Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - PH-3 - Appeal the Denial of Special Use Permit - 6/20/2017CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 20, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: PH -3 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT SL -15-0014 TO OPERATE A SOBER LIVING HOME SERVING SIX RESIDENTS AT 2152 RALEIGH AVENUE DATE: JUNE 9, 2017 FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: SHERI VANDER DUSSEN, INTERIM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION SHERI VANDER DUSSEN (714)754-5617 CONTACT: Sheri.vanderdussen@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Special Use Permit SL -15-0014; or Reverse the Planning Commission's denial of Special Use Permit SL -15-0014; or Remand this application back to the Planning Commission for further review. APPLICANT: The applicant and property owner is Gregg Ohlhaver of Keystone Sober Living. ANALYSIS: This Special Use Permit (SUP) would allow the continued operation of a group home with six or fewer residents and one live-in house manager. The Director of Economic and Development Services denied the SUP and the applicant appealed that decision to the Planning Commission. On November 28, 2016, the Planning Commission voted to uphold the denial of the application. The applicant timely filed an appeal of that decision to the City Council. Background Under state law, a drug or alcohol treatment facility serving six or fewer residents that is licensed by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) is considered to be a residential use of property. Under Health & Safety Code section 11834.23, the City generally cannot apply standards to a licensed facility that differ from those standards applicable to a single family dwelling. However, these prohibitions do not apply to facilities that are not state licensed. The City Council adopted Ordinance 14-13 on October 21, 2014 revising the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) to establish conditions for granting a SUP to group homes with six or fewer residents in an R1 zone. The ordinance became effective on November 20, 2014. A sober living home is a type of group home for persons who are recovering from drug and/or alcohol addiction. Persons recovering from addiction who are currently not abusing drugs and/or alcohol are considered disabled under state and federal law. Group homes serving disabled persons are not considered to be boardinghouses. Rather, these facilities offer disabled persons the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods in compliance with state and federal laws. Upon adopting the ordinance, the City Council found that without some regulation there is no way of ensuring that the individuals entering into a group home are disabled individuals and entitled to reasonable accommodation under local and state law, or that a group home is operated professionally to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. In enacting the ordinance, the City Council made the finding that housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single-family home or congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide the disabled with an opportunity to "live in normal residential surroundings," but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with types of institutional/campus/ dormitory living. Further, the City Council found that a 650 -foot distance requirement between sober living facilities provides a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of sober living homes within the City and still results in preferential treatment for sober living homes in that non -disabled individuals in a similar living situation (i.e., in boardinghouse style residences) cannot reside in the R1 zone. Specifically, CMMC section 13-311(b)(6) provides in relevant part: A special use permit for a sober living home shall also be denied, and if already issued, any transfer shall be denied or revoked, upon a hearing by the director under any of the following additional circumstances: iii. The sober living home, as measured by the closest property lines, is located within six hundred fifty (650) feet of any other sober living home or state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. If a state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility moves within six hundred fifty (650) feet of an existing sober living home this shall not cause the revocation of the sober living home's permit or be grounds for denying a transfer of such permit. Project Description The subject property is a two-bedroom, two bath single family home located in the west side of Costa Mesa and surrounded by other homes with an R1 (single family residential) zoning designation. The applicant describes the facility as a sober living home for men. According to the City's records, this sober living facility was existing when Ordinance 14-13 became effective. The application was submitted in March of 2015 but was not deemed complete until several months later. There have been no complaints to Code Enforcement regarding this property. There have been two calls for police service in the past five years. Both involved medical aid. There are two existing licensed alcoholism and drug abuse recovery treatment facilities with six or fewer residents within 650 feet of the subject property. Those facilities are located at 687 Governor St. (482 feet from the subject property) and 679 Governor St. (604 feet from the subject property). The facilities located on Governor Street are operated by Safe Harbor Recovery and provide residential detoxification services to female populations. The licenses for the facilities on Governor Street were issued on August 1, 2015. On May 2, the City Council adopted a code amendment changing the process to approve or deny SUP applications. This amendment became effective on June 2. However, this application was processed under the former regulations. Under those regulations, The Director of Economic and Development Services conducted a Director's Hearing for the subject application on September 1, 2016. During the hearing, Mr. Ohlhaver stated that he has been operating at the current location for 13 years and has strong ties to the neighborhood. After considering the facts pertaining to the application, the Director sent a letter to the applicant denying the SUP on September 7, 2016 due to the proximity of the two state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities on Governor. On September 13, 2016, the applicant filed an appeal to the Planning Commission pursuant to CMMC Sections 2-305(2) and 2-307. In the letter requesting the appeal, Mr. Ohlhaver indicated that the subject facility is an "alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility" pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11834.02(a) and should not be treated differently than a single family residence. He argues that his right to continue operating at the current location is protected by the California Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, the subject facility is not licensed as an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. Because the facility does not have a DHCS license, it falls under the definition of a sober living home and is subject to the City's regulations. Mr. Ohlhaver also included a statement in his appeal letter that the facility does not pose a new threat to the neighborhood because it has been located at that site for over a decade and has operated without complaints or issues in the community. He further poses the question as to why his facility should relocate even though it has been there longer than the state licensed facilities. At its meeting of November 28, 2016, the Planning Commission held a hearing to consider the applicant's appeal of the director's decision. The Commission voted unanimously to uphold the denial of the SUP. The Commission determined that the state licensed facilities located at 687 Governor Street and 679 Governor Street have precedence over Mr. Ohlhaver's facility because they are already considered permitted uses by definition. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The request is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15268 (ministerial projects), 15270 (disapproved projects) and 15301 (existing facilities). ALTERNATIVES As with any appeal of a decision made by the Planning Commission, the City Council has several alternatives. The City Council may uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny this application. The City Council may also reverse the Commission's decision. Finally, the City Council may remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review. A draft resolution upholding the Commission's decision has been attached to this report as that is the City's typical practice, but this does not obligate the Council to uphold the Commission's decision. CONCLUSION The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's denial of the Special Use Permit application to operate a sober living home with six or fewer residents. The Commission's action upheld a decision of the Director of Development Services to deny the application. The facility complies with the criteria adopted by the City for sober living homes, except for the required separation between similar facilities. SHERI VANDER DUSSEN, AICP JAY TREVINO, AICP Interim Assistant Director Development Services Department Consultant ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Denying Special Use Permit SL -15-0014 2. Map Depicting Separation Standard 3. Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision 4. Staff Report prepared for Planning Commission Meeting of November 28, 2016, with attachments 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-64 6. Excerpt of the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 28, 2016 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT SL - 15 -0014 TO OPERATE A SOBER LIVING HOME SERVING SIX OR FEWER OCCUPANTS AT 2152 RALEIGH AVENUE WHEREAS, Gregg Ohlhaver of Keystone Sober Living (the "Applicant") operates a sober living home serving six males at 2152 Raleigh Avenue, Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing disabled persons as defined by state and federal law the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions; therefore, providing greater access to residential zones to group homes, including sober living homes, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has adopted standards for the operation of group homes, residential care facilities and state licensed drug and alcohol facilities that are intended to provide opportunities for disabled persons, as defined by state and federal law to enjoy comfortable accommodations in a residential setting; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has found that congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide disabled persons as defined in state and federal law with an opportunity to "live in normal residential surroundings," but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the FEHA and FHAA were designed to provide relief from for the disabled, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a life in a normal residential surrounding; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that a separation requirement for such facilities will still allow for a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of sober living homes within the City and still result in preferential treatment for sober living homes in that non -disabled individuals in a similar living situation (i.e., in boardinghouse - style residences) have fewer housing opportunities than disabled persons; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed special use permit (SUP) SL -15-0014 with the City's Development Services Department to operate a group home with six or fewer residents in an R1 zone; and WHEREAS, there are two exisiting state licensed drug and alcohol facilities with six or fewer residents located at 687 Governor Street, which is within apprxoimately 482 feet of the subject facility, and 679 Governor Street, which is within approximately 604 feet of the subject facility; and WHEREAS, the applicant received notice of a scheduled Director's Hearing more than seven (7) business days prior and received a written report prepared by staff recommending denial of the special use permit based upon the criterion established in Section 13-311(b)(6)(iii) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a Director's Hearing was conducted on September 1, 2016 providing the applicant with the opportunity to present any reasons and/or evidence why the special permit should not be denied; and WHEREAS, the Director provided a written notice to the applicant denying the special use permit pursuant to Section 13-311(b)(6)(iii) and included a statement of the right to appeal to the Planning Commission and the time -limits therefore; and WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the denial of the application in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the appeal of the Director's determination at a regularly scheduled meeting open to the public, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or in opposition to the Application and determined by a 5-0 vote to uphold the Director's denial of the SUP; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2016, the applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to deny this application in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2017, the City Council considered the appeal during a duly noticed public hearing, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or or in opposition to the application. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa finds and resolves as follows: The facility located at 2152 Raleigh Avenue (the "Property") is a sober living home. Section 13-311 of the CMMC sets forth the required findings to be used in the determination to approve or deny a SUP. There are state licensed alcoholism and drug treatment facilities located at 679 and 687 Governor Street, both within 650 feet of the Property. Pursuant to CMMC section 13-311(b)(6) in effect at the time action was taken on the application, the SUP was denied upon a hearing of the Director. BE IT RESOLVED, therefore, that based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in this resolution, the City Council hereby UPHOLDS THE PLANNING L COMMISISON'S DENIAL of Special Use Permit SL -15-0014 to operate a sober living home at 653 Joann Street. The City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this resolution and shall forward a copy to the applicant, and any person requesting the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of June, 2017. ATTEST: Katrina Foley, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brenda Green, City Clerk Thomas Duarte, City Attorney — 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, Brenda Green, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 17 -XX and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of June, 2017, by the following votes: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Brenda Green, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 2 Applicant Address: Phone: ATTACHMENT 3 CITY Cl f-ERK City of Costa Mesa 16 DEC -5 PM 4: 30 CITY C ; ST1, MESA ® Appeal of Commission Decision - $1,220.00 �Y__❑ Appeal of Zoning AdministratorrStaf` Decision - $690.00 J A'i'�T tit P1 D Iti FUlt Ai T I V L);-Fq `v APPr-1. APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW REQUEST FOR: Q APPEAL ❑ REVIEW" Decision of which appeal or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision, if known ) Decision by: t Ci v� vt 4 ri of �f3ty1 i Ski cr Reasons for requesting appeal or review: >eta.. rp t fit, e -J Date. L _`2 _ Signature: �.,. , { ✓� ° f�r� . 'If you are serving as the agent for another person, please Identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization. "Review may be requested only by Commissions, Commission Members, City Council, or City Council Members. For office use only — do not write below this line REV 9-1.15 SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCILICOMMISSION MEETING OF: Keystone Sober Living 2152 Raleigh Ave Costa Mesa, CA Katie Angel Management Analyst Community Improvement City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA RE: Letter of Appeal Dear Ms. Angel: 16 DEC -5 PH 4: 30 t.,T i ;;r � 5TA MESA ey �- The California Building Code provides, in Chapter 3, definitions and classifications which include R-3.0 designations. Section R-3 contains a list of building uses which would fall under that section. That list SPECIFICALLY includes "Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery homes (ambulatory only)." This is important because California's constitution and laws state that Alcoholism and Drug Abuse recovery homes are not to be treated any differently than single family residences within the state. Furthermore, the California Health and Safety Code speaks to this issue strongly. As used in this chapter, "alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility" or "facility" means any premises, place, or building that provides 24-hour residential nonmedical services to adults who are recovering from problems related to alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug misuse or abuse, and who need alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug recovery treatment or detoxification services. California Health and Safety Code § 11834.02(a). In the instant case, the owner and operator has been providing care which meets this definition for more than a decade within Costa Mesa, with a business license issued by Costa Mesa. However, the owner has not yet received licensing from the State of California under 1 l 834 because, until now, Costa Mesa has not seen fit to attack his right to operate at the location. Costa Mesa's regulatory changes state that 'group homes' are separate and distinct from alcoholism or drug abuse recovery treatment facilities. The 650 foot separation requirement applies to the special use permit requirements for group homes. As this facility has been operating NOT as a group home, but rather as a 11834 entity simply without the license, and will soon have the license as well, it seems fair that more than a decade of faultless participation in the community should be allowed to continue. Furthermore, those recovering from alcoholism and drug abuse are considered under Federal law to be disabled for the purposes of rights against discrimination. 28 C.F.R. § 35.104(1)(ii). Therefore restrictions, requirements and actions by local government actors which would result in discrimination either on its face or through disparate impact. Requiring licensed alcoholism and drug abuse treatment homes to conform to additional requirements, where no private residences are required to do such, and where the treatment center can at LEAST as clearly fall under R-3 classification, could be considered a discriminatory enforcement policy which violates the Fair Housing Act under Federal law as well as California law through California Government Code Section 12955. The recent lawsuits, against Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, on behalf of this type of drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility, have shown that this area of law is murky at best. While a withdrawn appeal against Costa Mesa can be seen as a victory - that does not mean the California regulations should still be flaunted when it comes to asymmetrical enforcement against certain individual treatment facilities. Moreover, the cause of action against the 650 foot rule was thrown out, initially, based upon ripeness. "To the extent that this allegation constitutes an as -applied challenge to the Ordinance, it is unripe because Plaintiffs have not yet sought an accommodation through the Ordinance's procedures." In the instant case, the -claimed reason for the disapproval of this center was because it violated the 650 feet ordinance, and a claim against such a rule would indeed be ripe at this point. The owner is currently seeking permit from the city, and in the event this appeal is rejected, shall be seeking reasonable accommodation as well. The owner in this case is simply seeking recognition of his long standing, unchanged business which obviously cannot be a new threat to the character of the neighborhood because it has been a part of that neighborhood for so many years. Moreover, the city has presented no evidence that any complaints have been filed against this home or any other reason why the residents of this home are, themselves, a threat to the community. Even presuming that the 650 foot ordinance would have withstood challenge past the trial court level, in this case enforcement is being handled capriciously. This facility has been present at the current location for more than a decade, so to say that this facility must move, rather than whatever more recent facility which is within 650 feet, has no reasonable basis. In summary, this residential treatment center has been licensed openly and for more than a decade operating as an alcoholism and drug abuse recovery center which falls under the protections of California's Constitution as well as Federal ADA and Constitutional protections. 12-- This is reinforced and supported by the California Health and Safety Code explicitly and the Federal Fair Housing Act by reference to such treatment centers. Moreover, Federal regulations and case law shows that such recovering adults are protected from discriminatory actions by being included in the definition of disabled persons, and any treatment specifically aimed at making operation of centers such as this more difficult runs the risk or being found a discriminatory action, an issue which has not been settled in court at this time despite the trial court level dismissal of the Solid Landings Behavioral Health, Inc. case. The owner requests an appeal hearing on this matter and further or in the alternative requests to be informed of findings as to: why this facility must relocate under the 650 foot rule rather than another, newer facility; why the new ordinance is being applied to a facility which has no history of complaints or issues in the community; and why the owner cannot be granted leave to operate pursuant to 11834 under California law as it has been with the tacit or explicit permission of Costa Mesa through its granting of a business license for so many consecutive years leading to the current matter. Respectfully, Gregg Ohlhaver Keystone Sober Living i'3 ATTACHMENT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: SAI SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT SL -15-0014 TO OPERATE A SOBER LIVING HOME AT 2152 RALEIGH AVENUE DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2016 FROM: COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: SHERI VANDER DUSSEN, INTERIM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR/COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DIVISION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KATIE ANGEL, MANAGEMENT ANALYST (714) 754-5618 katie.angel@costamesaca.gov PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant applied for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to operate a group home with six or fewer all-male residents at 2152 Raleigh Avenue on April 2, 2015. The Director of Economic and Development Services/Deputy CEO denied the SUP and the applicant has appealed that decision to the Planning Commission. APPLICANT The applicant is Gregg Ohlhaver of Keystone Sober Living ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The request is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15268 (ministerial projects), 15270 (disapproved projects) and 15301 (existing facilities). RECOMMENDATION Uphold the Director's denial of the SUP by adoption of a resolution BACKGROUND Under state law, a licensed drug or alcohol treatment facility serving six or fewer residents is considered to be a residential use of property. Under State law, the City generally cannot apply standards to such a licensed facility that differ from those standards applicable to a single family dwelling. However, these prohibitions do not apply to facilities that are not state licensed. The City Council adopted Ordinance 14-13 on October 21, 2014 which established conditions for granting a SUP to group homes with six or fewer residents in an R1 zone. The ordinance became effective on November 20, 2014. A sober living home is a type of group home for persons who are recovering from drug and/or alcohol addiction. Persons recovering from addiction who are currently not abusing drugs and/or alcohol are considered disabled under state and federal law. Group homes serving disabled persons are not considered to be boardinghouses. Rather, these facilities offer disabled persons the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods in compliance with state and federal laws. Upon adopting the ordinance, the City Council found that without some regulation there is no way of ensuring that the individuals entering into a group home are disabled individuals and entitled to reasonable accommodation under local and state law or that a group home is operated professionally to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. A purpose of the land use regulations provided in the ordinance is to mitigate the secondary impacts from an over concentration of both group homes in a neighborhood. SUPs are granted to a group home operator as a ministerial matter if the facility is in compliance with the operating requirements found in CMMC sections 13-311 (a)(1) through (a)(9). In enacting the ordinance, the City Council made the finding that housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single-family home or congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide the disabled with an opportunity to "live in normal residential surroundings," but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with types of institutional/campus/ dormitory living. Further, the City Council found that a 650 -foot distance requirement between sober living facilities provides a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of sober living homes within the City and still results in preferential treatment for sober living homes in that non - disabled individuals in a similar living situation (i.e., in boardinghouse style residences) cannot reside in the R1 zone. Specifically, CMMC section 13-311(b)(6) provides in relevant part: A special use permit for a sober living home shall also be denied, and if already issued, any transfer shall be denied or revoked, upon a hearing by the director under any of the following additional circumstances: iii. The sober living home, as measured by the closest property lines, is located within six hundred fifty (650) feet of any other sober living home or state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. If a state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility moves within six hundred fifty (650) feet of an existing sober living home this shall not cause the revocation of the sober living home's permit or be grounds for denying a transfer of such permit. Under section 13-312(b), "Group homes that are in existence upon the effective date of this chapter shall have one (1) year from the effective date of this chapter to comply with its provisions". The operator submitted the SUP application for 2152 Raleigh on March 31, 2015. During the first year of the implementation of the ordinance, approximately 60 group home applications were received. The majority of those applications were missing items required by the CMMC. Staff worked with the all of the applicants to request complete information. Upon the one-year compliance deadline, staff determined which locations had fully complied with the application requirements. Staff began to prepare for the issuance of permits to locations which complied with the City's adopted criteria and to prepare for Director's Hearings to consider the facts surrounding facilities that did not meet the approval criteria established in the ordinance. The Director's Hearings provide the applicant with an opportunity to present any reasons and/or evidence why the SUP should not be denied. Following the conclusion of the hearing, the Director provides a written notice to the applicant or permittee setting forth the decision within ten (10) days. The decision of the Director is appealable to the Planning Commission. The implementation of ordinance 14-13 (including processing applications) was delayed by the issuance of an injunction by the 9t" Circuit Court in Solid Landings v. City of Costa Mesa on December 9, 2015. Once the injunction was dissolved in May, 2016 staff reviewed the current status of all the SUP applications for group homes on file. Group homes that met the requirements of the ordinance were issued SUPs and Director's Hearings commenced for the facilities that did not comply with the City's standards. The subject property is a five -bedroom single family home located in the west side of Costa Mesa and surrounded by other homes with an R1 (single family residential) zoning designation. The applicant describes the facility as a sober living home for men. According to the City's records, this sober living facility was existing when Ordinance 14- 13 became effective. There are two existing licensed alcoholism and drug abuse recovery treatment facilities with six or fewer residents within 650 feet of the subject property. Those facilities are located at 687 Governor St. (482 feet from the property line) and 679 Governor St. (604 feet from the property line). The facilities located on Governor Street are operated by Safe Harbor Recovery and provide residential detoxification services to female populations. The facilities at 687 and 679 Governor Street applied for a DHCS license on December 4, 2014; these licenses were issued on August 1, 2015. In addition, the facility at 687 Governor Street applied for a SUP on January 1, 2015. Safe Harbor subsequently withdrew its SUP application after receiving the state license. As noted above, state licensed facilities with six or fewer residents are considered residential uses pursuant to State law and are exempt from land use restrictions that differ from those restrictions applicable to single family dwellings. 11-0— The Director of Economic and Development Services/Deputy CEO conducted a Director's Hearing for the subject application on September 1, 2016. During the hearing, Mr. Ohlhaver stated that he has been operating at the current location for 13 years and has strong ties to the neighborhood. After considering the facts pertaining to the application, the Director sent a letter to the applicant denying the SUP on September 7, 2016 due to the two state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities located within 650 feet of the subject property. On September 13, 2016, the applicant filed an appeal to the Planning Commission pursuant to CMMC Sections 2-305(2) and 2-307. ANALYSIS In the letter requesting the appeal, Mr. Ohlhaver contends that the subject facility is an "alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility" pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11834.02(a) and should not be treated differently than a single family residence. He argues that his right to continue operating at the current location is protected by the California Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Prior to the Director's Hearing and preparation of this agenda report, staff reviewed the website of the state entity that issues licenses to facilities pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 11834.02(a). The operation at 2152 Raleigh Avenue was not listed as a licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. Because the facility does not have a DHCS license, it falls under the definition of a sober living home and is subject to the City's regulations. Mr. Ohlhaver also includes a statement in his appeal letter that the facility does not pose a new threat to the neighborhood because it has been located at that site for over a decade and has operated without complaints or issues in the community. He further poses the question as to why his facility should relocate even though it has been there longer than the state licensed facilities. In making the determination to deny Mr. Ohlhaver's application, the Director determined that the state licensed facilities located at 687 Governor Street and 679 Governor Street have precedence over Mr. Ohlhaver's facility because they are already considered permitted uses by definition. ALTERNATIVES A draft resolution denying the appeal has been provided. Should the Planning Commission believe that findings exist to approve the special use permit application, this hearing should be continued to allow staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for consideration at a subsequent meeting. CONCLUSION The applicant has appealed the denial of the Special Use Permit application to operate a sober living home with six or fewer residents. There are two state licensed facilities within 650 feet of the subject property. Upholding the Director's decision and denying this ��— SUP will reduce the over concentration of sober living homes in the immediate area, help to preserve the character of the neighborhood and provide the disabled with greater access to live in a typical residential environment. SHERI VANDER DUSSEN, AICP Interim Assistant Director Community Improvement Division (ZiL JA EVINO, AICP Economic Development and Development Services Director/ Consultant Attachments: 1. Vicinity and Zoning Maps 2. Letter from Director dated September 7, 2016 denying Special Use Permit Application 3. Letter from Applicant dated September 13, 2016 appealing the Director's denial 4. Draft Resolution Upholding the Denial of Special Use Permit No. SL -15-0014 Distribution: Director of Economic Development & Development Services/ Consultant Interim Assistant Development Services Director, Planning Division Interim Assistant Development Services Director, Community Improvement Division Assistant City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Director Fire Protection Analyst Applicant: Gregg Ohlhaver, 3112 McKinley Way, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ATTACHMENT O O O• a3 D� L t 0 -. d m fA m WAl TACE AVE N r V j �• ..� N r iV N w N rY N i !V i hf N yip RALEIGH AVE j.+ ~�; j RALEIGH AYE o j J � Y' rN►- . .Ard r! �4 .t�i i -i N � C — � •a � N � � t r . s •r. �� � « VIA. - _'qy o� ��w t m »' a � a 2 µ^ rA m K v �'-• N N 41 !J D! r V V r fh CO �' oc AD s,•+ '�{ r C7't O Z O T o g 3� o POMc?Nj( POMONAAV W� 3 m N fV - N � N ..► o Z o w Nr _� D Z Sid 1y1r�1 ri �. a N lkarm PALMI LA CT z��a Z tl A2;6dbS i� z ❑❑ (-D 0 0 �• y y a d co m ow to m g d m m m m ti a, y " V c A N E2 NN W O o N .2.%1 N J (� W �1 r C71 ' Mme V LLACE AVE mmi z 0 V N E2 NN W W V � N J a Q N N N N -V .0 oM1iU fT V W w W cn (D z 0 N N N NN W W V � N 4f LR a Q S7RLINGAVE .0 N (c W N j v W v+ oMOKAAVE v av N N N W NPALMILLA W W V.� CT © N (sem z 0 m 70 C N 8 � .y cn A O �I❑❑ un v V V U 9 L1 A A r 0 o o > o T A F _ d av m 70 C N 8 � .y cn A O �I❑❑ un v V V U 9 L1 A A r 0 o o > o T A F _ d 2\- ATTACHMENT 2 September 7, 2016 CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200.77 FAIR DRIVE • CAUFORNIA 92628-1200 SENT VIA FEOEX EXPRESS & ELECTRONIC MAIL Gregg Ohlhaver 3112 McKinley Way Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Application: Special Use Permit No. SL -15-0014 Property Address: 2152 Raleigh Avenue Dear Mr. Ohlhaver: Thank you for submitting your application for the City of Costa Mesa's Sober Living Home Special Use Permit and attending the Director Hearing on September 1, 2016. Present at that hearing were myself, Tarquin Preziosi, Deputy City Attorney and Sheri Vander Dussen, Assistant Development Services Director/Community Improvement Manager. I have thoroughly reviewed your application and the facts presented at the Director Hearing, Your application is denied pursuant to City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) requirements for group homes with six or fewer beds in an R1 (single family) zone. CMMC section 13-311(b)(6) provides in relevant part: A special use permit for a sober living home shall also be denied, and if already issued, any transfer shall be denied or revoked, upon a hearing by the director under any of the following additional circumstances: iii. The sober living home, as measured by the closest property lines, is located within six hundred fifty (650) feet of any other sober living home or state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. If a state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility moves within six hundred fifty (650) feet of an existing sober living home this shall not cause the revocation of the sober living home's permit or be grounds for denying a transfer of such permit. There are two existing state licensed alcoholism and drug abuse recovery treatment facilities with six or fewer residents within 650 feet from the facility. Those facilities are located at 687 and 679 Governor Street. During the hearing you mentioned that the City had previously sent you a checklist that you believe Indicated that the 650 -foot separation requirement was non -applicable. Staff reviewed the application file and found that on the Special Use Permit Application Processing Checklist dated May 5, 2105, "N/A" was listed as a comment next to the Item referring 650 feet separation requirement from any other sober living home or state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. The purpose of the checklist was to identify Incomplete information In the application and request that Information from the applicants, The "N/A" indicated that no information was required from you regarding this requirement to complete your application. I also wanted to provide additional information pertaining to your question as to whether another facility on Raleigh Avenue had been issued a Special Use Permit. Our records indicate that the operator of a sober living home located at 2186 Raleigh Avenue submitted a Special Use Permit application on April 8, 2015, but the request was withdrawn on November 2S, 2015 because the facility was closed. This determination can be appealed to the Planning Commission by filing an application for appeal with the City Clerk. Any appeal must be filed within seven (7) days of this date of denial, which is September 14, 2016 by 5:00 p.m., pursuant to Sections 2-305(2) and 2-307 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Please see attached Chapter IX, Title li of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code regarding appeal and review procedure. A fee of $690.00 must accompany the application. In your request for an appeal, please summarize the reasons for the appeal. If the application for appeal is not submitted by the deadline, your time to appeal will have expired. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Katie Angel at 714.754.5618 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p,m. Sincerely, Gary Plrmstrong 7 Director of Economic and Development Services/Deputy CEO Attachment: Ordinance Number 14-13 cc: Sheri Vander Dussen, Interim Assistant Director/Community Improvement Division Manager Fidel Gamboa, Acting Neighborhood Improvement Manager Tarquin Preziosi, Esq., Deputy City Attorney Katie Angel, Management Analyst any other sober living home or state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. The purpose of the checklist was to identify incomplete information in the application and request that information from the applicants. The "N/A" indicated that no information was required from you regarding this requirement to complete your application. 1 also wanted to provide additional Information pertaining to your question as to whether another facility on Raleigh Avenue had been issued a Special Use Permit. Our records indicate that the operator of a sober living home located at 2186 Raleigh Avenue submitted a Special Use Permit application on April 8, 2015, but the request was withdrawn on November 2S, 2015 because the facility was closed. This determination can be appealed to the Planning Commission by filing an application for appeal with the City Cleric. Any appeal must be filed within seven (7) days of this date of denial, which is September 14, 2016 by 5:00 p.m., pursuant to Sections 2-305(2) and 2-307 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Please see attached Chapter IX, Title II of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code regarding appeal and review procedure. A fee of $690.00 must accompany the application. In your request for an appeal, please summarize the reasons for the appeal. If the application for appeal is not submitted by the deadline, your time to appeal will have expired. Shouid you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Katie Angel at 714.754.5618 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Sincerely, Gary Zrstrong Director of Economic and Development Services/Deputy CEO Attachment: Ordinance Number 14-13 cc: Sheri Vander Dussen, Interim Assistant Director/Community Improvement Division Manager Fidel Gamboa, Acting Neighborhood Improvement Manager Tarquin Prezlosi, Esq., Deputy City Attorney Katie Angel, Management Analyst —2-1— ATTACHMENT 3 LIVti✓ Costi�1~a CITY CLERK City of Costa Mesa 16 SEP 13 AM I I : 0; Appeal of Commission Decision - $1,220.00 B i� i �iyi Y u �� �iE�� ® Appeal of Zoning Administrator/Staff Decision - $690.00 { ,--•t (FEES MUST BE PAID IN FULL AT TIME OF FILING APPEAL) APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW Applicant Name` V I �16 4.` k c- Address: 1 _ P1 1 Representing: REQUEST FOR: D APPEAL FIREVIEW** Decision of which appeal or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision, if known.) Gd s4-� /►� eY� � ..4 Decision by: _ Reasons for requesting appeal or review: "If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization. "Review may be requested only by Commissions, Commission Members, City Council, or City Council Members. For office use only- do not write below this line REV 9-1-15 SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION MEETING OF: — ?z5 .._ -- Keystone Sober Living 2152 Raleigh Ave Costa Mesa, CA Katie Angel Management Analyst Community Improvement City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA RE: Letter of Appeal Dear Ms. Angel: y f;try CLERK 16 SEP 13 AM 11: OS CITY CrF C IS FA RESA 8 Y_� The California Building Code provides, in Chapter 3, definitions and classifications which include R-3.0 designations. Section R-3 contains a list of building uses which would fall under that section. That list SPECIFICALLY includes "Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery homes (ambulatory only)." This is important because California's constitution and laws state that Alcoholism and Drug Abuse recovery homes are not to be treated any differently than single family residences within the state. Furthermore, the California Health and Safety Code speaks to this issue strongly. As used in this chapter, "alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility" or "facility" means any premises, place, or building that provides 24-hour residential nonmedical services to adults who are recovering from problems related to alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug misuse or abuse, and who need alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug recovery treatment or detoxification services. California Health and Safety Code § 11834.02(a). In the instant case, the owner and operator has been providing care which meets this definition for more than a decade within Costa Mesa, with a business license issued by Costa Mesa. However, the owner has not yet received licensing from the State of California under 11834 because, until now, Costa Mesa has not seen fit to attack his right to operate at the location. Costa Mesa's regulatory changes state that `group homes' are separate and distinct from alcoholism or drug abuse recovery treatment facilities. The 650 foot separation requirement applies to the special use permit requirements for group homes. As this facility has been operating NOT as a group home, but rather as a 11834 entity simply without the license, and will 2(p-- soon have the license as well, it seems fair that more than a decade of faultless participation in the community should be allowed to continue. Furthermore, those recovering from alcoholism and drug abuse are considered under Federal law to be disabled for the purposes of rights against discrimination. 28 C.F.R. § 35.104(1)(ii). Therefore restrictions, requirements and actions by local government actors which would result in discrimination either on its face or through disparate impact. Requiring licensed alcoholism and drug abuse treatment homes to conform to additional requirements, where no private residences are required to do such, and where the treatment center can at LEAST as clearly fall under R-3 classification, could be considered a discriminatory enforcement policy which violates the Fair Housing Act under Federal law as well as California law through California Government Code Section 12955. The recent lawsuits, against Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, on behalf of this type of drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility, have shown that this area of law is murky at best. While a withdrawn appeal against Costa Mesa can be seen as a victory - that does not mean the California regulations should still be flaunted when it comes to asymmetrical enforcement against certain individual treatment facilities. Moreover, the cause of action against the 650 foot rule was thrown out, initially, based upon ripeness. "To the extent that this allegation constitutes an as -applied challenge to the Ordinance, it is unripe because Plaintiffs have not yet sought an accommodation through the Ordinance's procedures." In the instant case, the claimed reason for the disapproval of this center was because it violated the 650 feet ordinance, and a claim against such a rule would indeed be ripe at this point. The owner is currently seeking permit from the city, and in the event this appeal is rejected, shall be seeking reasonable accommodation as well. The owner in this case is simply seeking recognition of his long standing, unchanged business which obviously cannot be a new threat to the character of the neighborhood because it has been a part of that neighborhood for so many years. Moreover, the city has presented no evidence that any complaints have been filed against this home or any other reason why the residents of this home are, themselves, a threat to the community. Even presuming that the 650 foot ordinance would have withstood challenge past the trial court level, in this case enforcement is being handled capriciously. This facility has been present at the current location for more than a decade, so to say that this facility must move, rather than whatever more recent facility which is within 650 feet, has no reasonable basis. In summary, this residential treatment center has been licensed openly and for more than a decade operating as an alcoholism and drug abuse recovery center which falls under the protections of California's Constitution as well as Federal ADA and Constitutional protections. This is reinforced and supported by the California Health and Safety Code explicitly and the Federal Fair Housing Act by reference to such treatment centers. Moreover, Federal regulations and case law shows that such recovering adults are protected from discriminatory actions by being included in the definition of disabled persons, and any treatment specifically aimed at making operation of centers such as this more difficult runs the risk or being found a discriminatory action, an issue which has not been settled in court at this time despite the trial court level dismissal of the Solid Landings Behavioral Health, Inc. case. The owner requests an appeal hearing on this matter and further or in the alternative requests to be informed of findings as to: why this facility must relocate under the 650 foot rule rather than another, newer facility; why the new ordinance is being applied to a facility which has no history of complaints or issues in the community; and why the owner cannot be granted leave to operate pursuant to 11834 under California law as it has been with the tacit or explicit permission of Costa Mesa through its granting of a business license for so many consecutive years leading to the current matter. Respectfully, GregegO h lhaver A/I Keystone Sober Living ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. PC -16- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO UPHOLD THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. SL -15-0014 TO OPERATE A SOBER LIVING HOME WITH SIX OR FEWER OCCUPANTS AT 2152 RALEIGH AVENUE WHEREAS, Gregg Ohlhaver (the "Applicant") operates a sober living home serving six males at 2152 Raleigh Avenue, Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing disabled persons as defined by state and federal law the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions; therefore, providing greater access to residential zones to group homes, including sober living homes, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has adopted standards for the operation of group homes, residential care facilities and state licensed drug and alcohol facilities that are intended to provide opportunities for disabled persons, as defined by state and federal law to enjoy comfortable accommodations in a residential setting; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has found that congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide disabled persons as defined in state and federal law with an opportunity to "live in normal residential surroundings," but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the FEHA and FHAA were designed to provide relief from for the disabled, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a life in a normal residential surrounding; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that a separation requirement for such facilities will still allow for a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of sober living homes within the City and still result in preferential treatment for sober living homes in that non -disabled individuals in a similar living situation (i.e., in boardinghouse - style residences) have fewer housing opportunities than disabled persons; and WHEREAS, Gregg Ohlhaver filed special use permit SL -15-0014 to operate a group home with six or fewer residents in an R1 zone; and - 2q- WHEREAS, there are two exisiting state licensed drug and alcohol facilities within six or fewer residents located at 687 Governor Street and 679 Governor Street within 650 feet of the facility at 2152 Raleigh Avenue; and WHEREAS, the applicant received notice of a scheduled Director's Hearing more than seven (7) business days prior and received a written report prepared by staff recommending denial of the special use permit based upon the criterion established in Section 13-311(b)(6)(iii); and WHEREAS, a Director's Hearing was conducted on September 1, 2016 providing the applicant with the opportunity to present any reasons and/or evidence why the special permit should not be denied; and WHEREAS, the Director provided a written notice to the applicant denying the special use permit which included a statement of the right to appeal to the Planning Commission and the time -limits therefore; and WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the denial of the application in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the appeal of the Director's determination at a regularly scheduled meeting open to the public, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or in opposition to the Application and determined by a X -X vote to uphold the Director's denial of the SUP. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa finds and resolves as follows: The facility located at 2152 Raleigh Street is a sober living home. The City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section CMMC section 13-311 sets forth the required findings to be used in the determination to approve or deny a SUP. There are two state licensed alcoholism and drug treatment facilities located at 687 Governor Street and 679 Governor Street within 650 feet of the Property. Pursuant to CMMC section 13-311(b)(6), the SUP shall be denied upon a hearing of the Director. BE IT RESOLVED, therefore, that based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in this resolution, the Planning Commission hereby UPHOLDS THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL of Special Use Permit SL -15-0014 to operate a sober living home at 2152 Raleigh Avenue. The Secretary of the Commission shall attest to the adoption of this resolution and shall forward a copy to the applicant, and any person requesting the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of November, 2016. Robert L. Dickson Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission - 31 -- STATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE I, Jay Trevino, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on November 28, 2016 by the following votes: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Jay Trevino, Acting Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission — 32— 647 JOANN ST CM RICHARD PERLIN 949 648-1699 1011 BRIOSO DR. SUITE#103, COSTA MESA, CA, 92627 TUCKS M Residential Service Facility.Inspection Item: 00592 CODE INVESTIGATION 05/03/2013 By: MBT Action: CONT Comments: I visited property and spoke to the 'director of Client Services, Mark Boultinghouse. He told me that 8 clients were living at the property. 05/07/2013 By: MBT Action: CONT Comments: Mailed out a VN for too many occupants for a RSF in a RI zone without a CUP. I gave 15 days to correct the violation. 05/23/2013 By: MBT Action: CONT Comments: I had a phone conversation with property owner, Richard Perlin. He told me that he did not receive my VN. He provided me with his mailing address and I sent out a new VN. 06/25/2013 By: MBT Action: AP Comments: Re -inspected property. All violations have been corrected. Voided citation #020370. Mailed out hard copy of voided citation and emaild both Mark and Richard a copy of voided citation. Item: 00595 FIELD OBSERVATION 05/03/2013 By: MBT Action: CONT Comments: Residential service facility visit. Talked with Director of Client Services. He informed me that , there were 8 clients living at the residence. 05/07/2013 By: MBT Action: CO Comments: Mailed out violation notice for too many occupants. 05/07/2013 CI -13-0145 CI -13-0145: Entries for Item:595 I By Director of Client Services. He informed me that there were 8 clients living at the residence. CO Mailed out violation notice for too many occupants. Gave 15days to comply. CONT Officer Brumbaugh and I went out and inspected property. We discovered that the garage has illegally been converted into office space. 3 bedrooms had 2 beds each, 1 bedroom had 1 bed. Total 6 +1 = OK, CITE Issue "fix -it" citation #0203763450. 16 days to correct all violations (6121113)._ Total Rows: 4 - FIELD OBSERVATICINA9 05/23/2017 ite I Unlque_ 43 40 0008294 41 CONT CI -15-0106: Entries for Item:592 - CODE INVESTIGATIM454 05/23/2017 Violation Notice sent to property owner Instructing them to submit an application within 21 des, June 25, 2015. 08:00: Property Owner, Richard Perlin called me this morning. We discussed the Violation Notice and he had some questions, He told me that he would be submitting an application to come into compliance but then he knows that he has a year, possibly 2, to come into compliance. He said he plans on developing an exit strategy and moving on. I believe he is suggesting that he will be selling at least one of his properties. 12:56: 1 received an email from Marts Boultinghouse (Victory House) today at 08:33, asking me to email the GH Application docs. sent him the docs via email today at 12:56 pm. SL application, SL -15-0041, was submitted on 6/24/15, 1 am closing this case Total Rows: 4 By I Date I Unique_ 15 32�5_ 50 51 B4 55 ATTACHMENT 5 RESOLUTION NO. PC -16- 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO UPHOLD THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. SL -15-0014 TO OPERATE A SOBER LIVING HOME WITH SIX OR FEWER OCCUPANTS AT 2152 RALEIGH AVENUE WHEREAS, Gregg Ohlhaver (the "Applicant") operates a sober living home serving six males at 2152 Raleigh Avenue, Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing disabled persons as defined by state and federal law the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions; therefore, providing greater access to residential zones to group homes, including sober living homes, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has adopted standards for the operation of group homes, residential care facilities and state licensed drug and alcohol facilities that are intended to provide opportunities for disabled persons, as defined by state and federal law to enjoy comfortable accommodations in a residential setting; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has found that congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide disabled persons as defined in state and federal law with an opportunity to "live in normal residential surroundings," but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the FEHA and FHAA were designed to provide relief from for the disabled, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a life in a normal residential surrounding; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that a separation requirement for such facilities will still allow for a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of sober living homes within the City and still result in preferential treatment for sober living homes in that non -disabled individuals in a similar living situation (i.e., in boardinghouse - style residences) have fewer housing opportunities than disabled persons; and WHEREAS, Gregg Ohlhaver filed special use permit SL -15-0014 to operate a group home with six or fewer residents in an R1 zone; and WHEREAS, there are two exisiting state licensed drug and alcohol facilities within six or fewer residents located at 687 Governor Street and 679 Governor Street within 650 feet of the facility at 2152 Raleigh Avenue; and WHEREAS, the applicant received notice of a scheduled Director's Hearing more than seven (7) business days prior and received a written report prepared by staff recommending denial of the special use permit based upon the criterion established in Section 13-311(b)(6)(iii); and WHEREAS, a Director's Hearing was conducted on September 1, 2016 providing the applicant with the opportunity to present any reasons and/or evidence why the special permit should not be denied; and WHEREAS, the Director provided a written notice to the applicant denying the special use permit which included a statement of the right to appeal to the Planning Commission and the time -limits therefore; and WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the denial of the application in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the appeal of the Director's determination at a regularly scheduled meeting open to the public, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or in opposition to the Application and determined by a X -X vote to uphold the Director's denial of the SUP. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa finds and resolves as follows: The facility located at 2152 Raleigh Street is a sober living home. The City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section CMMC section 13-311 sets forth the required findings to be used in the determination to approve or deny a SUP. There are two state licensed alcoholism and drug treatment facilities located at 687 Governor Street and 679 Governor Street within 650 feet of the Property. Pursuant to CMMC section 13-311(b)(6), the SUP shall be denied upon a hearing of the Director. BE IT RESOLVED, therefore, that based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in this resolution, the Planning Commission hereby UPHOLDS THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL of Special Use Permit SL -15-0014 to operate a sober living home at 2152 Raleigh Avenue. The Secretary of the Commission shall attest to the adoption of this resolution and shall forward a copy to the applicant, and any person requesting the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of November, 2016. }� Robert L. Dickson J ., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Jay Trevino, Acting Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on November 28th, 2016 by the following votes: AYES: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None az" � � � � I /,,;, � �)_/' 1, Jd"y Tre it b', Actin . ecretary V Costa Mesa Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 6 APPROVED MINUTE EXCERPTS FROM THE NOVEMBER 28, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (Public Hearing No. 3 — SL -15-0014) 3. Application No.: SL -15-0014 Applicant: Greg Ohlhaver (Keystone Sober Living) Site Address: 2152 Raleigh Avenue Zone: R1 Project Planner: Sheri Vander Dussen Environmental Determination: The request is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15268 (Ministerial Projects), 15270 (Disapproved Projects) and 15301 (Existing Facilities). Description: The applicant applied for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to operate a group home with six or fewer all-male residents. The Director of Economic and Development Services/Deputy CEO denied the SUP based on noncompliance with the zoning code and the applicant has appealed that decision to the Planning Commission. No ex -parte communications to report. Sheri Vander Dussen, Interim Assistant Development Services Director/Community Improvement Division, presented the staff report. Commissioner McCarthy asked if the arguments in the appeal have merit because Keystone Sober Living is not a state licensed facility. Tarquin Preziosi, Deputy City Attorney, responded the issues raised in the appeal are for state licensed facilities and the applicant is not a state licensed facility. PUBLIC COMMENTS Greg Ohlhaver, applicant, spoke about Keystone Sober Living and requested to approve the special use permit for his facility. Mr. Olhaver responded to Commissioner Sesler's questions about other services they offer, how long the residents stay at the facility, and what it would take for his facility to become state licensed. Tim Lewis spoke in support of the applicant and Keystone Sober Living facility. Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with sober living facilities avoiding the City's group home ordinance by getting state licensed instead. A Costa Mesa resident spoke in support of Keystone Sober Living facility and supports the approval of the special use permit request. Rob Harrison, former resident of Keystone Sober Living, spoke in support of Keystone Sober Living facility. Cindy Black, Costa Mesa resident, asked if a grant was possible to help the applicant obtain a state license for his facility and if there was a way to help a good neighbor run a good sober living facility in the City. A former resident of Keystone Sober Living spoke in support of the application The Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner McCarthy stated he will be supporting the Director's denial. MOTION: Hereby move that the Planning Commission uphold the Director's denial of Special Use Permit SL -15-0014 to operate a sober living home at 2152 Raleigh Avenue and include the environmental determination of exempt based on ministerial projects and disapproved projects. Moved by Commissioner McCarthy, seconded by Chair Dickson. RESOLUTION PC -16-64 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO UPHOLD THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. SL -15-0014 TO OPERATE A SOBER LIVING HOME WITH SIX OR FEWER OCCUPANTS AT 2152 RALEIGH AVENUE The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None The Chair explained the appeal process.