Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-33 - PA-16-06 Denial, Pacific Shores Recovery (Cabrillo Street)RESOLUTION NO. 18-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA -16-06 TO ALLOW A SOBER LIVING FACILITY HOUSING 46 RESIDENTS, OPERATED BY PACIFIC SHORES RECOVERY, LLC AT 200, 202, 204, and 206 CABRILLO STREET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Pacific Shores Recovery, LLC, (the "Applicant') currently operates a sober living facility serving more than six persons at 200, 202, 204, and 206 Cabrillo Street, Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit PA -16-06, a Conditional Use Permit to allow the subject sober living facility to serve up to 46 adults within four existing units; 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 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 Resolution No. 18-33 Page 1 of 10 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 a reasonable 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; and WHEREAS, the request for reasonable accommodation and the conditional use permit application were processed in the manner prescribed by federal, state and local laws, WHEREAS, the Director denied the request for the reasonable accommodation in a letter dated March 29, 2016. The applicant did not appeal that decision and the decision became final on April 5, 2016; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2018 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the conditional use permit, 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 Resolution No. 18-33 Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on May 15, 2018, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for or 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 PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL of Conditional Use Permit PA -16-06. 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 15th day of May 2018. r Sabdra L. Genis, Mayor ATTEST: ��� Brenda Green, City Clerk ME Resolution No. 18-33 Page 3 of 10 FORM: Attorney 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. 18-33 and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of May, 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 16th day of May, 2018. Brenda Green, City Clerk Resolution No. 18-33 Page 4 of 10 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, based on the Applicant not meeting its burden to demonstrate compliance with all required findings per the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. A. The subject property is located approximately 516 feet from a state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility at 209 East 18th Street. This City approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in 1987 for this licensed facility (PA -87-166). The applicant's request for a Reasonable Accommodation to allow the subject sober living facility to be located within 650 feet of the state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility was denied by the Director of Economic and Development Services on March 29, 2016. The applicant did not appeal the denial of the request. Therefore, the decision became final on April 5, 2016. In addition, on March 15, 2018, the State Department of Health Care Services issued licenses to allow four units located at 171 and 175 Rochester to serve four to six adults in each unit, for a combined occupancy of sixteen residents. These facilities are approximately 340 feet from the subject property, creating another separation conflict. B. The Application does not meet the findings required by the Costa Mesa Municipal Code for approval of a Conditional Use Permit: • 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 facility consists of four units on one parcel. Approval of this request will allow 46 adults to occupy the site. The site is developed with four units, where current zoning standards would allow the development of only three. Current standards require 40 -percent of the site to be open space, where only 37 -percent of the site is open space. The building is 28 feet high, one foot taller than allowed by current standards. The side yard setbacks are also narrower than currently required. The site provides far less parking than would be required under current standards for units with six and seven bedrooms. Approval of this application will allow a more intense living environment than envisioned in the CMMC. The proposed occupancy of these units 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 Resolution No. 18-33 Page 5 of 10 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 subject property is located within approximately 516 feet of a state -licensed and city -approved drug and alcohol treatment facility located at 209 18th Street. The facility on 18th Street is licensed to serve 12 adults and was issued a CUP by the City in 1987 (PA -87-166). 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. 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 a residential neighborhood, while maintaining the residential character of existing neighborhoods. Housing 46 residents in four units which operate as an integral facility is not in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. 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 applicant failed to submit the information required to allow the City to evaluate the request; therefore, the request for a reasonable accommodation was denied by the Director of Economic & Development Services on March 29, 2016. The CMMC 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. Resolution No. 18-33 Page 6 of 10 The City adopted standards for group homes in response to a proliferation of drug and alcohol treatment facilities in the community. The City found that an overconcentration of sober living homes and drug and alcohol treatment facilities 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. Drug and alcohol treatment facilities and sober living homes 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 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 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, 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. The City's regulations provide group homes, including sober living homes and licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities, greater access to residential zones than to boardinghouses or other types of group living arrangements. This favorable access for group homes provides a benefit to the City and its residents. Resolution No. 18-33 Page 7 of 10 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 sober living homes and drug and alcohol treatment facilities within the City. The requirement will still result in preferential treatment for sober living homes and 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 the disabled. The City determined that housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single dwelling or congregating sober living homes and 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 them relief from. 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, orservices, 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. CitV 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 sober living home or drug and alcohol treatment facility be located at least 650 feet from another property that contains a group home, sober living home or state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility. The applicant failed to respond to the City's request for information justifying the need for a reasonable accommodation in this instance. The request for a Reasonable Accommodation was denied by the Director of Development Services on March 29, 2016. Since the applicant did not appeal the decision, the denial is final. Since the Planning Commission denied this application on March 26, 2018, the City was advised that the State Department of Health Care Services issued licenses to allow four units at 171 and 175 Rochester Street to serve up to four or six adults in each unit, for a combined occupancy of 16 adults. These facilities are approximately 340 feet from the subject property. The licenses were issued on March 15, 2018. Based on denial of a Reasonable Accommodation, the facility does not comply with the City's adopted standards for separation between group homes, residential Resolution No. 18-33 Page 8 of 10 care facilities and state -licensed drug and alcohol facilities. Further, pursuant to CMMC Section 13-323(b), the Planning Commission and the City Council did not find that approval of this CUP application would not result in an overconcentration of sober living homes and licensed treatment facilities in this neighborhood. • Granting the conditional use permit 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. 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 sober living and drug and alcohol treatment facilities in this neighborhood, which could lead to negative impacts in the neighborhood. There are only eleven parking spaces on the site available to serve 46 adults. Approval of this CUP would result in conflicts with residents of nearby properties for the use of on -street parking spaces, as explained in letters and testimony from residents presented to the Planning Commission and City Council. Residents have written and testified that parking in their neighborhood is already adversely impacted by overflow parking from nearby restaurants. Residents testified about the inability of street sweepers to clean the street due to the number of cars parked on the street. Residents also testified that they had observed a significant number of vehicles with out-of-state license plates parked on the street near this facility. In addition, the pastor of Harbor Light Church, which is located across Cabrillo from the subject property, wrote that the church had to install chains to prevent unauthorized use of its parking lot by Pacific Shores residents. The pastor also indicated that church attendees are disturbed by litter and noise. • Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. Resolution No. 18-33 Page 9 of 10 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 -16-06. 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. 18-33 Page 10 of 10