Loading...
CC - Conditional Use Permit 96-677; Appeal Rest Homes Faciclity 9025 Guess Street - Internal File 046 ~ X TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-677; APPEAL Rest Home Facility 9025 Guess Street I DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit 96-677, allowing operation of a rest home was approved by the Planning Commission on August 5, 1996. Staff received some comments from neighbors prior to the meeting. These comments were relative to problems created as a result of the operation of the previous owners. This operation was approved subject to conditions of approval that requires the removal of one unpermitted structure and the remodeling of a second unpermitted structure. The staff report(s) and minutes are attached for your review. On August 13, 1996, the City Clerk received a written appeal of the decision from Zosimo and Nelia Pascasio who are the applicants of the project. A copy of the appeal letter is attached for the City Council to review. The applicants are appealing the condition of approval that would require them to remove an illegal structure ("Building C"). This structure has been used for an office and storage, and they want to continue its operation. There are four issues that the appeal notes as the basis for their appeal: ISSUE 1: A property history is presented by the applicant. ANALYSIS 1: The staff report dated August 5, 1996, provides a historical description of this property. This report expands beyond the ownership history provided by the applicant. ISSUE 2: The owners consulted the State Department of Social Services to verify that they can be licensed. COUNCIL AGENDA SEP 101996 ITEM No. i Conditional Use Permit 96-677; Appeal City Council, 9-10-96 Page 2 of 4 ANALYSIS 2: The State does not have authority over land use controls within the City of Rosemead. Staff finds that the State has it own criteria for licensing a facility that regulates operation procedures, primarily over concentration. It does not include regulation of any local land use laws. On April 8, 1996, the Department of Social Services sent a notice to the Rosemead Planning Department that there were new owners. The Planning Department responded to the new owners with a letter explaining that a CUP would be required. In addition, there were numerous improvements required from the Building and Fire Departments to address code deficiencies. ISSUE 3: The applicant claims that the Planning Department provided information that the City would not be involved. ANALYSIS 3: This statement is inaccurate. The applicant's Realtor presented the item as an existing use with all of the necessary permits. The letter responding to the Social Services Department notice, dated May 9, 1996, shows the position of the Planning Department from the start. A rest home facility requires a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 9181.9 Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC). The Planning Department found that there was no existing CUP and there has been a history of problems at this location. However, we noted that the staff could support approval of a CUP for the facility as it was permitted. This was to include proper building permits as well as the County's authorization. The Realtor submitted a general sketch of the site, and assumed that all of the structures on the property were permitted since they were there at the time of sale. However, further investigation found that two areas had no permits. This finding was sent to the applicant in a letter dated June 5, 1996. In response, the applicant's proposed to legalize all unpermitted construction. Staff found that this constituted an expansion of a nonconforming use. Section 9121.4 requires non-conforming uses to be brought into conformance if it is expanded. This use does not meet the minimum parking requirement of one space per bed. The applicant's argued that the patients are non-ambulatory so the parking is not needed. City codes do not provide a parking ratio for non-ambulatory facilities, so the only option to consider an expansion would be with a variance to allow reduced parking. If such a variance were to be granted, the applicant would need to provide documentation on reduced parking needs of similar facilities. No variance application has been filed, and no documents have been submitted. Conditional Use Permit 96-677; Appeal City Council, 9-10-96 Page 3 of 4 ISSUE 4: The applicant researched the property history through previous owners. The area designated as "Building C" has been on the site for many years. ANALYSIS 4: First of all, comments received from neighbors during the public hearing process relative to the operation under these pervious owners paints a picture that they did not do the best job they could. This is supported from past letters that show noncompliance with Health and Safety codes during the 1970's. Also, the condition of the site when the Pascasio's took over shows noncompliance with Building and Fire codes. Rosemead conducts code enforcement on a reactive, not proactive, basis. The 1996 notice from the Social Services Department was the first time the City had been notified of an ownership change. This letter invited comments related to a rest home facility at this site. Upon inspections and research, the Building, Planing and Fire Departments found many issues to be addressed. Once we found the unpermitted areas we had to address them or the City could be liable for safety problems that may occur. Initially, staff took the position to require all unpermitted areas to be removed. Staff found that "Bedroom 7" extending off of the living room in "Building A" was in a condition that could be brought into conformance from its existing condition. It is our opinion, that "Building C", for all intensive purposes, would have to be demolished and rebuilt in order to be able to meet code requirements. "Building C" had been used by previous owners for an office area. This area has been required to be removed which would require the owners to relocate the office to another location. As a compromise staff recommended, and the Planning Commission approved, that the owners be allowed to keep and remodel "Bedroom 7" for office area provided that they remove "Building C". Staff has worked with the applicant to locate the office area into "Building B" where there is better visibility in the front of the site for security. This allows for "Bedroom 7" to remain a bedroom since the office will take up the space of an existing, permitted bedroom. Staff finds that this was an equitable trade-off. If they wanted to include the additional area of "Building C", they would need to do so with a variance request to reduce the amount of required parking. This would allow the neighbors the proper opportunity to address any parking issues. Staff finds that this is essential since the facility is located in a single family residential neighborhood. Conditional Use Permit 96-677; Appeal City Council, 9-10-96 Page 4 of 4 RF.COMMF.NDATIO Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission condition to remove "Building C" and deny the appeal request. If they want to install additional area, they can apply for a variance to reduce the parking requirement. However, they will have the burden of proof to justify that their type of operation will not need such parking in a worst case scenario. Attachments: 1. Appeal Letter (dated 8-13-96) 2. City letter (dated 5-9-96) 3. City Letter (dated 6-5-96) 4. Planning Commission Staff Report (dated 8-5-96) 5. Planning Commission Minutes (dated 8-5-96) 6. Planning Commission Resolution 96-43 7. Site/Floor Plan