.85 SF M.S. RES. RM. 286.50 SF M.S. RES. RM. 287.99 SF M.S. RES. RM. 80.13 SF HOUSEKEEPING 34.43 SF RR 45.83 SF STORAGE 496.53 SF M.S. DOUBLE RES RM 287.03 SF M.S. RES. RM. 287.41 SF M.S. RES. RM. 309.84 SF M.S. RES. RM. 502.57 SF QUIET LOUNGE 373.25 SF A.L. RES. RM. 372.66 SF A.L. RES. RM. 123.67 SF STORAGE 286.92 SF M.S. RES. RM. 410.50 SF RECEPTION 1128.63 SF I.L. RES. RM 1303.11 SF I.L. RES. RM 1506.31 SF I.L. RES. RM 1516.45 SF I.L. RES. RM 1518.33 SF I.L. RES. RM 517.07 SF I.L. ACTIVITY RM 914.43 SF LOUNGE 1304.75 SF I.L. RES. RM 2231.84 SF I.L. CORRIDORS 2855.09 SF I.L. COURTYARD 122.22 SF OFFICE 351.64 SF M.S. SERVICE KITCHEN 145.49 SF CHARTING ROOM 154.04 SF MED ROOM 310.33 SF ENTRY VESTIBULE 446.38 SF GALLERY E6 E7 E4 E2 E11 E15 E3 3.1 2 COLOR LEGEND ACTIVITY COURTYARD CIRCULATION INDEPENDENT LIVING UNIT 1 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNIT 2 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNIT 3 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNIT 4 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNIT 5 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNIT 6 PUBLIC RESIDENT ROOM SERVICE SUPPORT E9 E10 E8 SERVICE ACCESS ALLEY 35,687 SF, APROX. AREA OF INTERIOR REMODEL EXISTING SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY AREA NOT IN SCOPE AC C E S S D R I V E W A Y W BALL ROAD 74.16 SF ELEC. RM 80.56 SF IT 1511.44 SF M.S. DINING 669.98 SF M.S. ACTIVITY KITCHEN COUNTER SUMMERHOUSE II ACCESS 5 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 44.18 SF STORAGE 3.1 3.2 3.1 4 3.1 LINE OF ROOF COVER ABOVE 89.48 SF OFFICE 133.07 SF GATHERING164.62 SF CONFERENCE ROOM FOOD CART SERVICE ROUTE W D W D W D W D W D W D 6 5 5 EXISTING 4-HR FIRE WALL AND SMOKE BARRIER EXISTING 2-HR FIRE WALL TYP. OF 9 PATIOS 25'-0" A004 2 A004 3 A005 1 7 KNOX KEY SWITCH RESIDENTS ENTRY LANE GUEST ENTRY LANE PHONE - INTERCOM NEW SIDE WALK EXISTING ACCESSIBLE RAMP E1 EXISTING 99-BED CARE CENTER (SNF). APROX. 37,000 SF. VACATED E2 EXISTING POOL TO REMAIN E3 EXISTING GYM TO REMAIN E4 EXISTING SUMMERHOUSE I (MEMORY CARE) AT GROUND LEVEL E5 EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING TO REMAIN. 11,000 SF AREA; CONSTRUCTION TYPE II-N ; OCCUPANCY B E6 EXISTING VACATED CARE CENTER ENTRY E7 EXISTING SURFACE PARKING. REFER TO A002 AND PARKING STUDY FOR PARKING TABULATION AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. E8 EXISTING LOADING AND RECEIVING E9 EXISTING SUMMERHOUSE I ENTRY LOBBY E10 EXISTING COURTYARD E11 EXISTING KITCHEN TO REMAIN E12 EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESS GATE E13 EXISTING ACCESS TO BELOW GRADE PARKING - REFER TO A002 E14 EXISTING WALNUT VILLAGE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY. TYPE V-A CONSTRUCTION E15 EXISTING SERVICE YARD TO REMAIN E16 EXISTING CHAPEL E17 EXISTING PLANTER TO REMAIN. TYPICAL ALL PATIOS E18 EXISTING SENIOR LIVING COTTAGES E19 EXISTING WALNUT VILLAGE COMMUNITY MAIN ENTRY E20 EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESS 2 EXISTING TWO-STORY BUIDLING TRANSFERED FROM OSHPD TO CITY OF ANAHEIM JURISDICTION. CONSTRUCTION TYPE: II -N ; OCCUPANCY: B 1 CARE CENTER INTERIOR REMODEL. CONVERT 99 SKILLED NURSING BEDS TO 30 MEMORY CARE BEDS AND 6 SENIOR INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS 3.1 MEMORY CARE COURTYARD AREA: SCOPE IN THIS AREA INCLUDES MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING HARDSCAPE LAYOUT. APROXIMATE AREA OF HARDSCAPE TO BE 1500 SF. REFER TO ENLARGED DEMOLITION AND PROPOSED PLANS 4 NEW COVERED PATIO 5 APROXIMATE 600 LF OF 6' NEW HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCING 6 NEW VEHICULAR GATES. REFER TO A005 FOR ENLARGED PLAN AND LETTER OF OPERATION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 3.2 INDEPENDENT LIVING COURTYARD AREA SCOPE: PROJECT PROPOSES THE REFRESH OF THE EXISTING COURTYARD OF APROXIMATELY 2000 SF. THE SCOPE REQUIRES THE DEMOLITION OF APROXIMATELY 400 SF OF CONCRETE TO ALLOW FOR NEW LANDSCAPE SPACE. EXISTING DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. REFER TO ENLARGED DEMOLITION AND PROPOSED PLANS 7 PICK-UP / DROP-OFF. MINIMAL DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SIDEWALK NEW WALL EXISTING PARTITION INTERIOR PARTITION GRAPHICS SCOPE OF WORK AREA DEMOLITION SCOPE OF WORK REMOVE ALL FLOORING, BASES, SOME DOORS AND WINDOWS AS PER THE DEMOLITION PLAN (SALVAGE FOR REUSE WHEN FEASIBLE). DEMOLISH ALL KITCHEN/WETBAR PLUMBING FIXTURES AND COUNTERTOPS . NEW CONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF WORK THE WORK CONSIST OF THE REMODEL OF A 99 BED SKILLED NURSING FACILITY (SNF) AND CONVERT IT INTO A 30 BED MEMORY CARE / ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY + 6 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS. NOT IN CONTRACT DEMO PARTITION DOORS TO BE DEMOLISHED PLANTER PLANTER RAISED PLANTER RAISED PLANTER EXISTING BEARING WALL RE-INGENEERED FOR ROOF SUPPORT SUPPORT REFINISHED HARDSCAPE APROX. 1,000 SF LINE OF ROOF ABOVE. REFINISHED FLOORING UNDER COVERED PATIO APROX 1000 SF LINE OF ROOF ABOVE. PROVIDE OVERFLOW GRATED DRAIN FOR RAISED PLANTER AREA AND CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEM EXISTING STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN TO REMAIN (E) RAISED PLANTER (E) LANDSCAPE EXISTING TRELLIS TO REMAIN ABOVE (E) LANDSCAPE (E) LANDSCAPE (E) RAISED PLANTER TO REMAIN REFINISHED HARDSCAPE - APROXIMATELY 1300 SF (E) LANDSCAPE EXISTING TRELLIS COLUMN RELOCATED STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN EXISTING STORM DRAIN TO REMAIN, TYP. (E) RAISED PLANTER TO REMAIN EXISTING FLOOR DRAIN TO REAMIN TYPICAL. NO. C24405 T E CR HI T C I A L I F O NR D C E N S E L I OF S T A T E C A A REN. 1-31-21 G E R A L D W.HU N T E R Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state of Signed: Name: License No.: Registration Drawing Package 1030 G Street, San Diego, CA 92101 www.cuningham.com 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 4 :2 9 :0 3 P M B I M 3 6 0 ://1 9 -0 5 6 0 - W a l n u t V i l l a g e A s s i s t e d L i v i n g A n a h e i m /P R 1 8 -5 6 0 _W a l n u t V i l l a g e .r v t Overall Conversion Floor Plan A004 2021 SUMMERHOUSE II AT WALNUT VILLAGE California C24405 Gerald Wayne Hunter PR18-0560 2021.05.11Schematic Design WH Development Application N A004 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 OVERALL CONVERSION FLOORPLAN EXISTING PROPOSED SYMBOLS A004 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 ENLARGED COURTYARD -INDEPENDENT LIVING A004 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 ENLARGED COURTYARD -MEMORY CARE NN No. Date Description E1 EXISTING 99-BED CARE CENTER (SNF). APROX. 37,000 SF. VACATED E2 EXISTING POOL TO REMAIN E3 EXISTING GYM TO REMAIN E4 EXISTING SUMMERHOUSE I (MEMORY CARE) AT GROUND LEVEL E5 EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING TO REMAIN. 11,000 SF AREA; CONSTRUCTION TYPE II-N ; OCCUPANCY B E6 EXISTING VACATED CARE CENTER ENTRY E7 EXISTING SURFACE PARKING. REFER TO A002 AND PARKING STUDY FOR PARKING TABULATION AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. E8 EXISTING LOADING AND RECEIVING E9 EXISTING SUMMERHOUSE I ENTRY LOBBY E10 EXISTING COURTYARD E11 EXISTING KITCHEN TO REMAIN E12 EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESS GATE E13 EXISTING ACCESS TO BELOW GRADE PARKING - REFER TO A002 E14 EXISTING WALNUT VILLAGE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY. TYPE V-A CONSTRUCTION E15 EXISTING SERVICE YARD TO REMAIN E16 EXISTING CHAPEL E17 EXISTING PLANTER TO REMAIN. TYPICAL ALL PATIOS E18 EXISTING SENIOR LIVING COTTAGES E19 EXISTING WALNUT VILLAGE COMMUNITY MAIN ENTRY E20 EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESS 2 EXISTING TWO-STORY BUIDLING TRANSFERED FROM OSHPD TO CITY OF ANAHEIM JURISDICTION. CONSTRUCTION TYPE: II -N ; OCCUPANCY: B 1 CARE CENTER INTERIOR REMODEL. CONVERT 99 SKILLED NURSING BEDS TO 30 MEMORY CARE BEDS AND 6 SENIOR INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS 3.1 MEMORY CARE COURTYARD AREA: SCOPE IN THIS AREA INCLUDES MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING HARDSCAPE LAYOUT. APROXIMATE AREA OF HARDSCAPE TO BE 1500 SF. REFER TO ENLARGED DEMOLITION AND PROPOSED PLANS 4 NEW COVERED PATIO 5 APROXIMATE 600 LF OF 6' NEW HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCING 6 NEW VEHICULAR GATES. REFER TO A005 FOR ENLARGED PLAN AND LETTER OF OPERATION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 3.2 INDEPENDENT LIVING COURTYARD AREA SCOPE: PROJECT PROPOSES THE REFRESH OF THE EXISTING COURTYARD OF APROXIMATELY 2000 SF. THE SCOPE REQUIRES THE DEMOLITION OF APROXIMATELY 400 SF OF CONCRETE TO ALLOW FOR NEW LANDSCAPE SPACE. EXISTING DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. REFER TO ENLARGED DEMOLITION AND PROPOSED PLANS 7 PICK-UP / DROP-OFF. MINIMAL DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SIDEWALK 25'-0" SIGHT DISTANCE AREA TO BE CLEAR OF ANY VISUAL OBSTRUCTION ABOVE 24" IN HEIGHT 50'-0" SIGHT DISTANCE AREA TO BE CLEAR OF ANY VISUAL OBSTRUCTION ABOVE 24" IN HEIGHT 50'-0"25'-0" (E) SIDEWALK (E) SIDEWALK (E) LANDSCAPE (E) LANDSCAPE (E) LANDSCAPE (E) PEDESTRIAN RAMP (N) PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE (E) LANDSCAPE (E ) P A R K I N G T O RE M A I N . (E) PARKING TO REMAIN . (E) PARKING TO REMAIN. (E) FIRE LANE (E) LANDSCAPE (E) LANDSCAPE (E) LANDSCAPE (E ) C O N C R E T E W A L K (E) CONCRETE WALK (E) FIRE LANE WALNUT ROAD F Y S B 2 0 '-0 " (N) ELECTRONIC VEHICULAR ACCESS SWING GATES (N) GATE TO MATCH EXISTING GATE DESIGN ON SITE (N) GATE TO MATCH EXISTING GATE DESIGN ON SITE 7' - 0 " (N) PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE 1' - 11 1 / 2" 53 '- 0 " BALL RD CENTERLINE (E) LANDSCAPE KNOX KEY SWITCH 24 ' - 0 " 19 ' - 2 7 / 8 " 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 5'-0" 12'-0" 2'-6"12'-0" 7' - 0 " RESIDENTS ENTRY LANE LANE TYP. 8'-6" T Y P . 1 8 '-0 " EL E C T R O N I C RO L L I N G G A T E 1 8 '-0 " 2 0 '-0 " 18'-0"27'-0" 9 '-0 " 5 '-0 " 1 2 '-0 " 8 '-6 " 8 '-6 " 8 '-6 " VAN ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE GUEST ENTRY LANE LANE PHONE - INTERCOM EXIT 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6"9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" PICK \-UP / DROP OFF AREA 1 1 '-3 9 /1 6 " 1 2 '-2 5 /8 " 1 2 '-2 5 /8 " 23'-9 3/16"23'-9 3/16"13'-8 21/32" EXISTING MEMORY CARE UNIT EXISTING MEMORY CARE UNIT 2 A005 NEW CONCRETE WALK 22'-0" 8 '-0 "(E ) CONCRE T E W ALK NEW ASPHALT PAVING 1 2 '-0 " (N) GATE TO MATCH EXISTING GATE DESIGN ON SITE (N) GATE TO MATCH EXISTING GATE DESIGN ON SITE 18'-0" EXISTING ACCESS GATE ON WALNUT ST. PROPOSED FENCE ON BALL ST TO MATCH EXISTING PERMETER FENCE ON WALNUT ROAD. PROPOSED FENCE ON BALL ST TO MATCH EXISTING AS SHOWN IN THIS PHOTO. EXISTING CORNER AT ALLEY AND BALL RD WHERE PERIMETER FENCE IS BEING PROPOSED EXISTING DRIVEWAY AT BALL RD WHERE ACCESS GATES ARE BEING PROPOSED EXISTING BUILDING AT THE CORNER OF WALNUT ST AND BALL RD VIEWED FROM BALL RD. PROPOSED FENCE TO MATCH EXISTING FENCE DESIGN A005 3 1 '-0 " 3 '-0 " Precast concrete column Cap Plaster column to match existing fence design 1'-4" 4" 4" 4" 4" Wrought Iron Fence NO. C24405 T E CR HI T C I A L I F O NR D C E N S E L I OF S T A T E C A A REN. 1-31-21 G E R A L D W.HU N T E R Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state of Signed: Name: License No.: Registration Drawing Package 1030 G Street, San Diego, CA 92101 www.cuningham.com 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 4 :2 9 :3 9 P M B I M 3 6 0 ://1 9 -0 5 6 0 - W a l n u t V i l l a g e A s s i s t e d L i v i n g A n a h e i m /P R 1 8 -5 6 0 _W a l n u t V i l l a g e .r v t Gate and Fence Details A005 2021 SUMMERHOUSE II AT WALNUT VILLAGE California C24405 Gerald Wayne Hunter PR18-0560 2021.05.11Schematic Design WH Development Application N EXISTING PROPOSED 1/8" = 1'-0" Ball Road Proposed Access Gate Existing Fence and Gates Existing Street View from Ball RD. A005 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 PARTIAL ELEVATION OF FENCE AND GATE -Ball Rd A005 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 TYPICAL COLUMN ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL RENDERING OF PROPOSED ACCESS GATE AND FENCING CONCEPTUAL RENDERING - WALNUT RD FENCING No. Date Description NO. C24405 T E CR HI T C I A L I F O NR D C E N S E L I OF S T A T E C A A REN. 1-31-21 G E R A L D W.HU N T E R Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state of Signed: Name: License No.: Registration Drawing Package 1030 G Street, San Diego, CA 92101 www.cuningham.com 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 4 :3 0 :5 1 P M B I M 3 6 0 ://1 9 -0 5 6 0 - W a l n u t V i l l a g e A s s i s t e d L i v i n g A n a h e i m /P R 1 8 -5 6 0 _W a l n u t V i l l a g e .r v t Conceptual Renderings A200 2021 SUMMERHOUSE II AT WALNUT VILLAGE California C24405 Gerald Wayne Hunter PR18-0560 2021.05.11Schematic Design WH Development Application NEW LOUNGE AREA RENOVATED MEMORY CARE COURTYARD MEMORY CARE DINING AND ACTIVITY ROOM RENOVATED INDEPENDENT SENIOR LIVING COURTYARD RENOVATED INDEPENDENT LIVING UNIT PATIO - TYPICALMEMORY CARE RESIDENT ROOM TYPICAL CONCEPTUAL RENDERING - PROPOSED FENCE FROM WALNUT ROADCONCEPTUAL RENDERING - PROPOSED ENTRY GATES No. Date Description A r c h i t e c t s •E n g i n e e r s •P a r k i n g P l a n n e r s Walnut Village Summer House II Parking Study July 30, 2021 PROJECT INTRODUCTION Walnut Village (A Front Porch Community) is a senior assisted living community located in Anaheim. Currently, Walnut Village has three main facilities: Independent Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing Facility (closed). The Independent Living is comprised of 156 dwelling units located in the senior living community main buildings and cottages. The Memory Care has 28 beds located in Summer House I. The Skilled Nursing Facility, which included 99 beds located in the care center, has now been closed, delicensed by the Department of Public Health and all residents relocated. The off-street parking for the property is provided at two main locations: on-grade surface parking lots and a below-grade parking structure. The on-grade surface parking lots are at three locations totaling 45 existing parking spaces. See sheet P1. The below-grade parking structure is under the senior living community main building and provides 186 parking spaces and 22 parallel parking (for staff) operated by valet service. See sheet P2, Existing Parking Layout. The 186 spaces (not including the parallel parking) are more as compared to the 178 parking count from the 2004 Walnut Village documents (see attach Appendix B, pages 10 and 11, highlighted). The added spaces occurred afterwards and they are located at the south end of the parking bays which results in closing the cross drive aisles. See P2 showing where the changes occurred. Cuningham Group submitted Walnut Village Summer House II project, dated July 30, 2020, to the City’s Planning Service Division for a Conceptual Development Review. The proposed project is a tenant improvement of Walnut Village’s existing 99-bed Skilled Nursing Facility. The work includes interior remodel for a 30-bed Memory Care and assisted living unit and for 6 independent senior living units. The City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department provided a review letter dated September 1, 2020. The project is referenced as 891 S. Walnut Street (PRE2020-00007 (DV2020-00163). The review letter requested additional information regarding the off-street parking for Walnut Village’s entire property including the proposed tenant improvement since there has been concerns in the past of overflow on-street parking from Walnut Village. In response to the review, the following is our parking study findings for the Walnut Village property including the tenant improvement project. PARKING STUDY Conditional Use Permit documents (CUP2004-04917) were provided by the City for the Walnut Village 2004 project. The documents demonstrated that the parking provided for Walnut Village was based on “Walnut Village Retirement Community Parking Analysis September 2004” (see attach Appendix A) rather than the City’s local parking zoning code requirements. Per the Conditional Use Permit, 418 minimum parking spaces were code required and Walnut Village could provide no more than 242 spaces which included 17 spaces to the west of the proposed Memory Care and outside the property (see attach Appendix B, pages 9 and 11, highlighted). ATTACHMENT 4 Walnut Village Summer House II Parking Study 7/30/21 Page 2 of 10 Exhibit 1 The parking study showed that the peak parking demand for the proposed Walnut Village would be 174 spaces resulting in 68 extra spaces from the 242 provided spaces. This parking study is taking the same approach for the Walnut Village Summer House II project since it is evident that Walnut Village would not meet the local parking zoning code requirements for the proposed tenant improvement and the rest of the existing facilities. Below is a reduced scale view of Exhibit 1. For a more readable version, see attach exhibits. Walnut Village Summer House II Parking Study 7/30/21 Page 3 of 10 Exhibit 2 and 3 Exhibit 2 is a summarized version of the parking study for the 2004 Walnut Village project. Exhibit 3 is the proposed parking study and it follows the same analysis as the 2004 parking study. The parking rate noted in Exhibit 3 for the proposed project is based on the past/current maximum parking demand by the existing number of bedrooms/bed as provided by Walnut Village. The calculations result in a peak parking demand of 256 spaces, which Walnut Village is able to satisfy with their current parking layouts. Below is a reduced scale view of Exhibits 2 and 3. For a more readable version, see attach exhibits. Walnut Village Summer House II Parking Study 7/30/21 Page 4 of 10 The proposed parking count of 256 includes parallel parking at the below-grade parking structure. The parking bay where the parallel parking is located (sheet P2) would continue to be operated by valet service. The parallel parking layout and valet service was reviewed and approved by Anaheim’s Planning Department in February 2014. See attach Appendix C. Walnut Village Summer House II Parking Study 7/30/21 Page 5 of 10 Exhibit 4 Walnut Village provided a breakdown of the parking spaces being occupied by residents, staff, visitors, and vendors. The information is based on Walnut Village’s many years of operations, Residential Parking List, and payroll system. Exhibit 4 demonstrates past parking activity which includes the closed 99-bed Skilled Nursing Facility. Below is a reduced scale view of Exhibit 4. For a more readable version, see attach exhibits. Exhibit 5 Exhibit 5 demonstrates current and proposed parking activity. The highest numbers for parking are used for the final total count. The numbers of vehicles occupying parking spaces by the nursing and staff are based on payroll system for current conditions and future planned operations for the proposed tenant improvements. The numbers of vehicles occupying parking spaces by the resident are based on full capacity from their Residential Parking List and many years in operation although the units are not all occupied in the senior living community main buildings and cottages. The existing and new Memory Care beds (Summer House I and II) have Walnut Village Summer House II Parking Study 7/30/21 Page 6 of 10 zero parking spaces since those residents do not have a car nor drive due to their physical conditions. The on- grade surface parking lot is shown at 90% capacity. This is based on Walnut Village’s maximum vehicle occupancy rate, pre-COVID 19. Due to the current state shutdown, the parking spaces occupied by visitors and vendors is about 24%. Exhibit 5 shows 246 vehicle-occupied parking spaces, which is 10 spaces less than the peak parking demand. Below is a reduced scale view of Exhibit 5. For a more readable version, see attach exhibits. For the proposed tenant improvement, the number of required designated use parking spaces, such as accessible, EVCS (Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations), and Clean Air/Vanpool/EV are based on the number of parking spaces provided for the Memory Care and Independent Living separately. All staff and most residential Walnut Village Summer House II Parking Study 7/30/21 Page 7 of 10 parking spaces are located at the below-grade parking structure. All visitor and vendor parking spaces are located at the on-grade parking lot. It is our understanding that Walnut Village desires to install the charging stations for the EV spaces. Therefore, EVCS ADA will be provided. See sheet P1 and P2 for their breakdown and locations. Currently, Walnut Village has 12 accessible spaces, which is 5 spaces more than code minimum, for the proposed 256 parking supply. Exhibit 6 In addition, Walnut Village did a parking count of the number of vehicles occupying the property. The parking survey followed the original 2004 parking study. The survey occurred over a four-day period from Thursday, July 1, 2021 through Sunday July 4, 2021 from 10 am to 6 pm. The parking count occurred every half hour for the on-grade parking and below-grade parking structure. The data shows that the highest number of vehicles parking in the property is 189. The count results in 64 available spaces since there are 253 existing parking spaces. The data also demonstrates that the figures presented for the peak parking demand (Exhibit 3) and the vehicles occupying parking spaces (Exhibit 5) are not under represented numbers of which Walnut Village can still accommodate for the existing conditions and proposed project. Below is a reduced scale view of Exhibit 6. For a more readable version, see attach exhibits. Walnut Village Summer House II Parking Study 7/30/21 Page 8 of 10 CONCLUSION Per Appendix A, the 2004 Walnut Village project based its parking demand on a parking study since it did not meet the City’s local parking zoning code requirements at the time. Code required 418 parking spaces. The 2004 parking study demonstrated that 174 minimum parking spaces were needed. Walnut Village back then provided 242 parking spaces which was a surplus of 68 parking spaces. A concise version of the 2004 parking study is presented in Exhibit 2. It was apparent from the beginning of this parking study that Walnut Village with the proposed project would not meet the current City’s parking requirements of 342 parking spaces (Exhibit 1) since the actual number of parking spaces in the entire property is considerably less. The total existing parking count is 253 which includes 45 at the on-grade parking and 208 in the below-grade parking structure. Refer to P1 and P2. This is an 89 space deficit. Walnut Villages faces the same parking challenges as it did in 2004. Therefore, the approach is to follow the same methodology of the 2004 parking study (Exhibit 2) for the proposed tenant improvement including the Walnut Village Summer House II Parking Study 7/30/21 Page 9 of 10 surrounding facilities. The study (Exhibit 3) takes the most conservative approach such as using the number of beds, not bedrooms, for the analysis and taking into account the increased number of beds that occurred back in in 2009. Refer to Appendix E for further explanation. The result is 256 total spaces are needed in the peak parking demand. Walnut Village is able to provide 256 total parking spaces with some slight proposed modifications: 211 in the below-grade parking structure and 45 at the on-grade parking. Refer to study (Exhibit 3) and graphic illustrations (P1 & P2). Valet service for the parallel parking in the below-grade parking structure will continue to be used as approved by the City in 2014 (Appendix C). PARKING STUDY Condensed version of Exhibit 3 (Parking Study follows 2004 parking study methodology) Parking Demand Total 256 Total Parking Provided 256 This is a significant reduction of parking demand. It is obvious since the proposed tenant improvement significantly reduces the number of beds: 99-bed Skilled Nursing Facility is closed and will be replaced with 30- bed Memory Care and 6 Independent Living units. This results in a scale-down parking demand which positions the proposed project at an advantage because of the limited parking space available in the property. As an extra step, actual data of vehicle-occupied parking spaces (Exhibit 5) from Walnut Village is included to compare it with the study and to provide an additional checkpoint layer to see if the data meets the parking study requirements. As a historical information/comparison, Exhibit 4 is data prior to the closure of the 99-bed Skilled Nursing Facility. It was 275 vehicle-occupied parking spaces which was more than what the property could provide. Exhibit 5 is the data which takes into account the current and proposed tenant improvement. It is 246 vehicle-occupied parking spaces. In addition, the second data (which is the parking survey count, Exhibit 6) demonstrates two notable items: there is a surplus of available spaces; and that Walnut Village can accommodate the higher parking demand figures per the parking study (Exhibit 3) and data (Exhibit 5). VEHICLE-OCCUPIED PARKING SPACE DATA Condensed version of Exhibit 5 (Information based on Walnut Village years of operation for current and proposed parking activity) Maximum Vehicle-Occupied Capacity 246 Total Parking Provided 256 Walnut Village Summer House II Parking Study 7/30/21 Page 10 of 10 To reiterate, the parking study results in a peak parking demand of 256 parking stalls which is less due to the reduction of beds in the proposed project. The parking count is in the right direction since it addresses the parking challenges that Walnut Village used to have. The proposed parking layouts meet the demand by providing the same parking count of 256 stalls. Walnut Village anticipates 246 vehicles occupying the parking stalls per their data which would result in a surplus of 10 parking stalls. PARKING STUDY VEHICLE-OCCUPIED PARKING SPACE DATA Condensed version of Exhibit 3 (Parking Study follows 2004 parking study methodology) Condensed version of Exhibit 5 (Information based on Walnut Village years of operation for current and proposed parking activity) Parking Demand Total 256 Maximum Vehicle-Occupied Capacity 246 Total Parking Provided 256 Total Parking Provided 256 Surplus 0 Surplus 10 This is mostly due to the average age of the residents of 86 and the several vehicular transportations services, being provided to the residents, which reduces the need to own a vehicle in the community as further explained in Appendix D and other parking measures as noted in Appendix E & F. The parking count survey further shows that the number of vehicles occupying the property has lessened and that the peak parking demand calculations are not underestimated figures of which Walnut Village can accommodate for both existing conditions and proposed project. 1401 W BALL RD WALNUT VILLAGE CUNINGHAM ANAHEIM P1EXISTING ON GRADE PARKING 1"=50'-0" 10/23/2020 W BALL RD PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E SEVICE ALLEY ADJACENT PROPETY RESIDENT SENIOR LIVING PROPERTY LINE OUTLINE OF EXISTING PARKING STRUCTURE UNDER THE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY. SEE SHEET P2 3 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 MARCH 2021 EXISTING ON GRADE PARKING EXISTING PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS: 8'-6" X 18'-0" AND 9'-0" X 18'-0" ACCESSIBLE SPACE AT ON-GRADE PARKING STANDARD SPACE AT ON-GRADE PARKING 7 8 41 44 43 43 +15 186 +22 208 Subtotal Parallel spaces Total 45 44 43 42 +15 189 +22 211 Subtotal Parallel spaces Total P2 1401 W BALL RD WALNUT VILLAGE EXISTING BELOW-GRADE PARKING STRUCTURE March 2021 ANAHEIM 13 3 21 21 23 23 15 23 20 20 6 41 44 43 43 7 8 13 3 21 21 23 23 15 23 20 19 6 45 44 43 42 24 Spaces added since project completion (+11) Space added due to development of 2004 project (+1) Storage area and spaces removed since project completion (-4) EXISTING PARKING LAYOUT 1/16=1'-0" Storage area removed and spaces added (+4) PROPOSED PARKING LAYOUT 1/16=1'-0" VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN Accessible path of travel Us e C l a s s L o c a t i o n Nu m b e r o f Be d r o o m s Nu m b e r o f B e d s , TS F , o r S e a t s ¹ I n d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g Se n i o r L i v i n g C o m m u n i t y M a i n Bu i l d i n g a n d C o t t a g e s 1 b e d r o o m s 50 X 1 = 50 2 b e d r o o m s 10 3 X 2 = 206 3 b e d r o o m s 3 X 2 = 6 ² M e m o r y C a r e S u m m e r H o u s e I Be d s 28 X 0 . 8 = 22.4 ³ O f f i c e M a i n B u i l d i n g Sq u a r e F o o t a g e 5. 2 5 X 4 = 21 Ch a p e l N . o f W a l n u t S t . E n t r y - E x i t Se a t s 10 0 X 0 . 3 3 3 0 ⁴ ¹ M e m o r y C a r e C a r e C e n t e r Be d s 30 X 0 . 8 = 2 4 ² I n d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g C a r e C e n t e r 1 B e d r o o m 0 2 B e d r o o m s 6 X 2 = 1 2 To t a l 341.4 ¹ P e r A n a h e i m M u n i c i p a l C o d e , C h a p t e r 1 8 . 4 2 , P a r k i n g a n d L o a d i n g , T a b l e 4 2 - A , C o n v a l s e c e n t & R e s t H o m e s , 0 . 8 s p a c e p e r b e d ²³ P e r A n a h e i m M u n i c i p a l C o d e , C h a p t e r 1 8 . 4 2 , P a r k i n g a n d L o a d i n g , T a b l e 4 2 - A , O f f c e - G e n e r a l , 4 s p a c e s p er 1 , 0 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t o f G F A . ⁴ N o a d d i t i o n a l p a r k i n g s p a c e s a r e r e q u i r e d s i n c e c h ap e l s e r v i c e i s f o r t h e e x c l u s i v e u s e o f W a l n u t V i l la g e r e s i d e n t s EX H I B I T 1 Proposed Tenant Improvement Pe r A n a h e i m M u n i c i p a l C o d e , C h a p t e r 1 8 . 4 2 , P a r k i n g an d L o a d i n g , 1 8 . 4 2 . 0 6 0 S e n i o r C i t i z e n H o u s i n g , 1 8 . 4 2. 0 6 0 1 , o n e ( 1 ) p a r k i n g s p a c e f o r e a c h s t u d i o u n i t an d o n e - b e d r o o m u n i t , Existing WA L N U T V I L L A G E O F F - S T R E E T P A R K I N G B A S E D O N L O C A L Z O NI N G C O D E R E Q U I R E M E N T S Re q u i r e d S p a c e pe r B e d r o o m Re q u i r e d S p a c e pe r B e d Re q u i r e d S p a c e s Ma x . P a r k i n g D e m a n d O b s e r v e d 7 5 Be d r o o m s / B e d s 2 4 1 Pa r k i n g R a t e 7 5 / 2 4 1 = . 3 1 Be d r o o m s / B e d s 3 8 7 Pa r k i n g R a t e x . 3 1 Pe a k P a r k i n g D e m a n d 1 2 0 Ch a p e l ( 1 0 0 - s e a t ) .3 3 3 s p a c e s / s e a t 33 Of f i c e ( 5 2 5 7 S F ) 4 s p a c e s / 1 0 0 0 21 Pe a k P a r k i n g D e m a n d T o t a l 1 7 4 Be l o w - g r a d e p a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e 17 8 Su r f a c e p a r k i n g l o t s 47 Su r f a c e - p a r k i n g l o t s ( W e s t o f S N F ) (O u t s i d e o f p r o p e r t y ) 17 To t a l P a r k i n g P r o v i d e d 24 2 Su r p l u s 68 ¹W a l n u t V i l l a g e R e t i r e m e n t C o m m u n i t y P a r k i n g A n a l y s is S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 4 ( A p p e n d i x A ) ³F i n a l S u b m i t t a l d r a w i n g p a c k a g e d a t e d 0 9 / 1 4 / 0 4 ( A p pe n d i x B , p a g e 1 1 ) ²S e e A p p e n d i x D , I t e m 1 f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f B e d r o o m s /B e d s c o u n t d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n 2 0 0 4 W a l n u t Vi l l a g e ( t h i s E x h i b i t ) a n d W a l n u t V i l l a g e p r i o r t o cl o s u r e o f S k i l l e d N u r s i n g F a c i l i t y ( E x h i b i t 3 ) EX H I B I T 2 20 0 4 W A L N U T V I L L A G E P A R K I N G S T U D Y ¹ Pa r k i n g P r o v i d e d ³ Wa l n u t M a n o r R e t i r e m e n t C o m m u n i t y ¹ (P r i o r t o 2 0 0 4 W a l n u t V i l l a g e P r o j e c t ) In d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g Be d r o o m s - 1 3 3 Sk i l l e d N u r s i n g F a c i l i t y B e d s - 9 9 20 0 4 W a l n u t V i l l a g e ¹ In d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g B e d r o o m s - 2 7 4 ² Sk i l l e d N u r s i n g F a c i l i t y B e d s - 9 9 Me m o r y C a r e b e d s - 1 4 ² Ma x . P a r k i n g D e m a n d P r o v i d e d 2 7 5 ² Be d r o o m s / B e d s 3 9 2 Pa r k i n g R a t e 2 7 5 / 3 9 2 = . 7 0 Be d r o o m s / B e d s 3 3 5 Pa r k i n g R a t e x . 7 0 Pe a k P a r k i n g D e m a n d 2 3 5 Ch a p e l ( 1 0 0 - s e a t ) .3 3 3 s p a c e s / s e a t 0 ³ Of f i c e ( 5 2 5 7 S F ) 4 s p a c e s / 1 0 0 0 21 Pe a k P a r k i n g D e m a n d T o t a l 2 5 6 Be l o w - g r a d e p a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e 18 9 Su r f a c e p a r k i n g l o t s 45 Su b t o t a l 23 4 Pa r a l l e l ( V a l e t S e r v i c e ) ⁵ 22 To t a l P a r k i n g P r o v i d e d 25 6 ⁴S h e e t s P 1 a n d P 2 ⁵A p p e n d i x C ³N o a d d i t i o n a l p a r k i n g s p a c e s a r e r e q u i r e d s i n c e c h ap e l s e r v i c e i s f o r t h e e x c l u s i v e u s e o f W a l n u t Vi l l a g e r e s i d e n t s . Pa r k i n g P r o v i d e d ⁴ EX H I B I T 3 ²F i g u r e s p r o v i d e d b y W a l n u t V i l l a g e . F i g u r e s a r e b as e d o n p a s t a n d e x i s t i n g p a r k i n g u s e d b y r e s i d e n t s , ve n d o r , a n d s t a f f . S e e E x h i b i t 4 Wa l n u t V i l l a g e (P r i o r t o C l o s u r e o f S k i l l e d N u r s i n g F a c i l i t y ) In d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g b e d r o o m s - 2 6 5 ¹ Me m o r y C a r e b e d s - 2 8 ¹ Sk i l l e d N u r s i n g F a c i l i t y b e d s - 9 9 Wa l n u t V i l l a g e ( P r o p o s e d ) In d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g b e d r o o m s - 2 6 5 Me m o r y C a r e b e d s - 2 8 NE W I n d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g b e d r o o m s - 1 2 NE W M e m o r y C a r e b e d s - 3 0 PA R K I N G S T U D Y F O R P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T ¹S e e A p p e n d i x D , I t e m 1 f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f B e d r o o m s /B e d s c o u n t d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n 2 0 0 4 W a l n u t Vi l l a g e ( E x h i b i t 2 ) a n d W a l n u t V i l l a g e p r i o r t o c l o su r e o f S k i l l e d N u r s i n g F a c i l i t y ( t h i s E x h i b i t ) Lo c a t i o n Vi s i t o r s ¹ V e n d o r s ¹ Re s i d e n t s ² N u r s i n g ³ S t a f f ³ T o t a l Al l F a c i l i t i e s 36 4 28 6 8 In d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g Se n i o r L i v i n g C o m m u n i t y Ma i n B u i l d i n g a n d C o t t a g e s 5 4 1 4 6 1 b e d r o o m s 5 0 28 28 2 b e d r o o m s 1 0 3 78 78 3 b e d r o o m s 3 3 3 Me m o r y C a r e S u m m e r H o u s e I Be d s 2 8 0 5 2 7 Sk i l l e d N u r s i n g F a c i l i t y C a r e C e n t e r Be d s 99 0 2 8 1 7 4 5 36 4 1 0 9 3 8 8 8 2 7 5 ¹²³ P a r k i n g f o r s t a f f i n c l u d i n g n u r s i n g , s u p p o r t & g e n er a l s t a f f i s l o c a t e d i n t h e e x i s t i n g b e l o w - g r a d e p ar k i n g s t r u c t u r e . F i g u r e s a r e b a s e d o n W a l n u t V i l l ag e ' s p a y r o l l s y s t e m . Lo c a t i o n Su p p o r t Sh i f t 1 S h i f t 2 S h i f t 3 7a m - 3 p m 3 p m - 1 1 p m 1 1 p m - 7 a m Al l F a c i l i t i e s 28 2 8 In d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g Se n i o r L i v i n g C o m m u n i t y Ma i n B u i l d i n g a n d C o t t a g e s 5 4 1 4 1 5 4 1 Me m o r y C a r e S u m m e r H o u s e I 5 4 3 2 5 2 Ca r e C e n t e r 2 8 1 2 9 1 7 2 8 1 7 38 8 8 ¹ F i g u r e s a r e b a s e d o n W a l n u t V i l l a g e ' s p a y r o l l s y s t em . ² Se e A p p e n d i x F f o r W a l n u t V i l l a g e ' s p a r k i n g p o l i c y fo r s t a f f . EX H I B I T 4 Nu r s i n g S u p p o r t Existing Sk i l l e d N u r s i n g F a c i l i t y VE H I C L E O C C U P I E D P A R K I N G S P A C E S Fa c i l i t y Existing ST A F F I N G ¹ Fa c i l i t y Nu r s i n g Fu l l T i m e E q u i v a l e n t ( F T E ' s ) Pa r k i n g ² PA R K I N G F I G U R E S P R I O R T O C L O S U R E O F S K I L L E D N U R S I N G F A C I L I T Y Pa r k i n g f o r r e s i d e n t s i s l o c a t e d i n t h e e x i s t i n g b e lo w - g r a d e p a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e . F i g u r e s a r e b a s e d o n Wa l n u t V i l l a g e ' s R e s i d e n t i a l P a r k i n g L i s t a n d m a n y ye a r s o f o p e r a t i o n . S e e It e m 2 , A p p e n d i x D f o r a d d i t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n o f R e si d e n t P a r k i n g Pa r k i n g f o r v i s i t o r a n d v e n d o r s i s i s l o c a t e d o n t h e e x i s t i n g o n - g r a d e s u r f a c e p a r k i n g l o t s . F i g u r e s ar e t h e m a x i m u m v e h i c l e o c c u p a n c y r a t e o f 9 0 % b a s e d o n W a l n u t V i l l a g e ' s ma n y y e a r s o f o p e r a t i o n . Lo c a t i o n Vi s i t o r s ¹ V e n d o r s ¹ Re s i d e n t s ² N u r s i n g ³ S t a f f ³ T o t a l Al l F a c i l i t i e s 36 4 24 6 4 In d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g Se n i o r L i v i n g C o m m u n i t y Ma i n B u i l d i n g a n d C o t t a g e s 5 4 1 4 6 1 b e d r o o m s 5 0 28 28 2 b e d r o o m s 1 0 3 78 78 3 b e d r o o m s 3 3 3 Me m o r y C a r e S u m m e r H o u s e I 5 2 7 Be d s 2 8 0 0 Su m m e r H o u s e I I (C a r e C e n t e r ) 7 7 1 4 Me m o r y C a r e Be d s 30 0 0 In d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g 2 b e d r o o m s 6 6⁴ 6 36 4 1 1 5 1 7 7 4 2 4 6 ¹²³⁴ S e e A p p e n d i x E f o r W a l n u t V i l l a g e ' s p a r k i n g p o l i c y f o r t h e n e w I n d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g U n i t s . Lo c a t i o n Su p p o r t Sh i f t 1 S h i f t 2 S h i f t 3 7a m - 3 p m 3 p m - 1 1 p m 1 1 p m - 7 a m Al l F a c i l i t i e s 24 2 4 In d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g Se n i o r L i v i n g C o m m u n i t y Ma i n B u i l d i n g a n d C o t t a g e s 5 4 1 4 1 5 4 1 Me m o r y C a r e S u m m e r H o u s e I 5 4 3 2 5 2 Su m m e r H o u s e I I (C a r e C e n t e r ) 7 5 1 . 5 7 7 7 Pr o p o s e d Tenant Im p r o v e m e n t 17 7 4 ¹ F i g u r e s a r e b a s e d o n W a l n u t V i l l a g e ' s p a y r o l l s y s t em f o r c u r r e n t c o n d i t i o n s a n d f u t u r e p l a n n e d o p e r a t io n s f o r t h e p r o p o s e d t e n a n t i m p r o v e m e n t . ² Se e A p p e n d i x F f o r W a l n u t V i l l a g e ' s p a r k i n g p o l i c y fo r s t a f f . Pa r k i n g f o r s t a f f i n c l u d i n g n u r s i n g , s u p p o r t & g e n e ra l s t a f f i s l o c a t e d i n t h e e x i s t i n g b e l o w - g r a d e p a rk i n g s t r u c t u r e . F i g u r e s a r e b a s e d o n W a l n u t V i l l a ge ' s p a y r o l l s y s t e m f o r cu r r e n t c o n d i t i o n s a n d f u t u r e p l a n n e d o p e r a t i o n s f o r t h e p r o p o s e d t e n a n t i m p r o v e m e n t . S e e A p p e n d i x F fo r W a l n u t V i l l a g e ' s p a r k i n g p o l i c y f o r s t a f f . EX H I B I T 5 Nu r s i n g S u p p o r t Existing Me m o r y C a r e & In d e p e n d e n t L i v i n g VE H I C L E O C C U P I E D P A R K I N G S P A C E S Fa c i l i t y Existing Pr o p o s e d Tenant Im p r o v e m e n t ST A F F I N G ¹ Fa c i l i t y Nu r s i n g Fu l l T i m e E q u i v a l e n t ( F T E ' s ) Pa r k i n g N e e d ² PA R K I N G F I G U R E S F O R P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T Pa r k i n g f o r v i s i t o r a n d v e n d o r s i s i s l o c a t e d o n t h e e x i s t i n g o n - g r a d e s u r f a c e p a r k i n g l o t s . F i g u r e s ar e t h e m a x i m u m v e h i c l e o c c u p a n c y r a t e o f 9 0 % b a s e d o n W a l n u t V i l l a g e ' s ma n y y e a r s o f o p e r a t i o n . Pa r k i n g f o r r e s i d e n t s i s l o c a t e d i n t h e e x i s t i n g b e lo w - g r a d e p a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e . F i g u r e s a r e b a s e d o n Wa l n u t V i l l a g e ' s R e s i d e n t i a l P a r k i n g L i s t a n d m a n y ye a r s o f o p e r a t i o n . S e e It e m 2 , A p p e n d i x D f o r a d d i t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n o f R e si d e n t P a r k i n g Date Time On-Grade Parking Total Self-Parking (45 Existing Spaces) Self-Parking (186 Existing Spaces) Parallel (22 Existing Spaces) 253 Existing spaces Thursday July 1, 2021 10:00 AM 17 161 0 178 10:30 AM 21 162 0 183 11:00 AM 23 163 0 186 11:30 AM 22 163 0 185 12:00 PM 25 163 0 188 12:30 PM 26 163 0 189 1:00 PM 26 163 0 189 1:30 PM 24 162 0 186 2:00 PM 20 161 0 181 2:30 PM 20 160 0 180 3:00 PM 23 162 0 185 3:30 PM 18 160 0 178 4:00 PM 16 161 0 177 4:30 PM 13 161 0 174 5:00 PM 13 152 0 165 5:30 PM 13 151 0 164 6:00 PM 13 151 0 164 Date Time On-Grade Parking Total Self-Parking (45 Existing Spaces) Self-Parking (186 Existing Spaces) Parallel (22 Existing Spaces) 253 Existing spaces Friday July 2, 2021 10:00 AM 11 156 0 167 10:30 AM 12 159 0 171 11:00 AM 11 159 0 170 11:30 AM 12 160 0 172 12:00 PM 11 161 0 172 12:30 PM 12 162 0 174 1:00 PM 14 162 0 176 1:30 PM 15 162 0 177 2:00 PM 19 163 0 182 2:30 PM 19 161 0 180 3:00 PM 13 160 0 173 3:30 PM 9 161 0 170 4:00 PM 10 158 0 168 4:30 PM 11 156 0 167 5:00 PM 6 154 0 160 5:30 PM 6 155 0 161 6:00 PM 5 155 0 160 EXHIBIT 6 Walnut Village Parking Occupied Space Count Below-Grade Parking Structure Below-Grade Parking Structure Date Time On-Grade Parking Total Self-Parking (45 Existing Spaces) Self-Parking (186 Existing Spaces) Parallel (22 Existing Spaces) 253 Existing spaces Saturday July 3, 2021 10:00 AM 6 123 0 129 10:30 AM 5 123 0 128 11:00 AM 7 124 0 131 11:30 AM 8 126 0 134 12:00 PM 7 127 0 134 12:30 PM 12 127 0 139 1:00 PM 9 130 0 139 1:30 PM 9 130 0 139 2:00 PM 11 129 0 140 2:30 PM 11 128 0 139 3:00 PM 10 123 0 133 3:30 PM 13 122 0 135 4:00 PM 13 123 0 136 4:30 PM 12 128 0 140 5:00 PM 11 124 0 135 5:30 PM 11 123 0 134 6:00 PM 8 123 0 131 Date Time On-Grade Parking Total Self-Parking (45 Existing Spaces) Self-Parking (186 Existing Spaces) Parallel (22 Existing Spaces) 253 Existing spaces Sunday July 4, 2021 10:00 AM 9 128 0 137 10:30 AM 9 128 0 137 11:00 AM 11 130 0 141 11:30 AM 9 131 0 140 12:00 PM 6 131 0 137 12:30 PM 8 133 0 141 1:00 PM 8 134 0 142 1:30 PM 10 135 0 145 2:00 PM 12 131 0 143 2:30 PM 12 131 0 143 3:00 PM 11 128 0 139 3:30 PM 9 125 0 134 4:00 PM 7 121 0 128 4:30 PM 6 120 0 126 5:00 PM 6 119 0 125 5:30 PM 6 119 0 125 6:00 PM 6 119 0 125 EXHIBIT 6 Below-Grade Parking Structure Below-Grade Parking Structure Walnut Village Parking Occupied Space Count Appendix A 1 2 Appendix A 3 Appendix A 4 Appendix A 5 Appendix A 6 Appendix A 7 Appendix A 8 Appendix A 9 Appendix A Appendix B 1 2 Appendix B 3 Appendix B 4 Appendix B 5 Appendix B 6 Appendix B 7 Appendix B 8 Appendix B 9 Appendix B 10 Appendix B 11 Appendix B Ted White From: Ted White Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 3:12 PM To: 'Bill Jennings' Subject: RE: Walnut Village Parking revisions Bill, Mike Leiendecker from our Building Division reviewed the revised striping plan and concurs with the design. I will make a copy of our correspondence to document the agreed upon modifications to the parking structure striping and memorialize the agreed upon valet operations. You are free to start the re- striping and valet operation as discussed. All the best, Ted White, AICP Anaheim Planning Department 1 Senior Planner 200 South Anaheim Boulevard 1 Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office+ (714) 765 -4949 Fax+ (714) 765 -5280 E -mail+ twhite@anaheim.net Planning Services 1 Zoning Code 1 Zoning Information 1 Permit Forms and Applications Original Message From: Bill Jennings [ mailto :BJENNINGS@frontporch.net] Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 11:41 AM To: Ted White Subject: Walnut Village Parking revisions Ted, I asked staff for comments on your proposed revisions to our parking situation at Walnut Village, and they are fine with your requested changes. Attached are two sheets showing our previous parking proposal (1st page) and the newly revised plan that meets the City's requests (2nd page). Note that two regular spaces were needed to create the one handicapped space, so a net Toss of one space overall from 214 to 213. Also note the restriction that all spaces need to be assigned. Resident spaces will be assigned to residents, and employee spaces will be assigned to the Valet. If this is acceptable, please let me know the next steps to get this implemented. Bill Jennings Front Porch Development Company 303 North Glenoaks Blvd, Suite 210 Burbank, CA 91502 818) 729 -8120 Tel 818) 729 -8220 Fax BJennings@frontporch.net 1 Appendix C 1 This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the originator of the message. ik 16.4 t ocitfilita altwi ti tolit k mit htv1/4,1tc r --,M,41Aeinv 04) qa:161 bi littu WL 5rivq/Arce 2 16Q iitu Wt1L6 hue i bee/ft kW at T (to( TAAAcilvd- .\49/("Lek-4. [ i\01, e-, • ul 41) kx c'twult)"}c et-YiAfii(Vigb 1\qtk. Acui/Lte,? eAk,t li L k51 43' eAtuctry ?larivric Y1 I tf 2 Appendix C MI Ct li[giati 46011 i Iii] /!f/ ///6 ] . t till t141] r f '-'I Man) _ [ice IOW twill 1 PM Li' Ct ni i`) DIM ! i`$ sa~ + 1 Ct OD - : it tit] t [ ] % i' // tie I itll mil 1l4 . IOW m 1121 % u17 two wi J ttoo i i 1 two l tll] yIrr [jv% 1 11'% liiU]IM Ctlsil] Uiil] IOWA 1 11) I 6 tit] ]` t % (` [t%] Was a:t -.tD Mail ~ Cant] tiny Cilitl) i % [1i ' [In1t, / y [fire) tail MOW tomt) [ ma [„t {t^ [t7 WO 6 0 goal 1112 ittLtl Oa, ( I Cti1) illni] Litt [fi. 1t4t1 Mai 1 . t IMO lil] MOO (n l>r # mil a t - yt most t t, tiI.L. 6 [ me Nr'!t) [ 1it1 awe Ct1lt # moo it haul L MOD (MC all [tit Iliil]t i/sr'// /.:, V//'.J•" 1c Pw% / %% / %O /% < j• / / / / / /, % / / / / / / % / /%/ / ./ %/i,,`7/ / %%'/, / % % / ///, % s - -" ice'. A a _ i/i i'iR _1 Tom. ._ l 111111 / N.1 1101 0 640 U /i%/ // / / / /%% I1l [tt @ Cil4 ow jktil UIW uuoount- BASEMENT PARKING PLAN OPTION D PARKING COUNT HANDICAP SPACES L9' -r N 1 f1,4O STANDARD W.ACLS 19'O 1N'-0"I PARALLELPARKING TOTAI 16J NOTE-. Alt SPACES ARE ASSIGNED PARKING ONLY PORTLAND & SEATTLE 3 Appendix C A p p e n d i x D A p p e n d i x D A p p e n d i x E A p p e n d i x F A p p e n d i x G A p p e n d i x H A T T A C H M E N T 5 A T T A C H M E N T 6 RM-4 DEV 2020-00163 WALNUT MANOR RETIREMENT COMMUNITY SP 92-2 DA1 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL & SUITES T RELIGIOUS USE T SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE T RELIGIOUS USE RM-4 ACACIAWOOD VILLAGE APARTMENTS 123 DU SP 92-2 DA1 HOLIDAY STATION POST OFFICE SP 92-2 DA1 SERVICE STATION RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE T SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS - 2 SI N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E W BALL RD S W A L N U T S T W BEACON AVE W CHATEAU AVE W COLONIAL AVE S F E A T H E R S T W VERMONT AV E W HAMPSHIRE A V E S S A L E M S T W BEACON AVE W. B A L L R D S. E U C L I D S T S. W A L N U T S T W. B R O A D W A Y W. C E R R I T O S A V E S . A N A H E I M B L V D S. H A R B O R B L V D S. M A N C H E S T E R A V E S. D I S N E Y L A N D D R S . H A R B O R B L V D 891 South Walnut Street DEV No. 2020-00163 Subject Property APN: 036-072-34 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: May 2020 ATTACHMENT 7 W BALL RD S W A L N U T S T W BEACON AVE W CHATEAU AVE W COLONIAL AVE S F E A T H E R S T W VERMONT AV E W HAMPSHIRE A V E S S A L E M S T W BEACON AVE W. B A L L R D S. E U C L I D S T S. W A L N U T S T W. B R O A D W A Y W. C E R R I T O S A V E S . A N A H E I M B L V D S. H A R B O R B L V D S. M A N C H E S T E R A V E S. D I S N E Y L A N D D R S . H A R B O R B L V D 891 South Walnut Street DEV No. 2020-00163 Subject Property APN: 036-072-34 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: May 2020 ATTACHMENT 8 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 30, 2021 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06106 LOCATION: 626 North West Street and 945 West Pioneer Drive (Grandma’s House of Hope) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Je’net Kreitner of Grandma’s House of Hope. The property owner is Roberto Esquivel. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to permit a transitional housing facility with 21 participants, with one serving as a house lead, within an existing single-family residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15301, Class 1 – Existing Facilities), and approve Conditional Use Permit 2021- 06101. BACKGROUND: This 0.66-acre property consists of two parcels and is located in the “RS-1” Single-Family Residential zone and is designated for Low Density Residential land uses by the General Plan. Surrounding land uses include single- family residences to the north, east, south, and west. The property is developed with a two-story single-family residence with a three-car garage, pool, pool house, and basketball court. A six foot-high block wall exists along the north and east property lines, and a combination of wire mesh and wrought iron fencing, and shrubbery completely enclose the property along the west and south portions of the property. The property is accessed from one driveway each on North West Pioneer Drive and West Street via existing access gates. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06106 August 30, 2021 Page 2 of 7 Site Plan The project applicant, Grandma’s House of Hope, operates ten transitional housing facilities in the City, serving both men and women. Six of the facilities have conditional use permits to allow seven or more participants. Transitional housing facilities operated by Grandma’s House of Hope provide housing and on-site services such as counseling, basic job skills training, and job search assistance for individuals that find themselves homeless or at risk of being homeless, including those recovering from past trauma (e.g. domestic violence, post-traumatic stress disorder, human trafficking, and depression). PROPOSAL: Pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.04.030, transitional housing facilities with greater than six participants require approval a CUP. The applicant proposes to permit a transitional housing facility at the existing single-family home for a maximum of 20 participants, plus one house lead participant (manager), for a total of 21 participants. The existing 5,376 square foot, two-story single-family residence consists of eight bedrooms. The residence also has ten bathrooms (and/or powder rooms), a kitchen, living room, dining room, game room, and three-car garage with laundry room. One garage space would be used as a gym or recreation area. Staff work areas would be located in the existing pool house. No physical changes are proposed to the existing residence; however, the property would be required to install fire CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06106 August 30, 2021 Page 3 of 7 sprinklers and an alarm system before allowing more than 16 participants into the home. Project plans are included as Attachments 4 to this report. Floor Plans CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06106 August 30, 2021 Page 4 of 7 The transitional housing facility would provide housing and support services for individuals over 18 years of age, with the typical age range from 38-65 years old. According to the letter of operation, participants of this facility would be female adults with severe and persistent mental health disabilities that have not been able to obtain permanent housing and are experiencing homelessness. The average stay of each participant is 10 to 18 months. Participants who live at the facility would be provided with various resources, including individual case management, health service referrals, counseling, and assistance with placement in permanent housing. The goal of providing these services would be to help participants develop the skills needed to establish and maintain healthy relationships, find employment, and live independently. All participants would be chosen through a pre-screening process. While the facility would not be a rehabilitation center for substance abuse, the facility would maintain a sober living environment. Participants would be drug tested upon entry into the program and randomly tested approximately two to three times per month or more if necessary. Participants would be required to follow a program schedule including house chores. Participants would not be allowed to have visitors without express written consent from the program manager as specified in the Program Agreement, included as Attachment 3, and would only be for child reunification scenarios which would occur infrequently. The proposed facility would be staffed by a Program Manager who is on-site approximately 25 hours per week. In addition to the Program Manager, there would be a case manager, Housing Navigator (assisting with housing applications), service coordinator, intake specialist, and therapist, though not all on-site at the same time. This results in a typical maximum of six personnel on-site, although the applicant indicates that there may be up to eight personnel on-site at times. Staff would be on-site, or on-call, seven days a week between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Nighttime supervision would be provided by a participant serving as a Community Leader. The Community Leader would be required to complete a leadership program and be identified by staff as having the maturity, skills, and trustworthiness to effectively supervise the facility during the evening hours. Professional staff would be on-call 24 hours a day and would be available to assist the Community Leader when needed. The applicant’s Letter of Operation and the Program Agreement outlining the house rules are included as Attachments 2 and 3 to this report, respectively. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve a CUP, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this code; 2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; 3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06106 August 30, 2021 Page 5 of 7 5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. A transitional housing facility is permitted by right in the RS-1 zone pursuant to State law if the facility operates with six or fewer participants. If an operator wishes to increase the number of participants to seven or more, approval of a CUP is required to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. State Law defines a transitional housing as rental housing that is “operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance.” Transitional housing is not considered a community care facility (i.e. residential care facility, group homes, and sober living homes). This facility would provide living accommodations for up to 21 individuals, which would include a house lead, that have not been able to obtain permanent housing and are vulnerable to experiencing homelessness. There are no specific occupancy limits in Building or Fire Codes for transitional housing located within a single-family residence; however, as mentioned previously, the fire sprinklers and an alarm would be required prior to allowing more than 16 participants. This requirement is reflected as a condition of approval. In addition, the support services provided by the proposed facility, such as individual case management and other assistances, are low-impact services that are limited to participants of the facility. The proposed transitional housing facility is not anticipated to cause traffic or parking impacts in the neighborhood, as the applicant has indicated the number of parking spaces needed at any given time is not expected to exceed eight, and participants are not allowed to own cars unless there is a mobility disability that makes a vehicle mandatory. Otherwise, participants of the facility would use alternative forms of transportation. The existing residence has a three-car garage, where two spaces would be used for parking, and a driveway that can accommodate three on-site parking spaces in front of the garage, plus four additional spaces would be provided adjacent to the driveway from West Street. As such, nine total spaces are provided to serve the proposed use, which is one more space than the eight spaces needed for facility staff, as discussed in the Proposal section of this report and shown in the Parking Summary table below. The proposed nine spaces also exceeds the minimum of six spaces required by Code for the eight bedroom residence, at a rate of four spaces for a single family-residence up to six bedrooms plus one for every bedroom over six. As such, the existing on-site parking spaces would be sufficient to accommodate the anticipated parking demand of the facility. The applicant has indicated that the Community Lead and other staff would ensure that vehicles are parked on-site. To ensure that the facility does not cause any undue parking impacts in the neighborhood, a condition of approval is included in the draft resolution requiring all personal vehicles of the employees, guests, and facility participants be parked on-site. Code Required Actual Demand Provided 6 8 9 Parking Summary CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06106 August 30, 2021 Page 6 of 7 The Police Department also reviewed the calls for service records for the other six larger transitional housing facilities currently operated by Grandma’s House of Hope in the City, and found that four of the six facilities had negligible numbers of calls for service. The majority of the calls were medically related. Two of the existing facilities had a higher number of calls for service compared to the other four facilities; however, Grandma’s House of Hope runs different types of transitional housing programs. The facilities serve different types of clientele, and some require more advanced levels of services (i.e. persons in need of emergency services). The Police Department does not believe this indicates that there would be excessive calls for service with this facility. In addition, the Code Enforcement records for the existing transitional housing facilities in the City show little to no activity. As such, staff believes that the majority of the existing transitional housing facilities operated by Grandma’s House of Hope have not been problematic or caused any major crime activity in the respective residential neighborhoods, and the proposed transitional housing facility would operate without adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Based on the information provided by the applicant and staff’s analysis above, staff believes that the proposed transitional housing facility would not cause an undue burden on the surrounding neighborhood. To further ensure that the transitional housing facility would operate in a manner that is not detrimental to the surrounding area, staff has included conditions of approval in the draft resolution related to maximum number of participants, types of services, signs, appointed responsible party, and adherence to the Letter of Operation and the Program Agreement, in addition to the parking controls previously mentioned. Should Grandma’s House of Hope no longer operate the facility, there is a recommended condition in the draft resolution that would require any new operator to submit a letter of operation to staff to ensure compliance with the approved CUP. Community Input and Correspondence: The applicant hosted a community outreach meeting on July 7, 2021 to inform neighbors of the proposed transitional housing facility. Approximately eight neighbors attended the meeting. At this meeting, the attendees had general questions relating to the facility operations and guest policies, with no one expressing opposition to the project. Staff also received three emails from two residents, citing concerns related to safety, number of participants, change to the character of the neighborhood, property values, noise, and proximity to another type of care facility in the vicinity. Staff has reviewed the application and believes that the facility would not create any adverse impacts based on the applicant’s letter of operation and staff’s recommended conditions of approval. Correspondence is included as Attachment 5. Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed project are Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The proposed project includes a transitional housing facility within an existing single-family residence, and does not include any physical expansion of the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06106 August 30, 2021 Page 7 of 7 existing residence. Pursuant to Section 15300.02 (c) and 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CONCLUSION: The proposed project would provide a transitional housing environment and support services for up to 21 individuals while they search for permanent housing and/or employment. Based on the information provided by the applicant, staff’s analysis, and the recommended conditions of approval, staff believes that the proposed transitional housing facility would operate without creating an undue burden on the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested CUP. Prepared by, Submitted by, Nick Taylor, AICP Niki Wetzel, AICP Senior Planner Deputy Planning and Building Director Attachments: 1. Draft CUP Resolution 2. Letter of Operation 3. Program Agreement 4. Project Plans 5. Correspondence 6. Vicinity Map 7. Aerial Map [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 -1- PC2021-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2021-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND ADOPTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06106 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2021-00122) (626 NORTH WEST STREET & 945 WEST PIONEER DRIVE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition from for Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 to permit a transitional housing facility for 21 participants within a single-family residence (the “Proposed Project”) located at 626 North West Street and 945 West Pioneer Drive in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property, approximately 0.66 acre in size and is currently developed with a two-story single-family family home with a three-car garage. The Anaheim General Plan designates this Property for Residential-Low Density land uses. The property is located in the "RS- 1" Single-Family Residential Zone and is subject to the zoning and development standards contained in Chapter 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 30, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. and notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 and to investigate and make findings and recommendation in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedures, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the effects of the Proposed Project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The Proposed Project would permit a transitional housing facility within the existing single-family residence, and does not include any physical expansion of the existing residence. Pursuant to Section 15300.02 (c) and 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the Proposed Project that would cause a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the Proposed Project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and -2- PC2021-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106, does find and determine the following: 1. The request for a conditional use permit for a transitional housing facility with seven or more participants is an allowable use authorized within the "RS-1" Single Family Residential zone, subject to a conditional use permit; 2. The Proposed Project complies with all of the provisions of the "RS-1" Single Family Residential zone and, under the conditions imposed, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is located because the facility provides supportive living accommodations to a maximum of 21 individuals, in a similar manner as other residential facilities allowed in residential neighborhoods by State law, and that the on-site support services provided are low-impact in nature and limited to the participants residing in the facility; 3. The size and shape of the project site is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety as the Proposed Project is located within the existing single-family residence and does not involve an y physical expansion of the existing structure; 4. The traffic generated by the Proposed Project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area in that Proposed Project is not expected to generate a significant increase in vehicle trips based on the operational details, and the existing on-site parking spaces would be sufficient to accommodate the anticipated parking needs of the facility. Therefore, there are no anticipated burdens on streets and highways; 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because a transitional housing facility with seven or more persons is conditionally permitted in RS-1 Zone, the proposed transitional housing facility will not any undue impact to the neighborhood, and the conditions imposed would ensure that the proposed facility will operate in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; and WHEREAS, this Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that negatethe findings made in this Resolution. This Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, this Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of that portion of the Property for which Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 is applicable in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in -3- PC2021-*** accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition, (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any amendment, modification or revocation of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 30, 2021. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Laverne Ortiz, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on August 30, 2021, by the following vote of the members thereof: -4- PC2021-*** AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 30th day of August 2021. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -5- PC2021-*** -6- PC2021-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06106 (DEV2021-00122) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT GENERAL CONDITIONS 1 The transitional housing facility shall be limited to 21 participants that are of the same gender. Planning and Building Department, Code Enforcement Division 2 The transitional housing facility shall not provide on-site medical services but shall be permitted to provide non-medical support services listed in the applicant’s Letter of Operation, on file with the Planning Services Division, Planning and Building Department. Planning and Building Department, Code Enforcement Division 3 No signs shall be visible from the public right-of-way identifying this use as a transitional housing facility. Planning and Building Department, Code Enforcement Division 4 All vehicles associated with this facility, including staff, guests, and participants’ vehicles, shall be operable and parked on-site. The garage, driveway and on-site parking areas shall be available for vehicle parking at all times. Planning and Building Department, Code Enforcement Division 5 The applicant shall provide an on-site manager or an appointed responsible party at all times. This person shall be responsible for responding to any concerns regarding the operations of the facility. Planning and Building Department, Code Enforcement Division 6 Within 30 calendar days of the date of this resolution, the name and telephone number of the on-site manager shall be provided to the Code Enforcement Division of the Planning and Building Department. The operator can contact the Code Enforcement Division at (714) 765-5158 to coordinate this contact information. Any staffing changes to this position shall be reported to the Code Enforcement Division within 10 calendar days of such change. Planning and Building Department, Code Enforcement Division 7 The transitional housing facility shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Operation and the Program Agreement submitted as part of this Planning and Building Department, -7- PC2021-*** application. Any changes to the facility operation as described in this document shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter of Operation and the Program Agreement and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Planning Services Division 8 For the duration that Grandma’s House of Hope is the operator of the facility located at the subject property (herein referred to as the "Original Operator"), the permitted uses described in the Letter of Operation and the rights contained in this resolution, shall be personal to the Original Operator and may be exercised only by the Original Operator and not by any assignee, sub lessee or other transferee of the Original Operator's interest in the subject property or any portion thereof. In the event the Original Operator is no longer the operator of the facility located at the subject property, the new operator shall submit a revised letter of operation for review by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the approved Letter of Operation and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. In the event that the new owner/operator and facility does not substantially conform to the approved Letter of Operation then an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 9 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning and Building Department and as conditioned herein. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 10 All landscaping shall comply with Chapter 18.46 “Landscape and Screening” of the Anaheim Municipal Code and be maintained in perpetuity. Landscaping shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Planning and Building Department, Code Enforcement Division 11 The Applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 12 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division -8- PC2021-*** indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. 13 The allowable occupant load (including house lead) shall be a maximum of 16 people that reside within the house. An occupant load greater than 16 people requires installation of a fire sprinkler system (NFPA 13R system) and a fire alarm system. Prior to increasing the occupant load greater than 16 people, the applicant must install the fire sprinkler system (NFPA 13R system) with underground fire line requirements and a fire alarm system and obtain necessary permits and inspections from Anaheim Fire and Rescue. The applicant shall also comply with all California Building Code and California Fire Code provisions associated with an R2.1 occupancy. Anaheim Fire & Rescue 14 Anaheim Fire and Rescue shall conduct an annual fire inspection. Should staff determine that there are more occupants than the allowable occupant load, the applicant shall reduce the number of participants to the allowable occupancy until necessary improvements are permitted and installed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and Building Official. Anaheim Fire & Rescue Planning and Building Department, Building Division 15 The applicant shall ensure that all vehicles associated with this facility, including staff and participants’ vehicles, shall be operable and parked on-site. The parking garage and on-site parking area of this facility shall be available for vehicle parking. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 16 This property shall not be eligible to participate in the City’s Residential Permit Parking Program under this Conditional Use Permit. Should residential permit parking be pursued for Permit Parking District 156 during project operation, the street frontage immediately in front of the property on West Street and Pioneer Drive shall not become permit parking, nor will this property be eligible to vote or purchase parking permits. Public Works, Traffic Engineering Grandma’s House of Hope || 1505 E. 17th Street, Unit #116, Santa Ana, CA 92705 || (714) 558-8600 || http://www.grandmashouseofhope.org Tax ID # 26-0391438 Grandma’s House of Hope Project Description Letter Grandma's House of Hope, a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Transitional Living Facility at a single-family home at 626 N West Street, Anaheim, CA 9280. The home is a sprawling ranch home with 8 bedrooms, and 11 baths. The single-family home is very large with 4,900 square feet on a 0.65 acres lot. This accounts for the additional living space which is more than sufficient for 20 participants and 1 Community Leader/House Manager. The grounds of the property provide ample space in the back yard area for gathering out of view of the public. Every year, Grandma’s House analyzes the greatest unmet needs among Orange County’s unsheltered homeless population and seeks to open at least one new housing site that addresses this need. This year, we want to move an already established and successful program to this location so that we begin an unrelated expansion. The housing site proposed at 626 N West street specifically targets adults with severe and persistent mental health disabilities who have been living unsheltered on the streets, some during the COVID19 pandemic. 72% of these individuals are over the age of 40 and need support in recovering from trauma. Our participants typically are diagnosed with mental health challenges that range from Depression and PTSD to Bipolar and Schizophrenia. Participants are capable of independent living and tend to their own Activities of Daily Living (ADL). All participants are required to be medication compliant. Refusal to follow the advice of their outside mental health Doctor would be cause for discharge from the program. Participants are all referred to us by way of the Orange County Healthcare Agency who have received the referral through a partnering clinic .Our participants are co- managed by this clinic and assigned care coordinators who stay with the case while the participant is housed with Grandma’s House of Hope. Participants in the GHH program will be provided with housing, case management, health service referrals, counseling, and housing navigation for eventual placement in affordable permanent housing. The applicant is requesting a maximum of 20 female participants plus one on site volunteer housing manager (Community Leader) to live at this facility at one time. This bed has historically been exempted from our total bed count requests in our 6 other CUPs with the City of Anaheim as it is a volunteer position and improves the oversight of our homes in the best interest of the neighborhood and our participants. ATTACHMENT 2 Grandma’s House of Hope || 1505 E. 17th Street, Unit #116, Santa Ana, CA 92705 || (714) 558-8600 || http://www.grandmashouseofhope.org Tax ID # 26-0391438 This number is not negotiable as the Bridge Housing program is contracted for 20 beds. The former location of these participants is significantly smaller than the new site and we believe this unique property has more than sufficient space for the women to live comfortably. The typical stay for participants for this facility will vary but the average anticipated stay would be 10- 18 months. GHH is committed to supporting this population to get them off the streets, stabilized, connected to services and prepared to move into permanent housing through trauma informed care. Staff are on-site, or on-call, seven days a week generally from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm, but these times can vary in response to early morning or evening classes and meetings. The facility is supervised by one Program Manager who is available approximately 25 hours per week, 1 FT case manager will be on site, one FT Housing Navigator will assist with permanent housing applications, and up to 4 FT service coordinators will provide coverage in the mornings and evenings. 1-2 Intake Specialists will also work opposite shifts at this location, providing additional coverage. Additionally, we have therapists come to property to provide group and individual counseling and who divide their time between several facilities. Nighttime supervision is provided by a Community Leader, a participant who has been in one of our longer-term program houses for at least one year, completed a leadership program and have been identified by staff as having the maturity, skills, and trustworthiness to effectively supervise the facility overnight. The Housing Director oversees the Program Manager. Program Managers and the Housing Director provide rotating on-call support 24/7. A staff member is available to respond to any emergency within 20-30 minutes. The Municipal Code does not contain parking standards for Transitional Living Facilities. However, Section 18.42.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Residential Parking Requirements, requires a minimum required number of off-street parking spaces for Single-Family Dwellings. The minimum required number of off-street, on-site parking spaces for Single-Family Detached Dwellings with six bedrooms or more is 4 (2 in a garage), plus 1 additional space per bedroom over 6 bedrooms. The property has 5 spaces for parking and meets this requirement as described below. There would also be 5 additional parking spaces located on the adjacent undeveloped property (945 N. West St.) This property is gated with ample parking on site for staff; we anticipate a Grandma’s House of Hope || 1505 E. 17th Street, Unit #116, Santa Ana, CA 92705 || (714) 558-8600 || http://www.grandmashouseofhope.org Tax ID # 26-0391438 maximum of 8 parking spaces needed at any given time throughout the day. GHH does not allow program participants to have personal vehicles at our program homes, unless there is a mobility disability which makes a vehicle mandatory. Only maintenance vehicles and pick up/drop off services like ACCESS and Uber/Lyft services would park on our side of the street outside the gates. Staff must supervise pick ups from any unmarked transportation services. Driveways of our neighbors would not be impacted. All vehicles associated with this facility, including staff and residents’ vehicles, will be operable and parked on-site. 2 spaces are available in the parking garages, with 3 in tandem and 5 additional spaces have been approved for parking as well. We will not need to park any vehicles belonging to staff or participants on the public street outside this property. GHH staff ensures that any drop off or pick up of our participants and any maintenance vehicles will not block any neighbor driveways ( there are no driveways on this street that are close enough to potentially hinder) or interfere with the flow of traffic on the street. Guests at the property are rare and must be pre-approved by staff. A participant may have a short term need for additional assistance for example: In Home Healthcare Services following a medical procedure. The only family member who can visit a participant at the site would be the supervised visit of a child who is in reunification process with her mother. The participant would be required to meet the child and his/her caregiver at a nearby grocery store parking lot or bus stop and return the child the same way. The address is kept confidential and sharing our location will result in dismissal from the program. We have a Program Agreement form that our participants must sign, noting they have read, understood and agree to follow our policies and procedures. They are notified in advance of the consequences of falling out of compliance. Typically a participant is given 2 warning before exit strategies are discussed, but there are some actions that result in immediate dismissal from the program, like aggressive behavior, having illegal substances in their possession and compromising our confidential address. Based off the current pandemic, we ensure to practice safety precautions. Staff and participants are wearing masks on property and practicing social distancing as much as possible. We have procedures set in place to monitor participants symptoms and rooms are available for isolation. We ensure that participants are washing their hands, using hand sanitizer, and are only leaving the property for limited times frames on a daily to decrease the risk of exposure. GHH holds high standards for our program Grandma’s House of Hope || 1505 E. 17th Street, Unit #116, Santa Ana, CA 92705 || (714) 558-8600 || http://www.grandmashouseofhope.org Tax ID # 26-0391438 participants and had no outbreaks from March – November in 2020 and no cases in 2021. Grandma's House of Hope has a proven track record of operating transitional housing facilities in the City of Anaheim, in partnership with the Orange County Healthcare Agency, and is excited to be opening this facility serving women in need. GHH is happy to engage, cooperate and find reasonable solutions to any conditions recommended by Anaheim health, safety and building departments to ensure the safety of our participants, staff and neighbors and to create an amicable relationship with those surrounding the property. Revised: 10/20/2020 Page 1 POLICY: HOUSING PROGRAM AGREEMENTS - OCTOBER 2020 Grandma’s House of Hope (GHH)’s Bridge Housing Program consists of men and women with diverse challenges and experiences. In a shared living environment like ours, agreements help ensure participants’ safety, comfort, and progress toward individual goals. The organization’s leadership has found that the following agreements – which were cooperatively developed with fellow participants – offer the structure, support, and stability vital to the health of the program. Each participant’s acceptance of, attention to, and compliance with these agreements is essential. GHH staff may change these agreements to meet the changing demands of the program, staff, and/or participants, and your flexibility is appreciated. You must read, be familiar with, and comply with the Housing Program Agreements listed below and any other agreements, instructions, or requests communicated to you by GHH staff and/or Community Leaders. By initialing next to each rule, you acknowledge that you understand the agreement and agree to follow it at all times unless doing so presents a risk to your personal safety or the safety of others. In such instances, notify your Community Leader or Service Coordinator as soon as possible but no later than within two hours of the incident. Occasionally, due to extenuating circumstances, a house agreement is waived for a particular participant for a designated length of time. Such waivers must be requested in writing, and your request for waiver must be reviewed, approved, and signed by the Program Manager. To allow time for processing, submit your requests as soon as possible but no later than three (3) business days before the affected time period. If you have any questions about these agreements, discuss them with your Community Leader, Service Coordinator or Case Manager.. Your initials acknowledge that you understand and agree that failure to comply with any agreement listed below may result in your immediate exit from the Housing Program, even if it is your first offense. _____ Sobriety: While enrolled in the Housing Program, you agree not to use, consume, or possess drugs or alcohol on or off the premises. To verify compliance with this rule, all participants agree to submit to scheduled and random drug and alcohol testing and property searches, including personal vehicles that are on property whenever requested by GHH staff, Community Leaders, or Community Leader Assistants. _____ Drug Testing Policy: All participants are tested for drug and alcohol use twice monthly at random days and times, as well as on suspicion of use or possession. If the person being tested or the person conducting the test believes the test to be returning false results, a second test will be conducted. All test results are logged in the Individual and Monthly Drug Test Logs. Positive tests may result in immediate suspension or discharge. _____ Medications: All prescriptions, over-the-counter medications, vitamins, and supplements must be registered with staff, and will be kept in a locked cabinet. All prescriptions must be prescribed to you by your doctor. If a GHH staff or Community Leader requests proof of prescription, you agree to produce the requested documentation within two (2) business days of the request. Some non essential but potentially harmful medications/treatments – such as bath salts – may not be permitted on property. _____ Drugs and Alcohol: You understand that being under the influence of or possessing alcohol, drugs, and drug paraphernalia may result in being exited from the Bridge Housing Program. _____ Signing In and Out: You agree to both sign in and out on community and personal forms every time you are arriving or departing from property. You agree to check-in with your Community Leader or Community Leader Assistant to acknowledge your arrival at the house every time you arrive. ATTACHMENT 3 Revised: 10/20/2020 Page 2 _____ Overnight and Late Pass Policy: Pass requests must be submitted to the Community Leader no more than seven (7) business days before the affected day. Director of Housing or Housing Program Manager makes final approval. Overnight passes are limited to once per month. To be eligible for these passes, you must have successfully completed thirty (30) consecutive days of participation in the Housing Program, and you must be in good standing with the program. Passes can be rescinded, by staff, at anytime for good cause. _____ Vehicle Policy: Clients are not allowed to bring a vehicle on property without explicit prior authorization. We have strict guidelines regarding the number of cars allowed at each property.Typically cars are only allowed for participants that have mobility challenges. If you have been approved to bring your vehicle, you agree to present the following before bringing your car onto property: valid Driver’s License, current registration and insurance card. Vehicles are subject to random searches whenever requested by GHH staff, or Community Leader. _____ House Meetings: You agree to attend your house’s House Meeting every week. House Meetings are a chance for GHH staff, Community Leaders, and program participants to check in as a group. Program updates, group and individual successes, and other topics will be reviewed at the meetings. If you cannot attend a House Meeting or must arrive late due to extenuating circumstances, contact your Program Manager as soon as possible, but no later than 4:00 pm on the Monday before the affected meeting. House Meeting: _____ Case Management/ Housing Navigator: Case Management provides structure and support as you work towards your individual goals within the Housing Program. You agree to participate in weekly Case Management meetings on the day and time agreed to by your Case Manager. Repeated cancellations/no shows may affect your continued participation in this program. _____ Counseling: Counseling is an essential component of all program participants’ path to personal health, self- sufficiency, and well-being. Participants agree to attend either group or individual counseling one per week. Participants may choose to see a counselor through Grandma’s House of Hope or through an outside agency. _____ Morning Check-In Meetings: Morning Check-In Meetings provide structure and support for participants as they seek and/or enhance their current employment or income. At 9:00 am Monday through Friday, all participants who are not traveling to their place of employment or other approved program agree to attend a Morning Check- In Meeting. _____ Sobriety Meetings: Clients assigned to NA/AA/Celebrate Recovery Meetings agree to have attendance verification cards signed. Participant’s Case Manager may ask to see these attendance cards at any time. _____ Productivity: Productivity is essential towards working on program goals including volunteering in the community or attending school. Participants agree to participate in activities Mon- Fri from 10:00am to 4:00pm Monday through Friday. Computer labs are available until 10:00pm Monday through Friday. _____ Progress Sheets: All participants agree to fill out their weekly progress sheet and submit them weekly at House Meetings.Incomplete Program Sheets will result in a discussion with your case manager to help move towards goals program participants have set for themselves. _____ Photography: You agree to not take photos on the property or of other participants while being housed with Grandma’s House of Hope, doing so may result in disciplinary action or a possible exit Revised: 10/20/2020 Page 3 _____ General: All participants agree to be out of bed and dressed for the day with their beds made by no later than 9 am Monday through Friday. You agree to only dress in your room or in the bathroom, and you agree to be fully dressed at all times except when in the process of dressing. You agree that you will wear shoes or slippers at all times when walking around the house. _____ Showering: You agree to shower daily; you agree not to shower between the hours of 7:00am and 9:00am unless you are getting ready for work and have made arrangements with your community leader. _____Laundry: Personal hygiene is important for your personal health and others. You agree to wash your clothes and bedding once per week; laundry hours are from 10:00am to 10:00pm daily. _____ Shared Spaces: All participants agree to clean and pick up after themselves immediately after using any shared space, including cleaning the shower and sink hair traps after each use. You agree to hand-wash and put away pots and pans immediately after using them. _____Chores: All participants will be assigned and agree to complete chores daily, as early as possible in the day. In addition, you agree with our policy of mandatory participation in double scrub which will be conducted twice a month every 2nd and 4th Friday. ______Walls: You agree to receive approval on any item you want to fasten to a wall and also on the material you want to use to fasten it before adhering anything to the walls. _____Other Participants: You agree not to enter the personal living space of any other program participants. You agree not to open the drawers of, look through the items of, or take items belonging to any other program participants. You agree not to share the name of any program participant with anyone outside the program. _____House Location: For the safety and well-being of other participants, you agree not to share the address of GHH’s houses (including the house you are staying in) with anyone outside the program without first obtaining written permission from the Director of Housing. If you are arranging to be picked up or dropped off by a friend or family member, you agree to arrange the pickup/drop-off for at the closest bus stop or grocery store only. _____ Social Media: You agree not use GHH computers to go on Facebook or any other social media. You agree not to access social media from your personal devices while on property at GHH until you have disabled all settings that share, post, or otherwise record your location. No participant’s name or picture (including pictures with a participant in the background) may be shared on social media. _____ Pictures/Videos: You agree to not take pictures or videos of any participant or of the outdoor space of any property without first obtaining permission from the Program Manager. _____ Good Neighbor and other policiesParticipants agree to abide by Good Neighbor, Guest, Drug Testing, Nonsmoking, Food Pantry, and Harassment Policy. Please see attached Good Neighbor Policy sheet. ____ Visiting With Other Participants: The shared spaces of each house are for visiting. You may not visit with other program Revised: 10/20/2020 Page 4 participants in their bedrooms. _____ Visiting Other Properties: You may not visit program participants at other houses (except during special events or combined house meetings) without prior approval from the Program Manager of the house you want to visit. _____ Guests: You agree to not have guests to the property without written permission from your Program Manager(see the Guest Pass Request Form). Only children who are in a reunification process with their parent are permitted as guests. _____ Respectfulness: You agree to be considerate of and respectful toward all program participants and staff _____ Attitude and Behavior: You agree to maintain a good, positive, and patient attitude and demeanor and comply with all requests made of you by GHH staff and/or Community Leaders. You agree that your relationships toward others in the house must be that of a typical family. You may not have sexual, romantic, or business relations with any other program participant. You agree not to curse, threaten (in demeanor or words), insult, gossip, or behave rudely in any way while you are a participant in the Housing Program. _____ Lending and Borrowing: You agree not to lend to or borrow from any program participant. You agree not to ask for a gift of any item or favor from any program participant. This policy includes but is not limited to money, food, cigarettes, and rides. You agree not to give money to any program participant. If you choose to give an item or favor such as food, cigarettes, or a ride to a program participant, you agree not to request, ask for, or expect any item, payment, reimbursement, or favor in return. _____ Quiet Time: Quiet time is observed before 8:00am and after 10:00pm daily without exception. All participants agree to be in their beds with the lights out by 11:00pm Sunday through Thursday, and no music may be playing or personal electronic devices running after this time. _____ Television: Television viewing is a privilege that may be revoked by GHH staff or Community Leaders at any time. Obscene and/or offensive shows or movies are not permitted. What is inoffensive to one participant may be offensive to another, and you agree to be considerate of anyone who may find the program offensive. The television may not be used from 9:00am to 4:00 pm Monday through Friday. _____ Telephone Use: You agree that any call you make from or receive to the house phone must be limited to 10 minutes in length, even if no one else is waiting for the phone. You agree not to answer any caller’s questions about the program or your housemates. When answering the house phone, you may only use the greeting “Hello?” You agree not to say the name of the organization, program, house, or your name when answering. If the caller asks for someone other than you and that person is not available, offer to take a message. If the caller asks a question, state that you don’t have the information but that you’d be happy to take a message and have the Community Leader call them back. You agree not to answer any caller’s questions about the program or your housemates. You agree to not place 411 calls from the house phone. _____ Answering the Door: Only a Community Leader or staff member may open the front door to an unknown visitor. Probation and Police officers are to be allowed in regardless of the time of day. _____ Smoking: You agree to only smoke in designated outside areas. Smoking is never permitted in front of any house or in a parked car in front of the house or in the house’s driveway. _____ Mail: Only Community Leaders and GHH staff may retrieve mail from the mailboxes. Your mail will be accepted for up to seven (7) days after your exit from the program. After seven (7) days, it will be returned to the postal service. The only mail that will be accepted for a participant at any house is mail from the government. For Revised: 10/20/2020 Page 5 all other mail besides subscriptions, you may use the following address: 174 W Lincoln Ave, Anaheim CA 92805. You agree not to receive subscriptions to any GHH mailbox and not to order deliveries to this address. _____ Personal Items and Valuables: You agree to not to keep items you consider to be valuable on property. GHH is not responsible for lost or stolen property. Your personal items are limited to what is specified on the inventory sheet, which will be provided for you. Random checks are conducted to ensure you are not over inventory. You agree not to store empty luggage, bags, or storage containers on property unless they count as and fit within the allowed personal item space. Personal property left on-site more than 72 hours after program exit or after you leave the program without prior approval is considered voluntarily surrendered to GHH and will be donated to Goodwill. _____ Savings Plans: Clients who enter Bridge Housing Program agree to participate in saving 80% percent of their income. We agree to provide staff with monthly bank statements. _____ Misc. Banned Products: Candles, energy drinks, e-cigarettes/vaping products, mouthwash containing alcohol, fans or any other heating or cooling electronic devices are prohibited on GHH property. These products also may not be in personal vehicles on GHH Property. Perfume may be used off property. ______ Broken Agreements: Any broken agreements will be documented and may result in consequences. ______ Immediate Exit: The following will result in an immediate exit of the Housing Program: Breaking confidentiality of property addresses and aggression or threats toward staff or another participant. You understand and agree to this policy ______ Three Formal Write-Ups: Upon first offense of agreement infractions, you will be given a verbal/written warning by staff. A second offense will result in a formal write-up. Once you have received three formal write-ups, due to any agreement infraction(s), you understand that you may be exited from the Grandma’s House of Hope Housing program. The following rule infractions may result in an immediate formal write-up and consequence: a positive drug test, aggression,threats or disrespect toward staff or another client, being late for curfew. Staff may use discretion in issuing a formal write-up or contract, as to protect the safety, security, and confidentiality of all clients and staff at Grandma’s House of Hope. By signing below, you acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agree to comply with all Housing Program Rules and that you have received a copy of the agreements. Additionally, your signature acknowledges that you agree to follow all instructions and adhere to all requests made of you by GHH staff and/or Community Leaders. Your signature also acknowledges that failure to follow Bridge Housing Program Rules and/or staff or Community Leader instructions may result in your being exited from the program immediately. GHH staff may change these rules to meet the changing demands of the program, staff, and/or participants, and your flexibility is required and appreciated. ______________________ __________________________________ ___________________ Participant Printed Name Participant Signature Date ______________________ __________________________________ ___________________ Revised: 10/20/2020 Page 6 Staff Printed Name Staff Signature Date SANDRA FLORES EX I S T I N G F L O O R P L A N S SANDRA FLORES 9917 PRADERA AVE. MONTCLAIR, CA. 91763 (626) 485-9381 SITE PLAN N NSCALE: 1"=15'-0" REFERENCE TRUE SI T E P L A N PROJECT DATA BUILDING DATA VICINITY MAP SHEET INDEX A0 N 1 1 1 07/28/21 PLANNIG CORR 1 ATTACHMENT 4 N REFERENCE N REFERENCE FL O O R P L A N S SANDRA FLORES EX I S T I N G F L O O R P L A N S SANDRA FLORES DRAFTING DESIGN & 9917 PRADERA AVE. MONTCLAIR, CA. 91763 (626) 485-9381 G a r a g e 1 Nicholas J. Taylor From:Mary Dragieff <mhdwil9@att.net> Sent:Thursday, August 19, 2021 4:47 PM To:Nicholas J. Taylor Subject:Fw: Project known as 626 N. West St. Anaheim Nick, Thank you for returning my call. I had sent this earlier, but it did not reach you due to a typo. As I mentioned to you on the phone, we have major concerns about the impact of this facility on our neighborhood. Dear Nick and Committee Members, My husband and I have lived in our home for 42 years. We were attracted to this area because it was safe, clean and had beautiful custom homes with substantial lots. Today, we received a notice from the City of Anaheim of a project being considered for the above address. Sending a notice to immediate neighbors that border the above property, 11 days before a meeting shows no concern for residents that pay taxes to this city, and contribute in many ways. We are truly disappointed in the manner this was handled. Our property wall is shared with this address, therefore we are directly involved with anything that goes on at that property. We are in complete disapproval over this project not only because it affects us personally, but this particular area of Anaheim is truly a unique area of old Anaheim, known as the Colony. Our property value is around 1.2 M as are others of this size. Why would the city even consider such a business of this magnitude to be in the middle of this residential area? This type of business belongs in an industrial area, nursing home property, or business complex. This area is zoned as RS-1 "single family residential." A facility of 20-21 inhabitants is not a single family residence. We strongly oppose this project. Our questions/concerns to those considering this project are: 1. How does this benefit "this neighborhood?" We feel it does not, and patients with such medical needs should be in a more secure complex for everyone concerned. 2. The house on West street, is a single family residence as the cities letters states. It is not meant for a business, even though this facility has nonprofit status, it does have income. 3. There is currently a "hospice home" behind our property already. Daily we hear the moans and screams from that house and are forced to accept it. While I am truly sorry that people are suffering and dying, the city should not permit yet another business with special use conditions. This area is a single family residence. One standard size family of five or six is expected to have its own degree of noise. Permitting 20+ individuals changes the complexion of everything. No matter how quiet they claim to be. According to the flyer put out by Grandma's House of Hope, they state that these individuals have "severe and persistent mental health challenges", ranging from Bipolar to Schizophrenia. It also states that they are medicated. 4. I have had personal experience with such individuals through the years, and know if medication is not taken, they can become violent. This area is mainly senior citizens and younger families. We feel this element may present a danger to our neighborhood and should not be permitted. Furthermore, noise from 20+ individuals in the back yard will affect our enjoyment of our tranquil yard. The sports court and swimming pool (which are next to our wall), will inherently create noise. Safety of the residents in the immediate area are a concern as well. 1 Nicholas J. Taylor From:Mary Dragieff <mhdwil9@att.net> Sent:Wednesday, August 25, 2021 10:48 AM To:Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Jose Moreno; Jose Diaz; Stephen Faessel; Avelino Valencia; Trevor O'Neil; Nicholas J. Taylor; Natalie Meeks; Dave Vadodaria; Kimberly Keys; Lucille Kring Subject:Fw: Project known as Single Family Residence @ 626 N. West St. Anaheim Order of email addresses above, are in no specific order. Dear Mayor and other city officials, My husband and I have lived in our home for 42 years. On August 19, we received a notice from the City of Anaheim of a project being considered for the above address. Not only did we not receive any notice prior to this time, four of our immediate neighbors did not. How does this happen? Thank God a neighbor brought it to our attention in time. Our property wall is shared with this address, therefore we are directly involved with anything that goes on at that property. We are in complete disbelief, and greatly opposed to this project. It not only affects the enjoyed in our home and yard, but our neighbors, and will change the last remaining truly unique area of old Anaheim in the Westmont- Colony area. These are custom, single family homes, with large lots. Our property value is around 1.1 to 1.2 M. as are others of this size. Why would anyone consider a project of this magnitude for housing 20+ homeless, severely mentally ill individuals? We do realize that there is a need to help those less-fortunate, but there are other areas where a facility such as this can be placed, without affecting the lives of Anaheim residents. While Grandmas House of Hope is classified as a nonprofit, it truly is not. Those in charge enjoy generous salaries at the residents expense. The homeowner gets what he wants as they are paid handsomely for the use of this house. Financial gain for them, but screw the residents. We strongly oppose this project. Some of our concerns and questions are: 1. How does this benefit "this neighborhood?" We fail to see any benefit to us, or our neighborhood. 2. The house in question is a single family residence as the city lists on the hearing notice. How does a group home of 20+ individuals qualify as a single family? 3. There is currently a "hospice home" behind our property. Its called Allens Palm Cove, at 630 N. West Street. We frequently hear the moans and cries from that house and are forced to accept it. While we are truly sorry that people are suffering and dying there, expecting us to tolerate yet another business catering to 20 mentally ill individuals, will PTSD, depression, bi-polar and schizophrenia,.is ludicrous. Its just too much to expect of us, and the immediate neighbors. More noise in the house and rear yard, coupled with the unpredictability of such individuals (even if on daily meds). The basketball court is right next to our wall. Approximately 20 feet from our kitchen. Their pool is next to that. Twenty people is a party 24/7 no matter how you look at it. Outdoor meetings that we will be exposed to is not acceptable to us, and I doubt it would be to any other resident. We question where are our rights as tax-paying residents of Anaheim for over 42 years? 4. Safety is a huge concern. Such severely ill mental patients are unpredictable and lack the ability to reason. This area is mainly seniors and young couples with small children. Where is the concern for them? They have invested in their homes, as we have. Let me ask you all a question. If a realtor is showing residential property, and two of them offer the same amenities, size, etc. only one of the homes it is disclosed has two groups homes (of this caliber) RS-1 DEV 2021-00122 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PR RED CROSS CHAPTER HOUSE RS-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4 ANAHEIM HIGH SCHOOL RS-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE N W E S T S T W PIONEER DR N D W Y E R D R W SYCAMORE ST W ALBERTA ST N C A R L E T O N A V E W WESTMONT DR W WILHELMINA S T W PARK AVE W R O W A N S T N W E S T W O O D P L W JADE WAY N P I O N E E R D R W. L A P A L M A A V E W. N . H A R B O R B L V D N. E U C L I D S T W. BROADW A Y E. L A P A L M A A V E S . E U C L I D S T W .L INCOL N A V E W. C R E S C E N T A V E W. ROMNEYA DR S . A N A H E I M B L V D N . A N A H E I M B L V D W. B R O A D W A Y W. LINCOLN AVE S . A N A H E I M B L V D 626 North West Street DEV No. 2021-00122 Subject Property APN: 255-101-12 255-101-13 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: May 2020 ATTACHMENT 6 N W E S T S T W PIONEER DR W SYCAMORE ST W ALBERTA ST N D W Y E R D R N C A R L E T O N A V E W WESTMONT DR W WILHELMINA S T W PARK AVE N W E S T W O O D P L W JADE WAY N P I O N E E R D R W CONNECTICUT AVE W R O W A N S T W. L A P A L M A A V E W. N . H A R B O R B L V D N. E U C L I D S T W. BROADW A Y E. L A P A L M A A V E S . E U C L I D S T W .L INCOL N A V E W. C R E S C E N T A V E W. ROMNEYA DR S . A N A H E I M B L V D N . A N A H E I M B L V D W. B R O A D W A Y W. LINCOLN AVE S . A N A H E I M B L V D 626 North West Street DEV No. 2021-00122 Subject Property APN: 255-101-12 255-101-13 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: May 2020 ATTACHMENT 7 From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Cc:Niki J. Wetzel; Scott Koehm Subject:FW: Grandma"s House of Hope Date:Thursday, August 26, 2021 2:09:48 PM Hi Laverne, Please redact and include as new correspondence for Item 3. This will not be one of the attachments to the report. Thank you, Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail From: Patrick Heinz <> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 10:39 AM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net> Subject: Re: Grandma's House of Hope Mr. Taylor, Thank you for the information you sent me. I absolutely OPPOSE the Conditional Use Permit for the property located at 626 N West Street. Approving such a facility with 20 mentally ill people in a single family neighborhood would negatively affect the safety, community and property values of this neighborhood. There are already 3 or 4 group homes within 300 to 800 yards of this home. That is just too many in such a small area. I believe having 20 people with mental health issues in such a small area will endanger the neighborhood, especially all the children that live here or that walk by on their way to school. Our family has lived at 937 W Pioneer for over 56 years. I'm taking care of my 90 year old mother and we spend a lot of time outside in the backyard. A six foot fence is all that separates the home at 626 N West street and our home. The proposed facility plans on having group meetings outside, which would be 10 to 20 yards from our backyard. I don't want my mom, and our neighbors, exposed to the possible screaming, yelling and violence that can happen at these meetings. This is the kind of facility that should be in a commercial or industrial area, much like where the city's current homeless shelter was placed. Because a 20-person "severely and persistently mentally-ill" health facility simply doesn't belong in single family neighborhoods. I respectfully ask for your NO Vote for this Conditional Use Permit. Thank You, Patrick Heinz W Pioneer Drive NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: Conditional Use Permit 2021-06106 Date:Friday, August 27, 2021 4:01:25 PM Item 3 New Correspondence. Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim.net From: Patty Pebley <erdice1@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 1:25 PM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net> Subject: Conditional Use Permit 2021-06106 Hello. I am a concerned resident of a single family home near the proposed transitional housing for 20 homeless women with mental illness. I have read the statement from Grandma's House of Hope and know the proposed use of this home at 626 N. West Street is a detriment to our neighborhood. If you were to drive the streets in this area you would see that it is totally residential.. This entire area is single family homes close to Anaheim High School. Students walk to school past the involved property Monday through Friday. Safety is a concern for these students as the proposed tenants have mental issues that must be controlled by medication. Yes, the property is gated and fenced, but the residents can come and go and verbal exchanges could be held with the students. The single family homes in this area have large lots and several bedrooms/bathrooms. This must make it attractive to business people who operate nonprofits. Our area has become saturated with homes of all types -- hospice, nursing, alcohol addiction, and so forth. Where are the protections we as longtime home owners should have? We bought homes zoned for single family residences, not businesses however sympathetically worded. I am vehement in my opposition to Conditional Use Permit 2021-06106. Please protect our rights as home owners and deny this application. Areas such as ours need to remain residential. My husband, Cal, used to be the mayor and a city councilman of Anaheim. I know, if he were alive, that he would agree with my position. Sincerely, Erdice Pebley 40 plus years resident , Anaheim 92801 erdice1@gmail.com (I sent this email to the planning commission and city council/mayor) NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: Conditional Use Permit for 626 North,West Street and 945 Pioneer Drive Date:Friday, August 27, 2021 4:04:13 PM Item 3. Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim.net From: Nick Moran <nickmoran62@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 3:44 PM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net> Cc: Lisa Moran <lmoran@greatamerican-logistics.com> Subject: Conditional Use Permit for 626 North,West Street and 945 Pioneer Drive Dear Sir, As a resident of Pioneer Drive I would like to let you know that we "respectfully" DO NOT APPOVE of this proposed project. This is very alarming and we are deeply troubled. We (with our neighbors) will be attending this hearing on Monday the 30th to voice our concerns and opinions as long time residents. Thank you, Nick Moran NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: Housing Facility for 20 residents under Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 Date:Thursday, August 26, 2021 4:58:33 PM Item 3 New Correspondence. Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim.net From: Joey Vergel De Dios <jvergel4444@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 4:05 PM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net> Subject: Housing Facility for 20 residents under Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 Dear Mr. Nick Taylor, We have received a Notice from the Planning Commission regarding the above facility that purportedly will house severely and persistently mentally-ill people in our neighborhood. We have lived in these neighborhood for over 20 years already. It is a very quite and clean neighborhood where nothing happens even if we leave our garage doors open. We have not experienced any crime, disorderly conduct, people urinating or leaving thrash in the street in the sidewalk or in the lawn or garden. We are very proud that we are living in this area where our children and grandchildren can walk safely to and from their schools. Because of these factors, the values of our property has risen consistently throughout the years. Now we hear that a conditional permit has already been granted this facility even before the homeowners in the neighborhood affected have been notified. This is a single family neighborhood where children walk everyday. We cannot put them at risk from mentally disturbed much more mentally ill people. We believe that housing for the mentally-ill should be in a commercial or industrial area away from schools. We are definitely OPPOSED to this facility that will house severely and persistently mentally-ill people. Please vote NO for this conditional use permit. Thank you, Jose Vergel de Dios and Gena Vergel de Dios , NEW CORRESPONDENCE Anaheim, CA 92805 CP: Sent from Mail for Windows From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: Opposition to CUP on 626 N West St., Anaheim, Ca. 92805 Date:Friday, August 27, 2021 3:59:43 PM Item 3 New Correspondence. Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim.net From: Kueiling Chiu <kueilingc@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 11:33 AM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net> Cc: Steve White <awhitste@pacbell.net>; Natalie Meeks <natalieameeks@gmail.com>; Dave Vadodaria <dhiruhv@gmail.com>; kiberly.keys614@gmail.com; Lucille Kring <Lucille.kring@kring.us>; Luis Andres Perez <Lbperez@usc.edu> Subject: Opposition to CUP on 626 N West St., Anaheim, Ca. 92805 We are residents living on W Pioneer Dr, Anaheim, 92805. We strongly oppose the proposed change of zoning on 626 N West Street to accommodate a project to allow 20-mentally ill people to live on said address. 1.This is a single family residential area. The noise, traffic/parking and safety will impact us negatively. It would significantly lower our property values. 2. Such big business should be operated in business or industrial areas, not on a single family residential area. 3.The said property is very close to a high school. Everyday many high school students passing in front of it. The safety of the students can be threatened. We urge you to vote no to the proposed zoning change on 626 N West Street., Anaheim. Thank you. Anthony Chiu Kueiling Chiu . Anaheim, Ca. 92805 NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: Proposed Project located at 626 North West Street. Date:Friday, August 27, 2021 4:02:11 PM Item 3 Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim.net From: David Ponce <davidponce24@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 2:52 PM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net> Subject: Proposed Project located at 626 North West Street. Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commission, I am writing regarding the proposed project located at 626 North West Street. I am a new homeowner in The Colony neighborhood. I decided to own and live in this neighborhood because of the beautiful and historic nature of this pocket in Anaheim. The home was attractive to me because of the neighborhood’s charm, historical significance, and safety. I have lived here less than a year, but the warmth of the neighbors has made my wife and I feel like old friends. My wife and I welcomed our first child into the world less than two weeks ago. Parenthood has been amazing, and I look forward to having more children, and raising our family in the tranquility this neighborhood offers. However, when I bought my home and set forth plans to start a family, there was no rehabilitation center for the mentally ill around the corner. I strongly oppose this conditional use permit, as it threatens the safety and serenity of this community-the very core of what makes this neighborhood attractive. I would like the planning commission to honor the single-family zoning in this neighborhood and help preserve the historical nature of this area as has the Mills Act. I understand there is much suffering in this world and people need help. I just ask that help be provided in a more appropriate location than around the corner to my home, where I just started setting roots for my family. I do not feel comfortable raising my children with mentally unstable individuals around the corner. I empathize with the patients and their families looking for support, but it would be inappropriate to jeopardize the safety of our neighborhood’s children for their benefit. Mental illness is most often a lifelong battle that frequently correlates with drug use and homelessness. Without question, the safety of the community would be threatened based on the nature of the facility. Looking at the Yelp of this charity, there are allegations of racism and stated actions such as kicking patients to the street. One business owner responded by stating all their patients must follow certain rules, confirming many patients are “kicked out” to the street. This street is my street and I do not want patients with depression, PTSD, Bipolar disorder, or Schizophrenia in my direct neighborhood. It is unsafe for my family, and the families of my surrounding neighborhood. There were also allegations of bedbugs made on Yelp, the business owner responded and stated “2017 was a notably difficult year for bedbugs in the entirety of Orange County”. I have lived in Orange County for many years and I have never had a bedbug problem or known of one in my neighborhood. NEW CORRESPONDENCE I strongly plead to the commission to not approve a 20 mentally-ill patient facility near my home. Thank you for your consideration. David Ponce From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: Proposed Transitional Housing Facility at 626 N West Street- CUP No.2021-06106 Date:Friday, August 27, 2021 4:01:38 PM Item 3 Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim net -----Original Message----- From: Cheryl Pebley <ckpebs@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 1:30 PM To: Natalie Meeks <natalieameeks@gmail.com>; Dave Vadodaria <dhiruhv@gmail.com>; Kimberly Keys <kimberly keys614@gmail.com>; Lucille Kring <Lucille.kring@kring.us>; Luis Andres Perez <Lbperez@usc.edu>; Steve White <awhitste@pacbell.net>; Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim net>; Harry Sidhu (Mayor) <HSidhu@anaheim.net>; Jose Diaz <JoDiaz@anaheim.net>; Jose Moreno <JMoreno@anaheim.net>; Avelino Valencia <AValencia@anaheim.net>; Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim net>; Trevor O'Neil <TONeil@anaheim net> Subject: Proposed Transitional Housing Facility at 626 N West Street- CUP No.2021-06106 Re:Proposed Transitional Housing Facility at 626 N. West Street > To: Anaheim Planning Commissioners, Anaheim Mayor and Councilmembers, and City Staff: > > My husband and I are Absolutely Opposed to the requested Conditional Use Permit for the property located at 626 N. West Street! We understand that local government may have limited ability to control some of the state run projects, and understand the need for these. However, a family neighborhood that has already been greatly impacted by rehab facilities, transitional housing etc., is not the answer. The very minimal outreach to our neighborhood lacked transparency, and the timeframe notification of this proposal was greatly inadequate due to the magnitude of this CUP. > On August 18th, the notice we saw for the first time posted on a telephone pole on West St, stated “Notice Of Planning Commission Public Hearing August 30, 2021 regarding approval of a conditional use permit for a transitional housing facility for 20 residents plus one house lead resident within a single family residence,” at the above stated address. We have since been informed, this proposed transitional living facility, is for 20 homeless women with severe mental illnesses, ranging from depression, PTSD, Bipolar and Schizophrenia! Why was this information not included in the cities only posted notice? > > Can you please tell us when & where the community meetings were held for this CUP? Is the city aware that there are three schools less than a half a mile from this address. We would expect the city and the parents to have definite concerns about children walking past this location. > > Why is our wonderful family neighborhood continuously a target for rehab facilities, transitional housing, long term care facilities, nursing homes, hospice homes, and now transitional living home for the homeless, mentally ill? NEW CORRESPONDENCE There is an over concentration of these types of facilities in our Westmont/Northwest Colony neighborhoods. Our area has been, and continues to be, oversaturated with so many of these “businesses” in our “Family“ neighborhoods! > > When were the Westmont/Northwest Colony neighborhoods zoned for businesses? Facilities such as these are a business! It’s all about making money! We have lived in our home for over 40 years, and are furious with the decline of our family neighborhoods!!! Who is watching out for our best interests as long time Anaheim property owner/residents and taxpayers?Please listen to our concerns, and what our beloved neighborhoods have become! When Does This Stop? > > We received information that Grandma’s House of Hope is currently running their projects out of several homes owned by this homeowner. His financial gain is at the residents expense! Our neighborhoods have become a magnet to these types of businesses due to our large homes and lots! Facilities of this nature, and number of participants (20), need to be in a better suited area not only for the residents sake, but for the participants. It may be difficult to place a dollar amount on the negative impact on homes in close proximity to such facilities. Because this information is required to be disclosed to any prospective home buyer, chances are they would prefer to avoid these areas. When a family moves into a family neighborhood, they do not expect to be moving next to a drug rehab/transitional or mental health facility. Who, at the city, is responsible for regular oversight of this facility? How many now operate in this area, or in the city of Anaheim? If you could share this information we would greatly appreciate it. Before too long, our beloved Westmont/Northwest Colony neighborhoods, built to be single family residences, may be known as REHAB ROW! Activity levels, parking, noise factor, and safety concerns are rightfully at the forefront of our neighbors minds. Twenty (20) severely mentally ill participants far exceeds the concept for zoning of “single family living.” In closing, this business and others of it’s size, need to look elsewhere for more suitable facilities, other than our family residences. The State of California makes it very lucrative to operate these facilities, so there should be many options to start these in locations outside of our residential areas. Are these care takers accredited, licensed professionals with psychiatric training, or volunteers? It’s not right to subject our residents to such unknown risks. > > We respectfully ask for your NO VOTE for this Conditional Use Permit. > > Thank you. > > Steve and Cheryl Pebley > > > 60+ Years Anaheim Residents > > > > > Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, COUNCILMEMBERS Dear Nick Taylor, City Planner: I am writing to express my vehement opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 2021 -06106 for the property located at 626 N. West Street. Approving such a large operation, a shelter for 20 “severely and persistently mentally-ill” people, in our single-family residential neighborhood is simply incompatible with our community, will affect property values negatively, and is inconsistent with the vision of the Anaheim Colony Historic District. During this time, we have seen our single-family neighborhood decline considerably because of the number of smaller group homes surrounding us. We have more than our fair share of these properties affecting us. Our immediate area includes group homes at: •630 N. West Street (right next door to THIS proposed facility) •Southeast corner of Sycamore and West •Corner of Westmont and Carlton While we understand some smaller group homes (under 6 people) cannot be easily regulated by the City, in this case, the City absolutely has the right to regulate such a business and should do so to protect the neighborhood and the people who live here. This is entirely consistent with the city’s attempt to pass an ordinance this past year to regulate the saturation of group homes in this exact area! This is the kind of facility that should be in a commercial or industrial area, much like where the City’s current homeless shelter was placed. Because a 20-person “severely and persistently mentally-ill” health facility simply doesn’t belong in single family neighborhoods. I respectfully ask for your NO VOTE for this Conditional Use Permit. Thank you. Kokrai (Ken) Ratanjee ,Anaheim Ca 92801 Tel. NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Kyle Steven Bonenberger To:Tania White; Nicholas J. Taylor Cc:Lisa Bonenberger Subject:Conditional use permit no. 2021-06106 Date:Sunday, August 29, 2021 6:13:22 PM Hi Ted and Nick, This is Kyle Bonenberger, Lead Pastor of City Church and also a resident whose personal home is within 500 feet of the proposed project at 626 North West St. and 945 West Pioneer Drive. Also CC'd is my wife Lisa Bonenberger. I am a big proponent of Grandma's House of Hope and I support their work but I am HIGHLY OPPOSED to putting a homeless shelter with severely mentally ill individuals in this neighborhood (especially of this size/scope). A project like this needs to be in an industrial area. My wife Lisa and I have two very young children and many of the nearby homes are also full of young families. Infusing this level of risk and uncertainty into our neighborhood will not foster a safe environment for our children to play. Every neighbor I have spoken with is highly concerned about what this could do for our safety as well as the value of our homes in years to come. Additionally, this location is extremely close to both Anaheim High School and Westmont elementary school. Families and children walk right past that corner on their way to and from school. It only takes a single bad situation to negatively influence a child's life. I applaud your commission's efforts to address homelessness concerns in our community. Anaheim is a clear leader in this regard and I am proud of that as a resident. Having said that, this is not the right location for this project. Please call me if you would like to discuss this. Pastor Kyle Bonenberger NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Aprovemjb91 To:Nicholas J. Taylor Subject:Opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 626 N. West Street Date:Sunday, August 29, 2021 8:15:31 AM Dear Mr. Taylor, I am writing to express my vehement opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 for the property located at 626 N. West Street. My neighborhood has seen an increase in traffic and crime over the past several years. Since the speed humps were placed on Sycamore between Harbor Boulevard and West Street, the circle on Sycamore at Pearson Park and the cut off of through traffic at Anaheim Boulevard, Wilhelmina to Pioneer has become the thoroughfare to West Street increasing the traffic and crime. Approving such a large operation, a shelter for 20 "severely and persistently mentally-ill" people, in our single-family neighborhood is simply incompatible with our community. This facility will further negatively affect our neighbor hood and is inconsistent with the vision of the Anaheim Colony Historic District. Our family has lived on Pioneer Drive for over 38 years. All my children were raised here and now grandchildren are enjoying the use of my home. Over the years we have seen our single-family neighborhood decline considerably because of the number of smaller group homes surrounding us. We have more than our fair share of these properties affecting us. Our immediate area includes group homes and rehab facilities at: *630 N. West Street (right next door to THIS proposed facility) *1024 N. Sycamore Street - this facility is located adjacent to the High School which at any given time of the day there are people smoking marijuana *606 N. Carleton Avenue - this is a smaller care facility which creates a large number of cars (over 8) parking on and off the street We understand some of the smaller group home (under 6 people) cannot be easily regulated by the City, in this case, the City absolutely has the right to regulate such a business and should do so to protect the neighborhood and the people that live here. This is entirely consistent with the City's attempt to pass an ordinance this past year to regulate the saturation of group home in this exact area. The passing of the Conditional Use Permit will have a great affect on my quality of life and on the neighborhood. This is the kind of facility that should be om a commercial or industrial area, much like where the City's current homeless shelter was placed. A 20 person "severely and persistently mentally-ill" health facility doesn't belong in a single-family neighborhood. I ask you the question, would you want this facility in the neighborhood that you live in? I respectfully ask for you to VOTE NO for this Conditional Use Permit. Thank you, Maryjane Brooks Anaheim, CA 92805 NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Cathy Fenn To:Stephen Faessel Cc:Harry Sidhu (Mayor) Subject:Permit No. 2021-06106 - Property at 626 N. West St. Date:Sunday, August 29, 2021 4:23:53 PM We are very much in opposition to the conditional use permit for the property at 626 N. West St. Approving such a large operation for 20 severely and persistently mentally ill people in our singe family residential neighborhood is incompatible with our community and will effect property values and is inconsistent with the vision of the Anaheim colony historic district We have lived in the area for 54 years and in our current home at 708 N. West St. for 25 years. We have a residential care home next door and are subject to traffic and ambulance calls from that. As I am sure you know there is already a group home next door to this proposed home at 630 N. West St and one at Westmont and Carlton. There are many young people walking down West St every morning and afternoon on their way to Anaheim High School. I don’t think they need to be exposed to this type of facility. I know that these facilities are need and the common phrase is “not in my neighborhood” but I believe that this sort of facility should be removed from family and residential areas and in commercial or industrial areas where the city has placed a homeless shelter. A 20 person “severely and persistently mentally-ill health facility DOES NOT belong in single family neighborhoods. I sincerely hope and ask that you VOTE NO FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT! Thank you Cathy and James Fenn NEW CORRESPONDENCE NEW CORRESPONDENCE NEW CORRESPONDENCE My name is Jane Gibbons and I am writing this to voice my opposition to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit that would allow for a 21 person residential transitional living facility to operate out of a cornerstone house of the Anaheim Colony Historic District. I recently purchased a home located at 723 N Westwood Pl which is very near the proposed location for the transitional living facility intended to house 20 severely and persistently mentally ill females, as well as one additional person who is intended to be the responsible party during “non-business” hours but who is, in reality, another program participant of Grandma’s House of Hope who has been selected by staff to take on this role. I moved into my new home on July 14th believing that the substantial investment made was a wise decision. I did not have Anaheim on my radar as a place to live when I was looking for a home. I had no idea that Anaheim had such wonderful historic neighborhoods and I was intrigued by the big house at 626 N West which is an example of a Hacienda Ranchero built in 1948, and that should be looked at for its historical value to the city of Anaheim instead of its current focus as the proposed location of Grandma’s House of Hope. This house set the stage for my introduction to the neighborhood where I would find my home. I went to tour my now home as a one-off, and I couldn’t tell you why I decided to do it, but I ended up falling in love with the neighborhood just as much as the house. This area of the city, the area where it is proposed to allow Grandma’s House of Hope to operate a residential facility for 20+ severely and mentally ill people, is a recognized gem. Let me be clear when I say that even though I love my home and the neighborhood, I would not have bought the home if I had been aware that the city intended to approve a CUP allowing a transitional living facility that would house mentally ill people in my neighborhood. I am only one person, however I doubt I am alone in believing that my quality of life could be negatively impacted by the presence of this large treatment facility a stone’s throw from my home (based on the operator’s own description this is clearly a treatment facility in spite of its designation as a transitional living residence). As a registered nurse who has previously worked with this population of people, I can say, from professional experience, that what should always be expected is that there is a great deal of unpredictability as to behaviors and compliance with people who have severe mental illness that is described as persistent. OC's original cities of Anaheim, Santa Ana, Fullerton, and Orange are cities that are rich in history and have large inventories of vintage homes. Prominent neighborhoods include Floral Park and French Park (Santa Ana), the homes around Fullerton's beautiful Brookdale street, Old Town Tustin, Old Towne Orange, and the four historic neighborhoods in Anaheim which includes the Anaheim Colony Historic District. Cities that house historic districts are usually very aware of how important they are and rarely grant requests for conditional use permits of this type within those boundaries because they have the ability to deny that which has the potential to change what the city is trying to preserve. NEW CORRESPONDENCE The City of Anaheim has a General Plan which sets the guiding principles by which decisions should be made. In the section of that plan called Land Use Element the purpose of the designated residential districts is explained in the following way: Residential Designations Anaheim offers a wide range of housing densities and products to meet the demand of current and future residents with varying lifestyles. In addition to the characteristics described below, it should be noted that other uses may also be allowed in residential areas such as schools, parks, child care facilities, and other public/institutional uses that are determined to be compatible with and oriented towards the needs of the immediate neighborhood. It is clear from the general plan that there will be purpose/use mix in our neighborhoods that will include schools, parks, child care facilities, and more. There will be population controlled senior living houses, hospice care homes, and other uses which we, by law, have no right to deny. The city does however have the right to deny a CUP that requests to do more than what is approved by existing law when that request is not aligned with the general plan or seeks to impose on a designated historic district. The staff report focuses on the ways it believes there is no negative impact to the neighborhood and the residents when it states “The Proposed Project complies with all of the provisions of the "RS-1" Single Family Residential zone and, under the conditions imposed, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is located because the facility provides supportive living accommodations to a maximum of 21 individuals, in a similar manner as other residential facilities allowed in residential neighborhoods by State law, and that the on-site support services provided are low-impact in nature and limited to the participants residing in the facility.” I have two comments related to this statement. Firstly, this rationale for approval employs faulty logic that exists because of a lack of understanding of the nature of this type of resident and the extensive support services that must be provided. This statement attempts to equate residential facilities allowed by state law which is a much smaller number of people, and this proposed very large operation that houses 21 severely and persistently mentally ill people and the large number of staff that are planned to provide for them. Grandma’s House of Hope describes the number of staff this way: One program manager, 1 full time case manager, one full time housing navigator, up to 4 full time service coordinators, 1-2 intake specialists, one nighttime supervisor, and therapists who will come to provide individual and group counseling. This is a large operation and there is absolutely a difference between a program of support for 5-6 people who live in one house, and the number of support service staff and programs to work with 20 severely and persistently mentally ill people. It is not a case of potato/po-TAH-to. The state recognizes this and allows discretion to the city by use of the conditional use permit…you are allowed to deny a program of this size in a residential neighborhood. Secondly, the General Plan calls out for a different paradigm of evaluation. While the staff report states “The Proposed Project complies with all of the provisions of the "RS-1" Single Family Residential zone and, under the conditions imposed, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses”, The City’s own General Plan states a different way to evaluate this issue. Instead of trying to determine a negative impact to the neighborhood it guides to the other direction when it says “and other public/institutional uses that are determined to be compatible with and oriented towards the needs of the immediate neighborhood.” Although a program of this nature meets the needs of this population and helps to house otherwise homeless people who may live on the streets of Anaheim, approving this CUP does not align with the city’s own stated goals and objectives as it pertains to the residential designations in The General Plan, as this massive operation that involves many staff members as well as 21 residents is not oriented towards the needs of the immediate neighborhood. I understand why Grandma’s House of Hope wants to utilize the house at 626 N West St.; Although the larger house will still result in overcrowding as a residential facility, the house size allows the company to move an existing operation from a smaller facility where the overcrowding is likely more acute. What I don’t understand is why the City of Anaheim wants to allow an operation of this magnitude to take over a large corner property of a historic district when it has the power to say no. Denying the CUP will allow Grandma’s House of Hope to identify another location where it can move its existing program. I respectfully ask for your NO vote for this Conditional Use Permit #2021-06106 (DEV2021-00122). Thank you, Jane Gibbons Pl Anaheim, CA 92805 NEW CORRESPONDENCE as a single-family area especially OUR neighborhood is a slap in the face to owners that have invested in the area and the wholesome family-like make-up of The Colony. I don’t feel the neighbors were given total transparency to the type of proposal that was put on the table when there were only TWO notices posted on a street light pole. I could go on for page after page after page about how this Grandma House of Hope could benefit the potential patients, but the truth of the matter is in NO way at all is it beneficial for the residents that have already invested their time, families, and monies to live in an area with the small old town feel. Allowing a 20 + person mental facility in the area will dramatically change the neighborhood and ruin that old town aura The Colony is known for. Please reconsider. Thank you for your time and understanding when it comes to addressing this matter. Sincerely, John Hardy II From:Joanne Kellogg To:Nicholas J. Taylor Subject:Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 Date:Sunday, August 29, 2021 6:19:55 PM Dear Mr. Taylor, In the posted agenda for the August 30 meeting, it says that your staff will be recommending that the planning commission pass permit number 2021-06106. I am extremely opposed to the proposal for the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021- 06106, and how such a project will affect our Anaheim neighborhood, and the health and safety of those who live in our area. A letter from the City was sent to me postmarked August 16 telling about the proposed conditional use permit, however I did not receive it until August 25. I feel our neighborhood has been blindsided by this proposal of allowing homeless individuals to occupy a single family home in the middle of a residential area, without an appropriate amount of time necessary for the neighbors to respond to such an important issue for our neighborhood. My family moved into our home at 530 N. West St. in 1946, and I have seen the area grow and develop over all those years. It has turned into a wonderful family residential area, which, I feel, is one of the nicest in Anaheim. I know there is a huge problem with the homeless with various illnesses and they need help and places to go. However, Grandma's House of Hope does not fit into our safe neighborhood. We are zoned for family residences, not for shelters. We already have smaller group homes scattered in our area. This is an historical area of our City, and people are always looking to move into our neighborhood. Our property values will be adversely affected if we had shelters like this in our area. Maybe more importantly, you need to realize that North West Street, and other streets surrounded by the proposed location for the homeless house, are streets used daily by hundreds of high school and elementary students who walk to and from school. The interactions and intimidations with contact of homeless persons is not in the best interest of our young people walking to and from school each day. Furthermore, it is undeniable that homeless persons litter the ground with needles, syringes, and other drug paraphernalia. This exposure to students presents an extremely high risk health situation, and will consequently, adversely affect land uses in our neighborhood! I have just come home from the hospital after having surgery. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, August 30. I want my voice to be heard in OPPOSITION to allowing Grandma's House of Hope to move into the Colony Historic District, and to the approval of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. NEW CORRESPONDENCE 2021-06106. Thank you for reading my concerns. If you wish to speak to me I can be reached a Sincerely, Joanne Kellogg August 27, 2021 Sent Via Email: NJTaylor@Anaheim.net Mr. Nick Taylor Planning Department Anaheim City Hall 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Re: Grandma’s House of Hope 626 N. West St., Anaheim, CA District 3 Dear Mr. Taylor: I live in District 3 in the Anaheim Colony and live in a Mills Act home that I take pride in. My concern is for the possibility of the above referenced organization filing for permission to place a psychiatric care home in our residential neighborhood. This is not a suitable area for this effort as there are families, children and schools nearby this residential location. Understandably the recipients of this organization need to have treatment but having a treatment facility occupy a home in our single-family neighborhood is not consistent with what has already been established in this Anaheim Colony residential zone. I grew up in Anaheim and it was nice family area back in the 1970s and 1980s. The thought of homeless and psychiatric care centers in our residential neighborhoods is not the right solution. Please stop this from happening at 626 N. West Street and redirect this organization to a more suitable and appropriate location. Sincerely, Suzan Kolach Suzan Kolach NEW CORRESPONDENCE NEW CORRESPONDENCE NEW CORRESPONDENCE NEW CORRESPONDENCE NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Marie Daly To:Nicholas J. Taylor Subject:Petition in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 Date:Monday, August 30, 2021 8:11:15 AM Attachments:830 2021 Scan 1 of petition.pdf 8 30 2021 Scan 2 of petition.pdf 8 30 2021 Scan 3 of petition.pdf Dear Nick Taylor, Please find a total of 252 signatures in the 3 attachments OPPOSING this project from our neighborhood. Please let me know if the originals need to be turned into city hall by 1:30 today or if presenting them at the meeting will suffice. If I get anymore signatures before the 1:30 deadline I will submit to you with the new total. Sincerely, Marie Daly NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Gabriel Medrano To:Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Stephen Faessel; Trevor O"Neil Subject:Opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 for the property located at 626 N. West Street. Date:Saturday, August 28, 2021 9:12:41 PM Dear City of Anaheim / Planning Commission, I am writing to express my vehement opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 for the property located at 626 N. West Street. Approving such a large operation, ashelter for 20 “severely and persistently mentally-ill” people, in our single-family residentialneighborhood is simply incompatible with our community, will affect property valuesnegatively, and is inconsistent with the vision of the Anaheim Colony Historic District. Our family has lived in this neighborhood for 5+ years. During that time, we have seen oursingle-family neighborhood decline considerably because of the number of smaller grouphomes surrounding us. We have more than our fair share of these properties affecting us. Our immediate area includes group homes at: •630 N. West Street (right next door to THIS proposed facility)• Southeast corner of Sycamore and West• Corner of Westmont and Carlton While we understand some smaller group homes (under 6 people) cannot be easilyregulated by the City, in this case, the City absolutely has the right to regulate such abusiness and should do so to protect the neighborhood and the people who live here. Thisis entirely consistent with the city’s attempt to pass an ordinance this past year to regulatethe saturation of group homes in this exact area! This is the kind of facility that should be in a commercial or industrial area, much like wherethe City’s current homeless shelter was placed. Because a 20-person “severely andpersistently mentally-ill” health facility simply doesn’t belong in single family neighborhoods. I respectfully ask for your NO VOTE for this Conditional Use Permit. Thank you. GABRIEL MEDRANO Sent from my iPad NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Mike Nichols To:Natalie Meeks; Dave Vadodaria; Kimberly Keys; Lucille Kring; Luis Andres Perez; Steve White; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Stephen Faessel; Trevor O"Neil; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject:Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 Date:Monday, August 30, 2021 8:03:31 AM Members of the Anaheim City Planning Commission and City Council, My name is Mike Nichols, and my wife Shelly and I are 30 year residents on W. Pioneer Dr. I am writing regarding the Conditional Use Permit # 2021-06106 for the property located at 626 N. West St. While I applaud the city’s approval, and attempt to find housing for people who are transitioning from the street back to a stable lifestyle, I do not approve of placing such a large facility in the middle of a well established neighborhood within the historic district known as The Colony. In most neighborhoods, ours included, communication is what makes it a neighborhood. During good times and bad we are able to talk to our neighbors and establish a rapport. This has not happened with this property, not with the current owners, nor with Grandma’s House of Hope. They did not reach out to most of the neighborhood when they held their informational meeting in July. We found out about it when the city notice for this CUP came into our mailbox. If there had been a true interest in communicating with the neighborhood, perhaps the company could have alleviated a lot of the fear that is now circulating among the neighbors regarding the operation of the facility and its residents. Instead we are left to speculate on who the company is, which through an internet search they seem to do good work, and how “severely and persistently mentally ill” people are when medicated or when they go off their meds. Again, we are left to speculate, and we cannot help but to imagine the worst. The other troubling aspect is that you are willing to permit a business to plop down in the middle of this residential neighborhood. This business does not hold the same interest as the neighbors do. Nor does this business have experience in managing a facility that is 3 times the size of the other facilities they manage. Why let them experiment in a residential neighborhood with a high school and an elementary school within a short walk? Again, if the neighborhood had an opportunity to ask questions, many of these queries might have been answered. Anaheim has chosen the surrounding area as a place to showcase it’s historical roots, I do not believe allowing this type of facility to be placed in this area is congruent with this vision. I also do not believe this area is ideal for this type of facility, with the number of people being housed. The limited staff overseeing the residents and the type of residents being housed are better suited to an area without so many families nearby. We are emphatically opposed to this arrangement and we urge the city to deny the conditional use permit. Thank you. Mike & Shelly Nichols -- NEW CORRESPONDENCE Mike From:Shelly Nichols To:Nicholas J. Taylor Subject:Vote NO on Grandma’s House of Hope Date:Friday, August 27, 2021 6:01:38 PM Mr. Taylor, We are 30 years residents of 928 W. Pioneer Dr and oppose the 20 resident housing at the corner of our quiet, pride of ownership street. Please hear us! Vote NO! Thank you, Shelly Nichols Shelly Nichols NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Valencia Nunez To:Nicholas J. Taylor Cc:Frank Nunez; Josie Nunez ; Kay Friel Subject:Permit No 2021-06106 Grandma"s House of Hope Date:Saturday, August 28, 2021 1:50:14 PM Attachments:shelter plan for house across the street.pdf Hello Nick Taylor, I am writing this letter on behalf of my family. We are opposed to havinga homeless shelter across the street from my home. The projectdescription letter that was mailed out over a month ago stated there canbe housing for 20 vulnerable woman age 50 or older. These women canhave severe mental health disabilities, including memory loss. The"HOME", not a facility as mentioned in the letter. A facility would be astructure in a commercial area. The home would provide a safe and stableenvironment to support women with severe persistent mental illness(SPMI) in recovery from past trauma and experiencing homelessness. Thetypical stay for these women is 12 to 18 months. The absolute worst partis having only "ONE" onsite volunteer manager for 20 women. There isno possible way one person can handle 20 mentally challenged women. In the surrounding homes there is a house with elderly hospice folks rightnext door to the projected home. On West and Sycamore there is a homethat shelters men, not exactly sure if this is a half way house. Around thecorner on Westmont and Carleton there is a home that sheltersintellectually disabled adult males. All of these are homes have no morethan 10 participants. Having 20 is excessive for a home. Per public records the home is 4951 square feet, 6 bedroom, 7 bath with aswimming pool and 2 stories. I am sure the onsite manager will occupy 1bedroom which leaves 4 women to each of the 5 remaining bedrooms. This does not seem sufficient having 4 adults to 1 bedroom. We know thatit is hard to have 4 small children in 1 bedroom. The home is also 2 storywhich is not ideal for a person with funtional impairments as mention inthe project letter. My home is not as large as mine, 3746 square feet 4bedroom and 4 bath only 1/4 less in square feet and having 7 adults whichis 1/3 of the adults is barely managable. A shelter for 20 should not be set up in a single family home maybemultifamily units but not a home. The home is secure but should not be alocked down encampment for elderly women. Our neighborhood isgenerally quiet except for the ambulance and police that use West streetas a easy passage avoiding Harbor Blvd to and from the hospital. Who isto say the sirens that we hear almost daily will not set a mentallychallanged person off. This project should be set up in a commercial 5+unit structure not a single family home. I would hate to seen any issues inthe neighborhood. NEW CORRESPONDENCE I attached a scan of the letter that I was referring to. My neighbors onboth sides of me said they did not receive the letter and live directlyacross the street which was odd. It could have been mistaken for junkmail. I hope my email is presented to the Planning Department and Iappreciate your time. I sure hope the permit is denied for the sake of allmy neightbors not my family. Valencia Nunez Cell A good life is when you smile often, dream big, laugh a lot and realize how blessed you are for what youhave.” - Unknown NEW CORRESPONDENCE NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Juvenal Pineda To:Nicholas J. Taylor Subject:Permit No 2021-06106 Grandma"s House of Hope Date:Sunday, August 29, 2021 7:02:57 PM Hello Nick Taylor, I am writing this email on behalf of my family. We are opposed to having a homeless shelter at the property 626 N West St, Anaheim CA 92801 which is across from our house. The proposed homeless facility would put my kids in danger since they play outside on my front yard and this facility that you guys want to open would have mentally disturb people that can get out and hurt one of them. I will make you guys accountable if anything like this happens. Kids that attend Anaheim High School also walk in front of this property where you guys want to open this homeless shelter. That would put these kids in danger. I hope you guys are taking the liability of such facility in consideration because kids’ lives are at stake here. I hope you guys make the right decision to NOT allow this facility to open in our neighborhood. NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Caitlin Pineda To:Nicholas J. Taylor Subject:Grandmas house of hope and other transitional homes Date:Sunday, August 29, 2021 6:52:48 PM I am writing in regards to the home to be called “Grandmas house of hope”. I live at 613 n west street directly across from the home. We have lived in this home since 2012 and in Anaheim since 2004. Given the information provided to us about the purpose and proposed residents of this home I do not feel the current location is appropriate for it. First given the proposed number of residents to be in the home, the house is not large enough. 20 women split between 5 bedrooms is not enough space for women who are recovering from trauma and addiction. Recovery is always a rough road and being kept in close quarters will not help this process. Second, this street is really quite busy. While it is not a Main Street, it is very often use as a pass through for pedestrians and cars. As well as students. Anaheim High School is only a block away and the majority of its students walk to school, Most down west street. As I mentioned before, recovery is a rough road which can included setbacks, and the last thing these students need is to experience one of these setbacks on their way to school. They are on their way to school and don’t need to interrupt their learning. Also, we have many homeless that walk this street too. I don’t see the benefit of having women who are trying to rehabilitate from substances or mental Heath issues be exposed so frequently to temptation. Third, this area currently has its fair share of this type of home. There are multiple other homes in the immediate area similar to this one. Why so many in such a small area? And now a new proposal on top of this one for another similar home! Anaheim is a very large city, 2nd largest in Orange county. I am positive there is another, more appropriate, facility available for this program. I urge you to reconsider the placement of this type of home at the current proposed location. I do not see enough benefit compared to the apparent risks. Sent from my iPhone NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:dhiru vadodaria To:Laverne Ortiz; Niki J. Wetzel; Nicholas J. Taylor Cc:Ted White Subject:Fwd: Proposed project vote Monday Aug 30 Date:Sunday, August 29, 2021 9:35:18 PM ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: David Ponce > Date: Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 10:44 AM Subject: Proposed project vote Monday Aug 30 To: Dear Dave, I am writing regarding the proposed planning commission project located at 626 North West Street which is under consideration Monday August 30th. I am a new homeowner in The Colony neighborhood. I decided to own and live in thisneighborhood because of the beautiful and historic nature of this pocket in Anaheim. Thehome was attractive to me because of the neighborhood’s charm, historical significance, andsafety. I have lived here less than a year, but the warmth of the neighbors has made my wifeand I feel like old friends. My wife and I welcomed our first child into the world less than twoweeks ago. Parenthood has been amazing, and I look forward to having more children, andraising our family in the tranquility this neighborhood offers. However, when I bought myhome and set forth plans to start a family, there was no rehabilitation center for the mentallyill around the corner. I strongly oppose this conditional use permit, as it threatens the safetyand serenity of this community-the very core of what makes this neighborhood attractive. Iwould like the planning commission to honor the single-family zoning in this neighborhoodand help preserve the historical nature of this area as has the Mills Act. I understand there is much suffering in this world and people need help. I just ask that help be provided in a more appropriate location than around the corner to my home, where I just started setting roots for my family. I do not feel comfortable raising my children with mentally unstable individuals around the corner. I empathize with the patients and their families looking for support, but it would be inappropriate to jeopardize the safety of our neighborhood’s children for their benefit. Mental illness is most often a lifelong battle that frequently correlates with drug use and homelessness. Without question, the safety of the community would be threatened based on the nature of the facility. Looking at the Yelp of this charity, there are allegations of racism and stated actions such as kicking patients to the street. One business owner responded by stating all their patients must follow certain rules, confirming many patients are “kicked out” to the street. This street is my street and I do not want patients with depression, PTSD, Bipolar disorder, or Schizophrenia in my direct neighborhood. It is unsafe for my family, and the families of my surrounding neighborhood. There were also allegations of bedbugs made on Yelp, the business owner responded and stated “2017 was a notably difficult year for bedbugs in the entirety of Orange County”. I have lived in Orange County for many years and I have never had a bedbug problem or known of one in my neighborhood. I strongly plead to the commission to not approve a 20 mentally-ill patient facility near my NEW CORRESPONDENCE home. Thank you for your consideration. David Ponce NEW CORRESPONDENCE NEW CORRESPONDENCE and old town Orange. I’m not ready to give up on this city yet. Just ask yourself this question. Would you be happy to live and raise your young children next- door to a facility like the proposed on West street? Thank you, Linda Ramos NEW CORRESPONDENCE NEW CORRESPONDENCE Hello, My name is Tara Grant and I live at 723 N Westwood Pl in the historic district of Anaheim off of West St. I recently moved - as in two weeks ago - from the condo I lived in by Peters Canyon in Orange. My mother had recently moved into this new home on Westwood in Anaheim, and I had decided to move in with her with my safety in mind. I lived in a relatively remote area that had been having theft issues and worrisome levels of escalated arguments between neighbors. To move to a historic neighborhood, of which there are only a handful in the County, would provide an area with well kept homes, friendly neighbors, and single family homeowners - many who have lived in the area for many years and established a strong connection to the community and its preservation. Yesterday, August 26th, I was made aware that a large and beautiful Spanish style residence that sits on the corner of West St. and Pioneer, and establishes itself as the gateway residence to our neighborhood off of this central street, was in the process of being changed from a historic and beautiful single family home into a massive transitional housing building. 21 residents is, indeed, MASSIVE for a historic and quiet neighborhood with long time home owners and families. 21 residents is indeed MASSIVE for a historic and quiet neighborhood that already has three established group homes directly next door to this proposed one, and across the street around 100 yards away and also off of West St. While there are many reports of transitional or group housing for domestic abuse victims, hospice care, and homeless having little impact on home values of neighborhoods, our specific situation and the specific situation of this Anaheim Historic neighborhood is *quite* different than these reports, and I will address them in increasing severity. These reports usually do not pertain to rare and historic neighborhoods, specifically, and the impact on home values and community preservation can not accurately be determined because of this. Moreover, the concerns on the impact of the neighborhood go far beyond impact to home value and home value is actually the least of my concerns. These reports also do not usually account for neighborhoods that ALREADY have a high volume of existing group homes, and definitely not that I have seen, such a high volume in an extremely concentrated area (again - three in around 100 yards or less of each other and directly next door the proposed property). The third and most concerning issue that differentiates this situation with Grandma’s House of Hope and our Anaheim historic colony, is that this transitional housing proposal is specifically reserved for SEVERELY AND PERSISTENTLY MENTALLY ILL female residents. While it is not right to say these residents would be dangerous, it would be equally negligent to disregard the high NEW CORRESPONDENCE probability that they very well might be, at the worst, and at the least, highly unpredictable and resistant to long term stability, as the term “persistently” clearly implies. Placing 20 of these “severely and persistently” mentally ill or mentally compromised residents into a quiet neighborhood of families and community which attracted residents specifically on the level of safety and predictability it could provide, is injudicious toward the existing residents of and to the preservation of this rare historic neighborhood in our city. I believe any neighborhood resident expressing concern of the unpredictability of 20 “severely” mentally ill residents, should be regarded and treated as having completely valid concerns with no assumption of prejudice or bias toward the residents themselves, but simply concerned with the medical terminology used to categorize and factually and accurately describe the level of severity of existing illness of these residents and what that could pose, even as a possibility. The fact that these residents are female is of little to no difference, and it would be unwise and lacking awareness toward these issues to assume female identifying residents would in any way equal a less harmful, less violent, or a more predictable and stable presence...it would NOT indicate this. Furthermore, Grandma’s House of Hope, has in the past, established female or male only transitional homes only to change this specific aspect of the housing at a later date. While it is obvious why Grandma’s House of Hope would find this home an attractive option for its operations - and it would surely allow them a lot of visibility for their operation in such a neighborhood on such a huge lot on the very corner entrance into a beloved community - there is little thought or care to the impact or feelings of the residents who have made a home here, or have chosen this community specifically for the safety and stability and beauty it provides, and have contributed to that stability and beauty for years, and helped to maintain it. Moving a 21 person transitional facility into this highly visible gateway home of the community, would highly impact the community here. 21 people in a single family residence - regardless of the size of the lot of house itself - is overcrowding the neighborhood, and absolutely overcrowding the home and lot itself. It can be assumed the plans include double or tripling up on room occupancy. In light of this, it also needs to be pointed out that the 21st person that would be occupying this single family home would not be a nurse, medical supervisor, or a thoroughly vetted and experienced caretaker of mentally ill or compromised individuals...but an existing resident from another of their facilities that they have deemed competent and trust worthy enough to contain and monitor these “severely and persistently” mentally ill residents but would also be in charge of enforcing Grandma’s House of Hope’s resident policies. I have very serious doubts and extreme concerns about the way this transitional residence will be run, especially in light of the classification of the residents and essential supervisors, and the extreme overcrowding of a proposed 21 person occupancy in a quiet historic neighborhood, which already contains three group living facilities in extremely close proximity. The classification of the residents by the terminology used, would be unpredictable and have long term and chronic periods of instability. Worse, even as a possibility, of being dangerous or violent in nature. These are not assumptions but are valid concerns about situations that can be ascribed to the terminology and classification presented by Grandma’s House of Hope. These residents in this facility would also be monitored by...another resident of Grandma’s House of Hope. The reason I am able to write this letter, is because the proposed facility goes above what the state has allowed or dictated for such facilities as residential units. The ability for the city to look at the circumstances and context of the intended use of this home, like Grandma’s House of Hope has, is there specifically to assess these mitigating factors that I and other residents have strongly voiced. The city of Anaheim has been granted the ability to listen to these factors, these circumstances, and the context of the situation, and say NO. I am asking you, as a resident of this neighborhood and of this city, to say NO. I wish Grandma’s House of Hope the best - truly - in finding the right facility for this specific operation of theirs. And I do believe the right facility for a transitional housing operation for struggling mentally ill residents absolutely exists for them. But for the many reasons I have spent the time to list, which are of the utmost importance and concern to me and which I believed is shared by the majority of my community, I am asking the city to use their ability in this situation to say NO. I am asking for my city’s help. Thank you so much for listening, and for your time. Tara Grant 92805 From:Debbie Trabattoni To: Nicholas J. Taylor Subject:Agenda Item #3 - CUP 2021-06106 - Please DENY Date:Sunday, August 29, 2021 3:16:18 PM Dear Anaheim Planning Commissioners: We express opposition to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 for the property located at 626 N. West Street (at Pioneer Drive). While we have several concerns, many expressed already by our neighbors, there are two core issues that must be highlighted. 1.Insufficient Notice by the Applicant According to the staff report, the Applicant operates 10 other transitional housing facilities in the City, six of which have CUPs. They are a non-profit business with much experience in the process required to gain approvals for their business. And we understand they have been in discussion with the City for at least “some months.” Despite this, the Applicant’s ONLY community outreach was a ZOOM meeting held on July 7th, which was insufficiently noticed, especially among those most impacted i.e. adjacent neighbors. The staff report discusses a “community outreach meeting” on July 7th and discusses “attendees” as if it was a real opportunity for discussion. It was not. The staff report states there were eight attendees, with no opposition expressed. Who were these eight attendees? We cannot find them anywhere in our neighborhood. Such a meeting automatically precludes many people who are elderly, who don’t know what ZOOM is, or those who do not have access to such a platform. At the very least, this is completely unprofessional, inadequate, and certainly unneighborly. At worst, it looks like a cram-down before people can do anything about it. In any case, this is simply wrong to do to a neighborhood, especially to those potentially most impacted by such a large shelter operation. 2.Proliferation of Community Care Facilities in our Neighborhood We all know that group homes (of all types) are an issue in our City, especially in particular neighborhoods. There has been much public discussion about how to regulate such facilities. Central Anaheim is facing a growing burden of the proliferation of these homes. This very project is right next door to another group home for hospice care. The adjacent neighbors would now be impacted by two group homes. That is an unfair burden. Since City leaders have publicly discussed their concerns with regulating the smaller (six and under) group homes, it is wholly inconsistent to then allow such a large-scale business to come into an historic, single-family neighborhood. The City has the full ability to turn down this business operation. We respectfully request that you deny this proposed CUP. Thank you. NEW CORRESPONDENCE Tom Daly and Debra Trabattoni Daly From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: Opposed to the Proposal for the Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 Date:Monday, August 30, 2021 11:35:58 AM Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim.net From: Adriana Arellano < Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 10:52 AM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net> Subject: Opposed to the Proposal for the Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 Good morning Nick Taylor, I am extremely opposed to the proposal for the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06106, for the property located at 626 N West St. and how such a project will affect our Anaheim neighborhood, and the health and safety of those who live in our area. I am in disbelief that our city is considering to approve such a large operation, a shelter for 20 "severely and persistently mentally-ill" people, in our single family residential neighborhood is simply incompatible with our community. As the owner of the property across the street I can tell you this will affect our family because as a parent I can assure you that I will not be comfortable to let my children come and play outside in the front yard knowing that there is a shelter of 20 people in front of my home. It will bring much uncomfortableness and an unsafe feeling to my family and I. This will affect property values negatively and is inconsistent with the vision of the Anaheim Colony Historic District. When we bought our home in Anaheim, we thought it would be a wonderful family residential area and we felt it was one of the nicest in Anaheim. We did it with the vision that this was a safe community to raise our children in. Now with all these "shelter homes", "recovery homes", "group homes" in our radius it is sad to say that Anaheim officials are instilling the thought in a lot of our community residents to move out to a different city in search for better and safer communities to raise our children in. We have seen our single-family neighborhood decline considerably because of the number of smaller group homes surrounding us. We have more than our fair share of these properties affecting us. In our immediate area we have group homes at: 630 N West St (right next door to the proposed facility) NEW CORRESPONDENCE Southeast Corner of Sycamore and West (feet away from Anaheim HS) corner of Westmont and Carlton 521 West St I feel our neighborhood has been blindsided by this proposal of allowing homeless individuals to occupy a single family home in the middle of a residential area without an appropriate amount of time necessary for the neighbors to respond to such an important issue for our neighborhood. I know there is a huge problem with the homeless with various illnesses and they need help and places to go. However, Grandma's House of Hope does not fit into our safe neighborhood. We are zoned for family residences, not for shelters. We already have smaller group homes scattered in our area. This is an historical area of our city, and people are always looking to move into our neighborhood. Our property values will be adversely affected if we had shelters like this in our area. This is the kind of facility that should be in a commercial area. Much like where the city's homeless shelter was placed. A 20-person facility does not belong in a single family neighborhood. Maybe more importantly, you need to realize that North West Street, and other streets surrounded by the proposed location for the homeless house, are streets used daily by hundreds of high school and elementary students who walk to and from school. The interactions and intimidations with contact of homeless persons is not in the best interest of our young people walking to and from school each day. Furthermore, it is undeniable that homeless persons litter the ground with needles, syringes, and other drug paraphernalia. This exposure to students presents an extremely high risk health situation, and will consequently, adversely affect land uses in our neighborhood! Please, don't allow this. Protect the neighborhood and the people who live here. Think of our children. I respectfully ask for your NO VOTE for this Conditional Use Permit. I want my voice to be heard in OPPOSITION of allowing Grandma's House of Hope to move into the Colony Historic District, and to the approval of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06106. Thank you for reading my concerns. Sincerely, Adriana & Susano Ureno From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: Homeless Shelter Date:Monday, August 30, 2021 12:52:55 PM Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim.net From: Al Rod <> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 11:50 AM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net>; Tania White <twhite@anaheim.net> Subject: Homeless Shelter Good Morning My name is Alfonso Rodríguez, teacher at Anaheim HS and resident at Anaheim. I’m also the Athletic Director at Anaheim HS. I’m opposed to the homeless shelters due to the issues it can have with K-12students. Hundreds of students walk through the proposed shelters and I am concerned for the safety of my own kids along with all those at Anaheim HS. My children are 14,8 and 6. Please keep our kids safe and grow in this great community. Alfonso Rodriguez NEW CORRESPONDENCE To whom it may concern, I am writing in regards to Project Use Permit No. 2021-06106. I would like to express my great opposition on the housing facility that is planned for 626 N. West Street. Approving such a large operation, a shelter for 20 “severely and persistently mentally-ill” people, in our single- family residential neighborhood is simply incompatible with our community. It will not only affect property values negatively, but it is also inconsistent with our vision of the Anaheim Colony Historic District. It does not align with the history of our community. Our family has lived in the Anaheim Colony Historic District for around 17 years. During this time, we have seen our single-family neighborhood decline considerably because of the already existing number of smaller group homes surrounding the area. While we understand some smaller group homes (under 6 people) cannot be easily regulated by the City, in this case, the City absolutely has the right to regulate such a business and should do so to protect the neighborhood and the people who live here. This is entirely consistent with the city’s attempt to pass an ordinance this past year to regulate the saturation of group homes in this exact area! This kind of facility should only exist in a commercial or industrial area, much like where the City’s current homeless shelter has been placed. Because a 20-person “severely and persistently mentally-ill health facility simply doesn’t belong in single-family neighborhood I respectfully ask for your NO VOTE for this Conditional Use Permit. Thank you, Mario & Ana Argueta Place Anaheim, CA 92805 NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: Planning Commission Public Hearing August 30, 2021 Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 Date:Monday, August 30, 2021 11:36:21 AM Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim.net From: Danny Allen Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 11:06 AM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net> Subject: Planning Commission Public Hearing August 30, 2021 Conditional Use Permit No. 2021- 06106 August 30, 2021 City of Anaheim Planning Commission, Mr. Nick Taylor, Mayor & City Council Members, Subject: Conditional Use Permit Application Number 2021-06106 To Allow Shelter Of, “20 Severely and Persistently Mentally ILL,” people at a single family home located at 626 North West Street, Anaheim. This property is located within District 3, however the issues apply to all districts within the city of Anaheim. I expect this type of problem will be a future homeowner’s political issue of great concern in all Districts as well. I am opposed to the planning commission approving the consideration of an application for a variance from Anaheim zoning laws, for the establishment of a 20 patient & 1 full time caretaker approval commercial business/residence anywhere within the city of Anaheim, within an area zoned for single family residential homes. This is clearly a business, which should only be allowed within the areas of the city zoned for commercial businesses. These types of businesses operate in the city of Santa Ana in commercially zoned areas. Approval of the zoning variance to place this business, managed by a non-profit (although the CEO probably draws a substantial salary) and leased out by the property owner (for a substantial amount of money), will be at the detriment of the residents and neighbors living throughout the neighborhood. This business will establish in a residential neighborhood of single family homes, a business with 21 people present full time and additional employees coming and going part time. The business specifically targets adult clients with severe and persistent mental health disabilities who have been living unsheltered on the streets, including mental health disabilities that range from depression and post traumatic stress disorder to recovering from alcoholism/drug addiction and mental diagnoses of Bipolar and Schizophrenia. Impacts on local residents include problems with having a continual presence of 21 adult women present at the location, 20 of them with the problems listed above. This is the size of a small party at the home, 24 hours a day 7 days a week. There will be substantial amounts of smoking of tobacco and or marijuana on the property outdoors in the yard, with the smoke drifting onto adjoining home’s yards. Substantial noise and arguing will occur. Problems with men who will come to the home to visit the women. Past problems at locations with women as clientele at group homes, include men and women walking away or parking within the neighborhood to meet, etc. The residents of this commercial facility will have disputes and loud verbal arguments, some will go off of medications and be disruptive to the neighborhood. There is already a hospice care residence with a capacity of 6 people directly next door adjoining this property. People living in a hospice care residence do not need constant loud disruptions. Negative effects to neighboring homeowners include, noise, tobacco/marijuana smoke, a party size number of people (21 women there full time) and noise at the residence 24 hours a day, seven days a week, parking and traffic issues as other employees and clients come and go. Potential devaluation of neighboring properties and values in the neighborhood. If you were shopping for a home in a community, would you buy a home next door to this type of commercial enterprise established in a single family residential home next door to the home you are looking to purchase? Homeowners, real estate brokers, agents & tax base are all areas that stand to be NEW CORRESPONDENCE negatively affected by this zoning variance. Why buy in Anaheim, if this kind of business can be opened up next door to you or in your neighborhood? Why not pay to go live in a planned community like the city of Irvine, which would never allow a zoning variance like this? I also object to the very short notice given, of only one letter received on August 19, 2021 from the city. I received no other notification. Many of the adjoining neighbors and neighborhoods affected by this are not even aware it is happening. It affects homeowners in nearby neighborhoods too. Hundreds of school age children walk by this location on the sidewalk twice daily going to and from Anaheim High School. Please do not approve the variance for this project, it belongs in an area zoned for commercial businesses. I am a resident living one street away, my backyard is directly within one home’s length of this location, I can throw a baseball from my backyard into the backyard of this property. If this project is approved, my family’s lifestyle will be very negatively affected for all of the reasons listed above. If I were shopping for my home and this business existed, I would never have bought my home to live within Anaheim. We already have at least 6 homes within close walking distance operating as businesses, with 6 residents per home each paying to live within these care home businesses. We also have had to live with residential business properties rented out daily/weekly for Disneyland tourism visitors, as opposed to their staying in hotels and motels. This large business is incompatible with the Anaheim Colony Historic District Vision Document which I believe is part of the city’s General Plan. I have lived in my home for 26 years. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I believe all leaders in Anaheim should be opposed to these types of zoning variance requests in single family residential areas, in all Districts of Anaheim for the reasons listed above. I respectfully ask for your, No Vote, on approval of this zoning variance request. Sincerely, Danny Allen & Family Danny Allen Street Anaheim, CA 92805 Phone From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: CUP for 626 N West Street Date:Monday, August 30, 2021 11:36:34 AM Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim.net From: Erin Longhofer > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 11:13 AM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net> Subject: CUP for 626 N West Street Nick Taylor, I am writing to you to express my deep concern about a CPU for 626 N West Street. This is not in the best interest of the neighborhood to allow this property to be converted to a housing facility for 20 "severely and persistently mentally-ill" people. This is a neighborhood with families and children. In addition, this is in close proximity to 3 schools - Anaheim High School, Westmont Elementary School and Adelaide Price Elementary. Children use West Street to walk to school and would be passing this facility on a daily basis. We live at St, Anaheim, CA 92801 and we ask you to not approve this CPU for the operation of this business in a residential neighborhood. Erin Longhofer -- Erin Longhofer NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: CUP No. 2021-06106 Date:Monday, August 30, 2021 11:36:21 AM Attachments:cup 2021-06106.pdf Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim.net From: Felix Garcia < Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 10:55 AM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net>; Subject: CUP No. 2021-06106 I am writing to express my vehement opposition to the transitional housing facility proposed at 626 North West Street / 945 West Pioneer Drive. Please see attached letter. Felix Garcia NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: I am writing to express my opposition to Conditional Use Permit No.2021-06106 for the property located at 626 N. West Street. Date:Monday, August 30, 2021 11:36:52 AM Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim.net From: ilija lipovac > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 11:19 AM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net> Subject: I am writing to express my opposition to Conditional Use Permit No.2021-06106 for the property located at 626 N. West Street. I respectfully ask all involved in decision making to vote NO for this Conditional Use Permit. Thank you. Ilija Lipovac , avenue Anaheim CA. Resident since 1969 NEW CORRESPONDENCE FELIX GARCIA DRIVE, ANAHEIM Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 Proposed Transitional Housing Facility, 626 North West Street / 945 West Pioneer Drive Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioner and Decision Makers, I am writing to express my vehement opposition to the transitional housing facility proposed at 626 North West Street / 945 West Pioneer Drive AND that you deny this CUP. I live only approximately 200 feet from the proposed facility. My family and I have lived in this neighborhood for nearly 25 years. Approving such a large facility, which is effectively a commercial use (i.e., a mental clinic) in a single- family residential (SFR) neighborhood, is in direct conflict with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); our General Plan; and our Zoning Code. Approving such a large facility in a SFR neighborhood would ruin it! 1.THE PROJECT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION (CE) UNDER CEQA, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING AS CEQA CLEARANCE. CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. EXISTING FACILITIES states the following: Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of existing use….. The existing use on the project site is SFR. The proposed use is effectively a commercial use (i.e., a mental clinic) because of its sheer size- not a transitional housing facility. You are proposing a new and dissimilar land use, which directly conflicts with Section 15301 requirement that the proposed use involve “negligible or no expansion of existing or former use”. Therefore, the project does not qualify for a Class 1 CE. 2.THE PROJECT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR A CLASS 1 C) UNDER CEQA, BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2. EXCEPTIONS (to a CE) states the following: (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. Pursuant to this CEQA requirement, the Project does not quality for Class 1 CE IF it results in a cumulative impact. There are multiple existing group housing facilities near/adjacent to the proposed facility: Corner Westmont / Carleton; 630 North West Street; 1024 West Sycamore Street. There would be a disproportionately high presence of transitional housing facilities in our neighborhood. This is a SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACT! The presence of multiple group facilities within one block of each other is a disproportionate impact to our neighborhood from increased crime, increased traffic, NEW CORRESPONDENCE increased noise, and decreased property values. Again, this is a SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACT to our neighborhood! We request a map of all the group / transitional housing facilities in the City and that planning demonstrate these are not concentrated in our neighborhood OR disproportionately in one neighborhood. We are curious if that map will show that there are few facilities in Anaheim Hills. 3.YOU WOULD BE CREATING UNSAFE CONDITIONS FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. The proposed facility would not be transitional housing or supportive housing- it would be a mental facility for 20 patients. Can the City guarantee there would be no escapees? That our lives would not be endangered? The applicant proposes only one nighttime staff for 20 patients- that is illogical? There are two nearby schools: Anaheim High School and Westmont Elementary School. The City would be creating unsafe conditions for our students in direct conflict with Safe Routes to School policies. Would we even be safe to walk our dogs? 4.THE PROJECT WOULD CONFLICT WITH BOTH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF “LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL” AND THE “RS-1 ZONING”, BOTH CONCERNING INTENT AND POPULATION DENSITY, THEREBY CONFLICTING WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD’S LOW-DENSITY CHARACTER The site is zoned AND entirely surrounded by RS-1 Zone. Zoning describes the intent of the RS-1 Zone, as follows: “to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. This zone implements the General Plan’s Low Density Residential land use designation. This zone implements the Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan.” The surrounding properties are all Low Density Residential land use designation. You are proposing what is effectively a commercial use (i.e., a mental clinic) with approximately 7 employees in a SFR neighborhood in direct conflict with the intent, character, and density of the RS-1 Zone and the Low Density Residential designation. The CA Department of Finance (DOF) reports Anaheim’s average persons per household as of January 2021 was 3.31 persons. There is one dwelling unit on the property now, which represents a total of approximately 4 persons. The Project would have a daytime population of approximately 27 persons, which is 6.8 times the sites current population. This directly conflicts with the low density zoning and land use designation. Moreover, it disqualifies the Project from a Class 1 CE. 5.THE PROPOSED USE WOULD GENERATE SIGNFICANTLY MORE TRAFFIC THAN THE EXISTING SFR HOME IN OUR SFR NEIGHBORHOOD. PARKING WOULD SPILLOVER INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD This significant increase in traffic would significantly impact the level of service at our nearby roadways and intersections. The proposed parking cannot be subject to an RS-1 Zone parking standard because that’s not what would operate on the site. The appropriate parking standard would be a commercial medical office building or clinic. There would be insufficient off-street parking for the facility and that parking would spill over into our streets. Again, traffic volumes and parking would be in direct conflict with low density zoning and land use designation. N E W C O R R E S P O N D E N C E From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: 626 West st Project Date:Monday, August 30, 2021 11:36:45 AM Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim net -----Original Message----- From: Robert Nelson Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 11:17 AM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim net> Subject: 626 West st Project To Whom it may concern I would to like note my STRONG OPPOSITION to the proposed project at 626 West st. The project that is being recommended is basically placing a low level mental institution directly in the middle of a neighborhood. That is not good planning. Our neighborhoods are constantly under attack. Group homes, ADU’s and projects like this are destroying the quality of life for our residents. You have the opportunity to make a difference and push back. Please! Vote NO. Support families that have chosen to make this area a home and raise their kids. Thank You in advance for your No Vote. Robert Nelson Sent from my iPhone NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: PROPOSED FACILITY FOR "SEVERELY AND PERSISTENTLY MENTALLY-ILL" PERSONS Date:Monday, August 30, 2021 11:34:38 AM Importance:High Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim.net From: birdlover357 Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 9:14 AM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net> Subject: PROPOSED FACILITY FOR "SEVERELY AND PERSISTENTLY MENTALLY-ILL" PERSONS Importance: High Greetings Nick I am writing to express my vehement opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 2021- 06106 for the property located at 626 N West Street. Approving such a large operation, a shelter for 20 "severely and persistently mentally-ill" persons, in our single-family residential neighborhood is simply incompatible with our community, will affect property values negatively, and is inconsistent with the vision of the Anaheim Colony Historic District. We have lived in this neighborhood for 25 years. During that time, we have seen our single-family neighborhood decline considerably because of the number of smaller group homes surrounding us. We have more than our fair share of these properties affecting us. Our immediate area includes group homes at: * 630 N West Street (right next door to THIS proposed facility) * Southeast corner of Sycamore and West * Corner of Westmont and Carlton While we understand some smaller group homes (under 6 people) cannot be easily regulated by the City, in this case, the City absolutely has the right to regulate such business and should do so to protect the neighborhood and the people who live here. This is entirely consistent with the city’s attempt to pass an ordinance this past year to regulate the saturation of group homes in this exact area! This is the kind of facility that should be in a commercial or industrial area, much like where the City’s current homeless shelter was placed. Because a 20-person "severely and persistently mentally-ill" health facility simply does not belong in single-family residential NEW CORRESPONDENCE neighborhoods. I respectively ask for your NO VOTE for this Conditional Use Permit. Thank You! Shirley Payne Anaheim, CA 92805 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 (DEV2021-00122) Date:Monday, August 30, 2021 2:01:55 PM Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim.net From: Heuler Jean > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 1:28 PM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net>; Jose Moreno <> Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 (DEV2021-00122) RE: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 (DEV2021-00122) Dear members of the Planning Commission: I am in receipt of a letter mailed August 16, 2021 in regard to a proposed project located at 626 North West Street and 945 West Pioneer Drive in Anaheim. I am opposed this this project and I am disappointed that the residents of this neighborhood were not given sufficient time to research and discuss this project. I have many unanswered questions. Why were area residents not notified earlier? How is the charity “Grandma’s House of Hope” funded? (tax payer funds?) Are the owners of the clinic that refer the participants also gaining financially from the ownership of the property? (Is there a conflict of interest at the taxpayers expense?) Do the participants who will be living at the transitional housing have a criminal record? LATE CORRESPONDENCE Do the participants who will be living at the transitional housing have a history of violence? Why is this project location so close to a school? I live at Drive and have been in this home for almost 27 years. This home has been owned and occupied by my family since it was built in 1954. My uncle and his wife raised their children in this home and I raised my son in this home. This is a family neighborhood, prized for the stability of long-time residents and their concern for the community and their neighbors. A group home for “severely and persistently mentally-ill” people does fit into this community of families and retired citizens. Some of my neighbors are retired, widowed older women who live alone. I am in a similar situation, and as a divorced, retired woman of significant age, I am concerned for my safety. This neighborhood was safe many years ago, as was most of Anaheim. As a child, I walked to school past orange groves and strawberry fields. Anaheim was a large city with a small-town feel. My father served this community as a dentist, as did my uncle. My mother taught school for many years. Southern California has been home to my family for many generations, and I am sickened to see this once beautiful state degraded by social decay. Anaheim has recently been suffering from an increase in crime, graffiti, gang activity, homelessness, abandoned businesses, and poverty. These issues are very concerning. We all want better for our community and for society. We have all seen homeless persons in this city. I have experienced them using the garden hose in my front yard to bathe. My neighbors have found them sleeping in their front yards. I have frequently noticed homeless and obviously mentally ill people on the streets, bus benches, parking lots and parks of this county. Several times I have felt so unsafe by their presence at my pharmacy that I refused to get out of my car and instead, came back at another time to pick up my medication order. I had visiting family members who were deterred from entering a business in Anaheim because as soon as they exited their car they were harassed by homeless people. We can all agree that homeless people need assistance in a real and life changing way. We should also agree that their presence has created many problems, including crime, unsanitary conditions and a negative economic impact on the businesses of this community. Typically homeless shelters have been located in non-residential areas because of the issues associated with their occupants. Why is this project being considered for a residential neighborhood and so close to a school? Hundreds of students from Anaheim High School walk past that property on their way to and from school every day. The group home located on the corner of Sycamore and West street is extremely close to the school and I have long been concerned that the occupants there have displayed a very obvious and public use of alcohol and drugs. Do the occupants of Grandma’s House of Hope pose a threat to the hundreds of students who walk past that location daily? What assurance do we have that the students will be safe? I understand there are already group homes in the area that house battered women and developmentally disabled adults. I have no objection to housing either of those groups of vulnerable persons. My experience with mentally ill persons has taught me that they can be dangerous and unpredictable. I have a friend whose bipolar spouse assaulted and battered her. He is currently wanted in several counties and my friend is in hiding from him and has a permanent protective order against him. I have had friends who are bipolar and because of their unstable and aggressive behavior, as well as their addiction issues, I had to restrict their access to my home and family in order to protect my son. While some mildly mentally ill persons have great success in being treated for their disabilities, others can be a risk to the general public. Considering that it is proposed that 20 “severely and persistently mentally ill” persons are to be in one location, I seriously doubt that all will be compliant or successfully treated. Having this many severely ill persons in one location poses a threat to this neighborhood, its’ inhabitants, and the students that walk through the area daily. I know that all my immediate neighbors are opposed to this project. I am also opposed. The needs and concerns of the existing, long-time residents should be considered above the needs of transient, non-owner tenants. I look forward to hearing from you during today’s public hearing. Regards, Jean Heuler RITA GARCIA DRIVE, ANAHEIM Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06106 Proposed Transitional Housing Facility, 626 North West Street / 945 West Pioneer Drive Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioner and Decision Makers, I am writing to express my vehement opposition to the transitional housing facility proposed at 626 North West Street / 945 West Pioneer Drive AND that you deny this CUP. I live only approximately 200 feet from the proposed facility. My family and I have lived in this neighborhood for nearly 25 years. Approving such a large facility, which is effectively a commercial use (i.e., a mental clinic) in a single- family residential (SFR) neighborhood, is in direct conflict with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); our General Plan; and our Zoning Code. Approving such a large facility in a SFR neighborhood would ruin it! 1.THE PROJECT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION (CE) UNDER CEQA, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING AS CEQA CLEARANCE. CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. EXISTING FACILITIES states the following: Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of existing use….. The existing use on the project site is SFR. The proposed use is effectively a commercial use (i.e., a mental clinic) because of its sheer size- not a transitional housing facility. You are proposing a new and dissimilar land use, which directly conflicts with Section 15301 requirement that the proposed use involve “negligible or no expansion of existing or former use”. Therefore, the project does not qualify for a Class 1 CE. 2.THE PROJECT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR A CLASS 1 C) UNDER CEQA, BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2. EXCEPTIONS (to a CE) states the following: (b)Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. Pursuant to this CEQA requirement, the Project does not quality for Class 1 CE IF it results in a cumulative impact. There are multiple existing group housing facilities near/adjacent to the proposed facility: Corner Westmont / Carleton; 630 North West Street; 1024 West Sycamore Street. There would be a disproportionately high presence of transitional housing facilities in our neighborhood. This is a SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACT! The presence of multiple group facilities within one block of each other is a disproportionate impact to our neighborhood from increased crime, increased traffic, LATE CORRESPONDENCE increased noise, and decreased property values. Again, this is a SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACT to our neighborhood! We request a map of all the group / transitional housing facilities in the City and that planning demonstrate these are not concentrated in our neighborhood OR disproportionately in one neighborhood. We are curious if that map will show that there are few facilities in Anaheim Hills. 3.YOU WOULD BE CREATING UNSAFE CONDITIONS FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. The proposed facility would not be transitional housing or supportive housing- it would be a mental facility for 20 patients. Can the City guarantee there would be no escapees? That our lives would not be endangered? The applicant proposes only one nighttime staff for 20 patients- that is illogical. There are two nearby schools: Anaheim High School and Westmont Elementary School. The City would be creating unsafe conditions for our students in direct conflict with Safe Routes to School policies. Would we even be safe to walk our dogs? 4.THE PROJECT WOULD CONFLICT WITH BOTH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF “LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL” AND THE “RS-1 ZONING”, BOTH CONCERNING INTENT AND POPULATION DENSITY, THEREBY CONFLICTING WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD’S LOW-DENSITY CHARACTER The site is zoned AND entirely surrounded by RS-1 Zone. Zoning describes the intent of the RS-1 Zone, as follows: “to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan.” The surrounding properties are all Low Density Residential land use designation. You are proposing what is effectively a commercial use (i.e., a mental clinic) with approximately 7 employees in a SFR neighborhood in direct conflict with the intent, character, and density of the RS-1 Zone and the Low Density Residential designation. The CA Department of Finance (DOF) reports Anaheim’s average persons per household as of January 2021 was 3.31 persons. There is one dwelling unit on the property now, which represents a total of approximately 4 persons. The Project would have a daytime population of approximately 27 persons, which is 6.8 times the sites current population. This directly conflicts with the low density zoning and land use designation. Moreover, it disqualifies the Project from a Class 1 CE. 5.THE PROPOSED USE WOULD GENERATE SIGNFICANTLY MORE TRAFFIC THAN THE EXISTING SFR HOME IN OUR SFR NEIGHBORHOOD. PARKING WOULD SPILLOVER INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD This significant increase in traffic would significantly impact the level of service at our nearby roadways and intersections. The proposed parking cannot be subject to an RS-1 Zone parking standard because that’s not what would operate on the site. The appropriate parking standard would be a commercial medical office building or clinic. There would be insufficient off-street parking for the facility and that parking would spill over into our streets. Again, traffic volumes and parking would be in direct conflict with low density zoning and land use designation. From:Nicholas J. Taylor To:Laverne Ortiz Subject:FW: The property located at 626 N West St Date:Monday, August 30, 2021 2:02:15 PM Nick Taylor, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-4323 E-mail NJTaylor@anaheim.net From: Van Crawford > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 1:36 PM To: Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net> Subject: The property located at 626 N West St Dear Sirs, I am writing concerning the property located at 626 N West St and the conditional use permit related to it. I do not believe that there has been sufficient community vetting to the proposed project. I understand that this permit is coming up for a vote today and would like to get a postponement until the community can adequately assess the situation. Van and Martha Crawford Anaheim, CA 92801 (cell) LATE CORRESPONDENCE LATE CORRESPONDENCE LATE CORRESPONDENCE