Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06212011 - D.1RECOMMENDATION(S): OPEN the public hearing, ACCEPT any public testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. After accepting any public testimony, and closing of the public hearing: A. ACCEPT the County Planning Commission Resolution No. 8-2010 reporting on the Commission’s review and actions on this project. B. FIND on the basis of the whole record that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis. C. ADOPT the proposed Negative Declaration determination for this project as adequate for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and prepared in accordance with the County CEQA Guidelines. D. SUSTAIN the County Planning Commission’s approval of County File #LP08-2042 for the adult residential care facility including the findings with conditions of approval as APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/21/2011 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:See Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Supervisor Contact: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 21, 2011 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation & Development Director Date:June 21, 2011 Contra Costa County Subject:Hearing on an Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Land Use Permit for a Ten-Bed Adult Residential Care Facility in Knightsen identified in marked text. E. DENY the appeal RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) filed by Howard and Kim Revel. F. DIRECT staff to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The applicant is responsible for the cost of processing the land use permit including this appeal. BACKGROUND: This hearing concerns an appeal filed on the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a land use permit to allow a state licensed adult residential care facility that would provide 24-hour, non-medical care and supervision, and long-term housing for a maximum of ten (10), men and women ages 18-59. The subject property is located at 2950 Penny Lane in the Knightsen area. Within the time permitted by law, an appeal was filed by the adjacent neighbors, Howard and Kim Revel. GENERAL INFORMATION Environs: The 10.45-acre property is located in east Contra Costa County at the southwest corner of Byron Highway and Penny Lane. With the exception of a few larger parcels, this area is best described as rural residential with properties ranging in size from 10 to 30 acres. There are single-family homes and/or operating farms on most similar-sized properties (ten plus acres) adjacent to the west and north and across Penny Lane to the south. Directly across Byron Highway, there is a home and stable on a comparable sized property that is used to raise and train horses. This is a rural part of the County and several other farms are found along this portion of Byron Highway. Site Description: The existing 2700 square foot residence is located in the northwest corner of the property. The floor plan was modified and now includes a large common room. Approximately nine (9) acres of vineyards cover the property but the vines are in various stages of health. The house is occupied by a caretaker's family. Some improvements have been made, including repairs to several of existing service systems, including heat/ventilation and air conditioning, propane, alarms, plumbing and water well. A six foot tall, chain-link fence has been installed surrounding the house and patio. Shrubs and vines are planted along the fence line. General Plan: The General Plan designation for this property is Agricultural Lands. Though the adult residential care facility is unique to agricultural land, this General Plan designation provides a rural alternative for a facility to be established that is consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element of the General Plan has recently been updated. Below are relevant goals and policies. Housing Element Goal 4: Increase the supply of appropriate and supportive housing for special needs populations. Relevant Housing Element Policies: • Policy 4.1 - Expand affordable housing opportunities for households with special needs, including seniors, disabled persons, large households, single parents, persons with HIV/AIDS, persons with a mental illness, farmworkers, and the homeless. • Policy 4.2 - Continue to support non-profit service providers that help meet the diverse housing and supportive service needs of the community. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Heavy Agricultural District (A-3). With the approval a land use permit, the A-3 zoning district allows for the establishment of a “…eleemosynary and philanthropic institutions…” §84-38.404 (8). Bonita House Inc. is a non-profit public benefit corporation and is classified as 501(c)(3) tax exempt under the Federal Tax code. Based on this status, Bonita House Inc. qualifies as an eleemosynary and philanthropic institution consistent with the zoning code. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant seeks to obtain a land use permit to establish a state-licensed adult residential care facility that provides 24-hour, non-medical care and supervision for adults living with mental disabilities. This facility would provide long-term housing for up to ten (10) unrelated adults, men and women ages 18-59. Residential care facilities are typically designed for individuals who require 24-hour supervision; but, who do not generally need medical care beyond routine health checks and medication monitoring. The adult residential facility would not provide professional medical staff on site. The licensed residential care facility is proposed to be a working farm that will be operated to help adult residents with psychiatric disabilities move toward recovery, regain independence and function in the larger community. Residents will participate in group sessions and receive behavioral instruction, as well as training communication and social skills by the staff. It is proposed that clients will be able to work the land, harvest crops both for resident consumption and potential third-party sales, with the eventual goal of obtaining viable employment or volunteer participation in the community. The facility also will include family education and support to encourage and empower families to be part of the healing and recovery process. It is proposed that these group trainings, farm activities and family participation will allow residents to gain self-esteem, practice decision-making, problem solving, self-reliance and teamwork skills, while simultaneously managing their symptoms. To further facilitate integration into the community, residents will have access to local social, educational, recreational and vocational opportunities, as available. With supervision, these facilities would provide residents the opportunity to be a part of the community and participate in community life. Residents share responsibilities, meals, and recreational activities; they attend schools, work, and use other services in the community. Building and Site Improvements: Additional bedrooms and bathrooms are proposed within the footprint of the existing building that will create a total of five (5) bedrooms and three (3) bathrooms. Two residents will share one bedroom. County staff understands that the floor plans may be modified to include an additional bedroom for facility staff. Trellises will be added to cover a portion of an existing outdoor cement patio to provide shade for the residents. It is proposed that the fenced yard around the house will be landscaped with shrubs and trees for windbreaks, fruit trees and a garden for residents’ use. The garden area will also allow for the residents to care for small farm animals. In addition, a small outbuilding is planned to provide tool storage where residents may do small carpentry projects, ceramics, and photography. Nine of the ten acres will be used for some type of agriculture, as an example, the residents would care for small livestock. Access and Parking: Two accesses from Byron Highway currently exist at opposite ends of the property. The Penny Lane access is at the southern property boundary and the Byron Highway access is at the northern property boundary. There is adequate space for all required on-site parking for staff and visitors, as well as for a program van. Most residents will not have automobiles. APPLICABLE STATE LAW The California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division (CCL) licenses adult residential facilities and regulates these facilities through the California Code of Regulations. Residential care facilities must have a valid license from the State to operate regardless of the number of persons. However, it should be noted that if this proposed facility were modified to serve six or fewer persons, whether or not related, paragraph (a) of Section 1566.3 of the Health and Safety Code (attached) would require that it be considered a residential use of property. In addition, pursuant to this State law, the residents and operators of such a facility must be considered a family for the purposes of any law including the County zoning ordinance, which relates to the residential use of property . State policy requires that persons with disabilities are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings and that care of six or fewer persons with disabilities is residential use of property for zoning purposes, Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5115 (attached). The Housing Accountability Act limits the County’s ability to deny a supportive housing project without first making findings. Housing Accountability Act: Pursuant to this Act, the County is prohibited from disapproving a housing development project or conditioning approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible for development for the use of supportive housing unless it makes at least one of five specific written findings based on substantial evidence in the record (Government Code Section 65589.5 (d)), excerpt attached. Staff has reviewed the five findings and all findings may not apply. The two findings listed below appear to be the most applicable considering the proposed project. 65589.5(d)(1): The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. It should be noted that the County has adopted an updated Housing Element that has been approved by the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (see attached letter dated March 2, 2010). 65589.5(d)(4): The development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. The property is zoned Heavy Agriculture (A-3) and has a General Plan designation of Agricultural Lands (AL). All surrounding property is zoned agriculture and has an agricultural General Plan designation. Because at least one of these conditions exist, the County would not be barred under the Housing Accountability Act from having legal authority to deny this application if it wished to do so. KNIGHTSEN TOWN ADVISORY COUNCIL (KTAC) After the decision by the Zoning Administrator to conditionally approve the land use permit for the adult residential care facility, the Knightsen Town Advisory Council (KTAC) wrote a “Letter of Clarification”. This letter was written to the County Planning Commission restating the Council’s position about the proposed project. The letter outlined KTAC’s appreciation of the two appearances by the applicant to try to resolve outstanding concerns about the project, but KTAC continues to find that the adult residential care facility has negative impacts to the Knightsen community. The letter is attached. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study has been prepared for the project and no significant environmental impacts were identified. A Negative Declaration was posted on March 26, 2009 with the public comment period ending on April 15, 2009. Three comment letters were submitted but none challenged the adequacy of the environmental review. HEARING OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The County Planning Commission conducted a hearing on this matter on two dates. On May 11, 2010, the County Planning Commission conducted its first hearing on two appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve the project. Based on the staff evaluation, staff recommended that both appeals be denied and that the Commission sustain the Zoning Administrator’s November 2009 conditional approval of the application. The Commission then opened the hearing and accepted testimony from the applicant, four others in support of the project and five community members who were opposed to the project. The Commission then adopted a motion to continue the hearing. Based on the evidence provided and testimony offered, the Commission directed staff to prepare findings for a possible denial of the land use permit application; but, the motion also provided an opportunity for the applicant to provide additional evidence at the continued hearing for the Commission to consider before it makes a decision on the project. Additionally, at the request of the Commission, staff contacted the Brentwood Police Department to gain insights on whether police services are negatively impacted by an adult residential care facility. Ultimately, this information proved to be unsuccessful in providing a clear delineation between adult care facilities and the corollary calls for police services for those facilities. On July 13, 2010 the Commission heard from the applicant and three others in support of the project along with two community members who were opposed to the project and then approved the project. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION, SUMMARY OF THE APPEAL POINTS AND STAFF RESPONSE Howard and Kim Revel submitted a letter dated July 23, 2010 appealing the Commission’s decision to approve the project. The appeal points, with a staff response, are summarized below. It should be noted that the appeal points are similar to concerns that were raised in the testimony and evidence presented to the County Planning Commission. 1. Appeal Point - “Concerns for the safety of the potential residents due to lack of services and the remote/dangerous location” Staff Response: Concerns for the safety of facility residents and the neighbors based on the rural location of the facility were shared at the Planning Commission's hearing. At the request of the Commission, staff contacted the Brentwood Police Department inquiring about the eight existing adult residential care facilities located within the city limits (all six beds or less). This outreach was intended to determine whether there is a link between an adult residential care facility and increased police calls for service. Staff could find no clear correlation between an adult residential care facility and a negative impact on police services. However, in order to address this concern, the Commission modified condition of approval #1 approving this residential care facility for a two year period; essentially providing a trial-run for this facility to see if perceived safety concerns for the residents and neighbors are legitimate. As conditioned, prior to the two year expiration of the land use permit, the applicant would have to submit an application to amend the land use permit to extend the life of the adult residential care facility. The application to amend the permit would be heard by the Planning Commission. 2. Appeal Point - “Concerns over the severe reduction of fire services in far East Contra Costa County as well as the limited sheriff resources for a very large geographic area” Staff Response: The Planning Commission clarified at the hearing that though the Discovery Bay Fire Station is closing, the Knightsen Station and Station 59 (off of Bixler Rd and 2.7 miles away from the project site) remain open and that these two open stations are the closest to the proposed residential care facility located at 2950 Penny Lane. Lieutenant Burton from the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office testified before the Commission at the hearing on July 13, 2010. He stated that East County Sheriff’s patrol staffing levels are at a twenty year low. Lt. Burton described a what-if situation with a “walk away patient" who has some mental health issues and potentially is not on medication. He indicated that this starts a protocol response from the Sheriff’s Office that involves calling out emergency services and search and rescue and that a small event would completely deplete East County resources and may result in pulling resources from other areas of the County. As conditioned, this two year approval enables the Commission to hear the project again and re-evaluate the adult residential care facility based on actual events. At which time the Commission can reexamine the requirements of the land use permit. 3. Appeal Point - “Concerns for the safety of the neighbors due to the “co-occurring disorder” of substance abuse that is likely to be found in the residents and the need for residents to stay on their medications with no way to enforce it” Staff Response: The adult residential care facility is required to be licensed by the State of California. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations regulates Health-Related Services including administration of medication. These types of licensed residential care facilities are designed for individuals who require 24-hour supervision; but, who do not generally need medical care beyond routine health checks and medication monitoring. Some people live in residential facilities because they require this level of support, others because they do not have the resources to allow them to live independently (such as funds for personal care attendants). These facilities provide residents the opportunity to be a part of the community and participate in community life. Residents share responsibilities, meals, and recreational activities; they attend schools, work, and use other services in the community. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) requires that centrally stored medication shall be kept in a safe and locked place that is not accessible to persons other than employees responsible for the supervision of the centrally stored medication, (Title 22, CCR, §80075(n)(1)) and that clients shall be assisted as needed with self-administration of prescription and nonprescription medications (Title 22, CCR, §80075(b)). 4. Appeal Point - "Concerns over the Commission’s decision to overturn the Zoning Administrator’s requirement that the Bonita House have two full time staff present which will most certainly leave some of the residents alone at times with no supervision at all" Staff Response: Prior to opening the adult residential care facility, the applicant must obtain a license from the State of California. The State requires that, “Facility personnel shall be competent to provide the services necessary to meet individual clients needs and shall, at all times, be employed in numbers necessary to meet such needs” (Title 22, CCR, §80065). The State also regulates the requirements for staff levels at night for adult residential care facilities. The law states that, “In facilities providing care and supervision for 15 or fewer clients, there shall be at least one person on call on the premises.” (Title 22, CCR, §85065.6(c)) The Commission modified condition of approval number four that previously required two full-time staff to now require one full time staff adding language to the condition stating that the facility shall never be un-staffed. This change is consistent with the State’s staffing requirements for adult residential care facilities for this number of beds. 5. Appeal Point - “Concerns over the fact that there is no way to enforce/monitor the behavior of the Bonita House to keep up the property Staff Response: Staff understands this appeal point questions the ability of the County to require the Bonita House to maintain a well kept facility, ensuring there is continual up-keep of the ten acres. Condition of approval number eight (8) “Nuisances” requires the operator to ensure the subject property is not unsafe, unsightly or poorly maintained at all times; and if necessary, the County may cite the operator for violation of this condition and require the operator to correct the violation. If violations are not corrected further action may be imposed by the Code Enforcement Section. 6. Appeal Point - “Concerns that the quality, volume and pressure of the water supply necessary for eleven residents and for the fire protection (fire sprinklers) was not evaluated prior to the approval of the permit" Staff Response: It is routine to require compliance with all applicable Fire Protection District standards after review and approval of the planning agency but before issuance of building permits. The applicant is responsible for compliance with the Fire protection standards prior to obtaining approval of final occupancy. CONCLUSION After reviewing the appeal points, staff finds the appeal points have no merit and that the approval of the project is consistent with the General Plan policies and the land use permit findings; therefore, staff recommends the Board deny the appeal and uphold the County Planning Commission's decision to approve the project. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the appeal is sustained, the proposed land use permit would not be issued. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None CLERK'S ADDENDUM Vice Chair Piepho invited public comment. The following people spoke: Linda Weekes, Chair Knightsen Town Advisory Council & KCSD; Theresa Estrada, Superintendent of Knightsen Elementary School District (handout provided); Brenda Crawford, resident of Concord; Annis Pereyra, Mental Health Commission (MHC); Vickey Rinehart, resident of Discovery Bay; Janet Marshall Wilson, Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc.(MHCC)(handout provided); Teresa Pasquini, MHC (handout provided); Lori Riegleb, resident of Clayton; Charles Ward, resident of Brentwood; Brian Stein-Webber, Interfaith Council of Contra Costa; John Bevers, MHCC, NAMI, Spirit; Peggy Kennedy, resident of San Ramon; Carole McKindley-Alvarez, MHCC; Ralph Hoffmann, resident of Walnut Creek; Al Farmer, NAMI; David Kahler, resident of Concord; tephen Boyd Jr., Putnam Clubhouse; Hirim Jack Feldman, MHCC; Carl Jones, MHCC; Stan Baraghin, MHCC; Juliet Scott, resident of Oakley; Dean Spencer, WCMACC; Kay Derrico, resident of Walnut Creek; Kimberly Krisch, MHCC, SPIRIT, NAMI; Mary Ann Bernard, resident of Moraga; Lisa Bruce, resident of Pleasant Hill; Val Meredith, ABN; Colette O'Keeffee, M.D., MHC; Robert Thigren, resident of Walnut Creek; Rick Crispino, Applicant (handout provided); Kim Revel, Appellant (handout provided). The following people did not wish to speak, but left written comments for the Boards consideration: Carol Horan, resident of Brentwood; Tom Hawkins, resident of Brentwood. Supervisor Piepho requested the following amendments and conditions be considered: Additions to the Advisory Notes section of the Land Use Permit: 1. The California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing publication “The Good Neighbor Guide: A Guidebook for Adult Residential Care Facilities” be implemented with the facility’s operations; 2. Include language stating the applicant shall comply with State Community Care Licensing regulations for mental health worker with respect to any staff member, volunteer or consultant at the facility. Amend the Planning Commission Condition of Approval (COA) 1 to have a Land Use Permit Compliance Review heard by the Zoning Administrator every year for the first three years of operation and a final review prior to the end of the fifth year of operation for a total of four reviews in five years of operation; The addition of one additional full time staff member (for a total of two) to be present in the evening hours (12 a.m to 8 a.m.), which could be reviewed for necessity in the first year compliance review by the Zoning Administrator; The driveway to the facility located on Penny Lane be gated or blocked in some manner, and have signage to expressly indicate that entrance to the facility is to be made from Byron Highway; That a "Good Neighbor Incident Complaint Protocol" be developed and implemented, including a provision communication in writing in regard to any neighborhood incidents that occur; That a landscape plan be provided; That the facility's House Rules be submitted to the Zoning Administrator; and That an indemnification clause be added in regard to liability of Contra Costa County. The Department of Conservation and Development requested the matter be continued in order to prepare the appropriate findings. The Board CLOSED the public hearing; and CONTINUED the matter to July 12, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. to receive findings report from staff. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENTS Commission Findings and Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Resolution Appeal of Commission Decision Relevant Excerpts of State Law Supplemental Staff Report Commission Staff Report Community Correspondence Letter from State Dept. of Housing Applicant's Appeal of ZA Decision Neighbor's Appeal of ZA Decision Knightsen Town Advisory Council Letter ZA Staff Report Staff Study of Existing Facilities Bonita House Info. Packet Letters from Public Agency Comments Negative Declaration and Initial Study Comments on Negative Declaration Maps Site Plans Photographs Bonita House Support Letters