PC 102407 - Laserfiche WebLink

street was designed for the traffic generated by this use. She understood that this neighborhood had been zoned for single-family residences. Diane Tran noted that the appearance of the house was very unattractive and found it difficult to believe that with the City's requirements to pull permits for many building-related activities, the State would allow a business to be located in a residential court with no notice or permitting. Maynard Ling noted that this house had formerly been very pretty and believed that the new owners were not showing any consideration for the neighbors. He had always understood the zoning to be for single-family residential and noted that in the past, the neighbors had been notified of proposed work and were asked if they had any objections. Erika Holman noted that she was very concerned about the safety of the other children on the court because of the increased traffic. She did not believe the residents of the elder care facility would appreciate all the noise caused by the children playing. Chairperson Fox invited a motion to open Matters Initiated by Commission Members in order for the Planning Commission to ask questions of staff. Ms. Harryman noted that it was not necessary to make a motion to open Matters Initiated by Commission Members. She noted that the Brown Act allowed for brief discussions in order to decide whether a matter should be agendized for a future meeting. She noted that she would be happy to answer general questions and that further discussion should take place during a future agenda. Ms. Hanyman noted that the State has essentially dictated this use be considered as a residential use allowing elder care facilities as well as child care and recovering addicts facilities for six persons or less. The State has deemed these uses to be so important and difficult to find that they are to be allowed in residential neighborhoods. In addition, cities and counties are precluded from regulating them in terms of applying zoning laws to them; cities are also precluded from treating them as a business. The use was to be considered as asingle-family residence, and the six persons who live in the facilities are considered a family. In addition, cities may not charge a business license or tax, and they are to be taxed as asingle-family residence. She noted that the State has truly pre-empted this area of the law and that the City may not take any action with respect to zoning. She stated that the building would not be exempt from regulations regarding changes to the building and must adhere to the same laws as any other single-family residence. She did not know the particulars of this home in that regard. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether the City would be precluded from findings regarding hazardous situations, Ms. Harryman replied that elder care facilities may not be regulated by the City in teens of traffic. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether the deck or the ramp had been permitted, Ms. Decker confirmed that the applicant had obtained building permits PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2007 Page 5 of 40