Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-25 - PA-16-38 Denial, 131 E. Wilson St., Northbound Treatment ServicesRESOLUTION NO. 18-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO: 1) UPHOLD THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION TO ALLOW DEVIATIONS FROM VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE; AND 2) DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA -16-38 TO ALLOW A STATE -LICENSED DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT FACILITY HOUSING UP TO 13 RESIDENTS AT 131 EAST WILSON STREET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Northbound Treatment Services (the "Applicant") currently operates a state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility serving more than six persons at 131 East Wilson Street, Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit PA -16-38, a Conditional Use Permit to allow the subject licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility to serve up to 13 gender -specific adults within three existing units; and a request for a reasonable accommodation to allow this facility to be considered a single housekeeping unit; to be "grandfathered" under existing regulations; to be exempt from various provisions of the Zoning Code addressing rules and policies; and to be located within 650 feet of a property that contain a group home, sober living home or state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment faciltity; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, when operated responsibly, group homes, including drug and alcohol treatment facilities, 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 drug and alcohol treatment facilities, 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 Resolution No. 18-25 Page 1 of 15 WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has found that congregating drug and alcohol treatment facilities and 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 drug and alcohol treatment and sober living facilities within the City and still result in preferential treatment for drug and alcohol treatment facilities 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 City of Costa Mesa has determined that a group home, sober living home or state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment faciltity shall be operated on a single parcel of land; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application with the City's Director of Economic and Development Services (the "Director") requesting an accommodation from the Costa Mesa Municipal Code's requirement that a group home, residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol facility is at least 650 feet from another property that contains a group home, sober living home or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, as well as other land use requirements; and WHEREAS, the request for reasonable accommodation and the conditional use permit application were processed in the time and manner prescribed by federal, state and local laws, and the Director denied the request for the reasonable accommodation in a letter dated June 2, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the denial of the Director's decision to deny a reasonable accommodation in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled for January 8, 2018, before the Planning Commission to hear the appeal and the conditional use permit; and Resolution No. 18-25 Page 2 of 15 WHEREAS, on January 8, 2018 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or in opposition to the applications and unanimously voted to deny the application; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was help by the City Council on April 17, 2018, with all persons having the opprotunity to speak for an against the proposal. 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 DIRECTOR'S DENIAL of the Applicant's request for reasonable accommodation to allow the facility to be considered as a single housekeeping unit; to be exempt from various regulations applicable to group homes; to operate this state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility approximately 366 feet from a sober living facility located at 165 East Wilson Street, for which the City has issued Conditional Use Permit PA -16-03; and UPHOLDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION and DENIES Conditional Use Permit PA -16-38. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 2018. Sandra L. Genis, Mayor Resolution No. 18-25 Page 3 of 15 ATTEST: APPROVE[) AS .TOFORM: Aff140 - L*Yw Brenda GreerV City Clerk T oma Du e, City STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss 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. 18-25 and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of April, 2018, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Foley, Righeimer, Stephens, Mansoor, and Genis. NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 18th day of April, 2018. .&- Wc6- ()1Y.l W Brenda Gre , City Clerk Resolution No. 18-25 Page 4 of 15 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS FOR DENIAL The Citv's evidence The City's evidence consists of a staff report with attachments. The staff report provided the factual background, legal analysis and the City's analysis supporting the denial of the Applicant's request for reasonable accommodation, based on the Applicant not meeting its burden to demonstrate compliance with all required findings per the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC). A. The Applicant has not met its burden to show that the Application meets the following findings for approval of Reasonable Accommodation: • The requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one (1) or more individuals with a disability protected under the fair housing laws. The City accepts that this request for reasonable accommodation was submitted on behalf of persons who are considered disabled under state and federal law. • The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one (1) or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The application established that the waiver of the 650 -foot separation requirement may allow a CUP to be granted to enable this applicant to continue to operate in compliance with the CMMC at its current location. In theory, this action would allow one or more individuals who are recovering from drug and alcohol abuse to enjoy the use of these dwellings. However, approval of the request is not necessary to allow one or more individuals who are recovering from drug and alcohol abuse to enjoy the use of a dwelling within the City. There was no justification provided to support the request to "grandfather" the facility or consider the residents of the facility to be a single housekeeping unit. Indeed, the CMMC includes amortization provisions for group homes that were in operation at the time Ordinance 15-11 was adopted. All such homes are required to come into compliance within one year. The residents do not live as a single housekeeping unit as defined by the CMMC in that they have no control over who else resides at the facility; rent is collected from each resident; expenses are not shared; and residency tends to be transient. Approval of the request to consider the residents of this facility to be a single housekeeping unit would be contrary to the purpose and intent of Ordinance 15-11. • The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, as "undue financial or administrative burden" is defined in fair housing laws and interpretive case law. Resolution No. 18-25 Page 5 of 15 There is no evidence that the accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city. • The requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use. The subject property is legal non -conforming with respect to various standards in the R2 zone. It is developed with three units where current standards would only allow two units. It is deficient with respect to parking when compared to current standards set forth in the CMMC. The site only provides six garage parking spaces. The Code now requires a total of ten covered and open spaces. The site is narrower and smaller than required under current standards. The Planning Commission has expressed concerns regarding the operation of large drug and alcohol treatment facilities on nonconforming parcels. This drug and alcohol treatment facility houses 13 occupants on a nonconforming lot that does not comply with current zoning standards for development intensity, lot width, lot area, and parking. The use of this property would not be consistent with the use of surrounding properties in this neighborhood as this drug and alcohol facility would house a significant number of adults on a site that is developed with more units than currently permitted on a smaller and narrower than current standards require and does not provide the minimum amount of parking required by the CMMC. • The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others. There is no evidence that approval of this request would result in a direct threat to the health or safety of anyone, or substantial physical damage to the property of others. • If economic viability is raised by the applicant as part of the applicant's showing that the requested accommodation is necessary, then a finding that the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants generally, not just for that particular applicant, The applicant did not raise economic viability as a justification for the accommodation. • Whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. The City has received applications for 54 sober living homes and seven licensed treatment facilities that are subject to compliance with Ordinance Nos. 24-13 and 15-11. Twelve (12) sober living homes serving six or fewer residents have been approved by the City, and one sober living home serving 11 men has been approved. In addition, there are 83 Resolution No. 18-25 Page 6 of 15 existing state -licensed drug and alcohol facilities in Costa Mesa that are exempt from City regulation, or have already obtained the required Conditional Use Permit. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that the numberof sober living homes and drug and alcohol residential care facilities existing or potentially allowed in compliance with the City's standards is inadequate. • The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program. Ordinance 15-11 established requirements for sober living homes, group homes and licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities in multi -family zoning districts. When the City Council adopted this ordinance, it specifically included a provision limiting the operation of a drug and alcohol treatment facility to a single parcel. The intent of this limitation is to ensure that drug and alcohol treatment facilities do not occupy a disproportionate number of homes in any neighborhood, and to avoid overconcentration of sober living units in any area. The City also sought to ensure that disabled persons recovering from addiction can reside in a comfortable residential environment versus in an institutional setting. The City determined that housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single dwelling or congregating drug and alcohol treatment facilities 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 the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the state and federal laws were designed to provide relief from for disabled persons. The use of three units on this parcel to accommodate 13 gender -specific residents will create a large facility not in keeping with the City's desire to ensure group homes more closely resemble a typical residential environment. The City's separation standard of 650 feet was intended to ensure that there would be no more than one group home, residential care facility or state -licensed drug and alcohol facility on any block. In addition, the Municipal Code limits the operation of any sober living home or drug and alcohol treatment facility to a single parcel, again to prevent overconcentration of sober living units. Therefore, approval of the requested accommodation will result in a fundamental alteration of the City's zoning program, as set forth in Ordinance 15-11, because it would contribute to the overconcentration of these types of facilities in this residential neighborhood. The burden to demonstrate necessity remains with the Applicant. Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 784, 787. The applicant must show that "without the required accommodation the disabled will be denied the equal opportunity to live in a residential neighborhood." Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 784; see also, United States v. California Mobile Home Mgmt Co., 107 F3d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir. 1997) ("without a causal link between defendants' policy and the plaintiff's injury, there can be no obligation on the part of the defendants to make a reasonable accommodation"); Smith & Lee. Inc. v. City of Taylor, Mich., 102 F.3d 781, 795 (6th Cir. 1996) ("plaintiffs must show that, but for the accommodation, they likely will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice"). Resolution No. 18-25 Page 7 of 15 The Applicant has asserted that the requested accommodation from the 650 -foot distance requirement is reasonable. However, a zoning accommodation may be deemed unreasonable if "it is so at odds with the purposes behind the rule that it would be a fundamental and unreasonable change." Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 784. The Applicant made no mention of the purpose underlying the City's zoning limitation, or explained how the requested reasonable accommodation would not undermine that purpose. In fact, the Director found that such allowance would fundamentally alter the character of this neighborhood and is thus unreasonable. Allowing multiple group homes, sober living homes and/or state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities to cluster in a residential neighborhood does effect a fundamental change to the residential character of the neighborhood. The clustering of group homes in close proximity to each other does change the residential character of the neighborhood to one that is far more institutional in nature. This is particularly the case with respect to sober living homes and drug and alcohol treatment facilities. Both California and federal courts have recognized that the maintenance of the residential character of neighborhoods is a legitimate governmental interest. The United States Supreme Court long ago acknowledged the legitimacy of "what is really the crux of the more recent zoning legislation, namely, the creation and maintenance of residential districts, from which business and trade of every sort, including hotels and apartment houses, are excluded." Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 390 (1926). The California Supreme Court also recognizes the legitimacy of this interest: It is axiomatic that the welfare, and indeed the very existence of a nation depends upon the character and caliber of its citizenry. The character and quality of manhood and womanhood are in a large measure the result of home environment. The home and its intrinsic influences are the very foundation of good citizenship, and any factor contributing to the establishment of homes and the fostering of home life doubtless tends to the enhancement not only of community life but of the life of the nation as a whole. Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477, 490, 492-93 (1925). With home ownership comes stability, increased interest in the promotion of public agencies, such as schools and churches, and `recognition of the individual's responsibility for his share in the safeguarding of the welfare of the community and increased pride in personal achievement which must come from personal participation in projects looking toward community betterment.' Ewing v. City of Carmel-bv-the-Sea, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1579, 1590 (1991), citing Miller, 195 Cal. at 493. It is with these purposes in mind that the City of Costa Mesa has created residential zones, including R2 zones for multi -family residences. The requested accommodation, in these specific circumstances, would result in a fundamental alteration of the City's zoning program, as set forth in Ordinance 15-11, because it would increase and/or contribute to the overconcentration of these types of facilities in this residential neighborhood. Resolution No. 18-25 Page 8 of 15 B. The Application does not meet the findings required by the Costa Mesa Municipal Code for approval of a Conditional Use Permit: • Pursuant to the purpose and intent of the Multi -Family Residential Group Home Ordinance, the drug and alcohol treatment facility would not provide a comfortable living environment that will enhance the opportunity for disabled persons, including recovering addicts, to be successful in their programs. The facility consists of three units occupied by 13 people. The proposed occupancy of two or three people per bedroom constitutes overcrowding pursuant to the Housing Element of the General Plan, page HOU-23, which states: Overcrowding is defined as a housing unit occupied by more than one person per room. A severely overcrowded housing unit is one with more than 1.5 persons per room. A room is defined as a bedroom, living room, dining room, or finished recreation room, but excludes kitchen and bathroom. This definition is consistent with the Federal HUD standards, which generally define "overcrowding" to mean housing units with 1.01 or more persons per room. See 42 USCS § 5302(a)(10). Under this standard, all the units would be overcrowded. The units consist of a living/dining area, kitchen, one or more bathrooms, and one, two or three bedrooms. The one -bedroom unit includes two rooms and is occupied by three residents, for a person per room value of 1.5. The two-bedroom unit includes three rooms and houses four residents, for a person per room value of 1.33. The three-bedroom unit houses six occupants in four rooms, for a value of 1.5 persons per room. In addition, the site is nonconforming with respect to density, site width, site area, and parking. Approval of this request will result in occupancy of this site by a large number of adults, creating a more intense living environment than envisioned in the CMMC. When Ordinance 15-11 was adopted by the City Council, it specifically included a provision limiting the operation of a drug and alcohol treatment facility to a single parcel. The intent of this limitation is to ensure that drug and alcohol treatment facilities do not occupy a disproportionate number of homes in any neighborhood, and to avoid overconcentration of sober living units in any area. The City also sought to ensure that disabled persons recovering from addiction have the opportunity to reside in a comfortable residential environment vs. an institutional setting. The City determined that housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single dwelling or congregating drug and alcohol treatment facility 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 the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the state and federal laws were designed to provide relief from for disabled persons. The use of three units on this parcel to Resolution No. 18-25 Page 9 of 15 accommodate 13 gender -specific residents will create facility not in keeping with the City's desire to ensure drug and alcohol treatment facilities more closely resemble a typical residential environment. The subject property is located approximately 366 feet from a sober living facility with an existing CUP (PA -16-03) located at 165 East Wilson Street. This facility is approved to serve up to 11 men. Approval of this CUP will result in an overconcentration of sober living and drug and alcohol treatment facilities in a residential neighborhood Allowing multiple group homes, sober living homes and/or state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities to cluster in residential neighborhoods effects a fundamental change to the residential character of the neighborhood. Overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities and group homes changes the residential character of a neighborhood to one that is far more institutional in nature. Strong evidence exists that a supportive living environment in a residential neighborhood provides more effective recovery than an institutional -style environment. Therefore, the City's zoning regulations seek to provide the disabled, including those recovering from drug and alcohol addiction, an equal opportunity to live in a residence located in residential neighborhood. • The drug and alcohol treatment facility would not further the purposes of the FEHA, the FHAA, and Lanterman Act by limiting the secondary impacts related to noise, traffic, and parking to the extent reasonable. The City has found that overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities and group homes changes the character of a residential neighborhood to one that is more institutional in nature. This change in neighborhood character can compound secondary effects related to noise, traffic, and parking. In these neighborhoods, street life is often characterized by large capacity vans picking up and dropping off residents and staff; staff in scrubs carrying medical kits going from unit to unit, and vans dropping off prepared meals in large numbers. The City has experienced frequent Fire Department deployments in response to medical aid calls. In some neighborhoods, Police Department deployments are a regular occurrence as a result of domestic abuse calls, burglary reports, disturbing the peace calls and parole checks at drug and alcohol treatment facilities. Large and often frequent Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings are held at some drug and alcohol treatment facilities. Attendees of these meetings contribute to the lack of available on street parking and neighbors report finding an unusual amount of litter and debris, including beverage containers, condoms and drug paraphernalia in the wake of these meetings. These types of impacts have been identified in other communities as well. The facility will contribute to the overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities in this neighborhood, which could lead to negative impacts in the neighborhood. • The drug and alcohol treatment facility would not be compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. Resolution No. 18-25 Page 10 of 15 The subject property is within approximately 366 feet of a sober living facility with an approved CUP (PA -16-03) at 165 East Wilson Street. This facility, which is permitted to serve up to 11 men, is located one block from the subject property. Therefore, approval of the CUP will contribute to the overconcentration of these types of facilities, which will conflict with the surrounding residential character of the neighborhood. The clustering of group homes near to each other does change the residential character of the neighborhood to one that is far more institutional in nature. The subject property is nonconforming with respect to development intensity, site width, area, and parking. The proposed use is incompatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. • The group home is within 650 feet from another property that contains a group home, sober living home or state -licensed drug and alcohol facility, as defined in the code and measured from the property line. The subject property is within approximately 366 feet of a sober living facility at 165 East Wilson Street. The sober living home obtained a conditional use permit from the City in November of 2016 (PA -16-03). The operator of a group home may request reasonable accommodation when compliance with all of the standards is not possible. Section 13-200.62 (f) of the Zoning Code sets forth the required findings to be used in the determination to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation. The Code specifies that all findings must be made in order to approve such a request. The findings to deny this requested accommodation were enumerated above. CMMC section 13-320 establishes criteria for approval of group homes in multi -family zones. Group homes serving disabled persons as defined by state and federal law 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. Recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, who are not currently using alcohol or drugs, are considered disabled under state and federal law. Standards for large group homes are set forth in the Zoning Code. The intent of the regulations is to preserve the residential character of the City's neighborhoods while providing opportunities for the disabled to live in comfortable residential surroundings. The City adopted standards for group homes in response to a proliferation of drug and alcohol treatment facilities and sober living homes in the community. The City found that an overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities and sober living homes in the City's residential neighborhoods could be deleterious to the residential character of these neighborhoods and could also lead to the institutionalization of such neighborhoods. Sober living homes and drug and alcohol treatment facilities generally do not function as a single housekeeping unit Resolution No. 18-25 Page 11 of 15 because they house extremely transient populations; the residents generally have no established ties to each other when they move in and typically do not mingle with other neighbors; the residents have little to no say about who lives or doesn't live in the home; the residents do not generally share expenses; the residents are often responsible for their own food, laundry and phone; when residents disobey house rules they are often just evicted from the house; and the residents generally do not share the same acquaintances. The City found that the size and makeup of the households in drug and alcohol treatment facilities and sober living homes is dissimilar and larger than the norm, creating impacts on water, sewer, roads, parking and other City services that are far greater than the average household. In addition, all the individuals residing in a drug and alcohol treatment facility or sober living home are generally over the age of 18, while the average household in Costa Mesa has just 2.2 individuals over the age of 18. Because of their transient populations, above -normal numbers of individuals/adults residing in a single dwelling and the lack of regulations, drug and alcohol treatment facilities and sober living homes present problems not typically associated with more traditional residential uses. These issues may include the housing of large numbers of unrelated adults who may or may not be supervised; disproportionate numbers of cars associated with a single housing unit, which causes disproportionate traffic and utilization of on -street parking; excessive noise and outdoor smoking, which interferes with the use and enjoyment of neighbors' properties; neighbors who have little to no idea who does and does not reside in the home; little to no participation by residents in community activities that form and strengthen neighborhood cohesion; disproportional impacts from the average dwelling unit to nearly all public services including sewer, water, parks, libraries, transportation infrastructure, fire and police; a history of residents congregating in the same general area; and the potential influx of individuals with a criminal record. Nevertheless, the City recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, when operated responsibly, group homes, including drug and alcohol treatment facilities and sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing disabled persons the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods. These facilities also provide recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions. Therefore, providing greater access to residential zones to group homes, including drug and alcohol treatment facilities and sober living homes, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents. In response to the needs and concerns described above, the City established a minimum separation of 650 feet between group homes, residential care facilities and/or state -licensed drug and alcohol facilities. The City found that a separation requirement will still allow for a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of drug and alcohol treatment facilities and sober living homes within the City. The requirement will still result in preferential treatment for drug and alcohol treatment facilities and sober living homes in that non -disabled individuals in a similar living situation (i.e., in boardinghouse -style residences) have fewer housing Resolution No. 18-25 Page 12 of 15 opportunities than the disabled. The City determined that housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single dwelling or congregating drug and alcohol treatment facilities 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 the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the state and federal laws were designed to provide relief from for disabled persons. The Federal Housing Act Amendments (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., provide that a city "commits discrimination under the FHAA if it refuses to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodation may be necessary to afford [the disabled] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." Budnick v. Town of Carefree, 518 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2008). The FHAA requires a city to provide a requested accommodation if such accommodation "(1) is reasonable, and (2) necessary, (3) to afford a handicapped person the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 300 F.3d 775, 783 (7th Cir. 2002); 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). The applicant requested relief from the Zoning Code requirement that a drug and alcohol treatment facility or sober living home is at least 650 feet from another property that contains a group home, sober living home or state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility. Section 13-200.62 (f) of the Zoning Code sets forth the required findings to be used in the determination to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation. The Code specifies that all findings must be made in order to approve such a request. Based on the information provided by applicant, and staff's own research into the issue, the Director denied the request for reasonable accommodation to allow this facility to be "grandfathered"; to consider the residents to be a single housekeeping unit; and to allow the facility to be within 650 feet of another state -licensed treatment facility or sober living facility. Based on the denial of the request for a reasonable accommodation, the facility does not comply with the City's adopted standards for separation between group homes, residential care facilities and state -licensed drug and alcohol facilities. • The proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. The introduction of one sober living home or licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility in compliance with the City's standards would not be materially detrimental to the area. However, over the last decade, the number of drug and alcohol treatment facilities in the City of Costa Mesa has rapidly increased, leading to an overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities in certain of the City's residential neighborhoods. Overconcentration is both deleterious to the residential Resolution No. 18-25 Page 13 of 15 character of these neighborhoods and may also lead to the institutionalization of such neighborhoods. The City's establishment of distance requirements for drug and alcohol treatment facilities is reasonable and non-discriminatory and helps preserve the residential character of the R21VID, R2HD, and R3 zones, as well as the planned development residential neighborhoods. It also furthers the interest of ensuring that disabled persons are not living in overcrowded environments that are counterproductive to their well-being and recovery. The proposed facility would be located within 366 feet of a sober living home with an approved CUP (PA -16-03) at 165 East Wilson Street. Approval of the subject request would result in a contribution to the overconcentration of such facilities in this neighborhood. In addition to the separation issues, the subject property is nonconforming with respect to development intensity, site width, area, and parking. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. • Granting the CUP will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood. As noted above, approval of this application will result in overconcentration of group homes, residential care facilities and/or state -licensed drug and alcohol facilities in this neighborhood. Short-term tenants, such as might be found in homes that provide addiction treatment programs of limited duration, generally have little interest in the welfare of the neighborhoods in which they temporarily reside -- residents "do not participate in local government, coach little league, or join the hospital guild. They do not lead a scout troop, volunteer at the library, or keep an eye on an elderly neighbor. Literally, they are here today and gone tomorrow -- without engaging in the sort of activities that weld and strengthen a community." Ew , 234 Cal. App. 3d at 1591. Strong evidence exists that a supportive living environment in a residential neighborhood provides more effective recovery than an institutional -style environment. The City's zoning regulations address overconcentration and secondary effects of drug and alcohol treatment facilities. The goal of the regulations is to provide the disabled with an equal opportunity to live in the residence of their choice, and to maintain the residential character of existing neighborhoods. The City has found through experience that clustering drug and alcohol treatment facilities and sober living homes in close proximity to each other results in neighborhoods dominated by drug and alcohol treatment facilities. In these neighborhoods, street life is often characterized by large capacity vans picking -up and dropping -off residents and staff, service providers taking up much of the available on street parking, staff in scrubs carrying medical kits going from unit to unit, and vans dropping off prepared meals in large numbers. The City has experienced frequent Fire Department deployments in response to medical aid calls. In some neighborhoods, Police Department deployments are a regular occurrence as a result of domestic abuse calls, burglary reports, disturbing the Resolution No. 18-25 Page 14 of 15 peace calls and parole checks at drug and alcohol treatment facilities. Large and often frequent AA or NA meetings are held at some drug and alcohol treatment facilities. Attendees of these meetings contribute to the lack of available on street parking and neighbors report finding an unusual amount of litter and debris, including beverage containers, condoms and drug paraphernalia in the wake of these meetings. These types of impacts have been identified in other communities as well. • Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use which is not in accordance with the general plan designation. The proposed use is consistent with the City's General Plan. However, an overconcentration of group homes, sober living homes and licensed treatment facilities for alcohol and drug addiction is not consistent with the General Plan. The City's regulations are intended to preserve the residential character of the City's neighborhoods. The City Council has determined that an overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities would be detrimental to the residential character of the City's neighborhoods. C. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied Conditional Use Permit PA -16-38. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. D. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Resolution No. 18-25 Page 15 of 15