Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - PH-4 - Appeal of PA-16-39 abd PA-16-40, NB Trea - 4/17/2018CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 17, 2018 ITEM NUMBER: PH-4 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PA-16-39 AND PA-16-40 TO ALLOW A STATE-LICENSED DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT FACILITY SERVING 24 ADULTS; 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 235 AND 241 E. 18TH 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-16-39 (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-16-40 (Attachment 11). 4.Or, alternatively, make a finding that approval of both of these applications will not result in an overconcentration of similar uses and approve Conditional Use Permits PA-16-39 and PA-16-40. 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 treatment facility on the subject properties since 2009. This facility serves up to 24 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 properties are located approximately 230 feet from a state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility with an existing CUP (PA-87-166). The Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) requires that a group home, residential care facility or state-licensed drug and alcohol facility be at least 650 feet from another property that contains a similar facility. The CMMC also requires such facilities to be located on a single parcel per CMMC Section 13-321. 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- 5.pdf At its meeting of January 8, 2018 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny both applications. These resolutions adopted by the Commission are attached to this report (Resolution PC-18-08, Attachment 6 and Resolution PC-18-09, 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 18th Street, between Rogers Place and Westminster Avenue. The properties are zoned R2-MD (Multiple Family Residential Medium Density). Surrounding properties also share this zoning designation. The property immediately abuts other properties in the R2-MD zoning district and is across the street from parcels within the R1 (Single Family Residential) zone. 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 sober living facility began operation at this location in 2009, prior to the enactment of Ordinance 15-11. The facility encompasses two parcels, each of which is developed with three units. All units are currently operated as a single facility serving up to 24 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 a building containing three two-bedroom units. The parcels were developed at the same time and the buildings are mirror images. A common courtyard is provided between the buildings and each unit has a fenced yard. There are three garage spaces on each site. 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 the 1950s and are legal-nonconforming with respect to certain R2 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 9,000 square feet of area where current standards require 12,000 square feet. Each parcel is developed with three units, where the current zoning standards would allow only two, based on the size of the lot. Three parking spaces are provided on each lot, where the code now requires ten spaces. Lastly, each of the units house 1.33 persons per room and are overcrowded per the guidance provided in the City’s General Plan as well as per the federal definition of overcrowding. Code Enforcement staff has not opened any complaint investigations. At the time of the Planning Commission report, there were two calls for Police service reported; one for medical aid and one to report a suspicious person on the premises. Staff will present updated calls for service information at the time of the Council hearing. The subject property is well maintained. 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 sober living 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 property is located approximately 230 feet from a state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility located at 209 E. 18th Street. The City issued a CUP for this facility in 1987 (PA-87-166). In a letter dated June 2, 2016, the Director of Economic and Development Services denied the applicant’s request for Reasonable Accommodation to allow this sober living facility to be located within 650 feet of other group homes, residential care facilities or state-licensed drug and alcohol facilities. 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 denying the applicant’s appeal regarding the request for a Reasonable Accommodation, and the 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 is one state-licensed facility within 650 feet of the subject property (Attachment 1). The facility at 209 East 18th Street is licensed by the State to serve 12 adults, and the City has issued a CUP to authorize this use. 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 within the 650-foot radius. Location Status 209 East 18th Street Approved CUP; state-licensed to serve 12 (creates separation conflict per CMMC) 200 Cabrillo Street Pending CUP application (Denial appealed to City Council) In addition, outside of the 650-foot radius but shown within the separation map frame, there is a State-licensed facility licensed to serve six or fewer persons in each of four units (14 persons total) at 171 and 175 Rochester. In addition, there is a State-licensed facility serving six or fewer persons at 166 East 18th Street. Lastly, there is a facility that has been cited for operating without required permits at 268 Flower Street. This property owner/operator has filed an application for a Reasonable Accommodation. The application was denied by the Director and is on appeal to the Planning Commission. A facility was previously operating at 2775 Orange Street, but was cited by Code Enforcement and has since closed; therefore, it is not shown on the map. The City is investigating one potential violation of the group home regulations in the 1700 block of Rodgers (this location is also not shown on the map). Ownership The City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 17-05 and 18-06 in May of 2017. These ordinances changed the submittal requirements for applications for sober living homes/drug and alcohol treatment facilities. 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. This applicant has provided information detailing ownership of 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. In addition, the applicant has applied for three other CUPs for licensed treatment facilities in Costa Mesa serving more than six residents. 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 this appeal: • 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-16-39 and PA-16-40; 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-16-39 and PA-16-40; or • Grant the appeals and approve the requests for a Reasonable Accommodation and approve CUPs PA-16-39 and 40. 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 in a future meeting. CONCLUSION The subject drug and alcohol treatment facility is within 230 feet of another state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility for which the City has issued a CUP. This licensed facility is in the same block as the subject properties and obtained City approval before the applicant commenced operations. The Zoning Code requires a minimum separation of 650 feet between licensed treatment facilities. The Planning Commission carefully considered the facts regarding this application and denied the applicant’s appeal of the Director’s denial of a Reasonable Accommodation, and denied the conditional use permits. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeals 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 Maps 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-18-08 upholding the Director’s Denial of a Reasonable Accommodation and Denying CUP PA-16-39 7.Planning Commission Resolution PC-18-09 upholding the Director’s Denial of a Reasonable Accommodation and Denying CUP PA-16-40 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-16-39 11.Draft Council Resolution Upholding the Decisions of the Director to Deny the Reasonable Accommodation and the Planning Commission to deny CUP PA-16-40 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 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) UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA-16-39 TO ALLOW A STATE LICENSED DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT FACILITY HOUSING UP TO 12 RESIDENTS AT 235 E. 18th STREET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Northbound Treatment Services (the “Applicant”) currently operates a state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility serving more than six persons at 235 East 18th Street, Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit PA-16-39, a Conditional Use Permit to allow the subject licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility to serve up to 12 gender-specific adults within three existing units; and a request for a reasonable accommodation to allow this facility to be considered a single housekeeping unit; to be “grandfathered” under existing regulations; to be exempt from various provisions of the Zoning Code addressing rules and policies; and to be located within 650 feet of a property that contains a group home, sober living home or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment faciltity; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing disabled persons as defined by state and federal law the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions; therefore, providing greater access to residential zones to group homes, including sober living homes, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has adopted standards for the operation of group homes, residential care facilities and state licensed drug and alcohol facilities that are intended to provide opportunities for disabled persons, as defined by state and federal law to enjoy comfortable accommodations in a residential setting; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has found that congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide disabled persons as defined in state and federal law with an opportunity to “live in normal residential surroundings,” but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the FEHA and FHAA were designed to provide relief from for the disabled, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a life in a normal residential surrounding; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that a separation requirement for such facilities will still allow for a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of sober living homes within the City and still result in preferential treatment for sober living homes in that non-disabled individuals in a similar living situation (i.e., in boardinghouse- style residences) have fewer housing opportunities than disabled persons; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that a group home, sober living home or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment faciltity shall be operated on a single parcel of land; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application with the City’s Director of Economic and Development Services (the “Director”) requesting an accommodation from the Costa Mesa Municipal Code’s requirement that a group home, residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol facility is at least 650 feet from another property that contains a group home, sober living home or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, as measured from the property line; and WHEREAS, the request for reasonable accommodation and the conditional use permit application were processed in the time and manner prescribed by federal, state and local laws, and the Director denied the request for the reasonable accommodation in a letter dated June 2, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the 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 Application; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 17, 2018, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal. BE IT RESOLVED, therefore, that based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in this resolution, the City Council hereby UPHOLDS THE DIRECTOR’S DENIAL of the Applicant’s request for reasonable accommodation to allow the facility to be considered as a single housekeeping unit; to be exempt from various regulations applicable to group homes; to operate this state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility approximately 230 feet from a state-licensed treatment facility located at 209 East 18th Street, for which the City has issued Conditional Use Permit (PA-87-166); and UPHOLDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION and DENIES Conditional Use Permit PA-16-39. 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, City of Costa Mesa 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 a 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 residents tend to be transient. Approval of the request to consider the residents of this facility to be a single housekeeping unit would be contrary to the purpose and intent of Ordinance 15-11. • The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, as "undue financial or administrative burden" is defined in fair housing laws and interpretive case law. There is no evidence that approval of this request will impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. • The requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use. The use of the subject property is more intense than allowed by current zoning standards. Based on the size of each lot, a maximum of two units would be allowed. However, each lot is developed with three units. Each parcel only provides three parking spaces where ten spaces are now required. Each parcel is smaller and narrower than current standards require. The Code requires lot sizes of 12,000 square feet where the existing lots are 9,000 square feet. In addition, the Code requires lots to be 100 feet wide and the existing lots are 50 feet wide. The Planning Commission has expressed concerns regarding the operation of large drug and alcohol treatment facilities on nonconforming parcels. This drug and alcohol treatment facility houses 12 occupants on a nonconforming lot that does not comply with current zoning standards for development intensity, lot width, lot area, and parking. The use of this property would not be consistent with the use of surrounding properties in this neighborhood as this drug and alcohol facility would house a significant number of adults on a site that is developed with more units than currently permitted on a smaller and narrower lot than current standards allow and does not provide the minimum amount of parking required by the CMMC. • The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others. There is no evidence that approval of this request would result in a direct threat to the health or safety of anyone, or substantial physical damage to the property of others. • If economic viability is raised by the applicant as part of the applicant’s showing that the requested accommodation is necessary, then a finding that the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants generally, not just for that particular applicant. The applicant did not raise economic viability as a justification for the accommodation. • Whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. 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 sober living facility or drug and alcohol treatment facility to a single parcel. The intent of this limitation is to ensure that sober living facilities do not occupy a disproportionate number of homes in any neighborhood, and to avoid overconcentration of sober living units in any area. The City also sought to ensure that disabled persons recovering from addiction can reside in a comfortable residential environment versus in an institutional setting. The City determined that housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single dwelling or congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide the disabled with an opportunity to “live in normal residential surroundings,” but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the state and federal laws were designed to provide relief from for disabled persons. The use of three units on this parcel to accommodate 12 residents will create a large facility not in keeping with the City’s desire to ensure sober living homes more closely resemble a typical residential environment. The City’s separation standard of 650 feet was intended to ensure that there would be no more than one group home, residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol facility on any block. In addition, the Municipal Code limits the operation of any sober living facility to a single parcel, again to prevent overconcentration of sober living units. Therefore, approval of the accommodation request will result in a fundamental alteration of the City’s zoning program, as set forth in Ordinance 15-11, because it would contribute to the overconcentration of these types of facilities in this residential neighborhood. The burden to demonstrate necessity remains with the Applicant. Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 784, 787. Applicant must show that “without the required accommodation the disabled will be denied the equal opportunity to live in a residential neighborhood.” Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 784; see also, United States v. California Mobile Home Mgmt Co., 107 F3d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir. 1997) (“without a causal link between defendants’ policy and the plaintiff’s injury, there can be no obligation on the part of the defendants to make a reasonable accommodation”); Smith & Lee, Inc. v. City of Taylor, Mich., 102 F.3d 781, 795 (6th Cir. 1996) (“plaintiffs must show that, but for the accommodation, they likely will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice”). The Applicant has asserted that the requested accommodation from the 650-foot distance requirement is reasonable. However, a zoning accommodation may be deemed unreasonable if “it is so at odds with the purposes behind the rule that it would be a fundamental and unreasonable change.” Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 784. The Applicant made no mention of the purpose underlying the City’s zoning limitation, or explained how the accommodation requested would not undermine that purpose. In fact, the Director found that such allowance would fundamentally alter the character of this neighborhood and is thus unreasonable. Allowing multiple group homes, sober living homes and/or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities to cluster in a residential neighborhood does effect a fundamental change to the residential character of the neighborhood. The clustering of group homes in close proximity to each other does change the residential character of the neighborhood to one that is far more institutional in nature. This is particularly the case with respect to sober living homes. Both California and federal courts have recognized that the maintenance of the residential character of neighborhoods is a legitimate governmental interest. The United States Supreme Court long ago acknowledged the legitimacy of “what is really the crux of the more recent zoning legislation, namely, the creation and maintenance of residential districts, from which business and trade of every sort, including hotels and apartment houses, are excluded.” Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 390 (1926). The California Supreme Court also recognizes the legitimacy of this interest: It is axiomatic that the welfare, and indeed the very existence of a nation depends upon the character and caliber of its citizenry. The character and quality of manhood and womanhood are in a large measure the result of home environment. The home and its intrinsic influences are the very foundation of good citizenship, and any factor contributing to the establishment of homes and the fostering of home life doubtless tends to the enhancement not only of community life but of the life of the nation as a whole. Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477, 490, 492-93 (1925). With home ownership comes stability, increased interest in the promotion of public agencies, such as schools and churches, and ‘recognition of the individual’s responsibility for his share in the safeguarding of the welfare of the community and increased pride in personal achievement which must come from personal participation in projects looking toward community betterment.’ Ewing v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1579, 1590 (1991), citing Miller, 195 Cal. at 493. It is with these purposes in mind that the City of Costa Mesa has created residential zones, including R2 zones for multi-family residences. The requested accommodation, in these specific circumstances, would result in a fundamental alteration of the City’s zoning program, as set forth in Ordinance No. 15-11, because it would increase and/or contribute to the overconcentration of these types of facilities in this residential neighborhood. B. The Application does not meet the findings required by the Costa Mesa Municipal Code for approval of a Conditional Use Permit: • Pursuant to the purpose and intent of the Multi-Family Residential Group Home Ordinance, the drug and alcohol treatment facility would not provide a comfortable living environment that will enhance the opportunity for disabled persons, including recovering addicts, to be successful in their programs. The facility consists of three units occupied by 12 people. The proposed occupancy constitutes overcrowding pursuant to the Housing Element of the General Plan, page HOU-23, which states: Overcrowding is defined as a housing unit occupied by more than one person per room. A severely overcrowded housing unit is one with more than 1.5 persons per room. A room is defined as a bedroom, living room, dining room, or finished recreation room, but excludes kitchen and bathroom. This definition is consistent with the Federal HUD standards, which generally define “overcrowding” to mean housing units with 1.01 or more persons per room. See 42 USCS § 5302(a)(10). Under this standard, all three of the units would be overcrowded. The two-bedroom units include three rooms and house four residents, for a person per room value of 1.33. In addition, the site is nonconforming with respect to density, site width, site area, and parking. Approval of this request will result in occupancy of this site by a large number of adults, creating a more intense living environment than envisioned in the CMMC. When Ordinance 15-11 was adopted by the City Council, it specifically included a provision limiting the operation of a drug and alcohol treatment facility to a single parcel. The intent of this limitation is to ensure that drug and alcohol treatment facilities do not occupy a disproportionate number of homes in any neighborhood, and to avoid overconcentration of sober living units in any area. The City also sought to ensure that disabled persons recovering from addiction have the opportunity to reside in a comfortable residential environment vs. an institutional setting. The City determined that housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single dwelling or congregating drug and alcohol treatment facility in close proximity to each other does not provide the disabled with an opportunity to “live in normal residential surroundings,” but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the state and federal laws were designed to provide relief from for disabled persons. The use of three units on this parcel to accommodate 12 gender specific residents will create facility not in keeping with the City’s desire to ensure drug and alcohol treatment facilities more closely resemble a typical residential environment. Allowing multiple group homes, sober living homes and/or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities to cluster in residential neighborhoods effects a fundamental change to the residential character of the neighborhood. Overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities and group homes changes the residential character of a neighborhood to one that is far more institutional in nature. Strong evidence exists that a supportive living environment in a residential neighborhood provides more effective recovery than an institutional-style environment. Therefore, the City’s zoning regulations seek to provide the disabled, including those recovering from drug and alcohol addiction, an equal opportunity to live in a residence located in residential neighborhood. • The drug and alcohol treatment facility or sober living home would not further the purposes of the FEHA, the FHAA, and Lanterman Act by limiting the secondary impacts related to noise, traffic, and parking to the extent reasonable. The City has found that overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities and group homes changes the character of a residential neighborhood to one that is more institutional in nature. This change in neighborhood character can compound secondary effects related to noise, traffic, and parking. In these neighborhoods, street life is often characterized by large capacity vans picking up and dropping off residents and staff; staff in scrubs carrying medical kits going from unit to unit, and vans dropping off prepared meals in large numbers. The City has experienced frequent Fire Department deployments in response to medical aid calls. In some neighborhoods, Police Department deployments are a regular occurrence as a result of domestic abuse calls, burglary reports, disturbing the peace calls and parole checks at drug and alcohol treatment facilities. Large and often frequent Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings are held at some drug and alcohol treatment facilities. Attendees of these meetings contribute to the lack of available on street parking and neighbors report finding an unusual amount of litter and debris, including beverage containers, condoms and drug paraphernalia in the wake of these meetings. These types of impacts have been identified in other communities as well. The facility will contribute to the overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities in this neighborhood, which could lead to negative impacts in the neighborhood. • The drug and alcohol treatment facility or sober living home would not be compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. The subject property is within approximately 230 feet of a licensed drug and alcohol facility with an approved CUP (PA-87-166) at 209 E. 18th Street. This facility, which is permitted to serve up to 12 residents, is located within the same block as the subject property. Therefore, approval of this CUP will contribute to the overconcentration of these types of facilities, which will conflict with the surrounding residential character of the neighborhood. The clustering of group homes near each other or immediately adjacent does change the residential character of the neighborhood to one that is far more institutional in nature. The subject property is nonconforming with respect to development intensity, site width, site area, and parking. Use of this nonconforming property as a group home is incompatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. • The group home is within 650 feet from another property that contains a group home, sober living home or state-licensed drug and alcohol facility, as defined in the code and measured from the property line. The subject property is within approximately 230 feet of a licensed drug and alcohol facility with an approved CUP (PA-87-166) at 209 E. 18th Street. This facility is located on the same street, within the same block, as the subject property. The operator of a group home may request reasonable accommodation when compliance with all the standards is not possible. Section 13-200.62 (f) of the Zoning Code sets forth the required findings to be used in the determination to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation. The Code specifies that all findings must be made in order to approve such a request. The findings to deny this requested accommodation were enumerated above. CMMC section 13-320 establishes criteria for approval of group homes in multi-family zones. Group homes serving disabled persons as defined by state and federal law are not considered to be boardinghouses. Rather, these facilities offer disabled persons the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods in compliance with state 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, but the request did not specifically address the fact that this facility is located on two contiguous parcels. The CMMC specifies that treatment facilities and sober living homes shall operate on a single parcel. Section 13-200.62 (f) of the Zoning Code sets forth the required findings to be used in the determination to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation. The Code specifies that all findings must be made in order to approve such a request. Based on the information provided by applicant, and staff’s own research into the issue, the Director denied the request for reasonable accommodation to allow the use of this parcel to be “grandfathered”; and to consider the residents to be operated as a single housekeeping unit. Based on the denial of the request for a reasonable accommodation, the facility does not comply with the City’s adopted standards for separation between group homes, residential care facilities and state-licensed drug and alcohol facilities. • The proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. The introduction of one sober living home or licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility in compliance with the City’s standards would not be materially detrimental to the area. However, over the last decade, the number of drug and alcohol treatment facilities in the City of Costa Mesa has rapidly increased, leading to an overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities in certain of the City’s residential neighborhoods. Overconcentration is both deleterious to the residential character of these neighborhoods and may also lead to the institutionalization of such neighborhoods. The City’s establishment of distance requirements for drug and alcohol treatment facilities is reasonable and non-discriminatory and helps preserve the residential character of the R2MD, R2HD, and R3 zones, as well as the planned development residential neighborhoods. It also furthers the interest of ensuring that disabled persons are not living in overcrowded environments that are counterproductive to their well-being and recovery. The proposed facility would be located within 230 feet of a licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility with and approved CUP (PA-87-166) at 209 E. 18th Street. Approval of the subject request would result in 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, site area, and parking. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. • Granting the CUP will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood. As noted above, approval of this application will result in overconcentration of group homes, residential care facilities and/or state-licensed drug and alcohol facilities in this neighborhood. Short-term tenants, such as might be found in homes that provide addiction treatment programs of limited duration, generally have little interest in the welfare of the neighborhoods in which they temporarily reside -- residents “do not 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-16-39. 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) UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA-16-40 TO ALLOW A STATE LICENSED DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT FACILITY HOUSING UP TO 12 RESIDENTS AT 241 E. 18th STREET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Northbound Treatment Services (the “Applicant”) currently operates a state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility serving more than six persons at 241 East 18th Street, Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit PA-16-40, a Conditional Use Permit to allow the subject licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility to serve up to 12 gender-specific adults within three existing units; and a request for a reasonable accommodation to allow this facility to be considered a single housekeeping unit; to be “grandfathered” under existing regulations; to be exempt from various provisions of the Zoning Code addressing rules and policies; and to be located within 650 feet of a property that contains a group home, sober living home or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment faciltity; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing disabled persons as defined by state and federal law the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions; therefore, providing greater access to residential zones to group homes, including sober living homes, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has adopted standards for the operation of group homes, residential care facilities and state licensed drug and alcohol facilities that are intended to provide opportunities for disabled persons, as defined by state and federal law to enjoy comfortable accommodations in a residential setting; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has found that congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide disabled persons as defined in state and federal law with an opportunity to “live in normal residential surroundings,” but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the FEHA and FHAA were designed to provide relief from for the disabled, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a life in a normal residential surrounding; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that a separation requirement for such facilities will still allow for a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of sober living homes within the City and still result in preferential treatment for sober living homes in that non-disabled individuals in a similar living situation (i.e., in boardinghouse- style residences) have fewer housing opportunities than disabled persons; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that a group home, sober living home or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment faciltity shall be operated on a single parcel of land; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application with the City’s Director of Economic and Development Services (the “Director”) requesting an accommodation from the Costa Mesa Municipal Code’s requirement that a group home, residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol facility is at least 650 feet from another property that contains a group home, sober living home or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, as measured from the property line; and WHEREAS, the request for reasonable accommodation and the conditional use permit application were processed in the time and manner prescribed by federal, state and local laws, and the Director denied the request for the reasonable accommodation in a letter dated June 2, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the Director’s decision to deny a reasonable accommodation in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2018 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or in opposition to the applications and unanimously voted to deny the application; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 17, 2018, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for an against the proposal. BE IT RESOLVED, therefore, that based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in this resolution, the City Council hereby UPHOLDS THE DIRECTOR’S DENIAL of the Applicant’s request for reasonable accommodation to allow the facility to be considered as a single housekeeping unit; to be exempt from various regulations applicable to group homes; to operate this state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility approximately 230 feet from a licensed treatment facility located at 209 East 18th Street, for which the City has issued Conditional Use Permit (PA-87-166); and UPHOLDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION and DENIES Conditional Use Permit PA-16-40. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April 2018. ______________________________ Sandra L. Genis Mayor, City of Costa Mesa 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 a Reasonable Accommodation, based on the Applicant not meeting its burden to demonstrate compliance with all required findings per the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. A. The Applicant has not met its burden to show that the Application meets the following findings for approval of Reasonable Accommodation: • The requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one (1) or more individuals with a disability protected under the fair housing laws. The City accepts that this request for Reasonable Accommodation was submitted on behalf of persons who are considered disabled under state and federal law. • The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one (1) or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The application established that the requested accommodation to waive the 650- foot separation requirement may allow a CUP to be granted to enable Northbound Treatment Services to continue to operate in compliance with the Costa Mesa Municipal Code at its current location. In theory, this action would allow one or more individuals who are recovering from drug and alcohol abuse to enjoy the use of these dwellings. However, approval of the request is not necessary to allow one or more individuals who are recovering from drug and alcohol abuse to enjoy the use of a dwelling within the City. There was no justification provided to support the request to “grandfather” the facility or consider the residents of the facility to be a single housekeeping unit. Indeed, the CMMC includes amortization provisions for group homes that were in operation at the time Ordinance 15-11 was adopted. All such homes are required to come into compliance within one year. The residents do not live as a single housekeeping unit as defined by the CMMC in that they have no control over who else resides at the facility; rent is collected from each resident; expenses are not shared; and residents tend to be transient. Approval of the request to consider the residents of this facility to be a single housekeeping unit would be contrary to the purpose and intent of Ordinance 15-11. • The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, as "undue financial or administrative burden" is defined in fair housing laws and interpretive case law. There is no evidence that approval of this request will impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. • The requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use. The use of the subject property is more intense than allowed by current zoning standards. Based on the size of each lot, a maximum of two units would be allowed. However, each lot is developed with three units. Each parcel only provides three parking spaces where ten spaces are now required. Each parcel is smaller and narrower than current standards require. The Code requires lot sizes of 12,000 square feet where the existing lots are 9,000 square feet. In addition, the Code requires lots to be 100 feet wide and the existing lots are 50 feet wide. The Planning Commission has expressed concerns regarding the operation of large drug and alcohol treatment facilities on nonconforming parcels. This drug and alcohol treatment facility houses 12 occupants on a nonconforming lot that does not comply with current zoning standards for development intensity, lot width, lot area, and parking. The use of this property would not be consistent with the use of surrounding properties in this neighborhood as this drug and alcohol facility would house a significant number of adults on a site that is developed with more units than currently permitted on a smaller and narrower lot than current standards allow and does not provide the minimum amount of parking required by the CMMC. • The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others. There is no evidence that approval of this request would result in a direct threat to the health or safety of anyone, or substantial physical damage to the property of others. • If economic viability is raised by the applicant as part of the applicant’s showing that the requested accommodation is necessary, then a finding that the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants generally, not just for that particular applicant. The applicant did not raise economic viability as a justification for the accommodation. • Whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. 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 sober living facility or drug and alcohol treatment facility to a single parcel. The intent of this limitation is to ensure that sober living facilities do not occupy a disproportionate number of homes in any neighborhood, and to avoid overconcentration of sober living units in any area. The City also sought to ensure that disabled persons recovering from addiction can reside in a comfortable residential environment versus in an institutional setting. The City determined that housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single dwelling or congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide the disabled with an opportunity to “live in normal residential surroundings,” but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the state and federal laws were designed to provide relief from for disabled persons. The use of three units on this parcel to accommodate 12 residents will create a large facility not in keeping with the City’s desire to ensure sober living homes more closely resemble a typical residential environment. The City’s separation standard of 650 feet was intended to ensure that there would be no more than one group home, residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol facility on any block. In addition, the Municipal Code limits the operation of any sober living facility to a single parcel, again to prevent overconcentration of sober living units. Therefore, approval of the accommodation request will result in a fundamental alteration of the City’s zoning program, as set forth in Ordinance 15-11, because it would contribute to the overconcentration of these types of facilities in this residential neighborhood. The burden to demonstrate necessity remains with the Applicant. Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 784, 787. Applicant must show that “without the required accommodation the disabled will be denied the equal opportunity to live in a residential neighborhood.” Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 784; see also, United States v. California Mobile Home Mgmt Co., 107 F3d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir. 1997) (“without a causal link between defendants’ policy and the plaintiff’s injury, there can be no obligation on the part of the defendants to make a reasonable accommodation”); Smith & Lee, Inc. v. City of Taylor, Mich., 102 F.3d 781, 795 (6th Cir. 1996) (“plaintiffs must show that, but for the accommodation, they likely will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice”). The Applicant has asserted that the requested accommodation from the 650-foot distance requirement is reasonable. However, a zoning accommodation may be deemed unreasonable if “it is so at odds with the purposes behind the rule that it would be a fundamental and unreasonable change.” Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 784. The Applicant made no mention of the purpose underlying the City’s zoning limitation, or explained how the accommodation requested would not undermine that purpose. In fact, the Director found that such allowance would fundamentally alter the character of this neighborhood and is thus unreasonable. Allowing multiple group homes, sober living homes and/or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities to cluster in a residential neighborhood does effect a fundamental change to the residential character of the neighborhood. The clustering of group homes in close proximity to each other does change the residential character of the neighborhood to one that is far more institutional in nature. This is particularly the case with respect to sober living homes. Both California and federal courts have recognized that the maintenance of the residential character of neighborhoods is a legitimate governmental interest. The United States Supreme Court long ago acknowledged the legitimacy of “what is really the crux of the more recent zoning legislation, namely, the creation and maintenance of residential districts, from which business and trade of every sort, including hotels and apartment houses, are excluded.” Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 390 (1926). The California Supreme Court also recognizes the legitimacy of this interest: It is axiomatic that the welfare, and indeed the very existence of a nation depends upon the character and caliber of its citizenry. The character and quality of manhood and womanhood are in a large measure the result of home environment. The home and its intrinsic influences are the very foundation of good citizenship, and any factor contributing to the establishment of homes and the fostering of home life doubtless tends to the enhancement not only of community life but of the life of the nation as a whole. Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477, 490, 492-93 (1925). With home ownership comes stability, increased interest in the promotion of public agencies, such as schools and churches, and ‘recognition of the individual’s responsibility for his share in the safeguarding of the welfare of the community and increased pride in personal achievement which must come from personal participation in projects looking toward community betterment.’ Ewing v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1579, 1590 (1991), citing Miller, 195 Cal. at 493. It is with these purposes in mind that the City of Costa Mesa has created residential zones, including R2 zones for multi-family residences. The requested accommodation, in these specific circumstances, would result in a fundamental alteration of the City’s zoning program, as set forth in Ordinance No. 15-11, because it would increase and/or contribute to the overconcentration of these types of facilities in this residential neighborhood. B. The Application does not meet the findings required by the Costa Mesa Municipal Code for approval of a Conditional Use Permit: • Pursuant to the purpose and intent of the Multi-Family Residential Group Home Ordinance, the drug and alcohol treatment facility would not provide a comfortable living environment that will enhance the opportunity for disabled persons, including recovering addicts, to be successful in their programs. The facility consists of three units occupied by 12 people. The proposed occupancy constitutes overcrowding pursuant to the Housing Element of the General Plan, page HOU-23, which states: Overcrowding is defined as a housing unit occupied by more than one person per room. A severely overcrowded housing unit is one with more than 1.5 persons per room. A room is defined as a bedroom, living room, dining room, or finished recreation room, but excludes kitchen and bathroom. This definition is consistent with the Federal HUD standards, which generally define “overcrowding” to mean housing units with 1.01 or more persons per room. See 42 USCS § 5302(a)(10). Under this standard, all three of the units would be overcrowded. The two-bedroom units include three rooms and house four residents, for a person per room value of 1.33. In addition, the site is nonconforming with respect to density, site width, site area, and parking. Approval of this request will result in occupancy of this site by a large number of adults, creating a more intense living environment than envisioned in the CMMC. When Ordinance 15-11 was adopted by the City Council, it specifically included a provision limiting the operation of a drug and alcohol treatment facility to a single parcel. The intent of this limitation is to ensure that drug and alcohol treatment facilities do not occupy a disproportionate number of homes in any neighborhood, and to avoid overconcentration of sober living units in any area. The City also sought to ensure that disabled persons recovering from addiction have the opportunity to reside in a comfortable residential environment vs. an institutional setting. The City determined that housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single dwelling or congregating drug and alcohol treatment facility in close proximity to each other does not provide the disabled with an opportunity to “live in normal residential surroundings,” but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the state and federal laws were designed to provide relief from for disabled persons. The use of three units on this parcel to accommodate 12 gender specific residents will create facility not in keeping with the City’s desire to ensure drug and alcohol treatment facilities more closely resemble a typical residential environment. Allowing multiple group homes, sober living homes and/or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities to cluster in residential neighborhoods effects a fundamental change to the residential character of the neighborhood. Overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities and group homes changes the residential character of a neighborhood to one that is far more institutional in nature. Strong evidence exists that a supportive living environment in a residential neighborhood provides more effective recovery than an institutional-style environment. Therefore, the City’s zoning regulations seek to provide the disabled, including those recovering from drug and alcohol addiction, an equal opportunity to live in a residence located in residential neighborhood. • The drug and alcohol treatment facility or sober living home would not further the purposes of the FEHA, the FHAA, and Lanterman Act by limiting the secondary impacts related to noise, traffic, and parking to the extent reasonable. The City has found that overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities and group homes changes the character of a residential neighborhood to one that is more institutional in nature. This change in neighborhood character can compound secondary effects related to noise, traffic, and parking. In these neighborhoods, street life is often characterized by large capacity vans picking up and dropping off residents and staff; staff in scrubs carrying medical kits going from unit to unit, and vans dropping off prepared meals in large numbers. The City has experienced frequent Fire Department deployments in response to medical aid calls. In some neighborhoods, Police Department deployments are a regular occurrence as a result of domestic abuse calls, burglary reports, disturbing the peace calls and parole checks at drug and alcohol treatment facilities. Large and often frequent Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings are held at some drug and alcohol treatment facilities. Attendees of these meetings contribute to the lack of available on street parking and neighbors report finding an unusual amount of litter and debris, including beverage containers, condoms and drug paraphernalia in the wake of these meetings. These types of impacts have been identified in other communities as well. The facility will contribute to the overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities in this neighborhood, which could lead to negative impacts in the neighborhood. • The drug and alcohol treatment facility or sober living home would not be compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. The subject property is within approximately 230 feet of a licensed drug and alcohol facility with an approved CUP (PA-87-166) at 209 E. 18th Street. This facility, which is permitted to serve up to 12 residents, is located within the same block as the subject property. Therefore, approval of this CUP will contribute to the overconcentration of these types of facilities, which will conflict with the surrounding residential character of the neighborhood. The clustering of group homes near each other or immediately adjacent does change the residential character of the neighborhood to one that is far more institutional in nature. The subject property is nonconforming with respect to development intensity, site width, site area, and parking. Use of this nonconforming property as a group home is incompatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. • The group home is within 650 feet from another property that contains a group home, sober living home or state-licensed drug and alcohol facility, as defined in the code and measured from the property line. The subject property is within approximately 230 feet of a licensed drug and alcohol facility with an approved CUP (PA-87-166) at 209 E. 18th Street. This facility is located on the same street, within the same block, as the subject property. The operator of a group home may request reasonable accommodation when compliance with all the standards is not possible. Section 13-200.62 (f) of the Zoning Code sets forth the required findings to be used in the determination to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation. The Code specifies that all findings must be made in order to approve such a request. The findings to deny this requested accommodation were enumerated above. CMMC section 13-320 establishes criteria for approval of group homes in multi-family zones. Group homes serving disabled persons as defined by state and federal law are not considered to be boardinghouses. Rather, these facilities offer disabled persons the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods in compliance with state 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, but the request did not specifically address the fact that this facility is located on two contiguous parcels. The CMMC specifies that treatment facilities and sober living homes shall operate on a single parcel. Section 13-200.62 (f) of the Zoning Code sets forth the required findings to be used in the determination to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation. The Code specifies that all findings must be made in order to approve such a request. Based on the information provided by applicant, and staff’s own research into the issue, the Director denied the request for reasonable accommodation to allow the use of this parcel to be “grandfathered”; and to consider the residents to be operated as a single housekeeping unit. Based on the denial of the request for a reasonable accommodation, the facility does not comply with the City’s adopted standards for separation between group homes, residential care facilities and state-licensed drug and alcohol facilities. • The proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. The introduction of one sober living home or licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility in compliance with the City’s standards would not be materially detrimental to the area. However, over the last decade, the number of drug and alcohol treatment facilities in the City of Costa Mesa has rapidly increased, leading to an overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities in certain of the City’s residential neighborhoods. Overconcentration is both deleterious to the residential character of these neighborhoods and may also lead to the institutionalization of such neighborhoods. The City’s establishment of distance requirements for drug and alcohol treatment facilities is reasonable and non-discriminatory and helps preserve the residential character of the R2MD, R2HD, and R3 zones, as well as the planned development residential neighborhoods. It also furthers the interest of ensuring that disabled persons are not living in overcrowded environments that are counterproductive to their well-being and recovery. The proposed facility would be located within 230 feet of a licensed drug and alcohol facility with and approved CUP (PA-87-166) at 209 E. 18th Street. Approval of the subject request would result in a contribution to the overconcentration of such facilities in this neighborhood. In addition to the separation issues, the subject property is nonconforming with respect to development intensity, site width, site area, and parking. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. • Granting the CUP will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood. As noted above, approval of this application will result in overconcentration of group homes, residential care facilities and/or state-licensed drug and alcohol facilities in this neighborhood. Short-term tenants, such as might be found in homes that provide addiction treatment programs of limited duration, generally have little interest in the welfare of the neighborhoods in which they temporarily reside -- residents “do not 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-16-40. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. D. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. PH-4 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS APPEAL OF PA-16-39 & PA-16-40 235 & 241 E. 18TH STREET April 13, 2018 Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 C/O Brenda Green, City Clerk cityclerk@costamesaca.gov RE: April 17, 2018 Public Hearing PA-16-39 and PA-16-40 Northbound Treatment Services 235 & 241 E. 18th Street, Costa Mesa Dear Council members: I am a concerned about the 235 & 241 E. 18th Street neighborhood and its over concentration of sober living homes in the immediate area. I respectfully request the City Council deny Northbound Treatment Services’ appeal: to operate a high density treatment facility housing up to 24 adults on two adjacent parcels with no footage separation falling far short of the 650’ minimum requirement; its request for reasonable accommodation allowing them to operate within 230 feet of another licensed treatment facility (209 E. 18th St.); and relief from other land use requirements. The 235 & 241 E. 18th Street locations are each small triplexes that apparently condense 4 adults into two bedroom spaces (approximately 10’ x 11’), a small kitchen prep area, and a combined eating/living room space (approximately 11’ x 14’). The facility is not providing its residents a typical residential environment. Consequently, overcrowding affords facility residents little incentive to remain within cramped quarters resulting in undesirable outdoor behaviors impacting the neighborhood. Neighbors experience: smoke, loud music and profanities coming from the treatment facilities; cigarette butts, beer cans and drug paraphernalia are found littering the neighborhood; parental fears of negative influences on their children; and an increased concern for their personal and property’s safety. These factors cause neighborhood residents to reconsider living in Costa Mesa. There is no good rational for granting Northbound Treatment Services’ appeal in flagrant violation of purposeful city ordinances. So many treatment facilities within close proximity of each other are detrimental to the rights of neighboring residents to enjoy their homes and feel safe in their community. Please restore the “pre-sober living” character of the neighborhood and deny these appeals. Your denials will be greatly appreciated by the neighborhood’s residents. Sincerely, 235-241 E 18th Street Neighbor Cc: sheri.vanderdussen@costamesaca.gov PH-4 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS