Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-14 - Denying Plannng Application PA-02-53RESOLUTION NO. 03-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION PA -02-53. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Latham & Watkins,_ Attorneys at Law, representing the property owner Eleanor Manion, owner of real property located at 3138 Cork Lane, requesting a finding for reasonable accommodation to legalize an alcohol/drug rehabilitation facility (sober living group home) in an R1 zone (maximum 6 persons allowed; 9 persons proposed); and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 10, 2003, and PA -02-53 was denied; and WHEREAS, PA -02-53 was appealed to City Council; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on March 3, 2003; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A", the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby denies PA -02-53 with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March, 2003. ATTEST: > Deputw0ity Clerk of fhe City of Costa Mesa J ayor of the City of Costa .Mesa. PROVED AS TO FORM �(City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, JULIE FOLCIK, Deputy City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 03-14 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of March, 2003, by the following roll .call vote: AYES: Robinson, Steel, Cowan, Monahan, Mansoor NOES: None ABSENT: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 4h day of March, 2003. DepA"Council City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the of the City of Costa Mesa EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS A. The use does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (e) because: a. The use is not compatible and harmonious with uses that exist in the general neighborhood as 'evidenced by the number of persons currently residing in the home. Specifically, the garage cannot be used to park cars, complaints have been received that property maintenance is deficient (trash in the front yard, overgrown trees, paint on house not properly maintained, etc.), and the persons living in the house are not living as a single housekeeping unit as defined by Code. b. The use is not consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, General Plan Objectives LU -1 F.1, and HOU-1.2, which call for the protection of residential neighborhoods from incompatible and potentially disruptive land uses. B. The following factors for reasonable accommodation, as required by Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section Code Section 13-200.62(f), have not been met: 1. No information or evidence has been provided as to why 9 persons living in the house is a necessary accommodation. Any bedroom not used as sleeping quarters could be converted into a communal living area (e.g., TV room, computer room, child's playroom, etc.). The application does not explain. why limiting the home to 6 or fewer residents is inconsistent with the peer system. In addition, there is a question as to whether the declared need for 2 persons to a room is truly necessary. No information or evidence has been submitted (e.g. a letter from a substance abuse expert or physician) supporting the claim that 2 persons to a bedroom is necessary for peer support. 2. No information or evidence has been presented to explain why the benefit — "a stable, supportive drug and alcohol free environment" — cannot be achieved with 6 residents. The applicant has not provided any evidence that the surrounding area is in dire need of group homes. A survey of licensed and unlicensed group homes within the City, conducted in 1999, indicates that the City has 83 licensed group home facilities per 100,000 population, greater than the average of 36 per 100,000 population of the communities surrounding Costa Mesa. Additionally, there are 4 other unlicensed sober living group homes in the area. 3. The subject property has been the source of numerous complaints about tr8sh. Additionally, the garage cannot be used to park cars as intended by Code Section 13-85 (Parking Required — Residential Districts). The residents park in the driveway and on the adjacent public street, resulting in overflow parking problems and adverse C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental impacts on properties in the neighborhood. 4. While the exterior, of the residence has not been altered to reflect its use as a residential service facility, the interior of the residence (particularly the garage) has been altered to an extent that it may not be able to accommodate the parking needs for residents if the requested accommodation is granted. Complaints have been received that property maintenance is deficient (trash in the front yard, overgrown trees, paint on house not properly maintained, etc.). This may be a factor of having more people live in the house than the house can accommodate. 5. The fact that the facility is permitted to operate as a group home for 6 or fewer persons in the R1 zone provides an alternative accommodation with an equivalent level of benefit. There are other sober living group homes in the immediate area. Therefore, it would appear that there are adequate alternative accommodations in the immediate area that are able to provide sober living environments for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. 6. The per -sons living in the house do not ' constitute a single housekeeping unit as defined by Code because the usual stays of the residents range from 24 hours to four months. Thus, the residents are "transient" rather than "non -transient" in nature. Additionally, the level -of "interaction" among residents of the residential service facility would be the same whether the number of residents is 6 (permitted by code) or 9 (not permitted by code). 7. The majority of the complaints received by the City in relation to the subject property are due to the operation of the facility as a residential service facility in excess of the number of persons permitted by code, thus creating greater burden on staff than a traditional single, family residence. Additionally, staff has been involved with enforcement actions on the subject property since May, 2000, as it pertains to the operation of the group home. R. The City's zoning regulations are considered to be a "program" for purposes of the ADA. Without adequate information to support a finding for reasonable accommodation, which Staff feels has not been provided, there is a concern that approving this application based on the sparse information provided by the Applicant may set a precedent for granting accommodations for other group homes in R1 zones for more than 6 people. 9. The operation of the facility as a group home for more than the number of persons allowed by code is not consistent with the General Plan, specifically, General . Plan Objectives LU -1 F.1, and HOU-1.2, which call for the protection of residential neighborhoods from incompatible and potentially disruptive land uses. C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA. D. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.