Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-17 - PA-16-15 Denial, Casa Capri, 166 E. 18th St.RESOLUTION NO. 18-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO 1) UPHOLD THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A GROUP HOME WITHIN 650 FEET OF ANOTHER STATE -LICENSED DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT FACILITY; AND 2) UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA -16-15 TO ALLOW A STATE -LICENSED DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT FACILITY SERVING UP TO 14 WOMEN AT 166 E. 18TH STREET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Casa Capri, LLC, with respect to the real property located at 166 East 18th Street, and WHEREAS, the proposed project consists of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the subject facility to serve up to 14 women within three existing units; and a request for a Reasonable Accommodation to allow this facility to be located within 650 feet of another property that contains a state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment faciltity, and relief from other land use requirements; 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 to 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 Resolution No. 18-17 Page 1 of 10 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 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, Casa Capri Recovery filed an application with the City's Director of Economic and Development Services (the "Director") requesting an accommodation 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, as measured from the property line; and WHEREAS, the applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by federal, state and local laws, and the Director denied the request for a Reasonable Accommodation; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the denial of the request for a Reasonable Accommodation in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, on August 28, 2017 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 determined by a 5-0 vote to deny the Application; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a second request for a Reasonable Accommodation for relief from various land use requirements on August 28, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Director of Economic and Development Services denied the requested accommodation on October 19, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the decisions of the Planning Commission and the Director in a timely manner; and Resolution No. 18-17 Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on March 20, 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 DIRECTOR'S DENIAL of the Applicant's request for a Reasonable Accommodation to allow the operation of this state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility within 650 feet of another state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility relief from other land use requirements; and UPHOLDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL of Conditional Use Permit PA -16-15. 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 20th day of March, 2018. San a L. Genis, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brenda Green, City Clerk trhomcI6 Du rte, City Attorney Resolution No. 18-17 Page 3 of 10 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. 18-17 and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of March, 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 21St day of March, 2018. &-ayld 4AA Brenda Green, Nty Clerk Resolution No. 18-17 Page 4 of 10 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 Casa Capri, LLC's request for a Reasonable Accommodation, based on the Applicant not meeting its burden to demonstrate compliance with all required findings per the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. A. The Applicant has not met its burden to show that the Application meets the following findings for approval of Reasonable Accommodation: • 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 a Reasonable Accommodation was submitted on behalf of persons who are considered disabled under state and federal law. • 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 requested accommodation to waive the 650 -foot separation requirement may allow a CUP to be granted to enable Casa Capri Recovery to continue to operate in compliance with the Costa Mesa Municipal Code 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 • 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 no evidence that approval of this request will impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. • The requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use. The accommodation would allow an overconcentration of sober living units in this neighborhood. There is a state -licensed facility serving 12 adults at 209 East 18th Street. The City approved a Conditional Use Permit for this facility in 1987 (PA -87-166). This facility is located within 520 feet of the subject Resolution No. 18-17 Page 5 of 10 property. These facilities are on the same street. Approval of this request would result in two properties in close proximity being occupied by drug and alcohol treatment facilities, potentially changing the character of the neighborhood. 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 no evidence that approval of this request would result in a direct threat to the health or safety of anyone, or substantial physical damage to the property of others. 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. • 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 66 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 one sober living home serving 13 men has been approved. In addition, there are 63 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. 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 sober living facility to a single parcel. The intent of this limitation is to ensure that sober living facilities do not occupy a disproportionate number of homes in any neighborhood, and to avoid Resolution No. 18-17 Page 6 of 10 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 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 three units on this parcel to accommodate 14 residents will create a large facility not in keeping with the City's desire to ensure sober living homes more closely resemble a typical residential environment. 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 addition, the Municipal Code limits the operation of any sober living facility to a single parcel, again to prevent overconcentration of sober living units. 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 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 Resolution No. 18-17 Page 7 of 10 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 Realtv 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 for multi -family residences. This facility was established in July of 2014. The City issued a CUP for the state - licensed facility within 520 feet of the subject property in 1987. 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 is a state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility serving twelve individuals operating at 209 18th Street, which is on the same street and less than a block away from the subject property. The City issued a CUP for this facility back in 1987. Approval of this request would result in an overconcentration of licensed treatment facilities in this neighborhood. Resolution No. 18-17 Page 8 of 10 B. 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 substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. The introduction of one sober living home in compliance with the City's standards would not be materially detrimental to the area. However, over the last decade, the number of sober living homes in the City of Costa Mesa has rapidly increased, leading to an overconcentration of sober living homes and licensed treatment facilities 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 sober living homes and licensed treatment facilities is reasonable and non-discriminatory and helps preserve the residential character of the R21VID, R2HD, and R3 zones, as well as the planned development residential neighborhoods. It also furthers the interest of ensuring that those with disabilities are not living in overcrowded environments that are counterproductive to their well- being and recovery. The subject facility is located within approximately 520 feet of a state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP PA - 87 -166) to serve 12 adults at 209 East 18th Street. Allowing the subject facility to serve 14 adults within a block of another drug and alcohol treatment facility would contribute to an overconcentration of such facilities in this neighborhood. • Granting the CUP 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. Approval of this application will result in overconcentration of state -licensed drug and alcohol facilities in this neighborhood. 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. 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 sober living homes. The goal of the regulations is to provide Resolution No. 18-17 Page 9 of 10 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 sober living facilities near each other results in neighborhoods dominated by sober living 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 sober living facilities. Large and often frequent AA or NA meeting are held at some sober living homes. 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. • Granting the conditional use permit will allow a use which is not in accordance with the general plan designation. The approval of one sober living or state -licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility in a neighborhood 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 facilities would be detrimental to the residential character of the City's neighborhoods. C. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied Conditional Use Permit PA -16-15. 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. 18-17 Page 10 of 10