15 - Laserfiche WebLink

The attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 4) dated February 25, 2015, provides additional background information and a detailed discussion of the proposed application, including concerns related to land use, noise, traffic, and parking. This report includes supplemental discussion regarding the following items which the appellant raised in his appeal: safety, liability, parking, traffic, noise, and property values. The applicant has provided a response to the appeal in Attachment 6. Safety and Liability The appellant has expressed concern about the potential for violent behavior by clients of Social Vocational Services, and the related safety of his employees. Additionally, the appellant has expressed concern about potential liability should a client walk away from the facility unsupervised, or in the event of an accident in the common area of the property, given that the suites at 6602 Owens Drive are under condominium ownership. According to the applicant, clients enrolled in its vocational training program tend not to have behavioral problems; if they did, they would enroll in a behavioral program, not a vocational training program. State licensing requirements necessitate that clients are continuously supervised, that the training center maintain an emergency plan, and that staff are qualified and undergo annual training to ensure the health and safety of clients, as described in Attachment 6. Additionally, to alert staff when a door is opened, the proposed project design includes door alarms on all exterior doors, as stated in Attachment 6. To reinforce this requirement, City staff recommends that an additional condition of approval be added requiring installation of door alarms on all exterior doors of the building to alert staff of anyone going in or out of the building (see condition #6 in Exhibit A of Attachment 1). City staff believes the potential for liability is unrelated to the proposed use and would remain an issue if an office use or any other use were located in the suite. For the reasons stated above, staff believes that the training center does not present a substantial safety concern that would be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the subject site. Parking and Traffic The appellant has stated that parking is currently constrained on the site and is concerned about employee and visitor parking. City staff conducted two parking surveys and documented the following conditions: • Tuesday, 2/24/15 at 2pm: 32 out of 95 spaces occupied • Wednesday, 2/25/15 at 10am: 35 out of 95 spaces occupied Moreover, the rear portion of the parking lot—where the training center's loading area would be located and where the vans are proposed to park—was occupied by no more than two cars (out of 28 spaces available) during each survey. As described in the Planning Commission staff report in Attachment 4, City staff estimates parking demand of up to 25 spaces at the training center to accommodate Page 4 of 7