CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 18, 2016
PREPARED BY: Gina Paolini, Senior Planner/Planning Department
APPROVED BY: City Manager
Title
ZONING AMENDMENT, ZA-16-03:RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES (AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF CONGREGATE CARE FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY)
END
RECOMMENDATION(S)
RECOMMENDATION
1. Open/close Public Hearing;
2. Waive the First and Second Reading of the Zoning Amendment Ordinance; and,
3. Introduce Zoning Amendment Ordinance.
BODY
COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES:
Ongoing Priorities
Protecting the environment
2016 Focus Areas
Planning Our Community
REPORT NARRATIVE:
City staff has noticed an increase interest in the establishment of new and expansion of existing residential care facilities within the City. Because of this interest, staff has reviewed the Municipal Code definitions and state definitions as they relate to residential care facilities and has found inconsistencies.
The City has four distinct definitions within the Municipal Code dealing with this topic which include, "Congregate Care for the elderly/assisted living facility", "Residential Care Facility, Large", "Residential Care Facility, Small" and "Senior citizen housing, independent/active".
The goal of the proposed amendments is to align the City's definitions with the State and to require licensing where applicable. Supportive or transitional housing that provides medical care or services patients whose need for care or supervision exceeds a certain threshold (Section 1505 of the Health and Safety Code) will need to have a license or they will be considered an apartment requiring participation in the City's Residential Development Control System (RDCS). The proposed Ordinance (Attachment 1) shows changes with new text indicated by underline and text to be deleted indicated by strike-through.
Changes to the following chapters of Title 18, Division 1, Zoning Code the municipal code are proposed:
• Chapter 18.04 "Definitions", Sections 18.04.112 - Congregate care for the elderly/assisted living facility; 18.04.382.75 - Residential care facility; 18.04.393 - Senior citizen housing, independent/active
• Chapter 18.14 - R-2 Medium-Density Residential District, Section 18.14.040-Conditional Uses,
• Chapter 18.16 - R-3 Medium-Density Residential District, Chapter 18.16.040-Conditional Uses,
• Chapter 18.17 - R-4 High-Density Residential District, Section 18.17.040-Conditional Uses,
• Chapter 18.19- Public Facilities District, Section 18.19.030-Conditional Uses,
• Chapter 18.20-CN Neighborhood Commercial District, Section 18.20.030-Conditional Uses,
• Chapter 18.22-CG General Commercial District, Section 18.22.030-Conditional Uses,
• Chapter 18.24 CC-R Central Commercial/Residential District, Section 18.24.070-Conditional Uses,
• Chapter 18.25 - CL-R Light Commercial/Residential District, Section 18.25.030 - Conditional Uses
Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Zoning Amendment at the April 12, 2016 meeting and requested a continuance to the April 26, 2016 Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time to review the materials. The staff reports from these meetings have been attached (Attachments 2 and 3). The Commission also requested that additional information be provided regarding how the proposed changes could impact the Residential Development Control System (RDCS) and the land use of a specific site located north of Barrett Avenue and south of Butterfield Boulevard ("The Lodge of Morgan Hill").
Staff provided the requested information to the Planning Commission, indicating that the City currently requires affordable housing projects to participate in the RDCS process and once developed, there is continued oversight by the City. Senior citizen housing, which is designed for persons who are fifty-five years of age or older, and which may or may not have services for the residents, also requires processing through the RDCS.
It was explained that the proposed amendment has not been developed to discourage the development of "Residential Care Facilities,” but rather to promote the development of facilities which have significant regulatory oversight to maintain an appropriate level of services for the intended population, while also discouraging projects that would seek to circumvent the RDCS and which could result in a the development of a facility with inadequate services to support its residents.
City Attorney Review
The City Attorney also provided a memo to the Planning Commission regarding the City's Authority to Amend the Definition of Congregate Care Facilities in the Zoning Code (Attachment 4). The questions raised by the Planning Commission were:
1. May the City amend the zoning code definition to change the definition of congregate care facilities citywide?
2. Is it legal for the City to change the definition of congregate care facilities for health, safety, or welfare reasons, if the change will affect an existing, unbuilt project, which does not have building permit issued for development?
3. Will the change of the definition of congregate care facilities result in a valid claim for a taking for an individual owner?
The City Attorney concluded that the Planning Commission and the City have the right to change the classification of congregate care based upon interests in protecting the health, safety and welfare of the future residents and the public. In this case, the developer does not have a vested right in the existing classification of congregate care for the development of a third portion of a project. If the City adopts this classification change, the developer has at least two alternatives available to it. First, the developer could comply with the regulations and develop a licensed residential care facility. A second alternative is that the developer could choose to not develop a licensed congregate care facility and instead could develop a senior apartment project and obtain RDCS allotments like nearly every other residential developer in the City.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Involve
Public hearings were held with the Planning Commission on April 12 and April 26, 2016. The public was invited to attend and discuss the proposed changes to the Municipal Code.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The City Council could determine that the existing provisions within the Municipal Code are adequate and deny the Ordinance amendment.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:
This project was originally heard at the April 12, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission requested additional information to be provided and the hearing was continued to the April 26, 2016 meeting. At the April 26, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 4-1-0-2 (Orosco opposed, Toombs/Spring absent) to recommend approval of the proposed Ordinance amendment.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
There would be no fiscal impact with the proposed Ordinance amendment.
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):
Statutory Exemption
This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Text amendments to the Morgan Hill Municipal Code are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Adoption of these amendments will not create changes in the physical environment and are therefore exempt.
LINKS/ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. April 12, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report
3. April 26, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report
4. City Attorney Memo