Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-54 - PA-16-33 Denial, Raw Recovery, LLC, 268 Knox StreetRESOLUTION NO. 18-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION TO ALLOW A SOBER LIVING FACILITY TO DEVIATE FROM VARIOUS LAND USE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE; AND DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA -16-33 TO ALLOW A SOBER LIVING FACILITY OPERATED BY RAW RECOVERY, LLC, HOUSING EIGHT OCCUPANTS (INCLUDING ONE LIVE-IN HOUSE MANAGER) AT 268 KNOX STREET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, RAW Recovery, LLC, (the "Applicant") currently operates a sober living facility serving more than six persons at 268 Knox Street in Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit PA -16-33, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a sober living facility housing up to 10 residents at 268 Knox Street; and a request for a reasonable accommodation to allow this facility to be considered a single housekeeping unit; to be "grandfathered" under existing regulations; to be exempt from various provisions of the Zoning Code addressing rules and policies; and to be located within 650 feet of a property that contain a group home, sober living home or state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, when operated responsibly, group homes, including drug and alcohol treatment facilities, provide a societal benefit by providing disabled persons as defined by state and federal law the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions; therefore, providing greater access to residential zones for group homes, including drug and alcohol treatment facilities, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has adopted standards for the operation of group homes, residential care facilities and state -licensed drug and alcohol facilities that are intended to provide opportunities for disabled persons, as defined by state and federal law to enjoy comfortable accommodations in a residential setting; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has found that congregating drug and alcohol treatment facilities and sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide disabled persons as defined in state and federal law with an opportunity to "live in normal residential surroundings," but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the 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 Resolution No. 18-54 Page 1 of 15 WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that a separation requirement for such facilities will still allow for a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of drug and alcohol treatment and sober living facilities within the City and still result in preferential treatment for drug and alcohol treatment facilities in that non -disabled individuals in a similar living situation (i.e., in boardinghouse -style residences) have fewer housing opportunities than disabled persons; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that a group home, sober living home or state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment faciltity shall be operated on a single parcel of land; and WHEREAS, the 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 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, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled for February 12, 2018 and February 26, 2018, before the Planning Commission to hear the appeal of the Director's decision to deny the request for reasonable accomodation and the application for a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2018 and February 26, 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 WHEREAS, on February 26, 2018, the Planning Commission voted to approve Conditional Use Permit PA -16-33 by a vote of three in favor and two opposed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's decision was called up for review in a timely manner by Councilmembers Foley and Righeimer; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 17, 2018, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for or against the proposal. Resolution No. 18-54 Page 2 of 15 BE IT RESOLVED, therefore, that based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in this resolution, the City Council hereby UPHOLDS THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL of the Applicant's request for reasonable accommodation to allow the facility to be considered a single housekeeping unit; to be "grandfathered" under existing regulations; to be exempt from various regulations applicable to group homes; to be located within 650 feet of another sober living home or licensed alcohol and drug treatment facility; and REVERSES THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISION and DENIES Conditional Use Permit PA -16-33. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July 2018. Y Sandra L. Genis, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AIS TO FORM: r _ .11 4A - Brenda Green, ity Clerk omas P. D e, City Attorney Resolution No. 18-54 Page 3 of 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 18-54 and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of July, 2018, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Foley, Righeimer, Stephens, Mansoor, Genis NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 18th day of July, 2018. ARS I "M - �� - Resolution No. 18-54 Page 4 of 15 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS FOR 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 for reasonable accommodation 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. 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. In addition, 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 six calls for emergency services since 2014 as well as a Code Enforcement complaint regarding the use operating without a permit, illegal parking in the alley, and property maintenance concerns, thus placing a burden on the City. The property is not maintained in a manner that that is consistent with City code requirements including, at the time of the Resolution No. 18-54 Page 5 of 15 hearing an inaccessible garage (garage door nailed shut), a sofa chair stored in the side yard and overgrown vegetation. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. Finding: The requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use. The subject property is deficient with respect to lot width and lot depth based on current standards set forth in the CMMC. Testimony was received that the garage door of the property is nailed shut and not usable as required parking. There are only two open parking spaces and two (non-functioning) garage spaces onsite for eight adults housed at this facility as approved by the Planning Commission. The number of adults in the residence is substantially higher than the typical number (2.2 adults per household) in Costa Mesa. This, in combination with the fact that the house contains eight bedrooms, each with its own exterior access door, which leads each room to function closer to an independent living unit than a bedroom in a shared household indicates that the facility functions in a manner that is not consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Therefore, the facility is not consistent with the surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use. 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, or substantial physical damage to the property of others. Testimony from nearby property residents indicated that use of their properties is impeded by noise, fighting, cussing and excessive smoke generated by this 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. 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. The City has received applications for 65 sober living homes and 11 licensed treatment facilities that are subject to compliance with Ordinance Nos. 14-13 and 15- 11. Twelve (12) sober living homes serving six or fewer residents have been approved by the City, and two sober living homes serving seven or more residents have been approved. In addition, there are 76 state -licensed drug and alcohol Resolution No. 18-54 Page 6 of 15 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 specifically included a provision limiting the operation of a drug and alcohol treatment facility to a single parcel. The intent of this limitation is to ensure that drug and alcohol treatment facilities do not occupy a disproportionate number of homes in any neighborhood, and to avoid overconcentration of sober living units in any area. The City also sought to ensure that disabled persons recovering from addiction can reside in a comfortable residential environment versus in an institutional setting. The City determined that housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single dwelling or congregating drug and alcohol treatment facilities in close proximity to each other does not provide the disabled with an opportunity to "live in normal residential surroundings," but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the state and federal laws were designed to provide relief from for disabled persons. The 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 this case, there are two state -licensed facilities located at 236 and 240 Knox Street. These facilities have State -licenses for seven or more persons at these locations. 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 Resolution No. 18-54 Page 7 of 15 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. Resolution No. 18-54 Page 8 of 15 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. There are two state -licensed facilities each with licenses to house eight residents at 236 and 240 Knox Street, which results in an overconcentration of such facilities in this neighborhood. Further, 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 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. 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 in that: Finding: Pursuant to the purpose and intent of the Multi -Family Residential Group Home Ordinance, the drug and alcohol treatment facility would provide a comfortable living environment that will enhance the opportunity for disabled persons, including recovering addicts, to be successful in their programs. This finding cannot be made. The subject facility consists of one residential unit occupied by eight adults. The site is nonconforming with respect to lot width and lot area. The number of parking spaces provided meets Code requirements; however, public testimony was presented at the Council hearing indicating that the two -car garage onsite is nailed shut and is not functioning as parking. In addition, the number of adults in the residence is substantially higher than the typical number (2.2 adults per household) in Costa Mesa. This, in combination with the fact that the house contains eight bedrooms, each with its own exterior access door, which leads each room to function closer to an independent living unit than a bedroom in a shared household for persons recovering from addictions. In addition, the subject property is located within 650 feet of two state -licensed treatment facilities located at 236 and 240 Knox Street. Each have licenses issued by the State for eight persons. These facilities create an overconcentration of licensed treatment facilities and sober living homes in this neighborhood. The City has determined that housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single dwelling or congregating drug and alcohol treatment facility in close Resolution No. 18-54 Page 9 of 15 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 disabled persons relief from. Strong evidence exists that a supportive living environment in a residential neighborhood provides more effective recovery than an institutional -style environment. Approval of this facility would place the facility in an area with an overconcentration of drug and alcohol treatment facilities, which does not create a comfortable living environment conducive to successful recovery. Based on denial of 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. Further, pursuant to CMMC Section 13-323(b), the Planning Commission and the City Council did not find that approval of this CUP application would not result in an overconcentration of sober living homes and licensed treatment facilities in this neighborhood. Approval of this request will allow a single family residence to house eight adults in a neighborhood with an overconcentration of sober living homes and/or licensed treatment facilities. In addition, the City has received complaints regarding the condition of the property. The property is not maintained in a manner that that is consistent with City code requirements including, at the time of the hearing an inaccessible garage (garage door nailed shut, no garage parking), a sofa chair stored in the side yard and overgrown vegetation. Further, testimony from nearby residents indicates noise, fighting, cussing and excessive smoking at this facility. Approval of the request will create a facility that is not in keeping with the City's desire to ensure sober living homes resemble a typical residential environment or a comfortable residential living environment for recovering addicts. This finding cannot be made Finding: The sober living facility would 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. This finding cannot be made. 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 Resolution No. 18-54 Page 10 of 15 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 and sober living homes in this neighborhood, which could lead to negative impacts in the neighborhood. During the public hearing, public testimony was presented regarding secondary effects neighbors experience as a result of this facility. Residents testified that noise, fighting, cussing and excessive smoke generated by the subject facility disturbed nearby residents and impeded the use their properties. In addition, residents testified regarding illegal parking in the alley at the rear of the subject property and testified that onsite garage parking was nailed shut and not used. Finding: The facility would be compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. This finding cannot be made. The subject property is located within 650 feet of two state -licensed treatment facilities located at 236 and 240 Knox Street. Each have licenses issued by the State for eight persons. Approval of the subject CUP creates and contributes to an overconcent ration of licensed treatment facilities and sober living homes in this neighborhood, 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 than residential. Further, the subject facility consists of one residential unit occupied by eight adults. The site is nonconforming with respect to lot width and lot area. The number of parking spaces provided meets Code requirements; however, public testimony presented at the Council hearing indicates that the two -car garage onsite was nailed shut and does not function as required parking. Further, the number of adults in the home is substantially higher than the typical number (2.2 adults is typical in Costa Mesa) and two garage spaces and two open parking spaces is not sufficient parking for eight adults. The single family home contains eight bedrooms, each with its own exterior access door. This leads each room to function closer to an independent living unit than as part of a cohesive single housekeeping unit. Use of this property as a sober living home is not compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Resolution No. 18-54 Page 11 of 15 Finding: The group home is at least 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. This finding cannot be made. The subject property is located within 650 feet of two state -licensed treatment facilities located at 236 and 240 Knox Street. Each have licenses issued by the State for eight persons. These facilities are located on the same street, five lots away from 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 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. The Director of Development Services denied the request for reasonable accommodation on June 2, 2016. The findings to deny this requested accommodation were enumerated above. 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. Approval of the requested CUP would contribute to an overconcentration of licensed treatment facilities and sober living homes in this residential neighborhood. Finding: The proposed development or use is compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. This finding cannot be made. 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 and sober living homes 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 R2 -MD, R2 -HD, and R3 zones, as well as the planned Resolution No. 18-54 Page 12 of 15 development residential neighborhoods. It also furthers the interest of ensuring that disabled persons are not living in environments that are counterproductive to their well-being and recovery. The proposed facility would be located within 650 feet of two state -licensed treatment facilities located at 236 and 240 Knox Street. Each have licenses issued by the State for eight persons. These facilities are located on the same street, five lots away from the subject property. Approval of the subject request would result in overconcentration of such facilities in this neighborhood. During the public hearing, nearby residents testified that the noise, fighting, cussing and excessive smoke generated by residents of the facility. They also testified about illegal parking in the alley at the rear of the property, the garage door being nailed shut such that the garage could not be used for parking, and the lack of maintenance of the property including a sofa chair stored in the side yard and overgrown vegetation. Approval of the requested CUP would allow eight adults to be housed in a single family residence in a neighborhood with an overconcentration of sober living homes and/or licensed treatment facilities. The site is nonconforming with respect to lot width and lot area. The number of adults in the home is substantially higher than the typical number (2.2 adults is typical in Costa Mesa) and two garage spaces and two open parking spaces is not sufficient parking for eight adults. In addition, the onsite garage is nailed shut and is not functional as required parking. Further, the single family home contains eight bedrooms, each with its own exterior access door. This leads each room to function closer to an independent living unit than as part of a cohesive single housekeeping unit in a single family home. This facility is not compatible with other developments in the area and is detrimental to other properties in the neighborhood. 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. This finding cannot be made. As noted above, approval of this application will result in overconcentration of sober living homes and state -licensed drug and alcohol facilities in this neighborhood. Overconcentration is both deleterious to the residential character of these neighborhoods and may also lead to the institutionalization of such neighborhoods. 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. Resolution No. 18-54 Page 13 of 15 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. During the public hearing, nearby residents testified that the noise, fighting, cussing and excessive smoke generated by residents of the facility, creating negative effects to residents of nearby properties and are detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public. 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. 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 sober living homes and drug and alcohol treatment facilities would be detrimental to the residential character of the City's neighborhoods. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. Resolution No. 18-54 Page 14 of 15 C. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied Conditional Use Permit PA -16-32. 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. 18-54 Page 15 of 15