title
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FACILITY FOR A MAXIMUM OF 16 RESIDENTS IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 801 S. CALIFORNIA STREET (P15-0275) - NOTE: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 10, 2016
recommended action
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s denial of the Use Permit to establish a transitional housing facility for a maximum of 16 residents in an existing structure at 801 S. California Street.
body
Summary
This appeal was originally scheduled to be considered by the City Council on May 10, 2016; however, at the request of the applicant and with the Council’s concurrence, the matter was continued to July 12, 2016. The City Council is asked to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s February 25, 2016, denial of a Use Permit application to establish a transitional housing facility for a maximum of 16 residents in an existing structure at 801 S. California Street (Attachment A - Appeal Letter). Staff recommended approval of the Use Permit to the Planning Commission, based on the underlying facts and the ability to make affirmative findings for approval. Following public testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated and expressed concerns regarding the impact of the project upon the neighborhood and whether it would contribute to or exacerbate existing problems of homelessness and criminal activity in the neighborhood surrounding the project site. As a result of these concerns, the Planning Commission was unable to make affirmative findings to support the request and the application was denied.
DISCUSSION
Background
The proposed transitional housing facility would be located in an approximately 3,320-square foot single-story building. The 22,500-square foot subject site is located on the west side of California Street, 150 feet north of Worth Street and adjacent to the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Company tracks. The site is zoned IL (Industrial, Limited) and is bounded to the:
• north across the railroad tracks by a vacant site zoned IG (Industrial, General);
• east across California Street by a warehouse building zoned IL;
• south by a single-family residence zoned IL; and
• west by a vacant site zoned IL (Attachment B - Location Map).
The neighborhood surrounding the subject site is generally characterized by industrial uses north of Worth Street and residential uses south of Worth Street. The exception is that the southern portion of the block containing the subject site is developed with residential uses. The nearest school, A.G. Spanos Elementary School, is located approximately 850 feet north of the project site.
Project Description
Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) Section 16.20.020/Table 2-2 requires a Planning Commission-approved Use Permit in order to establish a transitional housing facility. The applicant submitted the subject Use Permit in order to establish a transitional housing facility for a maximum of 16 residents in the existing structure on the subject site. Up to four residents would occupy each of the proposed facilities’ four bedrooms (Attachment C - Site/Floor Plan). The applicant describes the proposed use (Attachment D - Project Description) as “sober living housing” intended to serve individuals with behavioral health deficiencies and those who suffer from substance abuse and are in need of a structured living environment. Residents would be required to submit to random drug and/or alcohol testing and attend regular group counselling meetings. Residents would be responsible for maintenance of their rooms and would have a weekly schedule of chores. The facility would have a 10:00 p.m. curfew, Sunday through Thursday, and a 12:00 a.m. (midnight) curfew on Friday and Saturday.
Development of the site began in 2005 with approval of a Design Review application to construct the office building, a 3,600-square foot warehouse, and a 20-space parking lot to serve the approved use. The office and parking lot were constructed several years later; however, the warehouse was never constructed. The site is surrounded by a wrought iron-style fence, with a gate that is set back from the street. Access to the site is via an existing driveway off of California Street.
SMC Section 16.64.040 requires that on-site parking be provided at the rate of one space for every two beds, resulting in a requirement for eight spaces for the subject use. The site’s 20-space parking lot more than meets the Code’s minimum requirement. SMC Section 16.80.350 states that transitional housing facilities shall not be located within 500 feet of another similar facility. Staff is not aware of any such facilities within the noted minimum separation area.
As the City Council is aware, the Planning Division recently completed a Code Amendment to Title 16 of the SMC related to compliance with State Housing Element law. The noted Code Amendment was approved by the City Council on April 12, 2016, and became effective on May 12, 2016. Because the Use Permit was deemed complete for processing and scheduled for action by the City Council before the effective date of the Code Amendment, it is being processed in accordance with the prior provisions of the Development Code and the findings proposed for the Council’s action are consistent with the prior Development Code. For the City Council’s information, the noted Code Amendment, now effective, no longer permits the processing of the proposed transitional use, because the subject is no longer permitted in non-residential zones.
Planning Commission Action
At the February 25, 2016, public hearing, the applicant spoke in support of the project and provided information regarding its operational characteristics, program details, and the types of clients that would be allowed at the facility, if it was approved. An employee of Celia Way also spoke in support of the program and provided information about the proposed program’s counseling services. The owner of a parcel in the neighborhood spoke in opposition to the program. She cited concerns the project site’s proximity to the neighborhood school, the applicant’s failure to provide detailed information regarding the proposed program, the rate of recidivism for the type of people that would reside in the facility, and the lack of state or federal oversight for the proposed facility.
Following public testimony, members of the Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the project’s potential impacts upon the neighborhood and whether it would contribute to or exacerbate existing problems of homelessness and criminal activity in the neighborhood surrounding the project site. The Planning Commission was unable to make affirmative findings to support the request and the application was denied on a 4 to 2 vote (Jobrack and Davie dissenting) and the following findings for denial are proposed for City Council.
Recommended Findings for Denial
a. The subject use would not maintain or strengthen the integrity and character of the IL (Industrial, Limited) zoned site or the neighborhood surrounding the project site, because the project’s residents - identified as having “behavioral health deficiencies” and substance abuse problems - have the potential to cause criminal problems, such as loitering, trespassing, and substance abuse violations, in an area that has been described as having high levels of existing criminal activity.
b. The subject use is not consistent with applicable general land uses, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan that relate to transitional housing. Specifically, use of the site for a transitional housing facility is inconsistent with the following General Plan policy:
LU-3.7 - The City shall protect existing residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities and land uses (i.e., traffic, noise) and environmental hazards (i.e., flood, soil instability). The use of the site’s existing structure for a transitional housing facility has the potential to result in criminal activities, including trespassing, loitering, and substance abuse crimes, in the residential neighborhood that surrounds the subject site.
c. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the subject use has the potential to endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, because residents of the facility may leave the premises of the facility and commit criminal acts in the neighborhood, including trespassing, loitering, and substance abuse violations.
d. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the subject use are not expected to be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of the subject property, because the proposed transitional housing facility is potentially incompatible with both adjacent industrial uses and residential uses in the neighborhood surrounding the project site. Specifically, the congregation of a relatively large number of residents with behavioral deficiencies and substance abuse problems may result in criminal activities in the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the residents of the facility would potentially have adverse interactions with large numbers of school-aged children who travel past the site and their way to and from the nearby elementary school.
Applicant Appeal
On March 3, 2016, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Use Permit, stating the importance of the program to the City. Staff is recommending that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the Use Permit.
Two additional letters of opposition to the project were submitted to the City Clerk via e-mail the day before the originally-scheduled public hearing for this project on May 10, 2016. Because the public hearing was continued, the letters were not considered by the City Council at that time. (Attachment E- May 9, 2016 Letters of Opposition”).
The City Council may uphold the Commission’s action and deny the appeal with a majority vote or override the Commission’s action with five concurring votes, in accordance with the provisions of SMC Section 16.100.040.G.1.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Denial of the application does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, therefore, no environmental analysis is needed for the proposed use.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
There is no anticipated financial impact to the City as a result of the project.
Attachment A - Appeal Letter
Attachment B - Location Map
Attachment C - Site/Floor Plan
Attachment D - Project Description
Attachment E - May 9, 2016 Letters of Opposition