CCMIN021913 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio asked how many examples of this housing are currently in Pleasanton. Mr. Fialho said less than 5. Councilmember Pentin asked and Mr. Dolan confirmed that the homeless shelter lobby requirements of 10 square feet per bed are designed to avoid overflow and loitering outside the shelter. Councilmember Brown asked staff to describe the administrative process for developing a homeless shelter, given that it is a permitted use. Mr. Dolan explained that the intent of SB2 is to limit a city's discretion and facilitate the development of what is otherwise a very difficult and expense project. He explained that if the property were in a F'UD that allowed all uses in the CS zone, the site would be eligible to house an emergency homeless shelter. If an existing building, a zoning compliance check and perhaps some building permits for improvements would be the only review by the City. If a vacant lot, the City's discretion would be limited to design review. Councilmember Brown asked what assurances could be offered that families utilizing an emergency shelter would not be housed with registered sex offenders, drug users, recently released convicts, or persons with potentially dangerous mental illnesses. Mr. Dolan stated they would be operated by a government agency, not for profit, or religious institution, all of which offer some built in protection in terms of operating procedures, guidelines, funding limitations and then need to manage it in a way that allows it to continue. City Attorney Lowell explained that each operator would develop its own guidelines and regulations as part of the required management plan and that there is certainly strong incentive to ensure there are no conflicts between the different populations that each chooses to serve. The operator is required to provide the City with a copy of the management plan; however, the City has little control over how the facility is managed. With regards to uses within a residential area, SB2 requires these facilities to be treated the same as other residential uses and the zoning code does not normally legislate where sex offenders may reside, with exception of distance requirements from schools and parks for those offenses involving children. He also noted that depending on the source of funding, some operators may specifically exclude the provision of services to sex offenders. Mr. Fialho added that some time ago the School District Liaison Committee evaluated the effects of legislation that made parks part of the criteria for locating registered offenders. After careful evaluation and mapping of the City's parks and schools they identified two locations in town where registered offenders could live and meet the requirements of the law — one in and around the future WindStar project and a small portion of eastern Ruby Hill. Councilmember Brown referred to the minutes of the Planning Commission, in which some businesses requested additional lighting for the two sites located within the commercial districts, and she asked if this could be reasonably accommodated. Mr. Dolan said staff has recommended what it believes to be a reasonable range for required lighting. He also noted that any new developmert would be subject to design review, which could address additional lighting requirements if needed. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio asked if there is any sense of the need for this type of housing in the Tri-Valley. Contract Planner Deborah Diamond said there are 3 existing homeless facilities in Livermore, one serving battered women only, another open to families with children and single males, and one open to women and children only. Mayor Thorne opened the public hearing, noted there were no speakers, and closed the public hearing. Mayor Thorne asked if staff anticipates the amendment creating significant demand for such facilities. Mr. Dolan said the despite the need, it would be exceptionally difficult to acquire the necessary land and funding package. City Council Minutes Page 7 of 11 February 19, 2013