HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-27 - PA-16-40 Denial, 241 E. 18th St., Northbound Treatment ServicesRESOLUTION NO. 18-27
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) UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA -16-40 TO ALLOW A STATE
LICENSED DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT FACILITY HOUSING UP TO 12
RESIDENTS AT 241 E. 18th 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 241
East 18th Street, Costa Mesa; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application requesting approval of Conditional
Use Permit PA -16-40, a Conditional Use Permit to allow the subject licensed drug and
alcohol treatment facility to serve up to 12 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 contains 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 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
Resolution No. 18-27 Page 1 of 16
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 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
measured from the property line; 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 Director's decision to deny a reasonable
accommodation in a timely manner; and
Resolution No. 18-27 Page 2 of 16
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 held by the City Council on April 17,
2018, with all persons having the opportunity 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 230 feet from a licensed treatment facility located at 209
East 18th Street, for which the City has issued Conditional Use Permit (PA -87-166); and
UPHOLDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION and DENIES Conditional Use
Permit PA -16-40.
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 171h day of April 2018.
andr . Genis, Mayor
Resolution No. 18-27 Page 3 of 16
ATTEST:
Brenda Green, Ci Clerk
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. 18-27 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.
�%1 ! 'i l { {
-I
Resolution No. 18-27 Page 4 of 16
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
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 a Reasonable Accommodation, based on the
Applicant not meeting its burden to demonstrate compliance with all required findings per
the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.
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 requested accommodation to waive the 650 -
foot separation requirement may allow a CUP to be granted to enable Northbound
Treatment Services to continue to operate in compliance with the Costa Mesa
Municipal Code 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 residents tend 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. 18-27 Page 5 of 16
There is no evidence that approval of this request will 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 use of the subject property is more intense than allowed by current zoning
standards. Based on the size of each lot, a maximum of two units would be
allowed. However, each lot is developed with three units. Each parcel only
provides three parking spaces where ten spaces are now required. Each parcel
is smaller and narrower than current standards require. The Code requires lot
sizes of 12,000 square feet where the existing lots are 9,000 square feet. In
addition, the Code requires lots to be 100 feet wide and the existing lots are 50
feet wide.
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 12 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 lot than current standards allow
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.
Resolution No. 18-27 Page 6 of 16
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 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 number of 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 sober living facility or drug and alcohol treatment facility
to a single parcel. The intent of this limitation is to ensure that sober living 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 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 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 12 residents will create a large facility not in keeping with
the City's desire to ensure sober living 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 facility to a single parcel, again to prevent overconcentration of sober
living units. Therefore, approval of the accommodation request 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. 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
Resolution No. 18-27 Page 7 of 16
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").
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 accommodation requested 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. 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
Resolution No. 18-27 Page 8 of 16
Carmel -by -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 No.
15-11, because it would increase and/or contribute to the overconcentration of
these types of facilities in this residential neighborhood.
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 12 people. The proposed
occupancy 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 three of the units would be
overcrowded. The two-bedroom units include three rooms and house four
residents, for a person per room value of 1.33.
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
Resolution No. 18-27 Page 9 of 16
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
accommodate 12 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.
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 or sober living home 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.
Resolution No. 18-27 Page 10 of 16
During the public hearing, public testimony was presented regarding secondary
effects neighbors experience as a result of this licensed treatment facility.
Residents testified that vans transporting facility occupants regularly arrive early in
the morning and late at night and create noise impacts that disturb their use of their
property, especially when those vans are equipped with back-up alarms.
Excessive smoke generated by occupants of the facility also disturbs nearby
residents. The employees of the facility often park on the street, impacting the
availability of on -street parking in the neighborhood.
• The drug and alcohol treatment facility or sober living home would not be
compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood.
The subject property is within approximately 230 feet of a licensed drug and
alcohol facility with an approved CUP (PA -87-166) at 209 E. 181" Street. This
facility, which is permitted to serve up to 12 residents, is located within the same
block as the subject property. Therefore, approval of this 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 each other or immediately adjacent 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, site area, and parking. Use of this nonconforming property as a group home
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 230 feet of a licensed drug and
alcohol facility with an approved CUP (PA -87-166) at 209 E. 1P Street. This
facility is located on the same street, within the same block, as the subject property.
The operator of a group home may request reasonable accommodation when
compliance with all 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
Resolution No. 18-27 Page 11 of 16
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
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
Resolution No. 18-27 Page 12 of 16
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
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, but the request did not specifically address the fact that this
facility is located on two contiguous parcels. The CMMC specifies that treatment
facilities and sober living homes shall operate on a single parcel. 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 the
Resolution No. 18-27 Page 13 of 16
use of this parcel to be "grandfathered'; and to consider the residents to be
operated as a single housekeeping unit.
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
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 R2MD, 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 230 feet of a licensed drug and alcohol facility with and
approved CUP (PA -87-166) at 209 E. 18th Street. Approval of the subject request
would result in a contribution to the overconcentration of such facilities in this
neighborhood.
During the public hearing, owners of nearby properties testified that they feel the
need to install fences and other security measures in their homes as a result of
their proximity to this facility.
In addition to the separation and safety issues, the subject property is
nonconforming with respect to development intensity, site width, site 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
Resolution No. 18-27 Page 14 of 16
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." Ewing, 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
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.
During the public hearing, public testimony was presented indicating that
occupants of this facility generate noise, affect the availability of on -street parking
in the neighborhood, smoke marijuana outdoors and drink alcoholic beverages,
creating negative effects to residents of nearby properties and are detrimental to
the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
• 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. T he 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.
Resolution No. 18-27 Page 15 of 16
C. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied Conditional Use Permit PA -16-40.
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. 18-27 Page 16 of 16