REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Eric G. Parra, Interim City Manager
VIA: Jennifer Villasenor, Acting Director of Community Development
PREPARED BY: Hayden Beckman, Senior Planner
Subject:
title
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Administrative Permit No. 22-015 (Legacy Living LLC Sober Living Reasonable Accommodation) - Continued from November 7, 2023
body
Statement of Issue:
City Council is requested to consider Dylan Walker and Michael Garrett’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Administrative Permit No. 22-015. Their permit application requests to provide reasonable accommodation to the operator of a sober living home on a property that is located within 1,000 linear feet of another group home or State-licensed residential care facility. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 11, 2023 and unanimously voted to deny the application with findings for denial. On July 21, 2023, Mr. Walker and Mr. Garrett appealed the Planning Commission’s action citing multiple reasons outlined in the appeal letter (Attachment No. 2).
Financial Impact:
Not Applicable.
Recommended Action:
recommendation
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of Administrative Permit No. 22-015 with findings of denial (Attachment No. 1).
end
Alternative Action(s):
A) Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Administrative Permit No. 22-015, and make findings and conditions of approval pursuant to Chapter 17.77.050 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code.
B) Continue Administrative Permit No. 22-015, and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
A. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST
In October 2020, the City Council adopted five Ordinances establishing regulations for the operation of group homes, a land use classification that includes sober living homes. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Section 230.28 Group Homes require the ministerial approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for any group home or sober living home serving no more than 6 persons to operate in the City’s residential areas, subject to operation requirements and a minimum 1,000 linear feet buffer from other sober living homes, state-licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities (Residential Care Facilities).
A disabled applicant may seek an exception to the strict application of HBZSO Section 230.28 via a Reasonable Accommodation Request. The Reasonable Accommodation Request must set forth specific reasons as to why an exception to the HBZSO is required per Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Section 17.77 Reasonable Accommodation Procedures. Chapter 17.77 of the HBMC currently provides procedures and necessary findings for approval of requests for reasonable accommodation.
The HBMC identifies that any person may request reasonable accommodation to modify a zoning or building standard, regulation, policy, or procedure as may be necessary to afford the disabled individual equal opportunity to the use and enjoyment of their dwelling. A Reasonable Accommodation Request itself does not require submittal of a variance request, because these requests are made on behalf of persons who are legally considered disabled. In this case, the population served by the operation of a sober living home is considered disabled under State and Federal law, and thus a request for reasonable accommodation would apply to operators that do not comply with the current applicable buffer distance requirement. However, for a Reasonable Accommodation Request to be granted, it must meet all the findings pursuant to HBMC Section 17.77.050.
B. REASONS FOR APPEAL
The Planning Commission’s action on Administrative Permit No. 22-015 was appealed by the property owner, Mr. Walker, and the sober living home’s operator, Mr. Garrett, for reasons cited in an appeal letter received and dated July 21, 2023 (Attachment No. 2). The reasons for the appeal are listed below in italics with analysis from staff:
1) The City subjected the dwelling at 9452 Castlegate Drive, Huntington Beach, to municipal regulations, HBZSO 230.28 that violate state statutes, Cal. Govt. Code §§ 65008, 12955(1), 11135, 8899.50, and related federal statues, including the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act;
HBZSO Chapter 230.28 was adopted by the City Council in 2020 to provide greater consistency with state and federal statutes. In accordance with the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, HBMC Chapter 17.77 provides disabled persons policies and procedures for reasonable accommodations to ensure equal access to housing. Further, all residentially zoned properties are under the same regulations, and the appellant has not provided any evidence to support this claim.
2) The City failed or refused to engage in an interactive process, as required under the Fair Employment and Housing Act or the Fair Housing Act prior to denying the applicant’s request for reasonable accommodation;
City records show that the subject request for Administrative Permit No. 2022-015 was filed on November 17, 2022, and subsequently deemed incomplete on December 15, 2022. An application was filed for a SUP at the subject property on December 20, 2022, and later withdrawn and deemed void and unnecessary given the Administrative Permit on file. The appellant was in continued communication with City staff regarding the status of the application, as well as clearing up the confusion of which application would be accepted for processing, given the fact that the subject property is not a candidate for ministerial approval of a SUP. At no time in the timeline of communications between staff and the appellant was there a failure or refusal to engage in an interactive process. Staff was accessible and assisted the appellant with proper filings to request reasonable accommodation.
3) The second Findings for Denial in the Planning Commission’s Notice of Action misconstrued and misapplied the necessity standard under HBMC 17.77.050(D) and under state and federal housing laws;
A reasonable accommodation must not result in the fundamental alteration in the City’s zoning program. Factors the City may consider in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City’s zoning program include, but are not limited to:
(1) Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood;
(2) Whether granting the requested accommodation would substantially undermine any express purpose of either the City’s zoning programs; AND
(3) Whether the requested accommodation would create an institutionalized environment due to the number and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation.
The zoning code forbids the operation of two or more sober living homes operating within 1000 feet of one another to avoid the clustering of these homes, which would create an institutionalized setting and drastically change the residential character of the residential neighborhood. The City seeks to ensure that disabled persons recovering from addiction can reside in a comfortable residential environment versus in an institutional setting.
Each reasonable accommodation request requires an analysis of the facts to see if an approval of the request would result in the fundamental alteration. Here, the subject sober living home is only 60 linear feet from another sober living home. The distance between the homes is so minimal that it does not provide the disabled resident with the opportunity to live in normal residential surroundings and instead places such individuals into living environments more in common with the types of institutional living that state and federal laws were designed to provide them relief from. Because the distance between the homes is so minimal, the request would result in an overconcentration; furthermore, accommodation would require a fundamental alteration to the nature of the City’s zoning laws and programs. Thus, the requested accommodation would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City’s zoning program, as fundamental alteration is defined in Fair Housing Laws and interpretive case law.
4) The Planning Commission erred in failing or refusing to classify the use of the dwelling at 9452 Castlegate Drive as a “Single Housekeeping Unit” or “Supportive Housing”;
The onus is on the applicant/appellant to demonstrate to the City how the subject operation is either a Single Housekeeping Unit (SHU) or Supportive Housing (SH) land use. As such, the appellant has not provided any evidence to support the claim that they should be classified as a SHU or SH, and the application form for both the SUP and subject Administrative Permit identifies the subject operation as “sober living home”. Further, the activities and features of the home do not meet the HBZSO definition of a SHU; Single Housekeeping Units are meant to have residents who are “stable as opposed to transient, members have some control over who becomes a member of the household, and the residential activities of the household are conducted on a non-profit basis.” Those features are not present here and no evidence has been given showing that the sober living home is operating on a non-profit basis with stable, non-transient residents.
5) The retroactive application of the City’s municipal regulations, HBZSO 230.28 to the dwelling at 9452 Castlegate Drive is inconsistent with state law and the City’s treatment of nonconforming uses; and
Retroactive application of the HBZSO is legal implementation of an adopted ordinance. HBMC Chapter 17.77 provides an administrative process for considering nonconforming land uses or standards for persons considered disabled. The City’s treatment of the subject property as a nonconforming use is consistent with applicable findings.
6) Even the City’s regulation were valid (sic), the records before the Planning Commission does not support the denial of applicant’s request for reasonable accommodation.
The City’s adopted regulations were and remain valid. Staff has provided sufficient evidence to recommend findings for denial of the subject Reasonable Accommodation request.
Environmental Status:
Pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Further, if the City Council approves the appellant’s request, action on Administrative Permit No. 22-015 is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15031 Existing Facilities of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the project involves no expansion of an existing use.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. Suggested Findings for Denial
2. Appeal Letter received and dated July 21, 2023
3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 11, 2023
4. Presentation