Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies appeal for adult day‑care at 910 N. Mountain Ave., upholding Planning Commission
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing with operator testimony and council questioning about site compatibility, staffing, medical services and long‑term land‑use goals for Mountain Avenue, the City Council voted 4–1 to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of a conditional use permit for an adult day‑care at the Mountain Avenue shopping center.
The City Council on Aug. 20 denied an appeal seeking approval of a conditional use permit for a proposed adult day‑care at 910 North Mountain Avenue, upholding the Planning Commission's earlier denial by a 4–1 vote.
Executive Director Scott Murphy summarized staff findings that while adult day care is a conditionally permitted use, the particular pad‑site location along a major arterial raised concerns about safety, noise, and the ability to create an "active frontage" consistent with the neighborhood commercial zoning vision. Murphy noted the planning commission's recommendation to uphold the zoning administrator's denial and flagged differences between this pad‑site and other adult day‑care approvals where the use occupied an in‑line tenant position less exposed to arterial traffic.
The appellant's counsel, Richard McDonald, and representatives from the applicant/operator (Chenille/ChinoCare) disputed the staff conclusion. They said the building is vacant and dilapidated, could be rehabilitated to provide needed senior services, and that the operator has experience and regulatory approvals to serve up to 240 daily participants with medical and therapy services. Multiple community members, program staff and participants testified in favor of relocating services to Ontario and described the program's benefits.
Council members asked detailed questions about medical staffing, bathroom and infection‑control upgrades, transportation and anticipated trip generation. Staff and council members also discussed long‑term land‑use goals for Mountain Avenue, existing conditions at the plaza and the difficulty of providing active commercial frontages on a pad tenant site.
Mayor (S6) and several council members stressed the community need for adult day‑care services but said they were unconvinced this site met the city's land‑use and safety standards; Mayor moved to grant the appeal but the motion failed for lack of a second. A subsequent motion to uphold the Planning Commission's denial passed 4–1. The council invited the applicant to work with staff to identify alternative locations or revisions to address the planning concerns.
Provenance: Staff presentation and planning commission recommendation (SEG 1365–1452); public comments and operator testimony (SEG 1556–1898, SEG 1699–1885); council deliberation and final vote (SEG 1932–2830).
