HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-55 - PA-16-25, Denial, 2417 Orange Avenue, Northbound Treatment ServicesRESOLUTION NO. 18-55
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,
CALIFORNIA 1) UPHOLDING THE DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATION TO ALLOW A STATE -LICENSED DRUG AND ALCOHOL
TREATMENT FACILITY TO DEVIATE FROM VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS OF THE
ZONING CODE; AND 2) UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA -16-25 FOR A STATE -
LICENSED DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT FACILITY OPERATED BY
NORTHBOUND TREATMENT SERVICES HOUSING 21 RESIDENTS AT 2417
ORANGE AVENUE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Northbound Treatment Services with
respect to the real property located at 2417 Orange Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the request consists of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the subject
state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility to serve up to 21 residents within six
existing units, including a request for a Reasonable Accommodation to allow this facility
to be considered a single housekeeping unit; to be "grandfathered" under existing
regulations; to be exempt from various provisions of the Zoning Code addressing rules
and policies; and to be located within 650 feet of a property that contain a group home,
sober living home or state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility; 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 for 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
the disabled with relief from, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a
life in a normal residential surrounding; and
Resolution No. 18-55 Page 1 of 8
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 facility shall be operated on a
single parcel of land; and
WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa
Environmental Guidelines, and has been found to be categorically exempt from CEQA
under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities); and
WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; and
WHEREAS, the request for a reasonable accommodation and the conditional use
permit application were processed in the time and manner prescribed by federal, state
and local laws; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services 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 the reasonable
accommodation on June 9, 2016; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2018 the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to hear the appeal of the Director's decision to deny the request
for reasonable accomodation and the application for a conditional use permit, at which
time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or in opposition
to the application; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2018, the Planning Commission upheld the Director's
decision to deny the request for reasonable accomodation and denied the application for
a conditional use permit by a 5-0 vote; 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 August
7, 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 DENIAL OF
Resolution No. 18-55 Page 2 of 8
THE REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, and UPHOLDS THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL of Conditional Use Permit PA -16-25.
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 7th day of August, 2018.
i
Sandra L. Genis, Mayor
ATTEST:
-&D& C...�'Y.r(�Qit/�
Brenda Gree, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
APPROV S TO FORM:
Thomas P. arte, City Attorney
I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 18-55 and was duly passed
and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on
the 7th day of August, 2018, by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Foley, Stephens, Mansoor, Genis
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Righeimer
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the
City of Costa Mesa this 8th day of August, 2018.
&INQYZM
Brenda Green, ity Clerk
Resolution No. 18-55 Page 3 of 8
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS (DENIAL)
A. The Applicant has not met its burden to show that the Application meets the
following findings for approval of Reasonable Accommodation:
Finding: 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 was submitted on behalf of persons who
are considered disabled under state and federal law.
Finding: The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one (1) or more
individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
In this case, because there is no separation conflict, the requested waiver
of the 650 -foot separation requirement is not necessary to allow for the
sober living facility to operate in its current location. However, there was no
justification provided to support the request to "grandfather" the facility or
consider the residents of the facility to be a single housekeeping unit.
Indeed, the CMMC includes amortization provisions for group homes that
were in operation at the time Ordinance 15-11 was adopted. All such
homes are required to come into compliance within one year. The residents
do not live as a single housekeeping unit as defined by the CMMC in that
they have no control over who else resides at the facility; rent is collected
from each resident; expenses are not shared; and residency tends to be
transient. Approval of the request to consider the residents of this facility to
be a single housekeeping unit would be contrary to the purpose and intent
of Ordinance 15-11.
Finding: 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 evidence that the accommodation would impose an undue
financial or administrative burden on the city. The City has responded to 14
calls for emergency services since 2014, most of which involve noise and
disturbances created by the residents of this facility. During the public
hearing, the applicant's representative agreed that operation of licensed
treatment facilities in residential neighborhoods does create a burden to
society.
Finding: The requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in
scale and intensity of use.
Resolution No. 18-55 Page 4 of 8
The subject property is deficient with respect to open space and lot width
when compared to current standards set forth in the CMMC. In addition,
there are only 10 parking spaces on the property, where the Code now
requires 18 spaces. The site development is more intense than what is
allowed under current standards (six units are located onsite whereas only
five are allowed by current standards), and provides less parking than is
presently required.
The City has expressed concerns regarding the operation of large sober
living homes on nonconforming parcels. This sober living home houses 21
occupants on a nonconforming lot that does not comply with current zoning
standards for lot width, open space, number of units and parking. The use
of the property would not be consistent with the scale and intensity of
surrounding properties in this neighborhood as this sober living home would
house a significant number of adults on a site that does not provide
adequate open space or parking for the residents of the property.
In addition, the facility houses 21 residents within six units (five units are
used for residents while the sixth unit is used as an office). This equates to
1.33 persons per room for the occupied units which constitutes an
overcrowded condition. Further, the number of adults in the residence is
higher than the typical number (2.2 adults per household) in Costa Mesa.
As a result, this facility is not consistent with surrounding uses in scale and
intensity. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.
Finding: 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 evidence that approval of this request would result in a direct
threat to the health or safety of others and/or substantial physical damage
to the property of others. Testimony from nearby property owners and
residents indicated that enjoyment of their properties is impeded by noise
and smoke generated by this treatment facility.
Finding: 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.
Resolution No. 18-55 Page 5 of 8
Finding: 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.
City has received applications for 65 sober living homes and 11 licensed
treatment facilities that are subject to compliance with Ordinance Nos. 14-
13 and 15-11. Twelve (12) sober living homes serving six or fewer residents
have been approved by the City, and two sober living homes serving seven
or more residents have been approved. In addition, there are currently 76
state -licensed drug and alcohol residential care facilities in Costa Mesa that
are exempt from City regulation, or have already obtained the required
conditional use permit. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that the
number of sober living homes and drug and alcohol residential care facilities
existing or potentially allowed in compliance with the City's standards is
inadequate.
Finding: 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 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 five units
on this parcel to accommodate 21 residents will create a large facility not in
keeping with the City's desire to ensure group homes more closely
resemble a typical residential environment.
In this case, there is no separation conflict for the subject property.
However, granting a request 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
would fundamentally alter the City's zoning program. 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
Resolution No. 18-55 Page 6 of 8
they have no control over who else resides at the facility; rent is collected
from each resident; expenses are not shared; and residency tends to be
transient. During the hearing, the applicant's representative testified that
residency in a residential treatment facility is generally more transient than
in a sober living home. Residents leave the facility once their treatment
program has been completed and continue to recover elsewhere. 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. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.
B. The Application DOES NOT meet the findings required by the Costa Mesa
Municipal Code for approval of a Conditional Use Permit:
Finding: The proposed development or use is substantially compatible with
developments in the same general area and would be materially detrimental to other
properties within the area.
The following testimony presented to the Planning Commission and City Council
by owners and residents of nearby properties indicated that this facility is not
compatible with developments in the same area and is materially detrimental to
other properties within the neighborhood.
• The facility generates more trips than a typical multi -family unit.
• Vehicles equipped with back-up beepers enter and leave the site on a
regular basis, sometimes early in the morning or late at night.
• Residents of the facility swear, yell and generate noise that disturbs the
enjoyment of nearby properties.
• The proximity of the basketball court and van parking to other residences
creates noise impacts for those residents.
• Cigarette butts are left on and adjacent to the site.
• The applicant has failed to reach out to residents who provided
comments about the operation to the Planning Commission to try to
resolve those issues.
Finding: Granting the conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or
improvements within the immediate neighborhood.
The approval of this application would be materially detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or
improvements within the immediate neighborhood for the following reasons:
• The facility has generated 14 calls for emergency services since 2014.
Two calls requested medical aid for facility residents; the majority of the
remaining calls were placed by adjacent residents complaining of noise
or disturbances occurring at the facility. The City's Code Enforcement
Resolution No. 18-55 Page 7 of 8
Division has also responded to four complaints regarding noise and
smoking.
• The following testimony demonstrated that the residents and operator
of the facility do not respect the rights of nearby owners and residents
to enjoy their properties: facility residents often gather on the fence of
an adjoining property to talk and smoke; vans and trucks equipped with
back-up beepers enter and leave the property throughout the day,
including early in the morning and late at night; facility residents and
staff routinely yell to gather residents into vans or meetings; facility
residents gather on balconies to smoke; and facility residents and staff
communicate loudly to each other across the site.
Finding: Granting the conditional use permit will allow a use, density or intensity
which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation and any applicable
specific plan for the property.
Housing Element Goal HOU-1.8 of the General Plan encourages the
development of housing that fulfills specialized needs by providing living
opportunities for disabled individuals. However, the General Plan also seeks
to preserve the quality of the City's residential neighborhoods. Testimony
presented during the hearing indicated that this facility is not compatible with
its surroundings, based on excessive trip generation, noise and smoke.
C. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied Conditional Use Permit PA -16-25. 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 XII, Article 3, Transportation System
Management, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.
Resolution No. 18-55 Page 8 of 8