Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - PH-3 - Appeal of PA-16-37 and PA-16-38, NB Trea - 4/17/2018 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 17, 2018 ITEM NUMBER: PH-3 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PA-16-37 AND PA-16-38 TO OPERATE A STATE-LICENSED DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT FACILITY SERVING 26 RESIDENTS; INCLUDING AN APPEAL OF DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION TO DEVIATE FROM VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE; OPERATED BY NORTHBOUND TREATMENT SERVICES AT 125 AND 131 EAST WILSON STREET DATE: APRIL 12, 2018 FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: SHERI VANDER DUSSEN, CONSULTANT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SHERI VANDER DUSSEN (714) 754-5617 Sheri.vanderdussen@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION 1. Hold a single public hearing for these two applications since the sites are contiguous and operated as a single facility. 2. Adopt a resolution upholding the decisions of the Director of Economic and Development Services to deny a request for reasonable accommodation and the Planning Commission to deny Conditional Use Permit PA-16-37 (Attachment 10). 3. Adopt a resolution upholding the decisions of the Director of Economic and Development Services to deny a request for reasonable accommodation and the Planning Commission to deny Conditional Use Permit PA-16-38 (Attachment 11). 4. Or, alternatively, make a finding that approval of both of these application will not result in an overconcentration of similar uses, and approve Conditional Use Permits PA-16-37 and PA-16-38. AUTHORIZED AGENT / APPELLANT The applicant, Devon Wayt, is representing Northbound Treatment Services and the property owners, Keith Walton and Linda Alexander. BACKGROUND Northbound Treatment Services has operated a state-licensed drug and alcohol recovery facility on this property since 2014. The facility serves up to 26 gender specific residents. Pursuant to Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) Section 13-323, group homes serving more than six residents may be permitted on sites zoned for multi-family development, subject to approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). The subject facility is located within 366 feet of a City-approved sober living home at 165 E. Wilson Street. The City approved a conditional use permit in November of 2016 to allow this sober living home to serve up to 11 men (PA-16-03). On March 31, 2016, and May 17, 2016 the applicant requested a reasonable accommodation to deviate from the required separation standard; to consider the residents of the facility as a single housekeeping unit; to “grandfather” the use since it was established prior to the City’s group home regulations; and to exempt the facility from various sections of the CMMC addressing policies and rules. The request is labeled as Attachment 2 to this report. In a letter dated June 2, 2016, the City’s Director of Economic and Development Services denied the request for reasonable accommodation. The letter denying the requested accommodation lays out the basis for denial (Attachment 3). On June 9, 2016, the applicant appealed the Director’s decision to the Planning Commission (Attachment 4). The applications are fully described and analyzed in Attachment 5, the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission meeting of January 8, 2018. The Planning Commission staff report may also be found on the City’s website via this link: https://www.costamesaca.gov/ftp/planningcommission/agenda/2018/2018-01-08/PH- 4.pdf At its meeting of January 8, 2018, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny both of these CUPs. The resolutions adopted by the Commission are attached to this report (Resolution PC-18-06, Attachment 6 and Resolution PC-18-07, Attachment 7). An excerpt of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 8, 2018, is included as Attachment 8. ANALYSIS The subject properties are located on the southwest side of Wilson Street, between Newport Boulevard and Elden Avenue. The properties are zoned R2-MD (Multiple Family Residential, Medium Density). Surrounding properties also share this zoning designation. The sites have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential. Property Description Pursuant to the CMMC, “property” is defined as any single development lot that has been subdivided, bearing its own assessor’s parcel number or with an approved subdivision or condominium map. The subject site consists of two individual parcels. The CMMC specifies that group homes and facilities providing drug and alcohol treatment in residential areas shall only occupy a single parcel. For this reason, although operated as a single facility, the property is considered two separate sites for purposes of compliance with Ordinance 15-11. Facility Description The existing licensed treatment facility began operation in 2014, prior to the enactment of Ordinance 15-11. The facility encompasses two parcels, each developed with three units. The properties were developed at the same time in 1976 in a mirror image. All units are currently operated as a single facility. The facility is licensed to house up to 26 gender specific residents. A residential care facility is a sub-type of group home. Article 2 of Section 13-6 (Definitions) defines a group home as follows: A facility that is being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. A group home operated by a single operator or service provider (whether licensed or unlicensed) constitutes a single facility whether the facility occupies one or more dwelling units. Residential care facility. A residential facility licensed by the state where care, services, or treatment is provided to persons living in a supportive community residential setting. Residential care facilities include but may not be limited to the following: intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled (Health & Safety Code §§ 1267.8, 1267.9); community care facilities (Health& Safety Code § 1500 et seq.); residential care facilities for the elderly (Health & Safety Code § 1569 et seq.); residential care facilities for the chronically ill (22 C.C.R. § 87801(a)(5); Health & Safety Code § 1568.02); alcoholism and drug abuse facilities (Health & Safety Code §§ 11834.02—11834.30); pediatric day health and respite care facilities (Health& Safety Code § 1760 et seq.); residential health care facilities, including congregate living health facilities (Health & Safety Code §§ 1265—1271.1, 1250(i), 1250(e), (h)); family care home, foster home, group home for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children (Wel. & Inst. Code §§ 5115—5120). Each site is developed with three units. One unit includes one bedroom; one unit includes two bedrooms; and one unit includes three bedrooms. The one-bedroom unit is shared by three residents; there are two beds in the other bedrooms. Each unit also features a living area, kitchen, and one or two bathrooms. There are two garage parking spaces provided for each unit. This licensed facility provides a more structured living environment than a sober living home. There is a staff member present on the site at all times. All residents follow the same daily schedule, which includes meditation, meal preparation, visits to a local gym, participation in lectures or discussions and group activities off-site, and attendance at off-site 12-step meetings in the evenings. Residents are not allowed to leave the property without a staff member. The applicant provides transportation for the residents to all off-site activities. These vehicles are not stored at the site. The subject properties were developed in 1976 and are legal-nonconforming with respect to some R2-MD standards. Each site is only 60 feet wide, where current standards require a minimum width of 100 feet. In addition, each site is deficient in site area. The parcels contain 8,979 square feet of area where current standards require 12,000 square feet. Each parcel is developed with three units, where current standards would only allow two units. Each parcel provides six garage spaces but no open parking spaces that comply with the requirements of the CMMC. Current standards require a total of ten parking spaces on each parcel. In addition, the driveways are narrower than required. Lastly, each of the units house 1.33 to 1.5 persons per room (depending on the unit) and are overcrowded per the guidance provided in the City’s General Plan as well as the federal definition of overcrowding. Since the facility commenced operations, Code Enforcement staff has investigated one complaint regarding smoking but was unable to substantiate the complaint. At the time of the Planning Commission report, there were no Police calls for service reported. Staff will present updated calls for service information at the time of the Council hearing. Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance 15-11 established requirements for sober living homes, group homes and licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities in multi-family zoning districts. In letters dated March 31, 2016, and May 17, 2016, the applicant requested that the City grant a Reasonable Accommodation to consider this facility to be a single housekeeping unit; “grandfather” this facility and exempt it from current regulations; grant relief from other Code requirements; and allow this facility to be within 650 feet of another treatment or sober living facility (Attachment 2). The City Council imposed a separation standard of 650 feet between group homes, sober living homes, and licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities. The intent of these limitations is to ensure that these facilities do not occupy a disproportionate number of homes in any neighborhood, and to avoid overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities and 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 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 subject facility is located approximately 366 feet from a sober living facility at 165 East Wilson that has a permit from the City (CUP PA-16-03). In a letter dated June 2, 2016, the Director of Economic and Development Services denied the applicant’s request for a Reasonable Accommodation, including the request to allow this drug and alcohol treatment facility to be located within 650 feet of another licensed treatment or sober living facility. On June 9, 2016, the applicant appealed the director’s decision to the Planning Commission. At its meeting of January 8, 2018, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted resolutions to deny the applicant’s appeals regarding the request for a Reasonable Accommodation, and to deny both CUPs (Attachments 6 and 7). Separation Conflict Map The CMMC requires a separation of 650 feet between sober living and licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities. The following types of facilities create a separation conflict: • State-licensed treatment facilities serving six or fewer persons, as these facilities are permitted by right under State law • Sober living and state-licensed treatment facilities for which the City has issued a CUP to serve more than six persons • Sober living facilities serving up to six persons for which the City has issued a Special Use Permit (SUP) At the direction of the Planning Commission and City Council, separation maps have been revised to depict the location of all state-licensed facilities within 650 feet of the subject property, even if those facilities serve more than six residents and have failed to obtain the required CUP from the City. In addition, separation maps now depict the location of sober living or state-licensed facilities for which the City has issued a citation for failure to comply with applicable zoning regulations. This information is provided for informational purposes only. The City will continue to take appropriate action to bring these properties into compliance with the Zoning Code, which may require these facilities to cease operations if the operator cannot or will not obtain the required permit. The attached separation map indicates that there are three sober living or state- licensed facilities within 650 feet of the subject property (Attachment 1). The City has approved a CUP to authorize a sober living facility serving 11 men at 165 East Wilson Street. Therefore, this site is depicted in yellow on the separation map, as it creates a separation conflict under the CMMC. The following table describes all facilities depicted on the separation map located within the 650-foot radius. Location Status 165 East Wilson Street Approved CUP (creates separation conflict per CMMC) 115 East Wilson Street Pending CUP application 160 23rd Street Cited for operating without required permits Outside of the 650-foot radius (but included within the map frame), there is one facility at 114 Albert Place which has been cited for operating without required permits. In addition to these properties, staff is investigating a reported violation in the 2300 block of Orange Avenue (which is not shown on the map). Ownership The City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 17-05 and 17-06 in May of 2017. These ordinances changed the submittal requirements for applications for sober living homes. Applicants are now required to provide the following information: If the applicant and/or operator is a partnership, corporation, firm or association, then the applicant/operator shall provide the additional names and addresses as follows and such persons shall also sign the application: a. every general partner of the partnership; b. every owner with a controlling interest in the corporation; c. the person designated by the officers of a corporation as set forth in a resolution of the corporation that is to be designated as the permit holder; The license and permit history of the applicant(s), including whether such applicant(s), in previously operating a similar use in this or another city, county or state under license and/or permit, has had such license and/or permit revoked or suspended, and the reason therefore. This applicant has provided information detailing ownership of National Therapeutic Services, Inc. doing business as Northbound Treatment Services (Attachment 9). The applicant has indicated Northbound Treatment Services has never had a license suspended or revoked. The applicant presently operates eight facilities licensed to serve six or fewer residents in Costa Mesa. The applicant has also applied for three other CUPs for licensed treatment facilities serving more than six persons in Costa Mesa. Overconcentration Pursuant to CMMC 13-323(b) If a Reasonable Accommodation is not granted, the City Council may not approve the CUP, unless it makes a finding under Section 13-323 of the CMMC that the location will not result in an overconcentration of similar uses. Section 13-323(b) was amended by Ordinance 17-05 in May of 2017. As amended, it provides: The group home, residential care facility or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility is at least six-hundred fifty (650) feet from any property, as defined in Section 13-321, that contains a group home, sober living home or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, as measured from the property line, unless the reviewing authority determines that such location will not result in an over-concentration of similar uses. (Emphasis added.) The effect of this amendment is to allow the Planning Commission and the City Council to approve deviations to the separation requirement where the evidence shows that such location will not result in an overconcentration, yet all the findings necessary for a reasonable accommodation are not met or otherwise cannot be granted. Should the City Council be unable to make all findings necessary to grant a reasonable accommodation, i.e., if the finding that accommodation is “necessary” within the meaning of the federal and state fair housing laws cannot be made, the City Council retains the ability to waive the separation requirement if supported by the evidence and issue this CUP. LEGAL REVIEW The draft resolutions have been approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may take any of the following actions on these appeals: • Deny the appeals and uphold the decisions of the Director to deny the request for a Reasonable Accommodation and the Planning Commission to deny Conditional Use Permits PA-16-37 and PA-16-38; or • Deny the appeal regarding the request for a Reasonable Accommodation but make a finding pursuant to Section 13-323(b) that approval of these CUPs will not result in overconcentration and approve CUPs PA-16-37 and PA-16-38; or • Grant the appeals and approve the requests for a Reasonable Accommodation and approve CUPs PA-16-37 and PA-16-38. Should the City Council wish to approve the CUPs, the hearing should be continued to allow staff to prepare the appropriate resolution documenting the Council’s findings for consideration at a future meeting. CONCLUSION The subject state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility is located within 366 feet of a sober living facility for which the City has issued a CUP to serve 11 men. The Zoning Code requires a minimum separation of 650 feet between licensed treatment facilities and sober living facilities. The licensed treatment facility occupies two parcels and thus does not comply with the separation provisions specified in the CMMC. The Planning Commission carefully considered the facts regarding this application, and denied the applicant’s appeal of the denial of a request for a Reasonable Accommodation, and denied the conditional use permits. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decisions of the Planning Commission. _____ ____ SHERI VANDER DUSSEN, AICP BARRY CURTIS, AICP Consultant Director of Economic and Development Services ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. Separation Map Request for Reasonable Accommodation, correspondence dated March 31, 2016, April 18, 2016, and May 17, 2016 3.Letter dated June 2, 2016, denying Request for Reasonable Accommodation 4.Appeal dated June 9, 2016 5.Staff Report prepared for the Planning Commission meeting of January 8, 2018, with attachments 6.Planning Commission Resolution PC-18-06 upholding the Director’s Denial of a Reasonable Accommodation and Denying CUP PA-16-37 7.Planning Commission Resolution PC-18-07 upholding the Director’s Denial of a Reasonable Accommodation and Denying CUP PA-16-38 8.Excerpt of the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 8, 2018 9.Ownership Information 10.Draft Council Resolution Upholding the Decisions of the Director to Deny the Reasonable Accommodation and the Planning Commission to deny CUP PA-16-37 11.Draft Council Resolution Upholding the Decisions of the Director to Deny the Reasonable Accommodation and the Planning Commission to deny CUP PA-16-38 12.Correspondence received after Distribution of Planning Commission Staff Report Applicant: Devon Wayt Northbound Treatment Services 4343 Von Karman, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Property Owners: Keith Walton and Linda Alexander 136 Calle Linda Fallbrook, CA 92028 RESOLUTION NO. 18-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA 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-16-37 TO ALLOW A STATE-LICENSED DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT FACILITY HOUSING UP TO 13 RESIDENTS AT 125 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 125 East Wilson Street, Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit PA-16-37, 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 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 ATTACHMENT 10 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, 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 applications; 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 425 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-16-37. 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 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ ___________________________________ CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 18-XX as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 17th day of April, 2018, passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this ___ day of ___________, 2018. 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). 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. 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 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 one sober living home serving 13 men has been approved. In addition, there are 60 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. • 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”). 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-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 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 subject facility consists of three units housing 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 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 425 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. The subject property is within approximately 425 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 425 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 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 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 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 425 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.” 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. • 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-16-37. 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-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA 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 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 ATTACHMENT 11 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 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 ADOP TED this 17th day of April, 2018. ________________________________ Sandra L. Genis Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ ___________________________________ CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 18-XX as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 17th day of April, 2018, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this ___ day of ___________, 2018. EXHIBIT A FINDINGS FOR DENIAL The City’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. 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 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 one sober living home serving 13 men has been approved. In addition, there are 60 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. • 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”). 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-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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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.” 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. • 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. PH-3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS APPEAL OF PA-16-37 & PA-16-38 125 & 131 EAST WILSON STREET PH-3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS