Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19-73 - Upholding the Planning Commssions Denial of PA-16-63 & RA19-06 (Nsight Psychology & Addiction)RESOLUTION NO. 19-73 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENY REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION RA-19-06 TO DEVIATE FROM VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE; AND TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA-16-63 TO ALLOW A GROUP HOME WITH SEVEN OR MORE OCCUPANTS OPERATED BY NSIGHT PSYCHOLOGY & ADDICTION HOUSING UP TO 30 OCCUPANTS AT 2641 SANTA ANA AVENUE, UNITS A THROUGH F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Nsight (the "Applicant") currently operates a group home with seven or more occupants at 2641 Santa Ana Avenue, Units A through F, Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed a request for a Reasonable Accommodation (RA- 19-06) to allow this facility 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 an application requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit PA-16-63, a Conditional Use Permit to allow the subject group home to serve up to 30 adults with two "awake" managers on -site at any one time within six existing dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, when operated responsibly, group homes provide a societal benefit by providing disabled persons as defined by state and federal law the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods; therefore, providing greater access to residential zones to group homes than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living that 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 treatment 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 group homes, residential care facilities and/or drug and alcohol treatment facilities in close proximity to each other does not provide disabled persons as defined in state and federal law with an Resolution No. 19-73 Page 1 of 12 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 group homes with seven or more occupants within the City and still result in preferential treatment for group homes with seven or more occupants 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, residential care facility or state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility 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 a reasonable accommodation (RA- 19-06) 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, or otherwise requests that the City not apply its standards to this facility; 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 Reasonable Accommodation RA-19-06 in a letter dated April 5, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the Director's decision to deny Reasonable Accommodation RA-19-06 on April 12, 2019; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2019 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, at which time interested parties had an opportunity to testify either Resolution No. 19-73 Page 2 of 12 in support of or in opposition to the application and unanimously voted to deny the application; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission on August 13, 2019 ; and WHEREAS, a dulty noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on November 5, 2019, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for or against the propsosal. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND DENIES Reasonable Accommodation RA-19-06 and Conditional Use Permit PA-16-63. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. 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. The Secretary of the Commission shall attest to the adoption of this resolution and shall forward a copy to the applicant, and any person requesting the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th da of November, 2019. KatrinaVol'ey, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: auw Brenda GreerY, City Clerk Ki berly HaW Barlow, City Attorney Resolution No. 19-73 Page 3 of 12 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. 19-73 and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on November 5, 2019 by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CHAVEZ, GENIS, MANSOOR, MARK, REYNOLDS, STEPHENS,FOLEY NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 6th day of November, 2019. Brenda Green, ity Clerk Resolution No. 19-73 Page 4 of 12 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 and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), based on the Applicant not meeting its burden to demonstrate compliance with all required findings per the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC). A. The subject property is located approximately 476 feet from feet from two state - licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities in a duplex on a single property at 326/328 University Drive and 636 feet from two state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities located on a single property at 319 University Drive (Units A and B). Both properties are located in unincorporated (County) area. The Applicant applied for Reasonable Accommodation on August 3, 2018, to allow the subject group home with seven or more occupants within 650 feet of the two properties containing four existing state -licenses for drug and alcohol treatment. The original CUP application, requesting approval of a sober living facility, was received October 26, 2016; a revised CUP application was submitted on February 4, 2019 reflecting a proposed change of the occupants from persons in recovery from alcohol or drug addiction to mentally disabled. The applicant's request for a Reasonable Accommodation to allow this group home with seven or more occupants to be located within 650 feet of two properties with four state -licenses for drug and alcohol treatment was denied by the Director of Economic and Development Services on April 5, 2019. The applicant appealed the request on April 12, 2019, citing the amount of time it took to process the reasonable accommodation; the City's bias against disabled persons causing the City to discount and ignore facts which did not support the determination the City wanted to make; and the City acting inconsistently in failing to make the required findings to support the proposed use despite providing, what the applicant felt, was more than sufficient information to support the required findings. On August 14, 2019, Planning Commission denied Reasonable Accommodation RA-19-06 and Conditional Use Permit PA-16-63 as they could not make the necessary findings to justify approval of the reasonable accommodation or the conditional use permit. Subsequently, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision on August 12, 2019 based on its assertion that it presented sufficient evidence to Planning Commission to make the necessary findings to approve RA-19-06 and CUP PA 16- 63. B. The Application does not meet the findings required by the Costa Mesa Municipal Code for approval of a Reasonable Accommodation: • The requested accommodation is not necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability with an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling_ Resolution No. 19-73 Page 5 of 12 The application for reasonable accommodation explains the benefits of allowing individuals with mental health and cognitive disabilities the opportunity to live in an integrated residential setting that provides support during the transition from residential in -patient treatment to independent living. The City recognizes that, while not in character with residential neighborhoods, when operated responsibly, group homes provide a societal benefit by providing disabled persons the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods. The City has established a 650- foot separation criteria to ensure that an over -concentration of group homes and residential care facilities does not occur in any neighborhood, thereby, preserving the residential character for all who choose to reside there. The application established that the waiver of the separation requirement would allow one or more disabled individuals to enjoy the use of these dwellings. However, approval of the request is not necessary to allow one or more disabled individuals to enjoy the use of a dwelling within the City. The operation of a group home is inconsistent with the City's definition of a single housekeeping unit. The City has established procedures to allow group homes in residential neighborhoods; allowing a group home to be considered exempt from the requirements of the Municipal Code is not necessary to allow disabled persons to reside in residential neighborhoods. • The requested accommodation is not consistent with the surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use. The applicant presented no evidence that the subject facility operates as a single housekeeping unit, thereby making it dissimilar to the composition of households on surrounding properties. The subject facility is occupied solely by adults at a higher occupancy per unit than is typical of single households in Costa Mesa. The facility operates with an occupancy of six residents each for three of the units and four in each of the other three units, yet the average number of persons per household in Costa Mesa is 2.68 according to the City's General Plan. It should also be considered that the similar residential multifamily dwellings typically would include children that would not be contributing to parking impacts. The House Rules indicate all residents would be allowed to bring their own cars to be parked at the location. All -adult dwelling units such as these would likely cause a disproportionate number of cars and traffic than would be associated with a household of typical age distribution and occupancy. The intensified aspects of this use are further compounded by the site's physical specifications. The property has six units; only five units would be allowed to be constructed under current development standards. The property is a 19,087- square-foot lot; under today's standards, 21,780 square feet of lot area would be Resolution No. 19-73 Page 6 of 12 required to support the six dwelling units existing on the property (a minimum 3,630 square feet of lot area per unit is required). Additionally, if built today, a minimum of 21 onsite parking spaces would be required to support the existing project. Plans submitted for the CUP show 12 parking spaces and, from the plans, it appears that the single car garage for Unit C has been converted to an office without City approvals/building permits. Open space is limited to 31 percent of the property; current Code requires a minimum of 40 percent. The site is only 66 feet wide and today, a minimum width of 100 feet is required. The rear setback is only 7 feet and the current requirement would be at least 10 feet. The legal non -conforming lot size combined with the above average all -adult households would likely interfere with the occupants' ability to achieve a comfortable residential setting and the neighbors' use and enjoyment of their properties. These specifications contribute to increased noise impacts and lend to a more institutionalized setting as an inordinate number of adults congregating in this setting is out of scale with the City's residential development standards established to preserve neighborhoods and enhance quality of life. • Whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability and equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. No evidence has been presented that there is an inadequate supply of housing stock to operate the proposed group home in a location that satisfies code requirements for group homes. The City has received applications for 56 group homes and 11 licensed treatment facilities that are subject to compliance with Ordinance Nos. 14-13 and 15-11. Twelve sober living homes serving six or fewer residents have been approved by the City, and two sober living homes serving seven or more persons have been approved. In addition, there are five social rehabilitation facilities, seven adult residential care, and 33 existing state licensed drug and alcohol facilities in Costa Mesa that are exempt from City regulation, or have already obtained the required Conditional Use Permit prior to the adoption of Ordinance 15-11. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that the number of group homes existing or potentially allowed in compliance with the City's standards is inadequate. • The requested accommodation will result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program. Ordinance 15-11 established requirements for group homes in multi -family zoning districts. The City Council made the finding that, lacking some level of regulation there is no way to ensure that the individuals entering into a group home are disabled; that a group home is operated professionally to minimize Resolution No. 19-73 Page 7 of 12 impacts to the surrounding neighborhood; and that the secondary impacts from over concentration of both group homes in the neighborhood and large numbers of unrelated adults residing in a single home are lessened. Granting the accommodation to consider this facility as exempt from the requirements of the Municipal Code would prevent the City from applying any zoning regulations applicable to a group home operation. The intent of the 650-foot separation requirements for group homes is to prevent a disproportionate number of facilities in any one area thereby ensuring that the disabled can reside in a comfortable residential environment versus an institutional setting. There are four state -licensed residential treatment facilities on two properties within 650 feet of the subject property. Granting the request for reasonable accommodation would also have impacts to the residents of these existing facilities. In a letter to the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission dated November 21, 2014, Dr. Michael Brant- Zawadzki, Executive Medical Director of Hoag Neurosciences Institute, wrote, "The more the living situation resembles atypical residential neighborhood _ _ _ _ the better." Maintaining the established zoning standards preserves the residential character of this neighborhood and provides favorable living environments for those nearby group home residents to be successful in their recovery. The City has carefully crafted regulations to allow group homes to be located in residential neighborhoods. The intent of these regulations is to ensure that facilities maintain compatibility with the residential neighborhood in which they are situated, ensure standards of operation and to establish distance requirements that would prevent overconcentration of group homes in the neighborhood. The approval of this request would lead to a fundamental alteration of the City's zoning program. Based on the above, the application did not include adequate information to allow either the Director or the Planning Commission to make all of the required findings for granting a reasonable accommodation as set forth in the CMMC. C. The Application does not meet the findings required by the Costa Mesa Municipal Code for approval of a Conditional Use Permit: • The proposed use is not substantially compatible with developments in the same -general area and would be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Resolution No. 19-73 Page 8 of 12 Approval of this request would allow 30 adults plus two "awake" managers to occupy the subject facility. However, only 12 parking spaces exist on site. There are no limitations as to how many of the residents can bring cars to the site, potentially resulting in impacted parking conditions on Santa Ana Avenue. In addition, since the facility opened in early 2015, Code Enforcement staff investigated 12 complaints regarding incompatible uses and activities; no further complaints were received between October 2016 and the preparation of this staff report. The proposed occupancy constitutes overcrowding pursuant to the Housing Element of the City of Costa Mesa's 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 a kitchen or 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 but one of the six units are overcrowded. The subject property is located within approximately 476 feet of two State -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities (residential detox) located in a duplex on a single parcel at 326/328 University Drive and within 636 feet of two State -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities (residential detox) located on a single parcel at 319 University Drive, Units A and B. The CMMC 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. Mental illness is considered a disability under state and federal law. Standards for group homes with seven or more occupants 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 disabled persons to live in comfortable residential surroundings. The City adopted standards for group homes in response to a proliferation of group homes in the community. The City found that an over -concentration of group 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. Group homes 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 Resolution No. 19-73 Page 9 of 12 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 group 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 group 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, group 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/or 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; and a history of residents congregating in the same general area.. Nevertheless, the City recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, when operated responsibly, group homes provide a societal benefit by providing disabled persons the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods. The City's regulations provide group homes greater access to residential zones than to boardinghouses or other types of group living arrangements not catering to disabled individuals. This favorable access for group homes 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 would still allow for a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of group homes within the City. The requirement still resulted in preferential treatment for groups homes in that non -disabled individuals in a similar living situation (e.g., 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 group 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 Resolution No. 19-73 Page 10 of 12 institutional/campus/dormitory living that the state and federal laws were designed to provide them relief from. • Granting the conditional use permit will be materially detrimental to the health, safety and -general welfare of the public or otherwise iniurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood. The City has found that over -concentration of group homes, residential care facilities and/or drug and alcohol treatment facilities 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. These types of impacts have been identified in other communities as well, and apply to various types of group homes that house large numbers of unrelated adults or that locate in close proximity creating an over - concentration of such uses and an institutional setting in residential neighborhoods. The facility will contribute to the over -concentration of group homes, residential care facilities and/or drug and alcohol treatment facilities in this neighborhood, which could lead to negative impacts in the neighborhood. Additionally, Code Enforcement has received 12 complaints for this specific property regarding smoking, noise, general complaints about the group home and its lack of permits, bottle rockets, and large items at the curb. According to the Police Department, between January 2015 and August 12, 2019 (when the Planning Commission staff report was presented), there have been 17 calls for service including calls for disturbances/noise, suspicious male, medical aid, annoying calls made to a resident as the victim, and missing adult, all attributable to the property. There are only 12 parking spaces on the site available to serve 30 adults as well as the two "awake" managers on site at any one time. Approval of this CUP could result in conflicts with residents of nearby properties for the use of on -street parking spaces. • Granting the conditional use permit will allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property., The proposed use is consistent with the City's General Plan. However, an over - concentration 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 Resolution No. 19-73 Page 11 of 12 neighborhoods. The City Council has determined that an over -concentration of group homes would be detrimental to the residential character of the City's neighborhoods. The proposed facility is located within 650 feet of four drug and alcohol treatment facilities on two properties, contributes to over -concentration, and is therefore, not consistent with the intent of the General Plan. D. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied Reasonable Accommodation RA-19-06 and Conditional Use Permit PA-16-63. 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. E. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Resolution No. 19-73 Page 12 of 12