TITLE
Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, deny the appeal of Gloria Calixto and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a Conditional Use Permit to establish a teen counseling center (18 years and under) to include tutoring, substance abuse and general counseling services in an existing legal nonconforming commercial building located at
420 Grand Avenue within the R-3-T residential zone. (District 3)
DISCUSSION
On December 2, 2010, the Planning Commission considered a Conditional Use Permit request to establish a teen counseling center (18 years and under) to include tutoring, substance abuse and general counseling services in an existing legal nonconforming commercial building in the R-3-T zone (town house or row house residential district on small lots). After a lengthy hearing where surrounding residents and property owners spoke in opposition to the project and 16 letters of opposition were submitted (Exhibit A - Planning Commission Adopted Findings and Letters), the Planning Commission unanimously denied the request. The applicant filed an appeal on December 13, 2010 (Exhibit B - Appeal Form) and contends that the decision was based on prior unrelated conduct and should be reversed.
The subject property is located on the east side of Grand Avenue north of 4th Street within a residential district (R-3-T)(Exhibit C - Location Map). The site is an 8,700-square-foot lot (58 feet by 150 feet) and improved with a two-story 6,950-square-foot commercial building originally constructed as a nursing home in 1954. The surrounding properties to the north, east and south are all residentially zoned and improved with residential structures. The property to the west is zoned commercial, but also improved with a residential structure. The site is also located in the Parking Impacted Area. The property was last licensed as a residential care facility in 2007.
The Zoning Code allows a nonconforming (commercial) building in a residential zone that has been abandoned for a period greater than twelve months to be used for another commercial purpose with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
The proposed project would involve the reuse of the existing building as an outpatient counseling center for teens (18 years and under). The youths would be referred to this facility by group homes, parents, walk-ins and the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health. The proposed facility would provide a number of services, including: tutoring, computer lab and job skills, employment services, college preparatory classes, behavioral modification, sex education, and substance abuse counseling. Minor building alterations to convert the existing structure from a residential care facility to an office for counseling services are proposed (Exhibit D - Plans and Photographs).
The applicant, Gloria Calixto, has owned the property since 2002 and has a history of non-compliance that includes operating a residential care facility without the proper state licenses and operating an unlicensed homeless shelter/boarding house with each room being individually rented without any City approvals. This unpermitted use resulted in numerous neighborhood complaints involving the Police Department, Fire Department, Planning Department and Code Enforcement. The unpermitted homeless shelter complaints began in October 2006 and resulted in the filing of a Notice of Declaration of Nuisance Activity and Abatement case in 2007. Complaints against the facility included: loud music and noises, food distribution, child abuse, loitering, criminal activity, double parking, and public consumption of alcohol and illegal drugs. The City tried to obtain voluntary compliance from the operator and property owner without success. The nuisance case was filed May 9, 2007, with the hearing held on June 28, 2007 (Exhibit E- Notice of Hearing Officer's decision and findings). Twelve neighbors testified to the activities occurring at the site. The hearing officer confirmed the notice in its entirety and authorized the imposition of fees and administrative penalties against GMI and Gloria Claxito, individually, as the property owner. The decision resulted in penalties of nearly $30,000 and required the business to close. Compliance with Section 9.37.090 Public Nuisance Code of the Long Beach Municipal Code was only achieved after the administrative hearing and eventual closure of the facility.
At the Planning Commission hearing on December 2, 2010, there was substantial opposition to the proposed project. The primary issues raised at the hearing include the following:
· The current zone of the site is residential (R-3-T), not commercial.
· The use is located in a residential neighborhood surrounded by residential structures on all sides and the property is located on a 60-foot-wide local street, not a major arterial street.
· The building is large, nearly 7,000 square feet, with only three on-site compact parking spaces. The size of the building could accommodate a large number of clients with a very small number of on-site parking spaces.
· The applicant has a history of disregard for compliance with City regulations, codes and laws, including the Notice of Declaration of Nuisance Activity and Abatement case filed in 2007. No efforts were made to address neighborhood concerns resulting from the illegal use or cease operations, although the City made numerous attempts to resolve the problem. Shortly after the Nuisance Activity and Abatement hearing, the applicant closed the unpermitted homeless shelter and, subsequently, the public nuisance violations ceased.
· The description of the proposed use cannot be confirmed due to continuous revision of the proposed uses by the applicant. During the application process, and even at the Planning Commission public hearing, the proposed use changed from an adult counseling center to a teen counseling center, from group counseling of seven to groups of ten, and the use includes behavioral counseling, a learning academy with tutoring and college education classes. The proposed project covers an extremely wide range of uses that may be difficult to enforce and regulate.
Based on the testimony of the speakers, written documentation and the issues listed above, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit. Staff believes that the approval of the Conditional Use Permit application would have a detrimental effect upon the public safety, general welfare and quality of life for the surrounding neighborhood. All residents who testified were in opposition to the project. After careful analysis, staff was unable to make the necessary findings to support the request for a Conditional Use Permit, particularly those findings which relate to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding community. The history of the operator has shown a consistent disregard for City regulations, codes and laws. The lack of action to comply with these codes has resulted in hundreds of hours of City staff time and a Nuisance Abatement hearing in order to achieve compliance.
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit based on the issues listed above and negative findings regarding the proposed use as indicated in the attached documents (Exhibit F- Planning Commission Report).
This letter was reviewed by Assistant City Attorney Michael Mais on January 21, 2011 and by Budget Management Officer Victoria Bell on January 24, 2011.
TIMING CONSIDERATIONS
The Municipal Code requires City Council action within 60 days of receiving an application for appeal, which was received on December 13, 2010.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as a result of the recommended action and this action will have no local job impact.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve recommendation.
Respectfully Submitted,
AMY J. BODEK, AICP
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
APPROVED:
PATRICK H. WEST
CITY MANAGER