Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 - PH-1 - Additional Documents - 11/5/2019November 5, 2019 To the Costa Mesa City Council, I have been asked to provide background and clarification into the issue of the required separation of 650 feet between group homes, residential care facilities or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities as defined in Title 13, Chapter XVI, Sections 13-322 and 13-323. Both sections 13-322 and 13-323 indicate a separation distance of 650 ft. is required as measured by property line. 13-322 (a) (3) The group home or sober living home is at least six hundred fifty (650) feet from any other 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. 13-323. (b) 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. Unfortunately, both of these sections of Costa Mesa municipal code do not indicate how the distance separating these uses ought to be measured. Within the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) staff report there is reference to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, which requires public notice to be mailed to adjacent properties from the subject property as indicated below. Mailed notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property. Reviewing the separation map from the CUP staff report provided as Attachment 1, it appears the City of Costa Mesa is using the same zoning tool (straight line radius) to determine the separation of uses. The question is, if the municipal code defined in ​Title 13, Chapter XVI, Sections 13-322 and 13-323 does not specify the straight line radius as the tool to use to define the separation distance, is the straight line radius the appropriate tool to use in determining the separation distance between uses? In light of the fact that Section 13-29(d) utilizes the word "radius" in its distance requirement and Section 13-321 and 13-322 are silent, the logical inference is that the latter, by omission, was intended to utilize a different zoning tool. Further, universally accepted planning principles, as detailed hereinafter, support this same inference. Buildaberg | 575 Main Street, Unit 3 Weaverville, CA 96093 info@buildaberg.com​ | 530-953-5763 Background The 650-foot radius of the project site (subject property) is a common land use zoning tool used throughout the United States to separate perceived incompatible uses. Often called the Straight-line radius, this tool derives from the ​Supreme Court Case Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)​. This Supreme Court case established precedent for how a landowner may use their private property and divides communities into single use districts. The practice of dividing communities based on use, where usually only one use is allowed, is typically called ‘Euclidean’ Zoning. This ideal is embedded in policy, typically through Euclidean zoning ordinances, that prioritize single-family residential as the ‘highest and best use’. To facilitate a transition between incompatible uses, Euclidean zoning ordinances have relied on the use of ‘buffers’ sandwiched in-between the incompatible uses. Enter the Straight Line Radius buffers. In the case of buffers, usually one of two things happens, either a wholly desirable, noncontroversial use of land is placed between the two incompatible use types or a distance or 600 or 1,000 ft. is required to be kept between incompatible uses. In considering how to better plan for places with a mix of uses, an alternative zoning tool, the Shortest Path Analysis has been developed and implemented in denser forms of the built environment. Where the straight-line radius tool often ignores common typographical geographies, such as freeways or other environmental elements that provide physical barriers between incompatible uses, the Shortest Path Analysis is based on a human scale perspective measuring the separation distances of incompatible uses along a pedestrian path of travel. The Shortest Path Analysis reflects pedestrians’ and bicyclists access to amenities and movement through the built environment, taking into account safety, convenience, and obstructions of movement. This in turn better predicts how residents are likely to move through a business or mixed use corridor and better aligns buffer distances between incompatible uses. The shortest path analysis states walking distances must be measured along infrastructure that is safe and comfortable for pedestrian travel; including, public space e.g. sidewalks, all-weather-surface footpaths, crosswalks, or equivalent pedestrian facilities. The shortest path analysis does not include paths of travel that cross private property or roads that do not have safe and highly visible sidewalks. Both the Straight Line Radius and Shortest Path Analysis are perfectly acceptable planning tools to use to separate incompatible uses, when used in the right context. Mixed-use planners often point to the ​Rural to Urban Transect​ to determine what scale and density is appropriate to determine the form of the built environment. Often associated with Form Based Code, the transect is based on a series of zones that transition from untouched nature to the dense urban core of major cities. Below is a graphic illustrating Transect zones within the built environment. Buildaberg | 575 Main Street, Unit 3 Weaverville, CA 96093 info@buildaberg.com​ | 530-953-5763 Image Source: DPZ. Of course, conflict occurs when determining the context of the use in question. Many jurisdictions around the State of California have updated their General Plan over the last decade to include design concepts such as, create Walkable neighborhoods, promote Transit Oriented Development, and incorporate a mix of uses, to which mixed-use planners rejoice. Unfortunately, there are common mismatches between the stated community vision, found in a general plan, and the zoning tools used to determine location, density and intensity of uses within jurisdictional boundaries. Developers all too often run into Euclidean zoning language emphasizing the separation of uses, rather than the mixing of them. The mismatch between the Straight Line Radius tool used in a general urban zone, e.g. Business Districts, Mixed-Use Neighborhoods or Similar, is the inhibition of the full and equitable integration of mixed uses within a neighborhood. To foster the types of vibrant places that promote healthier living conditions, we must ensure policy strategies are used that fit with the context of the built environment. To do this, we must make sure the zoning tool used to determine the separation distance matches the intensity and density of the built environment where development is proposed to occur. Project Analysis Using the information stated above to analyse the proposed development at 2641 Santa Ana Ave. in Costa Mesa, we compare the surrounding neighborhood and overall community of Costa Mesa, we can reasonably determine that the community matches the T4 or T5 zones of the Rural to Urban transect. Based on this analysis, the appropriate, and preferred, zoning tool to determine the 650 ft. separation of uses defined in Costa Mesa Municipal Code 13-322 (a) (3) and 13-323. (b) should be the Shortest Path Analysis. Utilizing the Shortest Path Analysis, the nearest of the 2 identified out of City group homes is approximately 800 feet away. Scott Watkins, MBA MPP LEED-ND CNUa Principal Buildaberg Buildaberg | 575 Main Street, Unit 3 Weaverville, CA 96093 info@buildaberg.com​ | 530-953-5763 Buildaberg | 575 Main Street, Unit 3 Weaverville, CA 96093 info@buildaberg.com​ | 530-953-5763