Costa Mesa commission denies permits for 2 operators of sober-living and treatment facilities

The operators of a local sober-living home and several alcohol and drug treatment facilities left Costa Mesa City Hall empty-handed Monday night after the Planning Commission rejected permit applications for nine addresses.

In a series of votes — nearly all of them unanimous — commissioners denied conditional use permit requests from Northbound Treatment Services for its treatment facilities at 2417 Orange Ave., 171 and 175 Rochester St., 125 and 131 E. Wilson St. and 235 and 241 E. 18th St. They also denied applications from RAW Recovery LLC for its sober-living home at 3016 and 3018 Jeffrey Drive.

All the decisions are final unless appealed to the City Council within seven days.

Though all the establishments reviewed Monday are already open, a 2015 city ordinance required them to obtain conditional use permits to remain in operation because they have at least seven residents and are in multifamily areas.

Commissioners largely based their denials on the fact that most of the properties violated the city’s requirement that group homes, licensed alcohol and drug treatment facilities and sober-living homes be at least 650 feet from one another in residential areas.

City officials have said the goal of that rule is to keep such operations from clustering and potentially transforming neighborhoods into institutionalized settings.

“The City Council has adopted what it feels is a reasonable regulation regarding the distance between treatment facilities and sober-living homes in the city of Costa Mesa,” said commission Chairman Stephan Andranian. “The regulation says 650 feet.”

Steven Polin, an attorney representing Northbound and RAW during Monday’s hearings, alleged the distance requirement discriminates against recovering drug and alcohol addicts who are considered disabled under state and federal law.

“If these buildings were rentals on the open market, their occupancy would be legal,” he told the commission. “The city would not be complaining or … taking any effort to deny housing if it was 18 African-Americans living there in these buildings, 18 Muslim-Americans, 18 Asian-Americans — 18 of anybody who’s a protected class in the Fair Housing Act. You’re only doing this because they’re addicts and alcoholics and that, ladies and gentlemen, is discriminatory.”

As has typically been the case when it comes to sober-living homes and alcohol and drug treatment facilities in residential areas, people attending Monday’s meeting largely fell into two camps.

Some extolled the services such facilities offer, saying they provide life-changing and lifesaving support and resources in a safe environment and help those in recovery reintegrate in the community.

Others said they aren’t unsympathetic to those who need treatment but that Costa Mesa is already home to too many recovery and rehab operations that harm the character of their neighborhoods and create problems with parking, traffic, noise, litter and cigarette smoke.

Though commissioners acknowledged that sober-living homes and addiction treatment facilities can provide a necessary service, they felt it was their duty to follow the rules on the books, including the separation requirement.

“We are in a very challenging situation here because our job is to uphold the laws of Costa Mesa,” Commissioner Isabell Kerins said. “We have to take our personal feelings and our personal emotions out of it.”

Unlike the Northbound sites, no similar facilities are within 650 feet of the RAW site. However, because city codes state that sober-living homes may occupy only a single parcel, RAW — which stands for Recovery and Wellness — had to apply for separate permits for the two properties on Jeffrey Drive, meaning the buffer rule would apply.

The commission unanimously denied the application for 3016 Jeffrey but split on whether to grant a permit for 3018, as doing so wouldn’t conflict with the distance requirement.

Based on concerns of nearby residents, Andranian moved to deny that permit as well, citing non-compliance with local ordinances “regarding limited secondary impacts, compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, the goal to maintain normal residential surroundings and … public health, safety and general welfare.”

The vote to deny the second permit was 3-2, with Vice Chairman Byron de Arakal and Commissioner Jeffrey Harlan opposed.

luke.money@latimes.com

Twitter @LukeMMoney