The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 10 - Appeal of Approval; MDRA 21-023, a single-family residence to be used as care facility (Sharp Mtn View) 16752 Espola RdMay 17, 2022, Item #10DATE: TO: FROM: CONTACT: SUBJECT: Summary: AG EN DA REPORT City of Poway May 17, 2022 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Robert Manis, Director of Development Services /11 Austin Silva, Senior Planner A(., 858-668-4658 or asilva@poway.org CITY COUNCIL Appeal (APL) 22-001-An appeal of the approval for Minor Development Review Application 21-023, a single-family residence to be used as a residential care facility (Sharp Mountainview Hospice), located at 16752 Espola Road Minor Development Review Application (MDRA) 21-023 is a request from the Applicant, Sharp Healthcare, to construct a single-family residence with six bedrooms to be used as a residential care facility (specifically providing end of life hospice care) on a 1.02-acre lot at the southwest corner of Espola Road and Valle Verde Road in the Rural Residential C (RR-C) zone. Two owners of nearby properties (Appellants) have submitted an appeal of City staffs approval of the MDRA, pursuant to Poway Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 2.20. The Appellants argue the MDRA should not be approved because the findings and determinations in the MDRA approval 1) were reached without sufficient notice to, and input from, the community which the hospice facility will impact; 2) were reached after misapplication of the PMC with respect to development review procedures; 3) are inconsistent with applicable Poway zoning ordinances and definitions, including those applicable to the Green Valley neighborhood; and 4) are inconsistent with the aesthetic, economic, safety and traffic impacts that the hospice facility will have on Green Valley and its property owners. Recommended Action: It is recommended the City Council deny the appeal, upholding the approval of MDRA 21-023, pursuant to the attached Resolution (Attachment A). Should the City Council instead decide to grant the appeal, in whole or in part, staff will return at a future date with a new resolution with revised findings in accordance with the City Council's decision. Discussion: Project Description On February 15, 2022, MDRA 21-023 was approved by the Development Services Department (City Staff), allowing for a 6,670-square-foot single-family home with an attached 431-square-foot garage to be used as a residential care facility on a 1.02-acre lot at the southwest corner of Espola Road and 1 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Valle Verde Road, addressed as 16752 Espola Road (Subject Property) in the RR-C zone as shown on Attachment B (Project). The MDRA is an administrative process approved at the staff level that is required for all new single-family homes. A single-family home was previously located on the property and has been demolished pursuant to a building permit issued on January 20, 2022, authorizing the demolition of this single-family home and shed. The Project has been designed to be architecturally compatible and in scale with the existing surrounding residential development. The building materials consist of stucco and board and batten siding with concrete tiles on the roof, which are depicted on the architectural renderings (Attachment C). The building adheres to setback and lot coverage requirements for the RR-C zone. The site plan (Attachment D) shows access to the site is taken from a single driveway off Valle Verde Road. A landscaped berm is included within a 24-foot-wide landscape planter along Espola Road to screen parking spaces that transitions into an eight-foot-wide landscape planter along Valle Verde Road to continue landscape screening. The applicant included 21 parking spaces onsite to avoid parking on Valle Verde Road, in addition to a two-car garage, as required for a single-family dwelling. The parking spaces were not a City requirement. The single-family home contains six bedrooms, a kitchen, a living room, a family dining room, nurse stations, a lounge, and an office. The approval letter for MDRA 21-023 is included as Attachment E. As proposed, MDRA 21-023 meets all requirements for a single-family dwelling. Approval of any uses for the single-family dwelling is not part of the MDRA approval, although any residential uses associated with the single-family dwelling must conform with the permitted and conditional residential uses outlined in Chapter 17.08.100 in the PMC. As discussed in more detail below, both State and Federal law mandate the approval of the proposed Project because it meets all the requirements of a single-family dwelling, and an identically designed home that was intended to be used as a "traditional" single-family home would be approved. Residential Care Facility Classification Pursuant to State law, as a general matter, any licensed residential care facility with six or fewer residents is a permitted use in any single-family zone, including the RR-C zone, and must be treated the same as any "traditional" single-family home. It is important to note that outside of the residential care facility context, staff does not and cannot inquire into how many adults, children, families or even unrelated groups of people are living in single-family house, as the state-mandated definition of "family" is extremely broad. The Applicant's attorney has provided a detailed discussion of State law, which the City Attorney has reviewed and found to be generally accurate and is not aware of any legal authority to the contrary. (See Attachment H, Exhibit A) In particular, City Staff determined that the Project, among other categories, fits within the definition of a "congregate living health facility," which is defined as "a residential home with a capacity of no more than 18 beds, that provides inpatient care, including the following basic services: medical supervision, 24-hour skilled nursing and supportive care, pharmacy, dietary, social, recreational, and services for persons who have a diagnosis of terminal illness. A congregate living health facility shall have a noninstitutional, homelike environment." (California Health & Safety Code § 1250 [emphasis added].) Pursuant to California Health & Safety Code section 1267.16, a congregate living health facility which serves six or fewer persons must be considered a single-family residential use of property for purposes of any zoning ordinance or law related to the residential use of property. State law and the PMC defines family to include a residential care facility with six or fewer beds. There are general State law constraints applicable to certain types of community care facilities, 2 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10including facilities providing end of life/hospice services, where only six or fewer persons reside. These constraints include the following: 1. Whether or not unrelated persons are living together, a facility which serves six or fewer persons shall be considered a residential use of property. 2. The residents and operators of the facility shall be considered a family for the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance which is related to the residential use of property. 3. For the purposes of all local ordinances, a facility which serves six or fewer persons shall not be included within the definition of a boarding house, rooming house, institution or home for the care of minors, the aged, or the mentally infirm, foster care home, guest home, rest home, sanitarium, mental hygiene home, or other similar term which implies that the facility is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a single-family residence. 4. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of a facility which serves six or fewer persons which is not required of a single-family residence in the same zone. 5. Use of a single-family dwelling for purposes of a facility serving six or fewer persons shall not constitute a change of occupancy for purposes of Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 17910) of Division 13 or local building codes. However, nothing in this section supersedes Section 13143 to the extent these provisions are applicable to a facility providing care for six or fewer residents. Finally, it should be noted that the City does not (and cannot) control the type of license issued by the California Department of Public Health, which the City understands at this point, has not yet been determined. Appeal Filing On February 25, 2022, the City Clerk received a letter of appeal signed by the Appellants (Attachment F). The Appellants are appealing City Staffs approval of MORA 21-023 because they believe the findings and determinations made in the letter are inappropriate based on the reasons listed in the Summary section of this report. The following is a more detailed description of the reasons for the appeal: 1) The Hospice MORA Approval Letter Does Not Comply with PMC Guidance Regarding the Purpose of Development Review Procedures The Appellants site section 17.52.01 O of the PMC, which is related to the development review process. The Appellants recite several elements of the code section they believe the MORA approval letter fails to comply with. They also state that the MORA approval letter fails to detail the scope of the review conducted by the Planning Division, or cite the people consulted in the process. City Staff response: There is no requirement in this section of the code requiring approval letters to detail the scope of the review. The purpose of the MORA is to review a project for compliance with City codes and policies. The MDRA was reviewed during three separate submittals. This was not detailed in the approval letter, which is consistent with previous all MORA approval letters that are written. The Project was found to be in compliance with PMC 17.52.101 and with the development regulations of the RR-C zone. 3 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #102) There Has Been Inadequate Notice To, and Input From, Residents of Green Valley Regarding the Proposed Hospice Facility The Appellants state that only a few select individuals were involved in the process of evaluating and approving the proposed Hospice Facility and that it is incumbent upon elected officials and administrators to seek and consider input from the community. The appellants also state that pursuant to the PMC, no property zoned RR-C shall be rezoned unless such rezone is approved by the voters of the City. City Staff response: There is no requirement in the PMC for property owner notice for a MORA for a single-family residence. Given that the Hospice Facility with six or fewer residents is considered a residential use, it is subject to the same zoning and noticing requirements as a single-family residence. The City cannot selectively require that certain projects are subject to additional noticing requirements and level of review than other projects in the same land use classification (single-family residences). There are no noticing requirements for Minor Development Review Applications in the PMC. However, the City did notify six property owners (Attachment G) adjacent to or across the street from the proposed residential care facility. There is no rezone proposed with this Project. The RR-C zone allows single-family dwellings, including a six-bed residential care facility. 3) As Currently Contemplated, the Hospice Facility Is Not Complementary To, and In Harmony With, Our Residential Neighborhood The appellants state that the proposed Project is not really a residential care facility at all, but rather, a commercial hospice that would be run by, a major hospital system. The State of California contemplates that a residential care facility is essentially a non-medical facility for the elderly or ill to stay for long periods of time, whereas a hospice facility, contemplates short-term stays and the provision of medical services. City staff response: As indicated previously in this report, a hospice facility with six or fewer beds is considered a single-family residential use and must be permitted in the RR-C zone. The Appellants state that the proposed Hospice Facility would increase the volume and change the nature of traffic in the Green Valley Neighborhood. City staff response: The Hospice Facility is considered a single-family residential use which is permitted and contemplated in the RR-C zone. Therefore, a traffic study was not required to assess the traffic generated by the facility. However, the Applicant has voluntarily provided a traffic study in response to the appeal (Attachment H, Exhibit B), which indicates that the Project would result in 18 total vehicle trips per day, a net increase of 8 vehicle trips per day when compared to a "traditional" single-family home. This study further concludes that all traffic impacts would be minimal, and fit within the existing capacity of the nearby roadways. The Appellants state that the current ingress and egress for the proposed Hospice Facility is located directly on Valle Verde Road, even though the property also fronts Espola Road. The City should consider the location of the existing Espola entrance to the Subject Property to serve the proposed Project. City staff response: Espola Road has a posted speed limit of 45 mph and an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 16,474. Valle Verde Road, south of Espola Road, is a residential collector without 4 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10a posted speed limit and therefore has a 25-mph speed limit due to its residential classification. While the City does not have a current ADT for this section Valle Verde Road, the ADT for Valle Verde Road, north of Espola Road, is 5,819. It is expected that the ADT south of Espola Road would be equal to or less than this volume, which is one-third of the volume on Espola Road. As previously stated, the construction of a single-family residence does not require a traffic study. However, based upon the higher posted speed limit and traffic volumes on Espola Road, providing driveway access to the site from Espola Road would add to vehicular conflicts with motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Additionally, vehicle traffic entering the site from Valle Verde Road would not be passing any properties other than the Subject Property itself. Finally, the Applicant's traffic study concluded access on Valle Verde Road is preferred based on similar engineering and safety concerns, and provides additional detail in response to the arguments relating to traffic and access set forth in the appeal. (Attachment H, Exhibit B) The Appellant states the plans for the proposed Hospice Facility do not make clear how the transfer of patients will work or whether transfers will be visible from Valle Verde Road. It is entirely inappropriate to impose a high level of patient transfers on a quiet residential neighborhood that includes families with young children. City staff response: The transfer of patients was not a consideration for the approval of the MORA for a single-family residence because it is part of the proposed use. The City cannot use an aspect of the proposed use to deny the Project, as it must deem the use to be consistent with and treated the same as a "traditional" single-family use. However, the Applicant has indicated the transfer of patients will occur in the northwest portion of the property, on the west side of the building, out of view from Valle Verde Road. This area would also be screened from Espola Road by a landscaped berm. The Appellant states the Project includes handicapped and electronic vehicle (EV) parking spaces and charging stations that would be easily visible from Valle Verde Road. There is also a concern with respect to the handling of overflow parking. City staff response: In the original plans there were two driveways to the site along Valle Verde Road. The northerly driveway did allow for views into the site of the parking area, the disabled parking spaces and the EV charging stations. After concerns were raised by the Appellants and discussions with the Applicant, the north driveway was removed to block visibility to the property with landscaped screening. The north driveway was also problematic due to its proximity to the intersection. Because the Project is reviewed as a single-family residence, the City cannot require any additional parking spaces beyond a two-car garage. The Applicant is voluntarily providing 21 parking spaces in addition to the two-car garage to avoid the need to park offsite. The Appellants state that given this is a commercial operation being imposed on a residential neighborhood, it has the potential to directly and negatively affect property values. City staff response: As previously mentioned, pursuant to State Law, the Project must be considered a single-family residential use. The proposed structure conforms to the development standards for the RR-C zone and has been designed to meet the requirements of a single-family residence and to be compatible with the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood. The City risks significant legal liability if it determines the Project is not permitted, when it would otherwise permit an identical "traditional" single family home. With respect to property values, the Applicant has provided a response in Exhibit D to Attachment H, in the form of a broker's opinion. 5 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Avoiding Discrimination under the Federal Fair Housing Act {"FHA"). Americans with Disabilities Act {"ADA") and California Fair Employment and Housing Act {"FEHA'') There is little doubt that individuals suffering from a terminal illness are considered disabled and/or handicapped under state and federal law, and thus subject to additional protections under the FHA, ADA and FEHA. While the legal memorandum provided by the Applicant describes these laws in considerable detail (Attachment H, Exhibit A), the main principle is that if any similar use would be otherwise permitted -such as any residential care facility, whether for the elderly, children, or any various type of illness or substance abuse problems -then the Project cannot be denied based on who is living there (i.e., individuals who need hospice care because they are suffering a terminal illness). Thus, the City cannot grant the appeal and deny the Project based on the impacts unique to a facility providing hospice care as compared to a different type of residential care facility with six or less beds, which there is no dispute would be permitted. To do so would risk significant liability under federal law, in addition to State law. (See, Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach (9th Cir. 2013) 730 F. 3d 1142.) It bears noting that as part of its response to the Appeal, the Applicant has made an official request for reasonable accommodation under the FHA and FEHA. (Attachment H, Exhibit A, Exhibit B) As mentioned above, Attachment H contains a response letter to the appeal from Sharp Healthcare, including several detailed attachments. Other Correspondence Several emails and letters from neighboring property owners have been received regarding the Project. Attachment I includes all correspondence received as of the printing of this report. Any correspondence received after that will be provided separately to the Council for consideration. Environmental Review: An appeal of an administrative decision is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The approval of MDRA 21-023 is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA as a Class 3 and Class 32 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Sections 15303 and 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it proposes the construction of a single-family residence, which on less than five acres and is consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations and other requirements. Any City Council action to deny the appeal is exempt from CEQA for these same reasons. Fiscal Impact: None. Public Notification: A public notice was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the Project site and to anyone who expressed interest in the Project. Notice was also posted on the City's website and on the property. 6 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Attachments: A. Resolution B. Zoning/Location Map C. Architectural Renderings D. Site Plan E. MDRA 21-023 Approval Letter dated February 15, 2022 F. Appeal Letter dated February 25, 2022 G. Affidavit of Mailing for MDRA 21-023 H. Letter and Attachments from Sharp Healthcare I. Public Comments Reviewed/ Approved By: Assistant City Manager 7 of 137 Reviewed By: Alan Fenstermacher City Attorney Approved By: May 17, 2022, Item #10RESOLUTION NO. 22-A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (APL) 22-001 OF MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION (MORA) 21-023 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 275-032-04 WHEREAS, MORA 21-023 is a proposal to construct a 6,670 square-foot single-family residence with an attached 431-square-foot garage to be used as a residential care facility (hospice) on a 1.02-acre lot at 16752 Espola Road, in the Rural Residential C (RR-C) zone ("Project"); WHEREAS, MORA 21-023 was approved by City staff on February 15, 2022; WHEREAS, Section 2.20.20 of the Poway Municipal Code (PMC) provides for the appeal of administrative decisions, and on February 25, 2022, an appeal was filed regarding the approval of MORA 21-023 ("Appeal"); and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2022, the City Council at a public meeting considered comments from the public, both pro and con, relative to this appeal, including written materials and oral presentations by both the appellants and the applicant, and incorporates all the Agenda Report for the May 17, 2022 public hearing on the appeal and all materials attached hereto into this resolution by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as follows: SECTION 1: A request for City Council appeal of an administrative decision itself is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), but the denial of the appeal and final approval of the Project is exempt from CEQA under both the Class 3 and Class 32 exemptions, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines sections 15303 and 15332. SECTION 2: The Appeal of the approval of MORA 21-023 is denied. In support of the City Council's denial of the Appeal, the City Council incorporates by reference all the factual determinations and findings made by City Staff in its original approval of MORA 21-023, as well as of City Staff's responses to the Appeal set forth in the Agenda Report for the April 17, Appeal hearing, as if fully set forth herein. The City Council also makes the following further findings in support of its denial of the Appeal: A. The design review process for this Project recognized and implemented the interdependence of land values and aesthetics to the benefit of the City. The Project has been designed to be architecturally compatible and in scale with the surrounding residential development. In terms of scale, the Project is only a one-story facility and follows applicable lot coverage and setback requirements. In terms of aesthetics, the Project has been designed so the proposed exterior building materials will be similar and compatible with the surrounding residential development. Its landscape plan and fence provide sufficient screening of its parking facilities to minimize visual impacts. Moreover, the Project is conditioned to remove its north driveway to reduce views of its parking spaces. The Project maintains a high level of on-site parking above the minimum level recommended in order to avoid the risk of Project-related street parking. The Project includes a privacy fence requested by the area neighbors adjacent to 8 of 137 ATTACHMENT A May 17, 2022, Item #10Resolution No. 22-Page 2 the neighborhood pedestrian and equestrian trail to maintain the value of this neighborhood amenity. There is no evidence in the record that the Project would negatively impact property values, and the only evidence is from the Applicant, which indicates the no such impacts have occurred from its operation of a similar facility in San Diego County. B. The Project encourages the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within the City along with associated facilities, such as but not limited to signs, landscaping, parking areas and streets. The Project has been designed to follow the City's sign ordinance and landscaping ordinance. The Project has been designed so the proposed exterior building materials will be similar and compatible with the surrounding residential development. The Project provides ample on-site parking above the parking levels needed for the Project's average daily trips and is able to accommodate parking on a maximum peak trip day in order to avoid the risk of Project-related parking on the street. To maximize the harmonious appearance of the Project and its interaction with the local street, the Project is conditioned to remove its north driveway and the remaining driveway is designed to follow requirements of unobstructed sight angles for safe ingress and egress onto the local street. The Project only adds a net increase of eight trips to the local road compared to the previous home at the property, and the local road is not at maximum capacity. Therefore, there is substantial evidence the proposed development encourages the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within the City along with associated facilities, such as, but not limited to, signs, landscaping, parking areas, and streets. C. The Project maintains the public health, safety, and general welfare, and property within the City. The Project is required to be constructed in accordance with the California Green Building Code, which is designed to assure that residential structures are safe and maintain public health and the general welfare. Moreover, the Project has been designed to follow the City's sign ordinance and landscaping ordinance. MORA conditions were adopted to avoid potential nuisance impacts on surrounding properties. MORA Condition C requires the site to comply with City noise ordinances. MORA Conditions E. 12 and G. 7 requires the applicant to install and maintain erosion control devices and drainage systems to assure silt and surface water does not adversely affect neighboring properties. MORA Conditions F. 9 and 10 require compliance with muted earth tone building material finishes and approved landscape plans to avoid significant aesthetic impacts. The Project provides ample on-site parking above the minimum parking levels recommended for similar health care facilities in order to avoid the risk of Project-related parking on the street. To maximize the harmonious appearance of the Project and its interaction with the local street, the Project is conditioned to remove one of its driveways and the remaining driveway is designed to follow requirements of unobstructed sight distance requirements for safe ingress and egress onto the local street. The Project only adds a net increase of eight trips to the local road compared to the previous home at the property and the local road is not at maximum capacity. Finally, the residence will be staffed twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, to monitor operations and control visitor access, as well as for general security. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence the Project maintains the public health, safety and general welfare, and property within the City. D. The design review process worked to assist this private development Project to be more cognizant of public concerns for the aesthetics of development. Following notice to adjacent landowners within and during the extended comment period, the City received input on ways the Project could enhance its aesthetics to reduce visual impacts to the public. In addition to the already robust landscape plan to protect the public from view impacts of the Project's parking lot, the City staff agreed to condition the Project to remove one of its driveways to further reduce the neighborhood's view of the Project's parking facilities. In addition, the design 9 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Resolution No. 22-Page 3 review process led to improved privacy fencing between the Project and the neighborhood's adjacent pedestrian and equestrian trail to reduce impacts to the aesthetics of this neighborhood amenity. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence the design review process worked to assist this private development project to be more cognizant of public concerns for the aesthetics of development. E. The design review process worked to reasonably ensure that this new development does not have an adverse aesthetic, health, safety or architecturally related impact on existing adjoining properties or the City in general. Following notice to adjacent landowners and the extended comment period, the City received input on ways the Project could enhance its aesthetics to reduce visual impacts to the public. In addition to the already robust landscape plan to protect the public from view impacts of the Project's parking lot, the City staff agreed to condition the Project to remove one of its driveways to further reduce the neighborhood's view of the Project's parking facilities and the remaining driveway is designed to follow requirements of unobstructed sight distances for safe ingress and egress onto the local street. In addition, the design review process led to improved privacy fencing between the Project and the neighborhood's adjacent pedestrian and equestrian trail to reduce impacts to the aesthetics of this neighborhood amenity. The Project is required to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes, which are designed to assure that structures are safe and maintain public health and the general welfare. MORA conditions were adopted to avoid potential nuisance impacts on surrounding properties. MORA Condition C requires the site to comply with City noise ordinances. MORA Conditions E. 12 and G.7 requires Sharp to install and maintain erosion control devices and drainage systems to assure silt and surface water does not adversely affect neighboring properties. MORA Conditions F. 9 and 10 require compliance with muted earth tone building material finishes and approved landscape plans to avoid significant aesthetic impacts. The Project only adds a net increase of eight trips to the local road compared to the previous home at the property, and the local road is not at maximum capacity. Expert City engineers and applicant's third party engineer have determined the proposed vehicular access location is in the best interest of the public health and safety. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence the design review process worked to reasonably ensure that this new development does not have an adverse aesthetic, health, safety, or architecturally related impact on existing adjoining properties or the City in general. F. The proposed development complies with all applicable prov1s1ons of the Zoning Code and General Plan as a residential use. The single-family structure is deemed to be a residential use consistent with local residential zoning because the use classification is established by State and federal laws that require zoning protection for residential and health facilities that service the terminally ill and disabled. The City cannot interpret its General Plan and Zoning Code to preempt applicable State and federal laws by requiring a costly rezone to a commercial or other use through a vote of the electorate prior to approving permits to develop this healthcare facility. Moreover, the Project has been designed to follow the City's sign ordinance and landscaping ordinance. MORA Condition C requires the site to comply with City noise ordinances. MORA Conditions E. 12 and G.7 requires Sharp to install and maintain erosion control devices and drainage systems to assure silt and surface water does not adversely affect neighboring properties. MORA Conditions F. 9 and 10 require compliance with muted earth tone building material finishes and approved landscape plans to avoid significant aesthetic impacts Accordingly, there is substantial evidence the proposed development complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and General Plan as a residential use. 10 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Resolution No. 22-Page 4 SECTION 3: The City Council further finds that the Project must be considered a single-family use pursuant to State law. SECTION 4: The City Council further finds that the Project will serve disabled individuals, and thus finds that approval of the Project is an appropriate and justified reasonable accommodation consistent with the Federal Fair Housing Act and California Fair Employment and Housing Act. SECTION 5: The City Council's decision to deny the Appeal is final, and the approval of MORA 21-023 by City staff on February 15, 2022, remains in full force and effect. SECTION 6: The City Council's decision to deny the Appeal is subject to judicial review under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Poway, California on the 17th day of May, 2022 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DISQUALIFIED: Steve Vaus, Mayor ATTEST: Carrie Gallagher, CMC, City Clerk 11 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Edina Way OS-R Saint Andrews Dr "O o:::--Q) -e __ ~ Q) ~ t-'-------tr---'---'------L---1.._--I-______ _J > OS-R ----------------Espola•Rd------------------1 ... NORTH 12 of 137 City of Poway 1 Zoning/ Location Map Item: APL22-0001 0 125 250 500 ~~~~===l~~~~~~~Feet ATTACHMENT B May 17, 2022, Item #1013 of 137 0 < I~ 1; ~ I~ Ii I~ 5 1ec I 11,-------, I I I I I I I I I I I~~~~ I I~~~~ I 11===11=i I ll=!l~ll==IR \ I ~l~I~~~ \I \I :1 i1 _;I \{~~~~~ I 1~~1 IF11i-'i"-i!n I I~~~~ I ll=fli;="i"=i\FI I l!=lll"-~Flii-I l!=IJ!ee=~~ IF1Fr'==j=-j]re t ,.,,,,,--, llR j ll===t I ll;====t I 11;===-, I IIF-------t,t--::::::J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. 0 < .. ATTACHMENT C < .. May 17, 2022, Item #10-.i:-. 0 -41 -w ....... EIIIAIIOi "I" DALE ~Ot'\B\ Qfth.MCffie<.T~.N'-... ,~~;r!r~=~ DWCim:hitect @Igo-.all.com llllA !ION "I" lllllliG EIIIAIIOM UlMOllS CAST-IN-PUCE CONCRETE ~W1-•"-"'""""""""""._...,. ... ,_.,...,.Wll<1Ur,K....,..._ PRECASTCONCRETE ~~=::::._~_•su-1•..,.AC111E11YUOTGl:mm:ir..,..,.,,,.ca..at ~=:~.us":~==--:.~=.u-~==u:i:-«~iDI[ ~l'fl(t:Allcc■cll(.1tl'US'UC#":U.:U1lmllC+-l'BECN'lt:lolWIIIFatrost'8€1M. .. MD~ WETALS ~...:.-.-tM.IICS: _,..._. ........ JOM.IIIICWltCTFCIIIIIEWCW,_lO~Alef~llOK. :::=~~~lll-t/J.•>UCII.OltMlillll'ONFN91tDEIIU.IIICl9W.l.ll FRAMING FASTENINGS ~ll(TIII.CCll€Cffm.f.lC1!IRYl'CNEt-CW.'D:: EXTERIOR FINISM CARPENlRY -S-4S ~[Xl(-l'OS'l,MS: Ja:JalCNUII.PUM,oca:.o,tEl.l',ll ... .W,ll,UIIC._C'l'DISTO'IOlfYRIEI CffllllOlf ... SQ€MCf'ORMGlnDIW..CClflCA..._MDIJSM.I.OUIWXtallllll/lN:N. @ill)~==~'r:=-'-~~.=".::'.:'::::Oc:=,::a.u @ill)rASCII.W,IDMD,MS: ~41Df'OSCDIW"OTM.S,S4S: ROOFTIUS @EID ~~:.-=:-==-=~:=::.:IOQfKecrnc:SWJ.1t•TMUD WINERAL-nBER CEIIENT SIDING ~IIIIICJIAl._,...COIOITSIIIIC: 9Wlll"-'MCI.GXALalC"l'l'MMBIWIW--~ 111:PAIDIISM.LIC'S0.[CTcm....J..0{'MOMOO'ICS). COUl!JMAU.llllllCltDIYIIC#ICNl'l:tT. ~~:=.-:::.::n.ao::.=:~~~-:-'~~ET. QfilD~,~~~F=:~co:m~~::O=:-C:msuu ~=.s.~=~~Dt~-.-:.::,.~~~lWIT.MMlSKMDICMDIC SMEET WETAL FLASMING ANO lRIW ~:~:!~::E~E"5=Zit~=~~TMS WANUF ACTURED GUTTERS ANO DOWNSPOUTS ~~~~-:1:~=-~~~::,~~==::·'" i=~::::f.~~J:==~=irl. ~::--.:=noo.;::u:c~,:=y-r:~~~~~1~•,:::i:c =~•':=.c~=~~~:~i~~T~-:~~•Htot:1 WET AL DOORS AND FRAMES @filD=~-===rat::.C~~:-r=~NStlCCUlltSlOICSW:CDl'flK WOOD DOORS ~:::;.~~,.:::-i-a.::::•-CO..atlOK•Lltul'fKMODCl. ~ .................. -..... ,..,..,...., ........ ,..""'"'" .. _"" ~:':°.:=-::rO:S~~r.Ma••co..att0K1lUCDl'fntC ... C1 SECTIONAL DOORS ~=.":"'-"':" ... "":c".:.~:·•'""'-"'"HUCUO, .. -mu ... WINDOWS ~=~..:::!.c~:C'DCOUll101Ctn!CDl'fn<AllOlll'.ClUalDOW ',{NEER PLASTER SCREED, MOLDING, ANO BASE ~=-:==..:!.-:.~--:::-.::."""._ ........ -.......... PORTLAND CEMENT STUCCO ~l'OU.JfCICDDISlUCCO: 91M.1.KASIWl.lf"ACMONftafOIT\A~SN000". -~ ::::::u-::=~:-~:.~::-,...:s=:=: .... SIGNAGE ~:rr-s=~~~=!S~I~ES.::= 4MO«S•IIUlll•1KAl/f'S-.•9Wl.CONIU.ST•~M-- EL[C1RtCAl EllUPMENT ANO DtSlRIIIUllON ~.,._ ... ,,,,_, .. ...,_.._. ... ,.,....,..,_ EARTHWORK ~=~7il~-:s?~S-::7t-::1?..::E PA\1NG, BASE, AND BALLASTS ~=T:.w:..-.&.mLIICIIQICSflFCtll'ACUAGIIIMl(M!C■IH4.»0f1FIIITIIXA!f'M.T ~~;;;;~~~~~ FENCES AND GA TES ~IUIOu.NMCTM.mus.-i:,,n .... 1NCIOIICJSIM'lDlOM.lrilDt1CC1. ~IWTAMC.t.181111._FDID,_CAl(t ... TIWIIUC"l'w..lSTO'N:,liJl0fT[Cf. ~-'°"" ...,_ .... ,._.,. ................... ,.,,._._. SOtAI! POWER GENERATION EQUIPMENT ~n.MCCW:CJatS(l'OIDlilOOAIIIII) REARELEVATIOll(WEST) SCALE:__U1'"~H· ~~l/1s·-1·-o· IUlllliG EIIIAIIOi COIOI IAlllll STUCCO SIDING I , . .....-:::::r I ROOFING Sha!"R Mountain View Hospice 11111101 IIIIAIIOMS SCALE:l/H"•t'-0" 111 A 1 1 . , n A-5 May 17, 2022, Item #10PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE i& 249.50' NUU4UIO t ( ~~1 1 1 ~==~L~.u~o;i;~ 1-~ -----+-----------------e-------, z; = ~-\i , i · •········ .. ,, I 11=tm□1 / ¢.'\11 I j )> --t --t )> n :I: ~ m z --t C s ;:: ,=,, !!2, !=!"'/ ~1 I I I I I I I I \t --··--~, &(J..._ ,.,--...u•1111.mas•can ~ l I I I L ____ ~ .... i;.-.. .. ~---- SIii HAI ••R-•••-==i ~~-=re: ~ -•'"'---.. ~~ .. --.. -------~ ~----,~-.,-,.., _____ _._~ --~-. ..--.. -------G) OOUOLE ACCE,,IOLE PARKING !;PA:;, IW'l-*LIM.-~-•-l1•~-1ICU.ll!IIJt,,..1l ----· 0 OETECTAOLE ,vARNING NOTE, N 0\'59'24" E VALLE VERDE ROAD ~ [;········, :. -·---•-....... _ _, -] ~! f .! ------- ==-=.:.:--...d---·:~. -..'\.-. ~==-.:---.. ::::.::-:!., I h ==-::.:.:--: ... -LL_:_;:::·.:-:=· --•--•-----u 0 ACCE»IOLE PARALLEL CURO MHP (3) ACCE»!Oll PERPENDICULAR CURO MHP 1•11 uu-; I I I I I Ii :,.; ~rl~ I I I I I I I I ~--_j rri (.I) -u 0 r )> :;:o 0 )> 0 SIii PlAI IIYI0IIS & ~===~=~~=:jL :.::::' & =~::;:;,"""'I & EXTERtORCRIU.ESANDSCREENS & ED·--· _ ................ _ .. ,_, ... ____ ,11 ------1 a-. I -·------··-· ~ POOLANDF"OUHT-"'NPlUMBINGSYST£MS ~ ~••m _ _,...,,,.., __ HVACEOUAIENT c=---···-.. -... .... , .... ~- El.£CTRICAlEOUPMENTAHDOIS'JR8UTION ~•--m- PAWIC.BAStANOBAUASTS CEJ-,,A .. lttCIOl~"-""ltll-..,WS. ~==----:.=~jMIOXM'l)==:::,=: PA"1NC,BASE,ANOBALUSTS C=::D-•---""'•"·•-•-u-,._,,.~......., c:::o _.,...,., ____ .,.., .... =- PARKINCBUMPCRS,SP£EDBUMPS,AHOM..W:INCS CD~~~;;:rr~n==~~:?.: f'OICESAHOCAlrS = ~.'.::::-'=;:;:':.~ ---~--,----.---~\ ~faDIDl.lilftllCl:~K•-----~Gll.lAOIIOC. ~SMCO~-t..►. IOOffMO Ill l'I'. 1 c». . 1& ~ -•ou••-,-~~••-•--••,.w•~ (SJ cmc:.c-r ~-•1'\liraci:•1111.._..,CIU. :cw~s ... ,:._:'rs?,!~,.._,-...___-.~~----~(.& ( gn:U11U11ES CE) Pl&JCW,)UU,.D,li: tlfSWCW.IPl,\'l(lJl-.OITlll[l.«M.MIPUJL ~ ,_ ~--••-nMc~um ,co ""lUlll(U: 'IUI -~-•1NlMEllll1Ulll$aclMWIC---. ,co~S#llllltlll«•l.llPAI,, lll'l-!UUlAV-Al,.,.C,tYKloc-.LlOOUII CD-~--... CE)•«-,_Hem_, TRAHSP<:Wl:TATJONEOUAIEHT CJD _,__,,, __ u,--~N ... =-• CJ =::.=~~.~~.::::"'..:::'.~a_m_ CJ ==~::..u=.:.::-.:::;::::::="'- C8] ::~-:::.:w.:i:.'=-'l:.'r'..=t•""""'·-uu IIDOl----900,\,(,N(l"l,V I:.'.!., ........ ., ...... _..__ ..... _______ .. I~ & etllll.JIDl'OIIT. ,V,'l(IU)IIIDIIU90f'IIICllllCllft~l'Olonar_, FI00I PlAI 1001 Ill [!!!] 0~ (ffi] ~ CCIIICO(I£ ~ ~ u-•-~ (B[Jr,_,... ~ l!!!J---[;;;J [!!!] ··-[jfil [!!!] -·--[!!!] liill -[!!] -K ~ IOLCOII G![) KIIJ.•ltm: ~NIUlllll [l!!]ALCOII( [ii[) ..-ac ~ ..__ (iliJ RHa:GI {1[J ... SV.IKll•I.M1.0D (fil) ··--[!!!] KIIJ.Ml'1-[ill ""'•'• [ill] -ra---[ili] w.,,__ [ill]~-[ill ___ , [El [fil ·-[ill] @!!I ,_, [El ,. __ [ill] [fil [ill -~ ~ ~ aJ > i:: ·s i:: ;:) ~ oJ !I & DALE ~0/"\B\ un,""~.HC. ~~ owo.r~•~ °"TIE:NOYEMIER12.2Qll GI .0 May 17, 2022, Item #10STEVE Vr\US, t--fayor JOHN l\,fULLlN, Dcput:y l'vfa)•or CA YLIN FRANK, Councilmcrnbcr DAVE GROSCH, Councilmc:mbcr BARRY LEONARD, Councilmcmbcr February 15, 2022 Solana Vista Builders Attn: Keith Kulberg CITY OF POWAY 101 North Acacia St., Ste, 108 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Subject: Minor Development Review Application (MORA) 21-023; APN 275-032-04 Dear Mr. Kulberg, Your request for approval of MORA 21-023 has been approved subject to the conditions contained in this letter. The approval of MORA 21-023 allows for the construction of a 6,670 square-foot single-family residence with an attached 431-square-foot garage to be used as a residential care facility located at 16752 Espola Road in the Rural Residential C (RR-C). Notice is further given that pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1 ), the 90-day period to protest the imposition of any fee, dedication, reservation, or other exaction described in this letter begins on the date of this approval and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Government Code Section 66020. In addition to the appeal requirements, pursuant to the Government Code, a written appeal of this decision pursuant to the PMC must also be filed. Environmental Findings: MORA 21-023 is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as a Class 3(a) Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it proposes the construction of a single-family residence. Findings: A. The project has been designed to be architecturally compatible and in scale with the existing surrounding residential development. Therefore, the project respects and recognizes the interdependence of land values and aesthetics to the benefit of the City. B. The project has been designed to minimize impacts on surrounding development in that the building has been designed to be compatible with surrounding residential development. Therefore, the proposed development respects public concerns for the aesthetics of development and encourages the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within the City. C. The granting of the MORA would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare within the community since the proposed project will be required to construct the necessary utility service improvements and adequate infrastructure exists in the area to serve the site. City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074,0789 16 of 137 ATTACHMENT E May 17, 2022, Item #10Sharp Mountainview Hospice Home MORA 21-023 February 15, 2022 Page 2 D. The project has been designed so the proposed exterior building materials will be similar and compatible with the surrounding residential development. Therefore, the proposed development respects the public concerns for the aesthetics of development. E. The project will not have an adverse effect on the aesthetics, health and safety, or an architecturally-related impact upon adjoining properties, as the project will be compatible in design and have exterior building materials consistent with the surrounding residential development. F. The design of the proposed development is consistent with all elements of the Poway General Plan and conforms with applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. Conditions of Approval: A. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, damages, judgments, or costs, including attorney's fees, against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, relating to the issuance of this permit, including, but not limited to, any action to attack, set aside, void, challenge, or annul this development approval and any environmental document or decision. The City may elect to conduct its own defense, participate in its own defense, or obtain independent legal counsel in defense of any claim related to this indemnification. In the event of such election, applicant shall pay all of the costs related thereto, including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In the event of a disagreement between the City and applicant regarding litigation issues, the City shall have the authority to control the litigation and make litigation related decisions, including, but not limited to, settlement or other disposition of the matter. However, the applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless such settlement is approved by the applicant. B. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. C. Development on the site must comply with the Poway Noise Ordinance, Chapter 8.08 Poway Municipal Code (PMC). Construction work is specifically regulated by PMC 8.08.100. D. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved project plans (Exhibit A) and conditions of approval on file in the Development Services Department and the conditions contained herein. E. Prior to grading, the applicant shall obtain a Grading Permit. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall comply with the following: (Engineering) 1. Applicant shall incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) design features into the site development. These shall be clearly shown and identified on the grading plan and be appropriately sized for the proposed level of development. 2. Submit a precise grading plan for the development of the lot prepared on a City of Poway standard sheet at a scale of 1" = 20', unless otherwise approved by the City project engineer. Submittal shall be made to the Department of Development Services Engineering Division for 17 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sharp Mountainview Hospice Home MORA 21-023 February 15, 2022 Page 3 review and approval. The grading design shall be 100% complete at the time of submittal, ready for approval and issuance of permit. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. All technical studies as required by Chapter 16 of the Poway Municipal Code shall be submitted. 3. The grading plan shall show the southern driveway along Valle Verde as the only vehicular entrance to the site. 4. A drainage study addressing the impacts of the 100-year storm event prepared by a licensed CivH Engineer is to be submitted and approved. The study shall evaluate existing and proposed hydrologic and hydraulic conditions to the satisfaction of the City project engineer. 5. Water Quality Control -Design and Construction The project shall comply with the City and Regional Water Quality Control Board stormwater requirements. The project is considered a Priority Development Project and will be subject to all City and State requirements. A Final Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) prepared by a registered Civil Engineer is to be submitted and approved. The applicant will be required to install approved trash treatment control devices and include these facilities in the SWQMP. a. Property owner shall execute an approved Storm Water Management Facilities Maintenance Agreement (SWFMA) accepting responsibility for all structural BMP maintenance, repair and replacement as outlined in the Operations and Maintenance plan. The easement and operation and maintenance requirements shall be binding on the land as outlined in Chapter 16.104 of the Poway Municipal Code. b. Provide one copy of each of the exhibits necessary for the SWFMA. Exhibits shall include but are not limited to: Property and Easement Legal Descriptions, Site Plan, and an Operation & Maintenance (O&M) plan in accordance with Chapter 16.104 of the Poway Municipal Code. c. Upon approval of the SWQMP, provide a PDF version. 6. Water Quality Control -Construction Storm Water Management Compliance Proof of coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by order 2010-0014) shall be provided to the City along with a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 7. Grading securities shall be posted with the City prior to grading plan approval per section 16.46.080 of the Poway Municipal Code. A minimum cash security of $2,000 is required in all instances. 8. The applicant shall pay the storm water pollution inspection fee according to the latest adopted master fee schedule. 18 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sharp Mountainview Hospice Home MORA 21-023 February 15, 2022 Page 4 9. Following approval of the grading plans, posting of securities and fees, and receipt of one copy of the SWPPP and three copies of the approved plans, the applicant shall attend a pre-construction meeting at the Department of Development Services. The scheduling request shall be submitted on a City standard form available from the City's project engineer. The applicant's action plan that identifies measures to be implemented during construction to address erosion, sediment and pollution control will be discussed. Compliance for sediment control shall be provided as directed by the project inspector. 10. Prior to start of any work within a City-held easement or right-of-way, a Right-of-Way Permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division of the Development Services Department. All appropriate fees shall be paid prior to permit issuance. 11. Construction staking is to be inspected by the Engineering Inspector prior to any clearing, grubbing or grading. At a minimum, all protected areas as shown on the approved grading plans are to be staked under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer and delineated with lathe and ribbon. As applicable, proviqe two copies of a written certification, signed and sealed in accordance with the Business and Professions Code, by the engineer of record stating that all protected areas have been staked in accordance with the approved plans. 12. Erosion control shall be installed and maintained by the developer from October 1 to April 30 annually. The developer shall maintain all erosion control devices throughout their intended life. 13. All spoil materials from footings and foundations shall be legally disposed of off-site or if the material is to remain onsite, the material shall be placed per the requirements of the City grading ordinance. 14. Improvement plans prepared on a City of Poway standard sheet at a scale of 1" = 20', unless otherwise approved by the City's project engineer, in accordance with the submittal and content requirements listed in the Poway Municipal Code shall be approved. Submittal shall be made to the Department of Development Services Engineering Division for review and approval. The improvement design shall be 100% complete at the time of submittal and ready for approval. The improvement plan shall include the proposed fire hydrant on Valle Verde Road. 15. The project requirements for fire protection specify the installation of a fire hydrant and expansion of the water system necessary to support the installation of the hydrants. A Water System Analysis may be required for final design of the proposed water system expansion. Applicant shall pay for the cost of preparing the analysis prior to submittal of improvement plans. 16. The public improvement plan shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Upon approval of the improvement plan, the applicant shall enter into a Standard Agreement for public improvements for the work to be done as part of the Public Improvement plan. The applicant will be responsible for posting securities for monumentation and public improvements. F. Prior to construction, the applicant shall obtain a Building Permit. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall comply with the following: 19 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sharp Mountainview Hospice Home MORA 21-023 February 15, 2022 Page 5 (Engineering) 1. The fire hydrant on Valle Verde Road shall be installed and accepted by the City. 2. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved grading plans on file in the Development Services Department and the conditions contained herein. Grading shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the City Grading Ordinance, the approved grading plan, the approved soils report, and grading practices acceptable to the City. 3. Applicant shall obtain a Grading Permit and complete rough grading of the site. The grading shall meet the approval of the Engineering Inspector and the project's geotechnical engineer. Following completion of rough grading, please submit the following: a) Two copies of certification of line and grade for the lot, prepared by the civil engineer of work. b) Two copies of a soil compaction report for the lot, prepared by the project's geotechnical engineer. The certification and report are subject to review and approval by the City. 4. The applicant shall pay all applicable development impact fees in effect at time of permit issuance. 5. Prior to start of any work within a City-held easement or right-of-way, a Right-of-Way Permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division of the Development Services Department. All appropriate fees shall be paid prior to permit issuance. (Planning) 6. School impact fees shall be paid at the rate established at the time of Building Permit issuance. Please contact the Poway Unified School District for additional information at (858) 679-2570. 7. An Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee of $500 for the main residence shall be collected prior to the Building Permit issuance. 8. The residence shall be equipped with low-flow plumbing fixtures. 9. Exterior building materials and finishes shall be muted earth tones and shall be consistent with the elevations on file at the City (Exhibit A). Please note the colors of exterior finishes on the building plans. 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted and approved. The landscape and irrigation plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Poway Landscape and Irrigation Design Manual, Chapters 17.41 of the Poway Municipal Code (PMC), and all other applicable standards in effect at the time of landscape and irrigation plan check submittal. This includes but is not limited to the submittal of an irrigation audit report, pursuant to Section 17.41.110 of the PMC, prior to final inspections/issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The landscape and irrigation plan submittal are a separate submittal from other project plan check submittals and is made directly to the Planning Division. Contact the Planning Division for copies of applicable City standards, the landscape and irrigation plan submittal checklist and the plan review fee 20 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sharp Mountainview Hospice Home MORA 21-023 February 15, 2022 Page 6 worksheet. Landscape and irrigation plan review fees are required and are the responsibility of the applicant. 11. Parking areas shall be screened with berms and landscaping. Plantings shall be evergreen and spaced to ensure adequate screening within two years of installation. Plantings shall consist of trees and shrubs, at least 15-gallon and five-gallon container sizes respectively, to provide required screening. G. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: (Engineering) 1. The public improvements shall be installed and completed. 2. The stormwater facilities shall be complete and operational. 3. All applicable easement dedications and maintenance agreements are to be recorded. 4. Two copies of record drawings, signed by the engineer of work, shall be submitted to Development Services prior to a request of occupancy, per Section 16.52.130B of the Grading Ordinance. Record drawings shall be submitted in a manner to allow the City adequate time for review and approval prior to issuance of occupancy and release of grading securities (at least three weeks prior to a request for occupancy is recommended). All other final reports and agreements, as outlined in Section 16.52.130 of the Grading Ordinance are to be approved. 5. All existing and proposed utilities or extension of utilities required to serve the project shall be installed underground. 6. The drainage facilities, driveway, and all utility services shall be installed and completed by the property owner and inspected and approved by the Engineering Inspector. All new utility services shall be placed underground. 7. An adequate drainage system shall be provided around the new building pad capable of handling and disposing all surface water to the satisfaction of the Engineering Inspector. 8. The applicant shall repair, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, any and all damage to public or private improvements caused by construction activity from this project. (Planning) 9. Landscape and irrigation shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape and irrigation plans on file with the City of Poway Planning Division. All landscaping shall be maintained in a thriving condition. 10. The site shall be cleared of all construction materials, supplies, and equipment. H. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements to the satisfaction of the Director of the 21 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sharp Mountainview Hospice Home MORA 21-023 February 15, 2022 Page 7 Safety Services (Fire Department): 1. The approved fire apparatus access (driveway) for fire protection, either temporary or permanent shall be made available as soon as combustible material arrives on site. 2. A fire hydrant capable of supplying the required fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute (GPM) for fire protection shall be provided within 600 feet of an approved route to all premises upon which facilities, buildings, or portions of buildings will be constructed. 3. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed, improved width of not less than 20 feet, except single-family residential driveways serving no more than two improved parcels containing dwelling units shall have a minimum 16 feet of unobstructed improved width. In most cases, the City of Poway construction standards for streets (Chapter 12.20 PMC) will be more restrictive. The more restrictive standard shall apply. Vertical overhead clearance shall be a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus not less than 75,000 pounds unless authorized by the fire authority having jurisdiction (FAHJ) and shall be provided with an approved paved surface as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. A paved driving surface shall mean asphalt, concrete, or permeable paving system. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 28 feet as measured to the inside edge of the improvement width or as approved by the fire code official. Alternatively, every building shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways with an all-weather, paved driving surface of not less than 16 feet of unobstructed width1 with a roadway interior turning radius of not less than 28 feet capable of supporting the imposed loads (75,000 pounds) of fire apparatus with a minimum of 13-feet 6-inches of vertical clearance. 4. Fire apparatus access roads (driveways) shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the structure as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. 5. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roadway shall not exceed 20 percent. Grades exceeding 15 percent (incline or decline) shall be constructed of Portland cement concrete (PCC), with a deep broom finish perpendicular to the direction of travel, or equivalent, to enhance traction. Grades exceeding 10 percent shall be constructed of asphalt or PCC. Permeable paver systems shall not be used for grades exceeding 10 percent. The fire code official may require additional mitigation measures where he or she deems appropriate. 6. The angle of departure and the angle of approach of a fire access roadway shall not exceed seven degrees (12 percent) or as approved by the fire code official. 7. All dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions that allow emergency apparatus to turn around. A cul-de-sac shall be provided in residential areas where the access roadway serves more than two structures. The minimum, unobstructed paved radius width for a cul-de-sac shall be 38 feet in residential areas. The fire code official shall establish a policy identifying acceptable turnarounds for various project types. 8. Approved numbers/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings and at appropriate additional locations as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or roadway 22 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sharp Mountainview Hospice Home MORA 21-023 February 15, 2022 Page 8 fronting the property from either direction of approach. Address numbers shall contrast with their background and meet the City of Poway standards. The address is required at the private driveway entrance. Additional address numbers may be required where deemed necessary by the fire code official. 9. All automatic gates across fire access roadways and driveways shall be equipped with approved, emergency, key-operated switches overriding all command functions and opening gates. Dual-keyed or dual switches shall be provided to facilitate access by law enforcement. 10. A residential fire sprinkler system with a one-inch meter is required. A separate plan submittal and approval to the Poway Fire Department, Division of Fire Prevention, prepared by a licensed fire sprinkler C-16 contractor or fire protection engineer is required for the residential sprinkler system prior to installation. There is a separate fee for this plan check and inspection services. If a one-inch lateral off the street main is currently not present, one will have to be installed. If a pressure pump is required for fire sprinkler operation, auxiliary power is required. 11. Smoke alarms shall be installed in all residential bedrooms and adjoining hallways. They shall be hard-wired, with a battery backup, and interconnected. 12. Carbon monoxide alarms shall be installed in residential hallways adjoining bedrooms, and on each separate floor. The carbon monoxide alarm shall be hard-wired, with a battery backup, and interconnected. 13. Each chimney used in conjunction with any fireplace shall be equipped with an approved spark arrester. 14. If liquefied gas (propane) is used as a primary utility source, show the tank size, location of the tank on the parcel, orientation of the tank to building, and the method of securing the tank to the ground, on the building plans. 15. If a commercial kitchen hood and duct is used, an approved fire suppression system shall be installed. A separate kitchen fire suppression system plan submittal to the fire department is required for review and approval prior to installation. MORA 21-023 shall expire on February 15, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., unless a Building Permit has been issued, and construction or use of the property in reliance on this permit has commenced. If you have any questions you may contact me by phone at (858) 668-4658 or via email at asilva@poway.org. Sincerely, DE, LO PM ENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~ii Austin Silva, AICP Senior Planner 23 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10JUBENVILLE 16644 VALLE VERDE ROAD POWAY, CALIFORNIA 92064 February 25, 2022 Bob Manis Director of Development Services City of Poway 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 LIBENSON 16638 VALLE VERDE ROAD POWAY, CALIFORNIA 92064 RE: Minor Development Review Application (MORA) 21-023; APN 275-032-04 Dear Mr. Manis, eceived City Clerk's Office FEB 2 5 2022 Cit¥ of Powa~ In accordance with section 2.20.020 of the Poway Municipal Code ("PMC"), we write to appeal the approval of Minor Development Review Application No. 21-023 (APN 275-032-04) ("Hospice MDRA"), which relates to the proposed construction of a hospice facility ("Hospice Facility") by Sharp Healthcare ("Sharp") at 16752 Espola Road, Poway, CA 92064 ("Subject Property"). As described below, the findings and determinations in the letter approving the Hospice MDRA are inappropriate for a multitude of reasons including that (i) they were reached without sufficient notice to, and input from, the community which the Hospice Facility will impact; (ii) they were reached after misapplication of the PMC with respect to development review procedures; (iii) they are inconsistent with applicable Poway zoning ordinances and definitions, including those applicable to the Green Valley neighborhood; and (iv) they are inconsistent with the inevitable aesthetic, economic, safety and traffic impacts that the Hospice Facility will have on Green Valley and its property owners. Accordingly, the undersigned request that the approval be revoked until and unless the issues outlined below are resolved to the satisfaction of the broader community. Applicable PMC Sections The following is a brief summary of the known PMC sections that are relevant and applicable to the current issue. 1 • Chapter 2.20, et seq. ("Administrative Appeals") • Chapter 17 .04, et seq. ("Definitions") • Chapter 17.08, et seq. ("Residential Zones") 1 There may be additional relevant PMC sections, and the undersigned reserve their rights to cite to, and rely upon, additional relevant sections in the future. 24 of 137 ATTACHMENT F May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis -Director of Development Services, City of Poway Re: Minor Development Review Application (MORA) 21-023 Page2 February 25, 2022 • Chapter 17.52, et seq. ("Development Review Procedure") • Ordinance List and Disposition Table Relevant Background The Subject Property The Subject Property is located at the corner of Espola Road and Valle Verde Road at the entrance to several neighborhoods, including Valle Verde Estates, Green Valley and Silver Saddle Estates. These neighborhoods contain mature trees and landscaping and have a bridle trail system running through them which offers residents an opportunity to stay active and explore nature. The Subject Property is also directly across the street from Valle Verde Neighborhood Park, which is frequented by groups ranging from sports teams to the Boy Scouts to Green Valley residents walking their dogs and miniature horses. In short, the Subject Property is the gateway to Green Valley -the first thing its residents see when they arrive home, and the last thing they see before they exit to conduct their business or transport their children to school in other parts of the City. The Subject Property is zoned as residential rural ("RR-C") which, per PMC 17.08.020, "is intended as an area for very low density residential uses with minimum lot sizes of one acre and maximum densities of one unit per acre. Additional uses are permitted that are complementary to, and can exist in harmony with, a rural residential neighborhood." There is no property that is zoned "commercial," or that has even a hint of commercial use, for miles and miles from the Subject Property. This makes sense given that the residents of Green Valley have made substantial economic and personal investments in Poway with an expectation of the peace and quiet, privacy and safety of a rural residential neighborhood. The Sale of the Subject Property and Details Regarding the Proposed Hospice On or about March 15, 2021, Sharp purchased the Subject Property for $900,000 in an off-market transaction where the real estate agent/broker represented both the buyer and the seller. Thereafter, Sharp put in motion a process for gaining approval to build a six-bedroom hospice facility, complete with a loading bay for the transfer of deceased hospice patients, handicapped and electronic vehicle parking spaces, perimeter lighting and facilities for the delivery of medical services. None of these uses fall within the definition of a "residential care facility" established by the state agency charged with licensing such facilities. Rather, these uses fall within the definition of a "hospice facility," which facilities are licensed and regulated by a completely different agency. As discussed below, the distinction between "residential care" and "hospice" limits the ability of the City of Poway to approve the proposed Hospice Facility on the Subject Property. The exterior of the proposed Hospice Facility has a large driveway with an entrance not on Espola (where an existing entry to the property exists), but on Valle Verde Road (i.e., inside the existing residential subdivision where people frequently walk, ride bikes, and exercise their animals). Moreover, while the parcel is currently significantly below grade, the development plans call for the proposed Hospice Facility to be at street level. The proposed change in grading, coupled with the uses described above, the multiple guests, delivery vehicle, handicapped and EV parking 25 of 137 -2- May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis -Director of Development Services, City of Poway Re: Minor Development Review Application (MORA) 21-023 Page 3 February 25, 2022 spaces, and the perimeter parking lighting make the proposed project a commercial operation that will intrude on a rural residential neighborhood. It is disingenuous to suggest that the proposed project is simply a new home that happens to house six residential care patients. Although unclear, it appears that the City insisted on changes to several elements of Sharp's initial vision for the proposed Hospice Facility -including insisting that the driveway, which Sharp initially proposed be on Espola, be relocated to Valle Verde Road. It is unclear whether, before reaching this conclusion, the City undertook any analysis of traffic safety concerns on Espola or Valle Verde Road. We understand that CEQA may afford an exemption from a formal traffic study, but note that this is a commercial enterprise with ambulances in, hearses and black vans out, linen trucks, food trucks, cars of nurses, doctors and other staff, and (sadly) no shortage of distraught relatives. The presence of all of these different types of vehicles creates a serious safety issue-whether it's our children, someone's grandchildren, or any of our neighbors walking along Valle Verde to a park or just through the neighborhood, there will be a sudden and significant increase in the number of vehicles on Valle Verde Road, driven by people not familiar with the neighborhood or otherwise distracted. It's ironic that the Poway Engineering Department apparently focused on safety issues related to Espola Road, but claims to "have its hands tied" in addressing the safety of its taxpayers and their families in Green Valley. Please note that on February 18, 2022, the undersigned requested the details of any traffic analysis conducted in respect of this project. This request was made to a senior planner at the City of Poway. As of this filing, no materials have been provided. Before and after it purchased the Subject Property, it appears that Sharp was able to gain momentum for the proposed Hospice Facility by filing necessary paperwork, coordinating with wealthy donors, and speaking with a select few City officials and employees. One thing that Sharp and the City did not do, however, was provide notice to the broader community about the proposed Hospice Facility, or seek input from the residents of Green Valley. Indeed, for all intents and purposes, until demolition of the prior structure began on the Subject Property during the week of February 7, 2022, the proposed Hospice Facility was kept a secret. After the undersigned noticed the heavy equipment on the property, they contacted several City officials, at least one individual at the City planning department, and had a one-hour telephone meeting with a representative of Sharp. To date, however, the undersigned have not received complete, timely or satisfactory answers to their various questions. Moreover, even as of today, only a select few Green Valley residents are aware of the proposed Hospice Facility's existence -although those that have been contacted have expressed uniform concern regarding not only the lack of notice, but the substance of the project. The irony is not lost on Green Valley homeowners that Sharp was apparently able to reach out to its donor network to fund this project, but could not be bothered to reach out to its proposed neighbors in Green Valley. It is not a good look for either Sharp or the City to hide behind a code provision that requires notice only to homeowners within 500 feet of the Subject Property-which resulted, in this case, in notice being provided to just three homeowners ( of whom only two responded). 26 of 137 -3- May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis -Director of Development Services, City of Poway Re: Minor Development Review Application (MORA) 21-023 Page4 February 25, 2022 The Approval of the Hospice MDRA On February 15, 2022, even though the undersigned had various unanswered questions pending with the City, the Planning Department issued a letter to Sharp approving the Hospice MDRA ("Hospice MDRA Approval Letter"). The Hospice MDRA Approval Letter allows for the construction of a 6,670 square-foot hospice facility with an attached 431-square-foot garage -a facility that is far larger than most of the truly residential homes in the area. The Hospice MDRA Approval Letter contains, among others, the following findings: • The project conforms with applicable provisions of the PMC, including Poway's zoning code; • The project minimizes impacts on surrounding development and is compatible with surrounding residential development; • The project will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare within the community; • The project will not have an adverse effect on the aesthetics, health and safety of the community; • The project is compatible in design with the surrounding residential development; and • The project respects and recognizes the interdependence of land values and aesthetics to the benefit of the City. Importantly, the Hospice MDRA Approval Letter does not detail the scope of the review conducted, the documents or materials reviewed, the people consulted in the process, nor does it provide any reasoning or justification whatsoever for its "findings." The Reasons for Appeal of the MDRA Hospice Approval Letter In accordance with PMC section 2.20.020.6, the Appellants are appealing the MDRA Hospice Approval Letter for the reasons set forth below: The Hospice MDRA Approval Letter Does Not Comply With PMC Guidance Regarding the Purpose of Development Review Procedures PMC 17.52.010 requires that the City maintain a development review procedure in order to, among other things, (i) "[ m ]aintain the public health, safety and general welfare, and property throughout the City,"; (ii) "[r]easonably ensure that new developments, including residential ... do not have an adverse aesthetic, health, safety or architecturally related impact upon existing adjoining properties, or the City in general;" and (iii) "[ e ]nsure that the proposed development complies with all of the provisions of the zoning ordinance and the general plan." The Hospice MDRA Approval Letter fails to comply with the provisions of section 17.52.010, as it fails to detail the scope of the review conducted by the City Planning Department, disclose the documents or materials reviewed, or cite the people consulted in the process. Moreover, it does not provide any reasoning or justification whatsoever for its findings, instead choosing to list them in conclusory fashion. And while it is not surprising that a process that was conducted predominantly behind closed doors would not include these items -much less note if 27 of 137 -4- May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis -Director of Development Services, City of Poway Re: Minor Development Review Application (MORA) 21-023 Page 5 February 25, 2022 there were any opposing views or contrary opinions -this manner of proceeding does not pass muster. In order to fulfill its obligations to Poway's taxpayers, the City must not only provide justification for the findings upon which it relied and disclose contrary views on the project, it must also make available to the public the materials on which it relied.2 There Has Been Inadequate Notice To, and Input From, Residents of Green Valley Regarding the Proposed Hospice Facility As detailed above, only a select few individuals, including wealthy donors, various City political figures, a small number of people from the City (including individuals at the Planning Department and Engineering Department) have been involved in the process of evaluating and approving the proposed Hospice Facility. Left in the dark have been those that would have the most important input of all: the residents in Green Valley that will have to live and raise their families in a community impacted by the proposed Hospice Facility. Certainly, it is true that the City is not required to provide notice to, and seek input from, the community every time a property in a residential zone changes ownership, or every time an owner seeks to build on, or modify, a residential property. In this instance, however, as described further below, the proposed Hospice Facility is/ar from a typical project. Notably, PMC section 17.08.020 also states that, "no property zoned ... RR-C shall be rezoned to a zone ... which would . . . change the uses permitted thereon to allow commercial or manufacturing uses until and unless such rezoning . . . is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election ... " And while not directly applicable to the lack of notice here, it is clear that when this section of the City was zoned as RR-C, those who designated it so were very serious about it staying as such unless the will of the people changed. Here, not only has no election taken place, but very few, if any, residents even know about, much less have been involved in, the process. Such oversights are clearly contrary to the spirit of the Poway' s zoning provisions, and should not happen. When projects like this are proposed, it is incumbent upon elected officials and administrators to seek and consider input from the community. Doing so not only allows all opinions to be heard, but helps all parties avoid the costly approval, regulatory, demolition, and construction processes in the event that it is determined that the proposed project is not permitted or welcome in the community. Here, far from providing sufficient notice to the appropriate constituencies, the group advocating the proposed Hospice Facility has essentially operated under the radar. Had the project proponents given proper notice and/or sought feedback, they would have learned that many 2 PMC section 17.52.060 states that within 60 days of the date when a MDR application is deemed "complete" by the Director of the planning department, the City Council shall approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application. It is unclear whether that provision has been complied with in this instance. If it was, it is not apparent from the public record whether a hearing took place or, in accordance with 17.52.060, the Council failed to act, and the application was deemed "approved." Either way, this manner of proceeding is not sufficient to provide Green Valley residents the opportunity they deserve to provide input on the proposed Hospice Facility. 28 of 137 -5- May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis -Director of Development Services, City of Poway Re: Minor Development Review Application (MORA) 21-023 Page6 February 25, 2022 residents of Green Valley believe that such a facility would be barely -if at all -residential in nature, and certainly would not fit in with the surrounding community. That said, to be sure, there are certain elements of the proposed Hospice Facility that select residents of Green Valley might believe are meritorious, and that they would be willing to accept. Without notice and subsequent public discourse, however, it is impossible to know for sure. Accordingly, we ask that the approval in the MDRA Hospice Approval Letter be revoked until time can be spent notifying the community through usual means, and conducting public discussion, including at City Council, regarding the various benefits and detriments of the project. As Currently Contemplated, the Hospice Facility Is Not Complementary To, and In Harmony With, Our Rural Residential Neighborhood The Subject Property is zoned as RR-C, which is intended "for very low density residential uses with minimum lot sizes of one acre and maximum densities of one unit per acre. Additional uses are permitted that are complementary to, and can exist in harmony with, a rural residential neighborhood." See PMC 17.08.020 (emphasis added). The PMC also states that, "no property zoned ... RR-C shall be rezoned to a zone ... which would ... change the uses permitted thereon to allow commercial or manufacturing uses until and unless such rezoning . . . is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election ... "3 For at least the following reasons, the Appellants believe that the proposed Hospice Facility is not complementary to, and therefore cannot exist in harmony with, our rural residential neighborhood: First, it is obvious from a cursory review of the available plans, materials and feedback from Sharp that the proposed project is not really a "residential care facility" at all. Rather, it is a commercial hospice that would be run by, and used to support the operations of, a major hospital system. The State of California contemplates that a residential care facility is essentially a non-medical facility for the elderly or ill to stay for long periods of time. A hospice facility, on the other hand, contemplates short-term stays and the provision of medical services (including staffing with medical personnel and the storage of controlled substances). Significantly, the Poway Municipal Code does not contain a definition of "hospice facility." In the absence of such a definition, the City of Poway should look to the differing definitions of "residential care" and "hospice" established by the relevant State of California licensing authorities. The distinctions in definition and licensing support Appellants' view that the proposed Hospice Facility should not be treated as a new residence that happens to have six bedrooms housing the elderly or ill.4 Rather, 3 Id. The Appellants are unaware that any election has occurred that could have changed the zoning, so the proposed Hospice Facility must comply with the provisions of PMC 17.08.020 regarding RR-C zoning. 4 Moreover, PMC section 17.08.100 categorically prohibits residential care facilities for seven to 15 residents in areas zoned RR-C. That is, PMC clearly recognizes that seven-patient facilities are too large and commercial to be complementary to, and in harmony with, a rural residential neighborhood. At six bedrooms, Sharp's proposed project falls just under section 17 .08.1 00's limit for RR-C zoning. Even 29 of 137 -6- May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis -Director of Development Services, City of Poway Re: Minor Development Review Application (MORA) 21-023 Page 7 February 25, 2022 the City of Poway should look at the proposed project for what it is-a commercial enterprise wholly incompatible with the residential nature of Green Valley. Indeed, no existing homes or facilities for miles exhibit characteristics similar to the proposed Hospice Facility. This is a facility that Sharp is desperately trying to call a camel, even though it walks and quacks like a duck. Second, the proposed Hospice Facility would increase the volume, and change the nature, of traffic in the Green Valley neighborhood. The fundamental nature of hospice operations -patient stays measured in weeks or days, significant numbers of medical and support personnel, and many visitors -would lead to a steady stream of traffic, including patient transports, ambulances, funeral/coroner vehicles, linen and food delivery vehicles, shift changes, doctor visits, family member visits, regulatory visits, etc. The increased volume of traffic on Valle Verde Road and the transitory nature of the hospice traffic not only diminishes the quality of the neighborhood, but also presents safety concerns. As you know, Green Valley does not have sidewalks. You also know that the portion of Valle Verde Road adjacent to the proposed Hospice Facility has substantial pedestrian and cyclist activity. You also know that there is nothing that precludes hospice parking on Valle Verde Road (we understand that the proposed design includes parking spaces, but have also been told that there is nothing that precludes overflow parking on Valle Verde Road). This is a bad combination that poses serious safety concerns. The City of Poway must talce seriously its obligations to the Green Valley neighborhood and take the steps necessary to ensure that parking restrictions are imposed and that ingress and egress to any project is located on Espola Road rather than Valle Verde Road. Third, the current ingress and egress for the proposed Hospice Facility is located directly on Valle Verde Road (i.e., inside the Valle Verde Ranch community), even though the property fronts Espola Road. Melody Rocco of the City of Poway Engineering Department was kind enough to explain that the Poway General Plan contemplates that prime and major arterials are intended to provide "a high level of mobility for through traffic with restricted access to adjacent properties." She confirmed that this is the "preferred" approach, but that the General Plan does not prol,ibit new driveways on Espola. She also indicated that Sharp initially requested ingress/egress from Espola Road, but that this request was rejected in favor of ingress and egress from Valle Verde. We note that the General Plan also addresses "residential collectors" (such as Valle Verde Road) and provides that the "design capacity" for residential collectors is determined by reference to "an acceptable level of traffic consistent with the quality oflife in residential areas." As set forth immediately above, the increased volume, and the change in the nature, of the traffic on Valle Verde will not be consistent with the existing quality of life in Green Valley. We demand that the City revisit the ingress/egress for the proposed Hospice Facility. In particular, the City should consider the location of the existing Espola entrance to the Subject Property. We note that the General Plan contemplates "design speeds of 45 mph to 55 mph for prime and major arterials." We also note, however, that there is a stop light at the corner of Espola and Valle Verde and that any vehicle turning from Espola on to Valle Verde is traveling at speeds far less than 45 mph ( closer to 10 mph). The City should assess the mechanics and safety of an Espola entrance to the Subject Property (taking into consideration alternatives for eastbound and westbound traffic and though it may barely slide under Poway's zoning requirement for a "residential care facility," nothing about the number of beds changes the fact that the project is not a "residential care facility." 30 of 137 -7- May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis -Director of Development Services, City of Poway Re: Minor Development Review Application (MORA) 21-023 Page 8 February 25, 2022 the differences between guest and delivery/patient transport vehicles). It would be ironic for the City to take the position that the General Plan requires the City to shift the Subject Property entrance to Valle Verde Road, which would significantly decrease the safety of users of Valle Verde Road. Fourth, the plans for the proposed Hospice Facility do not make clear how the transfer of patients will work or whether transfers will be visible from Valle Verde Road. It is entirely inappropriate to impose a high level of patient transfers on a quiet residential neighborhood that includes families with young children. Fifth, the presentation and the site plans indicate that handicapped and electronic vehicle parking spaces and charging stations would be easily visible from Valle Verde Road, and that the driveway would be at the same grade of Valle Verde Road. Having these commercial parking spaces in plain view from Valle Verde Road is inconsistent with the residential character of Valle Verde Ranch/Green Valley. Moreover, it is unclear whether overflow parking will be directly on Valle Verde-this would be unacceptable from both an aesthetic and safety perspective. Although we have been reassured by the City Planner that the northern driveway entrance to the Subject Property has been eliminated to shield handicap spaces from the Valle Verde line of sight, we have not received any assurance with respect to the handling of overflow parking. Sixth, given that this is a commercial operation that is being imposed on a residential neighborhood, it has the potential to directly and negatively affect property values. It is superbly ironic that Poway' s "City in the Country" sign is only two blocks west of the proposed Hospice Facility. It is for these reasons among others that the currently proposed Hospice Facility is not complementary to, nor can it exist in harmony with, the Valle Verde neighborhood. Accordingly, the Appellants request that the approval in the MORA Hospice Approval Letter be revoked until and unless the issues outlined above can be resolved to the satisfaction of the broader community. Additional Grounds To Revoke and/or Modify the MDRA Hospice Approval Letter Although not directly applicable here given that this is an appeal, Appellants call your attention to PMC section 17.52.100, which states that "a development review approval may be revoked or modified" on any one or more of the following grounds: 31 of 137 • That such development review approval was obtained or extended by fraud -Appellants are not currently aware of evidence that would support such a finding; • That one or more of the conditions upon which such development review approval was granted have been violated -Appellants are not currently aware of evidence that would support such a finding; • That the use for which the development review approval was granted is so conducted as to be detrimental to the public health or safety, or as to be a nuisance -Although Appellants recognize that this provision likely applies to uses once the -8- May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis -Director of Development Services, City of Poway Re: Minor Development Review Application (MORA) 21-023 Page 9 February 25, 2022 proposed Hospice Facility is built and becomes operational, Appellants believe that the contemplated use is potentially detrimental to public health and safety due to the concerns cited above. We note that controlled substances will be stored at the proposed Hospice Facility. We are unaware of the steps required to be taken to protect against criminal activity potentially arising by reason of the presence of controlled substances on the Subject Property. Accordingly, the Director could justify revocation of the approval from the MORA Hospice Approval Letter on these grounds; and • That construction on the subject property is not in conformance with the development review approval or other applicable requirements -Given that demolition has just begun, Appellants are not currently aware of evidence that would support such a finding. In sum, for the same reasons outlined above -which were written in order to ensure compliance with the standard articulated in PMC section 2.20.020.6 -the Director could and should justify revocation of the approval from the MDRA Hospice Approval Letter pursuant to PMC section 17.52.100. The Appellants' Interest in the Appeal The Appellants are residents of Green Valley who are both homeowners, and have families with multiple school-aged (and pre-school-aged) children. As such, the Appellants are concerned that any uses of property in their neighborhood that do not conform to local rules and zoning requirements could fundamentally change the nature of their homes and their lives in Poway. Summary and Conclusion As detailed above, Sharp's proposed Hospice Facility is not in compliance with applicable Poway laws, regulations and ordinances. Accordingly, the Appellants and other concerned residents with whom we have spoken request that demolition on the site be halted, and that the approval granted in the MDRA Hospice Approval Letter be revoked, until and unless the issues outlined above are resolved to the satisfaction of the broader community. Sincerely, I/I, t[_-:-:---..... i r-· 1/fl,7 / [( 1 , ; I IUI '/.-{l-::!fJ_(,,.-r, .> Matt Jubenville lhA+-1-jv)~ Q JM1'/. cM Clark Libenson c I,· l:,ot $or1Q "l l/~11 ,n~f /.c,,.,, s. Ct7A-t {_, I 1 -2-S-2 -5""' 'ii 2.. /; I q .. q 2 l-0 1 2.1 cc: Steve Vaus (via email -svaus@poway.org) Barry Leonard (via email -bleonard@poway.org) Austin Silva (via email -asilva@poway.org) 32 of 137 -9- May 17, 2022, Item #10TO: DATE OF APPROVAL: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE NOTICES MAILED: NUMBER MAILED: AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICE PLANNING DIVISION January 24, 2022 MORA 21-023/Sharpe Mountain View Hospice 16752 Espola Rd, APN: 275-032-04 January 13, 2022 6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am employed by the City of Poway and the foregoing is true and correct. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES I } i.3 /zoZL (Signature) (Date) Attachments: 1) Mailing Labels 2) Notice w/ attachments 33 of 137 ATTACHMENT G May 17, 2022, Item #10STEVE VAUS, Mayor JOI-IN MULLIN, Deputy Mayor CA YUN FRANK, Councilmcmber D1\ VE GROSCH, Councilmembcr Br\RRY LEONARD, Councilmembcr January 13, 2022 CITY OF POWAY PROPERTY OWNER NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Poway Development Services Department has concluded its review and is scheduled to approve the following project after January 24, 2022. Project Name/Number: Location/APN: Owner: Applicant: Request: Sharp Mountain View Hospice/MDRA21-023 16752 Espola Road/APN: 275-032-04 Sharp Healthcare Solana Vista Builders (Keith Kulberg) To construct a single-family residence with six bedrooms to be used as a residential care facility (hospice). The plans for this project are available for review at the Development Services Department, Planning Division, 13325 Civic Center Drive. If you wish to express comments in favor of or against the proposed project you may submit those in person or in writing to the project planner, Austin Silva, Senior Planner. No further notice concerning this project will be sent to you unless you specifically request it. You have the right to appeal the approval to the City Council. The appeal must be filed in writing within 10 calendar days of the approval, and must be accompanied by the $765 appeal fee. Please contact the City Clerk's office at (858) 668-4530 for further information. A ~vYv S Llvev asilva@poway.org Phone (858) 668-4658 Fax (858) 668-1211 City Hall Located at 133 25 Civic Center Drive 34 of 137 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 www.poway.org May 17, 2022, Item #10273-171-01-00 LEV OVADIA & AMILIA 14346 TWISTED BRANCH RD POWAY, CA 92064 275-032-04-00 SHARP HEALTHCARE 8520 TECH WAY SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 275-041-13-00 SCHACK KATHLEEN B 13232 CALLE COLINA POWAY, CA 92064 273-820-24-00 CITY OF POWAY PUBLIC AGENGY-.PGnAY, GA-9~ 275-032-05-00 KNUTH FAMILY TRUST 10-22-14 16744 VALLE VERDE RD POWAY, CA 92064 -7 PRINTED -!1Dt/J 2.1 · DZ 3 L vf!3-£L$ / fl v<:/,1 ~, / . ./ 275-032-03-00 SAPIRO FAMILY TRUST 02-23-16 16766 ESPOLA RD POWAY, CA 92064 275-041-01-00 HUNTSMAN EDWARD & WANDA M FAMILY TRUST 16736 ESPOLA RD POWAY, CA 92064 May 17, 2022, Item #10April 29, 2022 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mayor Steve Vaus Councilmember John Mullin Councilmember Dave Grosch Councilmember Caylin Frank Councilmember Barry Leonard Poway City Hall 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 Carrie Gallagher Poway City Clerk Poway City Hall 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 Re: Sharp HealthCare's Response to Neighbor Appeal of DSD Approval of MORA 21-023 Dear Mayor Vaus and Councilmembers: Thank you for taking the time to review the appeal filed by Mr. Jubenville and Mr. Libenson ("Appellants"), the Green Valley neighborhood residents who are opposing the City Director of Development Services' (DSD) proper approval on February 15, 2022, of a Minor Development Review Application (MORA 21-023) authorizing development of a much-needed six-bed single family home to be used as a facility providing hospice services ("Project") at 16752 Espola Road, Poway, CA 92064 ("Property"). This letter provides additional legal and factual support for the City's approval of the MORA and Sharp HealthCare's ("Sharp") response to the claims made in the appeal. Due to the fact that Sharp has been providing hospice for County residents and City of Poway residents for over twenty (20) years, we have extensive experience operating similar facilities and integrating into residential communities, and none of the concerns expressed in the appeal are real problems at our three (3) other home-like residential facilities that provide hospice services. Sharp appreciates this opportunity to provide clarifications and assurance to the City and our neighbors in Poway, as an experienced hospice provider, that the Project is appropriate for this location and will allow Sharp to continue to serve City and Green Valley residents in a residential environment closer to their families. Individuals unfamiliar with the operation of such facilities may not understand the vital role they play in allowing residents and their family members to spend their final days together in a comfortable, peaceful setting, free from the concern of physical and medical caregiving. The need for and importance of these facilities is so great that they are protected by California and Federal law from being classified as anything other than a residential use. As discussed herein, cities in California are not permitted to zone them out of residential neighborhoods, even though the Appellants are asking you to do just that. Mr. Manis has been your Director of Development for nearly fifteen (15) years, and he made a wise decision to approve the permit over the objection of the Appellants so that the City would not violate California or Federal law. Whether or not a municipality or area residents agree with the policy behind State and Federal law, the elected leaders have a duty to follow the law. 36 of 137 ATTACHMENT H May 17, 2022, Item #10Poway City Council Poway City Clerk April 29, 2022 Page 2 However, Sharp seeks denial of the appeal, not only because the law requires it, but also because Sharp has taken the time to work with the neighbors, City staff, and its professional development team to design a facility that is both sensitive to the neighborhood and achieves its core purpose in providing an important health care service to the residents of Poway. The City's design review system has worked well because it led to the following design changes requested by the neighbors: (1) eliminating the second driveway onto Valle Verde Road to reduce pedestrian views into the parking lot, but keeping the staff-required first driveway onto Valle Verde Road; and (2) constructing or maintaining the existing solid fence, instead of an iron fence, along the property line adjacent to the neighborhood's pedestrian/equestrian trail. Notwithstanding City staff and Sharp's efforts to meet the Appellants half-way, the appeal was filed and raises the following eight (8) issues: (I) Improper sale, operation, and design of a "hospice facility" in a residential neighborhood; (II) Improper classification as a residential use contrary to local law; (Ill) Traffic safety (including unsafe entrances, high potential for accidents, traffic congestion, and poor interpretation of Poway policies against new entrances on Espola); (IV) secretive permit approval with improper notice and outreach to residents; (V) improper permit findings; (VI) improper parking; (VII) visual impacts inconsistent with residential character; and (VIII) adverse impacts on property values. In response to the Appellants' claims, the responses below are provided by Sharp's experts experienced in the development and operation of these home-like facilities, architects and civil engineers who designed the Project, the traffic engineering and safety experts at Urban Systems Associates, the legal experts at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, a real estate expert trained in tracking changes in property value trends in rural residential zones, and other experts in real estate development generally, including information provided by the City's own expert development staff. I. Appellants Mischaracterize the Sale, Operation, and Design of the Project The Appellants first challenge Sharp's purchase of the Property as a "secret" transaction. However, there was no impropriety in the purchase of the Property. The seller, Mrs. Bleile, offered the Property for sale as a For Sale by Owner (FSBO). She contacted a handful of local brokerage firms to market the Property. One of those firms was Berkshire Hathaway Home Services, who Sharp had engaged as their buyer's agent. Sharp's agent, Mrs. Kropf, shared the listing with the Sharp team and Sharp proceeded with acquiring the Property. Upon the sale of the Property, a real estate yard sign was installed to communicate the sold status to the community. Additionally, Mrs. Kropf entered the transaction details into the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). Contrary to statements in the Appeal, Mrs. Kropf did not represent the seller in this transaction. Internet searches list Mrs. Kropf as the listing and selling agent for the transaction because she had to enter herself in both roles in the MLS due to the FSBO transaction status. 37 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Poway City Council Poway City Clerk April 29, 2022 Page 3 Appellants' claims relating to the design of the Project are similarly mistaken. Contrary to their claims, the house design does not include a loading dock. The deceased path of travel takes them through the house and into the garage. An unmarked transport vehicle backs up to the garage and loads the deceased into the van for transport. The path of travel is not visible to the public. Further, as noted above, Sharp is willing to agree to construct or maintain a solid fence along the property line adjacent to the neighborhood's pedestrian/equestrian trail to ensure no visibility from the trail. Appellants' concerns regarding large vehicles are also overstated. Patients arrive to the house by way of a non-emergency medical transport vehicle. Additionally, the Project will not require linen trucks or large food trucks. All laundry and food services are contained within the home. Food stock and supplies are ordered weekly, supplied by a Sharp Hospital Food and Nutrition Services department and picked up by a hospice staff person on a weekly basis. Appellants also mischaracterize the Project's potential to cause crime in the neighborhood. Rather, the Project's crime prevention techniques are superior to a typical home. The facility uses lighting, security cameras, locked storage of medication, and 24-hour occupancy by staff, in contrast to single family residents who are not home at all times, sleep at night, and usually do not have locked medicine cabinets. All medications, including controlled substances, are delivered to the house from the pharmacy via a courier. A chain of custody requires the licensed nurse to sign for the medication upon receipt. Medication is transferred to the secure medication room and stored in storage units that are only accessible with a secure combination and key, which is held by the licensed nurse. Removal of medication for administration to a patient is performed by the licensed nurse. At the end of each shift, a nurse-to-nurse count of narcotics is performed for the storage units. These facts and Sharp's experience over the past two decades of operating these facilities show we do not have the crime problems anticipated by the Appellants. II. The Project is Properly Classified as a Residential Use Under Federal, State and Local Law or the City Must Approve a Reasonable Accommodation for the Project As further set forth in the attached legal memorandum from Sharp's outside land use counsel, Sheppard Mullin, the Project is deemed a residential use for purposes of the City's zoning ordinances and legally may not be treated differently from other residential uses. The City's zoning ordinances are required, by their terms, to be interpreted consistent with applicable Federal and State law. The RR-C zone's prohibition on "commercial" use without a vote of the electorate pursuant to Poway Municipal Code section 17.08.020 is not applicable where, as here, the use is residential pursuant to State law. State law specifically mandates that certain State-licensed facilities at which care for the terminally ill (including hospice) may be provided, such as "residential facilities" and "congregate living health facilities" for six or fewer persons, shall be considered a residential use for purposes of local zoning. In fact, the appeal admits a six-bed residential care facility is "barely residential". State law allows health care for the terminally ill to be provided in these residential facilities and nothing in State law requires that any of 38 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Poway City Council Poway City Clerk April 29, 2022 Page 4 these facilities be limited to long-term residential care or to discriminate against those with a terminal diagnosis, who are legally within the definition of "disabled". Regardless of its license classification, which is determined by Sharp and the State, not by the City, the use is residential pursuant to applicable State and Federal anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit the City from treating the Project differently for purposes of its local zoning and land use requirements. The State and Federal governments have recognized the need to provide hospice services to those diagnosed with a terminal illness, a disability, in an integrated, home-like environment and, as such, the City does not have the authority to prohibit the Project in a residential zone or treat it any differently than other residential uses in the same zone. Finally, to the extent Sharp seeks and obtains a State license for the Project as a "hospice facility" and there is any ambiguity regarding the application of the Poway Municipal Code (PMC) to the Project as a State-licensed "hospice facility", Sharp hereby requests and the City is obligated to provide the Project "reasonable accommodation" from any PMC requirements acting as a barrier to fair housing opportunities for disabled persons in a hospice care facility in the RR-C zone. Sharp's full request for a reasonable accommodation is included in the attached legal memorandum from its outside counsel, Sheppard Mullin (Exhibit A hereto) as Exhibit 8 thereto. Ill. The Project Follows Traffic Safety Regulations In addition to the attached legal analysis, Sharp has also taken the opportunity to provide a traffic analysis prepared by its traffic consultant, Urban Systems, Inc., attached as Exhibit B hereto, to address Appellants' claims relating to the Project's vehicle entrances, potential for accidents, traffic congestion, and interpretation of Poway policies against new entrances on Espola. As set forth in the attached report, pedestrians, cyclists and animals on Valley Verde are safe from Project traffic because (1) the driveway follows regulations for clear line of sight; and (2) just like all drivers, drivers in and out of the Project must comply with pedestrian right-of-way rules. Moreover, in over 20 years of operating home-like facilities providing hospice services, Sharp has no history of significant accidents while entering and exiting its properties. As set forth in the attached report, the Project can be anticipated to generate, on average, 18 trips per day, as compared to the 1 O daily trips averaged by traditional single-family homes. This amounts to a net increase of only 8 trips a day compared to the previously existing home on the property. With respect to the Appellants' claims that the Project will generate traffic that exceeds the capacity of Valle Verde Road, the report confirms that Valle Verde, as a residential collector street, is already designed to handle the Project's traffic volume safely. Indeed, it could handle several thousands of additional trips. The Project is also compliant with the Poway General Plan, as determined by the DSD, notwithstanding Appellants' claims regarding the Project entrance on Valle Verde. Specifically, notwithstanding Appellants' inaccurate statements that Espola is a prime or major arterial, as both Valle Verde and Espola 39 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Poway City Council Poway City Clerk April 29, 2022 Page 5 are designated as Collectors in the Poway General Plan, the proposed driveway entrance on Valle Verde would not result in exceeding the road capacity. Additionally, due to its longer street frontage, absence of a Class II bike facility and single-lane design, the proposed driveway Poway City Council entrance on Valle Verde would cause less potential traffic, bike, and pedestrian conflicts than a driveway on Espola. Not only is Valle Verde designed and designated to accommodate significantly more traffic than the Project would generate, adding a new driveway to Espola is simply bad planning as it takes unnecessary risks because it forces drivers leaving the site to enter onto a road with higher speed limits than Valle Verde Road. Appellants claim some traffic will be slowing down from 45 miles to 10 miles an hour when they approach the traffic signal at Espola and Valle Verde, but that would only be the case when the traffic light is yellow or red; the problem is when the traffic light is green for the fast-moving vehicles on Espola. Some drivers would also need to cross multiple lanes of traffic to access the left turn lane on Espola to turn left from the site, resulting in more potential traffic conflicts. The frontage on Espola also includes a Class II bike facility, which is not the case on Valle Verde. Thus, the City's conclusion that the placement of the Project driveway on Valle Verde meets its General Plan policy and safety goals is supported by the evidence, notwithstanding Appellants' claims, and the appeal therefore does not raise any legitimate safety concerns relating to traffic. As further detailed in the attached legal memorandum from Sharp's outside counsel, allegations of safety impacts that are based on unsupported stereotypes, prejudice or fear stemming from ignorance or generalizations, such as about the facility, persons in hospice care or their families, cannot be used to justify discrimination against housing for the disabled. Finally, as the Appellants acknowledge, the Project's alleged impacts on the level of service of surrounding roads and intersections is not a relevant consideration for purposes of the Project's environmental impacts. Moreover, the Project's estimated 18 average daily trips, resulting in a net increase of eight average daily trips from the previous residence, fall well below the "de minimis" threshold of 110 AOT for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts advised by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (QPR) and therefore cannot be considered a significant environmental impact. IV. The City Followed Proper Notice Rules and Sharp Has Reached Out to Residents Willing to Work With Sharp Appellants admit the OSO provided notice of the pending MORA to adjacent landowners seeking their input prior to MORA issuance. Appellants also admit that many of the Project's neighbors actually received the notice and concede the City should not have to seek input from the community every time it permits a residential structure. As detailed in the attached legal memorandum from Sharp's outside counsel, no notice is required by the PMC for OSO approval of the MORA. Nevertheless, the City provided notice seeking their comments a full month before the OSO conditionally approved the MORA even though the letter stated the decision on the MORA would be made in 10 days. This demonstrates the extra care the City took solicit and listen to the neighbors' concerns. 40 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Poway City Council Poway City Clerk April 29, 2022 Page 6 Additionally, even if Appellants did not personally receive notice, the notice the City provided was adequate to allow them to protect their interests by filing their appeal and having another say on the decision at the upcoming City Council hearing. Thus, the City far exceeded any notice required by law, and should be commended for doing so. Moreover, Appellants admit Sharp and City staff met with them and made changes to the MORA. Sharp continued to work with the neighbors on design issues like solid fencing along the pedestrian and horse trail adjacent to the Property's rear yard. Sharp also removed the northern driveway entrance on Valle Verde to reduce pedestrian visibility into the parking lot. Nevertheless, even though the notice and approval system has worked to the neighborhood's advantage, resulting in these positive changes to address their concerns, the Appellants still filed their Appeal, demonstrating that design concessions are not enough to allow Sharp to protect the rights and needs of the disabled and terminally ill served in its facilities. This is exactly why State and Federal law requires the City to deem these facilities as residential. Elected legislators determined the benefit of patients dying peacefully with their loved ones present in a home-like environment with pain management and grief counseling available outweighs the concerns a City or a neighborhood may have with such facilities in a residential zone. Sharp will vigorously defend the rights of the disabled and terminally ill to receive that benefit. That said, Sharp is committed to operating its well-designed facility as a good neighbor, just as it does in the neighborhoods where its other facilities operate. V. Substantial Evidence Supports the MDRA Findings The Appellants also challenge the findings made by the DSO in support of approval of the MORA. As set forth in the attached legal memorandum from Sharp's outside counsel, "substantial evidence" supports the findings made by the DSO. In addition, this letter and the attachments supplement the evidence in support of the findings for approval of the MORA. This evidence more than meets the legal standard applicable to the City's decision, which is entitled to deference because it is supported by substantial evidence in the entire record. VI. The Project Avoids On-Street Parking Im pacts Appellants next challenge the Project's on-site parking rates, and concurrently allege the Project will increase the use of on-street parking on Valle Verde Road. As discussed in the attached traffic report, with 23 spaces, the Project is providing adequate off-street parking to accommodate the estimated 18 average daily trips to the site as well additional spaces to assure a maximum, peak trip day can also be accommodated on site, and accounting for limited use of handicapped and EV spaces. While the Project's average daily trips are not expected to require the use of all of its parking facilities on a daily basis, Sharp purposely provided extra parking on the Property specifically to prevent any possible use of on-street parking that may disturb the neighborhood. Sharp did so as a community benefit, notwithstanding that on-street parking is allowed on local collector roads. Even residents of Green Valley park on Valle Verde when they have a maximum trip event at their homes, like a holiday party or 41 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Poway City Council Poway City Clerk April 29, 2022 Page 7 other event, and many other City residents may also park on the street to attend events at the adjacent park. The Project provides on-site parking so as not to interfere with any of those uses. Although the on-site parking exceeds parking that may normally be provided for a single-family home, Sharp believes it is prudent planning and courteous to the neighborhood to accommodate all possible Project-related parking on the Property. Sharp provides 16 parking spaces, including one handicapped space and no EV spaces, at its BonitaView facility, also located in a rural residential zone. Recognizing there would be 24/7 staffing at the location, plus a reasonable daily amount of specialized staff and family members visiting their terminally terminally-ill loved ones, and an increasing demand for EV spaces due to the rising increase in EV vehicles in California, Sharp knew that the right decision was to optimize the number of parking stalls in order to avoid risking cars parking offsite in the neighborhood. Sharp is providing sufficient on-site parking that is well-screened in order to maintain the aesthetics of the neighborhood. VII. The Project Design and Landscaping Plan Adequately Address Visual Impact Fears Appellants also allege the Proj ct will have visual impacts inconsistent with the residential neighborhood. As shown in the Project's site design plans, the Project is designed as a one-story single-family residence with landscape and other screening to blend with the neighborhood and adequately address potential visual impacts. It follows the height, setback and lot coverage requirements of the RR-C zone that are designed to assure a structure's bulk and scale are appropriate for the zone, even if neighbors chose to construct smaller homes in the RR-C zone. As noted above, although the Project provides more than the required parking, it is specifically designed to avoid a significant visual impact from the parking facilities. Moreover, Sharp has agreed to provide additional fencing to provide visual screening from the adjacent trail. Based on the plans in the record, the Project more than adequately addresses any potential visual impacts. VIII. There is No Substantial Evidence of Reduced Property Values Appellants next assert the Project will reduce their property values. Again, Sharp has experience operating similar facilities in other residential neighborhoods. For example, its BonitaView facility is a State-licensed hospice facility for up to six patients opened in 2012 in the unincorporated County's Rural Residential zone. Based on the attached opinion provided by Sharp's real estate broker, there is no evidence that the BonitaView facility has an adverse impact on property values of the properties surrounding the Bonitaview facility. Sharp's licensed real estate expert, Judy Preston, CCIM, found the following in her opinion letter, attached hereto as Exhibit C: 42 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Poway City Council Poway City Clerk April 29, 2022 Page 8 * We did not find signs of any movement directly related to the care facility for nearby properties/ownership with adjacent neighbors, meaning homeowners did not move away because of the new facility. * When a property did go on the market, it did sell within an average price range per square foot of value as other sold Bonita properties. The expert's conclusion was "this study finds the Bonita Property/HealthCare facility has blended into the community it is serving and no negative impact had been identified in this study. Therefore, this is good evidence that there will not be a negative impact on property values in Poway's rural residential zone proximate to the Espola Road site." This expert opinion further supports the MORA findings. IX. The Project is Not a Legal Nuisance Appellants urge the City to consider the Project a nuisance, based on the allegations in their appeal, mainly that it will attract criminals to the area in pursuit of on-site controlled substances. As set forth above, the Project does not create the potential for the adverse conditions that Appellants allege will occur, as Sharp's security protocols ensure the house will be even more secure against any potential criminal activity than other residences in the neighborhood. Moreover, the Project has adequate on-site parking to prevent on-street parking. The Project complies with site distance requirements so vehicles can safely enter and exit the site onto Valle Verde, a less congested road with slower moving traffic than Espola. MORA conditions were adopted to avoid potential nuisance impacts on surrounding properties. MORA Condition C requires the site to comply with City noise ordinances. MORA Conditions E. 12 and G. 7 requires Sharp to install and maintain erosion control devices and drainage systems to assure silt and surface water does not adversely affect neighboring properties. MORA Conditions F. 9 and 10 require compliance with muted earth tone building material finishes and approved landscape plans to avoid significant aesthetic impacts. Finally, the Project meets an important health care need and will serve residents in the City and the neighborhood in the future. It will be operated in a safe and considerate manner just as Sharp's existing facilities are operated. Therefore, it is a health care asset to the community, not a nuisance. Conclusion Based on all of the foregoing, Sharp respectfully requests the City Council deny the appeal, approve the MORA, and grant the reasonable accommodation from any PMC requirements acting as a barrier to fair housing opportunities for disabled persons in a licensed hospice care facility in the RR-C zone or 43 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Poway City Council Poway City Clerk April 29, 2022 Page 9 use of a hospice agency license in this home-like facility. Although development relating to care for the disabled and terminally ill in a rural residential zone can sometimes generate apprehension, the City may not allow such apprehension to escalate into a denial of the permit contrary the anti-discrimination laws that protect these vulnerable members of our society, for whom we are passionately advocating. Please be assured that Sharp is not only experienced in providing hospice care in an integrated, home-like setting as intended by the law, but is experienced in doing so in a way that respects the surrounding neighborhoods. We look forward to answering any further questions City staff or the City Council may have, and to moving the Project forward with the neighbor-requested design changes described herein. Suzi K. Johnson, MPH, RN VP Advanced Illness, Palliative and Hospice Sharp HealthCare SMRH:4887-6112-3100.1 Attachments Tony Guerra, MPH Interim Vice President, Facilities Sharp HealthCare Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Legal Analysis of Appellants' Claims (Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP 2022) Traffic Impact and Safety Analysis (Urban Systems Associates, Inc. 2022) Exhibit C: Judy Preston, CCIM, Real Estate Opinion Letter cc: Bob Manis Alan Fenstermacher, Esq. Michael Reed, Esq. Tony Guerra Eric Brown Shannon Sarmiento Jeffrey Forrest, Esq. Brooke Miller, Esq. Justin Schlaefli Dale W. Combs Suzanne Kropf Chris Hazeltine 44 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Poway City Council Poway City Clerk April 29, 2022 Page 10 45 of 137 Exhibit A Legal Analysis of Appellants' Claims May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com To: Alan B. Fenstermacher, Esq. Date: April 28, 2022 City Attorney City of Poway From: Jeffrey Forrest, Esq. File Number: Brooke Miller, Esq. Re: Sharp HealthCare: Response to Appeal of MDRA 21-023 (City of Poway) BACKGROUND On February 15, 2022, the City of Poway ("City") Development Services Department ("DSD") approved Minor Development Review Application ("MDRA") 21-023 "for the construction of a 6,670 square-foot single-family residence with an attached 431-square foot garage to be used as a residential care facility" ("Project") for the applicant, Sharp HealthCare ("Sharp"). On February 25, 2022, an appeal ("Appeal") was filed by Matt Jubenville and Clark Libenson ("Appellants") pursuant to Poway Municipal Code ("PMC") section 2.20.020, alleging the City's findings and determinations approving the Project are "inappropriate" because (i) there was insufficient notice to the community; (ii) the PMC' s development review procedures were misapplied; (iii) they are inconsistent with applicable zoning ordinances; and (iv) they are inconsistent with aesthetic, economic, safety, and traffic impacts on the neighborhood. Pursuant to PMC section 2.20.020, the City properly notified Sharp of the Appeal at least 14 calendar days before the scheduled Appeal hearing and advised Sharp of its right to submit a written response. 1 As part of Sharp's response, this memorandum provides a legal analysis of the claims in the Appeal for your independent review. As Sharp's land use counsel on this matter, we wanted you to have an opportunity to review our legal analysis in advance because there is ample confusion in the public regarding how the federal, State, and local laws work together to support the conclusion that the Project is deemed a residential use appropriate for Poway' s rural residential zone. 1 This is an appeal of an MDRA decision made by a department director pursuant to PMC Title 17, the appeal is heard by City Council, not a City Hearing officer, so the appeal procedures in PMC sections 2.20.030 to 2.20.090 do not apply. (PMC § 20.20.010.) The appeal follows the procedures for any matter considered at a regular City Council meeting. SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 46 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin ANALYSIS Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com 1. The City Must Deny Appellant's Request for Additional Notice The Appeal alleges that "Sharp and the City" did not "provide notice to the broader community about the proposed Hospice Facility, or seek input from the residents of Green Valley." Notice or a hearing is not required under Chapter 17.52 for a minor development review application approved by the Director pursuant to Section 17 .52.050, including for single-family homes. On January 13, 2022, the City generously went beyond its local requirements and provided notice to owners adjacent to the Project site, noting the Project would include "hospice" and seeking their comments a full month (not just 10 days) before the DSD conditionally approved the MDRA. The notice also explained that the neighbors had the right to appeal any department-level decision to the City Council, which now affords the opportunity for even more people to express their support or opposition to the Project at a regular City Council hearing. Sharp welcomes the public hearing and notes that the City's noticing and hearing system prior to issuing permits is working exactly as it should -even-handedly and non-discriminatorily. Appellants admit in their Appeal that"[ c ]ertainly, it is true that the City is not required to provide notice to, and to seek input from, the community every time a property in a residential zone changes ownership, or every time an owner seeks to build on, or modify, a residential property." However, the Appellants err when they accuse the City of being required to apply a different noticing standard for permitting decisions on housing for the disabled residents of this proposed Project. They state, "[i]n this instance, however, as described further below, the proposed Hospice Facility is far from a typical project." ( emphasis in original.) They demand the City be required to rezone the Project site to commercial only after a vote of the electorate where everyone gets notified and has the opportunity to vote on the approval of the Project. The Appellants are not entitled to any additional notice or approval procedures because any requirement imposing additional notice on the Project that is not required of other single-family residential uses would violate the federal Fair Housing Act and Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. ("FHAA''), discussed infra. (Potomac Group Home Corp. v. Montgomery County (D. Md. 1993) 823 F. Supp. 1285, 1296-97; see also Larkin v. Michigan Dep't of Social Services (6th Cir. 1996) 89 F .3d 285, 292.) Moreover, even when notice is required, no law requires that property owners actually receive notice, although actual notice may cure defects in notice otherwise required. (Benson v California Coastal Comm'n (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 348, 353.) Even where a notice is required and provided, a decision may be upheld unless it can be demonstrated that the defect in providing required notice was prejudicial. (Gov. Code,§ 65010(b); Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 919.) SMRH:4884-6553-9353.5 -2-47 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com Here, City records show they mailed notice to area owners on January 13, 2022. Appellants admit notice was provided and that several of them "responded." Finally, the timely filing of their Appeal demonstrates that Appellants themselves were adequately actually notified of the Project as to protect their interests and therefore are not prejudiced by any alleged lack of a special notice to them. As such, the allegations in the Appeal regarding lack of notice do not require reversal of DSD's decision to approve the MDRA due to inadequate notice. 2. The City Followed its Development Review Procedures The Appeal alleges DSD's approval of the MDRA did not comply with PMC Chapter 17.52 ("Development Review Procedure") on the basis that: a. The DSD's approval "fails to detail the scope of the review ... disclose the documents or materials reviewed, or cite the people consulted in the process"; b. The DSD's approval "does not provide any reasoning or justification whatsoever for its findings"; and c. A hearing was not conducted pursuant to PMC section 17.52.060 within 60 days of the date the application was deemed complete. Each of these allegations is addressed in turn below. a. Scope of Review and Record PMC Chapter 17 .52 establishes a "Development Review Procedure" for the review and evaluation of development plans "[i]n order to safeguard and enhance the appearance and quality of development of the City[.]" (PMC Section 17.52.020.) A city is not, pursuant to general law, required to have a design review ordinance. Accordingly, where, as here, a city chooses to impose such an additional level of review, it is for the city to determine the scope and procedure that such review will entail. (Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 1014; see also McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal. App. 5th 80.) Moreover, State law specifically authorizes cities to delegate authority to hear quasi-judicial matters to a subordinate board or official. (See Gov. Code, §§65900-65902.) PMC Section 17.52.030 lists the required plans and drawings to be submitted to the DSD Director for review. Section 17.52.040 establishes the scope of the Director's review and evaluation of the development plans. These sections establish the "scope of the review" and "documents or materials reviewed," SMRH:4884-6553-9353.5 -3-48 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com all of which are in the public record.2 Nothing in the PMC requires further recitation in the approval itself. b. Findings and Support The City is required to issue written findings in support of its decision on a quasi-judicial matter. The record must contain substantial evidence to support the findings, and the findings must in turn support the decision and be sufficiently detailed to "bridge the analytical gap" between the raw evidence and the final decision. (Topanga Ass'n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 C3d 506, 511.) The approval (p. 1-2, "Findings") lists the DSD's findings for approval of the MDRA consistent with the stated purposes of Chapter 17 .52 as set forth in PMC Section 17.52.010 and its reasoning in support of the findings, as supported by the plans in the record: Findings A. [Reasoning] The project has been designed to be architecturally compatible and in scale with the surrounding residential development. [Purpose] Therefore, the project respects and recognizes the interdependence of land values and aesthetics to the benefit of the City. B. [Reasoning] The project has been designed to minimize impacts on surrounding development in that the building has been designed to be compatible with surrounding residential development. [Purpose] Therefore, the proposed development respects public concerns for the aesthetics of development and encourages the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within the City. C. [Purpose] The granting of the MDRA would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare within the community [Reasoning] since the proposed project will be required to construct the necessary utility service improvements and adequate infrastructure exists in the area to serve the site. D. [Reasoning] The project has been designed so the proposed exterior building materials will be similar and compatible with the surrounding residential development. [Purpose] Therefore, the proposed development respects the public concerns for the aesthetics of development. 2 In fact, Appellants admit (p. 6 of the Appeal) they reviewed "available plans, materials and feedback from Sharp" and "the presentation and site plans" for the Project (p. 8 of the Appeal). SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -4-49 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com E. [Purpose] The project will not have an adverse effect on the aesthetics, health and safety, or an architecturally related impact upon adjoining properties, [Reasoning] as the project will be compatible in design and have exterior building materials consistent with the surrounding residential development. F. [Reasoning] The design of the proposed development is [Purpose] consistent with all elements of the Poway General Plan and conforms with applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. In the context of a design review decision, the burden is on the petitioner to show there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the agency's findings. (Breneric Associates v. City of Del Mar (1998) 69 Cal. App. 4th 166, 174.) The court applies the "substantial evidence" standard of review, also applicable to a use permit. (Ibid., citing Saad v. City of Berkeley (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4th 1206, 1212.) Under this standard of review, the court resolves all reasonable doubts in favor of the administrative findings and decision and reverses the administrative determination only if, based on the evidence before the agency, a reasonable person could not have reached the conclusion reached by the agency. (Ibid., citing Harris v. City of Costa Mesa ( 1994) 25 Cal. App. 4th 963, 969.) The DSD's findings, as outlined above and further supplemented with additional facts in Exhibit A, are supported by evidence including the development plans submitted to the City pursuant to PMC Section 17.52.030. The Appeal does not establish that, based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable person could not have reached the same conclusion to approve the MDRA for the Project. Accordingly, the DSD's findings are entitled to deference and do not require reversal of DSD's decision to approve the MDRA. Alternatively, the City Council may make its own findings in support of approval of the MDRA and denial of the Appeal based on all the information in the record before it during the Appeal, including this memorandum. c. Public Hearing Appellants also misinterpret PMC section 17 .52.060 as requiring a City Council hearing within 60 days of Sharp's application being deemed complete. The 60-day requirement is applicable to major development review decisions, not minor development review decisions. Rather, PMC Section 2.20.020(C) provides that on receipt of a sufficient appeal to the City Council, the City Clerk shall set the matter for consideration by the City Council to be held at a regularly scheduled public meeting. No specific deadline is required. A timely appeal of a minor development review decision also results in a hearing before City Council, so the classification of the development review decision as minor results in the City Council hearing Appellants requested. DSD has followed the procedure set forth in the PMC and this argument does not require reversal of DSD's decision. SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -5-so of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com However, if Appellants insist this is a major development review decision and the 60-day rule applies, then Sharp must be issued its full approval of the permit immediately because Sharp's application was deemed complete on January 12, 2022. PMC section 17.52.060 states, "[f]ailure of the Council to act within 60 days shall be deemed approval of the application unless the applicant shall consent to an extension of time." Sharp has not agreed to an extension of time on a major development review approval. If Appellants convince the City this is a major development review approval, then Sharp gladly accepts its permit as "deemed approved." 3. The Project is Consistent with Applicable Laws Governing Zoning of Group Homes and Other Residential and Health Care Facilities Serving the Disabled and Terminally Ill Appellants allege the Project violates its RR-C zoning designation and that it "is not complementary to, and therefore cannot exist in harmony with, our rural residential neighborhood" for "at least" the following reasons: a. Appellants allege the Project is "a commercial hospice" and "not really a 'residential care facility' at all" but "a commercial enterprise" that is "wholly incompatible with the residential nature" of their neighborhood. b. Appellants allege the Project would increase the volume and change the nature of traffic in their neighborhood and allow "hospice parking on Valle Verde Road" which would "diminish the quality of the neighborhood" and "present[] safety concerns." c. Appellants allege the proposed Project ingress/egress on Valle Verde Road is not appropriate for a "residential collector" road or otherwise less safe than ingress/egress on Espola Road. d. Appellants allege the Project will "impose a high level of patient transfers on a quiet residential neighborhood that includes families with young children." e. Appellants allege that having "commercial parking spaces in plain view ... is inconsistent with the residential character" of their neighborhood and also that overflow parking on Valle Verde Road "would be unacceptable from both an aesthetic and safety perspective." f. Finally, Appellants argue the Project is a "commercial operation" that "has the potential to directly and negatively affect property values." a. Use Designation As noted above, the MDRA authorizes "construction of a 6,670 square-foot single-family residence with an attached 431-square foot garage to be used as a residential care facility" SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -6-51 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com ( emphasis added) and the "Property Owners Notice" provided by the City further clarified that the use includes "(hospice)." Appellants claim the Project is "a commercial enterprise wholly incompatible with the residential nature" of their neighborhood and allege "the Poway Municipal Code does not contain a definition of 'hospice facility'" and "the City of Poway should look to the differing definitions of 'residential care' and 'hospice' established by the relevant State of California licensing authorities." Appellants are correct that the PMC does not define a "hospice facility." The PMC also does not define a "residential care facility," a "congregate living health facility," or many other categories of facilities licensed by the State. (See Health & Saf. Code § 1250.) At the scale proposed by the Project, however, all of these constitute residential uses pursuant to applicable State and federal law. Contrary to Appellants' claims, the Project's State license type is not determinative of its status as a residential use because federal laws governing housing for the disabled override whether or not disabled housing is licensed or unlicensed. The Ninth Circuit has confirmed "California law requires that licensed facilities with six residents or fewer be treated as single-family dwellings for zoning purposes by all municipalities." (Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach (9th Cir. 2013) 730 F. 3d 1142, [Pacific Shores] fn. 8 [city ordinance regulating group homes for persons recovering from drug and/or alcohol addiction subject to challenge under anti-discrimination laws].) Moreover, as in Pacific Shores, which challenged the application of zoning restrictions on operation oflicensed and unlicensed "group homes" in single-family residential zones, "zoning practices that discriminate against disabled individuals can be discriminatory, and therefore violate § 3604 [of the FHAA], if they contribute to making unavailable or denying housing to those persons" whether or not the facility has a State license. (Id. at p. 114 7; fn. 8 [ explaining the ordinance's application to unlicensed group homes for six or fewer persons].) Accordingly, disparate treatment of the Project as a non-residential use due to its intended future occupants is a violation of federal and State laws protecting the disabled and terminally ill. PMC Section 1.04.030 ("Interpretation of language") states, "[a] ll words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language, but technical words and phrases and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning." (Emphasis added.) "Law" is further defined to be "applicable Federal law, the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, the ordinances of the City of Poway, and when appropriate, and all rules and regulations which may be promulgated thereunder." (PMC Section 1.04.0l0(E).) Additionally, PMC Section 17.02.040 ("Clarification of ambiguity") provides that, "If ambiguity arises concerning the appropriate classification of a particular use within the meaning and intent of this title, ... it shall be the duty of the Development Services Director to ascertain all pertinent facts and forward said findings and interpretations to the Council, and, if approved by the Council, thereafter such interpretations shall govern." SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -7-52 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com Accordingly, as explained in more detail below, because the City Council is not permitted to interpret its code contrary to State and federal laws that protect the disabled and terminally ill, the pertinent facts and interpretation City staff must provide City Council is that the Council must classify the Project's use as residential and permitted in the RR-C zone regardless of whether PMC's rural residential zoning chart currently only permits "residential care facilities licensed by the state" that have six or fewer residents and regardless of whether Sharp obtains a "residential facility" license. Therefore, the Appeal must be denied. Finally, Sharp hereby requests and the City is obligated to provide the Project "reasonable accommodation" from any PMC requirements acting as a barrier to fair housing opportunities for disabled persons in a hospice care facility in the RR-C zone, including but not limited to a determination that if Sharp obtains a "hospice facility license" it is deemed a residential use in the RR-C zone. In asking the City to deny the Project approval, it appears that the Appellants may not fully appreciate that a person (including Sharp) may sue if a local municipality refuses to make reasonable accommodations for handicapped housing in its zoning ordinances. ( Gamble v. City of Escondido (9th Cir. 1997) 104 F.3d 300,305, 307.) Accordingly, Sharp respectfully requests both the reasonable accommodation and denial of the Appeal. For information purposes, please note that although, as further detailed below, a "hospice facility" license is not necessary for Sharp to provide "hospice" services (pursuant to its existing "hospice" license), Sharp also owns a licensed six-bed "hospice facility" at 3850 Valley Vista Road Bonita, CA 91902 in the unincorporated County. This facility is located on "Rural Residential" (RR) zoning (see Exhibit D) and operates peacefully with its neighbors. (1) Hospice Services Performed in Homes and Residential Care Facilities for Six or Fewer are Deemed Residential Uses Regardless of the Local Zoning Ordinance Classification. In addition to the general premise the federal protections for housing for the disabled apply regardless of license, if Sharp were to obtain a "residential facility" license from the State, then State law specifically deems the Project to be equivalent to and treated like other residential uses in the City. Pursuant to the Community Care Act, at Health & Safety Code section 1566.3, "a residential facility that serves six or fewer persons shall be considered a residential use of property for the purposes of this article. In addition, the residents and operators of such a facility shall be considered a family for the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance that relates to the residential use of property pursuant to this article."3 (Emphasis added.) Additionally, it provides, "[f)or the purpose of all local ordinances, a residential facility that serves six or fewer persons shall not be included within the definition of a boarding house, rooming house, institution or home for the care of minors, the aged, or persons with mental health disorders, foster care home, guest home, rest home, community residence, or other similar term that implies the residential 3 Appellants admit the Project "falls just under [PMC] section 17.08.l00's limit for RR-C zoning" which "prohibits residential care facilities for seven to 15 residents in areas zoned RR-C." SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -8-53 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www.sheppardmullin.com facility is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling." (Emphasis added; Health & Saf. Code§ 1566.3(b).) Moreover, Health & Safety Code section 1566.3(e) directs that, "[n]o conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of a residential facility that serves six or fewer persons that is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone." (Emphasis added.) Petitioners allege that the uses included in the Project do not "fall within the definition of a 'residential care facility' licensed by the state agency charged with licensing such facilities" but "[ r ]ather ... fall within the definition of a 'hospice facility,' which facilities are licensed and regulated by a completely different agency." While Appellants are correct that "residential facilities" and "hospice facilities" are licensed by different State agencies, they are incorrect in presuming Sharp's only choice is to obtain a "hospice facility" license. Rather, under State law, services for persons who have a diagnosis of terminal illness can be provided in a variety of facilities not licensed as "hospice facilities." A "hospice" license and a "hospice facility" license are separate license categories under State law.4 "Hospice" licenses are issued pursuant to the California Hospice Licensure Act of 1990, Health & Safety Code section 1745 et seq., adopted by Senate Bill ("SB") 2622 (1990). Over 20 years later, SB 135 (2012) added Article 10.6 ("Hospice Licensing") to Chapter 2 ("Health Facilities") of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code (sections 1339.40 et seq.), requiring that "A hospice provider that intends to provide inpatient hospice care in the hospice provider's own facility shall submit an application and fee for licensure as a hospice facility under this chapter." (Health & Saf. Code § 1339 .41 (b ).) SB 135 was adopted for the express Legislative purpose that "[p ]ersons who do not have family members or caregivers who are able to provide care in the home should be able to have care provided in a homelike environment, rather than in an institutional setting, if that is their preference." (Stats 2012, Ch. 673, § l(d), (c), emphasis added.) "Hospice care" is defined in Health & Safety Code section 1339.40, subd. (b) as "health care that is designed to provide palliative care, alleviate the physical, emotional, social, and spiritual discomforts of an individual who is experiencing the last phases of life due to the existence of a terminal disease." (Emphasis added.) Notwithstanding the adoption of SB 135, services for persons with a diagnosis of terminal illness can be provided in a variety of facilities, including a "congregate living health facility," a "residential care facility for persons with chronic, life-threatening illness," a "residential care facility for the elderly," or at "multiple locations" within a licensed hospice's "service area," including homes, and the provider of such services is not required to obtain a separate license as a "home health agency." (Health & Saf. Code §§ 1250(i) [defining "congregate living health facility"]; 1568.02 [hospice services may be provided in a "residential care facility for persons with chronic, life threatening illness"]; 1569.73 [hospice services may be provided in a "residential care facility for the elderly"]; 1746 ["'Multiple location' means a location or site from which a 4 Sharp has an existing "hospice" license in addition to a separate "hospice facility" license for its existing licensed hospice facility in the unincorporated County community ofBonita, described below. See Exhibit C (Cal Health Find Database, https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/chcq/lcp/calhealthfind/Pages/Home.aspx) SMRH: 4884-6553-9353 .5 -9-54 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www.sheppardmullin.com hospice makes available basic hospice services within the service area of the parent agency."]; 1726( d) [ exempting a "hospice" from the requirement to secure a separate "home health agency" license under subdivision (a)."].) (2) Hospice Services May be Provided in Congregate Living Health Facilities Deemed Residential Uses Regardless of the Local Zoning Ordinance Classification. In addition to the general premise the federal protections for housing for the disabled apply regardless of license, Sharp is able to obtain a "congregate living health facility" license from the State for the Project. State law specifically deems "congregate living health facilities" for six or fewer patients to be equivalent to and treated like other residential uses in the City. Although "hospice facilities" and "congregate living health facilities" have separate licenses, they are both "health facilities" licensed by the Department of Public Health. (Health & Saf. Code, § 1250(i) and (n).) However, Appellants incorrectly assume that services for the terminally ill can only be operated out of a licensed "hospice facility." As noted above, such services can be operated out of several licensed facilities including a licensed "congregate living health facility" which is also an inpatient health care facility. (Health & Saf. Code, § 1339.43(e).) In fact, "congregate living health facility" has been one of the traditional regulatory licenses used for providing hospice services, including by Sharp, outside an institutional hospital setting for decades because hospice services fit within the definition of "congregate living health facilities." That definition includes in-patient care in a residential home with 24-hour skilled nursing or supportive care and "[ s ]ervices for persons who have a diagnosis of terminal illness, a diagnosis of a life-threatening illness, or both." (Health & Saf. Code, § 1250(i)(2)(B).) Like licensed "residential facilities" under the Community Care Act, "[a] congregate living health facility which serves six or fewer persons shall be considered a residential use of property for purposes of any zoning ordinance or law related to the residential use of property." (Health & Saf. Code, § 1267.16, emphasis added. 5) Congregate living health facilities "shall be in a homelike residential setting." (Health & Saf. Code,§ 1267.B(c).) In addition, "the residents and operators of the facility shall be considered a family for the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance that is related to the residential use of property ... " (Health & Saf. Code,§ 1267.8(c).) Moreover, it provides, "[/]or the purpose of all local ordinances, ... a congregate living health facility shall not be included within the definition of a boarding house, rooming house, institution or home for the care of minors, the aged, or persons with mental health disorders, foster care home, guest home, rest home, community residence, or other similar term that implies the ... congregate living health facility is a business run/or profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling." (Emphasis added; Health & Saf. Code section 1267.8(d).) Moreover, Health & Safety Code section 1267.8(g) 5 In addition to congregate living health facilities and residential facilities, "intermediate care facilities/developmentally disabled habilitative," "intermediate care facilities/developmentally disabled-nursing," "Residential Care Facilities for Persons with Chronic Life-Threatening Illness," and "Pediatric day health and respite care facilities" for six or fewer persons are expressly required by statute to constitute a "residential use" for purposes of any local zoning ordinance. (Health & Safety Code§§ 1267.8; 1761.4; 1568.0831.) SMRH:4884-6553-9353.5 -10-55 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com directs that "[n]o conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of ... a congregate living health facility that is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone." (Emphasis added.) Therefore, it is clear that state law requires a state-licensed "congregate living health facility" providing hospice care in an "integrated," "homelike environment" to six or fewer persons must be deemed a permitted residential use in the Rural Residential zone like any single family home, notwithstanding any limitations in the Rural Residential use classification table. Sharp is able to obtain a "congregate living health facility license" for the facility, without modification of the Project plans, and can provide the same services under that license, though it may have less benefit to members of the public specifically seeking a hospice facility as it would not be listed as a "hospice facility" on the State Department of Public Health website. However, the actual structure and services would be the same. (3) The City Must Provide a Reasonable Accommodation to Allow Hospice Facilities in the Rural Residential Zone Regardless of the Local Zoning Ordinance Classification. Sharp is also able to obtain a "hospice facility" license from the State for the Project. Doing so would not constitute a "commercial use," contrary to Appellants' allegations. Acknowledging that "[h ]ospice services are provided primarily in the home, but can also be provided in residential care or in health facility inpatient settings[,]" the Legislature adopted SB 135 for the express purpose that "[p ]ersons who do not have family members or caregivers who are able to provide care in the home should be able to have care provided in a homelike environment, rather than in an institutional setting, if that is their preference." (Stats 2012, Ch. 673, § 1 ( d), ( c ), emphasis added.) The Legislature cited "the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L.C. by Zimring (1999) 527 U.S. 581 [Olmstead], which held that persons with disabilities have the right to live in the most integrated setting possible with appropriate access to care and choice of community-based services and placement options." (Id. at subd. (h), emphasis added; citing Olmstead [holding that disabled persons could not be institutionalized in a hospital where community-based care was available].) In other words, the very purpose of SB 135 was to authorize the establishment of stand-alone, licensed hospice facilities that provide an "integrated," "homelike environment" for persons with disabilities to receive hospice care, instead of in an "institutional setting" like the hospital in Olmstead. Accordingly, "hospice care" specifically includes, "[t]o the extent appropriate, based on the medical needs of the patient, . . . services in the patient's home or primary place of residence." (Emphasis added; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 28, § 1300.68.2, subd. (a)(2)(G) [requiring services in enrollee's "home or primary place of residence" to the extent appropriate].) In the context of hospice, "primary place of residence" has been defined to mean "the patient's long-term residence and includes the patient's home, a friend's home, a congregate living health facility, a hospice residential care facility, or a skilled nursing facility if the patient resides there on a permanent full-time basis." (Health & Saf. Code§ 1339.3 l(d).) In most cases, it is their final SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -11-56 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10SheppardMullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com residence. In addition to ignoring federal law protecting disabled hospice patients, Appellants ignore the purpose of the "hospice facility license," when Appellants claim the law does not deem a hospice facility license a residential use and ask the City to interpret SB 135 in a manner contrary to its purpose. Separate from the purpose of SB 135 and State licensing law, both State and federal law require the City to remove barriers to providing housing for the disabled where, as here, the applicant requests a reasonable accommodation. As the Ninth Circuit has confirmed, regardless of licensing status, "zoning practices that discriminate against disabled individuals can be discriminatory, and therefore violate § 3604 [of the FHAA], if they contribute to making unavailable or denying housing to those persons." (Pacific Shores, supra, 730 F. 3d 1142, 1147; fn. 8.) A local agency's refusal to accommodate housing for the disabled in a residential zone which permitted "similar" uses (here, a "residential facility," "congregate living health facility" or any number of licensed or unlicensed group homes allowed in the RR-C zone whether pursuant to the PMC or State law), violates the FHAA. (See, e.g., Hovsons, Inc. v. Township of Brick (1996) 89 F .3d 1096 [ clear error where lower court found township "reasonably accommodated" State-authorized nursing home within "hospital support zone" but denied variance to build nursing home in residential zone, where "similar" planned residential retirement communities were permitted in residential zone.] As set forth below and in Exhibit B, a reasonable accommodation is requested to accommodate Sharp's ability either to obtain and use a "hospice facility license" or use its existing hospice agency license in the rural residential zone at the Property. As further outlined in the request for reasonable accommodation, the application of special land use permitting requirements (such as rezoning via the ballot box) in order to allow disabled residents to live at Project under a "hospice facility license" that are not applicable to other residents seeking to live in the Rural Residential zone, such as residents of traditional single-family homes (like the Appellants), "residential facilities" and "congregate living health facilities" (wherein equivalent terminally ill services are provided) violates the FHAA, as well as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. ("FEHA").6 (See, e.g., City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985) 473 U.S. 432 [Cleburne]; Association of Relatives & Friends of AIDS Patients v. Regulations & Permits Admin. (1990) 740 F. Supp. 95 [patients in hospice care are "disabled" for purposes of the FHAA]; Pacific Shores, supra, 730 F.3d 1142 [city ordinance regulating group homes for persons recovering from drug and/or alcohol addiction subject to challenge under anti-discrimination laws].) 6 In addition to the FHAA, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, 52 U.S.C. § 12132 ("ADA") prohibits governmental entities from discriminating against disabled persons through zoning. (See Bay Area Addiction Research & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch (1999) 179 F.3d 725, 730-32.) Housing discrimination allegations under State law, the State FEHA are subject to the same standards. (Pacific Shores, supra, 730 F.3d at p. 1157, citing Walker v. City of Lakewood (2001) 272 F.3d 1114.) SMRH:4884-6553-9353.5 -12-57 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www.sheppardmullin.com The FHAA prohibits a governmental entity, including a city, from making unavailable or denying a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a "handicap" of a person residing in or intending to reside in the dwelling after it is bought or rented. ( 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(l ).) "Handicap" is defined as "(1) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, (2) a record of having such an impairment, or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment[.]" (42 USCS § 3602, sub. (h).) The FHAA also prohibits application of zoning ordinance regulations that are discriminatory on their face, including a zoning ordinance that excludes group homes for persons with disabilities from single-family residential districts. (See Cleburne. supra; see also Dr. Gertrude A. Barber Center, Inc. v. Peters Township, 273 F. Supp. 2d 643, 656-59 (W.D. Pa. 2003); In re Millcreek Township Zoning Ordinance No. 87-24, 4 D & C 4th 449, 457-61 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. July 25, 1989).) Similarly, pursuant to State law, the FEHA, "Discrimination includes, but is not limited to, restrictive covenants, zoning laws, denials of use permits, and other actions authorized under the Planning and Zoning Law (Title 7 ( commencing with Section 65000)), that make housing opportunities unavailable." (Gov. Code§ 12955; see also Stats. 1993 Ch. 1277, § 18 [stating the Legislature's intent that FEHA covers unlawful discriminatory restrictions against group housing for persons with disabilities who are in need of specialized care].) The FHAA also prohibits a land use law or zoning decision that intentionally discriminates against people with disabilities, for example, where a land use permit is denied based on statements by decision-makers that the use was denied based on the identity of the clients when an equivalent use would be allowed on the same property, or where the evidence shows a city has no group homes for the service population in its residential areas. (Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, 294 F.3d 35, 48-52 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 813 (2002); see also Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Dep 't, 352 F.3d 565, 579-80 (2d Cir. 2003); Children's Alliance v. City of Bellevue, 950 F. Supp. 1491, 1500 (W.D. Wash. 1997).) However, a plaintiff need not demonstrate the existence of a similarly situated entity (such as a "residential facility" or a "congregate living health facility" or any other residence at which licensed hospice services may be provided in the RR-C zone pursuant to the PMC or State law) which was treated better than the plaintiffs in order to prevail on discrimination claims. (Pacific Shores, supra, 730 F.3d 1142, 1158 citing Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., 299 F.3d 838, 855 (9th Cir. 2002) (en bane), aff d, 539 U.S. 90 (2003),) Instead, he may "simply produce direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated" the defendant and that the defendant's actions adversely affected the plaintiff in some way. (Ibid., citing McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp. (2002) 360 F.3d 1103, 1122; Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston (1985) 469 U.S. 111, 121; Lowe v. City of Monrovia (9th Cir. 1985) 775 F.2d 998, 1006-07, amended on other grounds, 784 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1986).) Here, the Appeal characterizes hospice care as a "commercial enterprise" incompatible with a "quiet residential neighborhood;" objects to the possibility that patient "transfers will be visible from Valle Verde Road;" objects that drivers of vehicles in and out of the facility will be dangerous despite evidence that all drivers are required to follow the rules of the road and SMRH:4884-6553-93 53 .5 -13-58 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com traditional single family home users also drive vehicles that cause accidents; objects that parents will be forced to walk their children past a place where it is known that disabled persons die; and speculates that hospice care will increase criminal activity due to the presence of controlled substances, notwithstanding 24-hour staffing of the facility and security measures that exceed control standards in a traditional single family home. Moreover, the Appeal admits that "no existing homes or facilities for miles exhibit characteristics similar to the proposed Hospice Facility." This is all evidence that Appellants are asking the City Council to participate in unlawful discrimination against disabled individuals in hospice care in a residential setting. The FHAA defines discrimination to include "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." (42 USC § 3604(f)(3)(B), emphasis added.) Here, were the City to concur with Appellants that the Project is a "commercial" use inconsistent with RR-C zoning and require Sharp to process a rezoning subject to approval of the voters of the City pursuant to PMC Section 17.08.020, it would engage in discrimination because it would impose a significant procedural ( and financial) burden on the Project to achieve the goal of constructing a facility where disabled residents have "equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." Such ballot box rezones are often unsuccessful and cost significant sums to collect signatures, hire attorneys and consultants to write rezone text for the ballot, hire campaign accounts to track fundraising, and run a public relations campaign to advocate the merits of commercial rezone to the public. In contrast, other uses, including licensed residential facilities, congregate living health facilities, and traditional single-family homes, simply need to apply for a building permit and MDRA. Therefore, granting a reasonable accommodation to allow Sharp the ability either to obtain and use a "hospice facility license" or use its existing hospice agency license in the rural residential zone at the Property prevents discrimination under the FHAA. Pursuant to PMC Chapter 17 .26, Article VI., a request may be made for "reasonable accommodation" "when the application of a requirement of a zoning or land use regulation acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities." Sharp hereby requests a reasonable accommodation from the unique procedural and cost barriers describe above (under the interpretation set forth in the Appeal) that the PMC's Rural Residenti~l zone excludes a "hospice facility" licensed by the State ( outside the context of a "residential care facility" or "congregate living health facility licensed by the State) unless Sharp first applies for and obtains a commercial rezone at the ballot box. Additional details on the request for reasonable accommodations and justification for findings in support are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Note that the PMC's provision that "[a] reasonable accommodation cannot ... result in approval of a use otherwise prohibited by the City's land use and zoning regulations" would itself be discriminatory if applied here because it would prohibit adequate recourse from a discriminatory zoning regulation that only excludes hospice services for disabled residents in the Rural Residential zone if they are provided in a "hospice facility," but not a traditional single SMRH: 4884-6553-9353 .5 -14-59 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10SheppardMullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com family home, a "residential facility," or certain other "health facilities," including a "congregate living health facility." Making "reasonable accommodation" includes changing, waiving, and making exceptions to zoning rules, unless doing so imposes an undue burden on a locality. (See Horizon House Developmental Servs., Inc. v. Township of Upper Southampton (ED Pa 1992) 804 F. Supp 683, 699.) A person may sue under the FHA and the Fair Housing Act Amendments (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), if a local municipality refuses to make reasonable accommodations for handicapped housing. ( Gamble v. City of Escondido (9th Cir. 1997) 104 F .3d 300, 305, 307.) Therefore, it is clear that state and federal law require a State-licensed "hospice facility" providing hospice care in an "integrated," "homelike environment" to six or fewer persons must be deemed a permitted residential use or reasonably accommodated as a residential use in the Rural Residential zone like any single family home, notwithstanding any limitations in the Rural Residential use classification table. ( 4) Allegations Relating to Safety Cannot be Used to Justify Discrimination Against Disabled Persons because They are Based on Unsupported Stereotypes, Prejudice and Fear As noted above, the application of special land use permitting requirements to the disabled residents of the Project that are not applicable to other residents seeking to live in the Rural Residential zone would violate, on its face, federal and State law. (Cleburne, supra, 473 U.S. 432.) The FHAA' s protections against disability discrimination "also apply to state or local land use or health and safety laws, regulations, practices, or decisions which discriminate against individuals with handicaps."(; Pacific Shores, supra, 730 F.3d at p. 1157, citing Casa Marie, Inc. v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico (I st. Cir. 1993) 988 F.2d 252, 257.) A facially discriminatory restriction on housing for disabled persons is subject to "heightened scrutiny" and is invalid unless the city shows either "(1) that the restriction benefits the protected class or (2) that it responds to legitimate safety concerns raised by the individuals affected, rather than being based on stereotypes." ( Cmty. House, Inc. v. City of Boise (9th Cir.2010) 490 F.3d 1041, 1050.) Under this test, "Restrictions that are based upon unsupported stereotypes or upon prejudice and fear stemming from ignorance or generalizations, for example, would not pass muster." (Bangerter v. Orem City Corp. (10th Cir. 1995) 46 F.3d 1491, 1504.) Moreover, a local agency is not excused from its obligation to reasonably accommodate, pursuant to the FHAA § 3604(f)(3)(B), housing for disabled persons due to "generalized, subjective, speculative concerns" about disabled residents that fail to prove the requested accommodation "poses some unique threat to safety or character of neighborhood." (ReMed Recovery Care Ctrs. v. Township of Willistown (1999) 36 F. Supp. 2d 676, 684.) Specifically, a town was required to accommodate a facility housing 8 disabled persons in a district zoned for single-family residential use where, as here, traffic was "comparable" to other residential uses, no "large deliveries of food or other services are made regularly by trucks", the "house and property SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -15-60 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .s heppard m ullin .com have been made to fit as much as possible into the neighborhood" despite the presence of wheelchair ramps and spotlights that "perhaps make[ ] the Home stand out, but it is not violative of any zoning ordinance." (Id. at p. 684-685.) Here, Appellants claim the Project "creates a serious safety issue" because the alleged "transitory nature of the hospice traffic" would cause "a steady stream of traffic, including patient transports, ambulances, funeral/coroner vehicles, linen and food delivery vehicles, shift changes, doctor visits, family member visits, regulatory visits, etc." and result in "a sudden and significant increase in the number of vehicles on Valle Verde Road, driven by people not familiar with the neighborhood or otherwise distracted." They "demand that the City revisit the ingress/egress for the proposed Hospice Facility" for consistency with General Plan policies providing that "the 'design capacity' for residential collectors is determined by reference to 'an acceptable level of traffic consistent with the quality of life in residential areas"' and allege "the increased volume, and the change in the nature, of the traffic on Valle Verde will not be consistent with the existing quality of life in Green Valley." Additionally, they claim that Project-related traffic and the fact that there is "nothing that precludes hospice parking on Valle Verde Road" constitute "a bad combination that poses serious safety concerns." However, DSD and traffic experts determined that the Project would not create a safety issue; the additional Project-related traffic is de minimis, resulting in a net increase of eight average daily trips, which is comparable to the traffic that would be generated by comparable residential uses, including other State-licensed residential and health facilities. The Project uses unmarked medical transport vehicles and personal cars for its operations, not emergency medical transport vehicles, linen trucks or large food trucks. Nothing prevents any of the other residential uses in the neighborhood from generating traffic "driven by people not familiar with the neighborhood or otherwise distracted" or the need for an emergency vehicle or delivery truck to visit their homes. Traffic analysis also confirms that Valley Verde Road has significant additional capacity to handle thousands of additional trips, notwithstanding the Appellants subject view that it is a busy road. Appellants propose no trip limits on themselves or other traditional single family homes in the neighborhood to guard against allegedly unsafe traffic volumes, yet Appellants believe a mere 8 additional trips a day is too much to allow a facility to house the disabled and terminally ill in their final days. At one point in the Appeal letter, Appellants finally concede that the Project's alleged impacts on the level of service of surrounding roads and intersections is not a relevant consideration for purposes of the Project's environmental impacts. With regards to allegations that visitors to the site are unsafe drivers, Appellants present no evidence to support that claim other than their own subjective beliefs. Visitors to the site must follow the rules of the road, just like any visitor to a traditional single family home in the neighborhood. Moreover, an analysis of the traffic impacts of the project confirms the driveway is designed to provide sight distance angles so traffic leaving the site can see on-coming vehicles, pedestrian, horses and other pets and on-coming vehicles have adequate distance to brake. SMRH:4884-6553-9353 5 -16-61 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www.sheppardmullin.com With regards to the claim that the Project would be safer if the driveway were moved to Espola Road, City staff correctly came to the opposite conclusion. Due to its longer street frontage, absence of a Class II bike facility and single-lane design, the proposed driveway entrance on Valle Verde would cause less potential traffic, bike and pedestrian conflicts than a driveway on Espola. Not only is Valle Verde designed and designated to accommodate significantly more traffic than the Project would generate, adding a new driveway to Espola is simply bad planning as it takes unnecessary risks because it forces drivers leaving the site to enter onto a road with higher speed limits than Valle Verde Road. Appellants claim some traffic will be slowing down from 45 miles to IO miles an hour when they approach the traffic signal at Espola and Valle Verde, but that would only be the case when the traffic light is yellow or red; the problem is when the traffic light is green for the fast-moving vehicles on Espola. Some drivers would also need to cross multiple lanes of traffic to access the left turn lane on Espola to turn left from the site, resulting in more potential traffic conflicts. The frontage on Espola also includes a Class II bike facility, which is not the case on Valle Verde. Thus the City's conclusion that the placement of the Project driveway on Valle Verde meets its General Plan policy and safety goals is supported by the evidence, notwithstanding Appellants' claims, and the Appeal therefore does not raise any legitimate safety concerns relating to traffic. Although the Project's parking spaces are different from a single family residence and might make the home "stand out" from an aerial view, the on-site parking does not violate zoning requirements and its parking is screened by significant landscaping to reduce visibility into the site. The on-site parking will accommodate the maximum vehicles expected to be generated by the Project so the Project could not reasonably be expected to impact on-street parking in the neighborhood. Notwithstanding the extra parking on site, project opponents then allege the extra on-site parking needed to protect them from local street parking is evidence that the project does not conform to the neighborhood. In other words, despite not being able to demonstrate a violation of an objective safety or zoning standard, they simultaneous allege the project has to be denied both because they believe it provides too much parking and too little parking. Such circular logic is a evidence that there is no legitimate safety concern, just an intense desire not to allow disabled housing in their neighborhood. Appellants further allege the Project will "impose a high level of patient transfers on a quiet residential neighborhood that includes families with young children." Again, the DSD properly determined that the Project will not "impose" any adverse public health and safety impacts including visual impacts, as the house design does not include a loading dock and the path of travel of the deceased is not visible to the public. Similarly, Appellants' claims that the Project will generate criminal activity because of the maintenance of controlled substances on-site are contrary to the DSD's determination. As Sharp has explained, there are strict security protocols applicable to all medications including controlled substances, which are superior to the procedures that could be expected to be used in other residences. SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -17-62 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10SheppardMullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com As an experienced operator of hospice facilities and other health facilities in residential neighborhoods, Sharp understands and is sensitive to addressing safety, parking and aesthetic concerns relating to the operation of its facilities. Denial of the Project based on these allegations in the Appeal would not "respond to legitimate safety concerns raised by the individuals affected" but to "unsupported stereotypes or upon prejudice and fear stemming from ignorance or generalizations." Nor can the City's action be justified as a "seemingly neutral" limit where the record evidences discriminatory intent. In Pacific Shores, supra, 730 F.3d 1142, for example, that city's "seemingly neutral" limits on group homes, including those serving persons recovering from drug and/or alcohol addiction were nevertheless subject to challenge under the FHAA and other anti-discrimination laws because the record showed that the intent of the regulations was to reduce the number of group homes for the disabled. The Court noted, "legislatures may not defer to the discriminatory wishes or objections of some fraction of the body politic." (Ibid. at fn. 26, citing Cleburne, supra, 473 U.S. 432.) Similarly, here, denial of the Project based on the allegations in the Appeal relating to public health and safety, where the record shows the Project would not actually impact public health and safety, would constitute a violation of State and Federal anti-discrimination laws. 4. The Project is Not a Nuisance and the City Cannot Revoke the MDRA Finally, after admitting that PMC section 17.52.100 is "not directly applicable here given that this is an appeal," Appellants nevertheless assert "the Director could and should justify revocation of the approval" of the MDRA for the Project pursuant to PMC section 17 .52.100 on the grounds that "the use for which the development review approval was granted is so conducted as to be detrimental to the public health or safety, or as to be a nuisance." The Appeal alleges the Project is "potentially detrimental to public health and safety" in particular because "controlled substances will be stored at the proposed Hospice facility" and Appellants are "unaware of the steps required to be taken against criminal activity potentially arising by reason of the presence of controlled substances." Appellants concede they are "unaware" how the Project will actually address controlled substances when in operation. Of course, other residential uses, including "congregate living health facilities" and residences in general contain controlled substances, and their presence as part of the future operation of the Project does not in itself justify a finding that the Project is "detrimental to the public health and safety." Enforcement of local nuisance prohibitions to discriminate against disabled persons violates the FHAA. (See, e.g., McGary v. City of Portland (2004) 386 F.3d 1259, 1264.) In truth, the security of this health care facility is superior to most residences. While most residences keep controlled substances in unlocked medicine cabinets, in this residence Sharp keeps controlled substances under double lock and key in a locked dispensary machine in a locked room. Unlike the average home where most residents are absent for parts of the day and sleep at night, SMRH:4884-6553-9353.5 -18-63 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com this residence is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with employees monitoring the operations within the building and controlling visitor access. As such, the Project does not create the potential for the adverse conditions that Appellants allege will occur, as Sharp's security protocols ensure the house will be even more secure against any potential criminal activity than other residences in the neighborhood. Nor do the Appellants' other allegations establish that the Project will be operated so as to be detrimental to the public health and safety or constitute a nuisance. The project has adequate on-site parking to prevent on-street parking. The project complies with site distance requirements so vehicles can safely enter and exit the site onto Valle Verde, a less congested and slower moving road than Espola. MDRA conditions were adopted to avoid potential nuisance impacts on surrounding properties. MDRA Condition C requires the site to comply with City noise ordinances. MDRA Conditions E. 12 and G.7 requires Sharp to install and maintain erosion control devices and drainage systems to assure silt and surface water does not adversely affect neighboring properties. MDRA Conditions F. 9 and 10 require compliance with muted earth tone building material finishes and approved landscape plans to avoid significant aesthetic impacts. Moreover, the DSD in the Findings set forth above determined, "The granting of the MDRA would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare within the community." As set forth above, the Appeal fails to establish that, based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable person could not have reached the same conclusion, so denial of the Appeal is entitled to deference. SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -19-64 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor Exhibit A San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppard m ullin .com Supplemental Evidence in Support of Findings Based on the whole of the record, including the plans and drawings submitted in accordance with Chapter 17 .52, review of surrounding residential development, and public comment, supplemental evidence in support of the permit findings include the following: A. The design review process for this Project recognized and implemented the interdependence of land values and aesthetics to the benefit of the City. The Project has been designed to be architecturally compatible and in scale with the surrounding residential development and to maintain a high level of aesthetic value to support high land values to the benefit of the City and the community. In terms of scale, the Project is only a one story facility and follows applicable lot coverage and setback requirements. In terms of aesthetics, the Project has been designed so the proposed exterior building materials will be similar and compatible with the surrounding residential development. Its landscape plan and fence provide ample screening of its parking facilities to minimize visual impacts. Moreover, the Project is conditioned to remove its north driveway to reduce views of its parking spaces. The Project maintains a high level of on-site parking above the minimum level recommended for health care facilities, in order to avoid the risk of Project-related street parking. The Project includes a privacy fence requested by the area neighbors adjacent to the neighborhood pedestrian and equestrian trail to maintain the value of this neighborhood amenity. The Project expands availability of hospice care services bringing value to the Poway community as its residents continue to age and have need for such services. No impacts to property values have been identified due to Sharp's operation of a similar facility in San Diego County. Therefore, the Project respects and recognizes the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and approval of the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein implements this interdependence to the benefit of the City. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence the design review process for this Project recognized and implemented the interdependence of land values and aesthetics to the benefit of the City. B. The proposed development encourages the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within the City along with associated facilities, such as hut not limited to signs, landscaping, parking areas and streets. The Project has been designed to follow the City's sign ordinance and landscaping ordinance. The Project has been designed so the proposed exterior building materials will be similar and compatible with the surrounding residential development. The Project provides ample on-site parking above the parking levels needed for the Project's average SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -20-65 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com daily trips and is able to accommodate parking on a maximum peak trip day in order to avoid the risk of Project-related parking on the street. To maximize the harmonious appearance of the Project and its interaction with the local street, the Project is conditioned to remove its north driveway and the remaining driveway is designed to follow requirements of unobstructed sight angles for safe ingress and egress onto the local street. The Project only adds a net increase of eight trips to the local road compared to the previous home at the property, and the local road is not at maximum capacity. Therefore, there is substantial evidence that the proposed development encourages the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within the City along with associated facilities, such as, but not limited to, signs, landscaping, parking areas, and streets. C. The Project maintains the public health, safety, and general welfare, and property within the City. The Project is required to be constructed in accordance with the California Green Building Code, which is designed to assure that residential structures are safe and maintain public health and the general welfare. Moreover, the Project has been designed to follow the City's sign ordinance and landscaping ordinance. MDRA conditions were adopted to avoid potential nuisance impacts on surrounding properties. MDRA Condition C requires the site to comply with City noise ordinances. MDRA Conditions E. 12 and G. 7 requires Sharp to install and maintain erosion control devices and drainage systems to assure silt and surface water does not adversely affect neighboring properties. MDRA Conditions F. 9 and IO require compliance with muted earth tone building material finishes and approved landscape plans to avoid significant aesthetic impacts. The Project provides ample on-site parking above the minimum parking levels recommended for similar health care facilities in order to avoid the risk of Project-related parking on the street. To maximize the harmonious appearance of the Project and its interaction with the local street, the Project is conditioned to remove one of its driveways and the remaining driveway is designed to follow requirements of unobstructed sight distance requirements for safe ingress and egress onto the local street. The Project only adds a net increase of eight trips to the local road compared to the previous home at the property and the local road is not at maximum capacity. Finally, any controlled substances used to care for patients at the Property are kept under double lock and key and the residence is staffed twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, to monitor operations and control visitor access. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence the Project maintains the public health, safety and general welfare, and property within the City. D. The design review process worked to assist this private development Project to be more cognizant of public concerns for the aesthetics of development. Following notice to adjacent landowners within and the extended comment period, the City received input on ways the Project could enhance its aesthetics to reduce visual impacts to SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -21-66 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www.sheppardmullin.com the public. In addition to the already robust landscape plan to protect the public from view impacts of the Project's parking lot, the City staff agreed to condition the Project to remove one of its driveways to further reduce the neighborhood's view of the Project's parking facilities. In addition, the design review process led to improved privacy fencing between the Project and the neighborhood's adjacent pedestrian and equestrian trail to reduce impacts to the aesthetics of this neighborhood amenity. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence the design review process worked to assist this private development project to be more cognizant of public concerns for the aesthetics of development. E. The design review process worked to reasonably ensure that this new development does not have an adverse aesthetic, health, safety or architecturally related impact on existing adjoining properties or the City in general. Following notice to adjacent landowners and the extended comment period, the City received input on ways the Project could enhance its aesthetics to reduce visual impacts to the public. In addition to the already robust landscape plan to protect the public from view impacts of the Project's parking lot, the City staff agreed to condition the Project to remove one of its driveways to further reduce the neighborhood's view of the Project's parking facilities and the remaining driveway is designed to follow requirements of unobstructed sight distances for safe ingress and egress onto the local street. In addition, the design review process led to improved privacy fencing between the Project and the neighborhood's adjacent pedestrian and equestrian trail to reduce impacts to the aesthetics of this neighborhood amenity. The Project is required to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes, which are designed to assure that structures are safe and maintain public health and the general welfare. MDRA conditions were adopted to avoid potential nuisance impacts on surrounding properties. MDRA Condition C requires the site to comply with City noise ordinances. MDRA Conditions E. 12 and G.7 requires Sharp to install and maintain erosion control devices and drainage systems to assure silt and surface water does not adversely affect neighboring properties. MDRA Conditions F. 9 and IO require compliance with muted earth tone building material finishes and approved landscape plans to avoid significant aesthetic impacts. The Project only adds a net increase of eight trips to the local road compared to the previous home at the property, and the local road is not at maximum capacity. Finally, any controlled substances used to care for patients at the Property are kept under double lock and key, and the residence is staffed twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, to monitor operations and control visitor access. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence the Project maintains the public health, safety and general welfare, and property within the City. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence the design review process worked to reasonably ensure that this new development does not have an adverse aesthetic, health, safety, or architecturally related impact on existing adjoining properties or the City in general. SMRH: 4884-6553-93 53 .5 -22-67 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com F. The proposed development complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and General Plan as a residential use. The single family structure is deemed to be a residential use consistent with local residential zoning because the use classification is established by State and federal laws that require zoning protection for residential and health facilities that service the terminally ill and disabled. The City cannot interpret its General Plan and Zoning Code to preempt applicable State and federal laws by requiring a costly rezone to a commercial or other use through a vote of the electorate prior to approving permits to develop this healthcare facility. Moreover, the Project has been designed to follow the City's sign ordinance and landscaping ordinance. MDRA Condition C requires the site to comply with City noise ordinances. MDRA Conditions E. 12 and G.7 requires Sharp to install and maintain erosion control devices and drainage systems to assure silt and surface water does not adversely affect neighboring properties. MDRA Conditions F. 9 and 10 require compliance with muted earth tone building material finishes and approved landscape plans to avoid significant aesthetic impacts Accordingly, there is substantial evidence the proposed development complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and General Plan as a residential use. SMRH: 4884-6553-9353 .5 -23-68 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10SheppardMullin Exhibit B Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com Request for and Substantial Evidence Supporting Reasonable Accommodations (Poway Municipal Code Section 17.26.500 et seq.) This request is made by Sharp HealthCare ("Applicant") in support of Minor Development Review Application (MDRA) 21-023 (APN 275-032-04) pursuant to Poway Municipal Code (PMC) Section 17.26.500, which provides that "a request for reasonable accommodation to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability may be made by any person, when the application of a requirement of a zoning or land use regulation or other City requirement, policy or practice acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities." MDRA 21-023 was approved February 15, 2022, for "construction of a 6,670 square-foot single family residence with an attached 431-square-foot garage to be used as a residential care facility." The approval of MDRA 21-023 was subsequently appealed pursuant to PMC Section 2.20.020, including on the grounds that the Project constitutes a "hospice facility" as defined by State law and that the PMC does not permit a State licensed "hospice facility" in the RR-C zone without a zone change via ballot measure. Pursuant to PMC Section 17.25.530, the MDRA, this memorandum, and this exhibit shall constitute the Applicant's application for reasonable accommodation and contains all information listed in PMC Section 17.26.530. As set forth below a reasonable accommodation is requested to accommodate Sharp's ability either to obtain and use a "hospice facility license" or use its existing hospice agency license in the rural residential zone at the Property to prevent discrimination against the disabled residents of the Proposed project given that the PMC does not explicitly permit the hospice use and, as interpreted by Appellants, would impose a significant burden on the Project obtaining a building permit by requiring the Applicant to first obtain a rezone at the ballot box. PMC Chapter 17.08; 17.08.020. A reasonable accommodation is also requested from any interpretation of the PMC that would result in a determination that the residents of the proposed facility are not a "Family" for purposes of allowing its use in the Rural Residential zone. PMC Section 17.04.335. A. Basis of Claim that Individual is Considered Disabled under the Acts The Project proposed by MDRA 21-023 may be used to provide State-licensed hospice care in a residential setting for up to six terminally ill patients. An "individual with a disability" under PMC Section 17 .26.510 includes "any person who has a medical condition, physical disability, or mental disability as those terms are defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Government Code section 12900 et seq. [FEHA]." Under FEHA, "Physical disability" includes, but is not limited to "[h ]aving any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that ... (A) Affects one or more of the following body systems: neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, SMRH: 4884-6553-93 53 .5 -24-69 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com respiratory, including speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine, and (B) Limits a major life activity." (Gov. Code § 12926.) The definition of"disability" in State law is intentionally broader than federal law. (See Gov. Code, 12926.1; see also Association of Relatives & Friends of AIDS Patients v. Regulations & Permits Admin. (1990) 740 F. Supp. 95 [patients in hospice care are "disabled" for purposes of the federal Fair Housing Amendments Acts of 1988].) As defined by State law, "Hospice" is a specialized form of health care for "an individual who is experiencing the last phases of life due to the existence of a terminal disease." (Health & Saf. Code § 1746( d).) Accordingly, all individuals that would receive hospice care pursuant to MORA 21-023 are "individuals with a disability" as defined by applicable law. The FHAA prohibits a governmental entity, including a city, from making unavailable or denying a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of a person residing in or intending to reside in the dwelling after it is bought or rented. ( 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(l ).) B. Zoning Provision, Regulation, or Policy from which Reasonable Accommodation is Being Requested This request seeks reasonable accommodation to accommodate Sharp's ability either to obtain and use a "hospice facility license" or use its existing hospice agency license in the rural residential zone at the Property to prevent discrimination against the disabled residents of the Proposed project given that, as interpreted by the Appellants, the PMC does not explicitly permit the hospice use and would impose a significant burden on the Project obtaining a building permit by requiring the Applicant to first obtain a rezone at the ballot box. PMC Chapter 17.08; 17.08.020. It also requests a reasonable accommodation from any interpretation of the PMC that would result in a determination that the residents of the proposed facility are not a "Family" for purposes of allowing its use in the Rural Residential zone. PMC Section 17.04.335. C. Type of Accommodation Sought This request seeks reasonable accommodation to accommodate Sharp's ability either to obtain and use a "hospice facility license" or use its existing hospice agency license in the rural residential zone at the Property to prevent discrimination against the disabled residents of the Proposed project given that, as interpreted by the Appellants, the PMC does not explicitly permit the hospice use and would impose a significant burden on the Project obtaining a building permit by requiring the Applicant to first obtain a rezone at the ballot box. PMC Chapter 17.08; 17.08.020. It also requests a reasonable accommodation from any interpretation of the PMC that would result in a determination that the residents of the proposed facility are not a "Family" for purposes of allowing its use in the Rural Residential zone. PMC Section 17.04.335. SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -25-70 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com D. Reasons Why the Requested Reasonable Accommodation is Necessary to Make the Specific Property Accessible to the Individual Denial of this request would constitute a barrier to fair housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities by prohibiting construction and operation of a State-licensed "hospice facility" on the Project site or denying Sharp use its existing hospice agency license in the rural residential zone at the Property because it is located in the RR-C zone. Under the interpretation set forth in the Appeal, unique barriers have been created in the PMC's Rural Residential zone to exclude a "hospice facility" licensed by the State outside the context of a "residential facility" licensed by the State. The application of special land use permitting requirements (such as rezoning via the ballot box) to the disabled residents of the Project that are not applicable to non-disabled residents seeking to live in the Rural Residential zone, such as residents of traditional single family homes, "residential facilities," and "congregate living health facilities" wherein equivalent services are provided would violate the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. section 3601-3631 ("FHAA'') and Americans with Disabilities Act, 52 U.S.C. section 12132 ("ADA"), as well as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. ("PEHA"). 7 (See, e.g., City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985) 4 73 U.S. 432 [Cleburne]; Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach (9th Cir. 2013) 730 F.3d 1142.) Pursuant to SB 135 (2012) (adding Article 10.6 ["Hospice Licensing"] to Chapter 2 ["Health Facilities"] of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code [sections 1339.40 et seq.]), "A hospice provider that intends to provide inpatient hospice care in the hospice provider's own facility shall submit an application and fee for licensure as a hospice facility under this chapter." (Health & Saf. Code § 1339.4l(b).) SB 135 was adopted for the express Legislative purpose that "Persons who do not have family members or caregivers who are able to provide care in the home should be able to have care provided in a homelike environment, rather than in an institutional setting, if that is their preference." (Stats 2012, Ch. 673, § 1 ( d), ( c ), emphasis added.) The Legislature cited "the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L. C. by Zimring (1999) 527 U.S. 581 [Olmstead], which held that persons with disabilities have the right to live in the most integrated setting possible with appropriate access to care and choice of community-based services and placement options." (Id. at subd. (h), emphasis added; citing Olmstead [holding that persons could not be institutionalized in a hospital where community-based care was available].) Accordingly, a State-licensed "hospice facility" providing hospice care in an "integrated," "homelike environment" to six or fewer disabled persons must be accommodated in the RR-C zone and its residents must be considered a "Family" for purposes of PMC Section 17.04.335. 7 In addition to the FHAA, the ADA prohibits governmental entities from discriminating against disabled persons through zoning. (See Bay Area Addiction Research & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch (1999) 179 F.3d 725, 730-32.) Housing discrimination allegations under the State FEHA are subject to the same standards. (Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, supra, 730 F.3d at p. 1157, citing Walker v. City of Lakewood (2001) 272 F.3d 1114.) SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -26-71 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin E. Request for Review Together with MDRA 21-023 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com Pursuant to PMC Section l 7.26.530(B), this request may be considered together with the application for MORA 21-023 approved by the City Council ( on appeal pursuant to PMC Section 2.20.010). F. Findings Pursuant to PMC Section 17.26.550 the findings for approval of this request for reasonable accommodation may be made, as follows: 1. Whether the housing in the request will be used by an individual with a disability under the Acts; The housing in the request will be used by an "individual with a disability" under the Acts because the Project proposed by MORA 21-023 is intended to be used to provide hospice care in a residential setting for up to six terminally ill patients. Terminally ill persons are within the definition of "individual with a disability" under PMC Section 17 .26.510 and the Acts. 2. Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Acts; The request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to individuals with a disability because denial of this request would constitute a barrier to fair housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities by prohibiting construction and operation of a State-licensed "hospice facility" on the Project site or denying Sharp use its existing hospice agency license in the rural residential zone at the Property because it is located in the RR-C zone. Under the interpretation set forth in the Appeal, unique barriers have been created in the PMC's Rural Residential zone to exclude a "hospice facility" licensed by the State outside the context of a "residential facility" licensed by the State. The application of special land use permitting requirements (such as rezoning via the ballot box) to the disabled residents of the Project that are not applicable to non-disabled residents seeking to live in the Rural Residential zone, such as residents of traditional single family homes, "residential facilities," and "congregate living health facilities" wherein equivalent services are provided would violate the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. section 3601-3631 ("FHAA'') and Americans with Disabilities Act, 52 U.S.C. section 12132 ("ADA"), as well as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. ("FEHA").8 (See, e.g., City of Cleburne 8 In addition to the FHAA, the ADA prohibits governmental entities from discriminating against disabled persons through zoning. (See Bay Area Addiction Research & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch (1999) 179 F.3d 725, 730-32.) Housing discrimination allegations under the State FEHA are subject to the same standards. (Pac. Shores SMRH:4884-6553-9353.5 -27-72 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985) 473 U.S. 432 [Cleburne]; Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach (9th Cir. 2013) 730 F.3d 1142.) Pursuant to SB 135 (2012) (adding Article 10.6 ["Hospice Licensing"] to Chapter 2 ["Health Facilities"] of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code [sections 1339.40 et seq.]), "A hospice provider that intends to provide inpatient hospice care in the hospice provider's own facility shall submit an application and fee for licensure as a hospice facility under this chapter." (Health & Saf. Code§ 1339.4l(b).) SB 135 was adopted for the express Legislative purpose that "Persons who do not have family members or caregivers who are able to provide care in the home should be able to have care provided in a homelike environment, rather than in an institutional setting, if that is their preference." (Stats 2012, Ch. 673, § 1 ( d), ( c ), emphasis added.) The Legislature cited "the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L. C. by Zimring (1999) 527 U.S. 581 [Olmstead], which held that persons with disabilities have the right to live in the most integrated setting possible with appropriate access to care and choice of community-based services and placement options." (Id. at subd. (h), emphasis added; citing Olmstead [holding that persons could not be institutionalized in a hospital where community-based care was available].) Accordingly, a State-licensed "hospice facility" providing hospice care in an "integrated," "homelike environment" to six or fewer disabled persons must be accommodated in the RR-C zone and its residents must be considered a "Family" for purposes of PMC Section 17.04.335. 3. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City; The requested reasonable accommodation would not impose any financial or administrative burden on the City because the accommodation spares the City the burden of processing a rezone and conducting a risky election where if voter decide to deny the rezone, they would cause the City to incur litigation expenses for violation of state and federal anti-discrimination laws that protect the disabled and terminally ill. 4. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including, but not limited to, land use and zoning; The requested reasonable accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including, but not limited to, land use and zoning, because the Project proposed by MDRA 21-023 is like other State-licensed facilities providing services for six or fewer persons with terminal illnesses that are required to be deemed a residential use. Both "hospice facilities" and "congregate living health facilities" are "health facilities" licensed by the Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, supra, 730 F.3d at p. 1157, citing Walker v. City of Lakewood (2001) 272 F.3d 1114.) SMRH: 4884-6553-9353 .5 -28-73 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10SheppardMullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com Department of Public Health. (Health & Saf. Code, § 1250(i).) Like "hospice facilities," "congregate living health facilities" provide "[ s ]ervices for persons who have a diagnosis of terminal illness, a diagnosis of a life-threatening illness, or both." (Health & Saf. Code, § 1250(i)(2)(B).) Moreover, "[a] congregate living health facility which serves six or fewer persons shall be considered a residential use of property for purposes of any zoning ordinance or law related to the residential use of property." (Health & Safety Code, § 1267.16, emphasis added.) Since congregate living health facilities are already explicitly required to be allowed in the RR zone, providing the same service in a State-licensed "hospice facility" would not "fundamentally alter" the City's zoning regulations. 5. Potential impacts on surrounding uses; The requested reasonable accommodation would not have potential impacts on surrounding uses because the Project is not detrimental to the public health or safety and is not a nuisance. First, the security of this health care facility is superior to most residences. While most residences keep controlled substances in unlocked medicine cabinets, in this residence Sharp keeps controlled substances under double lock and key in a locked dispensary machine in a locked room. Unlike the average home where most residents are absent for parts of the day and sleep at night, this residence is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with employees monitoring the operations within the building and controlling visitor access. As such, the Project does not create the potential for criminal activity due to the presence of on-site controlled substances. Second, the project has adequate on-site parking to prevent on-street parking. The project complies with site distance requirements so vehicles can safely enter and exit the site onto Valle Verde, a less congested and slower moving road than Espola. Third, MDRA conditions were adopted to avoid potential nuisance impacts on surrounding properties. MDRA Condition C requires the site to comply with City noise ordinances. MORA Conditions E. 12 and G.7 requires Sharp to install and maintain erosion control devices and drainage systems to assure silt and surface water does not adversely affect neighboring properties. MDRA Conditions F. 9 and 10 require compliance with muted earth tone building material finishes and approved landscape plans to avoid significant aesthetic impacts. 6. Physical attributes of the property and structures; and The physical attributes of the property and structures are suitable for the Project with its reasonable accommodation. The Property is relatively flat and already disturbed with protected species. It is physically suitable for development of a residential structure. The Project structure is also suitable because it is low profile single story structure that complies with the Rural Residential zone's height limit and set back requirements. The Project is conditioned to use earth SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -29-74 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com tone exterior finished to maintain compatibility with the area residential architecture. The reasonable accommodation does not affect the physical attributes of the Property or structure, but relates to the allowed use and definition of Family for the disabled residents proposing to live there. 7. Whether there are other reasonable accommodations that may provide an equivalent level of benefit. There are no other reasonable accommodations that will provide for the benefits of the Project proposed in MDRA 21-023 to disabled persons because any interpretation that the Project is not a residential use for purposes of Chapter 17. 08, would prohibit a licensed hospice facility on the site due to its RR-C zoning designation and PMC definition of a "Family." Therefore, the requested accommodation is necessary to make the property accessible to individuals with a disability. SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 -30-75 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Exhibit C Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www.sheppardmullin.com , !Source lhttp~://1~•~v·.~-~dph.c~.g~v/Programsia:ico)LC9/CailieaithFlnd/?ages/facdityCompare.aspx?i~~idi~30015627&i~cid2=0S00()1557&f~~;d3= _D_ilt_e _______________ ~. 04/06i2022, 9:05:33 am 4 Facility NMne Phone 6 Address 7 City 8 State 'l ZIPCode 10 County 11_ FacilltyType 12 BedCount 13 license Statll\ 14 Accepts District Office 15 SHARP HOSPICKARE (619) 667-1900 SSSl rletcher Pkwy ,Suite 336 La Mesa CA 51942 SANOIEGO Hospice 0 Active Medicare/ Medi-Cal San Diegc District Offic.e 7575 Metrcpolitan Drive Suite 211 San Diego, CA 92106 Phone umber: (619)688-6190 BONITA VIEW HOME l 619\ 434-6816 3850 Valley Vista Road Benita CA 91502 SAN DIEGO Hospice racility San Diego District Office 7575 Metropolitan Drive Suite 211 San Diego, CA 92.108 ?hone umber: (619}68S-6190 -----------------+---------------------------------------16 Previous Known Names Licensee 17 Grcs~morct Hospital Corporation 5555 Grcssmont Center 0ri•;e la Mesa, CA 91942 Grassmont Hos::i ita! Ccrporat.icn 5555 Grossmom Center Drive La Mesa, CA 91942 '------------------+--------------------------+--------------1 s License CatecllfY 19 Miln FiKility Tot;il Licensed led Count 20 Hospice Yes Hospice Facility Yes 6 Hospice -----------------+--------------------------+--------------Type of Active led Count• 6Hospice 21 --------------------------------------------------------22 License Number 23 License facility ID 2J. license Statll\ 25 lnitiill License Date 26 · Effective Date 27 'Licensee Type 28 Stiffing Waiver Status 29 Provider Cate,ron, 30 · Last Certification Inspection Status 31 Partkipation 32 'Participation Date 33 CCN Number SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 76 of 137 080000654 080001557 Active 36784 11/15/2020 to 11/14/2022 Nonprofit Corp HOSPICE In Complia~ce Medicare/ Medi-Cal 12/10/1952 C,51598 -31-550003289 630015627 Active 42327 11/19/2021 to llilS/2022 Nonprofit Corp May 17, 2022, Item #10Sheppard Mullin Exhibit D Sharp "Bonitaview Home" Zoning $ANDAG Parcel Lookup Tool -a..._--•117.044, 32.661 rn SMRH:4884-6553-9353 .5 77 of 137 STATE: 0. ZIP CODE: "1902-1205 Legal Oescr.: l/4 SEC 73-g_ 84 P~.R. 4 · F .!:J.. ~·1 OF ROS 252:1 :'EXC R.S 1323.:,. Assessor Land: 21:.092 Assess.or Improvements: 1_5{!766 Assessor Tot.al: 1·;62658 Acreage: ~-11 Bedrooms i Baths: 006 / 030 Tax Status: T Tax Rate Area: 53025 SUB.MAP: 000166 SUB.NAME: R.ANCi- i O D!: L'" N;>.CJO -32-Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 619.338.6500 main 619.234.3815 fax www .sheppardmullin.com [' • APH Labels ~ Parcel Polygon C • Jllri.sdictions Ci + Community Planning Areas (] SRA and MSA [_! • Ecology ~ .. Existing Land Use ~ -E>.i!t"1) lan-:J Urn S.pa:ed Rwoi. rleskJ~...--Sir9e f,;Mly Oe.~oo"'ej Slr>go famotr ~::et,.,., ■t-'l"!l1'f: • {XE[)IJ:,,' I Expoo ParcelTable I Export Pacd Feauoes PmfM;ip May 17, 2022, Item #10Poway City Council Poway City Clerk April 29, 2022 Page 11 78 of 137 Exhibit B Traffic Impact and Safety Analysis May 17, 2022, Item #10URBAN SYSTE~MS ASSOCIATES, INC. MEMO PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, MARKETING & PROJECT SUPPORT ATTN: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CONSULTANTS TO INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT Tony Guerra Sharp HealthCare Justin P. Schlaefli, PE TE PTOE April 27, 2022 TIME: 2:16:11 PM JOB NUMBER: NIA Response to Transportation Issues Raised in Neighbor Appeal of MDRA 21-023 As requested, I have reviewed the appeal of Minor Development Review Application (MDRA) 21-023 contained in a letter dated February 25, 2022. Based upon the facts about the project and my decades of experience analyzing traffic congestion, traffic safety, and traffic impacts as a Licensed Traffic Engineer, the appeal comments lack merit for the reasons stated herein and elsewhere in the project record. Appeal Comments Summary: The appellant states that there is no entrance on Espola Road but instead on Valle Verde Road and mentions that people frequently walk, ride bikes and exercise their animals. The appellant continues the comment by saying the parcel is below grade and plans call for the Hospice to be at street level. The comment specifically states: "the proposed change in grading, coupled with the uses described above, the multiple guests, delivery vehicle, handicapped and EV parking spaces, and the perimeter parking lighting make the proposed project a commercial operation that will intrude on a rural residential neighborhood. It is disingenuous to suggest that the proposed project is simply a new home that happens to house six residential care patients". The comment continues by noting that access on Valle Verde Road instead of Espola Road was done without analysis of "traffic safety concerns" on Espola or Valle Verde Road. The comment acknowledges that the project may be exempt from formal study and indicates that the presence of multiple types of vehicles creates a "safety issue" related to a "sudden and significant increase in the number of vehicles on Valle Verde Road". The appellant continues on page 7 of the appeal letter stating that "Second, the proposed Hospice facility" would "increase the volume, and change the nature of traffic in the Green Valley neighborhood". Although the comment does not quantify the alleged increase in traffic, the comment states that "significant numbers of medical and support personnel, and many visitors -would lead to a steady stream of traffic ... ". The comment continues by noting that Green Valley does not have sidewalks and that Valle Verde Road adjacent to the property has "substantial pedestrian and cyclist activity". The comment also notes that nothing "precludes hospice parking on Valle Verde Road" while noting that the combination of parking and increased traffic poses "serious safety concerns". The appellant also states as a third point relating a conversation with City staff that the Engineering Department preferred access on Valle Verde Road instead of Espola Road due to the characteristics of Espola Road. The comment incorrectly states that Espola Road is a prime or major arterial. The comment requests the City assess Sharpl Hospice Poway_Transportation Memo_042722.docx 8451 Miralani Drive, Suite A • San Diego, CA 9 212 3 • (858) 5 60-4911 79 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Tony Guerra Sharp Health © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. 4/27/2022 the "mechanics and safety of an Espola entrance" to the project and suggests that an entrance on Valle Verde Road would "significantly decrease the safety of users of Valle Verde Road". Response to Appeal Comments: Although the appeal mentions safety concerns, it doesn't specify any concern other than increased traffic, mixing of vehicle types and on-street parking. In order to understand these comments, it is important to quantify potential traffic increases. Trip Generation: The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) provides statistical data for evaluating uses from a transportation perspective. The most commonly cited resources is the "(Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation for the San Diego Region", April 2002. According to this guide, an average single family home, such as exists on the project site today, would generate 10 Average Daily Trips (ADT). The Guide also includes rates "Congregate Care Facility" at 2.5 ADT per bed and classifies it as a "residential" type of use. The Guide also contains a similar classification, "nursing hospital" with 3 ADT per bed. Taken together, the trip generation for the proposed future use would be estimated at 2.5-3 ADT per bed based on SANDAG data. This data is similar to the trip rates found in the national standard publication, ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition which indicates an average rate for a "nursing home" is 3.06 ADT per bed. Based on this information, I estimate the single-family home at 16752 Espola Road generated 10 ADT and the proposed 6 bedroom hospice care facility is estimated to generate 3 ADT per bedroom for a total of 18 ADT. The net increase in trips would therefore be only 8 ADT. It is expected that the 18 trips per day will primarily be generated by staff and periodic visitors and deliveries. Per discussions with Sharp staff, 18 trips per day is consistent with the trips they experience at their other 6-bed facilities. Roadway Classification: According to the City of Poway, General Plan, Valle Verde Road is classified as a "Local Collector" and Espola Road is classified as a "4-Lane Collector" as shown below. f J /4': <'.~; .., ' ) 2 8451 Miralani Drive, Suite A • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 80 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Tony Guerra Sharp Health LEGEND ••••••• Prime Arterial --• Major Arterial ,11111111111111111111111111 Specific Arterial •• • ■■• ■ 4 Lane Business Park Collector -- - - - - -2 Lane Business Park Collector - - -4 Lane Collector - - - -2 Lane Collector Local Collector © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. 4/27/2022 The roadway classification is critical to understanding the intended use and planned capacity for a roadway. For example, according to the General Plan, Valle Verde Road would have a capacity of 14,000 ADT and a design threshold of 10,900 ADT. Similarly, Espola Road would have a capacity of 41,000 ADT and a design threshold of 32,000 ADT (Table V-1). According to the description of "Collectors and Local Collectors" in the Plan, "the Collector street system is designed to provide both mobility and access as well as connections between local/residential streets and arterials". The primary difference between Espola Road (as a 4-Lane Collector) and Valle Verde Road (as a Local Collector) under the General Plan is street width, number of lanes and capacity. However, the intended roadway use of both roads is to connect residential streets to arterials and provide access to adjacent properties. According to SANDAG forecasting data (SANDAG, Transportation Forecast Information Center, ABM2+), Valle Verde Road along the project frontage is anticipated to have a volume in year 2050 of less than 1,000 ADT. Similarly, Espola Road is expected to have an estimated volume in year 2050 of 21,200 ADT. Both of these volumes are well below the design threshold established in the City of Poway General Plan. Therefore, no operational difficulties related to volume are expected due to the addition of the estimated 8 additional ADT per day to be generated by the proposed project. Driveway Location and Traffic Safety: As mentioned in the comment, there are two options for driveway location for the project site -off of Espola or off of Valle Verde. Both locations have been explored and it has been determined by City staff based on engineering judgement that the safest location for a driveway is on Valle Verde Road. This conclusion is drawn from a variety of factors an experienced Licensed Traffic Engineer would recognize and I concur with City staffs decision on driveway location. In exploring the potential locations for a driveway a Licensed Traffic Engineer would typically look at the roadway classification, number of lanes, presence of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, proximity to traffic signals, speed of the roadway, sight distance and other factors. Contrasting Valle Verde Road and Espola Road, an engineer would not discard access on either roadway on the basis of roadway classification alone as they are both designated Collector roadways. However, it would be noted that Espola Road has significantly higher volumes, speeds and a higher number of lanes. This would lead to a greater number of potential vehicular conflicts as well as potential for higher severity accidents due to the increased speed. In the last accident reporting period, there were three accidents on Espola and no accidents on Valle Verde Road in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, the presence of a Class II bike facility along the frontage on Espola Road would indicate a higher number of bicyclists with greater potential for conflict with a driveway. 3 8451 Miralani Drive, Suite A • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 81 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Tony Guerra Sharp Health © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. 4/27/2022 The most significant determining factor in my opinion is the shorter frontage on Espola Road versus Valle Verde Road and the presence of a left turn lane along the entire frontage on Espola Road that creates safety concerns for vehicles entering and exiting the property. First, due to the site's shorter frontage on Espola Road, a driveway accessing the property on Espola Road would be in very close proximity to the traffic signal at the intersection of Espola Road and Valle Verde Road. The longer frontage on Valle Verde Road provides greater options for access location. Second, the slower speed on Valle Verde Road also increases the safety of the driveway. Third, the lower traffic volumes and absence of a Class II bike facility on Valle Verde Road reduce the potential for conflicts. Fourth, traffic accessing the site via an Espola driveway would need to cross multiple lanes of traffic to reach the left turn lane creating a hazard. See Exhibit A attached hereto. This hazard would preclude westbound to southbound left turns into the site from Espola so vehicles would have to travel to the next intersection and execute au-turn around to approach the property from the east before entering a driveway on Espola Road. Such out-of-direction travel is poor traffic planning because it needlessly increases congestion, increases trip lengths, and creates more vehicle conflicts at the intersection where the u-turns would occur. Lastly, sight distance on Valle Verde Road has been evaluated using Caltrans, Highway Design Manual (HDM) standards. According to Table 201.1 of the HDM, stopping sight distance (SSD) for a 25 mph roadway is 150 feet and for a 35 mph roadway is 250 feet. This represents the safe distance necessary for a vehicle to stop in order to avoid a collision. With respect to the subject property, if a vehicle were to pull out of the driveway onto Valle Verde Road, an approaching vehicle from an unsignalized intersection would need up to 250 feet to stop. Looking to the left when leaving the driveway, a vehicle is protected by the signal at Valle Verde Road and Espola Road which provides clear sight distance in that direction and creates gaps in traffic sufficient for a vehicle to enter Valle Verde Road safely. Looking to the right when exiting the driveway, there is at lease 250 feet of sight distance from the driveway. This measurement is shown on the screen capture below and was confirmed in the field. With this distance present, sight distance requirements for this driveway are met. With regards to the claim in the appeal that the drivers visiting the site are a hazard, there is no evidence in traffic safety literature to support the claim that drivers in and out of a home-like hospice facility are more prone to traffic accidents. 4 8451 Miralani Drive, Suite A • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 82 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Tony Guerra Sharp Health © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. 4/27/2022 Therefore, balancing the various factors typically considered by a Licensed Traffic Engineer, access on Valle Verde Road would be the preferred access primarily from a safety and congestion standpoint. This affirms that City staff properly moved the site's planned driveway from Espola to Valle Verde Drive. Parking: There are 23 proposed parking spaces onsite. As noted in the comment, parking on Valle Verde Road is not precluded. However, the number of spaces onsite exceeds average demand. As noted above, the project can be expected to generate an average of 18 ADT generating a parking demand of 9-11 spaces. This is derived from needing one space per trip pair and adding 20% (2 spaces) to account for the inefficiencies of a small site. Due to the presence of ADA parking and other parking areas which are restricted for various purposes (i.e. carpool/EV charging etc.), additional parking is provided onsite. Finally, the 9-11 space demand is for a typical weekday average. During non-typical periods, additional parking may be needed. Nonetheless, the parking supply of 23 spaces onsite is expected to accommodate peak demand and site inefficiencies. Therefore, the site is adequately parked to prevent any demand for on-street parking. Conclusion: Based on the information provided above, there are no significant transportation impacts or traffic safety impacts. Both Sharp's actual experience operating hospice facilities in residential communities and the objective regional and national trip generation guides support an average daily trip rate of 18 trips per day, which is only a net addition of 8 trips to Valle Verde Road. This represents a negligible increase in traffic. The net increase of 8 trips represents only 0.06% of capacity for Valle Verde Road and 0.02% of capacity for Espola Road. In addition, both roads, as designated collectors are intended to provide access to adjacent properties and carry traffic from residential streets to arterials. This function fits squarely with the proposed Hospice facility. Contrary to the contention that there will be a "sudden and significant" increase in traffic, any increase in traffic will be negligible and well within the capacity of Valle Verde Road. Indeed, by 2050, only one-tenth of Valle Verde's designed traffic capacity will be used. Additionally, the traffic would not be out-of-character for the type of roadway. Traffic will primarily be traditional passenger vehicles including cars for employees and visitor, with some commercial delivery vehicles, just like a residential neighborhood. The access on Valle Verde Road versus Espola Road is preferred based on the engineering and safety considerations listed above and will be safe due to its compliance with objective sight distance standards. Finally, there will be ample parking onsite for the variety of vehicle (standard, handicapped, and electric vehicles) eliminating the need for on-street parking. Based on all of the foregoing facts, it is my professional opinion as a License Traffic Engineer, that the appeal does not raise any legitimate traffic or parking impact or safety concerns about the proposed project. 5 8451 Miralani Drive, Suite A • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 83 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Tony Guerra Sharp Health Exhibit A © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. 4/27/2022 Figure Depicting Traffic Conflict with an Espola Road Driveway Turn Lane extends for full length of project frontage on Espola Road Traffic exiting on Espola Road would cross multiple lanes of traffic --------:--. ------------;< . > . j • ~~,.-~. -~ I -• • • •• i _·c.· •... ·· ::\: . • XIS mg driveway within 60 feet of Bike Lane exists along frontage creatmg ······-· · lized intersection potential conflict with driveway ...... r...,...,..._,;----+..,..,....,..,..: , . l U~!~.; t"-'"--===-~=-+----t-t,:Hr~ . :d 84 of 137 ,~-ti : ''I" I jl -· --·, : ~i-< t ~ t~~: I {-,~' -~---, ~ I . .,,;,. I ' .:j 6 8451 Miralani Drive, Suite A • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 May 17, 2022, Item #10Poway City Council Poway City Clerk April 29, 2022 Page 12 85 of 137 Exhibit C Real Estate Opinion Letter May 17, 2022, Item #10DocuSign Envelope ID: 12619B7C-252E-440C-A7C2-E60E8972228F Judy Preston, CCIM April 4, 2022 Sharp HealthCare Facilities Management & Development Attention: Karen Macleod 8520 Tech Way San Diego, CA 92123 1944 Commercial Street San Diego, CA 92113 Subject: Limited Broker Opinion of Value Impact of HealthCare Provider For Hospice Services within a Community I am providing this letter in response to your request for a Broker opinion regarding plans by Sharp HealthCare ("Sharp"') to develop a hospice home at 16752 Espola Road, located in Poway, and possible impact to adjacent community values. The subject assignment involved analyzing the market impact of development of similar Sharp hospice facilities in other parts of San Diego County. Sharp currently operates three other hospice homes throughout San Diego County. Of these three locations, the best one for analysis is the home in Bonita, based on the date of its acquisition in 2012, because it is also in a rural residential zone. This ten (10)-year window provides a realistic timeline for analysis of the market impact, if any, of the development of a hospice facility within the community. The other two hospice homes operated by Sharp have been in place for much longer, and accordingly, a market review may be less illuminating. Accordingly, this analysis is focused on the Bonita Property, where Sharp has constructed a very attractive, similar facility to the one proposed in Poway. Reviewing the dynamics of this property gives a first-hand example of how a special home/care facility can enhance a neighborhood. We looked back approximately 10 years to identify how the real estate values were impacted, if at all. The study showed no demonstrable negative impact during the construction phase through 10 years of care service. The information used was actual "Sold" property activity during the 10-year period. A summary graph is shown below, demonstrating the average sold price in Bonita versus the several sold relevant comparable properties during the 10-year period. The Source used for the data was the Greater San Diego Association of Realtors -Multiple Listing Data Base. The subject Property, 3850 Valley Vista Road, Bonita, was purchased By Sharp HealthCare in 2012. We identified for the study several properties which were geographically closest to the property, to see if they been affected by the home/care facility on a price per square foot basis. Judy@PrestonCCI M .com DRE# 01074104 86 of 137 Cell +l 619.309.9559 ASCENT COMMERCIAL May 17, 2022, Item #10DocuSign Envelope ID: 12619B7C-252E-440C-A7C2-E60E8972228F Judy Preston, CCIM 1944 Commercial Street San Diego, CA 92113 The study pointed out very little movement in sold activity caused by the startup of the Sharp facility and during the following 10 years. Area home sales tracked and are still tracking with the overall real estate market in this community each year on a price per square foot basis. The focus was on sales of properties near the subject, and if there was any demonstratable impact in value caused by the location of the care facility. The Findings: • We did not find signs of any movement directly related to the care facility for properties/ownership with adjacent neighbors, meaning homeowners did not move away because of the new facility. • When a property did go on the market it did sell in the within an average price range per square foot of value as other sold Bonita properties. My conclusion of this study finds the Bonita Property /HealthCare facility has blended into the community it is serving and no negative impact had been identified in this study. Therefore, this is good evidence that there will not be a negative impact on property values in Poway's rural residential zone proximate to the Espola Road site. 4/4/2022 [M;·p~;61A, A t C !.15G24A12273A41C ... seen ommerc1a1 Judy Preston Broker Associate DRE# 01074104 1944 Commercial San Diego, CA 92113 Chart attached: Study-Property values near subject property stay in-line with values throughout the ten years. Properties listed below chart are located near subject property. Each property can be compared to the annual Bonita Market price per square foot average. J udy@PrestonCCI M .com DRE# 01074104 87 of 137 Cell +l 619.309.9559 ASCENT COMMERCIAL May 17, 2022, Item #10DocuSign Envelope ID: 12619B7C-252E-440C-A7C2-E60E8972228F Judy Preston, CCIM 1944 Commercial Street San Diego, CA 92113 Study demonstrated property values throughout the ten years continue to be inline with Bonita market. Properties listed below are located near subject property. Each propety can be compared to annual market average. BONITA SALES 2013-2022 I AVERAGE PRICE PER SQF $486 / S412 / S36-1 $342 / / ......... S296 S305 _s212 / /' $251 .._ $243 $213 2 13 201 2015 201 20 7 20 8 2 19 2020 2021 Closest Sold Comp Properties Mkt SQ Ft BR List Price Sold Price Sold Days Address Ba Date 12 3757 Valley Road 4,921 5 4 $1,790,000 $1,790,250 3/17/22 5 3550 Desert Inn Way 2,241 4 3 $1,095,000 $1,099,000 3/14/22 6 3550 Verba Lane 2,210 4 3 $1,249,900 $1,355,000 2/22/22 2022 4 3618 Pradera Place 1,352 3 2 $640,000 $685,000 10/15/20 5 3623 Lomacitas Ln 1,679 4 2 $675,000 -$725,000 $705,000 8/14/20 2020 83 3600 WIiow Street 2,663 4 3 $899,900 -$999,900 $900,000 12/20/19 46 3815 Valley Vista Rd 2,870 5 3 $850,000 -$900,000 $847,000 2/27/19 2019 10 4040 Troon Way 2,683 5 3 $799,000 -$819 000 $810,000 10/12/18 2018 9 3623 Valley Vista Rd 1,617 3 2 $550,000 $550,000 10/31/17 47 4025 Troon Way 2,502 5 2 $729,000 $710,000 10/31/17 46 3780 Valley Vista Rd 1,927 3 2 $649,900 -$669,900 $625,000 3/17/17 2017 133 3744 Valley Vista Rd 2,176 4 3 $645,000 -$670,000 $635,000 8/31/15 2015 126 4045 Treon Way 2,826 4 3 $719,000 $650,000 7/24/14 7 3719 Sweetwater Rd 1,800 3 3 $499,000 $499,000 3/3/14 97 4020 Treon Way 2,868 4 3 $650,000 $645,000 1/27/14 2014 104 3612 Valley Vista Rd 2,128 5 3 $549,000 $572,000 8/6/13 2013 104 3612 Valley Vista Rd 2,128 5 3 $549,000 $572,000 8/6/13 Prepared by Judy Preston [Date] Judy@PrestonCCIM.com DRE# 01074104 [01~1 CIPS' ~ Cell +l 619.309.9559 88 of 137 2022 Lot Price Size PSF 46,173 $363.80 22,206 $490.41 18,295 613.12 $486 22,215 $506.66 43,124 $419.89 $364 87,991 $337.96 $295.12 $305 28,086 $301.90 $342 23,086 $340.14 18,852 $283.77 $324.34 $296 21,780 $291.82 $272 17,589 $230.01 43,560 $277.22 $224.90 $251 21,780 $268.80 $213 21,780 $268.80 Page 1 ASCENT COMMERCIAL May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis From: Austin Silva Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 7:57 AM Bob Manis; David De Vries To: Subject: FW: 16752 Espola Road I'm forwarding this email so you're aware that this was sent to the Mayor and Barry Leonard. I can fill you in on my conversation with the concerned resident during PRT. Austin Silva, AICP Senior Planner City of Poway I 13325 Civic Center Drive I Poway, CA 92064 858-668-4658 From: Libenson, Clark <clibenson@allenmatkins.com> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 7:53 PM To: Austin Silva <ASilva@poway.org> Cc: Barry Leonard <BLeonard@poway.org>; Steve Vaus <SVaus@poway.org> Subject: FW: 16752 Espola Road You don't often get email from clibenson@allenmatkins.com. Learn why this is impo11ant EXTEHNAL EMAIL Austin-Thank you for forwarding the site plans for the Sharp project proposed for 16725 Espola Road. I have reviewed the site plans and was able to locate Sharp's presentation for the project: https://give.sharp.com/sharp-hospicecare-mountainview--horne Based upon the presentation and my review of the site plans, I note the following: 1. This is not a "residential care facility." It is a hospice which will have a steady stream of patient transports (including ambulances and funeral home vehicles). Neither the presentation nor the site plans make clear how the transfer of patients will work or whether transfers will be visible from Valle Verde Road. It is entirely inappropriate to impose a high level of patient transfers on a quiet residential neighborhood that includes families with young children; 2. Although you indicated that a traffic study was not required, it is disingenuous to suggest that a hospice will not create a high volume of traffic. The average hospice stay is relatively short (leading to a high number of patient transports), the hospice will have support personnel working a variety of shifts and the hospice patients will have visitors. There is no way this does not create a steady stream of traffic far in excess of the 89 of 137 ATTA~HMENT I _j May 17, 2022, Item #10current volume of traffic on Valle Verde-this not only diminishes the quality of the neighborhood, but also presents safety concerns; 3. The presentation and the site plans indicate that handicapped and EV parking spaces are in a direct line of site with the Valle Verde driveway entrance closest to Espola and that the driveway is at the grade of Valle Verde Road. Having these commercial parking spaces in plain view from Valle Verde Road is in inconsistent with the residential character of Valle Verde Ranch/Green Valley. Moreover, it is unclear whether overflow parking will be directly on Valle Verde-this would be unacceptable from both an aesthetic and safety perspective; 4. There is no way to view this arrangement as a new home that happens to house six residential care patients. It is a commercial operation that is being imposed on a residential neighborhood with direct diminution of property values. This lot is the gateway to the Valle Verde Ranch portion of Green Valley-the introduction of a commercial operation is incompatible with the residential nature of Green Valley and will adversely affect the value of homes accessed via Valle Verde Road. I find it ironic that Poway's "City in the Country" sign is only two blocks west of the proposed hospice; s. Although you indicated that notice was required only for homes within 500 feet of the property, the Planning Department should recognize that it has a much broader constituency. I will reach out to my neighbors (none of whom are aware of this project}, but suggest that the Planning Department reconsider the scope of disclosure and community input. I trust that you are able to address the concerns raised above. I have copied Mayor Vaus and Barry Leonard as the Poway District 2 Councilmember. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Clark Clark H. Libenson Esq. Partner Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & t atsis LLP One .America Plaza, 600 West Broadway, 27th Floor, San Diego, CA 9210'1-0903 (619) 233-1155 (main) (619) 235-1554 (direct) (619) 921-0729 (mobile) Allen Matkins 90 of 137 2 May 17, 2022, Item #10From: Austin Silva <ASilva@poway.org> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 4:45 PM To: Libenson, Clark <clibenson@allenmatkins.com> Subject: RE: 16752 Espola Road Clark, Please see the attached documents for the site plan, elevations, and rendering of the Sharp residential care facility. Please disregard the sign in the colored rendering, as that will not be permitted. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Austin Silva, AICP Senior Planner City of Poway 113325 Civic Center Drive I Poway, U\ 92064 858-668-4658 From: Libenson, Clark <clibenson@allenmatkins.com> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 3:42 PM To: Austin Silva <ASilva@poway.org> Subject: 16752 Espola Road You don't often get email from clibenson@allenmatkins.com. Learn why this is important EXTER AL EMAIL My contacts. Thanks for your time this afternoon. Clark H. Libenson Esq. Partner Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP One America Plaza, 600 West Broadway, 27th Floor, San Diego, CA 92'101-0903 (619) 233-1155 (main) (619) 235-1554 (direct) (619) 921-0729 (mobile) Allen Matkins Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you. 91 of 137 3 May 17, 2022, Item #10Cheryl Hoy From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Matt Jubenville <mattjubes@gmail.com> Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:47 PM Austin Silva Steve Vaus; Barry Leonard Hospice Project Some people who received this message don't often get email from mattjubes@gmail.com. Learn why this is important EX E AL IL Hi Austin, My name is Matt Jubenville, and I live at 16644 Valle Verde Road in Poway. Recently, I noticed that there was heavy machinery conducting demolition of a residential home at the corner of Espola and Valle Verde Road. Initially, I thought, "The real estate market sure is hot, and it will be great to see what the new owner is going to do with the place. Maybe another young family will move in? Maybe another horse owner?" Since then, I've learned that what is happening at the site is far from usual or desirable for Green Valley. As you are aware, people move to Poway (and to Green Valley in particular) for its country-like feel, its lack of traffic, its large lots, its lazy strolls, and its horses, goats, and tortoises (indeed, those reasons are why my wife and our three young kids moved here). People do not move here for traffic, possible 24/7 activity, and everything else that comes along with a commercial hospice facility run by a large hospital system. Those involved in proposing this facility -one which appears to bear little resemblance to a typical residential care facility -must be aware that folks in Green Valley might not be particularly excited about its arrival, because it doesn't seem that much notice was given to the community. For example, was any notice given to the Green Valley Ranch HOA? Was any public hearing held? Was any additional traffic study conducted given the already increased traffic that will occur as the result of the Farms development? I think the answer is "no," and 92 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10I think I know why the answer is "no" -because if the answer were "yes," I'm not sure that the project would have been approved. Now, your response may be that "none of the things you cite above were required under Poway city planning rules." But to that, I say: Is Poway city government loyal to its taxpayers and those it represents, or to a big-money hospital like Sharp? Because if it is the former-as it should be -those things should be required here. A project like this should not be able to fly under the radar. Indeed, once the rest of Green Valley realizes what is going on, I'm sure they'll have strong opinions because it appears that this project offers few "pluses" for a sleepy equestrian community, and has some significant potential "min uses." My view is that the project should be immediately halted to allow the interested stakeholders -and there are a lot of them, as I suspect you are aware -to have a full public discussion (including before the City Council) regarding the costs and benefits of this proposed project. Thank you, Matt Jubenville 619-252-5682 93 of 137 2 May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis From: Sent: To: Chris Hazeltine Tuesday, February 22, 2022 2:53 PM Bob Manis Subject: Fwd: Development At The Corner Of Espola Road and Valle Verde Road FYI. .. Begin forwarded message: From: Chris Hazeltine <CHazeltine@poway.org> Date: February 22, 2022 at 9:21:00 AM PST To: Cheryl Hoy <CHoy@poway.org> Subject: FW: Development At The Corner Of Espola Road and Valle Verde Road Hi Cheri-I'm happy to meet with Mr. Dobransky. Please find 30 minutes sometime on Thursday or late Friday morning, if he's available. Thanks From: Dobransky, Thomas <thomas.dobransky@lpl.com> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 4:54 PM To: Chris Hazeltine <CHazeltine@poway.org> Subject: Development At The Corner Of Espola Road and Valle Verde Road You don't often get email from thomas.dobransky(wlpl.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL Chris, I just found out yesterday that the City of Poway has approved a development at the corner referenced above for a hospice facility. I would like to speak with you about this. I will stop by your office after noon tomorrow. Can we set up a time for such a meeting? My wife and I have lived in Poway since 1985. I think the City of Poway should have notified all homeowners who live within a mile of this development before the development was approved. You know the best government is a transparent government and the City of Poway's actions in regard to this matter have been anything but transparent. Why is the City of Poway keeping this development a big secret? Don't the residents of the City of Poway matter? I learned of this development yesterday and have had the opportunity to talk with several neighbors today about this development as I was do my walking for exercise around our neighborhood. No one that I spoke with knew of this development and no one was in favor of this development once they, learned about it and everyone thought that that land should only be used for a single family home ~ot a 94 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10commercial development. There are no other commercial developments anywhere near our neighborhood. This developments would be way out of character for our neighborhood. If this develop was to be allowed to go forward, it would be the only commercial development within a one mile radius. The obvious question is why would the City of Poway allow this? There are plenty of commercial spaces along Pomerado Road and Poway Road that would be better suited for such a facility as this. Perhaps those commercial spaces would cost the developer more money. I would like to ask the City of Poway to pause on the approval or final approval of this project and hold a meeting in City offices where north city residents of the City of Poway could come and learn more about the develop and be able to voice either their approval or their disapproval for the development-that would be the only fair thing to do since this develop will certainly change the character of our neighborhood and add additional unwanted traffic at that intersection and all along Espola Road which will have rather severe traffic problems once The Farms is built out. I am wondering if the City of Poway has investigated any similar size developments operated by the developer to determine how the development's neighbors feel about the development and what they have to say about such a development placed within their neighborhood. I am wondering if there are such developments. Lots and lots of questions and I am wondering if the City of Poway has even thought of all the questions and received answers to the questions that they have thought of. I know I am going on a little; but, I don't see the City of Poway doing any good city planning. As an example, I suggest you look at the apartments that were recently built on Poway Road that are about 6-10 feet from the edge of Poway Road or the walking path that the City of Poway is putting in along Espola Road. I certainly wouldn't want to live in those apartments and I am certain that you and your family would not want to live in those apartments as well and I am certain I wouldn't want to walk or have my grandchildren walk along that section of very busy, very fast and very loud Espola Road and I am certain that you would not want to walk or have your children or grandchildren walk along that very busy, very fast and very loud section of road. I look forward to speaking with you, in person, tomorrow and I am hoping to garner your help regarding the pausing of the approval of this development until all possible questions concerning this development are answered and until the residents of north Poway can learn about the development and express either their approval or disapproval of the project. Finally, perhaps you can inform me how I could get this issue on the calendar for the next City of Poway Council Meeting scheduled for March 1, 2022. Best regards, Tom Thomas J. Dobransky, AIF President Thomas J. Dobransky & Associates 16657 Valle Verde Road Poway, California 92064 Securities and Advisory Services Offered Through LPL Financial LPL Financial Member FINRA/SIPC Telephone Number (858) 668-3038 95 of 137 2 May 17, 2022, Item #10Securities offered through LPL Financial Member FINRA/SIPC The information contained in this email message is being transmitted to and is intended for the use of only the individual{s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately delete. 96 of 137 3 May 17, 2022, Item #10March 20, 2022 Mayor Steve Vaus Poway City Council 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, California 92064 Re: Minor Development Review Application (MORA) 21-023 APN 275-032-04 Builder: Developer: Solana Vista Builders 101 North Acacia Street, Suite 108 Solana Beach, California 92075 Sharp Mountain View Hospice Home Grossmont Hospital Foundation RF:CE:IVED MAR 2 2 2022 0 City of Poway_ velopment Set"Vfces This letter is written to formally appeal the Minor Development Review Application that was approved on February 15, 2022 for the Sharp residential care facility to be built at 16752 Valle Verde Road, Poway, California 92064. My appeal is based on the over-riding fact that this development is wholly out of keeping with the general environment of this neighborhood and I have included a comprehensive list of very good reasons to appeal this approval and prevent this proposed project from going forward. I am interested in this appeal because I live in this neighborhood and the build out of this development will have a negative impact on my enjoyment of the neighborhood and the project will almost certainly negatively impact property values in our neighborhood. I object to the approval of this MDRA for the following reasons and hereby request that the approval previous given be rejected. For the last several years this property was the single family residence of a Poway resident. The proposed development is to create a residential care facility that will be better known as a hospice, Sharp Mountain View Hospice. For the record, the strict definition of a single family home or residence is a place where one or a family lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household unit. The definition of a residential care facility or hospice is a private facility, usually with twenty of fewer residents that are staffed around the clock, delivering non-institutional home-based services to seniors who do not need 24-hour nursing care. In addition to providing meals, these facilities offer personal care assistance with such activities as grooming and toileting. Many residential care facilities were once single-family residences located in suburban neighborhoods that were converted into multi-unit dwellings and equipped and adapted for seniors; but, residential care facilities are not single family homes or residences once converted because the seniors living in a residential care facility come from many different homes or families, not a single family or household unit and are not permanently living in those facilities, the residents are only living in those facilities until they die and therefore these facilities do not meet the strict definition of a single family home or residence, these residential care facilities are instead multi-unit dwellings which are operated as commercial enterprises. 97 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10The proposed development calls for the construction of a 6,670 square-foot single-family residence with an attached 431 square foot garage. The proposed construction may refer to the construction as a single-family residence; but, that is an inaccurate description of the development -the proposed construction is not a single family residence because the residents will come from many different families not one single family unit. A facility that houses residents from many different families simple cannot correctly call itself a single family residence. The proposed development calls for the constructions of a 7, IO I square foot structure. There are no other similar sized structures in our neighborhood, other than places of worship and those are all located along Espola Road and Pomerado Road. The average home size in our neighborhood is about 3,500 square feet, maybe a little less. This construction would be more than two times larger than the average home size in our neighborhood. A building of that size with a massive amount of parking can simple never fit into the neighborhood. The proposed development claims to have been designed to be architecturally compatible and in scale with the existing surrounding development. That is simple not the case. The scale of the proposed development dwarfs any other building in our neighborhood. The proposed development claims to have been designed to minimize impacts on surrounding development. This is simple not the case. The proposed building is much larger than other buildings in the neighborhood. And, the brutal truth is that this residential care facility, this hospice, is a place where ill or very old people go to die. That fact in and of itself indicates that this proposed development will not and cannot minimize its impacts on the surrounding development. If this proposed development is approved, the simple act of driving in the main entrance to our neighborhood will cause all of us neighbors to have to drive by a place of death: morning, noon and night. That will have a major impact on our lives. We are all trying to live our lives as best we can and a constant reminder of death's inevitable reach will take the bloom off the rose. Why does something like this have to be in the middle of a quite residential neighborhood when a development like this could be and should be placed in a commercial area like along Pomerado Road or Poway Road or near Pomerado Hospital. There are countless doctor's offices, care facilities and even a hospital located on Pomerado Road. This development would simple be out of place in our neighborhood, out of place in any neighborhood. Placing this development in our neighborhood or any neighborhood is just plain wrong. The proposed development claims that it would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare within the community; but, the proposed development will create greater traffic on both Espola Road and Valle Verde Road and in particular at that intersection as employees, doctors and visitors access the proposed development. Espola Road is a very busy road and Valle Verde Road is a fairly busy road for a neighborhood. The roadways and intersection are used by many children and residents of our neighborhood who walk the neighborhood, run and bike the neighborhood and ride their horses in the neighborhood and cross Espola Road to visit the park at the northwest comer of this intersection. Traffic created by a single family home is one matter, traffic created by a large residential care facility is another matter altogether. The residential care facility will create much more traffic and endanger the lives of children, adults and horses who walk, run, bike and ride in that area. If you doubt this proposed development could pose a danger, please consider the following. I am reminded of an event that occurred many years ago on the northern end of Valle Verde Road. A man was hit by a car and killed simply crossing Valle Verde Road in a crosswalk. The residents had been asking for a stop sign at that crosswalk for years and the then City of Poway Mayor and staff turned down their requests until after this man was hit and killed. Now there is a stop sign at that location. Espola Road is a fast and very busy roadway. Valle Verde Road is a busy roadway as well. Adding this proposed development at this location is just going to make Valle Verde Road and Espola Road in this area and in this intersection more dangerous than it already is. This general area is so dangerous that many of us that live in this neighborhood simple won't walk, run or ride in this general area -there are too many cars and trucks driving too fast on Valle Verde Road south ofEspola Road. My children and grandchildren are forbidden by me to walk, run or ride on this stretch of roadway. The residents of our neighborhood would be much safer without this proposed development. 98 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10The proposed development claims the design is consistent with all elements of the Poway General Plan and conforms with applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. This cannot be true. This area, our area is an area that includes only single family homes. The proposed development will not be a single family home. The proposed development is a commercial enterprise and will be the only commercial enterprise within a one mile radius. Putting a commercial enterprise in the middle of a quite single family residential neighborhood cannot be part of the Poway General Plan; and if it is, the general plan should be immediately changed. In addition, the zoning for this property was effectively changed when the City of Poway allowed the previous property owner to convert a very small real estate office into a single family home or residence. I believe the zoning is still that of a single family home or residence and this proposed development is certainly not a single family home; it is, a multi-patient residential care facility, a hospice, a commercial enterprise. Here is a brief history of this property. Back in 1985 and for many years before that, this property housed a very small real estate office. My wife and I met Bill Hammond there. Bill was a very long time Poway real estate agent who sold us our home at 16657 Valle Verde Road in 1985. Most recently and for a period of7 or 8 years, it seems, this property was a single family residence. Now, through some minor City of Poway process, the MDRA process, this property is to become a commercial enterprise -the only commercial enterprise within a one mile radius -that is not a minor development and the MDRA process should not have been used in this instance. Whoever decided to use the MDRA process for this development in the first place and whoever approved the MDRA in the second place were and are wrong to think this is a minor development change in our neighborhood. Once this property became a single family home it should have remained a single family home as far as the City of Poway is concerned. I believe the vast majority of the residents of our neighborhood believe that the current on-going construction is for a new single family residence. Won't they be surprised to learn that is not the case if this proposed development is allowed. The MDRA process is a rather secret process and was used inappropriately regarding this proposed development. Only neighbors with adjoining properties were notified of this proposed development. Why keep something like this a secret? Only three homeowners, I am told, in our neighborhood were notified by the City of Poway about this development. Since this proposed development would dramatically change the character of our neighborhood, all residents of our neighborhood and of the surrounding neighborhoods should have been notified and a process established to judge neighborhood opinion about this proposed development. This project should not have been secreted and fast-tracked using the MDRA process. Using the MDRA process kept this proposed project a secret from all of us neighbors who would be impacted by its existence. I feel lucky that I, quite by chance, learned of this proposed development in order to file this appeal. This proposed development represents a major change to the character of our neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods. Using the MDRA process was a mistake and using the MDRA process gives the impression that the City of Poway did not approach this issue in the proper manner, in a manner with the neighborhood and resident's best interests at heart. Because the MDRA process was used and approved in secret it certainly appears that the City of Poway was for some reason unreasonably happy to work with the developer on this project and as a result determined it was fully appropriate to disregard the best interests of the residents of our neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods and to keep all of us in the dark regarding this proposed development. That is too bad because the City of Poway and all city employees should know that the best government is a transparent government, there is no place for secrets in government. Shame on the City of Poway in this instance. If there was to be a change in zoning for this property, everyone who lives in our area should have been notified of this development, everyone within a one mile radius at least and everyone should have been given the opportunity to weigh in on this proposed development and any zoning changes. I am wondering if the City of Poway has investigated any similar size developments operated by the developer to determine how the development's neighbors feel about the development and what they have to say about such a development placed within their neighborhood. I am wondering if there are such developments. Lots and lots of questions and I am wondering if the City of Poway has even thought of all the questions and received answers to the questions that they have thought of or should have thought of. I understand the developer operates a similar facility in Bonita that is not within a neighborhood. How interesting is that. If that is the case, why are they asking to build a facility within a neighborhood, our neighborhood. Is it simple because they got a good deal on the property. Was the property purchased for much less because the property was for sale as a single family residence. The developer should have purchased a commercial property for their commercial enterprise. 99 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Traffic is my final reason to appeal this approval. This development will add unnecessary traffic on Espola Road and Valle Verde Road and at this intersection. We don't need any more traffic in our neighborhood and traffic will only get worst when The Farms project is complete. Traffic could get so bad in our area that one will not be able to travel Espola Road to the west without undue delays because of the major intersection at Pomerado Road and this could cause cars to drive through our neighborhood in order to transit west during busy times of day. In general, the City of Poway falls woefully short in dealing with traffic problems because it seems the reason for being is to build and build more and more housing units. I have lived in Poway since 1985 and my observation is that traffic and the roadways just get worse and worse and it seems, at least to this resident, that the City of Poway spends money on things most residents simple don't care about, like the Mickey Cafagna Center, the apartments on Poway Road that are just a few feet from Poway Road or the walking path along Espola Road south of Poway High School or the Performing Art Center. At some point in time the city fathers and managers have to look themselves in the eyes and ask themselves what exactly are we doing to Poway or for Poway. Very truly yours, Thomas J. Dobransky 16657 Valle Verde Road Poway, California 92064-1635 cc: Clark Libenson Chris Hazeltine Bob Manis John Mullin Dave Grosch Caylin Frank Barry Leonard 100 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Howard Groveman Steve Vaus; Barry Leonard; Chris Hazeltine; Bob Manis nosh a rphosoice@gma ii .com Sharp Hospice in Residential neighborhood Sunday, March 20, 2022 7:37:36 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from grovernan@cox.net. LaaLo why this is important EXTERNAL . .:. AIL Dear Poway Officials, I was more than surprised to learn that a zoning change was made to a neighbor's residential lot which allowed for a commercial hospital hospice facility to be built. I was never notified or asked for input. Certainly, notification to a 500 foot radius is not sufficient for such a major zoning change. It was just a few years ago that I was asked to approve a fence height increase at this same property. You have to admit that there is a huge difference between a brouhaha over a fence and a major zoning change that affects an entire neighborhood! I certainly should have been afforded at least the same right to notification and input. A hospice in Poway is a wonderful idea and there are many places in commercial zones where this facility's placement would be far more appropriate. I feel the City has made a mistake and request that these decisions be immediately reviewed by the City and its legal advisors. Best, Howard Groveman 16738 Calle Corta Poway, CA 92064 cell 858-204-2322 101 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Patty Fletcher From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Leah McBride < Leah.McBride@financeofamerica.com > Monday, March 21, 2022 12:04 PM Steve Vaus; Barry Leonard; Dave Grosch; John Mullin; Caylin Frank RE: Concerned Homeowner -Green Valley High Some people who received this message don't often get email from leah.mcbride@financeofamerica.com. Learn why this is important EXTER 'AL EMAIL Hello Poway City Council, A year ago I reached out (email below) about my concerns regarding the lot on the corner of Valle Verde and Espola being purchased and converted to a "residential" hospice facility. Many of you responded to me saying that this was going to be very discreet and any homeowner can convert their residential home into a hospice home with up to 6 beds. I have come to be made aware that this is NOT what is happening at this corner lot as it has now been fully demolished, graded, and it will in fact be a full medical hospice facility with 23 parking spaces, including handicap and EV parking spots. The new medical facility being built is 6,670 square feet, with full-time doctors and nurses. This is not discreet by any means OR consistent with converting a residential home to a small hospice home. No residential home in this neighborhood or even Poway I know has a parking lot with 23 parking spaces and handicap/EV reserved spaces. We have also ascertained that almost all of our neighbors have not been made aware this is going in and we have not met one that supports this commercial facility being built here. There are no sidewalks where they plan to put their driveway to this facility, and with increased traffic from doctors, nurses, visitors, ambulances, funeral cars, etc. this poses a safety concern to families walking, kids riding their bikes, etc. On top of this, one of the members of the board of our HOA did not even know this was going in. We have an HOA in this area and I'm curious if this should have been brought to the HOA first to be approved? Not one person I have met is in support of this project and there are many voices being gathered to vehemently oppose this project being built in our neighborhood. I know my other neighbors Clark Libenson and Matt Jubenville have filed a formal appeal and many neighbors will be present to voice their opposition at the Poway City Council meeting in early April. Leah McBride Senior Loan Officer NMLS-1020432 AZ, CA, :NV, OR, TX, \,VA o: (858) 527-7851 c: (858) 888-0258 f: (855) 836-6775 Leah.McBride@financeofamerica.com San Diego Branch I 16456 Bernardo Center Dr. I Suite 200 I San Diego, CA 92128 APPLY OW 102 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10® FINANCE of AMERICA -MORTGAGE -PRESIDENT'S CLUB 2021------©2022 Finance of America Mortgage LLC is licensed nationwide I Equal Housing Opportunity I NMLS ID #1071 {www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org) I 1 West Elm Street, First Floor, Conshohocken, PA 19428 I (800) 355-5626 I AZ Mortgage Banker License #0910184 I Licensed by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act I Georgia Residential Mortgage Licensee #15499 I Kansas Licensed Mortgage Company I Licensed by the N.J. Department of Banking and Insurance I Licensed Mortgage Banker --NYS Banking Department I Rhode Island Licensed Lender I Massachusetts Lender/Broker License MC1071. For licensing information go to: www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org. From: Leah McBride Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 5:19 PM To: svaus@poway.org; bleonard@poway.org; dgrosch@poway.org; jmullin@poway.org; cfrank@poway.org Cc: Craig Brown <cbrown@financeofamerica.com> Subject: Concerned Homeowner -Green Valley Hello Poway City Council, My name is Leah McBride and my family and I own/live in Green Valley at 13218 Valle Verde Terrace. I work in the mortgage industry and through contacts in the real estate world have been made aware that the home on the corner of Espola/Valle Verde (which has a "SOLD" sign out front listed by Suzanne Kropf) is in escrow to be purchased and turned into an Elizabeth Hospice home (I believe the address is: 16752 Espola Rd). This is a huge concern for me as a resident raising a family in this neighborhood (and likely would be cause for concern for many of our neighbors if/when it comes to fruition). I do not want to walk my 3-year old past an end-of-life hospice home every day in our residential neighborhood while we are walking across the street to play on the playground at Valle Verde Park. Nor do I want to drive past this every single day to and from work/daycare/grocery store/etc. I am aware the home was previously zoned as mixed-use as long ago it was used as a real estate office, however, I'm not sure if anything can be done to ensure it stays a residential home rather than switching back to a commercial business, particularly of that nature as well. Please let me know if this is something that could be addressed/prevented from being introduced into our residential community. Thank you, Leah McBride Senior Loan Office1• NMLS-1020432 AZ, CA, NV, OR, TX, WA o: (858) 527-7851 c: (858) 888-0258 f: (855) 836-6775 Leah.McBride@financeofamerica.com San Diego Branch I 16456 Bernardo Center Dr. I Suite 200 I San Diego, CA 92128 APP N 103 of 137 2 May 17, 2022, Item #10FINANCE ,of AME'R!CA M·ORT·GAGE~-PR:ESIDENT'S CLUB 202.0------©2021 Finance of America Mortgage LLC is licensed nationwide I Equal Housing Opportunity I NMLS ID #1071 (www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org) I 300 Welsh Road, Building 5, Horsham, PA 19044 I (800) 355-5626 I AZ Mortgage Banker License #0910184 I Licensed by the Department of Business Oversight under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act I Georgia Residential Mortgage Licensee #15499 I Kansas Licensed Mortgage Company I Licensed by the N.J. Department of Banking and Insurance I Licensed Mortgage Banker --NYS Banking Department I Rhode Island Licensed Lender I Massachusetts Lender/Broker License MC1071. For licensing information go to: www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org. This message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information and are only for the use of the intended recipient of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email, and delete or destroy this and all copies of this message and all attachments. Any unauthorized disclosure, use, distribution, or reproduction of this message or any attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful. 104 of 137 3 May 17, 2022, Item #10From: To: Subject: Date:. Jim Fitzgerald Steve Vaus Fwd: Hospice at Valle Verde & Espola Monday, March 21, 2022 5 :43: 13 PM You don't often get email fromjfitz@spacelink.com. Learn why this is important EXT, NA ~MAI Hi Steve -Thanks for replying so quickly to my neighbor Mr Lee. I'd like to know if you can find out from the city attorney which state law section it is that imposes this requirement and share? The closest I could find in my own research was this section ( https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displaySection.xhtml? lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=1568.0831 ) which refers to facilities of 6 or less residents which I do not believe to be the case in our circumstance. Perhaps the attorney with their LexisNexis tools has found something else they can share ... I'd like to look it up and have a read ... Best -Jim Begin forwarded message: Dudley Lee From: Steve Vaus <SVaus@poway.org> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 3:42 PM To: Charles Dudley Lee <radlaw@aol.com> Subject: Re: Hospice at Valle Verde & Espola Dear Mr. Lee, According to our city attorney, for better or worse we are at the mercy of Sacramento on this matter. State law requires such a facility (hospice, residential care, half-way house, etc) be permitted "by right" -meaning it is not required to come to Council for approval. You're probably aware that the project is being appealed by local residents. That appeal will bring the matter to council for the first time. I look forward to hearing from the neighbors and our city attorney. To the best of my knowledge the matter will be heard on April 19th. Best regards, sv From: Charles Dudley Lee <radlaw@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 2:42 PM To: Charles Dudley Lee <radlaw@aol.com> Subject: Hospice at Valle Verde & Espola EXTERNAL EMAIL It has recently come to the attention of Poway residents that a hospice is to be built at the corner of Valle Verde & Espola. I as a resident in this area strongly object to this for reasons stated on the attached recently circulated leaflet. Please review the legality /zoning issues and place this on an upcoming City Council meeting agenda. I would like the opportunity to object. Charles Lee 16643 Maverick Lane Poway CA 92064 105 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Charles Dudley Lee < radlaw@aol.com > Monday, March 21, 2022 2:42 PM Charles Dudley Lee Hospice at Valle Verde & Espola Hospice lnfo.pdf You don't often get email from radlaw@aol.com. Learn why this is important EXTER. /\L EMAIL It has recently come to the attention of Poway residents that a hospice is to be built at the corner of Valle Verde & Espola. I as a resident in this area strongly object to this for reasons stated on the attached recently circulated leaflet. Please review the legality /zoning issues and place this on an upcoming City Council meeting agenda. I would like the opportunity to object. Charles Lee 16643 Maverick Lane Poway CA 92064 106 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10Dear Neighbor, We are reaching out to let you know that we have been made aware that there is a Sharp Healthcare Medical Hospice facility being built on the comer of Espola / Valle Verde Rd. · This facility poses major concerns for all of us living in Green Valley and adjacent neighborhoods. What is happening? • Sharp Healt\lcare has purchased a residential home at the comer ofEspola and Valle Verde Road, is now demolishing it, and proposing to build a large commercial hospice facility there, instead of another residential home. • The property is currently zoned as RR-C -residential rural -which prohibits commercial uses, and only allows uses that are complementary to, and can exist in harmony with, a rural residential neighborhood. • The City of Poway has preliminarily approved Sharp's application to build the project. The approval allows for the construction of a 6,670 square-foot hospice facility with an attached 431-square-foot garage. The proposed' hospice facility will also have a 23-space parking lot (including handicapped and EV charging spaces) that will be visible from Valle Verde Road and Espola Road. • Ifbuilt as currently designed, the facility's driveway/entrance will be on Valle Verde Road, where all vehicles required to run such a facility will enter/exit, including funeral/coroner vehicles, medical/patient transfer vehicles, other support vehicles, personnel/staffi~g traffic, and visitors. No other residential home in Green Valley creates this amount of traffic. • Sharp has only provided formal notice to three homeowners surrounding the property and has conducted the rest of the process behind closed doors. Additionally, the City has conducted no formal traffic study, or convened a discussion with the community about the impact of the project. Is Sharp Allowed To Do This? • No. • The proposed project is a quasi-commercial medical facility in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Concerned neighbors in the area believe that Sharp may not be pennitted to undergo this conversion at all, much less without significant notice to the community and/or a general election ballot initiative. • Sharp has provided no legal authority that allows them to convert a residential home into a commercial hospice facility. It is disingenuous for Sharp to suggest that the proposed project is simply a new home that happens to have residential care patients. • The proposed hospice facility is not complementary to, and in harmony with, our residential neighborhood. o lt i~ a commercial hospice that would be run by, and used to support the operations of, a major hospital system. The Poway municipal code does not contain a definition of "hospice facility." o The steady stream of increased traffic would fundamentally alter ( and make significantly less safe) our Green Valley neighborhood, where we walk with our families, friends, colleagues and animals. o The high level of patient transfers associated with a hospice facility is inappropriate for a quiet residential neighborhood that includes families with young children. o The facility will have a 23-space parking lot that is unlike anything else in Green Valley. 107 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10What Impact will this Facility have on us? • Property values -Having a medical hospice facility at the entrance of this neighborhood is not what prospective homeowners want to see when looking at purchasing here. • Traffic -Medical hospice facilities have doctors and nurses full-time on staff. On top of this, there will be a steady stream of supply vehicles, multiple families visiting daily (including extended family members visiting from out of town), and patient transport and coroner vehicles. • Safety -There is no sidewalk along this stretch of Valle Verde Road. The steady stream of vehicles will make Valle Verde dangerous for families walking their dogs, crossing the street to Valle Verde Park or walking down Valle Verde to access the Green Valley bridle paths and hiking trails. What can I do? First, please share this information with other interested and concerned neighbors! Second, if you are interested in learning more about the proposed hospice facility, or contributing to the information-gathering efforts that are now occurring in the community, please write to the City officials listed below, and ask any or all of the following questions: • Why was such a facility approved in our neighborhood without sufficient notice? • When will the City convene a community meeting to answer questions? • When will this matter be discussed before the City Council? • What legal authority allows Sharp to build a quasi-commercial medical facility in the middle of a residential neighborhood? • Why won't the City revisit Espola ingress/egress for the proposed hospice facility? • Will the City revoke its approval of Sharp's MDRA until and unless the issues outlined above can be resolved to the satisfaction of the broader community? Who should I contact? City Officials Mayor: Steve Vaus (svaus@poway.org) District 2 Councilmember: Barry Leonard (bleonard@poway.org) City Manager: Chris Hazeltine ( chazeltine@poway.org) Director of Development Services: Bob Manis (bmanis@poway.org) Community Members For more information, please contact: nosharphospice(cv,gmail.com Let's keep our community beautiful, safe, and desirable for families for years to come! 108 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10From: To: Subject: Date: david ammar Steve Vaus Sharp Hospice on Valle Verde Monday, March 21, 2022 12:33:46 PM [You don't often get email from dammar@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification.] EXTERNAL EMAIL Mr Mayor How can this happen without community input? This will affect the entire neighborhood. David Ammar 109 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Patty Fletcher From: Sent: To: Subject: David Yankaskas <dryankaskas@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 22, 2022 9:39 AM Steve Vaus; Barry Leonard;· Chris Hazeltine; Bob Manis Sharp Hospice Facility Proposed on Espola and Valle Verde Rd Some people who received this message don't often get email from dryankaskas@gmail.com. Learn why this is important -XTERNAL MAIL It has come to our attention this past weekend that a hospice facility is to be built just around the corner from us. We are very concerned that we had to learn this through a neighbor instead of from our City. It implies that this was done behind our backs without proper notice or discussion to address our concerns. We would like the following questions addressed: Why was such a facility approved in our neighborhood without sufficient notice? When will the City convene a community meeting to answer questions? When will this matter be discussed before the City Council? What legal authority allows Sharp to build a quasi-commercial medical facility in the middle of a residential neighborhood? Why won't the City revisit Espola ingress/egress for the proposed hospice facility? Will the City revoke its approval of Sharp's MORA until and unless the issues outlined above can be resolved to the satisfaction of the broader community? We look forward to your reply. David Yankaskas and Vienna Salazar 13133 Avenida Granada Poway, CA 92064 Sincerely, David and Vienna 110 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10Cheryl Hoy From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: James Thornbrue <jthornbrue@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 22, 2022 10:19 AM Steve Vaus radlaw@aol.com Re: Hospice at Valle Verde & Espola You don't often get email from jthornbrue@gmail.com. Learn why this is important l Mayor Vaus, This matter came to my attention today, and I am concerned for the following reasons: 1. It seems like this is being done "in the dark" without adequate notice to those affected, including myself and other residents of the Green Valley & Silver Saddle Ranch neighborhoods. 2. I have seen residential homes converted to hospice, residential care, and half-way house use. My own family has benefited from a loving, residential nursing facility. However, this is not at all similar to this proposed hospice facility. The plan, as I understand it, is to tear down an existing residential home and build a much larger facility with 23 parking spaces owned and operated by Scripps - a large, commercial healthcare company. I would like to better understand the statute that permits this "by right". My guess is that this is not the intention of the law, rather it is to allow the conversion of existing residential properties into small, family-operated residential care use with minimal or nonexistent impact to the residential look-and-feel of the surrounding neighborhood. This is clearly not the case here, and I believe that the new facility, as proposed, violates the current residential zoning ordinances. Therefore it is illegal without proper zoning changes. 3. Valle Verde south of Espola is already a dangerous place for pedestrians, equestrians, bicyclists, and dog walkers. The impact of increased traffic needs to be carefully considered in addition to the impact of The Farm, which is being built right across the street. The proposed facility is next to a busy horse, biking, and walking trail, a hazardous blind corner, and Valle Verde park, where children and families regularly cross Espola. There will inevitably be ambulances responding to medical emergencies at the hospice facility. Any increased traffic significantly increases the risk, especially to small children and animals. 4. I will be out of town on April 19, so I am unable to attend the hearing on this matter; however, I want to be on record opposing the proposed hospice facility. I do not believe we are "at the mercy of Sacramento" for the reasons stated above. I will stand with local residents, including taking legal action, to stop it. Sincerely, James Thornbrue 13325 Pacer Lane Poway, CA 92064 (858) 381-2357 111 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10From: Steve Vaus <SVaus@poway.org> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 3:42 PM To: Charles Dudley Lee <radlaw@aol.com> Subject: Re: Hospice at Valle Verde & Espola Dear Mr. Lee, According to our city attorney, for better or worse we are at the mercy of Sacramento on this matter. State law requires such a facility (hospice, residential care, half-way house, etc) be permitted "by right" -meaning it is not required to come to Council for approval. You're probably aware that the project is being appealed by local residents. That appeal will bring the matter to council for the first time. I look forward to hearing from the neighbors and our city attorney. To the best of my knowledge the matter will be heard on April 19th. Best regards, sv From: Charles Dudley Lee <radlaw@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 2:42 PM To: Charles Dudley Lee <radlaw@aol.com> Subject: Hospice at Valle Verde & Espola You don't often get email from radlaw@aol.com. Learn why this is important I It has recently come to the attention of Poway residents that a hospice is to be built at the corner of Valle Verde & Espola. I as a resident in this area strongly object to this for reasons stated on the attached recently circulated leaflet. Please review the legality /zoning issues and place this on an upcoming City Council meeting agenda. I would like the opportunity to object. Charles Lee 16643 Maverick Lane Poway CA 92064 112 of 137 2 May 17, 2022, Item #10Patty Fletcher From: Sent: To: Subject: Tom and Shirley Kenney <trksnk@cox.net> Tuesday, March 22, 2022 8:47 PM Steve Vaus Sharp Healthcare Hospice [You don't often get email from trksnk@cox.net. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification.] EXTERNAL EMAIL Mayor Steve Vaus, Sharp Healthcare's proposal to build a large commercial hospice facility on Espola Road is totally out of reason . This property is zoned residential /rural and it should stay that way. If Sharp needs a hospice facility in Poway, I would suggest they look at vacant land on the south side of the industrial park in south Poway. Why hasn't this been discussed in the City Council meetings? Steve, you have done a good job keeping Poway a "City in the Country" don't screw it up now. Tom Kenney 113 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10From: Diane Williams To: Subject: Steve Vaus; Barry Leonard; Chris Hazeltine; Bob Manis Sharp hospice facility Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 1:56:27 PM You don't often get email from dwilliams@milmark.net. Learn why this is important <http://aka.ms/LearnAboutS ender Identification> EXTERNAL EMAIL Dear Mayor Vaus: Recently we found out the construction at the corner of Valle Verde Road and Espola is NOT a residential home but a large hospice facility. It's unbelievable we were not notified about this plan before it was approved by the City of Poway, since we live just around the comer on Calle Corta. A commercial medical building is inappropriate for our residential neighborhood. This is a quiet residential neighborhood that includes many families with young children. The increased traffic at that corner is of great concern to the safety of our community. How did this project get approved without input from the surrounding homes? Thank you for you time. Don and Diane Williams 16762 Calle Corta Poway, CA <https·//ssJ gstatic com/ui/vl/jcons/mail/no photo png> ReplyReply allForward 114 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis From: Sent: To: Subject: eclare@cox.net Wednesday, March 23, 2022 1 :13 PM Bob Manis FW: Concerns about possible hospice medical building in our residential neighborhood on the corner of Valle Verde and Espola Rd. You don't often get email from eclare@cox.net. Learn whv this is important EXTERNAL. EMAIL From: eclare@cox.net <eclare@cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 1:11 PM To: 'svaus@poway.org' <svaus@poway.org>; 'bleonard@poway.org' <bleonard@poway.org>; 'chazeltine@poway.org' <chazeltine@poway.org>; 'bmanis@poway.o' <bmanis@poway.o> Subject: Concerns about possible hospice medical building in our residential neighborhood on the corner of Valle Verde and Espola Rd. Dear Steve, Barry, Chris and Bob, I just found out and am surprised and very concerned about this facility going up in Valle Verde Ranch. We are a residential community and my understanding is that we are not zoned for commercial buildings. We have a lovely scenic neighborhood, with walking, horse back riding, and bicycling trails throughout. One trail runs directly next to this property. I feel this building will impact the neighborhood in very detrimental ways, with taking away from it's beauty, more traffic, safety hazards, causing house prices to be impacted, noise, 24/7 comings and goings, etc. I would like to know why this was approved without notice to residents? How and why did this get approved? Will a meeting be scheduled to discuss the many questions we all have? That and many other legal questions!! Thank you for your attention to, and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Clare E. Clare Wallace-Clamme 13320 Calle Colina Poway, CA 92064 115 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis From: Sent: To: Subject: Deborah Knuth < meknuth@sbcglobal.net> Monday, March 28, 2022 2:47 PM Bob Manis Valle Verde Rd. You don't often get email from meknuth@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL Hello Mr. Manis, I am writing to you with questions about a business being built on the corner of Valle Verde Rd and Espola: Why has a safety study on how business traffic will affect the safety of pedestrian and horse traffic on Valle Verde Rd not been done? Why was the surrounding neighborhood not informed of the major changes to the neighborhood? Why did the city never hold a meeting with residents to discuss this project? Why was this business building approved without neighborhood input? Why won't the City revisit Espola ingress/egress for the proposed business? Thank you, Debbie 116 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis From: Sent: To: Subject: Bob, Cheryl Hoy Monday, March 28, 2022 3:29 PM Bob Manis FW: Concerns about possible hospice medical building in our residential neighborhood on the corner of Valle Verde and Espola Rd. I'm forwarding this email as she has an incorrect email address for you. Cheri From: Clare Wallace Clamme <eclare@cox.net> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 9:40 PM To: Barry Leonard <BLeonard@poway.org> Cc: Steve Vaus <SVaus@poway.org>; Chris Hazeltine <CHazeltine@poway.org>; bmanis@poway.o Subject: Re: Concerns about possible hospice medical building in our residential neighborhood on the corner of Valle Verde and Espola Rd. f. 'TER 'AL EMAIL Thank you! Probably the reason there are wrong assumptions is because residents were not told about, or asked for their thoughts about the building. I believe I have accurate details of the facility. I would love to see the specs. Am I wrong in understanding that there will be 23 parking spaces with the entrance and exit on Valle Verde Rd? Is this facility going to be designed like a home that fits in here? Will there be traffic going in and out 24-7? Thanks! Clare E Clare Wallace 117 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10March 23, 2021 Dear Director o-f Development Services Bob Manis, It has recently come to my attention that a property at the south west corner of Espola Road and Valle Verde Road, zoned RR-C, has been preliminarily approved by the City of Poway for Sharp Healthcare to build a 6,670 square foot hospice facility with an attached 431 square foot garage and have a 23 space parking lot. It is my understanding that only 3 neighbors have been informed. Why has this project been approved in our neighborhood without sufficient notice? When will the Poway City Council convene a community forum to answer questions? When will this matter be discussed public meeting of the City Council? Why has this project moved forward without a formal traffic study and/or the impact of this quasi-commercial project on the neighborhood? I have lived in this neighborhood for 52 years. I walk daily by this corner. It is dangerous and I have come before the City Council to address that fact and to have the signals adjusted so that it is safer for walkers, joggers and bike riders. Even with the requested adjustment, the intersection remains extremely dangerous and walkers must be exceptionally vigilant. Additional vehicles, such as ambulances, support vehicles, visitors and staff cars will only exacerbate an already dangerous situation. As member of the local community I request that the City of Poway revoke its approval of Sharp's MDA until the issues mentioned above can be resolved to the satisfaction of the broader community. Sincerely, ~✓-~ Michele T. Nelson 12922 Camino del Valle, Poway CA 118 of 137 RECEIVED MAR 2 5 202Z City of Poway . ~eve\opment Set'Vlces May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis From: Sent: To: Subject: Leah McBride < Leah.McBride@financeofamerica.com> Wednesday, March 30, 2022 12:34 PM Chris Hazeltine; Bob Manis; Fenstermacher, Alan Fwd: Concerned Homeowner -Green Valley Some people who received this message don't often get email from leah.mcbride@financeofamerica.com. Learn why this is irnpor ant E, TERN.4L. EMAIL Hello Chris, Bob, and Alan, Forwarding the below email exchange to you 3 as well so you are in the loop regarding the conversation around this proposed hospice in Green Valley prior to the city council meeting April 19th. Thank you, Leah McBride Senior Loan Officer NMLS-1020432 AZ, CA, NV, OR, TX, WA o: (858) 527-7851 c: (858) 888-0258 f: (855) 836-6775 Leah.McBride@financeofamerica.com San Diego Branch I 16456 Bernardo Center Dr. I Suite 200 I San Diego, CA 92128 ©Finance of America Mortgage LLC is licensed nationwide I I NMLS ID #1071 (www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org) I 1 West Elm Street, First Floor, Conshohocken, PA 19428 I (800) 355-5626 I AZ Mortgage Banker License #0910184 I Licensed by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act I Georgia Residential Mortgage Licensee #15499 I Kansas Licensed Mortgage Company I Licensed by the N.J. Department of Banking and Insurance I Licensed Mortgage Banker --NYS Banking Department I Rhode Island Licensed Lender I Massachusetts Lender/Broker License MC1071. For licensing information go to: www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Leah McBride <leah.mcbride@financeofamerica.com> Date: March 30, 2022 at 10:57:00 AM PDT To: RCarmichael@poway.org, svaus@poway.org, bleonard@poway.org, dgrosch@poway.org, jmullin@poway.org, cfrank@poway.org Cc: rachkmccarthy@gmail.com, "Libenson, Clark" <clibenson@allenmatkins.com>, Matt Jubenville <mattjubes@gmail.com>, Debbie Knuth <meknuth4@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Concerned Homeowner -Green Valley 119 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10Thank you for your response, Rene. It appears this is a templated email that is being sent out to all Green Valley homeowners now who reach out to the city. With that being known, we'd like to politely request you include all pertinent information involving the planned build by Sharp in this email, and not just those that paint this project in a positive light. This includes {but is not limited to}: Parking Lot -The plans by Sharp include a 23 space parking lot, including handicap and electric vehicle charging. When questioned, Sharp responded that this was an accommodation to the residents in this area so that guests are not parking on the street. This "accommodation," however, recognizes that Sharp is keenly aware of the traffic and activity this facility will bring to our quiet and safe residential community. No residential house I know in Poway generates this much traffic and the City is clearly responsible for regulating traffic and ensuring the safety of any proposed project. Failing to include references to the large parking lot {and other various elements of the proposed hospice} obscures these facts, and has the potential to paint the misleading picture that this facility will be a quiet one that will not impact traffic and safety. 2 Car Garage -Your email describes how this facility is being built with a 2-car garage, however, fails to mention that the architectural plans also include a loading bay for deliveries. What residential property includes a loading bay as part of their plans? Again, omitting this fact risks creating a misimpression about the type of activity that will be occurring at the facility, and the elements necessary to support an active hospice facility. Assisted Living/Residential Care vs. Hospice -Hospice homes generate significantly more traffic than an assisted living facility or a residential care facility. With hospice, family members travel from all around the country to visit their loved ones and spend as much time as possible with them before they pass {I know because my family has used hospice in the past}. Every hospice facility I've visited has been in a commercial setting due to the fact that there needed to be substantial parking for family members coming and going constantly each day. An assisted living home or a residential care facility of 6 beds or less does not generate the same amount of traffic and cannot be seen in the same light. Particularly in this specific location, there are NO sidewalks. AND there is a park with a brand new playground and sports fields directly across the street from it {which drives families and young children to walk there}. Green Valley is coveted because of the walking trails and families feeling relatively safe to walk their dogs, children, and horses with little to no traffic. Bringing this into this specific neighborhood is an extreme danger to all of these Green Valley homeowners and this is the city1s responsibility to maintain. Similar Facilities in Poway-While the email attempts to imply that this facility "is just the latest in a long line of similar facilities," we are not aware of another hospice facility "tucked into" any Poway residential neighborhood. If there is one, please provide us with the address. Finally, we'd like to comment that this templated email reads as if the city is advocating on behalf of Sharp. This letter should acknowledge that the City is working to balance and protect the rights and safety of all Green Valley property owners who have been paying property taxes to the city for years; not just the rights of a commercial operator who will not even be paying property taxes operating as a non-profit. Thank you, 120 of 137 2 May 17, 2022, Item #10Leah McBride Sm·tior. ~oan CUfic::.r, NMLS-1020432 1 Z, CA~ 1' .r, OR, ·.~7., , !1 o· (858) 527-7851 c· (858) 888-0258 f'' (855) 836-6775 Leah.McBride@financeofamerica.com San Diego Branch I 16456 Bernardo Center Dr. I Suite 200 I San Diego, CA 92128 APPLY NOW! ® FINANCE of AMERICA -MORTGAGE -PRESIDENT'S CLUB 2021------©2022 Finance of America Mortgage LLC is licensed nationwide I Equal Housing Opportunity I NMLS ID #1071 (www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org l I 1 West Elm Street, First Floor, Conshohocken, PA 19428 I (800} 355-5626 I AZ Mortgage Banker License #0910184 I Licensed by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act I Georgia Residential Mortgage Licensee #15499 I Kansas Licensed Mortgage Company I Licensed by the N.J. Department of Banking and Insurance I Licensed Mortgage Banker -- NYS Banking Department I Rhode Island Licensed Lender I Massachusetts Lender/Broker License MC1071. For licensing information go to: www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org. From: Rene Carmichael <RCarmichael@poway.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 3:04 PM To: Leah McBride <Leah.McBride@financeofamerica.com> Subject: RE: Concerned Homeowner -Green Valley Dear Ms. McBride, Thank you for reaching out to the City of Poway to express your concerns regarding the hospice residence proposed at the corner of Valle Verde and Espola Road. Below is some background information that will address some of your points, but we wanted to share that an appeal hearing has been scheduled as part of the April 19 Poway City Council meeting. The agenda report will be available on April 12 that will provide a more detailed overview. Your email was also forwarded to the City Clerk's office to be included with materials for the hearing. Is this a commercial entity being built in a residential zone? No, by law this is not. State law dictates that certain care facilities licensed by the State of California for six or fewer residents must be considered a single-family use. These are allowed in any single-family zone. The proposed facility falls into this category and therefore must be allowed in this residential zone. Why weren't neighbors notified? The Poway Municipal Code specifically notes that as a single-family use, the process for review is a Minor Development Review Application (MDRA), which is considered and approved by Poway's Development Services staff. This is an administrative process and does not require a public hearing before the City Council. Even though noticing is not required for an MDRA, as a courtesy the City sends a notice to adjacent property owners, allowing for a 10-day review period. Is there a process for community members to provide feedback? 121 of 137 3 May 17, 2022, Item #10The administrative approval of the proposed building was formally appealed, and the hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m. on Tuesday, April 19 as part of the regular City Council meeting. Per the PMC, the Council's decision is final. The meeting is open to the public and if you are interested in speaking on this issue, you are invited to attend in person or online. The agenda report on the item will be posted one week in advance (Tuesday, April 12). A link to the agenda, and information on how to participate, is posted at powav.org/councilmeetings. How can this be the same as building a home? State law requires the City impose the same requirements and development standards on the proposed hospice residence that would be imposed on any single family home in the zone in which it is located, and nothing more. This project has six bedrooms, a kitchen, and a two-car garage. The building has roofing and siding material and designs that would be found on single-family homes. Berms, landscaping and its driveway location are designed to minimize the view of the property. Is this unusual for Poway? The State of California licenses community care facilities and makes the information available to the public in an online database: Social Services -Community Care Facilitv search. We realize that assisted living facilities are not the same as a hospice home, but both operate, generally speaking, as a type of residential care facility or congregate living facility. To provide context as to if this is a unique situation, a search on assisted living facilities shows that there are 34 licensed or pending licensed facilities in Poway. Of those, 25 residences have six residents or less and therefore would be considered single-family use by the State. Many of those are tucked into neighborhoods throughout Poway. Does the City Council have jurisdiction over the use of this residence? One of the most important points to bring up is that the MORA and the appeal hearing will only focus on approving the structure. It will address whether the application meets the requirements of a single-family home as per the Poway Municipal Code. A State license is required to operate as a hospice facility in California. That step is separate from building the structure and is coordinated through the California Department of Public Health. The City is not part of that process. State law -which preempts essentially any local control of facilities with six beds of fewer-demands the proposed use not be a reason to deny this project. I want to stress that at this time this project has only been issued a permit for demolition. Future permits for grading and building would be issued separately and are dependent upon the council's decision on April 19. Again, thank you for reaching out to us and I'm available to help you with further questions, though I may defer to the upcoming agenda report for anything related to what will be covered at the public hearing. If you have questions specific to the hospice, please contact Sharp Vice President of Hospice Suzi Johnson at PowayHospiceHouse@sharp.com. Sincerely, Rene Carmichael Community Outreach Coordinator City of Poway Office: 858-668-4506 Mobile: 858-395-1298 Email: rcarmichael@poway.org 122 of 137 4 May 17, 2022, Item #10From: Leah McBride <Leah.McBride@financeofarnerica.com> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 12:04 PM To: Steve Vaus <SVaus@powav.org>; Barry Leonard <BLeonard@poway.org>; Dave Grosch <DGrosch@poway.org>; John Mullin <JMullin@poway.org>; Caylin Frank <CFrank@powav.org> Subject: RE: Concerned Homeowner -Green Valley Importance: High Some people who received this message don't often get email from leah.mcbricie(wfinanceofarnerica.corn. Learn why this is imgortant EXTERNAL EMA!L Hello Poway City Council, A year ago I reached out (email below) about my concerns regarding the lot on the corner of Valle Verde and Espola being purchased and converted to a 11residential" hospice facility. Many of you responded to me saying that this was going to be very discreet and any homeowner can convert their residential home into a hospice home with up to 6 beds. I have come to be made aware that this is NOT what is happening at this corner lot as it has now been fully demolished, graded, and it will in fact be a full medical hospice facility with 23 parking spaces, including handicap and EV parking spots. The new medical facility being built is 6,670 square feet, with full-time doctors and nurses. This is not discreet by any means OR consistent with converting a residential home to a small hospice home. No residential home in this neighborhood or even Poway I know has a parking lot with 23 parking spaces and handicap/EV reserved spaces. We have also ascertained that almost all of our neighbors have not been made aware this is going in and we have not met one that supports this commercial facility being built here. There are no sidewalks where they plan to put their driveway to this facility, and with increased traffic from doctors, nurses, visitors, ambulances, funeral cars, etc. this poses a safety concern to families walking, kids riding their bikes, etc. On top of this, one of the members of the board of our HOA did not even know this was going in. We have an HOA in this area and I'm curious if this should have been brought to the HOA first to be approved? Not one person I have met is in support of this project and there are many voices being gathered to vehemently oppose this project being built in our neighborhood. I know my other neighbors Clark Libenson and Matt Jubenville have filed a formal appeal and many neighbors will be present to voice their opposition at the Poway City Council meeting in early April. Leah McBride Senior I.,o£m qlficer NMLS-1020432 AZ, CA, NV, OR, 1 :, '\NA o: (858) 527-7851 c: (858) 888-0258 f~ (855) 836-6775 Leah.McBride@financeofamerica.com San Diego Branch 123 of 137 16456 Bernardo Center Dr. I Suite 200 I San Diego, CA 92128 5 May 17, 2022, Item #10® OW! FINANCE of AMERICA -MORTGAGE -PI1ESIDENT'S CLUB 2021------©2022 Finance of America Mortgage LLC is licensed nationwide I Equal Housing Opportunity I NMLS ID #1071 (www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org) I 1 West Elm Street, First Floor, Conshohocken, PA 19428 I (800) 355-5626 I AZ Mortgage Banker License #0910184 I Licensed by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act I Georgia Residential Mortgage Licensee #15499 I Kansas Licensed Mortgage Company I Licensed by the N.J. Department of Banking and Insurance I Licensed Mortgage Banker --NYS Banking Department I Rhode Island Licensed Lender I Massachusetts Lender/Broker License MC1071. For licensing information go to: www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org. From: Leah McBride Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 5:19 PM To: svaus@poway.org; bleonard@poway.org; dgrosch@poway.org; imullin@poway.org; cfrank@poway.org Cc: Craig Brown <cbrown@financeofamerica.com> Subject: Concerned Homeowner -Green Valley Hello Poway City Council, My name is Leah McBride and my family and I own/live in Green Valley at 13218 Valle Verde Terrace. I work in the mortgage industry and through contacts in the real estate world have been made aware that the home on the corner of Espola/Valle Verde (which has a "SOLD" sign out front listed by Suzanne Kropf) is in escrow to be purchased and turned into an Elizabeth Hospice home (I believe the address is: 16752 Espola Rd). This is a huge concern for me as a resident raising a family in this neighborhood (and likely would be cause for concern for many of our neighbors if /when it comes to fruition). I do not want to walk my 3-year old past an end-of-life hospice home every day in our residential neighborhood while we are walking across the street to play on the playground at Valle Verde Park. Nor do I want to drive past this every single day to and from work/daycare/grocery store/etc. I am aware the home was previously zoned as mixed-use as long ago it was used as a real estate office, however, I'm not sure if anything can be done to ensure it stays a residential home rather than switching back to a commercial business, particularly of that nature as well. Please let me know if this is something that could be addressed/prevented from being introduced into our residential community. Thank you, Leah McBride 8 ~.-dor Loan Qfi.cer NMLS-1020432 AZ, CA; NV, OR, rr_,r) \\7/L o: (858) 527-7851 c: (858) 888-0258 f! (855) 836-6775 Leah.McBride@financeofamerica.com San Diego Branch 124 of 137 16456 Bernardo Center Dr. I Suite 200 I San Diego, CA 92128 6 May 17, 2022, Item #10OW' FINANCE of AMERICA MORTGAGE"-©2021 Finance of America Mortgage LLC is licensed nationwide I Equal Housing Opportunity I NMLS ID #1071 (www nmlsconsumeraccess org) I 300 Welsh Road, Building 5, Horsham, PA 19044 I (800) 355-5626 I AZ Mortgage Banker License #0910184 I Licensed by the Department of Business Oversight under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act I Georgia Residential Mortgage Licensee # 15499 I Kansas Licensed Mortgage Company I Licensed by the N.J. Department of Banking and Insurance I Licensed Mortgage Banker --NYS Banking Department I Rhode Island Licensed Lender I Massachusetts Lender/Broker License MC1071. For licensing information go to: www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org. This message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information and are only for the use of the intended recipient of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email, and delete or destroy this and all copies of this message and all attachments. Any unauthorized disclosure, use, distribution, or reproduction of this message or any attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful. This message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information and are only for the use of the intended recipient of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email, and delete or destroy this and all copies of this message and all attachments. Any unauthorized disclosure, use, distribution, or reproduction of this message or any attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful. 125 of 137 7 May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis From: Sent: To: Subject: Mike Binder <mcbinder@usa.net> Tuesday, April 5, 2022 11 :24 AM Barry Leonard; Steve Vaus Hospice on Valle Verde Some people who received this message don't often get email from mcbinder@usa.net. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL Hi Barry and Steve, Gayle and I just got the GVCA newsletter about the hospice at the bottom of the hill three blocks from our house. We both think this is a very good use for that property. You're hoping you are in favor of this project as well! These residents are mostly old people and will not be throwing wild parties and they don't have cars to create traffic You can count us both in favor of the project and if you need someone to speak at city council we will certainly do that for you. Sincerely, Mike Binder Gayle Olson 17010 Surrey Hills Ct Poway 92064 126 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: E TERNAL EMAIL Dear Barry, sekw@san.rr.com Tuesday, April 5, 2022 6:04 PM Barry Leonard 'Ellen W Guest'; NoSharpHospice@gmail.com Sharp Hospice We have read your response to the concerns of the local population about the Sharp Hospice being located on the corner of Espola Rd and Valle Verde Road. We understand all the points you covered and we do have not issue with a hospice in our neighborhood. We are uncomfortable, nevertheless, with the mode of communication chosen by the City, i.e. informing only the closest neighbors as required by law, when, clearly, the proposed development was, and is, of great interest to a much broader spectrum of the citizenry. We are extremely unhappy about the traffic issues, however, which you did not address in your response. While you say that this is regarded as a residential home, the traffic using it will unarguably be more than that of a normal residential home. There will be staff coming and going, supplies being delivered, and family and friends visiting. The plans that we have viewed have the entrance and exit on Valle Verde Road, which is a narrow road with no sidewalk and people frequently walking there. Indeed, a horse trail crosses Valley Verde Road between the proposed hospice and the neighboring property to the south. The stop lights at Valle Verde Road are very busy twice a day with cars going to Chapparal School and Painted Rock School. Additionally, there will be more traffic on Espola Road when The Farm is opened. We have been involved in an accident at the junction when a car ran the red light, which happens frequently, and our car was totaled. Furthermore, a vehicle turning from Espola into Valle Verde could very quickly encounter another vehicle, possibly a large one, coming slowly out of the hospice, with unfortunate results. We believe that the traffic issues must be reviewed before this project goes any further in its development. Sincerely Dr. Stewart Walker and Mrs. Sheila Walker 127 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: E TERNAL EMAIL Alan Fenstermacher 949 500 8247 Begin forwarded message: Fenstermacher, Alan <AFenstermacher@rutan.com> Wednesday, April 6, 2022 3:13 PM Chris Hazeltine; Bob Manis; Cheryl Hoy Fwd: Poway Council meeting Valle Verde Rd. project.docx From: Debbie Knuth <meknuth4@gmail.com> Date: April 6, 2022 at 2:22:18 PM PDT To: "Fenstermacher, Alan" <AFenstermacher@rutan.com> Subject: Poway Council meeting Hello Mr. Fenstermacher, I spoke last night at the Poway City Council meeting. I wanted you to have a copy of my statement as I have some serious and real safety concerns. Thank you for your time. Debbie Knuth 128 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10April 5, 2022 Hello Mayor Vaus and Council Members, My name is Debbie Knuth. I'm addressing you this evening to talk about the proposed business on the corner of Espola Rd. and Valle Verde Rd. Valle Verde neighborhood is zoned for and home to various animals: goats, chickens, horses, tortoises, Shetland ponies, etc. The neighborhood also has numerous walking/horseback riding/biking and running trails. In fact, the Espola Trail is listed on the City of Poway Trails website. There is also a City of Poway traffic sign on Valle Verde Rd. alerting drivers to use caution as they approach an upcoming horse trail. It shows a rider on a horse with the words "Horse Crossing" underneath. With the placement of this sign it is clear the City of Poway recognized a safety issue for residents and animals on Valle Verde Rd., and that extra caution needs to be taken to keep Poway residents and horses safe. Why then are my city leaders comfortable allowing a business that will increase traffic entering and exiting on Valle Verde near the City of Poway caution sign and near the horse trail? This makes no sense. It is dangerous and is a liability for the City. I believe the City knows this as the drawings of the proposed business approved by the City eliminated the driveway closest to Espola for safety reasons. Mayor Vaus and Council Members, plain and simple, having any driveway near a bridle trail is not safe. I'm asking you to make sure all residents and visitors to my neighborhood are safe. That includes runners, walkers, neighbors and family members pushing baby strollers, or taking their animals for a walk, bike riders or students from Painted Rock Elementary School walking to the park for a special school event held at Valle Verde Park. It is ironic the City cites safety concerns in disallowing a driveway closest to the Espola/Valle Verde corner, but fails to address the safety issues on Valle Verde Rd. created by placing a potentially blind driveway in such close proximity to the horse path. Traffic and safety issues make this the wrong project for this location. PS: The horse crossing sign on Valle Verde Rd. is currently blocked by a tarp surrounding the property. I've requested it be fixed. This hasn't happened. Mayor Vaus I'm asking you to please see that it is fixed. 129 of 137 May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis Subject: FW: Sharp Hospice From: sekw@san.rr.com <sekw@san.rr.com> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 12:29 PM To: Barry Leonard <BLeonard@poway.org> Cc: 'Ellen W Guest' <ellenguest@mac.com>; nosharphospice@gmail.com Subject: RE: Sharp Hospice E TERNAL EMAIL Mr. Leonard, Thank you for your reply. We understand that there are state regulations relating to this development. However, we find it hard to believe that a development can be considered a "single family home" when it has 23 parking spaces. The reason for 23 parking spaces, as you have stated, is to keep parked cars out off Valle Verde Road. This in itself admits that there is going to be a large number of vehicles coming and going from this property 365 days a year. Obviously, in residential neighborhoods residents will have occasional events for family and friends that mean additional parking on the streets but not every day of the year, as will be the case with a medical facility. We are concerned that the City of Poway does not appear to be making an effort to understand and communicate with the community and wonder what hidden agenda is underlying this development. Certainly, you have not responded to our comment on paucity of communication from the City to the citizenry. We would draw your attention to a letter in the Poway Chieftain (7 April 2022, page A14) from Michele T. Nelson. We do not know her, but her concerns reflect ours and many people in our neighborhood. These are the people whom you represent. Sincerely, Dr. Stewart and Mrs. Sheila Walker From: Barry Leonard <BLeonard@poway.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:10 PM To: sekw@san.rr.com Cc: Ellen W Guest <ellenguest@mac.com>; nosharphospice@gmail.com Subject: Re: Sharp Hospice Mr and Mrs Walker, I appreciate your concerns about the potential for an increase in traffic at this location but In frankly don't know what the City can do about it. Our authority is limited when dealing with a residential building permit. A formal traffic study or an environmental study is not required. These things are required for commercial developments. 130 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10The City has been insistent that the only driveway is located away from Espola and this change has been made to the plans. This will be used for entry and exit. The City has also insisted on the large area for parking as there can be no cars parked along Valle Verde. The appeal of the building permit has been rescheduled for May 17 at the City Council Chambers. I would encourage you to attend either in person or online to better understand the situation and the laws that apply to projects such as this. Barry Leonard Councilmember 858-442-6820 cell On Apr 5, 2022, at 6:04 PM, sekw@san.rr.com wrote: EXTER AL EMAIL Dear Barry, We have read your response to the concerns of the local population about the Sharp Hospice being located on the corner of Espola Rd and Valle Verde Road. We understand all the points you covered and we do have not issue with a hospice in our neighborhood. We are uncomfortable, nevertheless, with the mode of communication chosen by the City, i.e. informing only the closest neighbors as required by law, when, clearly, the proposed development was, and is, of great interest to a much broader spectrum of the citizenry. We are extremely unhappy about the traffic issues, however, which you did not address in your response. While you say that this is regarded as a residential home, the traffic using it will unarguably be more than that of a normal residential home. There will be staff coming and going, supplies being delivered, and family and friends visiting. The plans that we have viewed have the entrance and exit on Valle Verde Road, which is a narrow road with no sidewalk and people frequently walking there. Indeed, a horse trail crosses Valley Verde Road between the proposed hospice and the neighboring property to the south. The stop lights at Valle Verde Road are very busy twice a day with cars going to Chapparal School and Painted Rock School. Additionally, there will be more traffic on Espola Road when The Farm is opened. We have been involved in an accident at the junction when a car ran the red light, which happens frequently, and our car was totaled. Furthermore, a vehicle turning from Espola into Valle Verde could very quickly encounter another vehicle, possibly a large one, coming slowly out of the hospice, with unfortunate results. We believe that the traffic issues must be reviewed before this project goes any further in its development. Sincerely Dr. Stewart Walker and Mrs. Sheila Walker 131 of 137 2 May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis From: Wendy Kaserman Sent: To: Monday, May 2, 2022 10:41 AM Bob Manis; Fenstermacher, Alan Subject: FW: Proposed Sharp Hospice -16752 Espola Road, Poway, CA 9f2064 From: Cheryl Hoy <CHoy@poway.org> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 10:40 AM To: Chris Hazeltine <CHazeltine@poway.org>; Wendy Kaserman <WKaserman@poway.org> Subject: FW: Proposed Sharp Hospice -16752 Espola Road, Poway, CA 9f2064 Sending additional correspondence to the Mayor's inbox. From: Darwin Wisdom <wisdom@bakerstreetgroup.com> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 10:05 AM To: Steve Vaus <SVaus@poway.org> Subject: RE: Proposed Sharp Hospice -16752 Espola Road, Poway, CA 9f2064 You don't often get email from wisdom@bakerstreetgroup.com. Learn why this is important E TERNAL EMAIL Steve: Thank you for your prompt response. I'll be interested in "all the facts" as well. I'm particularly interested in what and how Sharp submitted its various documents to the city and what representations were made therein. Darwin Darwin Wisdom Baker Street Group, Inc. 16476 Bernardo Center Drive Suite 221 San Diego, CA 92128 Office: (858) 673-5400 www.bakerstreetgroup.com From: Steve Vaus <SVaus@poway.org> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 9:49 AM To: Darwin Wisdom <wisdom@bakerstreetgroup.com> Subject: Re: Proposed Sharp Hospice -16752 Espola Road, Poway, CA 9f2064 Mr. Wisdom, Thanks for sharing you thoughts regarding the proposed hospice. I am looking forward to this matter coming to the Council. 132 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #10I'm not a fan of Sacramento big-footing our local decisions and I have been less than impressed with how Sharp has approached this project. However I must withhold judgment until I hear all the facts. sv From: Darwin Wisdom <wisdom@bakerstreetgroup.com> Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 8:27 AM To: Chris Hazeltine <CHazeltine@poway.org> Cc: Bob Manis <BManis@poway.org>; Steve Vaus <SVaus@poway.org>; Barry Leonard <BLeonard@poway.org> Subject: Proposed Sharp Hospice -16752 Espola Road, Poway, CA 9f2064 Some people who received this message don't often get email from wisdom@bakerstreetgroup.com. Learn why this is important EXTER Al EMAIL Dear Mr. Hazeltine, et al: I have been following, with dismay, Sharp's proposal to build a hospice facility at the corner of Espola Road and Valle Verde Road. I fully support the appeal letter dated 2/25/22 signed by Matt Jubenville and Clark Libenson, and I will support any and all future formal and informal appeals, and/or any other actions, now filed or to be filed, which appeal, directly or indirectly, the approval at any step by the Poway City Council of this facility. I live in Silver Saddle Estates, part of the larger Green Valley area in North Poway. I work in the Rancho Benardo area but go home for lunch each day. Around the noon hour I take a daily walk, every day of the year that I am in the area, which is about 340 days a year. I walk in the neighborhood and go by the area of Espola Road and Valle Verde Road every day. I am aware of the use of that area by traffic on Espola Road and traffic on Valle Verde Road. Further, I am aware of the friends and neighbors who also walk by that area, many on a daily basis. Others use the horse trail that abuts the property for hiking and horse riding. These activities are in conformity with the ambience of the area and the city. Valle Verde Road is one of only two entrance points to Silver Saddle Ranch, where well over 200 families dwell, many with children of all ages. At present there is no commercial activity within miles of this location. There is a public park across Espola Road that is used by residents of all ages on a daily basis, most often by children. Simply put, the placement of a hospice facility at the corner of Espola Road and Valle Verde Road is not an appropriate use of the property. Hospice facilities are necessary, and I am not opposed to these facilities in general. Any of us may have the need for such a facility at some time in our lives. I would support the City of Poway in any effort to approve of such a facility if it were to be placed in an appropriate location. But Espola Road and Valley Verde Road is not an appropriate location. I have heard that the City of Poway can do nothing about the placement of the hospice at that location. That assertion seems dubious to me and requires some proof. Even if the state can push a city around, a hospice at that location is not appropriate. Even if all the permits submitted by Sharp and/or its representatives follow the letter of all city requirements, a hospice at that location is not appropriate. Even if Sharp has been planning this facility for a long time and its intentions are pure, a hospice at that location is not appropriate. 133 of 137 2 May 17, 2022, Item #10Even if the project is already in the beginning stages of development, a hospice at that location is not appropriate. The location of Espola Road and Valle Verde Road is an integral location to residents (voters) of North Poway. An inappropriate business at that location, however it is cloaked, will not set well with residents, including me. Approvals of such inappropriate projects in an areas such as Espola Road and Valle Verde Road will backfire on city officials who engage in any part of an approval process. I urge each of you to reconsider this project and stop it. I urge you to enter into discussions with Sharp which can result in the resale of the property in question to a developer which will build a residence, or residences, that will be appropriate for the location. Such discussions should allow Sharp to save face and allow such a facility to be placed elsewhere, in an appropriate location. I doubt that Sharp will wish to have its brand tarnished by continuing this effort in direct opposition to the project, which is building by the day. I will continue my efforts to stop this project in any way that I can. Feel free to respond to this email message you wish. I invite feedback. Darwin Wisdom 13310 Bronco Way Poway, CA 92064 134 of 137 3 May 17, 2022, Item #10Bob Manis From: Chris Hazeltine Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:44 PM To: Subject: Bob Manis; Wendy Kaserman; Alan Fenstermacher FW: Petition Regarding Proposed Hospice Facility FYI. .. From: Barry Leonard <barryleonard@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:30 PM To: Chris Hazeltine <CHazeltine@poway.org> Cc: Barry Leonard <BLeonard@poway.org> Subject: FW: Petition Regarding Proposed Hospice Facility EXTERNAL EMAIL Chris, FYI Barry From: Barry Leonard Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:03 PM To: John M. Desantis Subject: Re: Petition Regarding Proposed Hospice Facility Hi John Allowing access from Espola will be much less safe due to speed and the traffic light on the corner. Anyone trying to turn left will be at risk to themselves and others. I believe that the side entrance will provide a more controlled and safe egress for people using the facility as well as drivers on Espola. The traffic light will control access. It's not expected that this facility will create traffic jams. The plans show 6 one bedroom suites. I hope this helps to educate the residents. Best Barry BL, Sent from my iPhone On May 3, 2022, at 3:55 PM, John M. Desantis <jdesantis@fastmail.com> wrote: Hi Barry: You may have already seen this, but I wanted to be sure you're aware of this petition effort. As you and I have discussed, most of the complaints/demands here are simply uninformed or unrealistic. However, I wonder if you have comments for us (GVCA) on two of the issues raised: 135 of 137 1 May 17, 2022, Item #101. The resident points out that ingress/egress is on Valle Verde, rather than Espola. That seems to be a valid concern -is there any reason the City could not insist on access directly from Espola? 2. One of the commentators believes the facility will accommodate 12 patients (2 per bedroom), which is contrary to what we have believed (we heard "6 beds" and assumed that means only 6 residents/patients). Do you know which is accurate? Thanks Barry, John John Desantis M: (858) 208-8546 jdesantis@fastmail.com -----Original message-----From: GVCA <president@gvca.info> To: "jdesantis@fastmail.com" <jdesantis@fastmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Petition Regarding Proposed Hospice Facility Date: Tuesday, May 03, 2022 3:48 PM ----------Original Message ----------From: No Hospice <nosharphospice@gmail.com> To: undisclosed-recipients@missing-domain, missing-domain Date: 04/22/2022 4:42 PM Subject: Petition Regarding Proposed Hospice Facility Greetings Green Valley Neighbors, We've posted a petition regarding the hospice facility that Sharp Healthcare is proposing to build at the corner of Espola and Valle Verde Road. As you may be aware, the City has already approved a minor development review application for the facility, but did so without addressing many important questions and without sufficient notice to our community. Currently, there is a City Council meeting on May 17, 2022 at 7 p.m. where issues and concerns related to the proposed facility will be discussed. Prior to the meeting, we would like interested Green Valley residents to sign the petition, which asks the City to revoke its approval of the MORA unless and until Sharp and the City appropriately address various issues, including whether the facility can be operated in a manner that is safe for, and complementary to, our residential neighborhood. The petition is available here: https://chng.it/SVt2BLYVd5 Please review it and add your signature. Also, please feel free to forward the link to the petition around to others who you think would be interested in supporting. Thank you for your ongoing interest, 136 of 137 2 May 17, 2022, Item #10NSH 137 of 137 3