Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-52 - PA-16-26 Denial, 3016 Jeffrey Drive, Raw Recovery, LLCRESOLUTION NO. 18-52 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 DEVIATE FROM VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE; AND 2) DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA -16-26 TO ALLOW A SOBER LIVING FACILITY OPERATED BY RAW RECOVERY, LLC, HOUSING TEN RESIDENTS AT 3016 JEFFREY DRIVE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, RAW Recovery (the "Applicant") currently operates a sober living facility serving more than six persons at 3016 Jeffrey Drive, Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit PA -16-26, a Conditional Use Permit to allow the subject sober living facility to serve up to ten 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 contiguous property that contains a sober living home; 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 Resolution No. 18-52 Page 1 of 9 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 well as other land use requirements; and WHEREAS, 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 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 voted to deny the application; and Resolution No. 18-52 Page 2 of 9 WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 17, 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 DIRECTOR'S DENIAL of the Applicant's request for reasonable accommodation to allow the facility to be considered a single housekeeping unit; to be "grandfathered" under existing regulations; to be exempt from various regulations applicant to group homes; to be located within 650 feet of another sober living facility on a contiguous parcel; and UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION and DENIES Conditional Use Permit PA -16-26. 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 July 2018. F S dra L. Oenii, ayor ATTEST: Brenda Gre4j, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Thomas P. rte, City Attorney Resolution No. 18-52 Page 3 of 9 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. 18-52 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 July, 2018, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Foley, Righeimer, Stephens, Mansoor, 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 July, 2018. Brenda Green,i Clerk Resolution No. 18-52 Page 4 of 9 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 Reasonable Accommodation, based on the Applicant not meeting its burden to demonstrate compliance with all required findings per the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC). 1. The Applicant has not met its burden to show that the Application meets the following findings for approval of Reasonable Accommodation: a. 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. b. The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one (1) or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. With the Council's denial of PA -16-32, there is no separation conflict for 3016 Jeffrey. Therefore, the waiver of the 650 -foot separation requirement is not necessary to allow a CUP to be granted to enable this applicant to continue to operate in compliance with the Costa Mesa Municipal Code at its current location. However, 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. c. 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. There is no evidence that approval of this request will impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. Resolution No. 18-52 Page 5 of 9 d. The requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use. Development of the subject properties does not comply with current zoning standards, but these deviations were approved by the City in 1976 through a variance (ZE-76-136A). Since the City granted a variance, the parcels are not considered to be legal non -conforming with respect to site area and width, development intensity, parking and setbacks. The same variance allowed similar deviations on other properties in this area. e. 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. g. 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 65 sober living homes and 11 licensed treatment facilities that are subject to compliance with Ordinance Nos. 14-13 and 15-11. Twelve (12) sober living homes serving six or fewer residents have been approved by the City, and two sober living home serving seven or more residents have been approved under these ordinances. In addition, there are currently 76 state -licensed drug and alcohol residential care 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. h. The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's zoning program. Resolution No. 18-52 Page 6 of 9 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 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 10 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. In addition, as stated above, there was no justification provided to support the request to "grandfather" the facility. Indeed, the zoning scheme expressed in the CMMC includes amortization provisions for group homes that were in operation at the time Ordinance 15-11 was adopted. Eliminating this requirement would fundamentally alter the zoning scheme. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. 2. The Application does not meet the findings required by the Costa Mesa Municipal Code for approval of a Conditional Use Permit: a. 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 10 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. Resolution No. 18-52 Page 7 of 9 See 42 USCS § 5302(a)(10). Under this standard, the two- and three-bedroom units would be overcrowded. The two-bedroom unit houses four people in three rooms, for a person per room value of 1.33. The three-bedroom unit houses six people in five rooms for a value of 1.2 persons per room. Overcrowded conditions do not allow for a comfortable living environment and do not enhance the opportunity for recovering addicts to be successful in their programs. Further, when Ordinance 15-11 was adopted by the City Council, it 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 accommodate 10 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. b. 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. Verbal and written testimony presented to the Planning Commission and City Council indicates that the neighbors experience secondary impacts as a result of this sober living home. This written testimony included a letter and log submitted by a resident of Jennifer Lane on January 8, 2018 detailing specific impacts regarding noise and smoke. Other neighbors also cited negative impacts related to smoking, parking, loitering, litter and noise. This property and the adjoining property at 3018 Jeffrey Drive generated 26 calls for police and fire service, 18 of which were related to facility operations. These calls were primarily complaints from neighbors regarding noise and disruptive behavior. In addition, Code Enforcement received 10 complaints, primarily regarding noise and smoke. Approval of this application would allow 10 adults to live on a site where only five parking spaces are provided. Approval of this CUP would contribute to the lack of on -street parking and exacerbate ongoing parking problems in this neighborhood. c. The drug and alcohol treatment facility or sober living home would not be compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. The use of this property by 10 adults as a sober living facility has resulted in negative impacts in this neighborhood, as described in the records. The noise and smoke generated by this sober living home have interfered with the ability of nearby residents to use and enjoy their dwelling units and outdoor living spaces. This facility has also exacerbated existing on -street parking issues. Resolution No. 18-52 Page 8 of 9 d. The group home is not 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. Since Conditional Use Permit PA -16-32 has been denied, there are no other sober living facilities or state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities within 650 feet of this property. e. The proposed use is not substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Written and verbal testimony presented to the Planning Commission and City Council indicated that the facility generates noise and smoke impacts that negatively affect the ability of nearby residents to enjoy their homes and outdoor living areas. Testimony regarding loitering, litter and the lack of on -street parking was also presented. Approval of this CUP to allow 10 adults on a parcel with only five parking spaces would exacerbate parking problems. f. Granting the CUP will be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood. Written and oral testimony documents the negative impacts of the existing sober living facility on nearby residents. g. Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. The proposed use is consistent with the City's General Plan. The City's regulations are intended to preserve the residential character of the City's neighborhoods. However, testimony presented during the hearings indicated that the facility is not operated in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied Conditional Use Permit PA -16-26. 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. 4. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Resolution No. 18-52 Page 9 of 9