Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 2 - Yellowstone Administrative RecordNOTICE MAILED PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 20, 2009 HEARING \v.doc YS 00001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE PERMITS YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. 1561 INDUS STREET, 1621 INDUS STREET, 1571 PEGASUS STREET, & 20172 REDLANDS DRIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public hearing originally scheduled on February 12, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. is now set for Friday, February 20. 2009 at 2:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Hearing Officer designated by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the applications of Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., for four separate Use Permits and requests for Reasonable Accommodation at four locations. For more information, call (949) 644 -3232 or (949) 644 -3002. To be added to a permanent notification list of these hearings, e-mail dkiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us and ask to receive these notices. Project File No.: PA2008 -105, PA2008 -106, PA2008 -107 and PA2008 -108 Activity No.: UP2008- 034/RA2009 -004, UP2008- 035/RA2009 -005, UP2008- 0371RA2009 -006 and UP2008-038/RA2009- 007 Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager, City of Newport Beach YS 00002 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT Notices for the February 20, 2009 Public Hearing :• On February 6. 2009, public notices for the following applications were mailed to all of the property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the subject properties to inform the neighboring residents of the change to the Public Hearing. :,date from February 12, 2009 to Friday. February 20, 2009 at 2:00 o.m. NS YS 00003 Owner Listing within 300' of: 20172 Redlands Drive PA2008 -108 for UP2008 -037 1571 Pegasus Street PA2008 -107 for UP2008 -035 1561 Indus Street PA2008 -105 for UP2008 -034✓ 1621 Indus Street PA2008 -106 forUP2008 -035 APN RESIDENT /OWNER ADDRESS STREET /SUITE CITY STATE ZIP 119 35101 ERIC ROSENTHAL 1661 INDUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 35102 KATHLEEN A LOOMAN 1671 INDUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 35103 WILSON REED ROBINSON 20091 KLINE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 351 17 VINCENT D COOK 1692 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 35118 HENRY D O'SHEA 1672 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11935119 GARY DEVINE 1662 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 351 20 WILLIAM H BOSSERT 1661 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 351 21 LOUISE C LEE 1671 ORCHARD OR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 352 01 GRAZIANO & DEN PESTARINO 2809 LA SALLE AVE COSTA MESA CA 92626 119 352 02 KLINE TRUST NA PO BOX 6465 IRVINE CA 92616 119 352 03 MATTHEW L BIESER 20141 KLINE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 11935204 MICHAEL S CH RISTY 20151 KLINE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 352 05 ROBERT LEO DUBE' 20161 KLINE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 352 06 ROSA BALOGH 20181 KLINE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 352 07 BEATRICE BOCSI 1681 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 35208 KATHLEEN M ANDREWS 1671 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 35209 FRANK H MASTERSON 20152 RIVERSIDE DR SANTAANA CA 92707 119 352 10 EDLER PAUL M FAMILY TRUST 20142 RIVERSIDE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 352 11 ANGUS E RICHARDSON 20122 RIVERSIDE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 352 12 GEORGE L ROBERTSON 20112 RIVERSIDE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36101 JAMES C HARVEY 1651 INDUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36102 YURETTA LORMAN NA PO BOX 2421 COSTA MESA CA 92628 11936103 PETER H WEISMANN 1631 INDUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36104 THAMES TRUST 28 IMA LOA CT NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 119 36105 ROBERT B HANLEY 1601 INDUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36106 CHARLOTTE C Z; HOGAN 507 ALTA VISTA DR SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 11936107 WILLIAM D WALKER 1571 INDUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36108 ANNA THAMES 154 E BAY ST COSTA MESA CA 92627 11936109 TRAVIS& JENNIFER HAINING 1572 INDUSST SANTAANA CA 92707 119 36110 BRIAN PATRICK SULLIVAN 1592 INDUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36111 THOMPSON MALCOLM F TRUST 1602 INDUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 361 12 JONATHAN & JANICE DAVIS 1601 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 361 13 DANIELLE 1 SEARS 1591 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36114 ANNA MARIE THAMES 1571 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36115 WAYNE E ROGALLA 1561 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36116 CHESTER P GROSKREUTZ 1551 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36117 PETER ALLEN KEMMERLY 1531 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 361 18 JOSEPH & L R SANDOR & CYNTHIA 1521 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 361 19 JACK MOTLEY 1501 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36125 FV SANTA ANA LLC 21 ROADRUNNER CT COTO DE GAZA CA 92679 111936201 PATRICIA RUTH SANDERS 20111 RIVERSIDE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 Page 1 of 2 YS 00004 Shared \PA's \PAs - 2008 \PA2008 - 105 \Radius Map and Mailing Labels \Combined Mailing \Owner Listing Owner Listing within 300' of: 20172 Redlands Drive PA2008 -108 for UP2008 -037 1571 Pegasus Street PA2008 -107 for UP2008 -036 1561 Indus Street PA2008 -105 forUP2008 -034 1621 Indus Street PA2008 -106 forUP2008 -035 APN RESIDENT /OWNER ADDRESS STREET /SUITE CITY STATE ZIP 119 362 02 DAVID M PLISCO 20121 RIVERSIDE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 362 03 RIVERSIDE TRUST 20141 17853 SANTIAGO BLVD VILLA PARK CA 92861 119 36204 WELLS FARGO BK NA 3476 STATEVIEW BLVD FORT MILL Sc 29715 119 362 05 DUFFY FAMILY TRUST 1651 PEGASUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 362 06 MICHAEL & BARBARA GOOD 1631 PEGASUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 362 07 STEPHEN THAMES 28 1 M LOA Cr NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 119 362 08 ANNIE N PIERMONT 20162 REDLANDS DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 362 09 MICHAEL G FEDORCHEK 20152 REDLANDS DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36210 PETER P ANDREWS 20132 REDLANDS DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 362 11 BOSLEY TRUST 1632 INDUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 363 01 EDWARD PATRICK KEHOE 1642 PEGASUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 363 02 SOHRAB HASHEM 1632 PEGASUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 363 03 JACK GRUBISICH 411 S HARBOR BLVD SANTA ANA CA 92704 119 363 04 THOMAS JOHN QUEBBEMANN 1621 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 363 05 R WESLEY BEAVERS 1631 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 363 06 YI HAN W EI 1641 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 364 01 WARREN FAMILY TRUST NA PO BOX 5474 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662 119 364 02 STEPHEN E ABRAHAM 1592 PEGASUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 364 03 LUZ APELES 1572 PEGASUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 364 04 MCDONOUGH 2005 TRUST 1562 PEGASUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 364 05 BRIAN W ECKLICH NA PO BOX 1803 COSTA MESA CA 92628 119 364 06 COU 1532 PEGASUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 364 07 C SEPARATE PROP CHIARENZA 1522 PEGASUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 364 08 US BANK NA SERIES 2007 -1 1502 PEGASUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36410 JAMES 1 & JULIA L ISAACS III 1541 ORCHARD OR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36411 DAVID KERREK 1551 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36412 JOHN C ENGLISH 1561 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36413 LILLIAN V MARTIN 1571 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 111936414 KANJER TRUST 1591 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936415 CHURCHILLTRUST 1801 IPARK COURT PL #B ISANTAANA CA 92701 119 36419 IPAUL PERRY 1 1511 JORCHARD DR ISANTAANA ICA 1 92707 Page 2 of 2 VI&IIIIIIII11 Shared \PA's \PAs - 2008 \PA2008 - 105 \Radius Map and Mailing Labels \Combined Mailing \Owner Listing - " Resident Listing within 300' of: 20172 Redlands Drive PA2008 -108 for UP2008 -037 1571 Pegasus Street PA2008 -107 for UP2008 -036 1561 Indus Street PA2008 -105 for UP2008 -034 1621 Indus Street PA2008 -106 for UP2008 -035 APN RESIDENT /OWNER ADDRESS STREET /SUITE CITY STATE 21P 11935101 RESIDENT 1661 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935102 RESIDENT 1671 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935103 RESIDENT 20091KLINEDR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 119 35117 RESIDENT 1692 PEGASUS ST NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 119 35118 RESIDENT 1672 PEGASUS ST NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11935119 RESIDENT 1662 PEGASUS ST NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11935120 RESIDENT 1661 ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935121 RESIDENT 1671 ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935201 RESIDENT 20111 KLINE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935202 RESIDENT 20121KLINEDR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935203 RESIDENT 20141KLINEDR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11935204 RESIDENT 20151KLINEDR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11935205 RESIDENT 20161KLINEDR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935206 RESIDENT 20181KLINEDR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 352 07 RESIDENT 1681 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 352 08 RESIDENT 1671 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 ,1193S209 RESIDENT 20152 RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 35210 RESIDENT 20142 RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935211 RESIDENT 20122 RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11935212 RESIDENT 20112 RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936101 RESIDENT 1651 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936102 RESIDENT 1641 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 36103 RESIDENT 1631 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936104 RESIDENT 1621 INDUS ST NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 119 36105 RESIDENT 1601 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936106 RESIDENT 1591 INDUS ST NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936107 RESIDENT 1571 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936108 RESIDENT 1561 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936109 RESIDENT 1572 INDUS ST NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 119 36110 RESIDENT 1592 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936111 RESIDENT 16021 INDUS ST NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936112 RESIDENT 16011 PEGASUS ST NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936113 RESIDENT 1591 PEGASUS ST NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936114 RESIDENT 1571 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936115 RESIDENT 1561 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936116 RESIDENT 1551 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936117 RESIDENT 1531 PEGASUS ST NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936118 RESIDENT 1521 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936119 RESIDENT 1501 PEGASUS ST INEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936125 RESIDENT 1 201621 SANTA ANA AVE INEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 Page 1 of 2 YS 00006 Shared \PA's \PAs - 2008 \PA2008 - 105 \Radius Map and Mailing Labels \Combined Mailing \Owner Listing Resident Listing within 300' of: 20172 Redlands Drive PA2008 -108 for UP2008 -037 1571 Pegasus Street PA2008 -107 forUP2008 -036 1561 Indus Street PA2008 -105 for UP2008 -034 1621 Indus Street PA2008 -106 for UP2008 -035 11936201 RESIDENT 20111 RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 362 02 RESIDENT 20121 RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 362 03 RESIDENT 20141 RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 362 04 RESIDENT 20151 RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 362 05 RESIDENT 1651 PEGASUS ST NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 119 362 06 RESIDENT 1631 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936207 RESIDENT 20172 REDLANDSDR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936208 RESIDENT 20162 REDLANDSDR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936209 RESIDENT 20152 REDLANDSDR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936210 RESIDENT 20132 REDLANDSDR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 119 36211 RESIDENT 1632 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 363 01 RESIDENT 1642 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 363 02 RESIDENT 1632 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 363 03 RESIDENT 1622 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936304 RESIDENT 1621 ORCHARD DR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936305 RESIDENT 1631 ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936306 RESIDENT 1641 ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936401 RESIDENT 1602 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936402 RESIDENT 1592 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936403 RESIDENT 1572 PEGASUSST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936404 RESIDENT 1562 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 364 05 RESIDENT 1552 PEGASUSST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936406 RESIDENT 1532 PEGASUSST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936407 RESIDENT 1522 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936408 RESIDENT 1502 PEGASUS ST NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936410 RESIDENT 1541 ORCHARD DR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936411 RESIDENT 1551 ORCHARD DR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936412 RESIDENT 1561 ORCHARD DR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936413 RESIDENT 1571 ORCHARD DR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936414 RESIDENT 1591 ORCHARD DR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 119 36415 IRESIDENT I 1601 ORCHARD DR INEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 119 36419 IRESIDENT I 1511 ORCHARD DR INEWPORTBEACH ICA 1 92707 Page 2 of 2 YS 00007 Shared \PA's \PAs - 2008 \PA2008 - 105 \Radius Map and Mailing Labels \Combined Mailing \Owner Listing PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 PHONE: 9491644 -3200 FAX: 9491644 -3229 Please see the attached radius map and mailing labels created for properties within a 300 -foot radius, excluding roads and waterways for non - residentially zoned properties, of the subject parcel located at 20172 Redlands Drive, 1571 Pegasus Street, 1561 Indus Street. and 1621 Indus Street in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange. The property information was acquired through the Newport Beach GIS Web Mapping system. Further, the information is based upon the most up -to -date records of the county tax assessor and is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. Signature of reps( r /- Z.O -09 Date. Prepared VI&IIIII1111.1 I VI&IIIIIIIII-81 AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 20, 2009 HEARING - \v.aoc YS 00010 City of Newport Beach J I$ GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT HEARING AGENDA ct " °aN`P This hearing is held in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.91A (Use Permits in Residential Districts). DATE: Friday, February 20, 2009 TIME: 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Hearing must be concluded or continued by 6 p.m.) LOCATION: Council Chambers, Newport Beach City Hall @ 3300 Newport Boulevard HEARING OFFICER: Thomas W. Allen AGENDA ITEM #1 USE PERMIT No.: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION No. APPLICANT: SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2008- 034(PA2008 -105) 2009 -04 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc 1561 Indus Street PROJECT SUMMARY: An application requesting approval of a Use Permit to allow a residential care facility to operate an unlicensed "sober living" facility for 12 women. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. This is a public hearing item. AGENDA ITEM #2 USE PERMIT No.: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION No. APPLICANT: SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2008 -035 (PA2008 -106) 2009 -05 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc 1621 Indus Street PROJECT SUMMARY: An application requesting approval of a Use Permit to allow a residential care facility to operate an unlicensed "sober living" facility for 17 women. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. This is a public hearing item. AGENDA ITEM #3 USE PERMIT No.: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION No. APPLICANT: SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2008- 036(PA2008 -107) 2009 -06 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc 1571 Pegasus Street PROJECT SUMMARY: An application requesting approval of a Use Permit to allow a residential care facility to operate an unlicensed "sober living" facility for 18 women. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. This is a public hearing item. YS 00011 AGENDA ITEM #4 USE PERMIT No.: 2008 -037 (PA2008 -108) REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION No. 2009 -07 APPLICANT: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc SUBJECT PROPERTY: 20172 Redlands Drive PROJECT SUMMARY: An application requesting approval of a Use Permit to allow a residential care facility to operate an unlicensed "sober living" facility for 18 men. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. This is a public hearing item. AGENDA ACTION 1. Meeting Convened (Hearing Officer) 2. Agenda Item #1— Public Hearing — Yellowstone Women's First Step House, 1561 Indus a) Presentation of the application (Newport Beach city staff) b) Applicant comments, if any c) Public hearing opened (Hearing Officer). i. Comments are limited to comments about the subject property's application and operations; and ii. Comments limited to three minutes, unless otherwise ordered by the Hearing Officer. d) Public hearing closed (Hearing Officer). e) Applicant may offer rebutting or clarifying comments (Applicant). f) Hearing officer's questions of City staff or applicant. g) Hearing Officer determination. Options include continuance, approval of a use permit with conditions or denial of a use permit. In the latter two cases, the Hearing Officer may instruct staff to prepare the Resolution for his signature. 3. Agenda Item #2 —Public Hearing —Yellowstone Women's First Step House, 1621 Indus a) Presentation of the application (Newport Beach city staff) b) Applicant comments, if any c) Public hearing opened (Hearing Officer). I. Comments are limited to comments about the subject property's application and operations; and ii. Comments limited to three minutes, unless otherwise ordered by the Hearing Officer. d) Public hearing closed (Hearing Officer). e) Applicant may offer rebutting or clarifying comments (Applicant). f) Hearing officer's questions of City staff or applicant. YS 00012 g) Hearing Officer determination. Options include continuance, approval of a use permit with conditions or denial of a use permit. In the latter two cases, the Hearing Officer may instruct staff to prepare the Resolution for his signature. 4. Agenda Item #4— Public Hearing — Yellowstone Women's First Step House, 1571 Pegasus a) Presentation of the application (Newport Beach city staff) b) Applicant comments, if any c) Public hearing opened (Hearing Officer). i. Comments are limited to comments about the subject property's application and operations; and ii. Comments limited to three minutes, unless otherwise ordered by the Hearing Officer. d) Public hearing closed (Hearing Officer). e) Applicant may offer rebutting or clarifying comments (Applicant). f) Hearing officer's questions of City staff or applicant. g) Hearing Officer determination. Options include continuance, approval of a use permit with conditions or denial of a use permit. In the latter two cases, the Hearing Officer may instruct staff to prepare the Resolution for his signature. 5. Agenda Item #2 — Public Hearing — Yellowstone Women's First Step House, 20172 Redlands a) Presentation of the application (Newport Beach city staff) b) Applicant comments, if any c) Public hearing opened (Hearing Officer). E Comments are limited to comments about the subject property's application and operations; and ii. Comments limited to three minutes, unless otherwise ordered by the Hearing Officer. d) Public hearing closed (Hearing Officer). e) Applicant may offer rebutting or clarifying comments (Applicant). f) Hearing officer's questions of City staff or applicant. g) Hearing Officer determination. Options include continuance, approval of a use permit with conditions or denial of a use permit. In the latter two cases, the Hearing Officer may instruct staff to prepare the Resolution for his signature. 6. Adjournment (Hearing Officer). CEQA: This activity has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) under Class 1(Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from CEQA's provisions. YS 00013 APPEAL PERIOD: Use Permits do not become effective until 14 days after the date of approval, during which time the decision of the Hearing Officer may be appealed to the City Council. YS 00014 1561 INDUS: STAFF REPORT (w/ Exhibits 1 -11) FOR FEBRUARY 20, 2009 HEARING - \v.doc YS 00015 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEARING OFFICER'S STAFF REPORT February 20, 2009 Agenda Item #1 TO: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer SUBJECT: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -105) 1561 Indus Street Use Permit No. 2008 -034 Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -04 APPLICANT: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Isaac R. Zfaty, Attorney CONTACT: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3236, ibrown�citv.newoort beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY This is a use permit application to allow the continued operation of an existing unlicensed adult residential care facility at 1561 Indus Street providing a sober living environment with a total occupancy of 12 persons. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. A reasonable accommodation application has also been submitted requesting: The residents of the facility be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NMBC); 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which restricts occupancy to two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; and 3. An exemption from NBMC Section 20.90.030 that states applications for discretionary approvals, inc tiding use permits, are accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer conduct a public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, the City of Newport Beach and its legal counsel, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends the Hearing Officer: YS 00016 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 2 Deny the use permit application based on the findings discussed in this report, and provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution of denial with prejudice of Use Permit No. 2008 -034. 2. Deny the request for reasonable accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a single housekeeping unit subject to the findings discussed in this staff report. 3. If a use permit is granted for this facility, staff recommends that the requested accommodation for an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 be granted as to the current residents. As to future residents of this facility, staff recommends continuance to a date certain pending receipt of additional financial information. 4. Staff recommends a continuance to a date certain for the request for reasonable accommodation for an exemption of the application filing fee requirement pending receipt of additional financial information. YS 00017 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 4 Project Setting The subject property is located in Santa Ana Heights southeast of the intersection of Santa Ana Avenue and Bristol Street. The property is developed with a two -story single - family residential structure that was originally constructed in 1961, and is located on the westernmost cul -de -sac terminus of Indus Street. The neighborhood consists of single - family tract homes that were constructed at approximately the same time as the subject dwelling. Adjacent to and north of the property is a large apartment complex that fronts Santa Ana Avenue. The subject property is one of four sober living houses in the immediate neighborhood operated by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Zoning The zoning designation for the property and surrounding area is "SP -7" (Specific Plan District No. 7: Santa Ana Heights). This Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SAHSP) is incorporated into the Zoning Code in its entirety (Ch. 20.44). Thus, in the zoning exhibit at the right, the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan zoning designations are shown faded to denote that the zoning categories shown are not base Zoning Code categories but are instead unique to the Specific Plan. ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS WITHIN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (SUBJECT PROPERTY IS "RSV: RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE FA,r#W, )) ,.y1,WYaW at {u ~^ ZTi:n5!yylll uI1tl4�� . P > 9 Heights 1 • �IMw.IF IIIiri.Ad NAp _ INA34: M. ' i %i ' Ptan RMD (1000) (sarta Ana Courrtry Club) - The subject property is zoned Residential — Single Family (RSF) in the SAHSP. The principle land use allowed in this district is single family residential. The status of group homes as a permitted use under Ordinance No. 2008 -05 is addressed later in this report. Project Description The subject application is a request for approval of a Group Residential Use Permit to allow the continued operation of an existing adult residential sober living facility for up to 12 females. The facility is currently operated by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. as an "unlicensed 7 and more" facility. The applicant has also submitted an application for Reasonable Accommodation from the City's zoning and land use YS 00019 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 5 regulations, pursuant to the provisions of Section 20.98 of the NBMC. Specifically, the applicant requests that the residents of the facility be treated as a single housekeeping unit as that term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030; that the facility be allowed an occupancy per bedroom that is more than two per bedroom as provided for in NBMC Section 20.91A.050; and that the application fees be waived due to disability- related financial hardship. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.98.015, if the project for which a request for reasonable accommodation is made required another discretionary permit, in this case a use permit, the applicant may request that the Hearing Officer hear the request for a reasonable accommodation at the same time as the other discretionary permit or approval. The applicant has made such a request, and the following report provides the analyses for a Group Residential Use Permit and Reasonable Accommodation. Ordinance No. 2008 -05 In response to a rapidly increasing concentration of Group Residential Uses within the City and the negative secondary impacts these uses potentially can have on residential neighborhoods in which they are located, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2008 -05 in January 2008. The ordinance identifies the following adverse secondary impacts that can accompany this type of use: • Changes in the residential character of the neighborhood • Noise • Secondhand smoke • Profanity and lewd speech • Traffic congestion • Excessive trash produced • Excessive debris on surrounding sidewalks The ordinance is intended to protect the integrity of the City's residential areas. The fundamental precept of the City's Zoning Code relative to residential zones is that individual dwelling units are intended for the occupancy and use of single housekeeping units. Following adoption of the ordinance, the City changed the way it regulates residential uses that are not single. housekeeping units. Group home living arrangements such as boarding houses, rooming houses, dormitories, fraternities and sororities, and other non - single housekeeping units were found to be incompatible with the nature and character of the City's residential districts. Further, consistent with state law, the ordinance prohibits any new group residential care facility that is not a single housekeeping unit to be located in the R -1, R -1.5, R -2 Districts, and where residential uses are provided for in a Specific Plan District. The ordinance exempts only facilities that are licensed by the State of California's Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs ( "ADP ") for six or fewer residents, and which are not operated integrally with other facilities. Any proposed new facility that is not licensed by ADP for six or fewer residents YS 00020 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 6 and is not a single housekeeping unit must first obtain a use permit and can only be located in a Multi - Family Residential (MFR) District. Some existing group residential care facilities in the City became nonconforming uses after February 20, 2008, because they were not single housekeeping units and did not have use permits. All existing nonconforming group residential care facilities became subject to the ordinance's use permit process and were required to apply for a use permit by May 22, 2008, to continue operation. The subject property was annexed to the City January 1, 2008, as part of the West Santa Ana Heights Annexation. Upon annexation, the facility was subject to the land use regulations as well as all Municipal Code regulations of the City, including the provisions of Ordinance No. 2008 -05. Under the ordinance, the Yellowstone facility became a nonconforming use in a residentially zoned district. Consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.91A of the NBMC, the applicant submitted a use permit application to continue the operation of the existing residential care facility located at 1561 Indus Street on May 20, 2008. A copy of the Yellowstone application as submitted is attached as Exhibit 2. In accordance with Section 20.91A.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), an application for a use permit in a residential district is required to contain the following information: • Facility users • Characteristics of the use • Transportation and parking • Location map and site plan • Similar uses in the vicinity • Applicant information including license and permit history • Operations and management plan, including occupancy levels • Similar operations owned or operated by the applicant On June 19, 2008, a "Notice of Incomplete Application" was sent to the applicant's authorized agent, Isaac R. Zfaty, attorney, advising of the items that were required and/or deficient in the initial submittal. Correspondence from the applicant indicating that the required materials would be submitted within 21 days was received by the City on July 29, 2008, and subsequent materials were received on August 26, 2008. Following receipt of the subsequent materials, staff communicated with the applicant by telephone and e-mail, and scheduled a meeting to discuss the applications. The meeting took place on October 8, 2008, in which staff explained the areas of the applications that were either deficient or internally inconsistent within the applications, or appeared to be misstatements of fact. During the meeting, the applicant was given the opportunity to resubmit all or portions of the applications in order to correct the misinformation. VI&IIIIII➢Ail Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 7 Following the meeting, staff prepared another letter dated November 7, 2008, indicating the items still remaining in order to deem the application complete. A third submittal was received on December 29, 2008. Again, after staff evaluation, it was determined that items within the application were either inconsistent, required clarification, or were otherwise incomplete, and a third letter of incompleteness was sent to the applicant on January 21, 2009. In response to ongoing subsequent communication between the applicant and staff, additional materials were delivered to the City on January 29, 2009, and on February 5, 2009, at which time staff deemed the application complete. The applicant's attorney submitted additional correspondence on February 13, 2009. A copy all correspondence and subsequent submittals are attached as Exhibit 3. Descriotion of Project Operations The Yellowstone facility located at 1561 Indus Street, is also known as "Keystone Manor", and has been in operation since 2007 prior to annexation to the City. Dr. Anna Marie Thames, CEO of Yellowstone, owns the property in fee. This residential care facility is sober living home for 12 women with past alcohol and drug dependence. This residential care facility operates in a two -story single - family dwelling containing five bedrooms, which are occupied as follows: Current Uses at 1561 Indus Street Bedrooms Beds/ Room Beds/ Unit First Floor 1 2 2 Second Floor 4 212 rooms 3/2 rooms 10 Total Bedrooms = 5 Total Beds = 12 Total Parking Spaces = 4 2 -car garage & 2 driveway spaces) As indicated, staff has made numerous efforts to communicate with the applicant to provide them an opportunity to correct the applications, which are internally inconsistent and to process the applications in order to deem them complete. The following matrix has been prepared to illustrate the project operations as represented in the applications initially submitted and in subsequent submittals: YS 00022 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 8 Project Operation Application and Description Date of Reasonable Use Permit Submittal Accommodation Facility Users and Staffing 5 -20 -08 . 18 persons including 2 staff members • 12 persons including 2 staff members • Two staff members. No • House manager and other staff or caretakers that assistant manager visit on a daily or weekly basis 1/28/09 E -mail from applicant's attorney provided clarification of 12- bed occupancy for this facil' Exhibit 9). Duration of Stay 5 -20 -08 Six months 1365 days (Staff was informed verbally that typical stay is 6 months, but some clients have staved fora vear or more. Characteristics of Use/Treatment 5 -20 -08 . Sober living home; no medical care services; no No alcohol and/or drug recovery or treatment on -site counseling services provided on -site. • Residents at this property not allowed on any other properties & no function that includes all residents. 8 -22 -08 Residents at this property not allowed on any other Yellowstone properties & there are no functions that include all residents. 12 -23 -08 Residents prohibited from being in house between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., and must return to house by 4 p.m. Transportation and Parking 5 -20 -08 . Transportation not provided. • Four residents have personal vehicles that are • 2 -car garage and parked only in garage and/or driveway available for staff driveway. and visitor parking. • Staff vehicles parked in • Residents do not have driveway. Clients are allowed auto and rely on public to use personal vehicles transportation or carpooling. and/or keep on -site. • Tenants' vehicles not allowed to be parked or utilized at property. YS 00023 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 9 Project Operation Application and Description Date of Reasonable Use Permit Submittal Accommodation 12 -23 -08 15e- r correspondence from attorney: • Room for 4 cars to park on site. Residents not permitted to park there; only house manager and assistant manager permitted to park on -site. • Basic transportation provided to treatment facility and St. John Church • Transport van kept in other city when not in use 1 -29 -09 Per correspondence from attorney: • Parking on -site reserved for manager and assistant manager, thus max. number of cars at any time is two. • Residents not permitted to park on property. • Visitors not permitted on property; therefore, no visitor parking issues. • Residents do not use cars. Instead, they rely on public transportation to and from property. • Home does not generally provide transportation services; some basic transport to treatment facility and St. John Church. Morning pick up at 8 a.m. and evening drop off at 4 p.m. License/Permit 5 -20 -08 No license. • No license. History (i.e. ADP, . Voluntary certification • Chartered Oxford House DSS) and /or by Orange County Sober Certification Living Coalition 12 -23 -08 Per correspondence from attorney: • No ADP license • Certified as Oxford Charter House Curfew and Ouiet 5 -20 -08 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily Hours Delivery 5 -20 -08 Trash disposal 1 day/week, Information no other delivery services provided. Smoking 5 -20 -08 Acknowledged requirement 8 -22 -08 to control secondhand smoke. (Smoking not permitted in house; restricted to backyard) Fire Marshal Review The Group Residential Use Permit Application also requires the submittal of a fire clearance from the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. The applicant provided a copy of a YS 00024 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 10 Fire Safety Inspection Request that was submitted to Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) prior to annexation to the City of Newport Beach with the August 22, 2008, supplemental submittal. However, the form was not signed by the OCFA, and further, the property is now under the authority of the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. On December 23, 2008, and again on January 29, 2009, the applicant submitted an analysis prepared by an architect that was submitted to the Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal has requested clarification on a number of items, but to date a fire clearance has not been issued. If this use permit is granted, condition of approval will be included stating that the use must comply with the requirements of the California Building Code and obtain a fire clearance from the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. Public Input Staff has received comments from the public (Exhibit 6), including a petition signed by four residents in the neighborhood, stating "Yellowstone is a good neighbor," and several letters from alumni of the facilities expressing their support. Staff has also received letters, a -mails and phone calls from residents in the area expressing specific concerns about the increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood, as follows: • A concentration of sober living homes in the neighborhood; • Litter in the neighborhood, including soda cans, cigarette butts, beer bottles and other trash in the streets, sidewalks and parkways; • The facilities "generate massive amounts of trash;" • Meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicants facilities, with outside attendees; • Loud talking in the streets by meeting attendees late at night following the meetings; Family and other guests visiting the facilities; • Consumption of available on- street parking by facility residents and guests; • Transport vans parked on the street, and "all over the neighborhood;" • Facility residents traveling "around the neighborhood in groups as they go from home to home; "often in groups of 3 or 4, with no apparent business or destination;' • The impact the sober living facilities have on the cost of City services to the facilities; and • Declining property values in the neighborhood. About the Public Input City staff is concerned about the comments from area residents. However, some of the comments should not be factors considered by the Hearing Officer. These include: • Declining home values. The belief that the presence of recovery facilities is any more impactful on property values than changes in the housing market, long -term rentals, vacation rentals, or other non - single family uses has been challenged nationwide. VI&IIIIIIWI Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 11 • Allegations that recovery homes are a cost burden to the City. There is no evidence to suggest that recovery homes cost the City any more in services than a typical single - family building housing the same amount of people, whether that is in the costs associated with police or emergency medical calls for service. However, several allegations made by the neighbors are disturbing, and may show the operator's inability to effectively manage the clients in this and the other three facilities in the neighborhood in a manner that is respectful of this residential neighborhood's peace and quiet enjoyment. These include: • On -site meetings which the operator states do not take place at the facility; • Loud noise late at night following meetings; • An apparent lack of adequate on -site supervision during the day and evenings; • The Influx of visitors' and resident clients' in the neighborhood and use of on- street parking, and resident clients' use of vehicles (Note: The operator states that visitors not permitted on the property; therefore, there are no visitor parking issues. The operation also states that residents do not use cars.) ANALYSIS Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.91A.040, the Hearing Officer is designated to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove applications for use permits, and the Hearing Officer's decision may be appealed to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 20.91A.060 of the NBMC, the Hearing Officer shall make certain specific findings before approving or conditionally approving an application for a use permit in a residential district. Should the Hearing Officer make the determination to approve or conditionally approve an application for a use permit, the Hearing Officer may impose conditions suitable to assure compatibility of the proposed use with other uses in the vicinity. In order to approve or conditionally approve an application for a use permit, the Hearing Officer shall make each of the 11 findings listed in Section 20.91.035 (A) and in Section 20.91A.060 of the NBMC. Failure of the Hearing Officer to make one or more of these findings shall constitute grounds to deny the use permit application. For ease of review, and to eliminate redundant statements in each finding, staff has prepared a Findings Chart (Exhibit 1) that: • Cites each finding by section; • Explains each finding in general terms; • Describes if the finding can be made with this facility without conditions; and, if not • Describes if the finding can be made with this facility with conditions. The Findings Chart shows the findings that are required to be made in order for the use permit to be granted, and the areas for which the findings cannot be made. These four areas, and a discussion about each, follow. Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 12 Concentration of Uses As the map below shows, about 73 group residential beds are in this neighborhood. l /1 P w / :.•. y w\ f y A 3W Subject Property 521 17" 253, 11631: h 143' ' 1641 - lsoz 360, 2 , r� 152x. 312' tesl.: J 1911: 1532 •� 1602 /1671 r 1!!2 .,•1 ,691 353' 201 t 1 , dp .i 20081 r 1641 \ 20691 � NMI 1524 `1961 , �. 1601 20121 -�i 1, 1538 „� r 20192 • S S 1532\.., :w 1861 .'20la1`..� p`° ST -' {536 1161 `233' 162' ' 20112 w� ,..,y. 1. _..: -` ty41; 1571 1602 i7+ 12o1z2. 2011) / z009N a` 1994�'� \. 1591 '.2oi91 f {'20102 •` 1531 , 195x < / 1631 '10142 20121 16411551 ;1M� 3601.' (1822.` � � 1691 20152 F ' 20112 / SS .. 20141.:+'1 / 522p- 1602 �� 621 4Fn' 1671 ::: 201!1 .' `? 20122/ - ��`-;� 1621 _•1642 S 20$ 161, , '1� 20iN� 1572 r 0R 1� 1662 'V 1612 �. 1641:; � 20181r r1 % 26152 y ` t •'.. \ 1872 ^, 1616 ? 1624 1661 20162 y t` 202931 l 4 !642 1671. 702 '•._�,/ aolexy Y 1641:` 1722 20192 1561 ,R. - 20281 f``TI,16621890 701;�., J/ 2029i �� 1713 f' 243110301 ?f?� 20 82 2 20271'`'16941711.4 :1 33 .f 200ft As noted earlier in this report, Yellowstone operates three other sober living facilities in the neighborhood (distances below measured in a straight line from the nearest property line): • 20172 Redlands Drive (18 residents), about 312 feet away; • 1621 Indus Street (17 residents), about 253 feet away; • 1571 Pegasus Street (18 residents), about 143 feet away; and in addition • 1501 Pegasus (8 female residents) is about 380 feet away and is operated by another provider (Lynn House). YS 00027 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 13 In adopting Ordinance No. 2008 -05 the City made a number of findings including Finding No. 16 which states that `community residences should be scattered throughout residential districts rather than being concentrated on any single block or in any single neighborhood." The ordinance defines a "block" as "an area of land that is bounded on all sides by streets... or by streets and a cul -de -sac or by any other form of termination of the street." In the case of the subject property, it is in a neighborhood that is not characterized by a typical grid street pattern; but instead has meandering streets and cul -de -sacs. The ordinance recognizes that there are instances when the lack of a straight -line grid pattern street will make it difficult to exactly define a block; and also recognizes that blocks throughout the City are not always uniform in size. In those instances, Code Section 20.91A.060.D.3 provides that the Hearing Officer may apply the American Planning Association (APA) standard of 617 feet (median) or 711 feet (average) in determining the block size and configuration. Given the close proximity of this facility to the other similar uses located within the same neighborhood, it is critical to define "block" in this particular case. If the APA standard is used, and the median block length of 617 feet applied, the five residential care facilities would all fall within a single block area. Therefore, the subject property is located within a block and in close proximity to the other four residential care facility uses with a combined total of 73 clients in the neighborhood. In staff's opinion, the presence of five residential care facilities in very close proximity.to each other is an overconcentration, and two of the four Yellowstone homes should be closed. Assembly Uses and Parking Residential care facilities may conduct meetings on -site, such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, for the residents who live on -site only. However, the NBMC does not allow the hosting of AA or similar type meetings for individuals who do not reside in the facility. The facilities may be used for residential use by the residents only. Correspondence submitted by residents within the neighborhood states that there are meetings held at the subject facility that involves persons other than the residents and that there is an influx of vehicles using on- street parking during these times, leaving little or no parking for the residents of the neighborhood. The applicant has stated that no such meetings occur. Staff is concerned about allegations from the neighbors regarding visitors during evening hour meetings and on weekends, and the impact on parking and additional traffic generated from these visitors to the surrounding neighborhood. If the use is approved, staff recommends conditions of approval that prohibits meetings on -site, restricts the allowance of vehicles to two staff members only, and requires staff parking on -site in the garage, reserving the driveway for visitor parking. Traffic and Generated Trips The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single M4111hYk.3 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 14 family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling unit. Trip rates for residential care facilities (also classified as an "assisted living" use by ITE) are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Staff recognizes that the use pattern of an assisted living or residential care facility is similar, but not identical to a sober living facility. However, the trip generation rates established by ITE for residential care facilities are the closest land use classification to a sober living home. Based on the ITE standards, a single - family dwelling would generate approximately 10 average daily trips (rounded up), whereas a 12 -bed residential care facility would generate approximately 33 average daily trips. Maximum Number of Residents NBMC Section 20.91A.060.C.2 states that a maximum number of residents for any group home shall not exceed a standard of two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. The subject property has five bedrooms, which results in the maximum number of residents allowed to be eleven. As indicated on the application, the applicant requests a total occupancy of 12 resident beds. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.91A.060.C.2, the Hearing Officer has discretion to set occupancy limits based upon the evidence provided by the applicant that additional occupancy is appropriate at the site. In determining whether to set a different occupancy limit, the Hearing Officer `shall consider the characteristics of the structure, whether there will be an impact on traffic and parking and whether the pubic health, safety, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the facility or adjacent to the facility will be impacted." In determining whether the findings an be made to allow an occupancy of 12 residents, staff considered evidence submitted by the applicant, as well as the size of the structure, parking, traffic generation, and impacts on adjacent and surrounding land uses. Based on the plans submitted, the total living area is 3,197 square feet, and there appears to be adequate room to allow one occupant more than allowed per the code. The applicant has stated that only the manager and assistant manager have vehicles, which are parked in the two -car garage or on the driveway, and residents are not permitted to have vehicles. Therefore, sufficient parking appears to be provided on -site. Traffic and parking impacts described by residents in the neighborhood may not be directly related to this specific facility. However, due to the fact that the property is located on a cul -de -sac and the pie - shaped configuration of the lot, there is limited or no on street parking in front of the facility. Staff believes the applicant has provided adequate documentation for the Hearing Officer to make the necessary findings to grant an increase in occupancy. If the use is approved, staff recommends a condition of approval that allows a maximum occupancy of 12 residents, restricts the allowance of vehicles to two staff members only, and requires staff parking on -site in the garage, reserving the driveway for visitor parking. VI&KIIoIOW -81 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 15 Required Findings Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2008 -05, the Hearing Officer shall make all of the 11 required findings per NBMC Sections 20.91.035 (A) and 20.91A.060. The required findings, and discussion of each finding are as follows: NBMC Section 20.91.035 (A) Findings 1 through 4: 1. Finding: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The use is only partially in accord with the objectives of this code and the Purposes of the district in which the site is location, and therefore; this finding cannot be made for the following reasons: The subject property is located within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7) area and is designated for Residential Single - Family (RSF) uses. The proposed use as a residential care facility is a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses in a residential district are subject to the provision of Chapter 20.91 A of the NBMC. The proposed application for Use Permit 2008 -034 is in accord with the objectives and requirements of Chapter 20.91A with respect to the requirement for the submittal of an application for approval of a use permit to continue the use of the subject property as a residential care facility in the SP -7 /RSF district. The objectives of the code include provisions intended to reduce, through the use permit process, the potential for overconcentration of residential care facilities within a neighborhood and to protect public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use.. However, the subject property's proximity to other group residential uses, all located close to each other, would result in an overconcentration of group residential usestresidential care facilities within the neighborhood. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. 2. Finding: That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district In which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working In or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements In the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. The location of the proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan.However, the use if approved with conditions, will be consistent with the VI&I'MOIC111 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 16 purpose of the district in which the site is Iocated.This finding cannot be made for the following reasons: General Plan Policy LU 6.2.7 directs the City to regulate day care and residential care facilities to the maximum extent allowed by federal and state law so as to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include conditions of approval regulating the use and operational characteristics related to parking, traffic, curfew hours, and on -site meetings. As stated, the facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently four other residential care facilities in close proximity, which constitutes an overconcentration of residential care facilities in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, staff believes that the continued use of this property as a residential care facility, if approved, would be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, and is contrary to the intention of Ordinance No. 2008 -05. This finding cannot be made. 3. Finding: That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district In which it would be located. As noted in Finding No. 2 above, the proposed use would not be consistent with the provisions of NBMC Section 20.91A.060.D in that the facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently four other residential care facilities. Therefore, this findina cannot be made. 4. Finding: If the use is proposed within a Residential District or in an area where residential uses are provided for In Planned Community Districts or Specific Plan Districts, the use is consistent with the purposes specified in Chapter 20.91A and conforms to all requirements of that Chapter. One of the stated purposes of NBMC Section 20.91A.010.8 is: "To protect and implement the recovery and residential integration of the disabled, including those receiving treatment and counseling in connection with dependency recovery. In doing so, the City seeks to avoid the overconcentration of residential care facilities so that such facilities are reasonably dispersed throughout the community and are not congregated or overconcentrated in any particular area so as to institutionalize that area." As noted in Finding No. 2 above, the proposed use would not be consistent with this purpose in that the facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently four other residential care facilities. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. NBMC Section 20.91 A.060 Findings A through G: A. Finding: The use conforms to all applicable provisions of Section 20.91A.050. These development and operational standards are summarized as follows: V&1114111 I Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 17 a. No secondhand smoke can be detectable outside the property. b. Facility must comply with state and local law, and the submitted management plan, including any modifications required by this use permit. C. A contact name and number must be provided to the City d. No services requiring a license can be provided If the facility does not have a license for those services. e. There shall be no more than two persons per bedroom plus one additional resident, unless a greater occupancy is requested and granted. Occupancy must also comply with State licensing if applicable. f. If certification from an entity other than ADP's licensing program is available, applicants must get that certification. g. All individuals and entities involved in the facility's operation and ownership must be disclosed. h. No owner or manager shall have any demonstrated pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of the law. The use, if approved subject to conditions included with the use permit, will conform to the standards set forth in Section 20.91A.050, and this finding can be made as follows: a. Smoking is permitted only in the rear yard and patio area. Given the size of the lot and the proximity of the surrounding residential uses, it is unlikely that secondhand smoke can be detected outside the property, and no complaints have been submitted by adjacent neighbors regarding secondhand smoke. b. The facility has been in operation since 2007, and the applicant has submitted documentation that the facility has never been cited by a state or local agency as violating any of those agencies laws or regulations. C. Contact names and telephone numbers have been provided within the application. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide the City with the appropriate "after hours" names and contact information numbers. V&11I41101A Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 18 d. The residential care facility is used for housing purposes only and is not licensed for on -site treatment. All treatment services are provided at a site that is located approximately two and a half miles from the site in Costa Mesa, and transportation to the site is provided by van three days a week. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include a condition of approval limiting attendance of any type of meeting on -site to residents who reside on -site only. e. The unlicensed residential care facility has five bedrooms and there is a total occupancy of 12 residents. Therefore, the facility exceeds the standard of two persons per bedroom plus one additional resident by one, and does not comply with this operational standard. While this is in excess of the Code standard, staff does not consider this to be excessive in terms of traffic and parking impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. f. The facility is certified as an Oxford House Charter, and the applicant has provided proof of that certification. g. The applicant has provided all names of those involved in the facility s operation within the application. h. There are no known violations or code violations for the facility or the individual operators and managers. B. Finding: The project Includes sufficient on -site parking for the use, and traffic and transportation Impacts have been mitigated to a level of Insignificance. The NBMC requires off - street parking and loading spaces for a residential care facility at a ratio of one space for every three beds. The project site has an enclosed two -car garage and a driveway is that 26 feet deep, providing a total four off - street parking spaces, and therefore meets the NBMC requirements for off - street parking (1:3 or one space per three recovery beds). Van transportation to an off -site treatment facility and to a church is provided approximately three to four times a week, and residents utilize public transit for commuting to work (an OCTA bus stop is located on Santa Ana Avenue within walking distance). With respect to traffic generation, the facility itself does not present an adverse impact to the neighborhood. However, staff is concerned about the comments from the area residents regarding the traffic and parking impacts from family and other visitors to the site during evening hours and on weekends, which results in cars parked throughout the vicinity. The project site is located at the end of a cul- de -sac, and the lots are pie- shaped, with smaller street frontages than other lots within the tract. Further complicating the on- street parking issue for the cul -de- VI&IIIIII]CM Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 19 sac lots is the fact that the driveway cuts /aprons do not leave ample space for the parking of vehicles directly in front of the houses. Other lots located in the tract have room to park two to three cars directly in front of the houses. Staff notes that five group residential uses with a total of 73 residents exist in this neighborhood. In summary, while the facility does provide sufficient off- street parking for management and residents, the traffic and parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood cannot be mitigated to an insignificant level, particularly given the limited parking due to the location of the site on a cul -de -sac, and due to the presence of other group care homes in close proximity to the subject property. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. C. Finding: The property and existing structures are physically suited to accommodate the use. The use is in conformance with the requirements of this finding, and subject to appropriate conditions of approval, this finding can be made for the following reasons: The subject property is approximately 7,500 square feet in area and the structure consists of approximately 3,197 square feet of living area with a total of five bedrooms. The size of the structure appears adequate to accommodate the use as a residential care facility with 12 beds. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department is the responsible agency for implementing fire protection of all group residential care facilities and residences. As discussed above, the property has not received a 'fire clearance" from the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. Therefore, if the Hearing Officer approves the application, staff recommends that a condition of approval be included that provides that the use is approved subject to the approval by the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. D. Finding: The use will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and the addition or continued maintenance of the use will not contribute to changing the residential character of the neighborhood, such as creating an overconcentration of residential care uses in the vicinity of the proposed use. In making this finding or sustaining such a finding, the Hearing Officer shall consider, as appropriate, the following factors: a. The proximity of the use location to schools, parks, other residential care facilities, outlets for alcoholic beverages and any other uses which could be affected by or affect the operation of the subject use; V&KIIIIIRt31 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 20 b. The existence of substandard physical characteristics of the area in which the use is located such as lot widths, setbacks, narrow streets, limited available parking, short blocks, and other substandard characteristics which are pervasive In certain areas of the City of Newport Beach, including portions of West Newport, Lido Isle, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Corona del Mar and Newport Heights, which portions were depicted on a map referred to as the Nonstandard Subdivision Area presented to the Newport Beach Planning Commission on September 20, 2007 and on file with the Director of Planning; and C. Whether, in light of the factors applied in subsections 20.91A.D.1 and D.2, it would be appropriate to apply the American Planning Association standard of permitting one or two such uses per block. Median block lengths in different areas of Newport Beach widely range from 300 feet in the Nonstandard Subdivision Areas to as much as 1,422 feet In standard subdivision areas. The average calculable block length in much of the standard subdivision areas is 711 feet and the calculable median block length is 617 feet. The Hearing Officer shall apply the American Planning Association standard in all areas of Newport Beach in a manner that eliminates the differences in block lengths. In making this determination, the hearing officer shall be guided by average or median block lengths in standard subdivisions of the City. The Hearing Officer shall retain the discretion to apply any degree of separation of uses, which he or she deems appropriate in any given case. A copy of the American Planning Association standard Is on file with the Director of Planning. The project site is located within an established single - family residential neighborhood consisting of one and two story tract homes. There are no public or private schools, or public parks located within close proximity to the site. The closest elementary school is Kaiser Elementary School, which is located approximately two miles to the south, and Brentwood Park located approximately one and a half miles to the south. Facilities licensed to sell or serve alcohol located within three blocks of the project site include a 7 -11 Store and a Mexican restaurant on the southeast corner of Santa Ana Avenue, and an AM/PM Service Station and Market on the northeast comer of Santa Ana Avenue. Those facilities are located within the City of Costa Mesa, approximately 2,000 feet or more walking distance from the subject property. The subject property is located in a neighborhood that is not characterized by standard physical characteristics such as a typical street grid pattern; but instead has meandering streets and cul -de -sacs. The ordinance recognizes that there are instances when the lack of a straight -line grid pattern street will make it difficult to exactly define a block; and also recognizes that blocks through out the Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 21 City are not always inform in size. In those instances, Code Section 20.91A.060.D.3 provides that the Hearing Officer may apply the American Planning Association (APA) standard of 617 feet (median) or 711 feet (average) in determining the block size and configuration. Given the close proximity of this facility to the other group residential uses located within the same neighborhood, it is critical to define "block" in this particular case. If the APA standard is used, and the median block length of 617 feet applied, several of the houses would all fall within a single block area, because the maximum distance between the houses is less than 600 feet. Therefore, the subject property is located within a block and a neighborhood with five group homes and a total of 73 residents. In staff's opinion, the presence of this many residential care facilities in very close proximity to each other is an overconcentration and the use of the subject property as a residential care facility results in an overall adverse impact on the neighborhood and will not be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. E. Finding: The operation of buses and vans to transport residents to and from off -site activities does not generate vehicular traffic substantially greater than that normally generated by residential activities In the surrounding area. Other than the resident manager, residents of the facility do not have automobiles, and utilize public transit from an OCTA bus stop located on Santa Ana Avenue. Vans are used to transport residents to a treatment facility and to a church approximately three to four times a week. It is staff's opinion that the traffic generated from these van trips is not excessive. Therefore, this finding can be made. F. Finding: Arrangements for delivery of goods are made within the hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. Deliveries to the residences are typical of the normal use of the property for residential purposes. Shopping is done by management staff and delivered to the house during normal daytime or early evening hours. Therefore, staff believes that this finding can be made. G. Finding: Arrangements for commercial trash collection in excess of usual residential collection are made within hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. The facility utilizes the regularly- scheduled Costa Mesa Sanitary District residential refuse collection services provided throughout the neighborhood. Neighborhood complaints about excessive trash need to be evaluated further— in Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 22 the event that the once -a -week trash service does not adequately serve this facility, City staff suggests a condition allowing the City's Planning Director to require the facility to secure and maintain commercial bin service. With this condition, this finding can be made. Analysts Summary As indicated at the beginning of this report, staff recommends denial of this Use Permit application for the following reasons: Inability to make all of the findings required by the NBMC Sections 20.91.035 (A) and 20.91 A.060. 2. The proposed use is not consistent with the purposes of NBMC Section 20.91A as set forth in Section 20.91A.010, and the requirements of Section 20.91.020. 3. There are inconsistencies and /or factual misrepresentations in the application documentation. This recommendation is based on analysis of the proposed project's submitted documentation, review of the property setting, apparent documentation contradictions and/or misrepresentations, and staff's conclusion that the required findings from NBMC Section 20.91.035 (A) Findings Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 cannot be made, that the required findings from NBMC Section 20.91 A.060 Findings B and D cannot be made. If, after reviewing this report, and hearing testimony from the applicant, the Hearing Officer agrees with staff's recommendation for denial, staff requests the Hearing Officer's direction to prepare a resolution for denial for adoption at a time and date set by the Hearing Officer. VI&IIIIIIR3/ Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 23 APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION BACKGROUND On May 20, 2008, the applicant submitted an Application for Reasonable Accommodation (Exhibit 2) that discussed the need for accommodation, but did not seek exemption from any specific City rule, policy or practice. On August 22, 2008, the applicant submitted an Application for Reasonable Accommodation that requested an exemption "from single family to multi - family residence." (Exhibit 7) The applicant also indicated the need for an accommodation from the required use permit fee due to financial hardship. Upon request for clarification and additional information from staff, the applicant's attorney submitted a supplemental request for accommodation from specific provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC ") on January 29, 2009. (Exhibit 8) The three specific accommodations requested are: 1. That the residents of the Yellowstone facility at 1561 Indus Street be treated as a single housekeeping unit, as the term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; 3. An exemption from the City's requirement that all use permit applicants pay a use permit application fee to permit cost recovery by the City. (NBMC Chapter 3.36 and NBMC Section 20.90.030) NBMC Section 20.98.015 provides that if the request for a Reasonable Accommodation requires another discretionary permit, the applicant may request a simultaneous hearing. In this case, the use of the property as a residential care facility does require a use permit, and the applicant has requested simultaneous hearing of both the use permit application and the various requests for reasonable accommodation. DISCUSSION The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), adopted in 1988, prohibit housing discrimination based on a resident's disability. Under the FHAA, it is discriminatory for government entities to refuse to make reasonable accommodations from rules, policies, and practices when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)). Cases interpreting the FHAA have held that a government agency has an affirmative duty to grant a requested reasonable accommodation if: (1) the request is made by or YS 00038 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 24 on behalf of a disabled individual or individuals, (2) the accommodation is necessary to afford the disabled applicant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and (3) the request is reasonable. Cities may find an accommodation request unreasonable if granting the request would: (1) result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program (often described as undermining "the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve "), or (2) would impose undue financial or administrative burdens on the city (See U.S. v. Village of Marshall, 787 F.Supp. 872, 878 (W.D. Wisc. 1991). Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary must be determined on a case -by -case basis. Because the applicant has requested three very different types of reasonable accommodation, staff will present a separate analysis of each specific accommodation request. In the January 29, 2009 letter clarifying applicants request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested its facility be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit, as that term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030. The applicant said the accommodation requested is necessary because the facility `is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility." The applicant stated: `Mhe Property more accurately fits the definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030. Residents are the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit. Like a Single Housekeeping Unit, there is a common area and each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses and chores ... The sole purpose of each resident living on the Properly is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager." Ordinance No. 2008 -05 codified the procedures for requesting, reviewing and granting, conditionally granting, or denying all requests for reasonable accommodation in the City of Newport Beach. The Hearing Officer is designed to approve, conditionally approve, or deny all applications for a reasonable accommodation. The ordinance also established required findings and factors the Hearing Officer may consider when making those findings. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(B) of the NBMC, the written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. VI&IIIII11I'1 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 25 Finding: That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. This findina can be made. The applicant submitted a statement signed under penalty of perjury that every resident of the facility is in recovery from alcohol addiction. Federal regulations and case law have defined recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction as a disability, because it is a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs one or more major daily life activities. 2. Finding: That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. This findina cannot be made. Staff does not question the need for sober living homes, nor the fact that persons with a disability must have the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. However, the exemption requested by the applicant is unnecessarily broad to achieve the goal of providing disabled housing. As staff informed the applicant's counsel, a request to be considered a Single Housekeeping Unit is essentially a request to be exempted from all of the provisions of Ordinance 2008 -05 which place any sort of reasonable regulation on the operations of residential care facilities. This is not necessary, because there are many more narrowly tailored accommodations that could enable facility residents to enjoy the housing of their choice without depriving the surrounding neighborhood of reasonable conditions that mitigate the adverse secondary impacts that emanate from this facility. Applicant's counsel asserts in his January 29, 2009 letter that being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary "because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility." , Even if the facility were not transient or institutional in nature, and did not clearly fit the definition of a sober living home, or unlicensed residential care facility, an exemption from the provisions of 2008 -05 is not necessary to afford its residents the opportunity to live in and enjoy a dwelling. However, the applicant raised the issue of how the facility should be characterized in its necessity argument, and asserted the facility more closely resembles a Single Housekeeping Unit than any other type of residential use. Staff has analyzed the facility's appropriate use classification based on the applicant's submitted materials. The residents are recovering alcoholics living together in order to maintain their sobriety. Therefore, the facility closely fits the profile of a sober living home, or unlicensed recovery facility, contrary to applicants counsel's assertions. Whether the facility is transient or institutional in nature does not enter that analysis, although staff believes there is a strong argument that the existence of the three additional facilities owned and operated as sober living homes by the applicant within 100 to 300 feet of each other does create a quasi - institutional environment. VI&IIIII'L N Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 26 Staff has determined the nature of applicants facility operations, as reported in the original application for reasonable accommodation submitted in May 2008, most closely resembles a boarding house use. But for the fact residents are recovering alcoholics, the facility would be classified as a prohibited Group Residential use, or a Boarding or Rooming House as that term is defined in NBMC 20.05.030. (Residential Use Classifications) ( "A residence or dwelling unit, or part thereof, wherein a room or rooms are rented under two or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof ... ") On the May 2008 application for reasonable accommodation, the applicant states, `The residents at the property reside separately at the property and interact within the property. There is individual use of common areas. The residents are responsible for their own meals, expenses and chores. Each individual resides at the property subject to a separate contractual arrangement with the applicant." (Italics added) In a follow -up conversation with staff, applicant's CEO, Dr. Anna Thames stated that the facility has no written leases with any of the residents. Rental agreements with residents are verbal. Again, the description of operations is much closer to the NBMC's definition of a boarding house or group residential use than a single housekeeping unit, as the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit requires dwellings rented to bona fide Single Housekeeping Units to be occupied under a single written lease. The self- reported pattern of facility operations and resident interaction in no way resembles the NBMC definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit. NBMC Section 20.03.030 (Definitions) defines as Single Housekeeping Unitas: `The functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of and responsibility for common areas, and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, household maintenance, and expenses, and where, if the unit is rented, all adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy the entire premises of the dwelling unit, under a single written lease with joint use and responsibility for the premises, and the makeup of the household occupying the unit is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the landlord or property manager. ° Applicants resident clients may be an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit who share common areas, but the applicant's own submittals indicate there is no joint responsibility for meals or expenses, no single written lease (or any written leases at all), and the makeup of the household is determined by the applicant rather than the residents. Staff is troubled by the contradictory information submitted regarding whether the facility operator or the residents determine the household makeup. Given that both the May 20, 2008 reasonable accommodation application and the applicant's CEO stated that the applicant determines the household makeup, applicant's counsel's assertion in the YS 00041 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 27 January 29, 2009 letter that "the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager' is difficult to accept. The remainder of the applicant's presentation regarding classification as a "Single Housekeeping Unit" suffers from the inconsistency in the information it submitted to the City. After the inconsistency was pointed out to applicants counsel by staff, counsel submitted additional correspondence dated February 13, 2009, (Exhibit 10) addressing the discrepancy which staff believes still exists. NBMC Section 20.98.025(C) allows the City to consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: A. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disability. If the requested accommodation is granted, any number of the applicant's current and potential clients will be able to live in a home in a single - family zone with other recovering alcoholics. This is a situation that can affirmatively enhance the quality of Irfe of a person in recovery from addiction, unless overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhood interferes with the residents' re- integration into society. The applicant's sliding scale of rental rates offers a sober Irving environment to residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in a single - family home in this area. B. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation. As stated above, the exemption requested by the applicant is broader than necessary to achieve the goal of enabling disabled individuals an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice. City staff discussed more narrowly tailored exemptions that could enable disabled individuals to reside at the applicant's facility, but the applicant has chosen to retain this request. C. In the case of a residential care facility, whether 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. The applicant does not state why being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make its facilities viable in light of the current market for the type of services it provides. In relation to Reasonable Accommodation Request #2, the applicant states that each facility requires 15 residents in order to be financially viable, and provides a general summary of average income and expenses for all four facilities. In light of the analysis performed in full in Reasonable Accommodation Request #2, Finding 2, Section C below, the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that being M&NIMIZ, PA Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 28 treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make applicant's facilities financially viable. D. In the case of a residential care facility, 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. In 2007, City staff estimated that there were more than 315 sober living beds in the city (these are exclusive of the up to 213 ADP - licensed treatment beds). These numbers were compiled before applicant's facilities, with a total of 58 sober Irving and eight staff beds, were added to the city's supply. Operators of many sober living facilities within the city have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Yellowstone clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment without granting the accommodation. Further, a recent agreement with Sober Living by the Sea, Inc., authorized SLBTS to provide up to 204 beds citywide. However, many of these alternate sober living beds are probably not offered on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. The evidence does not support the applicant's contention that treating residents of its facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit will change the availability of the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature, or afford them a substantially greater access to an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. Even if the applicant provides housing for the disabled, and even if the requested accommodation is necessary, the City is not required to grant a request for accommodation that is not reasonable. Cities may find a requested accommodation unreasonable if it either (1) imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, or (2) results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program, often described as undermining "the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve." 3. Finding: That 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. This findina can be made. Treating the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit would not impose a currently identifiable undue financial or administrative burden on the City. However, staff makes this finding with caution, because the applicant is requesting similar accommodations at each of its facilities. If this reasonable accommodation request were granted for all four Yellowstone facilities, the applicant would be able to house a number of residents far in excess of the 66 individuals currently residing in the four homes. Currently unidentifiable financial or administrative burdens could arise as a result. 4. Finding: That the requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program, as `Yundamental alteration" is defined in Fair Housing Laws and interpretive case law. YS 00043 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 29 This finding cannot be made. The purpose of the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit is to allow staff to determine whether groups of related or unrelated individuals are living together in a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. This definition is necessary because of the persistent attempts by landlords to establish illegal boarding houses in dwellings within the City. Groups living as a single housekeeping unit can live together in any residential zone in Newport Beach. Groups not living as a single housekeeping unit are prohibited from establishing residences in any of the City's residential zones. There is, however, an important exception to the total prohibition of groups not living as a single housekeeping unit -- groups not living as a single housekeeping unit in residential care facilities of any size. Essentially, all residential care facilities in the City have already received a reasonable accommodation from the NBMC's restrictions on groups not living as a single housekeeping unit. The NBMC provides many opportunities for new facilities to establish, and has provisions for existing facilities to continue in their current locations with appropriate impact mitigation. Licensed facilities housing six or fewer residents can establish in any residential zone of the City. Although the residents of residential care facilities receive preferential treatment because of their disabled status, the NBMC's Zoning Code also applies regulations to unlicensed and larger (more than seven residents) licensed facilities. These regulations are in place to ensure that the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code can be achieved, and so the adverse secondary impacts higher density residential care facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated. If the facility is treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit, it is entirely exempt from any of the reasonable controls the City might place on it The City would be unable to make any reasonable effort to reduce the adverse secondary impacts such as noise, overcrowding, and unruly behavior by residents of applicant's facility to the detriment of neighbors, in addition to finding solutions to the applicant's disproportionate consumption of available on- street parking, and the overconcentration of facilities within a single block to the point of creating a quasi - institutional environment in this neighborhood. It is highly likely that most other similar facilities within the City would request a similar exemption, thus nullifying the Ordinance's effect entirely. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(D) of the NBMC, the City may also consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program: A. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. Staff acknowledges that a petition stating, "Yellowstone is a good neighbor" was presented to the City, signed by four residents of Pegasus Street (where one of the VI&RIhhLEl I Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 30 other facilities of applicant is located). However, these signatures of support were countered by letters, emails and phone calls from neighbors of the facilities that reported increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood as more of the applicant's facilities established there in recent years. The impacts reported include: • Litter in the neighborhood which complainants attribute to the applicant's facilities, including cigarette butts, soda cans, and beer cans and bottles; • Family and other visitors to the facilities; • Facility residents traveling in groups between one facility and the others; • Meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicant's facilities, with outside attendees; • Excessive use of on- street parking by facility residents and their guests; and • Decline in property values in the neighborhood. Due to a number of factors, including general fluctuations in the real estate market, staff is reluctant to speculate that any decline in property values is a direct result of the operation of applicant's facilities. Accordingly, this consideration was not factored into Staffs analysis. A number of the neighbors' allegations appear credible, and directly contradict applicant's representations to the City. Specifically, the applicant stated in its submittals that: There are no outside visitors allowed at the facility; Residents are not permitted to have cars while they reside at the facility and rely on public transportation, carpools with the resident managers to get to the full -time jobs which the applicant states all residents have, and facility vans to get to treatment facilities and church (although the May 20, 2008 use permit application stated that this facility then allowed up to four resident vehicles onsite); No interaction between the four facilities operated in close proximity by the applicant is permitted. Based on the misstatements and inconsistencies of the information supplied by the applicant in its use permit and reasonable accommodation applications, Staff views these representations about restrictions on visitors, cars and facility interaction with skepticism. In particular, staff does not find the applicants statement about its "no visitors" policy to be credible, because one of the letters of support (Exhibit 6) submitted by a former Yellowstone resident said, 01 come to Yellowstone every week and am still a part of this place still to this day ... 6 years later. I hope it is here for other girls to come back and work with the newcomers the way l have been given the chance too." Another former resident wrote, "Yellowstone is the place that I will continue to come back to and visit the new girls who are struggling the way I did." (Note: applicants attorney states that these letters refer to meetings at another Yellowstone facility in Costa Mesa.) VI&IIIIIIt3 11 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 31 The applicant's possible misstatements of easily verifiable facts (such as policies about no meetings, no visitors, and no inter - facility interaction), and early written and oral representations that two of the facilities held ADP licenses (which they never had), causes staff concern about the overall responsibility of the operator, and its ability to successfully manage both its residents and the negative impacts its facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood. B. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking. Parking - The applicant stated in its original reasonable accommodation application for this property (May 20, 2008) that facility residents were not permitted to have personal vehicles at the property. (Note: This application also stated that the facility at 1561 Indus had 18 residents instead of the 12 referenced in other applications and correspondence — the original reasonable accommodation applications may have been submitted with the wrong use permit). The use permit application stated that four residents have personal vehicles they park onsite. Later correspondence and conversations with the applicant's attorneys indicated that no resident vehicles would be permitted onsite, and that only the two resident staff members would be permitted vehicles. The two enclosed garage spaces and two driveway parking spaces allow for the staff vehicles to be accommodated without impacting neighborhood parking. However, the weekly meetings and weekend visitors reported by neighbors and former residents of the facilities disproportionately consume available neighborhood parking. The facility is located at the end of a cul -de -sac and has a narrow street frontage with very little adjacent on- street parking. Four other facilities are located in the same neighborhood in close proximity to this site. The cumulative impact of having more than one facility operating within a very restricted distance results in increased traffic and parking demands. Traffic and Generated Trips — The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. Trip rates for residential care facilities are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Based on these standards, a 12 -bed residential care facility would generate approximately 32.88 average daily trips. The evidence shows this facility will generate average daily trips substantially in excess of surrounding single - family dwellings. 5. Finding: That 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. This findina can be made. A request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if granting it would pose °a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or result YS 00046 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 32 in substantial physical damage to the property of others." See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). This is a very limited exception and can only be used when, based on the specific facts of a situation, a requested accommodation results in a significant and particularized threat. Federal cases interpreting this exception in the FHAA indicate that requested accommodations cannot be denied due to generalized fears of the risks posed by disabled persons. SUMMARY — REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST #1 In summary, . with regard to the applicant's request to provide reasonable accommodation that treats the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit, Findings 2 and 4 cannot be made. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, ail five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. Therefore, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny the Reasonable Accommodation request for the residents of the subject property to be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. In the January 29, 2009 letter from applicant's counsel's clarifying and supplementing applicant's request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested that the facility receive an exemption from the occupancy standards of NBMC Section 20.91A.050. NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2) requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. All of applicant's facilities currently have residents in excess of the number that would be permitted under the use permit standards. One facility (1561 Indus) has 12 residents in five bedrooms; the other three (1621 Indus, 20172 Redlands, and 1571 Pegasus) have 18 residents in six bedrooms. Under the operating standards of NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2), a use permit issued to 1561 Indus would be limited to no more than 11 residents. 1621 Indus, 20172 Redlands and 1571 Pegasus would be limited to no more than 13 residents at each facility. The applicant requests an exemption from this requirement that will allow each facility to continue at its.current occupancy level. The applicant's counsel did not indicate in the January 29, 2009 letter why the accommodation requested is necessary, but clarified the assertion of necessity via telephone and email to staff on February 12, 2009. Applicant's counsel asserts that, as to current residents of 1561 Indus, the accommodation is necessary because if a use permit were granted restricting occupancy to 11, one current resident would be displaced. Because of financial constraints on the displaced resident's earning capability that result from the resident's disability, the applicant's counsel states that the displaced resident would have no other place to reside in a sober environment. YS 00047 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 33 As to prospective residents of 1561 Indus, the applicant's counsel states that the accommodation is necessary because the prospective residents of 1561 Indus also have financial constraints caused by their disability, and would be unable to afford to rent a dwelling if the additional bed(s) at 1561 Indus were unavailable to them because of the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91 A.050(C)(2). Ordinance No. 2008 -05 codified the procedures for requesting, reviewing and granting, conditionally granting, or denying all requests for reasonable accommodation in the City of Newport Beach. The Hearing Officer is designed to approve, conditionally approve, or deny all applications for a reasonable accommodation. The ordinance also established required findings, and factors the Hearing Officer may consider when making those findings. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(B) of the NBMC, the written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. 1. Finding: That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. This findina can be made. The applicant has submitted a statement signed under penalty of perjury that every resident of the facility is in recovery from alcohol addiction. Federal regulations and case law have defined recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction as a disability, because it is a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs one or more major daily life activities. 2. Finding: That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. As to current residents of 1561 Indus: This finding can be made. If a use permit is issued for this facility without the requested accommodation, one current resident of 1561 Indus would have to be removed from the facility in order comply with the terms of the use permit. The applicant reported in its application that the average length of stay for residents of this facility is six months; the applicant later verbally informed staff that residents stay six months to one year, sometimes longer. Granting the requested accommodation would allow that individual to remain in the dwelling for the remainder of her temporary stay, providing that individual with the opportunity to continue to live in her current dwelling for the necessary limited period of time. As to prospective residents of 1561 Indus: This finding can be made, in light of factor C, below, as applied to this facility only if the applicant submits further financial evidence that proves the expenses for the 1561 Indus properties are as reported. Applicant states that it charges monthly fees on a sliding scale based on ability to pay, and that the applicant's recovery services are needed services for many persons in YS 00048 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 34 recovery from alcoholism. Applicant has submitted an Affidavit of Disability - Related Hardship, signed under penalty of perjury, on behalf of the facility's residents. The affidavit states that before becoming disabled, Yellowstone residents earned an average of $50,000 per year, and that in recovery the residents are earning an average of $20,000 per year. It is plausible that persons in early recovery from addiction tend to have lower incomes than they had before addiction temporarily reduced their employment opportunities. This will necessitate shared living arrangements in one form or another. Adding one bed, in the case of 1561 Indus, could afford an additional disabled individual the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The analysis does not stop at the financial needs of the potential residents, however. Were that the case, the City might be obligated to authorize an unlimited number of residents at the applicants facilities at greatly reduced rents; the population of recovering alcoholics with financial limitations is vast. Even the Ninth Circuit has noted that mandating lower rents for disabled individuals would probably not be considered a reasonable request. (See Giebeler v. M &B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)) NBMC Section 20.98.025(C) permits the City to consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: A. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disability. Staff does not question the need for sober living homes, nor the fact that persons with a disability must have the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. If the requested accommodation is granted, a slightly higher number of the applicant's current and potential clients will be able to live in a home in a single- family neighborhood with other recovering alcoholics. This is a situation that can affirmatively enhance the quality of life of a person in recovery from addiction, unless overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhood interferes with the residents' re- integration into society. The applicant's sliding scale of rental rates offers a sober living environment to residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in a single- family home in this area. B. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation. As to current residents of 1561 Indus: If the use permit is granted and the accommodation is denied, at least one resident will be displaced from her temporary home. As to prospective residents of 1561 Indus: The applicant has not submitted information on whether the facility at 1561 Indus is currently operating at full capacity, or whether there is a waiting list of potential residents. M &NIhhZ, N Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 35 C. In the case of a residential care facility, whether 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. The applicant states that each facility requires 15 residents in order to be financially viable, and provides a general summary of average income and expenses for all four facilities. In some federal cases in which a sober living or other group home made a similar statement in support of its request for an accommodation allowing additional residents, courts found that the accommodation should be granted. However, the courts generally consider more detailed, verified financial information to reach that conclusion. (See Oxford House- Evergreen v. City of Plainfield, 769 F.Supp. 1329 (1991)) The applicant has not submitted financial information specific to each facility, but it has supplied an average cost analysis for its four facilities overall. The analysis was not signed under penalty of perjury, and although staff requested it, the applicant did not submit specific evidence such as mortgage statements or utility bills by the date of this report. If a residential recovery home is adding residents for its own financial advantage rather than to accommodate the financial limitations of the residents, the.City is not obligated to grant the requested accommodation. D. In the case of a residential care facility, 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. In 2007, City staff estimated that there were more than 315 sober living beds in the city (these are exclusive of the up to 213 ADP - licensed treatment beds). These numbers were compiled before applicant's facilities, with a total of 58 sober living and eight staff beds, were added to the city's supply. Operators of many sober living facilities within the city have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Yellowstone clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment without granting the accommodation. Further, a recent agreement with Sober Living by the Sea, Inc., authorized SLBTS to provide up to 204 beds citywide. However, many of these alternate sober living beds are probably not offered on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. The evidence does not support the applicant's contention that treating residents of its facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit will change the availability of the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature, or afford them a substantially greater access to an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. Even if the applicant provides housing for the disabled, and even if the requested accommodation is necessary, the City is not required to grant a request for accommodation that is not reasonable. Cities may find a requested accommodation unreasonable if it either (1) imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, or (2) results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program, often described as `undermining the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve." VI&IIIIIII.111 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 36 3. Finding: That 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. As to current residents of 1561 Indus: This finding can be made. Allowing one additional bed on a temporary basis at the facility would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. Applicant states that the average length of stay for individual residents is 6 months. It creates little burden on the City to allow one of the current residents of 1561 Indus to complete her stay at the facility. Upon her departure, the facility's bed count will be within the range contemplated by the operating standards of the NBMC. The primary administrative burden on the City would be ensuring compliance. As to prospective residents of 1561 Indus: This finding can be made. Allowing one extra bed at this facility would not create a currently identifiable undue financial or administrative burden on the City. However, staff makes this finding with caution, because applicant is requesting similar accommodations at each of its facilities. If all use permits and reasonable accommodation requests are granted, this would create a total of 16 residents in excess of the highest number permitted for the four facilities by the operating standards of the NBMC. 4. Finding. That the requested accommodation will not 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. As to current residents: This finding can be made. Allowing one additional bed on a temporary basis at the facility would not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program. Applicant states that the average length of stay for individual residents is 6 months to one year. It does not fundamentally undermine the nature of the City's zoning program to allow one of the current residents of 1561 Indus to complete her stay at the facility. Upon her departure, the facility's bed count will be within the range contemplated by the zoning program. As to prospective residents: If use permits are denied for one or more other Yellowstone facilities, this finding can be made. Permanently allowing a single additional bed in excess of the highest number allowed under the operational standards of the NBMC might not undermine the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve. The basic purpose of the bed count limits is to draw a line at a reasonable density for a business providing residential recovery services within a residential neighborhood. A single additional bed would not undermine the fundamental purpose of the zoning program, assuming other program impacts are reduced elsewhere. If use permits are granted for all four Yellowstone facilities, this finding cannot be made. Staff is also concerned that if use permits are granted at each facility, and each facility receives the reasonable accommodation requested here, the extra 16 individuals could YS 00051 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 37 trigger an overconcentration that contributes even further to the change in the character of the neighborhood. The residents living in five recovery facilities located between 100 and 400 feet from each other are likely to create a quasi - institutional environment within the neighborhood. This will not benefit either the surrounding neighborhood or the recovering individuals attempting to reintegrate into the lifestyle found in a residential neighborhood. In a joint statement on the Fair Housing Act, the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have recognized it would adversely affect persons with disabilities and would be inconsistent with the object of integrating persons with disabilities into the community if a neighborhood came to be composed largely of group homes. They agree that it is appropriate to be concerned about the setting for a residential care facility, and that a consideration of overconcentration may be considered in this context. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(D) of the NBMC, the City may also consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program: A. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. Staff acknowledges a petition stating "Yellowstone is a good neighbor" was presented to the City, signed by four residents of Pegasus Street (where one of the other facilities of applicant is located). However, the petition was countered by letters, emails and phone calls from the facilities' neighbors reporting increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood as the applicant established more facilities in recent years. The letters of support, the letters of complaint, and the applicant's submissions do not indicate which Yellowstone facility the impacts are reported (or denied) for. Therefore, staff will analyze the reported impacts as if they apply to each facility equally. The impacts reported include: • Litter in the neighborhood which complainants attribute to the applicant's facilities, including cigarette butts, soda cans, and beer cans and bottles; • Family and other visitors to the facilities; • Facility residents traveling in groups between one facility and the others; • Meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicant's facilities, with outside attendees; • Excessive use of on- street parking by facility residents and their guests; and • Decline in property values in the neighborhood. Due to a number of factors, including general fluctuations in the real estate market, staff is reluctant to speculate whether any decline in property values is a direct result of the operation of applicant's facilities. This consideration was not included in staff's analysis. VI&IIIIIII -tA Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 38 However, a number of the neighbors' allegations appear credible, and directly contradict representations made to the City by the applicants. Specifically, the applicant has stated in its reasonable accommodation applications and supplemental communications that: • There are no outside visitors allowed at the facility; • Residents are not permitted to have cars while they reside at the facility and rely on public transportation, carpools with the resident managers to get to the full -time jobs which the applicant states all residents have, and facility vans to get to treatment facilities and church (although the May 20, 2008 use permit application stated that this facility then allowed up to four resident vehicles onsits); and • No interaction between the four facilities operated in close proximity by the applicant is permitted. Based on the other misstatements and inconsistencies in the information supplied by the applicant in its use permit and reasonable accommodation applications, staff is inclined to view the applicant's representations about restrictions on visitors, cars and facility interaction with skepticism. In particular, staff is not sure the applicant's statement about its "no visitors" policy is credible, because neighbors report visitors are common, and because one of the letters of support submitted by a former Yellowstone resident said, "I come to Yellowstone every week and am still a part of this place still to this day ... 6 years later. I hope it is here for other girls to come back and work with the newcomers the way I have been given the chance too." Another former resident wrote, "Yellowstone is the place that I will continue to come back to and visit the new girls who are struggling the way I did." (Exhibit 6) (Note: applicant's attorney states that these letters refer to meetings at another Yellowstone facility in Costa Mesa.) The applicant's possible misstatements of easily verifiable facts (such as policies about no meetings, no visitors, and no inter- facility interaction), and early written and oral representations that two of the facilities held ADP licenses (which they never had), causes staff concern about the overall responsibility of the operator, and its ability to successfully manage both its residents and the negative impacts its facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood. Allowing facilities that are not well run to operate with a high concentration of residents can lead to a further alteration in the character of the neighborhood. If a use permit in this location is granted, it may be necessary to scale back rather than expand the population of the facility, and increase supervision and enforcement of existing house rule to mitigate the impact of the facility on the surrounding neighborhood. Applicant's counsel has been informed of the inconsistencies in the applicant's submitted materials, and will submit additional information addressing the inconsistencies. On February 12, 2009, applicant's counsel informed staff by telephone that: Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 39 • Meetings referenced in Yellowstone alumni letters of support occur only at Yellowstone's Costa Mesa facility, and there are no meetings held at the Newport Beach facilities. • There has been a change in policy since the original application for reasonable accommodation was submitted in May 2008. Personal vehicles are no longer allowed at 1561 Indus. Only the two resident managers may have vehicles in the neighborhood, which must be parked onsite. Letters from facility neighbors indicate this may not be the case. Public testimony at the hearing will allow the hearing officer and staff a clearer picture of the actual situation. B. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking. Parking - The applicant stated in its original reasonable accommodation application for this property (May 20, 2008) that facility residents were not permitted to have personal vehicles at the property. (This application also stated that the facility at 1561 Indus had 18 residents instead of the 12 referenced in other applications and correspondence — the original reasonable accommodation applications may have been submitted with the wrong use permit). The use permit application stated that four residents have personal vehicles which they park onsite. Later correspondence and conversations with the applicant's attorneys indicated that facility policy has changed, and that now no resident vehicles are permitted onsite, and that only the two resident staff members would be permitted vehicles. If residents are not allowed personal vehicles in the neighborhood, then there should not be a substantial increase in insufficient parking as a result. However, the weekly meetings and weekend visitors reported by neighbors and former residents of the facilities do appear to impact neighborhood parking to an excessive degree. (Letters from the public say that meetings occur, but do not indicate which of the facilities hold meetings.) The 1561 Indus facility is located at the end of a cul -de- sac, and has a narrow street frontage with very little adjacent on- street parking. Three other facilities operated by the applicant are located in the same neighborhood at in close proximity to each other. If requested reasonable accommodations are granted for all four of applicant's facilities, 16 facility residents in excess of the operating standards would be allowed. The operating standards already limit the overall population at the facilities to 50. The cumulative impact of having 16 extra residents in more than one facility operating within a very restricted distance could result in increased traffic and parking demands. Traffic and Generated Trips — The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. Trip rates for residential care facilities are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Based on these YS 00054 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 40 standards, a 12 -bed residential care facility would generate approximately 32.88 average daily trips. An 11 -bed facility would generate 30.14 average daily trips, not an appreciable difference below that generated by 12. 5. Finding: That 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. This finding can be made. A request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if granting it would pose "a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). This is a very limited exception and can only be used when, based on the specific facts of a situation, a requested accommodation results in a significant and particularized threat. Federal cases interpreting this exception in the FHAA indicate that requested accommodations cannot be denied due to generalized fears of the risks posed by disabled persons. SUMMARY —REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST #2 The applicant has requested that the facility at 1561 Indus continue to have one bed in excess of that allowed by the operating standards specified in the NBMC operating standards for the duration of the stay of the one extra resident. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, all five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. Current Residents: All five findings were made as to the current residents of 1561 Indus. Staff recommends that if a use permit is granted for this facility, the Hearing Officer also grant the requested accommodation as to the current residents only. Prospective Residents: If a use permit is granted for this facility, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer move to continue the hearing on this portion of the request to a date certain, to enable the applicant to submit additional financial information that will allow staff to accurately analyze the need for the accommodation. A final staff recommendation on this accommodation request depends in part on financial information not yet submitted by the applicant, and on whether use permits for other Yellowstone facilities are granted. If use permits are denied for one or more of the other Yellowstone facilities, and if expenses at 1561 Indus are shown to be as reported, then all five findings can be made and staff can recommend approval of the request. If all four use permits are granted, Finding Four cannot be made. If the monthly costs at 1561 Indus are significantly lower than reported, then Finding Two cannot be made. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, all five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. YS 00055 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 41 The applicant has stated that, as a non- profit organization that relies on contributions from the community to keep it from operating at a loss, paying the use permit application fee deposit presents a financial hardship. Staff offered a payment plan to enable the applicant to pay the application fee within a reasonable period of time. In lieu of the payment plan, the applicant has requested an exemption from the $2,200 use permit application deposit required to process the use permit application submitted for this facility. NBMC Chapter 3.36 sets forth the fee schedule for municipal services, and mandates 100% cost recovery for services when the fee schedule does not set forth a lower rate of recovery. Use permits processing is not one of the services that are generally provided at a rate below 100% cost recovery NBMC Section 20.90.030 states that applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. Federal courts have periodically reviewed whether the financial limitations of disabled individuals must be considered when analyzing reasonable accommodation requests, with inconsistent results. The Ninth Circuit has indicated that some disability- related financial constraints must be considered when the request is reasonable. As with all reasonable accommodations, the analysis of whether a requested accommodation from financial policies is reasonable must be determined on a case -by -case basis. The applicant has submitted a signed Affidavit of Disability- Related Financial Hardship that gives general information on the pre- and post - disability average income range of typical facility residents. The applicant has also submitted an unverified statement of the average income and expenses related to the four facility properties, discussed above in Reasonable Accommodation Request #2, Finding Two (C). SUMMARY — REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST #3 Although staff requested further verifiable financial information from the applicant, this information had not been received at the time this report was prepared. Therefore, staff :s unable to perform an accurate analysis of the actual financial needs of the applicant at this time. Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer continue this portion of the applicant's reasonable accommodation requests to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to submit and staff to analyze verifiable financial information. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer conduct a public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, the City of Newport Beach and its legal counsel, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends the Hearing Officer: YS 00056 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 42 Deny the use permit application based on the findings discussed in this report, and provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution of denial with prejudice of Use Permit No. 2008 -034. 2. Deny the request for reasonable accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a single housekeeping unit subject to the findings discussed in this staff report. 3. If a use permit is granted for this facility, staff recommends that the requested accommodation for an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 be granted as to the current residents. As to future residents of this facility, staff recommends continuance to a date certain pending receipt of additional financial information. 4. Staff recommends a continuance to a date certain for the request for reasonable accommodation for an exemption of the application filing fee requirement pending receipt of additional financial information. Environmental Review This activity has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and therefore it is not subject to CEQA. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: rJ William Cunnin , AICP Consulting Planner Submitted by: Dave Kiff Assistant City Manag r YS 00057 Use Permit No. 2008 -034 February 20, 2009 Page 43 EXHIBITS 1. Findings Chart 2. Initial Application Submittal dated May 20, 2008 3. Notices of Incomplete Application dated June 19, 2008, November 7, 2008, and January 14, 2009, including subsequent submittals 4. Site Plan/Floor Plans 5. Fire Marshal Correspondence and Code Analysis Submittal 6. Letters in Support (submitted by Applicant) and Letters in Opposition 7. Application for Reasonable Accommodation dated August 22, 2008 8. Applicants Supportive Documentation submitted for Reasonable Accommodation 9. Applicants E -mail dated January 28, 2009 10. Applicant's Additional Correspondence dated February 13, 2009 11. Additional Letters of Opposition Received After February 13, 2009 VI&IIIIIII.1.1 N � C D W m N I 20 0-0 Z m G1 �a N m A c �+ z rn m 02 o° � N N 0 Om m m 2 � cn m � r 70 O c 0 N m O N Z Q m m -n Z N C v' m m m = O � C � N m YS 00059 -v D z N I T_ z v z G) m A c z m v O D v O m m z m Ul D O Z D W r m D n n O O C7 O Z m A c m LA YS 00060 YS 00061 YS 00062 EXHIBIT 2 INITIAL APPLICATION SUBMITTAL YS 00063 Mark S. Adams Scott R. Albrecht Ryan N. Bums Loren A. Deters Howard Goldstein* Matthew A. Goldstein** Beatdz M.G. Gordon Philip W. Green Megan G. Mayer Herbert N. Samuels *** Hugh A. Sanders William L. Steel Martin J. Stein Isaac R. Zfaty 1561 INDUS STREET Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. *Also admitted in Nevada **Also admitted in Arizona ***Also admitted in New Yodr and Florida May 20, 2008 IIAND DELIVERED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Ordinance 2008 -5 (the "Ordinance ") Accommodation; Federal Exemption Application To Whom It May Concern: This firm is general counsel for ( "Yellowstone "). Please direct all future c( Enclosed herewith are the following items: Senior Counsel JetSey S. Grader RECEIV €n MAY 2 0 2008 1111100 Of the City Manager :11 11 Permit Application; Reasonable alit; Non - Conforming Use Women's First Step House, Inc. regarding this matter to this office. I. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application foi the property located at 1571 Pegasus, Newport Beach, CA 92707; i 2. Reasonable Accommodation Application for Ithe property located at 1571 Pegasus, Newport Beach, CA 92707; 3. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application forIthe property located at 1621 Indus St., Newport Beach, CA 92707; 4. Reasonable Accommodation Application for the property located at 1621 Indus St., Newport Beach, CA 92707; 5. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application for the property located at 20172 Redlands Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92707; 19800 MacArthur Boulevard • Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 -2433 Telephone: (949) 263 -0004 - Facsimile: (949) 263 -0005 YS 00064 City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 2 6. Reasonable Accommodation Application for the property located at 20172 Redlands Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92707; 7. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application fpr the property located at 1561 Indus, Newport Beach, CA 92707; and i 8. Reasonable Accommodation Application fob the property located at 1561 Indus, Newport Beach, CA 92707, j Additionally, by and through the materials included herein (including this correspondence), Yellowstone seeks a Federal Exemption Permit and a rant of Non - Conforming Use for the continued use of the above referenced four properties (the "Properties ") as sober living homes. Yellowstone operates the Properties as not for pr, and alcohol addictions can live in a sober and supporti individuals are protected under, inter alia, the Americans the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments (the "Fill Yellowstone (the "Applicant") on the behalf of all of thi Properties, both currently and prospectively. It is worth noting that Yellowstone is less than necessary. Yellowstone hereby submits these applicati a continued effort to remain compliant with all applical With respect to each of the Properties, the Fit homes where individuals with drug e environment. As you know, these dVith Disabilities Act (the "ADA ") and V). This application is brought by disabled individuals who reside at the fident that the instant applications are out of an abundance of caution and in Beach ordinances. facts apply: The Properties were originally purchased in the �nincotporated area of Orange County known as Santa Ana Heights. Recently, the Properties were annexed by the City of Newport Beach. Further, Ordinance 2008 -5 was signed into law. s a result, Yellowstone has decided to submit the referenced applications under Ordinance 2008 -5 and Municipal Code sections 20.62.010, et seq., 20.91.010, et seq„ 20.91A.010, et seq.,and 20.98.010, et seq. The Ordinance requires that a number of question and also in connection with the request for reasonable requirements, Yellowstone provides the following spec provide medical services, or any other type of health cai Properties are available as separate and distinct sober individuals who seek to live in a house with other similar a commitment to sobriety), in community, and with the I addressing their respective disabilities. be addressed in the permit application, iccommodation. In response to those is information: Yellowstone does not e, at any of the Properties. Rather, the ving homes of residence for disabled disabled individuals (who have made 4rpose of maintaining that sobriety and YS 00065 City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 3 The success of sober living homes in assisting tl United States is well documented. Similar success has 1 herein. A sample of the literature on sober living homes the sober living homes addressed in these applications, live at these homes would not have access to sober living to live in such a home in Orange County. Yellowste otherwise unaddressed need by these disabled individu enjoy a dwelling. There is no question that, with their c enhance the lives of many individuals with disabilities. Importantly, the rent charged to these individua profit is realized. In fact, without charitable coniributi( By no means is Yellowstone, or any individual it Yellowstone simply makes available a sober living disabled individuals, and with a view toward enhanc Yellowstone is forced to remove its operations from economic hardship. Moreover, with any prospective i living homes, the individuals with disabilities who accommodations. ;se disabled individuals throughout the ;en realized at the Properties addressed .s attached to the applications. Without .e., the Properties, the individuals who homes, and would not be able to afford ie provides these homes to satisfy the is for an equal opportunity to use and rrent use, these Properties affirmatively simply covers Yellowstone's costs; no Yellowstone would operate at a loss. )lved with Yellowstone, a profiteer. vironment in an effort to help these Y. the community. To the extent that tese Properties, it will suffer extreme sure of any of the Properties as sober ive in these homes will be without Yellowstone is compliant with all of the requirelnents in the City of Newport Beach's Good Neighbor Principles, and is tenacious in ensuring Oat all residents at the Properties strictly observe these requirements. Approval of these applications would not alter the nature of the municipal code or impose any financial or administrativ8 burden on the City. These Properties have been operating under these same general guideli#tes for between two and seven years (depending upon the property) without imposing any burden upon the County or City. The residential character of the neighborhoods in which th se Properties are located will not be altered in any way with the approval of these applications In fact, there is no non - residential use at any of the Properties. Moreover, there is no campus; established through the grant of these applications. Residents from any one Yellowstone prop rty are not allowed at any of the other Properties, and there are no functions that include all residents. Yellowstone has never been cited by any municipality — at any of the Properties ±- for any of the complaints set forth specifically in Ordinance 2008 -5, Page 4, Paragraph 13. i No health, safety or physical damage issues are presented with granting of these applications. On a separate but related matter, Yellowstond would like to apply for a Federal Exemption Permit ( "FEP ") to continue its operations, I pursuant to Municipal Code section 20.91.035, et seq. We have been unable to locate ar y FEP forms on the City's website. Yesterday, Ms. Leisha Mello of Yellowstone personall appeared at City Hall to attempt to obtain such forms. She was informed by an individual identified as Mr. Alford, a senior planner, that the FEP was no longer available, and that the munic }pal code as well as Ordinance 2008 -5, had been amended to exclude the FEP. After re- reviewing the municipal code, as well as the V&11I1111.11 City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 4 i Ordinance, this does not appear to be the case. Accordingly, we would hereby request that an FEP application be sent to us at your convenience. Alternatively, to the extent that the FEP application requirements are satisfied with the informal on provided herein, we would request that these applications be deemed FEP requests. i. Lastly, we would note that Yellowstone woull continued use permit under the non - conforming use statL et seq.). As with the FEP, Ms. Mello was informed that under this code section. That section provides that "1 become nonconforming due to reclassification, ordina continued subject to the provisions of this Chapter." As addressed in this application will fit this definition in tht In that case, Yellowstone will have become nonconfc enactment of Ordinance 2008 -5. In reviewing the fact similar in nature to those required for the Use Permit application. Accordingly, Yellowstone incorporates the to this instant request for a non - conforming use permit. that "sufficient documentation" be provided to estal established. Given that: 1. The City annexation of tl documented; 2. The public record duly reflects that the P annexation; and 3. Ordinance 2005 -8 may have renderer noncompliant; Yellowstone sees no need to submit any t there are any documents that are required by the City which are not already in the City's possession, please ac supply any such documentation. In sum, Yellowstone submits that it provides a Beach at the Properties while, at the same time, avoidin its residents. Yellowstone brings these applications in a of Newport Beach is fully apprised of all of its operatior about Yellowstone or its character. As discussed abov application some published materials that support the c We are further committed to provide the City with connection with these applications (subject to any privac is incorporated by this reference into each individual abo, like to simultaneously apply for a es (Municipal Code section 20.62.010 o forms currently exist for application ses, buildings, structures or lots that cc changes, or annexations may be Gscussed above, each of the Properties event that a use permit is not granted. ming due to reclassification and the rs that are to be considered, they are and the Reasonable Accommodation taterials provided herein as they relate Of note, section 20.62.030D requires ish that the structure was lawfully e Santa Ana Heights region is well - operties at issue here are a part of such Yellowstone's use of these Properties Iditional documentation to the City. If n undertaking this analysis, however, rise us of same, and we will diligently ,ital service for the City of Newport any burden whatsoever to the City or ontinued effort to ensure that the City and that there are no misconceptions we have attached to each individual mentions made in these applications. iy documentation that it requires in considerations). This correspondence referenced application. V&KIIIIIYi/ City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 5 I As always, if you have any questions regardin4 these applications, please feel free to contact us. Ve t ly y6urs, I IS AC .yFATY IRZ/jn I cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) i YS 00068 rW � or CMG 1'pp*d ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Request for Reasonable Accommodation Request Worksheet Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 The purpose of a request for 'Reasonable Accommodation" is to ensure compliance with City zoning regulations in the context of State and Federal Fair Housing law. Reasonable Accommodation is used here just as the term is used in the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments (FHAA) and the case law implementing the FHAA. Reasonable Accommodation shall be approved so long as there is substantial evidence in the administrative record that establishes that all of the following findings for approval have been made: 1. The exception sought is necessary to mitigate a handicap - related barrier to housing; and 2. The living group is not residing in the Dwelling or Dwellings as a Single Housekeeping Unit. 3, Reasonable Accommodation, if approved, would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a municipal program nor impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. To the extent authorized by law, the factors that a Hearing Officer or the City Council on review or appeal may consider in deciding whether to grant Reasonable Accommodation include, but are not necessarily limited to: (i) Whether the nature and/or extent of vehicular traffic, such as the frequency or duration of trips by commercial vehicles, would be altered to such an extent that it would be contrary to, or violate, any relevant provision of the Newport. Beach General Plan, Specific Plan, Planned Community Text or Municipal Code if reasonable accommodation was approved. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the approval of Reasonable Accommodation does not tend to change the residential character of the neighborhood; or (ii) Whether development or use standards established in the Newport Beach Municipal Code applicable to other residential uses in the neighborhood would be violated. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the use of the property is not being substantially changed, for instance, by adding unpermittcd, non - residential uses to a residential use in a residential zone; or (iii)Whether a Campus would be established in a residential zone if the Reasonable Accommodation request was granted. Page i of YS 06069 Application Number To aid staff in determining that the necessary findings can be made in this particular case, please answer the following questions with regard to your request (Please attach on separate sheets, if necessary): 1. How many dwelling units exist on the property and how many bedrooms are within each unit? There is one dwelling s nit with six bedrooms. 2. How many persons will reside at the location for which you are seeking this permit? 3. How many clients reside within each dwelling unit and how many reside in the total facility? 4. What is the anticipated average length of stay for residents? Six months 5. Do the clients have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? What are those impairments? Yes. The individuals who reside at the property are all disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 6. Are any of the clients below the age of 18 years old, if so, how many? No. 7. Are any of the clients provided any type of medical care, non - medical services or supervision on site? If so, please describe. No medical care or non - medical services are provided. S. How many caretakers or other staff will reside at the location? How many additional caretakers or staff will visit the facility on a daily basis? Weekly basis? Two staff members reside at the property There are no other "caretakers" or "stab' that will visit the facility on a daily or weekly basis 9. What is the operational nature of the facility (i.e. group home, sober living environment, recovery facility, varying types of non - medical care for persons in need of certain services_ essential for sustaining the activities of daily living)? The property is a sober living, home There are no medical services provided at this property. This sober living home serves the function of providing a sober living environment for those who are disabled under the American With Disabilities Act. 10. Describe available on -site parking resources and the staff and visitor parking plans. The property has a two -car Parage and a driveway. This parking is ample for all of the property's needs The residents at the property do not have automobiles and rely upon public transportation and/or carpooling 11. Describe client's ability to drive and operate a vehicle while residing at the facility. _ The tenants' vehicles are not allowed to be parked and /or utilized at the property. Page 2 of 5 YS 00070 Application Number 12.Does the facility provide transportation services (i.e. transportation to school, jobs, medical treatment, or other activities)? If yes, please describe the frequency, duration and schedule of services and where the vehicles are stored? No. 13.Are any physical alterations or changes proposed to the property or needed to accommodate the use? No. 14.1s counseling provided to clients? If so, is it provided on -site or off -site? If on -site, does counseling only include clients that reside within the unit or does it include other individuals? If counseling is provided off -site, where is it provided? No. 15.Please list location and describe operational characteristics of other facilities operated by same applicant (or owner or business or non - profit entity) within the City. Will this facility provide office functions to serve other facilities owned or operated by the same entity? Newport Beach CA 92707 1561 Indus Newport Beach CA 92707. Each facility is stand- alone and no office functions are provided by any one facility for the benefit of another. 16.How do the clientslresidents interact with each other within the unit? Is there joint use of common areas? Do clients share household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, and expenses? Will goods or services that require the use of delivery vehicles be provided to the facility? The residents at the property reside separately at the properly and reams onsible for their own meals expenses and chores Each individual resides at the propertsubject to a separate contractual arrangement with the applicant There are nc delivery vehicles required at the property. 17.If the facility is operated within multiple dwelling units on a single property, does each unit operate independent of each other or do any units serve a function for the residents of other units (i.e. one unit serving the function of food preparation, office, laundry, group meeting space, counseling space, etc.). There are not multiple dwelling, units at the property. 18. What types of licenses are required to be obtained from other agencies to operate this use (i.e. Department of Social Services, Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, etc.)? If any, describe agency, type, and capacity of licenses. None. The property does. however, 19.Please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary. This application is brought to whether the instant request for accommodation is necessary but the applicant is applying for a reasonable accommodation out of an abundance of caution The properly was originally purchased as an unincorporated area of Orange County. Recently the property was annexed by the City of Newport Beach, Further Ordinance 2008 -5 was signed into law._ Page 3 of 5 YS 00071 Application Slumber As a result, the applicant has decided to ask for a reasonable accommodation under section documented Similar es succs has been realized at the property. Without sober living homes the individuals who live at the property would not have access to sober living homes, nd would not be able to afford to live in a sober living home in Orange Coun . The rent .. __r- f_ ___I:_..A in- been operating under the same guidelines for three veers without imposing any additional 2008 S Page 4 Paragraph 13 Page 4 of 5 v&IIIIII)IN Application Number 20. Please attach any house rules or "good neighbor" policies applicable to the proposed facility. All residents at the Rjo-perty follow the Ci y of Newport Beach Good Neighbor Principles as 1ublished on the City's website 21. What uses will occur on the property that are ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling? None 22. Will the facility operator, manager or applicant live on the property? Yes. The manager ar:d assistant manager live at the properly. 23. Will any alterations to the internal or external structural form of the residence be made? No. 24. Will any evidence of uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling be visible from off the lot where the facility is located? N/A 25. Will any equipment or materials needed for uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a dwelling be stored or used on the property outside the residence? N /A. 26. Will any equipment or process be used that will emit radiation or create noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the property for uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling? No 27. Will the number of parking spaces available to each dwelling unit used by the facility be reduced to less than that required by NBMC Chapter 20.66 (Off -street Parking and Loading) and Section 20.62.060 (Nonconforming Parking)? No. 28. Will the facility create pedestrian, vehicle or truck traffic significantly in excess of the normal amount in the area? No. _ 29. Will any vehicle associated with uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling be stored or repaired on the facility property? No. 30. Will the facility be open to visitors and clients without prior appointments for uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling? No. Page 5 of 5 YS 00073 � Sir�Uer+ t,avinp +HmmtMrt a'tlfam�JEham. IfrJrnalt ET"v%UCI 'KS Home Vision Organizing Training Corn unity ContaC Sponsors Find Sober Housing In Your So. Cal. Community search By Area The Sober Living Network A SOBER HOUSING VISION Someday there will be recovery supportive housing and community centers throughout the United States. . These clusters will be developed with a variety that will include individual houses, apartments, and congregate living accommodations There will be a mixture of housing with normal -cost apartments for recovery veterans and low -cost, supervised shared housing for those in early recovery. In many accommodations there will be specially designed housing sections for women and /or men with children that have play areas and childcare. Sober housing clusters will be designed to accommodate persons who are physically and mentally challenged. Sober housing clusters will be recovery - promoting incubators. The clusters will include meeting spaces to host self -help and educational meetings, recreational, and social events. They will be operated within a democratic culture and a high level of recovery enthusiasm. These clusters will become islands of sobriety in our alcohol and drug using society. Sober housing and community centers will become continuously available as a recovery assistance resource for alcoholics, addicts, and family members. They will be available and noticeable not only to those who are fully into then addiction, but those who are in their earlier or experimental stages. Communities of stable recovering persons can easily absorb newly recovering persons into their community. Currently many sober living homes are trying to meet the needs of newly recovering persons without the benefit of having a core of stable recovering residents or the management resources to meet their recovery service needs. The rationale for cluster housing is that the self -help learning process comes In bits and pieces. The greater the exposure to a comprehensive recovery environment with many recovery activities and a predominance of recovering people, the greater chance a person has to learn recovery. The need for a balance of recovery experiences became evident when twelve-step meetings dominated by newcomers were not as effective in assisting recovery as those meetings where most members have long -term stable recovery. vrPAwx r� i Home Ogg ion zinc rainin Cq rrmunity Conte ct Sponsors S Man 0 Copyright 2004 Sober Living Network All Rights Reserves rip vacs_ Hosting provided by Teller etWorks and The Sobel Musicians Project http:// www .soberhousing.nettvision_html 5/15/2008 YS 00074 HameVisionOrganizingTrainingCommunityCot tactSponsors Find Sober Housing In Your SoCal Community I Search By Area S A The Sober Living Network COMMUNITY RECOVERY SUPPORT RESOURCES Community recovery resources offer a practical and cost - efficient way to assist alcoholics, addicts and family members to enter and maintain long -term recovery. The current alcohol and drug treatment system does not have the capacity to meet the long-term recovery assistance needs required to meet the needs of the many. The treatment system is too heavily invested in short-term treatment and too little invested in the development of safe and healthy community recovery promoting environments and activities that are constantly available to support recovery and life style enhancements. Alcohol and drug treatment programs have been formatted by government and academic institutions into quality "people processingn treatment stations that are now too costly par person assisted to significantly reduce addiction problems. Community recovery is based on the postulate that safe and sober places filled with healthy recovery activities provide the environments, motivation and recovery tools for alcoholics, addicts and family members to assist (process) themselves. Operators maintain healthy and safe environments and promote individual recovery responsibility. Community recovery resources include self -help meetings, Alano clubs -which host self -help activity, community recovery Centers, sober living housing, and sober recreational and social events. Community recovery centers are self - service spaces . that offer education sessions, host self -help groups, hold sooial/recreattonal everts and have counseling and therapy available by self - selection. Community recovery centers, activities and lousing are easily adaptable to mew the broad ethnic, cultural and physically challenged needs. Community recovery resources are assisting millions of alcoholics, addicts and family members in recovery from alcoholism and other drug addictions with little or no support tom government and health insurance funding sources. Sober living homes, Alano clubs and community recovery centers are primarily created and supported by recovering persons motiveted by a call to be of service to others. The SoberLiving Network P.O. Box 5235, Santa Monica, CA 90409 (310) 396 -5270 HomeQrganzingTt atningCommunCOntactSite Map ®Copyright 2004 Sober Housing All Rights Reserved pftyacypolicy Hosting provided by )•Teller Networks and The Sober Musicians Project http:// www. soberhousing.net/community.htmi 5/15/2008 YS 00075 The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence fights the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions. Facts and Information Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Are America's Number One Health Problem The cost and consequences of alcoholism and drug dependence place an enormous burden on American society. As the nation's number one health problem, addiction strains the health care system, the economy, harms family life and threatens public safety. Substance abuse crosses all societal boundaries, affects both genders, every ethnic group, and people in every tax bracket. Scientific documentation defines alcoholism and drug dependence as a disease that has roots in both genetic susceptibility and personal behavior. I �I; THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM • There are more deaths and disabilities each year in the U.S. from substance abuse than from any other cause. • About 18 million Americans have alcohol problems; about 5 to 6 million Americans have drug problems. 2 • More than half of all adults have a family history of alcoholism or problem drinking. 3 • More than nine million children live with a parent dependent on alcohol and/or illicit drugs. g THE CONSEQUENCES One - quarter of all emergency room admissions, one- third of all suicides, and more than half of all homicides and incidents of domestic violence are alcohol - related. 5 http:// www. ncadd .org/facts/numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00076 • Heavy drinking contributes to illness in each of the top three causes of death: heart disease, cancer and stroke. • Almost half of all traffic fatalities are alcohol- related. . Between 48% and 64% of people who die in fires have blood alcohol levels indicating intoxication. s • Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation_ 9 THE COST . Alcohol and drug abuse costs the American economy an estimated $276 billion per year in lost productivity, health care expenditures, crime, motor vehicle crashes and other conditions. 10 . Untreated addiction is more expensive than heart disease, diabetes and cancer combined. 111 Every American adult pays nearly $1,000 per year for the damages of addiction. 12 SO, WHAT CAN BE DONE? Like other diseases, addiction can be overcome with proper treatment, prevention and more research. By increasing access to care, the costly toll on society and the burden it places on families can be reduced. Research shows conclusively that successful prevention and treatment leads to reductions in traffic fatalities, crime, unwanted pregnancy, child abuse, HIV, cancer and heart disease. Treatment reduces drug use, improves health, improves job performance, reduces involvement with the criminal justice system, reduces family dysfunction and improves quality of life. The Comprehensive Assessment Treatment Outcomes . Registry Data in Ohio have documented dramatic results in decreasing occupational problems, including the following reductions after treatment: • Absenteeism decreased by 89% http:// www. neadd .org /facts/numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00077 • Tardiness decreased by 92% • Problems with supervisors decreased by 56% • Mistakes in work decreased by 70% • incomplete work decreased by 81% 13 Additionally, a California Study found significant decreased health care costs from before to after treatment in: • Hospitalizations for physical health problems ( -36 %) • Drug overdose hospitalizations ( -58 %) • Mental health hospitalizations (44 %) • The number of emergency room visits ( -36 %) • The total number of hospital days ( -25 %) 14 Americans increasingly recognize that alcoholism and drug dependence is a disease with consequences that affect both physical and behavioral health. Diagnostic and treatment services have changed in recent years and modem treatment, when adequately provided, enables a great many people to recover and rebuild productive lives. It is important that the public be aware of evidence generated by scientific inquiry, clinical evaluation and clinical experience.. The evidence demonstrates that treatment for alcohol and other drug abuse works. Treatment not only saves lives, it also saves dollars that would otherwise be spent in other areas of medical care and social services. For every dollar spent on addiction treatment, seven dollars is saved in reduced health care costs.15 The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence is dedicated to fighting the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions by providing education, information, help and hope to the public. NCADD advocates prevention, intervention, and treatment through a network of 97 affiliates across the United States. For more information, visit: www.ncadd.ora. Alcoholism and drug dependence are treatable and millions of people achieve recovery. SOURCES 1. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1993. http: / /www.ncadd.org /facts /numberoneprob.htmi 5/15/2008 YS 00078 2. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 2001. 3. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 4. [bid. 5. "Sobering Facts on the Dangers of Alcohol," NY Newsday, April 24, 2002. 6. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Annual Report, 1992. 8. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1993. 9. E. Abel, "Incidence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Economic Impact of FAS- Related Anomalies," Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1987. 10. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 2001. 11. ibid. 12. The National Drug Control Strategy, The White House, 1997. 13. Ohio Dept. of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, New Standards, Inc., St. Paul, MN, 1994. 14. Gerstein, et at, "Evaluating Recovery Services the California Drug and Alcohol Assessment," Sacramento, 1994. 15. Ibid'. Compiled 6102 1 National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. 244 East 58th Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022 phone: 212 1269 -7797 fax: 2121269 -7510 email: national @ncaddorg http: / /www.ncadd.org HOPE LINE: 8001NCA -CALL (24 -hour Affiliate referral) http:// www. ncadd .oTg/facts /numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 1' 4111IfiF'1 General population According to data from the 2005 Nationst HausehaYl Survey on thug Use and Health (NSDUH) — . 112 million Amedcans age 12 or older (46% of the population) reported illicil drug use at least once in their lifetime . 14% reported use of a drug within the poet year . 8% reported use of a drug within the palm month. , Clete from the 2005 surrey showed that marijuana end cocaine use is the most prevsent among persons age 16 to 25. The dug Abuse Wanting Network (DAWN) mongols drug - related emergency departm nt (ED),hits for the nation and for selected metropolitan areas. DAWN also coMecla dole on dng4ataled deaths investigated by medical marMnme and coronare in selected metropolitan areas and Stales. In 2005, DAWN estimates that nearly 1.4 region emergency department visas nationwide were associated with drug misuse a abuse. An sslimnted 616,696 drug-folded emergency department vishe involved a major substance of abuse. DAWN estimates that: . Cocaine was imvulmd In 448,481 ED vista, . Marguane was Imrdved in 242,209 ED vjshs. . Heroin was involved In 164,572 ED vista. . S9mWwft Induded amMetmnbm and mathemphetamim, were imrolved In 138,859 ED vlste. . Other Rat drugs, such as PCP, Ecstasy, and GHa, were much less frequent than any of the above. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Homan Services, SAMKSA, O81Ce of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse Waming Network, 2000: National Eadmahs of0mg- Retated Emargenay Deparfmaef Wells. DAWN Senors D-29, DHHS Publiraaon No. (SMA) 07.4256, Rockvft, MD, 2007- In 2003, 122 jurisdictions in 35 metropolitan areas and 6 Steles submitted mortality data to DAWN. The Slates, which are all new to DAWN, are Maine. Maryland, New Hampshire, Maw Mexico, Utah, and Vermont. DAWN canna provide national estimates of drug leled deaths. In the matropol en areas, needy halt of drug misuse deaths, on average. Inver ed a major substance of abuse (cecelne, heroin, madjume, stimLanls, club drugs, haltudmgens, at non-phemteowlleal kdatanls). Across the 6 Slates, major substances were reported In about a third al intauee deaths. S1M, major substanres were reported in 40% to 45% of drug mimosa deaths in Maryland. New Meadcq and (bah. Descriptions of drug abuse deaths in the participating melepolltan areas are evellable in the Mortality Data from ft DAWN, 2003 TepmL Accdtlltg to date from the 2004 Mortality Data from DAWN— Coceine was the most frequently reported thou drug. In the drug WdWW deaths, cocalrre was among the top 5 drugs In 28 of the 32 metropolitan areas and all of the 6 Slats% On average, cocaine alone or In combination with other drugs was reported in 39% d drug misuse deems (range 8% to 70 %). Alcohol was ohs of the 5 moan comment dogs In 30 of the 32 me ropolitan arms and 5 of he a States. In 29 of the 32 metropolitan areas- more drug misuse deaths involved an opfelelopicid than any other drug. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Human SerAcea, SAMHSA. Office of Applled Swdies, dug Abuse Wammg Network 2003: Area ProWee ofDrug- Related Monathy. DAWN Series D -27, DHHS publication Na (SMA) 054023. Rockvift MD, 2005. Previous awme ddmrke3ladsrius mownejaw.J.j.t ld &e W warmnh to asgBjeQnaJoj.gr Cpmeme BJS hame page I Top of this page Next OJp nrvdoni MLrron,.d. Ad rmg. L"M yours..0 Dlsdaiwen Nile M .1sd an Aye 11, IMP http : / /www- ojp.gov/bis/dr-f/du -htm 5114/2008 YS 00080 Age of respondent, 2004 Drug use 12.17 18.25 28 or older Last month 6.89A 16.6% 4.1% Leelygar 13.3 26.0 6.9 Cocaine Last month 0.8% 2.6% 0.8% Last year 1.7 6.9 1.5 Source: SAMHSA. Office of Applied Studies. 2006 National Surveyon Drug Use and Health: National Rndtngs, September 2006. The dug Abuse Wanting Network (DAWN) mongols drug - related emergency departm nt (ED),hits for the nation and for selected metropolitan areas. DAWN also coMecla dole on dng4ataled deaths investigated by medical marMnme and coronare in selected metropolitan areas and Stales. In 2005, DAWN estimates that nearly 1.4 region emergency department visas nationwide were associated with drug misuse a abuse. An sslimnted 616,696 drug-folded emergency department vishe involved a major substance of abuse. DAWN estimates that: . Cocaine was imvulmd In 448,481 ED vista, . Marguane was Imrdved in 242,209 ED vjshs. . Heroin was involved In 164,572 ED vista. . S9mWwft Induded amMetmnbm and mathemphetamim, were imrolved In 138,859 ED vlste. . Other Rat drugs, such as PCP, Ecstasy, and GHa, were much less frequent than any of the above. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Homan Services, SAMKSA, O81Ce of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse Waming Network, 2000: National Eadmahs of0mg- Retated Emargenay Deparfmaef Wells. DAWN Senors D-29, DHHS Publiraaon No. (SMA) 07.4256, Rockvft, MD, 2007- In 2003, 122 jurisdictions in 35 metropolitan areas and 6 Steles submitted mortality data to DAWN. The Slates, which are all new to DAWN, are Maine. Maryland, New Hampshire, Maw Mexico, Utah, and Vermont. DAWN canna provide national estimates of drug leled deaths. In the matropol en areas, needy halt of drug misuse deaths, on average. Inver ed a major substance of abuse (cecelne, heroin, madjume, stimLanls, club drugs, haltudmgens, at non-phemteowlleal kdatanls). Across the 6 Slates, major substances were reported In about a third al intauee deaths. S1M, major substanres were reported in 40% to 45% of drug mimosa deaths in Maryland. New Meadcq and (bah. Descriptions of drug abuse deaths in the participating melepolltan areas are evellable in the Mortality Data from ft DAWN, 2003 TepmL Accdtlltg to date from the 2004 Mortality Data from DAWN— Coceine was the most frequently reported thou drug. In the drug WdWW deaths, cocalrre was among the top 5 drugs In 28 of the 32 metropolitan areas and all of the 6 Slats% On average, cocaine alone or In combination with other drugs was reported in 39% d drug misuse deems (range 8% to 70 %). Alcohol was ohs of the 5 moan comment dogs In 30 of the 32 me ropolitan arms and 5 of he a States. In 29 of the 32 metropolitan areas- more drug misuse deaths involved an opfelelopicid than any other drug. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Human SerAcea, SAMHSA. Office of Applled Swdies, dug Abuse Wammg Network 2003: Area ProWee ofDrug- Related Monathy. DAWN Series D -27, DHHS publication Na (SMA) 054023. Rockvift MD, 2005. Previous awme ddmrke3ladsrius mownejaw.J.j.t ld &e W warmnh to asgBjeQnaJoj.gr Cpmeme BJS hame page I Top of this page Next OJp nrvdoni MLrron,.d. Ad rmg. L"M yours..0 Dlsdaiwen Nile M .1sd an Aye 11, IMP http : / /www- ojp.gov/bis/dr-f/du -htm 5114/2008 YS 00080 11��117iitw[ut-4id, �la�� U)tdti��..w ml�{ICYIr�]'I,Ilrhl iU,i_.5 �'°`•.r 9r�,ta¢t int O3 ➢t'<uidi �+ffa4s��5 � ,�,J ,r���9rir osmsms Drugs and Crime Facts Prevbw MGM Drug use T. IM Bull sewn. page vouch) General popuWtion Youth . Use perceived risk • Student reports of availability of drugs Use The Monioring the Future Study asked high school sentors,'On hoe many oncosons. 8 any, have you used drugs or alcohol dudrgthe lam 12 months or momh7" Reported drug and alcohol use by high school sardWS,2006 Used within the last Drugs 12 months• 30 days Alcohol 86.5% 45.3% Marquana 31.8 16.3 Other oplatas 9.0 3.8 Stimulants 8.1 3.7 Sedadvas 6.6 3.0 Tranqulllmre. 6.6 2.7 Cocaine 5.7 2.5 Hallucinogens 4.9 1.5 Inhalants 4.6 1.5 Smrelda 1.8 1.1 Heroln. 0.8 0.4 -Including the lest month. Source: Press n boar. Tears drug use comfnrres dowry M 2006, panimesdyamorrg older brews; but use of prescripffeWlype drugs PENWHIs high, UNvarsdy Or . WAgen News and Information Services, December 21, 2006. (Acrobed fie 576.81KS) SeM-mpodo of drug use among high =1601 seniors may under represent drug use among youth of that age because high school dropouts and truants me nol ind Wed, and these groups =Y h we me Irwolvement v.1th dings son those who siay In school. percent of an college students, 19952008 Drug use 199E 1999 1997 1999 1999 2009 2901 2002 2003 2094 2003 lierl)uana Dally whhln last month 3.7% 28% 33% 4.0% 4.11% 4.6% 4.5% 4.1% 4.7% 4.5% 4.0% Last month 18.6 17.5 177 16.8 211.7 20.0 20.2 19.7 19.3 18.9 17.1 Lastyear 31.2 33.1 31.6 35.9 35.2 34.0 35.6 347 33.7 33.3 33.3 Cocaine Dally within last month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (11% Last month 0.7 0.8 1.6 16 12 1.4 1.9 1.6 1.9 2.4 1.8 Lost year 3.6 2.9 3.4 4.6 4.0 4.8 4.7 4.8 5.4 6.0 5.7 Lees than 0.05% Rotes of peel year cocaine use try collage students have vaded ovarthe past 1a yeas from a law a12.9 %in 1996 to a 19gh of 5.7% in 2006. Peal year madjusna use has ranged from a IoW of 312% in 1995 to 8 high of 35.9 %15 1998. Source: Unlwrany of Michigan. Monitoring the Future National Survey Resoim on Drag We, 1976.2005, Volume 11; Coftege Students andAduffs Ages 1945, 2008, October 2806. VA bin file 2.31 M9) Of high school "saviors in 2006 - • 44.8% repoded having ever used medjuenelhashish • 8.0% reported having ever used oocdne 1.5% reported having war used heron. http ,,/ /www.ojp.gov /bjs /def /du,htm 5/14/2008 YS 00081 Source: University of Michigan, alordtofMg the Future Nedlonal Results on Adolescent Drug Use. Overview of Key Findings 2005, Apttl 2008. (Acrobat ek 442.77KB) The Increase In the use of marl)usna has bean especially pronounced. Between 1992 and 2006 peat -month use of mariijuans increased from: 12%to 20%amAn9 high schad mNwe. . 6%tc 18 %among 10th graders. 4% to 7% among 8th graders. Reputed use of madjuana by high school seniors during the peat month peaked In 1978 at 37% and declined to its lowest level in 1992 at 12 %. The ua s of womie within the past month of the survey by high achod aeniors peaked In 1986 at 8.7 %, up from 1.0% in 1875 at the surveys Intetiion. Cocaine um dedrned to a knv of 1.3% in 1892 and 1993. In 2005, 2.3% of high school seniors reported peal -month cocaine use. Source: University of Michigan, hlonflodng the Future Nadlonal Resuge on Adolescent Drug Use: OvswJmv of Key Findings 2008, April 2008. (Acrobat file 442.77KB). Cocaine uce among high schod seniors peaked in 1965. Click on the Chad to Nan On date. . Source: Press release: Teen dreg use contisme, down M 2008, particularly among andW brands; fwf use of preseripdon -type drugs remains high, University of Michigan News and Information Services, Eleeemher 21, 2006. (Acrobat file 576.81KB). Perceived risk From 198710 2008 the percentage M high achod senora that were asked, "Haw much do you think people risk harming themsehnm7 remained virtually at". Those students answering "great risk" kt regltar use accounted fir the folbwing — Click on the chart M view the date. lDl Source: Pram release. Teen drug use continues down in 2006, particularly among older leans; but use of " prescrip8on -type drugs remelna high. Udvemuy of Michigan News and Information Services. December 21, 2006. (Acrobat file 576.81K19) Student reports of availability of drugs Percent of high school wrdm repoMng they could obtain drugs fairly easily or very easily, 2006 http : / /www.ojp.gov /bjs /def /du.httn 5/14/2008 YS 00082 Marijuana 04.9% Amphalainnes 62.8 Cocaine 46.5 Barbiturates 43.8 Crack 38.8 LSD 29.0 Heoin 27A Crystal methamphatan4ns 26.7 Tmnquihzm 24.4 PCP 23.1 AMYVbulyl nBfit" 18.4 Source: Press release: Tean drug use continues down In 200% particularly among older teens; but use of preterlindon4ype drugs r®mama high, University of Michigan Neese and Information Services, December 21, 2008. (Acrobat fen 576.81NB) In 200.5, 26% of alt students in grades 9 through 12 reported someone had offered. Sold, a given them an Illegal drug an School property. There was no measurable change with the percentage of students who reported that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them st achad bdween 2003 and 2006. Melee were more likely than females to report that dogs were offered, Sold, or given to them on School property in each survey year between 1993 and 2005. In 2005, 29% of miles and 22% of females reported availability of drugs. Source: BJSJointly with the U.S. Department of Education. I "cahus of School Crime and Safety, 2008, NCJ 214282, Deoomber 2000. ♦ To the top General population According to date from the 2005 NeVorW Household Survey an Drug Use and Health (NSOUH) - • 112 Millen Americans age 12 or older (46% of the population) reported illicit drug use at least was in their lifetime • 14% reported use of a drug within the past you • 8% reported use of a drug within the past month. Data from the 2005 Survey, showed that marijuana and cocaine use is the most prawtan among persons age 18 to 2S. Age of respondent, 2004 Drug use 12.17 18-28 .28 or older Mariluam Last medh 6.8% 16.6% 4.1% Lest you 13.3 28.0 6.9 Cocaine Last month 0.6% 2.8% 0.8% Lau year 1.7 6.9 1,5 Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Sludiea, 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National FMdfnga, September 2008. The Drug Abuts Womirtg Nehvorit (DAWN) nwr0are drug dated emergency department (ED) VMS for the nation and for Selected metropostan uses. DAWN Stan collsas data an dmg -reload deaths Investigated by medical examiners and manners In selected metropulian areas and Sides. In 2006, DAWN estimates that neat' 1.4 million emergency depadment vista nationwide were associated with drug misuse or abuse. An estimated 816,698 thug- related emergency department vlafts Involved a major substance of abuse. DAWN estimates Nat: • Cocaine was involved in 448,481 ED vista. • Marijuana was involved in 242.200 £D visits. • Heroin was Involved in 184,512 ED vists. • Stimuana, included amphetamines and metheretwandne, were invoked In 138.950 ED visits. • Other gfrc8 drugs, such as PCP. Ecstasy, and GHB, were mmdt less frequent than any of the above. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Human Servlcss, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse Warning Nefwm*, 2005: National Estimates of Urug.Raleled Emergency Department Vags. DAWN Series D- 29, DHHS Publlcailaf No. (SMA) 074256, Rockville, MD, 2007. In 2nO3, 122 judsdidions in 35 metropoliian areas and 8 States SubmMed mortality dale to DAWN. The Stales, which are all nerr to DAWN, are Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Utah, and Vermml. DAWN cannot provide national estimates of drug - related deaths. In the metropolitan areas, newly half of drug Mause deaths, on sysrage; Involved a major substance or abuse (meaine, heroin, http : / /www.ojp.gov/bjs/def /du.httn 5/14/2008 YS 00083 madjusna, stimulants, dub drugs, hsltucinogens, or nmrophermeceutcel inhalants). Across IM 6 States, major substances were reported in about e third of mouse deaths. Still, "or substanceswere reported in 40 %l0 45 %of drug misuse deaths in Maryland, New Novice, and Utah. Deaeriplions of drug abuse deaths In the participating metropolitan allies are available In the MoltaflyDats from tae DAWN, 2003 mpod. According io data frpm the 2003 MMaRtyData from DAWN — Cacelne was the most fregUentiy reported Illldt drug. In the drug mlause deaths, oocama were, among the top 6 drugs In 29 of the 32 metropolitan mesa and oil of the 6 Slates. On average, cocaine alone or in combination with other drugs was reported in 39% of drug misuse deaths (range 8% to 70 %). Alcohol was one of the 6 most comment drugs In 30 of the 32 metropolam areas and 6 of the 6 States. In 29 of the 32 metropolitan areas, more drug misuse deaths Involved an uplatslnpiold than any other drug. Source: U, S. Department of Health and Human SaPAWO. SAMHSA, Office of Applied Sludes, Drug Abuse Wammu Network, 2003: Area PMAJOS ofMug.ROlaled INnrtaDly. DAWN Sens D -27, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) (154023, Rockville, MO, 2005. Previous Gardenia 6JS home page ) Top of this page ensue a62wdceSUthtla wwr <ld�rdoJ.eavlUJd Smd wnm9nb t9 mkUjMderdoJ.pov Next D1P F,eedsw of loforvnalioa All P9ae Left Peli a Didnimm Pale Wr revlxd as Aing 11, 2097 bttp : / /www.ojp.gov/bjs /def/du.htm 5/14/2008 YS 00084 Waststde Santa Ana Heights Homeowner's Guide May 2007 Edward "Ted" Bosley (949) 294 -2126 TedBosleyOyahoo.com Service • Intolift 0 commlbnent yywwt.TEDBosl- EY.cOM GreatsourceforREInf rination, tools plus Bi- monthly OC Homeowner's Guide Covhmeatr ofTed.Bosley, Your Neighbor and ItE Professmonal Ted Bosley Appointed to SAs f Project Advisory orrriydttee I started attending the SAH PAC meetings 5 years ago, mostly so that I could team as much as possible . about events affecOng, our community. You, the readers of my periodic newsletters, have been the benefactors since I have shared with you much of what was learned in that forum es well as Supervisor, City Council and LAFCO meetings. Many of you have also been in attendance at those same meetings. I apprecWte being appointed to serve on the SAH Project Advisory Committee. This gives me the opportunity to serve on critical sub - committees that make recommendation to the Bd of Supervisors and the NB City Council on matters that have signikent impact on our community. 15589 le 't aterpointe to Start Deveiopment on Orcha €O In a recent response to my Inquiry about the timeline for this Westside SAH project, I received the following statement. Jl i/e arc still ptocassingDrrrYr+ra1 imp vrifh the'County of Orange. Once recolda- iiar or the map occurs we ara planning on sfartincg the project.... Once again I thank you for your assistance in geffiny.INS project approved." Garret Calacci, Waterpointe Development Principal Westside SAII A>1rmmexation Update Adminrshation,12 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, in the Planning Commission Hearing Room. The City of Newport Beach's application for a sphere of influence change and concurrent annexation of West Santa Ana. Heights and the City of Costa Mesa's application for a sphere of influence change for the Banning Rench property will be considered by LAFCO on this date. Staff reports for both proposals will be available for review on Wednesday afternoon, May 2. 2007, on the Orange County LAFCO website: www oranne LAFCG c- dov. Click on the "Agenda and Minutes' Bhk, than ctck on agenda item. This is the meeting we a0 have been waiting for. LAFCO is suppose to coma to a final resolution on the West Side Annexation to Newport at this meeting. PAC will be there to support Annexation as always. Source of this information Is www.5AHPAC.cai If you would Hire more Int""Offorr relating to the Irisiory of 1195 effort please visit Sober Living Homes Maim Their Corr muni4r Christmas COutribution Golf Course or Parking Lot? . Daily Pilot Article on April 18th discusses this subject if you do not take the Pilot you can go to www.dailyoilot.com/ aeticies/2007104 /18/ politics /dpL-galfeoursel B.txt to view it 11AAr Lest `fonhribatlan' u:westside s H Saba Lh-ing,Bw Indas C"a-fte Women's Home What I cannot understand is why anyone on the Airport . Committee would suggest that a Car Rental Auto Storage facility should replace the Newport Beach Golf Course Bade 91 that brings so much pleasure to so many, when their lease is'up at the end of July, 2007. (Continued on page 2) :te•nci an eraheli to John. Moodach(a,opgoy.eo_rn AND TedBosieva-yaboo.com with year Opinion of Vm p" slbliity of 1?"t axton�lgtha Ieaae tar the NE Golf Gouruoil ..: AND tO lot me know of your interest in particip 'mina ir, thir, ;.euscu.`s, E1 iqr} "I r, t! 1561 INDUS STREET Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION STANDARD GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION (Form 100 — Revised March 2008) 1. APPLICANTIFACILITY PROGRAM INFORMATION STEP 1: Completely fill out Form 150 (attached). STEP 2: Fill out the following: TYPE OF ORGANIZATION: ❑ For Profit ® Nonprofit ❑ Other, please explain: PROPERTY OWNERSHIP: ❑ Own ❑ Rent ® Lease ❑ Other (specify): IS THE OPERATORIMANAGER ALSO THE LESSEE OF THIS PROPERTY? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ If no, please explain: IS THE APPLICANT OR PROGRAM OPERATOR PART OF A PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, FIRM, OR ASSOCIATION? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, please £II out and attach either Form 200C (if 200C, applicants must fill out Form 200D) or Form 200P, whichever is applicable. 2. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name of (Mailing where facility is proposed Owner) name of Corporation) (Zip) 949 670-9000 19491646 -6296 _ (Telephone) (Fax number) lelshaftaw.com (E -Mail address) (Subject M Parcel Number VI&IrIrIrI:I1 3. SIMILAR USES A. Your Firm's Current Uses. Do you or your firm (or any entity or person affiliated with you or your firm) currently operate, manage, or own other group residential uses in Newport Beach? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, cite address(es) of facility(ies) (attach more pages if necessary): EXAMPLE: 1234 Main Street. Newport Beach Unlicensed "Sober Living" 7 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity 1571 Pegasus, Newport Beach Cart. Sober Livina 18 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity 20172 Redlands Dr., Newport Beach Cert. Sober L.ivina 18 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity 1621 Indus, Newport Beach Cent. Sober Living 18 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address. Type. of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity �a VI&IrIrI111N 4. B. Other Similar Uses. What uses, not operated by or affiliated with you or your firm, are of a similar type as your proposed use here in Newport Beach? Please cite address(es) of facility(ies) (attach more pages if necessary): EXAMPLE: 1234 Main Street. Newport Beach Unlicensed "Sober Living* 7 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Site Address Site Address Site Address Type of Use Type of Use Type of Use Type of Use Bed Capacity Bed Capacity Bed Capacity Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Site Address Site Address Site Address Type of Use Type of Use Type of Use Type of Use Bed Capacity Bed Capacity Bed Capacity Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed-Capacity C. Evidence of Need for this Extent of Use. Per NBMC §20.91A.030 (E), please attach Evidence of Capacity and Need by residents. of Newport Beach for this capacity based on published sources. YOUR FIRM'S HISTORIC USES Per the requirements of NBMC §20.91A.030.G & H, in the past five (5) Years, have you or your firm or any entity or person affiliated with you or your firm operated, managed, or owned other group residential uses in California? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, show the site address(es) of each facility(ies) and show whether the facility(ies) have ever been in violation of Federal, State or local law (attach additional pages if necessary): EXAMPLE: 1234 Main Street Santa Barbara ADP- Licensed Facility 9 11 rrr:• 0 Street Address, City_ Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? © Yes ® No If Yes, please explain: Facility #1 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please explain: Facility #2 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please explain: Facility #3 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been 1n violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please explain: Facility #4 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No 12 YS 00089 If Yes, please explain: S. LOCATION MAP AND SIMILAR USES Provide a Location Map showing the location of the proposed use plus all known conditional uses within a three - block radius. Include the property addresses of the proposed use and known conditional uses. Please consult the Newport Beach Planning Department (949.644 -3225) for nearby conditional uses. 6. SITE PLAN Provide a Site Plan that shows the facility's building footprint and property lines. Include property lines and building footprints on immediately adjacent parcels. Note the uses (i.e. single family use, group residential use, or other) on adjacent parcels. LICENSE AND PERMIT HISTORY OF APPLICANT A. Per NBMC §20.91A.030(H), please summarize the license and permit history of each facility applicant or operator has managed, owned, or operated in the State of California within the last five (5) years which require either a license or a permit by the State or by a locality (attach additional sheets If necessary): Name of Facility (Facility Address) (City) (zip) Please describe the nature of the license or use permit, the issuing agency, its reference number (if applicable), and any enforcement actions by any agency against the license or use permit: B. Has the applicant ever voluntarily surrendered, had a denial, suspension, or revocation of a residential license for an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility or a facility licensed by the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) or the California Department of Social Services - Community Care Licensing? ❑ Yes ® No If yes. the date license was surrendered, denied, suspended, or revoked: Reason for revocation, surrender, denial, or suspension: C. Has the applicant ever voluntarily surrendered, had a denial, suspension, or revocation of a Use Permit or similar permit for a group residential use in this community or another community? ❑ Yes ® No 13 YS 00090 If yes, the date Use Permit (or similar) was surrendered, denied, suspended, or revoked: Reason for revocation, surrender, denial, or suspension: D. Has the applicant ever voluntarily surrendered, had a denial, suspension or revocation of a certification by any public or private agency other than ADP or the California Department of Social Services - Community Care Licensing for a group residential use in this community or another community? 0 Yes ® No If yes, the date Use Permit (or similar) was surrendered, denied, suspended, or revoked: Reason for revocation, surrender, denial, or suspension: 8. NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED t,)SE Per NBMC §20.91A.030(A -D), please provide the following information about each proposed facility (attach additional sheets if necessary). The components of this Section 8 (and other sections) comprise the Operations and Management Plan and Rules of Conduct envisioned by NBMC §20.91A.050.8: A. TYPE OF ALCOHOL AND /OR OTHER DRUG RECOVERY OR TREATMENT SERVICES PROVIDED (for ADP - licensed facilities only — check all that apply): ❑ Non - Medical Detoxification ❑ Group Sessions ❑ One -on -One Sessions ❑ Educational Sessions ❑ Recovery or Treatment Planning ® Other: None B. NUMBERS AND TYPES OF FACILITY USERS & STAFF: TOTAL OCCUPANCY OF FACILITY (This is the maximum number of Individuals who live at the facility and are approved by the fire safety Inspector.) These individuals include the residents receiving recovery, treatment or detoxification services, children of the residents, and staff. Staff includes individuals who work for the applicant in exchange for either monetary or in -kind compensation (e.g., room and board). Total occupancy cannot be exceeded for any reason. 12 MAXIMUM REQUESTED ADULT RESIDENT CAPACITY OF THE FACILITY (The number of adult residents that receive recovery, treatment or detoxification services at any one time, which cannot be greater than the total occupancy shown above): 0 MAXIMUM NUMBER AND AGE RANGE OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN WHO ARE SUPERVISED BY THEIR PARENT(S) IN THE FACILITY. This includes temporary residing (i.e., overnight, weekend visits) of dependent children. (Since there must always be at least one adult being served, the maximum number of dependent children housed must be at least one less than the total occupancy, determined by the fire inspector, as shown above): 0 Are all clients who reside on -site disabled persons? Yes 14 YS 00091 Number of staff who will reside on -site: 2 Maximum number of staff who will provide services during any one week to clients at the facility: 2 Provide the Facility Staffing Form shown as Form 400 to this Application. Total number of employees of provider: Please characterize the nature of staff services to the facility (i.e., nutritionists, massage therapists, counselors, maids, cooks, etc): House Manager Assist Manager Maximum number of clients who will use the facility on any one day but reside elsewhere: 0 Maximum number of client visitors who will visit the facility during any one week: 0 Maximum number of others who will visit the facility during any one week: 0 Please explain: C. BUILDING DIAGRAMIFLOOR PLAN Include a Building Diagram showing all building(s) to be occupied, including a floor.plan of all rooms intended for residents' use. Include the grounds showing buildings, setbacks, driveways, fences, storage areas, pools, gardens, recreational area'and other spaces. All sketches shall show dimensions but need not be to scale. Identify the number of residents per bedroom and the location and the number of beds for all residents, including the location of beds for infants and other non - ambulatory persons. The Building Diagram supplied with this application must be accurate as to existing conditions in the building and must be consistent with the building plans currently on file with the Newport Beach Building Department for permitted construction. D. DURATION OF TYPICAL CLIENT STAY IN FACILITY (in days): 365 _ If you wish, please explain: E. IS THE FACILITY ACCESSIBLE TO INDIVIDUALS IN WHEELCHAIRS OR OTHER NONAMBULATORY CONDITIONS? ❑ Yes ®No NOTE: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 7990 (ADA) is a comprehensive federal anti - discrimination law for people with disabilities. The City reminds all providers of residential recovery facilities that discrimination against persons with disabilities is prohibited. Please contact Newport Beach's Building Department (949- 644 -3275) for specific ADA requirements that may apply to your facility. ACTIVITY INFORMATION Hours which facility will be in use: 15 YS 00092 G. Z 24/7 ❑ Other (please describe) Will there be a curfew? If so, please note quiet hours: ® 10 p.m. — 8 a.m. ❑ Other (please describe) Besides household activities, what types of care - related activities will occur on -site, and how many residents and non- residents (including staff and clients from other facilities) will attend? ❑ "AA" -type meetings _ ❑ ADP - Treatment (see 5A) _ ❑ Meal preparation /delivery ❑ Physical Fitness (gym, yoga, etc) _ ❑ Other wellness (massage, etc) _ ❑ Other: Provide the Weekly Schedule of Services shown as Form 500 to this Application. DELIVERY INFORMATION: What types of deliveries will occur at the facility and how often (per day or per week — circle whichever is applicable) will they occur? ❑ Laundry Sevices: Lq& or we k ❑ Meals: /day or week ® Trash disposal or recycling: 1 ldav- orweek ❑ Business products: /day or week ❑ Correspondence, packages (other than LISPS): /day or week ❑ Medical Products /Medical Waste Pickup: /day or week ❑ Other: H. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING: /day or week Will clients residing on -site be allowed to use personal vehicles and /or keep them on -site or nearby? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, describe where clients will park personal vehicles (garage, carport, on- street location, other — if on- street, be specific about which streets) Four residents have personal vehicles which they park only In the oaraae and /or aarace driveway. If No, describe other modes of transportation that clients will use (bus, other transit, bicycle, other). Please provide a Route Map showing transit and travel routes that will be used to transport clients off-site, showing destinations of travel and approximate times of departure and return. Will staff serving the facility be allowed to drive personal vehicles to the site? 16 YS 00093 ® Yes ❑ No It Yes, describe where staff will park personal vehicles (garage, carport, on- street location, other — if on- street, be specific about which streets) In driveway NOTE: The City may not authorize on- street parking for clients or staff depending upon how impacted the facility's streets are. MEDICAL AND BIO -WASTE NBMC §6.04.120 (Health and Sanitation: Prohibited Materials) prohibits the disposal of certain medical waste or bio-waste into the City's refuse disposal system. Syringes, needles, urinalysis cups, and other waste must be disposed of in accordance with the NBMC and other applicable laws. If you are uncertain as to what wastes can be disposed of in the City's disposal system, contact the City's General Services Department at 949.644 -3066. Applicants who will be disposing medical waste or other bio-waste must provide a Disposal Plan for Medical and Bio-Waste showing how and where these wastes are disposed of (required by NBMC §20.91A.030.1). Please attach the Disposal Plan if applicable. J. RULES OF CONDUCT — GOOD NEIGHBOR PRINCIPLES If you have them, please include any documents that describe rules of client conduct and /or Good Neighbor Principles that your facility's staff and clients will adhere to if the City issues a Use Permit for this facility. The City of Newport Beach has developed Good Neighbor Principles for these uses (see the City's website under Group Residential Uses). Please state whether you agree voluntarily to comply with the City's Good Neighbor Principles- 0 Yes ❑ No K. OTHER AVAILABLE CERTIFICATIONS NBMC §20.91A.050.C.4 directs that applicants shall attain certification (or similar validation), where available, from a governmental agency or qualified non - profit organization. This Includes: • The Orange County Sheriffs Departments Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification Program (see www.ocsd.ora for more information or contact Certificate Coordinator Lt. Jeff Bardzik at 714- 773.4523 or ibardzikCdlocsd.oro or Margo Grise at 714- 773 -4521 at m0se(ctZocsd.ora. This certification is required. • The Orange County Sober Living Network (see htto : / /www.soberhousing.nettoranne county html or contact Grant McNiff at 714 - 875 -2954. This certification is recommended. You do not have to attain the OCSD certification to apply for a Use Permit, but we suggest that you attain the certification within a reasonable amount of time (twelve [12] months) following your application submittal. Should a Use Permit be, issued, it may include a condition that certification be obtained within a stated time period. If you have attained this certification prior to applying for the Use Permit, verify here that you have attained this certification, and attach the verifying document from the certifying entity: 17 YS 00094 [] Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification (required) ❑ Orange County Sober Living Network (recommended) ® Other (please describe) Oxford Chartered House L. SECONDHAND SMOKE LIMITATIONS NBMC §20.91A.050.A directs that "no staff, clients, guests, or any other uses of the facility may smoke in an area from which the secondhand smoke may be detected on any parcel other than the parcel upon which the facility is located. Check and sign here to acknowledge this requirement and your use's adherence to It: ®1 acknowledg that I will control secondhand smoke on my facility such that no secondhand smoke may be detected on an arcel other than the I upon which my facility is located. ,✓ Signatur . Date: J 0 9. APPLICANT OBLIGATIONS A. The "owner of record of the property or an authorized agent must sign this Application. Signing the application under Section 10 means that the applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that the Information provided within the Application and its attachments is true and correct. Per NBMC §20.90.030.C, false statements are grounds for denial or revocation. B. The Applicant acknowledges that he or she must comply with all other Federal, State, and local laws and regulations relating to this use. The Applicant understands that a violation of. Federal, State, and local laws and regulations is grounds for revocation of the Permit. The Applicant understands and acknowledges that it is against California law to provide treatment (as defined) in an unlicensed facility. C. If the City issues a Use Permit based on the information provided in this Application, the Applicant's signature below certifies his or her agreement to comply with the terms of the Use Permit. The Applicant understands and acknowledges that non - compliance with the terms of the Use Permit Is grounds for revocation of the Permit. Revocation of the Use Permit. NBMC §20.96.040.E provides that the City can revoke a Use Permit it • The permit was issued under erroneous information or misrepresentation; or • The applicant made a false or misleading statement of material factor omitted a material fact; or • The conditions of use or other regulations or laws have been violated; or • There has been a discontinuance of use for 180 days or more. 10. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURran OF APPLICANT THE UNDERSIGNED ASSURES THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD HIS OR HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER ANY USE PERMIT ISSUED BASED ON THIS APPLICATION. A. if the applicant is a sole proprietor, the application shall be signed by the proprietor. B. If the applicant is a partnership, the application shall be signed by each partner. C. If the applicant is a firm, association, corporation, county, city, public agency or other governmental entity, the application shall be signed by the chief executive officer or the individual legally responsible for representing the agency. 18 YS 00095 D. The applicant(s) affirms that the facts contained in this application and supporting documents are true and WA MA = I (Signature) (Title) (Date) (Title) (Date) (Signature) (Title) (Date) 19 VI&IrIIIIkII Contagt tl� Find Sober Housing In Your So. Cal. Community Search By Area The Sober Living Network A SOBER HOUSING VISION Someday there will be recovery supportive housing and community centers throughout the United States. These clusters will be developed with a variety that will include individual houses, apartments, and congregate living accommodations. There will be a mixture of housing with normal -cost apaznnents for recovery veterans and low -cost, supervised shared housing for those in early recovery. In many accommodations there will be specially designed housing sections for women and/or men with children that have play areas and childcare. Sober housing clusters will be designed to accommodate persons who are physically and mentally challenged. Sober housing clusters will be recovery- promoting incubators. The clusters will include meeting spaces to host self-help and educational mee er recreational, and social events. They will be operated within a democratic culture and a high love) of recovery enthusiasm. These clusters will become islands of sobriety In our alcohol and drug using society. Sober housing and community centers will become continuously available as a recovery assistance resource for alcoholics, addicts, and family members. They will be available and noticeable not only to those who are fully into their addiction but those who are in their earlier or experimemal stages. Communities of stable re covering persons can easily'absorb newly recovering persons into their community. Currently many sober living homes ate trying to meet the needs of newly recovering parsons without the benefit of having a core of stable recovering residents or the management resources to coed their recovery service needs rationale for cluster housing is that the self -help learning process comet hs bile and pieces. The greeter the exposure to a comprehensive recovery environment with marry recovery activiIn and a predominance m of recovering people, the greater chance a person has to ream recovery. The coed for a balance of recovery experiences became evident when twelve step meetings dominated by newcomers were not es affective in one recovery a8 tlleae meatinits where most me hM ho... t.......� �_„ _ Ong Home O nn Comm m Con t Site o ®Copyright 2004 Sobm Living Network All Rights Reserved privacy p lv icy Hosting provided by Hel er Net o and 171�Sobgr Musicians Proig�t http:I/ www .soberhousing.net/vision.htinl ...6.. , .,. . 5/15/2008 YS 00097 numev is, anprgannzmgI rainingCorn -0gftyContactSponsors Find Sober housing In Your SoCal Community Search By Area j The Sober Living Network COMMUNITY RECOVERY SUPPORT RESOURCES Community recovety resources offer a practical and cost-efficient way to assist alcoholics, addicts and family mambas to enter and maintain long -term recovery. the current alcohol and drug treatment syateon does not have the capeeity to meet the long-term recovery assistance need; required to mart the needs of &a many. The treatment system is too heavily invested in short -term treatment and too little invested in the development of safe and healthy community recovery promoting aNbommints and activities that are constantly available to support recovery am life style enhancements, Alcohol and drug treatment protgoone have been formeuad by government and academic inatlutiotw into quality l "PenPle addinsrimg" b jeciL stations that are now too costly Pa'petenn atsdated to signi&cently reduce addictien preblema Commuuity recovery is based on the Pnnstulate that sad and sober places flow.wilh healthy recovery the covhcoments, motivation end recovery fools for alcoholics, addicts fad family ) themselves. Opaaos maintain healthy and as& environments and provivic individual recovery teapenalft- Community recovery resources include self -]rely meelbmgs, AI clubs-which tiol host social activity, community MY con , sober living hawing and sober recreational cord social everts: Community recovery oentts are self-service spaces that offer education seem, host self -help grorps, hold mcteVrecreatien] events and have muoaeWig and therapy available 6y self - selection. Community recovery rented activities and housing we easily adaptable to meet the broad ed mie, cultural and physically challenged needs. Community recovery resources an assisting and millions of fdcoholke, addicts and finally members in drug addictions with little or no support Sam goveromad and health insurance funding scureaL Sober living homes, Alone clubs and community recovery centers are primarily erected and suppoted by racw ing persona moivated by a rill to be of service to others. TU Soberliving Network P.Q Bon 524 Snub Movies, CA 9M09 (314)396.6290 HomeOrg anizini, TrainingCQlpmtlni_tyContact$ite Map C'Copyrigm 2004 Sobe Housing All Rights Reserved privacy policy Hosting provided by Heller Networks and The Sober Musicians Project http://www .soberhousing- neocoramunity.htall 5/15/2008 YS 00098 The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence fights the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions. Facts and Information Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Are America's Number One Health Problem The cost and consequences of alcoholism and drug dependence place an enormous burden on American society. As the nation's number one health problem, addiction strains the health care system, the economy, harms family life and threatens public safety. Substance abuse crosses all societal boundaries, affects both genders, every ethnic group, and people in every tax bracket. Scientific documentation defines alcoholism and drug dependence as a disease that has roots in both genetic susceptibility and personal behavior. THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM • There are more deaths and disabilities each year in the U. S. from substance abuse than from any other cause. 1 • About 18 million Americans have alcohol problems, about 5 to 6 million Americans have drug problems. 9 •. More than half of all adults have a family history of alcoholism or problem drinking. 3 . More than nine million children live with a parent dependent on alcohol and/or illicit drags. 4 THE CONSEQUENCES . One - quarter of a// emergency room admissions, one- third of all suicides, and more than half-of all homicides and incidents of domestic violence are alcohol- related. 5 http: / /www.ncadd,org /facts /numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00099 e Heavy drinking contributes to illness in each of Me top three causes of death: heart disease, cancer and stroke. • Almost half of a0 traffic fatalities are alcohol - related. • Between 48% and 64% of people who die in fires have blood alcohol levels indicating intoxication. a. . Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation. 9 THE COST . Alcohol and drug abuse costs the American economy an estimated $276 billion per year in lost productivity, health care expenditures, crime, motor vehicle crashes and other conditions. " . Untreated addiction is more expensive than heart disease, diabetes and cancer combined. Every American adult pays nearly $1,0oo per year for the damages of addiction. 12 SO, WHAT CAN BE DONE? Like other diseases, addiction can be overcome with proper treatment, prevention and more research. By increasing access to care, the costly toll on society and the burden it places on families can be reduced. Research shows conclusively that successful prevention and treatment leads to reductions +n traffic fatalities, crime, unwanted pregnancy, child abuse, HIV, cancer and heart disease. Treatment reduces drug use, improves health, improves job performance, reduces involvement with the criminal justice system, reduces family dysfunction and improves quality of life. The Comprehensive Assessment Treatment Outcomes Registry Data in Ohio have documented dramatic results in decreasing occupational problems, including the following reductions after treatment . Absenteeism decreased by 69% http:// www. ncadd .org/facts/numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 • Tardiness decreased by 92% • Problems with supervisors decreased by 56% • Mistakes in work decreased by 70% • Incomplete work decreased by 81 % j! Additionally, a California Study found significant decreased health care costs from before to after treatment in: • Hospitalizations for physical health problems ( -36 %) • Drug overdose hospitalizations ( -58 %) • Mental health hospitalizations ( -44 %) • The number of emergency room visits ( -36%) • The btal number of hospital days (25 %) 74 Americans increasingly recognize that alcoholism and drug dependence is a disease with consequences that affect both physical and behavioral health. Diagnostic and treatment services have changed in recent years and modem treatment, when adequately provided, enables a great many people to recover and rebuild productive lives. It is important that the public be aware of evidence generated by scientific inquiry, clinical evaluation and clinical experience. The evidence demonstrates that treatment for alcohol and other drug abuse works. Treatment not only saves lives, it also saves dollars that would otherwise be spent in other areas of medical cane and social services. For every dollar spent on addiction treatment, seven dollars is saved in reduced health care costs.15 The Naifonal.Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence is dedicated to fighting the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions by providing education, information, help and hope to the public. NCADD.advocates prevention, intervention, and treatment. through a network of 97 affiliates across the United States. For more information, visit: www.ncadd.ora. Alcoholism and drug dependence are treatable and millions of people achieve recovery. SOURCES 1. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1093. http:// www. ncadd .org/far,ts/numbemnepmb.httnl 5/15/2008 YS 00101 2. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem,' Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 2001. 3. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 4. Ibid. S. "Sobering Facts on the Dangers of Alcohol," NY Newsday, April 24, 2002. 6. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Annual Report, 1992. 8. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1993. 9. E. Abel, "Incidence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Economic Impact of FAS- Related Anomalies," Drug and Alcohol- Dependence, 1987. 10. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 2001. 11. [bid. 12. The National Drug Control Strategy, The White House, 1997. 13. Ohio Dept of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, New Standards, Inc., St. Paul, MN, ION. 14. Gerstein, at al, "Evaluating Recovery. Services: the California Drug and Alcohol Assessment," Sacramento, 1994. 15. Ibid. Compiled &Q2 mCADD National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. 244 East 58th Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022 phone: 2121289 -7797 fax: 212/269 -7510 email: national Ongadd:org http:l /www.neadd.org HOPE LINE: 8001NCA -CALL (24 -hour Affiliate referral) http:// www. ncadd .org/facts /numberoneprob.btml 5/15/2008 YS 00102 r....... v. vuu...�� .+........y.... �. ub� wlu �L LL1IV 1 uVW. ✓. ub IIJV all WlV b'N1VleA }1V21Y16LLVll Generalpopulallon According to data -from the 2005 Nallonal Household Survey on Drug Use andHesOh (NSDUH) — • 112 million Americans age 12 or older (48% of the population) reported illidi drug weal least oncom thalr fifetlme • 14% reported use of a drug within the past year • 8% reported use of a drug within the post month. Dale from the 20DS Survey showed that mmfjuene and woe ro use Is the Most prevatent amang persona age 18 to 25. Tha Drag Abuse Wertuall Hetwogk (DAWN) monitors dog- related emergency depadmerd (ED) vieka for the notion and for selected malmpslamr areas. DAWN elm collects data on drug.ralated deaths iriva Reeled by medical exemleem and coroners M selected metropolitan Brew and Sates. In 2006, DAWN ee0metes that sandy 1.4 MUCH emargmxy department vs(s nattorrrdde were assodared with drug Misuse or abuse. An astaaated 816,696 drug- releted anageney depanmem wale involved a mepor submahmeor chugs. DAWN estimates (hat: • "ne wad InvoNSd In 446,461 ED vista • Mtdjuaua was brvolved in 262,200 ED vtatle. • hbroin,vnse lunvclved In t6d,572 Ep visits. - . Stlmr1100 s ge, such an PGmines and mattmmphesft6*m were InvMVd in 138,960 ED walla • Other 1100 dnps, such es PCP. Ecstasy, ant GHB, were much bee keWin than any of the above. SOUIVO: U. S. Department of Fiaafth and Human Services, SAMHSA, DIAa of Applied Studies, Drag Abuse Warnbrg Montane. 200. NaBomYFa9metw o /Drag- RebredFinarl ereyDeparlam l WsML DAVM Was D-29, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 071256. Room[)%Mo. 2007, In 2003,122judsdietiorn in 98 metropolitan areal and 6 Steles WWOW MO"&* data to DAWN. The SLdes, which are W Maw to DAWN, am Main Maryland. NerrFSmpaNm, Neer Medico, Lbah, and VeMMM DAWN cannot provide rational eallmates adnryrelated deaths. In MO matmpoihan areas, nearly hall of drug minces deadis, on avamga, involved a mq)m Subtlatas or abuse (coma, baron, marta nna, ati maiahb,. dub doge, hallucinogens. ornorvplarmecautlml inhslar". Aaoen the 6 States, major Substatceaeere reported Income a third a misuse deaths. SO. me* substances were reported In 40 %10 46% of ding Minoan deetls in Maryland, New Medea, and Utah. Descripllane of drug abuse deaths In the 1 ' I. ng rtabopoltan areas am available In the MaMDyodre fan the DAWN, 2003 repaL 'drop to date ream the 20M Mmtaft Datn fors D,4M— Cman, war the modbequeMly reported Me0 drug. in its drag misuse deaths, cocaine umdglMtepS dings hs 28 aFtM S2 melropoMan arose ad cap a sae &cane, On average, cocaine alonear it combination with other drugs vres 31 Ni 311129 ding ntinoas death gaga 6 %b70%). Atco1W was she oltha6 MOM comment drugs In 30 of the 92 mabepdtan areas and 5a Slelae.in 2B a Hr 32 metrgrot0on areas, mac ding mM®deaM irvolwd en opintdoplold tlatany other drug. Summit. U. S. Department Of Hearth and Henan SIVION, 6AMHSA. Clgoe of Applied Studies, a" Abase Wambg Natevx14 2003, At"ProWes ofDmg.Relatad tsarniW. DAWN Series D-27, OHMS Publication No. (SMA) 05.4033, Rockville, MD. 2006. . Prevbw Cocaine Nest W13 Mme papa 1 Top e1 Mle page 1pweaedAtlieveYhbhb won aI1�mlexff q d WPyredvm Mlefalvdba Ad peer LraalPdleb and Dbdnanarr 9aed wnamlrb waWr43arde)am' Ppe by rerYM wr4rwa'11.2M7 l .6. I V L I VI&IIIII1Ikj Age of respondent, 2004 Dreg sae 1217 16 -25 26 or clew Martinson Lest month 6.6% 16.6% 4.1% Last year 13.3 26.0 619 Cocain Lest morph 0.6% 2.6% 0.6% Lest year 1.7 6.9 1.5 Sourer. SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, Wall NaOonall 9unreya, One Use and ReaNh: National gndlags, September 2006. Tha Drag Abuse Wertuall Hetwogk (DAWN) monitors dog- related emergency depadmerd (ED) vieka for the notion and for selected malmpslamr areas. DAWN elm collects data on drug.ralated deaths iriva Reeled by medical exemleem and coroners M selected metropolitan Brew and Sates. In 2006, DAWN ee0metes that sandy 1.4 MUCH emargmxy department vs(s nattorrrdde were assodared with drug Misuse or abuse. An astaaated 816,696 drug- releted anageney depanmem wale involved a mepor submahmeor chugs. DAWN estimates (hat: • "ne wad InvoNSd In 446,461 ED vista • Mtdjuaua was brvolved in 262,200 ED vtatle. • hbroin,vnse lunvclved In t6d,572 Ep visits. - . Stlmr1100 s ge, such an PGmines and mattmmphesft6*m were InvMVd in 138,960 ED walla • Other 1100 dnps, such es PCP. Ecstasy, ant GHB, were much bee keWin than any of the above. SOUIVO: U. S. Department of Fiaafth and Human Services, SAMHSA, DIAa of Applied Studies, Drag Abuse Warnbrg Montane. 200. NaBomYFa9metw o /Drag- RebredFinarl ereyDeparlam l WsML DAVM Was D-29, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 071256. Room[)%Mo. 2007, In 2003,122judsdietiorn in 98 metropolitan areal and 6 Steles WWOW MO"&* data to DAWN. The SLdes, which are W Maw to DAWN, am Main Maryland. NerrFSmpaNm, Neer Medico, Lbah, and VeMMM DAWN cannot provide rational eallmates adnryrelated deaths. In MO matmpoihan areas, nearly hall of drug minces deadis, on avamga, involved a mq)m Subtlatas or abuse (coma, baron, marta nna, ati maiahb,. dub doge, hallucinogens. ornorvplarmecautlml inhslar". Aaoen the 6 States, major Substatceaeere reported Income a third a misuse deaths. SO. me* substances were reported In 40 %10 46% of ding Minoan deetls in Maryland, New Medea, and Utah. Descripllane of drug abuse deaths In the 1 ' I. ng rtabopoltan areas am available In the MaMDyodre fan the DAWN, 2003 repaL 'drop to date ream the 20M Mmtaft Datn fors D,4M— Cman, war the modbequeMly reported Me0 drug. in its drag misuse deaths, cocaine umdglMtepS dings hs 28 aFtM S2 melropoMan arose ad cap a sae &cane, On average, cocaine alonear it combination with other drugs vres 31 Ni 311129 ding ntinoas death gaga 6 %b70%). Atco1W was she oltha6 MOM comment drugs In 30 of the 92 mabepdtan areas and 5a Slelae.in 2B a Hr 32 metrgrot0on areas, mac ding mM®deaM irvolwd en opintdoplold tlatany other drug. Summit. U. S. Department Of Hearth and Henan SIVION, 6AMHSA. Clgoe of Applied Studies, a" Abase Wambg Natevx14 2003, At"ProWes ofDmg.Relatad tsarniW. DAWN Series D-27, OHMS Publication No. (SMA) 05.4033, Rockville, MD. 2006. . Prevbw Cocaine Nest W13 Mme papa 1 Top e1 Mle page 1pweaedAtlieveYhbhb won aI1�mlexff q d WPyredvm Mlefalvdba Ad peer LraalPdleb and Dbdnanarr 9aed wnamlrb waWr43arde)am' Ppe by rerYM wr4rwa'11.2M7 l .6. I V L I VI&IIIII1Ikj rF9 .S I)trai }ttntnts���lf Ins 6,gA f7Lht��l�l,�itiiltc I'sgt,�,i thu�y._:' 13ulc it (14'.1 list Ice SIsltistu. a „mom ceeam• Dnrps arrd Crime Facts Pndam N••n r•nwsre Drug use npme papa Youth I Oeneml populatlan Youth • Use • Perceived risk • $Want repore of availability of drupe Use The Manitodng the Future Study a8ked high solrotl aaniaa, •On haw many ocossimm, N any, have you used drupe a alcohol dudng the last 12 mantis or monthr Reported dma and alosbol ursa by high school Santora, 2008 Used within the left _ mulls 12 months' ' l ^ -J -- 30 days ^ ^ AWlc.onhol 66.5% 46.3 % •...,y nana 31.6 18.3 OHM oplems 610 3,8 sdmwxm 6.1 All soda &" 6.5 3.0 7ranqutileers 8.8 27 cocaine 5.7 2.6 le6uainopno 4.6 1.6 hdmianb 4.5 1.5 Sismide 1.8 1.1 Nardn D.8 0.4 'kmludbp the Iasi math. Swsm:Pr Palmas: Tom grog was, car6nuea down be 2708, Padfeulenyamong ahhr temm; but we of PnlswfpOm►gPedrr�a re118WY Mir, University of Smvlaa, Daowdw 21, 20081- {Aambati7e 67g.81Mmna8on SaO{epods ddmg we among high atlltxt ae I, may aalm repr000t6 dnp w mm M youth of ihat ago hautltm Nph aclmol dropouts and Iruanta are not thtlutled, aM 6mae prsttps mry have more invdvertA" with dogs then those mom slay in achott percent clad College stadanle, 1886 -2806 Drug uw 4998 1988 1967 1988 AM 2liao 2081 2882 280.1 2004 2008 • Las than 0.06% Rates of Past year caceltte use by college sludB* have varied aver the Peal 10 years From a low of 2.9% in 1998 to a high Of 5.7% in 2008. Peat year mar►uana use has,,,W ft. a low of 31.2%in 1895 to a high of 35.9% in 1998. - Source: Univmalty d Mkhigan, MonNaAng Ora Future Naflonal Survey Results on Dmg Usa, 1975.2005, VWUma 0: CaN9ga Strdents Sul Adults Agas 19645, 200q 0tno6m 2008. (Acrobat file 2.31 MB) Of high school earti m in 2005 - • 44.8%mPmted haft OW UW mal)uanWbaN$h • 8.0% reported having arm used cmWm • 1.5 %repened having evm uaed hwoln. YS 00104 Deny I9"MOMh 17% 2.8% 3.7% 4.0% 4.0% 4.6% 4.5% 4.1% 4.7% 4.5% 4.0% Last Moth 19.6 17.6 17.7 18.6 20.7 20.0 20.2 19.7 19.3 18.8 17.1 Last 312 33.1 31.8 38.9 35.2 34.0 369 34.7 33.7 33.3 33.3 Daily Within X010% kdtattlrmr 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0FO% 0.0% 0.0% • 0.0% 0.1% Ladmandl 0.7 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.4 1.6 Leaner 3.6 29 3.4. 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 5.4 6.6 5.7 • Las than 0.06% Rates of Past year caceltte use by college sludB* have varied aver the Peal 10 years From a low of 2.9% in 1998 to a high Of 5.7% in 2008. Peat year mar►uana use has,,,W ft. a low of 31.2%in 1895 to a high of 35.9% in 1998. - Source: Univmalty d Mkhigan, MonNaAng Ora Future Naflonal Survey Results on Dmg Usa, 1975.2005, VWUma 0: CaN9ga Strdents Sul Adults Agas 19645, 200q 0tno6m 2008. (Acrobat file 2.31 MB) Of high school earti m in 2005 - • 44.8%mPmted haft OW UW mal)uanWbaN$h • 8.0% reported having arm used cmWm • 1.5 %repened having evm uaed hwoln. YS 00104 Space: University of MWipen. M94Na01y ft Fdum Nations!Rawdb on Adolescent Dmg this: Ovarvlaw ofKey Flndhw 20". April 2009: (Ao lest file 442.77KB) The increase In the we of inedpnna has been especially pronounced. Between 1992 and 2006 pasi•owrM use of nwgusns Increased from: - • 12% to 20%Wrong NO school samosa. • 8 %t015 %amolg10lhgrsdsrs. • 4% to 7% among &h gredele. Reposed use Of MWOU IM by high school 841110e during the past month peeked in 1978 at 37% Wall dedMed to Its k"m level in 1982 at 12 %. The we of cocaine vMhin the pea monlh d the survey by high school senders peaked In 1986 a18.7%, up tram 1.8% N 1976 at the surveys IneepOan. Corrine we decaned to a low d 1.3% N 1992 and lg93. In 200.5, 2.3 %d high achod aar4m reputed pest -month cocaine use. Spume: UnWerslly Of MICNgaq, MOnnatng the Future Natiand Reaulls on Adolescent Drug Use. Overview of KeyAndfngs 2008, Apr112009. (Ambet Poe 442.771(11). Cocaine use smog high school camas peaked In 1986. Q* on the chart to Ww the date. Saam: losses releaa: Tess *W Use continues actress 2094 P&IkMWF OMM older foams, but use of prwec/lpUOre type drugs romena ldp/r, UNueraby d kBWigan Neese esd Idonnetlon SaMma, Oscember 21, 201g.(Acrpbat Re876.811M). - - .. Perceived risk Front 1887 to 2008 the pereemage of high echo A seniors gwl were al®d, Rico mach do you thinkpeople, dsk haming IhemseNss7 remained vinua0y, stele. Thme students wewadng'grea dek' In MrAN use accounted forihe fallowing — Click an the Chart to viw the dnta. W1 Sousa: Press release: Tea dreg use continues down M 2006, partlodady, among older leans; but am of ?a (tl -M 6 � � NO. Univera6y d Michigan No" she INCPMfion Services, Oecambet 21, Student reports of avallabgby, ddrugs Percent of high school adore reporting May coum obtain drugs fairly assly, or very sally, 2006 YS 0.0105 Mad)uarm 84.0% Amphetamines 520 Comma 48.5 Barbiturates - 43,8 Creck 38,8 LSD 20.0 Heroin 27.4 Crystal methomphNemine 28.7 Traclulizere 244 PCP 23,1 Amy"yl Nimes 18.4 Source: Preso releeee: Teen dnW use eon8mnae down M 2008, peetoulerlymnofg setter Mrs; led use oriamoor laden -type drtrps remeM high. Univaredy of Michigan Nava and Information Services, December 21, 2008. (ACrebat Me 578.811(8) in 2005, 25 %d a0 students, In grades 9 through 12 reported someone had offered, acid, or givmr from an Illegal drug an adpd property. There was no measumbie charge with the pererege aetudeda who reported that drugs were o fared, sold, orgwen Whom al school between 2003 and 200& Males were more likely than females to reps" that ONgs were offered, add, or give to then on aduot properly in ash eurvey Yew between 1983 end 2006. In 2006, 29% of males and 22% of females reported avaltabllNy of dogs Source: BJS jointly with the U.S. oapetmem of education, hwimas of Sorrow Cris aW SmWd 2006, W�J 214262, December 2008, ♦ To the top General population Acoodbg10 del& from the 2005 Montreal Maurehold S MYanDapUseandHeBO(NSDUH)— • 112 pillion Amens ego 12 made (40% of the popdaficn) reported OOdt drug use at least once In inch McBms • 14 %sported uee of a drug w4Nn Ins past yew • e% reported use of a dog wilier thapaal morn Date from the 2005 sonny showed that merguama and coealne use NOM mat pavderd among persons age 18 to 25. Aga of respond@%2004 Dog use 12.17 18.415 26erobler . IWayuam Las! month 69% 16.6% 4.1% Led yaw DOWNS 139 28.0 0.9 1JUtmonth 0.6% 2.0% 118% Law yew 1.7 6.0 1.6 Sour: SAMHSA, Office W Applied SWda, 2005 MOU&I Surveyon Drop UnOW NUM. - Notional FMdlnpc, Seplomber2008, The Dog Aauae Wamhp lyatwmh (DAWN) moues dngaelated emergency department (IED) virago for the mom and for 81 selected 1011 mstmPcltm �. DAWN Ora college data W dntg-refaled deaths Irwesdgat®d M medial ekmnineN east cores, ropdnan area and slakes. In 2006, DAWN eepmalae and Oast' 1.4 million ernergesy depa0ner vide rat aroddewere asodated with dog arose or abuse. An estimated 816,666 dmpteldat emergency depadnad slops invalwd a majorvAbstahme of abuse. DANK sstitnnas that • Cocaine was involved in 448,481 ED vista • Mai)uma wee lnw wed in 242,200 ED vista. . Heroin was lmvoN d In 164,572 ED vista. •. SNmalmds, ndudsd mq*Mantmeaand one, MM mvdved M 138,950 ED wit$. . Other Wick bugs, suds ea PCP, Eealaey, and GHB, were much less frequem men awry of Nw abuve. Soo,: U. S. Department Of Health and Human SaMCOS, SAMHSA, Ofaca of AppOW Studae, DAW Akwss LVSrofeg Natwody 2008: NaffofW ErMndw Of Dng.Releted &earpersyDepartment Vbft DAWN Swiss D. 29, DHHS Putdica8on No. (SMA) 07.4260, R ckvft, MD, 2007. In 2003,122 Jurisdictions in 35 mempolime areas sod 6 Mgt" Remaind analogy data to DAWN. The state%which we all WNW DAWN, area Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Lnah, and Vain nt. DAWN terms provide ne8onal astimem of drug- relslad main& In the rtmtropditan ernes, neat' half or dreg misuse deaths, an average, Invohvd a mayor subeIsnce of abuee (cocaine, heroin, YS 00106 mevyualro, aOmulanta, dub drugs, haptrdnogens, or non- phemmeautical inhdants). Across the a States, moor substances were reported In about a tNfd of misuse deaths. SMI, majorsubstencee were reporied in 40%1045% of drug misuse deethe in Maryland, New Mmlm, and Utah. Descrglionsaf drug abuse dedha In the panldpating metropolitan areas rue ava8able 1p the blartesly Data b0m the DAVek 2009 report. Accofdhg to date from the 2003 MaffsfdyData corm DAWN— Cocaine was the most frequently reported illicit drug. In Ore drug Meuse dashes, cocaine was among tiro top 5 drugs in 28 of the 32 metropolitan areas and eN of the 43 States. On werage, Cedars, shoe or In COnbinMOn with other dugs was reported In 32% of drug rrisusa deaths (range 0% to 70 %). Alcohol was are of the b most comment drop In 30 of the 32 metropolitan areas and 5 of the 6 States. In 29 of the 32 matMPOMW Mee, moue drug misuse deaths involved an opiatelapioid than any other drug. Source: U. 6. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA. OlBca M Appited Studies, Drug Abuse Wwning AfeAvak, WO; Area PMR" ofDrug.Relafed Morfalky, DAM Series D-27, DHHS Publicatlo No. (SMA) 064023, RadMIle, MD, 2005. Previous 6.,..a rJa.aw seeri6e. ftul v paudq(gonbftl Se,W eonnub b ntbe ®aedoj.pm Contents Nest 13JS home page ) Top of the —page OJP VnW. of lolrnnrlw Aa papa LMW Parkin wd Dbellnen Pep lee reeled w Apra 11, 2807 O YS 00107 Westside Santa Ana Heights H omeowner's Guide May 2007 CompAmmis of Zed Bosley, Your Nai bbordmd AE Edward "Ted° Bosley (949) 2942128 TedBosley0yahoo.corn sarwoe & IrMegitq/ 0 covesalbsent www.TEDBosLr-Y.com Great source for RE Infomtatlon, tools plus Bimonthly OG Homemvner's Guide etvaletter Issue 16 Ted Bosky A;slsrakAad 1;o SAH uVaterpoints to wart Project Advisory Committee Deveio;pment on Orchard I started attending the SAH PAC meetings 5 years ago, mostly so that I could learn as much as possible about events atlectingour community. You, the readers of my periodic newsletters, Have been ft benefactors shim I have shared with you much of what was learned in that forum as well as Supervisor, City Council and LAFCO meetings. Many of you have also been in attendance at those same meetings. I appreciate being appcinM to serve on the SAH Project Advisory Committee. This gives me the opportunity tq'serve on critical sub oornmittees that make recommendstfons'to the Bd of SuperAsore and the NB City Council on nutters that have signtlicant impel on our community. in a recent response to my inquiry about the timeline for this Westaide SAH project, I received the following statement: W( /e are still piocessing-onrWnut-map with the county or Orange. Once recorda- tion of the map occurs we are planning on staffing the project ... Once again I than)( you for your assistan ce in gaffing.thls project approved." Ganuft Calaca, . Waterpolnte Development Principal estsi e SAH Annexation Update Administration, 12 Chric in the Planning Cammissicn Hearing Room. The City of Newport Beadr's application for a sphere of Influence change and c01101.01 at annexation of West Santa Ana Hem and lire Cry of Costa Buss's application for a sphme of influence dwga for the Banning Ranch property will be conaid6vad by LAFCO on ihts dabs. Staff reports for both proposals will be available for review on Wednesday att®moon, May 2, 2007, on fire Orange County LAFCO website: www,omnce.LAFCO . ca.00v. Cft on the "Agenda and Minutee link, then dCk on agenda Rem. This Is tte mureting we all have (lean waiting for. LAFCO is suppose to come to a final resolution an the West Site Animation to Newport atitds medong. PAC will be time to support Annexation as always. Sourse,of Chia ftibmiation Is www. SAHPAC:com If you would tare more bdonmagw relating to Me history of 6Y& ~plasm vfs4 Sober Living Homes Make Their Comm-unity Christmas Contribution Golf Course or Parking Lot? Daily Pilot Article on April 18th discusses this subject If you do not take the Pilot you can go to .v,rov rr_dailyoilot.cornl articles /2 007/ 04/ 18 /oolitcs /dnt- aolfcourse18.1:4 to view's( "Contribu7faa" to vo"Is ds fAH 2111 sebwLw igewe lmlmC We4ke weseles dame What I cannot understand is why anyone on the Airport Committee would suggest that a Car Rental Auto Storage facility should replace the Newport Beach Golf Course Back 9, that brings so much pleasure to so many, when their lease is up at the and of July, 2007. (Confined w page 2) x:- i vmair tr. John. Moorlaeh(wocgoy.com AND'—, edooc3ewrttvahoc.com mfr: yn;7 ° pi Aw, c. ,run YS 00108 - - - - - - - -F-.. a ,a,.. - vuugtcrviaps Page 1 of I Address 1561 Indus St "Naps Santa Ana CA 92707 GetGoogleMapsonyourphone Text the word "GMAPVto 466453 YS 00109 CL- 'nq fill F ' -14 wR UHO¢,! Y V Upp pp Y2 A 2 z�� g 3 6 fit° b ,fill s YS 00110 Attachment 7A 1. 1571 Pegasus, Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 2. 1621 Indus St., Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 3. 20172 Redlands Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 4. 1561 Indus, Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 YS 00111 k � ! 2 .� � � � � k � a � R �a ) § a � � ƒ a C4 ®. �amz 2 2 IL (77§ 2 ��t 2 �a w - -- k�k � 2 /�L� j2o � /©9® ui �) 0$ . ■$� _ . k 2 $ � A 2 3 t � O YS 60112 - -- k�k � 2 /�L� . q /©9® ui �) k 2 $ � A 2 3 t � O YS 60112 - -- 2� o � . k 2 $ � A 2 3 t � O YS 60112 City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL. USES - USE PERMIT APPLICATION ADMINISTRATORWIRECTOR INFORMATION Form 150 - Februm 2008 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION EDUCATION CIRCLE THE HIGHEST GRADE Y OMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE P 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 t0 ii PASSED HIGH SCHOOL EQUIVALENCY TESTS YES Reason for teawha e e COMPLETED I� C KE• 9%4 a NAME AND LOCATION OF r 'o SEMESTER QUARTER *ems 660 1121Q NERSITY C STUDY umTS UNITS DEG AWED DA7Fy PLETED YES, COMPi£TE Kati C Type Period Halo Isaubp AGWM Lit Mo_ 2 rti iG i 1 G[ ir+11C� MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE T TlBe Dale Started Date I Ended Reason for teawha e e L` E>a I� C KE• 9%4 a ,Ili r 'o 5 *ems 660 1121Q _.....------ ._ -... -- - -- - -- 1094 Y. Vv av' 00 YOU HAVE A MiWU310NAL LlCkNUF OR CERTIFICATE? Yea W No IF YES, COMPi£TE THE FOLLGW W Type Period Halo Isaubp AGWM Lit Mo_ 2 rti iG i 4 1M G[ ir+11C� WORK EXPERIENCE. aE(RN MATH YOUR AX)3T RECENT WORK EXPERIENCE, LIST ALL EXPERIENCE RELEVANT TO THIS TYPE OF USE PERMIT. Dales Noma and Address of EmpsWer Duties Reason for 4eevMg I 7 tv6 vv14E. L` E>a 6 + C KE• 9%4 a TO C �yrti°- FROM o pl �i'TCrci v�� C�VIt }, ahgqV0.' — - .J- ... ......__..._ ._.... - - -. _.....------ ._ -... -- - -- - -- Co \�F Q tTOO 0i6 Zf .------ - -- -- -- _ -- - -- FRGM_ TO s Date_ YS 00113 City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL. USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION & DELEGATION INFORMATION - CORPORATIONS (Form 200 — February 2008) INSTRUCTIONS; This form must be updated and submitted to the City each time there Is a change in officers or chance in the OOrporatlon. _..___ acv arvrva r rvn t,L1 o+n•� f)m`C h s try n , r WV@ Name (an 1Nted WIM the $ebreta/y of Stele) W Ez*cud" officer Incorporsdon Date 1 q q '7 Place of I��ryoSr�U �M /{ Principal oftbe of busnaes: / -1. il'1�tic.S� Zip Code y'�S�17TTs19 � 9H9_- �G614`L�'44.4y addmss /.Sy 6 . (3 , +1 City (!0 t_I l yy Conascl Pereon�•C.1 Names and}erldresses of all pen ions who own ten per cant (10%) or more of stock In rorporotlon. Governing Board of Dkecfols ! 6. Term of O a. Number of Board Members glce J y `£QJf'. $ c. Fmquency of Meetings & moAlI d. Method of selection v e t ej I Iee w ecennwx eun=r Ci wl Ml hl MMw .q OMke Name 5e611rroas Ackines 6 Clly a Zip Cud* Ttlephone Nl' uber Tana ftpr* M n President fl lye +1 _ -. CyJ� AU �Y/ '� C� / r • v �t � .SA � Co-- `✓ 7 . 4r' ! 7y } I V . �, H •I+ `l�+n'is 0 Vice-president t1+0 r Lir 1—u cen•e-1 JV+ew ce d e k f 949" D l �;s A�10 /6's vin , �10 P • o C, Me ck" j 9Y9- 47 ?-,574I DI D (26- "`�17 TreesuMt �'o/' a ix- L[ 7l,'"ra vs,� Or. mo`r lo7$ -C76 i" r'Q.M D -�•G yYL.� S a �1. 6k Other YS 00114 City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION DELEGATION FORM - CORPORATIONS (Form 2WD — February 2008) STATEMENT OF CORPORATE DELEGATION Applicants who are corporations shall attach board resolutions authorizing a deiegatlon to the Program Director and/or Administrator or other appropriate staff. 1. Applicant Namf 2. Program Name: 3. Program Address 4. Clty: A) rW Qy + Gtr County: ro-A q �e, Zip Code: 5. Telephone: Q� X1 r 1 Ly �( b – 4 � 9 `f 6. ... is hereby designated as administrator, program manager, or agent of the above - namad program and is authorized to receive at the above named program on my behalf, any documents including reports of inspections and consultations, accusations, aril civil and administrative processes. I WILL NOTIFY THE CITY WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF ANY CHANGE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF a. Title: i i 6 1 8. Address: ry t _ 10. City: rdA 0 o� � County: �/ I` n g -e— Zip Code: &ZQ2 IV YS 00115 City of Newport Reach ,GRQUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION - PARTNERSHIPS, SOLE PROPRIETOR, AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS (Form 200P — February 2008) 1. Attach a copy of tiro pannershlp agreement /1/1,0q, 2. Partners PARTNERSHIPS Type of Partnership Name Buatrlees Address, City and Zip Code I at Partner ' d Liesifed 2rW ParNer ❑ Gemara [] Limned tner (3a;;e 3rd Par D Limed nth P~ Genera D Limited Contact Person Title Telephone A SOLE PROPRIETORJOTHER ASSOCIATIONS Sole Proprietaslottw associations must also provide a 1w of all persons) Isaally resparsible'for the orgadzallon, the coded Person, arid appropriate legal doaanenta MdNtous name delemed, business Mpenae) wMch ant forth legal reapansiblaty of ale o gankation and acmuesabMMy for openMg Dar Program. Use Mtn roMEOM spew or ■sash a separala sheet. YS 00116 City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES - USE PERMIT APPLICATION WEEKLY ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE (Form 500 - February 2006) WEEKL 1'_ _ CCHDULE OF SER ICOrS Time Monday Tuesday Wbdnesday I Thursday Friday 6 -7 a.m. 7.8 3 -9 -- 10-11 a.m. 11 a.m. -12pp 12 -1 p.m. 1 -2 p.m. 2-1 p,m. 3-6 p.m. 4-5 p.m. 5 6 P.M. 6 -7 p.m. 7-6 p.m. TOTAL HOURS PER WEEK OF INDIVIDUAUGROUP /EDUCATION SESIONS, PLANNING, AND DETOXIFICATION SERVICES (IF PROVIDED): Comments: City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLACATION Saturday TREATMENT Sunday YS 00117 --- +avu— 111LG111461onal Oxford Houses of America - Directory California Foothill House 8055 Redwood Ave Fontana, CA 92336 -1639 (909) 428 -7533 Keystone Manor House 1561 Indus St Newport Beach, CA 92660 -5306 949 - 678 -3110 Gender: M Total Occupancy: 9 Charter: 3/1/1996 Vacancies Gender; W Tots! Occupancy: 12 Charter: 3/1/2007 Vacancies LA "t Page 1 of 1 httpJ/ oxfordhoase .org/directory_listing.php 5/19/2008 YS 00118 EXHIBIT 3 CORRESPONDENCE AND SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION SUBMITTALS YS 00119 June 19, 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92668 (949) 6443200; FAX (949) 6443229 YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. c/o Isaac R. Zfaty SGSA Lawyers 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 Dear Mr. Zfaty: Subject: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Use Permit No. 2008-034 Property located at 1561 Indus Street This letter serves as notfication that the Planning Department is in receipt of your application submittal regarding the proposed Use Permit for property located at the above referenced address. Upon review of your submitted application, documents and exhibits, the application has been deemed incomplete. Please provide the following clarifications and /or additional information: Application Form 100 item 2 Property Owner Information: Please provide a copy of a Preliminary Title Report or property profile that is less than 60 days old that verities the legal owner of the property, and written authorization from the legal owner authorizing filing of this application. 2. Application Form 100 Item 36 Other Similar Uses: Information on other Similar Use permits within the City is not provided, but will be provided by City staff from City records. However, the application is not complete until this information is included in application package. 3. Application Form 100 Item 4 Firm's Historic Uses: Other managed group residential uses are checked no, however your applications indicate that three other group homes are operated in Newport Beach. Please list these uses. 9 Information on other Use permits within the 3 block radius area is not provided, but will be provided by City staff from City records. However, the application is not complete until this information is included in application package. 5. Application FoaU 100 Item 8 Sibs Plan: the building footprint and property lines lines for immediately adjacent properties. Please provide a site plan which shows and the building footprints and property Show dimensions and setbacks. YS 00120 Notice of Incomplete Application Use Permit No. 2008 -034 Page 2 6. Application Form 100, Item 86 Facility Users and Staff• The ma)amum resident capacity is stated as zero (0) but the total occupancy is stated as 12. As two staff residents are indicated does that mean the resident capacity is 10? Please clarify. 7. Application Form 100 Item aC Floor Plan: Please provide a floor plan identifying the number of residents per bedroom. The diagram must also show setbacks, driveways, and usable outdoor spaces. 8. Application Form 100, Item 8L Secondhand Smoke: As Dr. Anna Marie Thames is indicated as facility Administrator /Director, please have her sign the acknowledgement to control secondhand smoke. It is not clear what role Leisha Mello plays at the facility. 9. Application Form 100. Item 10D Signature of Applicant: Leisha Mello is listed as administrator, however Dr. Anna Marie Thames is indicated as facility Administrator /Director on Form 150. Please clarify. 10. Application Form 200 Corporate Delegation: Please provide corporate board resolution(s) authorizing delegation of corporate representation to the person indicated on line 6 of the form. Line 6 designates Leisha Mello as administrator /program manager. Please clarify the roles and responsibilities of Leisha Mello and Dr. Anna Marie Thames as Dr. Thames is indicated as facility administrator /director on Form 150. 11. AApplicabon Form 850, Fire Marshall Clearance: Please provide evidence (Form 850) of recent Fire Marshall clearance. 12. Filing Fee: Please remit the Use permit filing fee of $2,200.00. 13. Keguesr ror Keasonable Accommodation- Please provide additional information regarding the Request for Reasonable Accommodation using the enclosed forms. Should rou have any questions regarding the requested clarifications or additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 266 -7548. Sincerely, . _ ...,� cc: Janet Brown, Associate Planner Dr. Anna Marie Thames, Yellowstone Women's First SteD House YS 00121 DAVIS•RAYBURN A IROIf SSIQNA1 LAW CORRORATION July 25, 2008 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL RECEIVED BY ?Lb M1NG DEpARIMENt JUL 2000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH -A y(Ij� B1:1�,H Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Use Permit Applications; 2008 -034; 2008 -035; 2008 -036; and 2008 -037 To Whom It May Concern: This firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. This correspondence is in response to your notices of incomplete application concerning the above - referenced Use Permit Applications for the following properties: 1561 Indus, 1621 Indus, 1571 Pegasus, and 20172 Redlands. Our office is currently gathering the required information referenced in your notices in order to complete our applications. We should have the information forwarded to you within the next twenty -one (21) days. Thank you for your courtesy and if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact us. Very truly yours, DAVIS 8c RAYBURN a pp/rofessional corporati�on � L ISAAC R. ZFATY IRZ:jdb 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949376.2828 - Fax: 949.376.3875 info@davisrayburnlaw.com . www.davisrayburniaw.com YS 00122 RECEIVED BY PLANNING, DEPARTMENT MG 26 2000 DAVIS•RAY'BURN A F.OFFSSIONAi IAW COXFORATION CP OF NEWPORT BEACH August 22, 2008 8005 -003 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Notice of Incomplete Application: 1561 Indus Street Dear Ms. Brown: As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Yellowstone "). We are in receipt of the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Incomplete Application for the property located at 1561 Indus Street (the "Property'). In response to that notice, we provide herewith the following: 1. Application Form 100, Item 2, Property Owner Information: the requested information is enclosed herewith. 2. Item 3B: We have no information regarding other similar uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. 3. Item 4: We cross - reference and incorporate the other applications, which are being provided concurrently under separate cover. 4. Item 5: We have no information regarding other conditional uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. 5. Item 6: A site plan is enclosed herewith. 6. Item 8B: Resident capacity is 10. Total capacity is 12. 7. Item 8C: A floor plan is enclosed herewith. 8. Item 8L: The acknowledgement re secondhand smoke is enclosed herewith. 9. Item l OD: Dr. Thames is the facility Director. 10. Form 200: A board resolution is enclosed herewith. 11. Form 850: Fire Marshall Clearance is enclosed herewith. 12. Request for reasonable accommodation: See the enclosed form. The one item that we have not included in this correspondence is the requested $2,200.00 fee. After reviewing the code, we have been unable to locate any discussion of such fee. We mention this not to question the City's authority to impose such a fee, but rather because we have not seen any statutory scheme that should provide for a hardship exception. We would respectfully request that the City furnish such authority, and also provide us with any exemption 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • 949.376.2828 - Fax: 949.376.3875 into ®davisrayburnlaw.com www.davisraybLirnlaw.com YS 00123 City of Newport Beach August 22, 2008 Page 2 application. Alternatively, we would request an extension of time to remit such fee so that we might be able to raise the funds necessary to accommodate the City's request. As a final note, it is worth mentioning that it is our understanding that the Property is still currently located in an unincorporated area of Orange County known as Santa Ana Heights, and that the Newport Beach annex of the property is not yet complete. If this is true, then we would submit that the city of Newport Beach does not have jurisdiction over this property. Any response that the City can provide regarding this matter would be greatly appreciated. To the extent that our understanding is correct, we would ask that the City simply hold our application until such time as the annexation is complete, so that the parties are not required to reinitiate this process. Please accept our apologies for the delay in providing the enclosed information. As always, if you have any questions regarding these applications, please feel free to contact us. yours, ZFATY IRLImk cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) YS 00124 Escr iwr No.: 00031693 GF Title Order No.: 30137878 When Recorded Mail Document and Tax Statement To: ANNATHAM S /SY/ y This Document was electronicall y record. Pidelft National Title Ej in cnB w Cou Da Geri � 1 ER9.00 to zy toz 2007000168889 03:01 pm 03115!0 So 50 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0 GRANT PEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(a) DECLARE(s) Documentary Transfer Tax is $809.09 1W Computed on full value of property conveyed, or 13 computed full Value less value of Ilene or encumbrances remaining at the time of tab O urhincorporated sreVCCily of Santa Ana FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which Is hereby acknowledged, Coma Johnson, a widow hereby GRANT(s) to Anna Thames •, AN UR01 RI$D WOiM the fbiimving described real property in the City of Santa Ana County of Orange, State of California LOT 14, TRACT 4307, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK Is% PAGES 18 TO 20 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE-OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. • : = r � Kzm -!17 ,toil• _ } tit: 7 before me, J persormay Knorr m me (or proved the basis of satisfactory evidence) to W e peuamn(a) whose name s —1111M subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she" executed the same in his /herAheir authorized caped( b9i, and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the Instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the Instrument - cuH.+lhJN PREiTYMANy WITNESS my hand and official seal. � CC;MM. ff1409480 Q Narnnv � Signature �� �, /-�' My Con i. EML earn MAIL TAX STATEMENT As DIRECTED ABOVE T YS 00125 TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM: DR. ANNA THAMES OWNER RE: AUTHORIZATION THIS IS AN OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR THE `OXFORD" HOUSE AT 1561 INDUS, NEWPORT BEACH, CAL. REGISTERED AS "KEYSTONE MANOR." DATE AUTHORIZED: SIGNATURE JUNE 30, 2008 . . W� . . ._._ . . ...... . . ..._. i r :� YS 00127 rte= . . • � _ • � • 4+7'•1 l.'. ►: ".�? =11-x; � 1 EL ., L YS 00128 • Fp Mtl Krt HEM DtNN12q rte= . . • � _ • � • 4+7'•1 l.'. ►: ".�? =11-x; � 1 EL ., L YS 00128 �1 I 1 m a on w, am am am S am Gam\ a2 ss� i,i•trr1E.��r���� !�l MA �1 I 1 m a on w, am am am S am Gam\ a2 ss� i,i•trr1E.��r���� I YS 00129 !�l I YS 00129 LLI ' n 7�v/ 1 --J.- Q 0 YS 00130 } L l.� U I �yIAJ O d Y� S I � U 5 � v YS 00131 '--• - a- - ___.._. _a ....«... ,... ..a ..... ..... __ vww.wwn %. coq Q Orange County Sober Living Network (recommended) ❑ Other (please describe) L. SECONDHAND SMOKE LIMITATIONS NBMC §20.91A.050A directs that -no staff, clients, guests, or any other uses of the facility may smoke in an area from which the secondhand smoke may be detected on any parcel other than the parcel upon which the facility is located. Check and sign here to acmowledge this requirement and your use's adherence to it tI acknowledge that I will control secondhand smoke on my Witty such that no secondhand smoke may be ected on any el other than the parcel upon which my facility is located. signature: �r?. a_ Date: A. , The °owner of record' of the property or an aullwrtwd agent must sign this Application. Signing the application under Section -10 means that the applicant carfiro , under penalty of perjury, that the kftnnation Provided within file Al*tcadOn and its attacturrents Is true and correct: Per NBMC §20.90.030.C, fake statements are grounds for denial or revocation. B. The Applicant acknowledges that he or she must comply with all other Federal, State. and local laws and regulations relating to this use, The Applicant understands that a violation of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations is grounds for revocation of the Permit The Applicant understands and acknowledges that it Is against C89icmia law to provide treatment (as defined) in an unlicensed faclity. C. it the City issues a Use Permit based on the kdmmation provided in this Application, the Applicant's signature below oardfies his or her agreement to comply with the terms of the Use Permit. The understands and ackfamledges that nom-OormPliamce with the terns of the Use Permit k APP�nt Pilo grounds far revocation of the Revocation of the Use Perot. NBMC §20.96.040.E provides that the City can revoke a Use Penh it • The Permit was Issued under erroneous information or misrepresentation, or • The applicant made a fake or misleading statement of material fact, or omitted a material fact: or • The conditions of use or other regulations or laws have been violated; or • There has been a discontinuance of use for 180 days or more. THE UNDERSIGNED ASSURES THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD HIS OR HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER ANY USE PERMIT ISSUED BASED ON THIS APPLICATION. A. ff the epplcarrt is a sole proprietor, the appikartion shall be sgned by fns proprietor. B. If the apPlk"ri ts a perhrarshIR the application shall be signed by each partner_ C. If the appiloard is a firm, association, corporation, county. city, public agency or other govemmentel entity, the application shag be signed by the chief socuMre officer or the individual legally responsible for representing the agency. El YS 00132 YELLOWSTONE BOARD RESOLUTION: THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT AGREEENT AND ENDORSEMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF YELLOWSTONE FOR THE FOLLOWING: DIL A.M. THAMES IS THE CEO OF THE BOARD AND AGREES TO REPRESENT YELLOWSTONE IN ALL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. SHE WILL SIGN ANY AND ALL FINAL AGREEMENTS- IN ATTORNEY ISAAC ZFATYv WILL PROVIDE LEGAL REPRESENTATION ALL MATTERS IN THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LEISHA MELLO, AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR YELLOWSTONE WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. THESE AGREEMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS ARE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS OF JULY 1, 2008. R nii LISA TUMAN YS 00133 av: ra YELLOWSTONE P PAO 3TATROFCM1PORNIA FIRE SAFETY INSPECT M REQUEST drOIMa 4"0441 ra4N0Y OONTARlNNI! . _ aMQTabilGbdlRlQil n7YB/'$@• nLL0' MGNENUN4g1 - RMUMDA79 m mtwpAm "NAWst!'— " a — L MGV[RCOOC — — _....._.,.... — ........._.__... — LAGwmcy IEk74T.�MQ%4 of Aloaleel +D vg Programs f t t. 0lMSINAL &PR NAME AND L«dH61NJ AVJ C f u g l Tov, � 2 2• AL A.UR ADDRESS — —.. TO DE COMP48TE0 DY WSPECITM AUnMny — -- 1� � aa,R�NClmeNlMaoD4 A11 FIRE Orl"%Ov Ceum+y Are A vtlwr*i I cODp MAMM AND 87 7&vr Gy , PhWCLVAPAMM AODREaa CL Me MEOW= ' Also Vse�o r OA 4265fe :M . Fars agNMRUaNON waneGl'aRaww'4l+ ee >nhwa ••.— �'•�_.. C, FM HARM +II ( INS NUNaeN1r OCCUY,wCYClAS! O• ®P,a�Ma&R! Iwo4cnoNOAre •. ... N7®lICTdP VwTuNE - .••._•- •_�•. - -- - -- J t 0% PbINOBNWONIHTap00N100N01TI0Na- •- •` --.-. �- ...._..._.. _..... G. O$KR 02 YS 00134 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ��4 cpP"F Supplemental Information for Reasonable Accommodation Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 To aid staff in determining that the necessary findings can be made in this particular case as set forth in Chapter 20.98 of the Municipal Code, please answer the following questions with regard to your request (Please attach on separate sheets, if necessary): Please see attached sheet Name of Applicant If provider of housing, name of facility, including legal name of corporation (Mailing Address of Applicant) (City/state) (Zip) ('Telephone) (Fax number) (E -Mail address) (Subject Property Address) Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 1. Is this application being submitted by a person with a disability, that person's representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability? 2. Does the applicant, or individual(s) on whose behalf the application is being made, have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? If so, please state the impairment(s) and provide documentation of such impairment(s). Page 1 of 3 YS 00135 Application Number 3. From which specific Zoning Code provisions, policies or practices are you seeking an exception or modification? 4. Please explain why the specific exception or modification requested is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 5. Please explain why the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of the individual with a disability. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 6. Please explain how the individual with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation? Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 7. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary to make your facility economically viable in light of the relevant market and market participants. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 8. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary for your facility to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting taking into consideration the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. Page 2 of 3 YS 00136 Application Number 9. Please add any other information that may be helpful to the applicant to enable the City to determine whether the findings set forth in Chapter 20.98 can be made (Use additional pages if YS 00137 Page 3 of 3 1561 Indus Attachment Name of applicant: Yellowstone, Woman's First Step House, Inc., 1561 Indus St., Santa Ana Heights, CA 92701; Phone: 888.941.9048; Fax: 949.646.5296; APN: 119 - 361 -08. I. This application is provided by a provider of housing for individuals with a disability. 2. The individuals are alcoholics. 3. Single family residence to multi- family residence. 4. The applicant provides the residents of the Property with housing where same is otherwise unavailable to them. Most residents are long -term residents who are able to live with their disability, and in a sober environment, as a result of the provision of the facility by the applicant. The success of sober living homes in assisting these disabled individuals throughout the United States is well documented. Similar success has been realized at the Property addressed herein. A sample of the literature on sober living homes was attached to the original application. Without the home addressed in this application, the individuals who live at this home would not have access to sober living homes, and would not be able to afford to live in such a home in Orange County. Yellowstone provides this home to satisfy the otherwise unaddressed need by these disabled individuals for an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. There is no question that, with their current use, this property affirmatively enhances the lives of many individuals with disabilities. Importantly, the rent charged to these individuals simply covers Yellowstone's costs; no profit is realized. In fact, without charitable contributions, Yellowstone would operate at a loss. By no means is Yellowstone, or any individual involved with Yellowstone, a profiteer. Yellowstone simply makes available a sober living environment in an effort to help these disabled individuals, and with a view toward enhancing the community. To the extent that Yellowstone is forced to remove its operations from this property, it will suffer extreme economic hardship. Moreover, with any prospective closure of the property as a sober living home, the individuals with disabilities who live in the home will be without accommodation. Yellowstone is compliant with all of the requirements in the City of Newport Beach's Good Neighbor Principles, and is tenacious in ensuring that all residents at the Property strictly observe these requirements. Approval of this application would not alter the nature of the municipal code or impose any financial or administrative burden on the City. This property has been operating under -$ese same general guidelines for years without imposing any burden upon the County or City. The residential character of the neighborhoods in which this property is located will not be altered in any way with the approval of this application. In fact, there is no non - residential use at the property. Moreover, there is no campus established through the grant of this application. Residents this property are not allowed at any of other property operated by Yellowston, and there are no functions that include all residents. Yellowstone has never been cited by any municipality at this property for any of the complaints set forth specifically in Ordinance 2008 -5, 1 YS 00138 Page 4, Paragraph 13. No health, safety or physical damage issues are presented with granting of these applications. 5. See response to No. 4. 6. See response to No. 4. 7. See response to No. 4. The applicant is not a developer. The applicant has operated at the Property for years and currently can afford this property. Due to the economic decline, and specifically as it pertains to residential housing, the forced sale of this property would cause an extreme economic hardship. 8. See responses to No. 4 and 7. 9. The applicant is a long - standing tenant in the community, and has had a presence in Santa Ana Heights for years. The applicant prides itself in acting as a good neighbor. As noted above, the applicant has an extremely high success rate in assisting disabled individuals live and integrate into Orange County. The applicant affirmatively enhances the lives of its residents. Any abatement of this facility would be harmful to the community. 2 YS 00139 November 7, 2008 PLANNING EPART TENT 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Fax: (949) 644 -3229 website: www.city.newoort -beach ca us YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. c/o Isaac R. Zfaty Davis & Rayburn, Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Dear Mr. Zfaty: Subject: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Use Permit No, 2008 -034 Property located at 1561 Indus Street I am writing as the City of Newport Beach's consulting case planner for this use permit application. This letter is a response to your letter dated August 22, 2008, in which you responded to the City's Notice of Incomplete Application dated June 19, 2008, and is also a follow -up to our October 8, 2008, meeting at the City. The City appreciates your responses and the opportunity to meet with you. However, at this time your application for Use Permit No. 2008 -034 for property located at 1561 Indus Street remains incomplete. As we discussed at our October 8"' meeting, the area of West Santa Ana Heights was formally annexed to the City of Newport Beach, effective January 1, 2008, and the Property located at 1561 Indus Street is therefore subject to the City's land use regulations, including the Residential Care provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). With respect to the items that continue to be deficient or missing from the use permit application submittal, please provide the following: A Preliminary Title Report that is less than 60 days old. This requirement is necessary to not only verify the ownership of record, but also will verify any deed YS 00140 restrictions (or lack thereof) such as CC &Rs that may place restrictions on the use of the property. 2. The site plan submitted does not appear to be accurately drawn when reviewing it against aerial photographs, and the site plan and floor plans are not drawn to scale. The site plan must show the property line dimensions, distance or setback from property lines to the building, usable outdoor spaces, and the location of driveways. The site plan must also include the property lines and building footprints on immediately adjacent parcels. The floor plans must provide an accurate count of bedrooms and number of bedstresidents within each bedroom, as well as all rooms intended for residents' use, and the location and dimension of the garage. 3. As noted at the meeting of October 8t' you are required to provide the City of Newport Beach Fire Marshal with a comprehensive code analysis prepared by a licensed architect. Requirements for the code analysis were provided to you at the meeting. However, should you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact Steve Bunting, Fire Marshal, at (949) 644 -3106. In addition, please provide the Fire Marshal with the year the home began to be used for sober living purposes. The plans that are required to be prepared for the code analysis may also be used to satisfy the requirement for a site plan and floor plans as noted above. 4. Please provide an explanation of the number of parking spaces provided on site and information regarding the maximum number of employees or others on site at any one time that will have autos. Include an explanation of the use of vans to transport residents to treatment facilities and other activities and provide a transportation route diagram. 5. You have discussed the unlicensed status of the Yellowstone facility at this address with our City Attorney's Office. Please review the Disclosure Statement and revise the licensing statement made in the application if necessary. 6. If certification specific to the type of facility is available from a governmental agency or qualified nonprofit organization, the facility shall receive such certification including without limitation, certification by Orange County under its Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification Program. Please provide evidence of any certifications held for this address. You also have requested information regarding the City's authority to impose an Application Fee of $2,200 and have asked for evidence of such City authority. Please note Section 20.90.030(D) (Application Filing) of Title 20 of the NBMC states that "Applications for discretionary approvals shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council." in addition, Chapter 3.36 of the NBMC provides the basis for recovering actual costs for application processing. YS 00141 On the basis of the foregoing requirements, you may wish to reevaluate and amend the Reasonable Accommodation application you have submitted with the use permit application. In addition, Item 2 on the Reasonable Accommodation supplemental form requests documentation of the disability for which the request for a reasonable accommodation is being made. That documentation has not been provided. Please provide documentation that the individuals on whose behalf the application is made are disabled under the governing law. The City leaves to the discretion of Yellowstone Women's First Step House and /or the individuals the nature of the documentation to be submitted. Understanding the concerns about privacy, the City will accept documentation disclosing only the person's first name or initials (with all other identifying information redacted). Please be advised that failure to obtain a use permit for the residential care facility use of the subject property shall render the use of property nonconforming. Nonconforming uses of property are subject to abatement, per Section 20.62.090 of the NBMC, and if the required use permit is not obtained by February 9, 2009, the use will be subject to abatement in accordance with the Code. City staff appreciates your continuing cooperation. However, we are unable to process your Use Permit application and Reasonable Accommodation application and schedule a public hearing until we receive the pending submittal items outlined above. Should you have questions regarding the aforementioned, please contact me at (562) 989-6664 or by email at dgbc@verizon.net. Sincerely, By i lam Cunningham Consulting Planner Cc: Janet Brown, Associate Planner Dr. Anna Marie Thames, Yellowstone Women's First Step House YS 00142 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEC 23 2008 D A V IV I.ZFAT Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH / >40115[ION /i Rn}v (pRIO RATION December 23, 2008 VIA FIRST C1.,ASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Z175.1 Re: Notice of Incomplete Application: Yellowstone - -1561 Indus Dear Ms. Brown: This firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ("Yellowstone "). We are in receipt of the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Incomplete Application dated November 7, 2008 in which the City asked Yellowstone to address six deficiencies in its Use Permit Application for 1561 Indus. Enclosed herewith is the documentation you requested. Below is a brief description of the enclosed materials. Preliminary Title Reports A preliminary title report for 1561 Indus is included. As requested, the preliminary title report is less than 60 days old. Site Plans The site plans for 1561 Indus show the property dimensions, setback from the property line to the buildings, useable outdoor space, and the location of driveways. The site plans also include the property lutes and building footprints on immediately adjacent parcels. Finally, the site plans include an accurate count of bedrooms in the home, the number of residents within each bedroom, the rooms intended to be used by residents, and the location and dimension of the garage. 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2628 - Fax 949.376.3875 info @clzaltorneys.coin wwwAzattorneys. corn YS 00143 Ms. Janet Brown December 23, 2008 Code Analysis A code analysis is provided herewith. The code analysis discusses the property, which is compliance with the R4 Building and Fire Code Requirements. Also, your November 7, 2008 letter requested that we provide the Fire Marshal with the year each of the homes began to be used for sober living purposes. Those dates are as follows: 1561 Indus — 2007 1621 Indus —2003 20172 Redlands — 2005 1571 Pegasus — 2005 Parking and Transportation The documentation enclosed provides the number of available parking spaces at 1561 Indus and the number of employees who park on site. Route maps from the home to treatment and from the home to St. John church are also provided. With respect to transportation to and from 1561 Indus, we would like to address variations in previous submittals that have since been resolved. Paragraph 12 of the Request for Reasonable Accommodation for 1561 Indus states that Yellowstone does not provide transportation. Though this is generally true, upon further review, we feel that it is important to note that the home provides some basic transportation to other non- Newport Beach facilities and to St. John church. Both locations are within ten minutes of the home and, as stated above, we have included route maps for your convenience_ Finally, the vans that transport the residents are not parked on site. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. Licensing Status As we have discussed, none of the four homes is ADP licensed. To the extent that any prior representations regarding ADP licensing were made, we have learned that same were incorrect. If you have any questions regarding this item, or need any further ;explanation as to the reasons for our error, we are more than happy to provide same. As we have never provided treatment in these facilities (nor represented that in any prior communication with the City), this does not represent a material change to our application. Certifications Enclosed is a copy of the certification for 1561 Indus. The home is certified as an Oxford Charter House. YS 00144 Ms. Janet Brown December 23, 2008 I hope that the enclosed materials complete Yellowstone's Application and clarify any ambiguities in our previous submissions to the city regarding 1561 Indus. As always, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY, a professional corporation NICOLE COHRS YS 00145 YELLOWSTONE -1561 INDUS 1. Preliminary Title Report 2. Code Analysis 3. Parking and Route Maps 4- Certification Uarr,:O QY PIANMN3 DEPARTMENT GEC 29 1LqG9 41' �r ;' OF NNTORT BEACH YS 00146 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY PRELIMINARY REPORT In response to the applicationfor a policy of title insurance referenced herein, Fidelity National Title Insurance Company hereby repo is that it is prepared to issue• or cause to be issued as of the date hereof, a policy or policies of title insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein kereimt$er set fort!& insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defers lien ar encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception herein or not excluded from coverage parseamt to de primed Schedules, Conditions and Mpulanons or Comfitums of said policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exehmons from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks ofsaidpdicy or policies are set forth in Attachment One The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shag be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Rfsks aMbeable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of Tide Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit ofLiabilfty for certain coverages are also set forth in Attachment Ore. Copies of the polky forms should be read They are available from the q#ke which issued this report This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of farrlitadng the issuance of a policy rf title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance afa policy of tide insurance, a Birder or Commitment should be requested The polky(s) of title insurance to be issued hereunder will be polo y(s) gjrhWeliy National Tide Insurance Company. Please read tike cmephi ms shown or rgWvv d to herds and the exaepdons out exclusions sd fart& In Attachment One of this nrpmi cargltlbt The excepdons and erdusfos are meaad to pruvlde you with Nadler of mutCns whirl► are not cove ed under the terms of the dde hcawaurpoiky and should be carefk* cousidexal It Gs important to note that this preliminary report is not a wrluen nyvesentadon as to the condWair of d& and um not Gist all Bear, defects and eactunbmncer affecting d ile to ike lend Dated. 11/18/2008 Pip 1 of 15 Fidelity Nad&W 711k lasemnee Coa"W sr.• geld, ATr58T CLTA Mirniomy Report Pam - Modified (11117M6) YS 00147 PRELIMINARY REPORT Loan No.: THAMES Title No: 1763946 -1 Rate: $625.00 PROPERTY ADDRESSAW1 INDUS ST, SANTA ANA, CA, 92707-6306 EFFECTIVE DATE: 1111812008 The form of policy or policies of the title insurance contemplated by this report is: American Lend Title Association Loan Policy 2005 with ALTA endorsement coverage 1. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: Fee Simple 2. TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: Anna Thames, an unmarried woman 3. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF TAX 10: 119-361-08 Pegs 2 of 15 CLTA Preliminmy RWn Form - Modified (11/17M) YS 00148 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT "A" All that certain parcel of land situate in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange and State of California being (mown and designated as follows: LOT 14, TRACT 4307, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 153,PAGES 18 TO 20 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. Being more fully described in Deed Doc: 2007 - 168889 dated 12/26/2006 recorded 3/15M007. Page 3 of 15 CLTA Pniirnhwy Repon Form • Modified (I 1117/16) YS 00149 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT "A" All that certain parcel of land situate in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange and State of California being known and designated as follows: LOT 14, TRACT 4307, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 153,PAGES 18 TO 20 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. Being more fully described in Deed Doc: 2007 - 166869 dated 12/26/2006 recorded 311512007. Pap 4 of 15 CLTA Reliminmy Report Fond - Modified (11/17!06} YS 00150 Title No: 1763945 -1 AT THE DATE HEREOF, ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AND EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The lien of supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, made pursuant to the provisions of Part 0.5, Chapter 3.5 or Part 2, Chapter 3, Articles 3 and 4 respectively (commencing with Section 75) of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California as a result of the transfer of title to the Vestee named in Schedule A; or as a result of changes in ownership or new construction occurring prior to the date of policy. 2. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exception in patents or in Acts au thorWrig the issuance thereof, (c) water rights, claims or We to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records. 3. A deed of trust to secure indebtedness in the original amount shown below. Amount: $553,000.00 Dated: 03/09/2007 Trustcr: Anna Thames Trustee: Recontrust Company, N.A. Beneficiary: MERS, Inc, as nominee for Countrywide Bank, N.A. Recorded: 03/15/2007 in Doc: 2007- 166870 Original Loan Number: none stated 4. A deed of trust to secure indebtedness in the original amount shown below. Amount: $158,000.00 Dated: 03/08/2007 Trustor: Anna Thames Trustee: Recontrust Company, N.A. Beneficiary: MERS, Inc. as nominee for America's Wholesale Lender Recorded: 03/1 512 0 07 in Doc: 2007 - 166871 Original Loan Number none stated Open Ended to $158,000.00. S. 2008120091st installment County Taxes are Paid in the amount of $4,349.17. Taxes accruing in the current year. Tax ID 119 - 351-08. NOTE: CONTACT LOCAL TAX AUTHORITIES FOR EXACT AMOUNTS DUE, PRIOR TO LOAN CLOSING. Exemption: WA Code Area: 07212 6. 2008/2009 2nd installment County Taxes are Open in the amount of $4,349.17 due 041100009. Taxes accruing in the current year. Tax ID 119301-08. NOTE: CONTACT LOCAL TAX AUTHORITIES FOR EXACT AMOUNTS DUE, PRIOR TO LOAN CLOSING. Exemption: N/A Code Area: 07212 7. 2007!20081 at & 2nd installment County Taxes and 20071 st and 2nd inst hents Supplemental Taxes are Delinquent in the amount of $12,315.74 plus interest and penalties. Taxes accruing in the current year. Tax ID 119361 -08. NOTE: CONTACT LOCAL TAX AUTHORITIES FOR EXACT AMOUNTS DUE, PRIOR TO LOAN CLOSING. Delinquent Real Estate taxes and any adverse effect upon the intent herein including but not limited to any tax sale occurring prior to or subsequent to date of final policy. Exemption: N/A Code Area: 07212 Page 5 of 15 CLTA PMiminery Repmf Foam - Modified (I IA 7M6) YS 00151 8. Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 9. Covenants, conditions and restrictions in the declaration of restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, martial status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law. Recorded: Book 437, Page 231, of Official Records Said covenants, conditions and restrictions provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value. Modification(s) of said covenants, conditions and restrictions Recorded: Book 5296, Page 239, of Official Records 10. Covenants, conditions and restrictions in the declaration of restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, martial status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law. Recorded: Book 5923, Page 378, of Official Records 11. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as disclosed by a document; Purpose. pole Ones and/or conduits and incidental purposes Recorded: Book 6009, Page 242, of Official Records Affects: The Northwesterly 6 feet of the land 12. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as disclosed by a document; Purpose: pole lines and/or conduits and incidental purposes Recorded: Book 6023, Page 2, of Official Records Affects: The Northwesterly 5 feet of the land 13. The effect of a Map purporting to show the herein described and other land recorded in Book 117, Page 5 of Record of Surveys. 14. Any restrictions covering the future use of the land, as disclosed by the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan recorded May 4, 1990 as instrument no. 1990 - 235869 of Official Records, covering the herein described and other land 15. The effect of a Map purporting to show the herein described and other land recorded in Book 138, Page 28 of Record of Surveys. END OF REMS Page 6 of 15 CLTA Preliminary RcW Fan -Modified (11/17/06) YS 00152 Tite No: 1763948 -1 The only deeds affecting said land, which recorded within twenty -four (24) months of the date of this report, are as follows: Grantor. Celia Johnson, a widow Grantee: Anna Thames, an unmarried woman Recorded: 0311512007, Doc: 2007 - 166869, of Official Records 2. There is located on said land a Single Family residence, known as: 1581 INDUS ST, City of SANTA ANA, County of ORANGE, and State of California. 3. Amended Civil Code Section 2941, which becomes effective on January 1, 2002, sets the fee for the processing and recordation of the reoomrey and recordation of the reconveyance of each Deed of Trust being paid off through this transaction at $45.00. The reoonveyance fee must be dearly set forth in the Bensfiderys Payoff Demand Statement ( "demand"). In addition, an assignment or authorized release of that fee, from the Beneficiary to the Trustee of record, must be included. An example of the required language is as follows: 'The Beneficiary identified above hereby assigns, releases, or transfers to the Trustee of record, the sum of $45.00, included herein as a Reconveyance Fee, for the processing and recordation of the Reconveyance of the Deed of Trust securing the indebtedness covered hereby, and the escrow company or title company processing this pay -off is authorized to deduct the Reconveyance Fee from this Demand and forward said fee to the Trustee of record or the successor Trustee under the Trust Dead to be paid off in full" In the event that the reconveyance fee and the assignment, release or tfan9fer thereof is not included within the demand statement, then Chicago Title Company may ded'me to process the reconveyance and will be forced to return all documentation directly to the Beneficiary for compliance with the requirements." 4. The current owner does not qualify for $20.00 discount pursuant to the coordinated stipulated judgments entered in actions filed by both the Attorney General and private loss action plaintiffs for the herein described property. 5. Properly dratted and executed ownees affidavit from Anna Thames, and spouse, if any. 6. Record instruments conveying or encumbering the Mate or interest to be insured, briefly described: Properly drafted and executed Deed of Trust from Anna Thames, and spouse, if army, to Lender to be determined, securing a lien in the amount of $400,000.00. NOTE: Marital status must be stag on the Deed of Trust Document. ANY DEED PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS TRANSACTION MUST INCLUDE THE RELATIONSHIP OF GRANTOR AND GRANTEE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF TRANSFER TAXES, IF ANY. END OF NOTES Par 70f is CLTA Fmfimmary Report Form - Modifed(i V17/U6) YS 00153 Notice You may be entitled to receive a $20.00 discount on escrow services if you purchased, sold or refinanced residential property in between May 19, 1995 and November 1, 2002. If you had more than one qualifying transaction, you may be entitled to multiple discounts. If your previous transaction involved the same property thet is the subject of your currant transaction, you do not have to do anything; the Company will provide the discount, provided you are paying for escrow or title services in this transaction. If your previous transaction involved property different from the property that is subject of your current transaction, you must inform the Company of the earlier transaction, provide the address of the property involved in the previous transaction, and the date or approximate date that the escrow dosed to be eligible for the discount. Unless you inform the Company of the prior transaction on property that is not the subject of this transaction; the Company has no obligation to conduct an investigation to determine if you qualify for a discount. If you provide the Company information concerning a prior transaction, the Company is required to determine if you qualify for a discount. Pap S of 15 YS 00154 Request for $20.00 Discount — CA Settlement Use one form for each quedifying property. To: Fidelity National Title Insurance Company Date: From: name Current Address: I believe that I am qualified for the $20.00 discount p ursua.nt to the coordinated stipulated judgments entered in actions filed by both the Attomey General and private class action ptantifs. I have not previously received a cash payment or a discount from another Company on the property described below. Signed: Date: Address of qualifying property: Approximate date of transaction: THIS SECTION IS FOR TITLE DEPARTMENT USE ONLY. OR The above referenced party is entitled to receive a $20.00 discount on escrow services ortitle insurance pursuant to the coordinated stipulated judgments entered in actions filed by both the Attorney General and private class action plaintiffs. The above referenced party does NOT qualify for the $20.00 discount pursuardto the coordinated stipulated judgments entered in actions filed by both the Attorney General and private class action plaintiffs for the following reason: The party has previously received credit for the transaction described above. The transaction described above did not occur in the time period allowed by the stipulated judgments — May 19, 1995 to November 1, 2002. Title Department plisse fax your responseto: EscmwNo: Escrow Officer: Fax Number. Pap 9 of r5 YS 00155 ATTACHMENT ONE Order No: 1763948 -1 RESEIENMLTITLE INSURANCE POLICY(S.t.TS1) EXCWSIONS eaddfontothe Brcptlau In Schedule a, you am net accred against loss. woes. 3. Ttle Refs: aaomeyftau.and res�d�rofrom: or 1. Bowrerhwai paean po and 1M s:isknae a •idalon of any kr a This Includes budding .rice am reared. al lamed. aagmed a by ym .rich me brown to u. but rot O us. on fa poll OsuNen 1My gov nmem rpriulkn. and seeing admncu and shim bus and mQuIM6ns offiWdrg: appeasdinthe reccede . fHt mskIn nousm7=u . �ngsoro�v See ssoetheland . /m ft ■fhot Toe able war the M Daa1 -Ids does rat gob is kba and maWWyescouwageinlem0ofObesadTllkRhin dixiam 4. Fairampayvdue Arparitle. . enoimnsrsal In m This esq�c a does Emsct �pfr to uydolaaroor�s,qr s��scea mfommae of these shoe dtOloresw riffpwroydae. 5. lahofadilht: bata� land outside the ones speddoaoy, denied mind retained m k tem3 SdeulWA raters mkulh This see -- does imt fmtthe wring coverape desalbad in Ems 12 and 13 of Coamd Talk tifa. of a in streets, adeye.awawwale riatouoh yarene 2. Tho dgltmt MiM lured pbaaoor4ew og a, uuless This exclusion does not owl b access: couaage n ham 5 of Covered Thk • anadmofuaoWrbig dpdappeasinthepub5a recadsmlm Ploy Risks. Dam • bought the and wthrA W odp ofrie*sldrg s ding m you of pu m�d poky - In addition to 64enBC&A ens. Gyou an ns Eyed agdnse kM Costs, akmeW II- A iYddg�pl1ssss,, irdor *=w S d parties th possslm oftM ued not shown hythepaao records. 2. Anyeasements a tam not shown �byhthepiep o maards. This does not don the clan cuvwagee ban 6 of Cover - U%N a. 3. AnyAotsaboMlMked which a anedson l�ereW dkdoseandshidcaanot Awn byvtMCpmgrep meads. This does non does Me forced mss oomage 4. �waier�d�ir ad>d�ihwaaW, to vow in aundathe lsq. MhMaor not 9wrn bytho pubbtwin . CA UFORNdt LAND TRLE A SSOCLATION STANDARD COVERA GE POLICY -1 IMO EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE aid eft C- we mtl ewe ksons a�daesgi, ooW. alformyWlees�o�r xi m{as�ea pul�Wln ass bremsm of wane y� n� I. ttrNkel io �dpg sod s«h�ing lwr, ' cal " . «m la wd�m: repu�d.l we nso 8lcmdon any X ua,a seeVorlle aBM hod the wharecla.dmendoma cakes arty rem ahoreabr ereoed on the IaW On] a separlm in o a a vMhga in she dinwciaesaam ofrie7anda hrpeed of which IaWlsawasa Vat ar 6y emoonunswaa P'cmo§' `n'�satin spar of any Yotadon Mthoas mass. 4. a8naresordo.srsrsmityulriom . earut San atattlata cc Of1M meaormm sreetlr'er de a ncesowm of a deLdd hn a «wrrbrana nasudrg iEm��paoa a iOnle, wy. afewbq rie band has bash remMed hn tM V) ArN Pans not nnWMdba(a]abova wao"toria 8. ewers thin a notice of a away thereof a a nbtfbi o} a delaos, den or awaMrance —uNn Iona *Wm walloped YoY1m afNstkp rie land 8. hawbeenrecordedin are pWeteace at DeeefPpoaft t. Rkhts of asabwt do wins ma'oe of rie eratoTre ta-W has hesn 3. of Palo% but EXCEPTIONS CFRD4 COVERAGE Thin pefkydoesnot Ines agairot loss ordamapebndthe Corrpwnysgl rest payoeabs, aftomew fees a espenss) whkh aces bymum of PART 1 1. Tian orwassmmu which are not shown asexis ing Mns byt d aeon* of ii no aulhortylm lushes tease a assesamees an n! WoPmy a by the Feel meads. Proceedings bye phLto agemy wbkh mdynrsa a saes aisssrmss.ornotices of sudn yawed r.W. mMlna a not shown by five, e[eorI ofshphagencyorbyTepWEO road s. 2. Asy fools. dodo, Interests a teens which myh �sees fawn by the phPoBo tembe -,� pa�epos,,,dmtthmoreof o}fM echo ashioh lathe rat dodoposs" in mdl6gon moth s M does the accused amaYrhad 3. 6semem. des or aoaroraaes, aotak"thaeof. not sown bythe pubto rowds. 4. Dlsorppar�s aangim a boundary iss. �hpppp in ar. mru a any mho LIlS winch a I survey aphid 5wdese. and w as let gown by" Maio heoaW. 5. (a) IApaersd iming class; (b) nooeres ku a ewndons in ahem a in Pas aWwizig fie issuance thenot(e)wamr' dens ortEkmwar, whaha a not des makrs excepted user (a1. Nj6 W(c) a s shown bythe pheSo meads. Page 10 of 15 Atlacknmt Owe (1 a /17/06) YS 00156 ATTAC" ENT ONE Order No: 1763948-1 (CONTINUED) AN ERICAN LAND TITLE A SSOCM,TION LOAN PO UCY(1417.82) WffHA LE %CLUB ON &Fin YCOVERA OEVERRlAIDE simb0 haeirh a6b aa fro street iltpm>ee can ts HWW oaubotlan afth (j( M�loDsls ad mg whkhwoW not base been suasinedMLe hvWo5aperhad paidiue WttAin Mddrlplpp 0- _ 4. face of fw insured a am of Poly, a No Itabil a Was of my albagiaa owner of fis tWet[ednen. b aonoly all applbtle doing bWaa IwsoftM sloe in wlddh fiedhdis dnmmed e. inaldlysunahbroe>ORyottlagaofdhe !moped mortpge;orobinihereo6 wlaob antes OW olfa twaitlfah 016, d bflrrthe burned and Is bamd�rppoanrh vturyoratyadaatw awdt pralaWOn wvwh kl 8. Am solitary Sin W io tloa, boor or rrhrtaWa (or the dafn .. pdalty of 7. Iih ddm mhtch aisws um of the traraaMn araatig the "recast flamed by INS selb, by meson of the Oder+ as as resat Imifts offi resdei to moat nabs as a FaHmsar W +aim a s The abmpolytammaybekaadtoafladeMw SbrAwd Cooempsarg- IdConerape baddlontotMabows Tadusionsfrom Coroamage. tMam" detmfan CovmpebaamWad CmmpepgywilolahWudafae "Wry Bredafan Co rdW: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVENR OE Tics polydoss not ethos Spina loss adarnage (fmthe Canponyu g tat payouts, abamays' fen a eperaas) wrddh add byrasan at 1. TTnogg crrp t�whiichhmanot shown wea80nglHnbytM nmoNsof 3. �anw�. Sens w encumbrances, or not shown bythe publo tnd Pula �!i arasuarytabya pvbllo vaom�toe�: p�r� Olaf waoerly ar by 4, 1Bp0f� odes, aoM� � bowndaN kw. p� In ar -. aaeaohmank.or a assaatmas,er Mkesofsud�pp!rooneedr�s,rhehrornottMshowa tali s which a eared suney waidd il,"I . and which are nae reoamrk otsu�dh a�g�enoYabythepsaI records. shown bbyyfdlhra puhlkreoorrk. 2. Any bas, -hick heerna a obimhs which are not dawn by iw gmi'w f. (a) Unpteamed wiring claims: (6) rwnrhatda a eaoaadens in gales H records haw could be asccvtaihed by an ir�edkn offs Wd a a" in Ads nUhod*gihekswmafwaoE �)wata'��s dsbrus inRlefowaaer. maybe anakd byD� b D wlhdlw H cot da meths eaospaad Wider (s), 11 a (*)am shown bythe polo remMs. 2=AMERICRN 4FL194APAPOMW APOU"('748) The blowing motors am expressly eadnded tom She coverage of fiis poSM and the Co any w• nor pay loss a damage. outs. asormheys' foes. or enpaws that arka byxrwason of: Any law. Maumee. petrol. or seumnental readmh Ondudho tbowe the Homed 4. IAionlomoEtiYOltia lo� oftlre taaaed Ai"ohgpge beHaa offie bhtmay ur Mum of as Rgarad b eonptrrMh applcabk ~udlresa bows of fie std u fiesubwslon A lwd:H Hnbaranaaa �ma�on• d. 5 whareia iandksWulad. bmNbyarunentmabis"whok abh pat ofdaIwo Ala MaedRbmp�gt or fee stmt of Wry curiae elm war, adman, or ac,Mar Rr" to Mon cut of fa trnaaofen "dam bythe Mod ana ■ reiptaa�d � s 6� does not mod,* a b* the message g bpehyad unnyorttryewohspuarawy erect priodaanoa orrafaWA kw. olRwMS.tlattMinnSw L)I, �co governments 1 $1) doe not modify or rd ln�9aHi�it�oes'd awWiglM Swan otthe MuwHd rE> dWpolespower. Z. Rights of a twe QOM. This &rMdwh don rot modtj H ird she Covred iMmN7er8. t a waaf oopann�aeyfa�aaaaHtauAikrdtrahs�rerer H ) rhdaaed)n Cowed Rats l3�)eftHs aowagepovdo haWr 3. ots,raa, memMashas, drowse HyhH matli s� -r nata Mhowntofa eraprw m rho Inand C4irers: 7. CWnh th R rdo tt Uxu al a�aattaaarwaytearon OP�yY Ay Ean on the 7Rk ter rem nlar tams H aaasnsas irrooad by �erareraa auto rRy ant wwaasd or auohkp 6wren Oar of POI aid dublo loco Krornto7 who (7aRrrt and fanpa byy fie Magid Chances date Maid d r m ftw�' calk es Covered (Oslo y pia to the the Chandrl became an bawec under" Poky; 6 pion ihardm IM pra r� 110). The abeyepdaayxfurtn maybe issued to atbrd otlw 8dhdad Cows" H Ehaended Cewa". In wddbnto*4 obam FxdLt*m tom Coweq.the Elorptiom fan Coymlp a a SmWmd Coverage pallywilaim indwde fie bEoadnp BDwdaa tom conga: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERA OE T1hk pofeydus mtihamn agent inner damage Cocottes CanparrywM oat payaob, aomegs' Ms er npamaQMat ads bymaason cit. 1. (aa))v Towner �a�rshyedtsyah�ntlNatds not shown aass mexisiin Have "oraaads6off 3. the'Publl Raaordd; (b) to puDpoalsmhurfim�taet 4' Edatenmar� Yem a ncm.mdrahces. a alagmthmot, mr 9harn bytlo Phhlo lotenc °'roamtlon.aadhaave drourrdha a asJtlwrmenb, ern ore OproroWedmhq�.r a shown fie records WaWh apmayabyf ;w A1cohW. by > 110 TMethe woutl d dkdosed art a0aW8a and rxxnpkk dad 2. Mybas, ,l Heraeaass,, arddmatha we oat sloven bytM Pubfw RwoNS g• but trig emasawtaira4 by in Land do be arm [v)Ubpftrftd nNNig�akas: Shown pj�rarws�e oni arsa�or0 as in p�m or an -trod— ofthe a nay asserted yptrsonsinpoasessiat ofthe IarW. in AdsadladrMpfiaksann Mreot (o)wrtHm s.chins ortRktoratH, ar n ya ratom excepted under (a), (b) a (o) we shown bythe Page 11 of 15 Auschment Ono (1 II17") YS 00157 ATTACHRUNT0NE Order No- 1763948 -1 (coNNN1E 0) AMERICAN to NO TITLE A SSOCIATION OWNERS POLICY (10.17.52) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE TM !1 a — _nrtt•a �a^ 4sFSlu � tom t " raye W tli= 3. I. 2. or YtlmG tMiMm 4. byd)abw. esoeptto M• Coverage. b addlionto fm -, Theabove 13whrstars tom cooveraSs,tAe�Eweptara from CowFnp llna StatdaddCCoutrago pafgrw atsood Include the fafowing Boceptions front Coverage: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE lids pokydoes rat insure Mftsttoss w da^ag• (andthe CmnpmywM not Pry ooae.ataneys fwswaxpws;es)whieh ads• byrasson of 1. Tneworaasseess wnidrarenulnanaseiisfhg Seas pya reoatdsat 3. Elsrarria.Senswerramharce & oraatmsto (latshewnbydrepul& anyfaMn3 wan= lodes taxes w assesvrra� m IJYI orty w by nomda. M•srLlls noordL iYmoadobgsbya�pWfea areVwh6dr marrwtent6m}s 4. Obmvbafrehs. con9asn ba.daryfn•s.sfwr�sbft aLarpl araaamnwas. or orarp�tloaanrdes�arym�dras taw» _s. +rMalrerwnupsylrodaenhYm• �aynmyUapinhpor tots which a owed rurvey, would dls}a[N6• and of" ant not 2. but wNdr mWd D• a9oatdnad b � ya�sn� ®noaBton olHrne tiM w wh'dr g .6- Aotsh>�� i �s Ihemot dddrr°rtp)�9 = or tilla y maybe awrMd bypers0lair posxssimthweoi. the public reesrds. 2006 AMERICAN LA NO TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNERS POLICY (06 -17 -06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAOE Eluded •am lie towage of tV011% V danrape, owes. awm s, x1110 our Mry �� don leas. odg11ara I or at co ertge ns. 1Eftltl•Idl ) dws ram modify w SrM M wwege 4. Any Sovemenerdd�ailscPoolic�e eraCge. This Erduslon l0))do•sda FrO ft or 2. T ®o re damwin. We Erolur;mn� not modify ar Wit the courageFppddad undvCowad Nsk 7 w B. 3. Gallas. fens. emum6raroes. adsase oamw. or offer noon 5. The abme polloytammybalswed w afDrdgMwSondadCover4e"SMWGdCovwqe.lDzdmmt0ftabOWD E4ckelaa ecm Cowwpe,Me Elmepsimafttm Courage In a Sprrdwd towage poegrwa akc eofuda the follwing Eiaptionsfam CoverAp: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE TMs polloydoes btu Nsue upinst loss or dampa(andthe C4mpanywiF nw pay amps. a omW fps era>pnses)that Oda byreason Of. 1. EA T% are not lawn as0y�ya I�a�sbgtln recwdsof 3. 6pmr sw Yens or encumhsawe or clalmstreo( not shown bYthe Put is reasor tar*i ohrealpmpart wbytre Paris Records; Qi yro�op8 by a my y� in saes 4. enaoadanem enorsrbra ce v1daion wirtm, w advasa dice rwas w a6esana•R holotl o�aaA .anNhar w�iar "Q T�da thrt.rre./d be at aow&2� Mrd 00mpla• low mcei oo'lrardwsAsa�mYwbY dM�ru l,mnyrla �b _aivandr�apMn�id�elrMt den net e�nt�laaPAUVNT Reoo sdrd�sm4 2 Ma co�id bi�flaso> bye � m of tlu laM air tlr maybe 6. iar s hwdv nel/Niirutanoe in poaa (cc) wau�a(W Me snow^ by INS to the Public RwoNs. Page 12 of 15 Attadmtmt Ora (11/17106) YS 00158 ATTACNAIRN T O N E Order No: 1763948 -1 (CONTINUED) [1 ] ALT�AI HOMEOWNERSP �f��YNUF I�RLE IHBURIAIHCE [10.�22A�8J haddlontothe Bweptiamin Schedule 9, You aenorbreed agvna bas, oasts.>YtdtleYf fries,and ar"UhIngtorrl: 1. Oovememrtd police power, and ltd eBMume or dotdm of any lea or 4. Rslim �wranuladon This kreWdes rdhames, lams and ngrOtbns a. Man rnarna wd.rapnedm by You.ahMrrar nottAny appear in b_ lialt aS�NnownmoYsoi:llymm PoPoYyale, htrmtm Us. miessfierappaw a. lrld o. tlgt Yrmuhln nCOOb�sasdbgTge�l�; orPomY�' d. i is ovnaal�axMan 6 dfyl�re�to beydeIn CO r Tar Tdk over . 722.23. 24r A. rrr dnd the cowJOe eaduoffie.vahlmn�orenbrcemark appeasrhaTMpem sMT e. laokefa npic rYdesodbed and nMredm In call TTls don not Amt Ins courage demlmd in Covered 10dr 14, 15, 18, b. n sllea ate)s, r aanma+p fiaaudrUo laid. eL This E>c4nim donrmtOrtthe eoreragedetor- in (oumd lilsk 11 or 18. 3. T1Cedgiat afe irs"GdSYghtappaSq-incha a. D e afiengbrappe:sshlM PubBO iteoards atthe Poky , b. th Uk happened beLretlnl PoiorOagaW Is pin6p on You If You gm�ee o}Bm.taan8- LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RIS 98 Yorhsname lorfi® blombg Coned Alsks b IrMed ohflr antis Coverage SCItemwr n follows: • For Corned Risk 14. 16. 16and 18, Your Omudble Arouta d Our klmb m DEAN Link of UaMkyshonn In 11"WeA, thededucible arrount, arW madrum dOAa drown on Safeties Am as fallows: Y47tAmNEi Covered R9r 14: LEMISrPaAgrAlmrs S101DOOA $1yy,65pppp�9pp or ,1 m1mmIs less) Cowed Fisk I& 1.00TOfpehdvmmrd 82818090 or 8isloss) Cowed Fl* It 190 %of PolicgAmoun 825DOOD111 6 or S(ia7siirvb�pD�pp rls lns) Cowed Fisk 18: 1.0011 of PoliatiAmwrt 85,000.06 a S oowlsk+sSj ALTA EXPANDED JPAMtAERESIOMETTbA %khRtjPOLIMl101`IlMl) �A2inan�a6�aproul0ed uqr Govem 8.10; ram"'. ;72.T.I. r{e�).r�askaV nnloossdor d�tl�A ltugee�ow" mold note hisixie been sum iflie 4. �fU�AmsareeMoraeOabr+lolfedd Aaetnpof�lM Ins ��yge�dwtuseorotlfire.a�oi} V r paOSeg erhe �nr of fielnMy�ebye} la�dmis mrnPMpym�lmUie6= da v g. dh�cvaein f,Ylha�wen�r�fiv of 1M *aslnrnooyfdtlm Codsnd�ary micle and Ins the u ffddaa no law. In a- Real pro" tarn or a mossmams of Uary gownime l alt aft which becQ�mr�eeadenonM lawse�geperrotrmrmpfa�Oert�e4l Pmdduden does 7. lofglaMrel�ao�aotendUwmu modld�oadofkl o kil of the exclusion does not Vnift The 8. lack of errwde aka WfiOreot Pofa %ad a0 nra�s 0 d��eon, when, Wes Ij: and oahr netts afleainq da tre,1M aaistvme of serab an nto n re a: TMatlm:I'lhe �6ldirm�o is made to toned terms rooffeto fared stitch resWtonaot are irodACa�61 t�raroi a hafva logo Ir =12 rtEoadco, Thle emkdan donna Nrit fa oowape prodded h Corned 8. TM }adun of the mddatlN 9psoma. rP1v portion tkaaef re have been Page 13 of 15 YS 00159 Fidelity National Financial, Inc. Privacy Statement Fidelity National Financial, Inc and its subsidiaries CFNFJ respect the privacy and security of your non - public personal information ( "Personal Informationj and protecting your Personal Information is one of our top priorities. This Privacy Statement explains FNF's privacy practices, including how we use the Personal Information we receive from you and from other specified sources, and to whom it may be disclosed. FNF follows the privacy practices described in this Privacy Statement and, depending on the business performed, FNF companies may share information as described herein. Personal Information Collected We may collect Personal Information about you from the following sources: • Information we receive from you on applications or other forms, such as your name, address, social security number,tax identification number, asset information, and income information; • Information we receive from you through our Internet websdes, such as your name; address, email address, Internet Protocol address, the website links you used to get to our web des, and your activity while using or reviewing ourwebsdes; • Information about your transactions with or services performed by us, our affiliates, or others, such as information concerning your policy, premiums, payment history, information about your home or other real property, information from lenders and other third parties involved in such transaction, account balances, and credit card information; and • Information we receive from consumer or other reporting agencies and publicly recorded documents. D is dosure of Personal Inf srmallnn We may provide your Personal Information (excluding information we receive tom consumer or other credit reporting agencies) to various individuals and companies, as pemtifted by law, without obtaining your prior authorization. Such laws do not allow consumers to restrict these disclosures Disclosures may include, without limitation, the following: • To insurance agents, brokers, representatives, support organizations, or others to provide you with services you have requested, and to enable us to detect or prevent criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or nondisclosure in connection with an insurance transaction; • To third•pany contractors or service providers for the purpose of determining your eligibility for an insurance benefit or payment and/or providing you with services you have requested; • To an insurance regulatory authority, or a law enforcement or other governmental authority, in a civil action, in connection with a subpoena or a governmental investigation; • To companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or to other financial institutions with which we have joint marketing agreements; and/or • To lenders, lion holders, judgment creditors, or other parties claiming an encumbrance or an interest in We whose claim or interest must be determined, settled, paid or released prior to a title or escrow closing. We may also disclose your Personal Information to others when we believe, in good faith, that such disclosure is reasonably necessary to comply with the law or to protect the safety of our Privacy Statement Effective tote 5112008 Page 14 of 15 YS 00160 customers, employees, or property and/or to comply with a judicial proceeding, court order or legal process. Disclosure to Affiliated Companies - We are permitted by law to share your name, address and facts about your transaction with other FNF companies, such as insurance companies, agents, and other real estate service providers to provide you with services you have requested, for marketing or product development research, or to market products or services to you. We do not, however, disclose information are collect from consumer or credit reporting agencies with our affiliates or others without your consent, in conformity with applicable law, unless such disclosure is otherwise permitted by law. ❑isclosure to Nnnaffiliat,A,d Third Parties - We do not disclose Personal Information about our customers or former customers to nonaffiliated third parties, except as outlined herein or as otherwise permitted by law. Confidentiality and Security of Personal hal'ormadon We restrict access to Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard Personal Information. Access to Personal Information/ Requests for Correction, Amendment, or Delodan of Personal Information As required by applicable law, we will afford you the right to access your Personal Information. under certain circumstances to find out to whom your Personal Information has been disclosed, and request correction or deletion of your Personal Information. However, FNEs current poficv is For your protection, la 1 requests made under thin sa .tinn must he in wrifing and must includa ynur notarized signature to establish your identity. Where permitted by law, we may charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs incurred in responding to such requests. Please send requests to: Chief Privacy Officer Fidelity National Financial, Inc. 601 Riverside Avenue Jacksonville, FL32204 Changes to this Privacy Statement This Privacy Statement may be amended from time to time consistent with applicable privacy laws. When we amend this Privacy Statement,we will post a notice of such changes on our website. The effective date of this Privacy Statement, as stated above, indicates the last tine this Privacy Statement was revised or materially changed. Privacy Statement Page 15 of 15 Effective Dais 5/1/2008 YS 00161 December 15, 2008 Mr. Steve Bunting Fire Marshall CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FIRE AND MARINE DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca 92658 -8915 RE: Yellowstone Recovery ( "Keystone Manor" Residence) Coda Analysis For The Existing Building Dear Mr. Bunting, Alfred I. Boder, Architect has been contracted by Yellowstone Recovery to review details of their existing building, titled "Keystone Manor ", located at 1561 Indus Street, Santa Ana, Ca 92707. Yellowstone Recovery intends to change the use of the building from a single - family residence to a Residential Facility for the non - medical rehabilitation of drug abuse and alcoholism. we have surveyed the existing building and the summary of our findings and conclusions are as follows: A. The existing building was constructed in 1961, and was built as a single - family residence, occupancy type R -3. The building is a two -story structure with an attached garage. B. The building is set back from the front property line 26' -0". The side yard set back is 6' -0" clear on both sides of the structure. C. As the attached plans indicate, the residence is entered through the front door that faces the addressed street. The first floor consists of a living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, and two bedrooms. The second floor consists of four bedrooms, and two bathrooms. Based on this research, the following code issues are in compliance with the current code requirements of the California Building Code, CBC 2007. 01. Location On The Property: As indicated on the attached plans, the building setbacks for the side yards is five (12) feet from the property line. This distance includes the attached garage. Per CBC section 6, Table 602, the minimum fire separation distance is five feet. This setback is achieved to the property line and from the property line; the YS 00162 adjacent R -3 residence is also setback five (12) feet from the property line for a total of a ten (22) foot separation from the two buildings. Conclusion: The wall of the garage at the side yard'is not required to be of fire rated construction and there are no penetrations or openings in the attached garage wall. 02. Section 419. Group 1 -1. R -1. R-2, R 3. R-3.1, R4: 419.2, Separation walls. Section does not apply. Note that the common wall between the attached garage is of one -hour fire rated construction to the bottom of the roof diaphragm and there are no penetrations in this wall. 03. Section 4193. Horizontal Separation: This section does not apply per section 711.1. M floor area is less than three thousand (3,000) square feet and therefore a one -hour fire rated construction is not required. 05. Section 425.7. Fire Protection System provisions: Section 425.7.1, Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems. Per section 903.2.7, Group R, an automatic fire sprinkler system is not required per exceptions 1 and 3. Section 425.7.2. Fire Alarm Systems: Per section 907.2.8 an approved, hardwired fire alarm system is installed as required per section 907.2.8.2. Section 427.7.3. Smoke Alarms; Per section 907.2.8.3, battery Powered smoke detectors/alarms are installed in the required areas per section 907.2.10. Section 906.1. Portable Fire Extinguishers; Portable fire extinguishers are installed and located per the California Fire Code. 06. Chapter 10 Means Of Egress: Section 1006, means of egress illumination. There is illumination at the top, middle, and bottom of the staircase. Section 1009, Stairways; Per section 1009.1, exception 1, the staircase complies with the code requirement. YS 00163 I believe that this is a complete analysis of the code related items which apply to this building during the change of occupancy. Please call Anthony Grillo, my representative, at (949) 678 -3214 if you have any questions. Sincerely, i Attachments; Scale as -built plans YS 00164 PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION There is room for four cars to park on the property; however, residents are not permitted to park there. Only the house manager and assistant manager are permitted to park onsite. Thus, the maximum number of cars parked onsite at any time will be two. Most residents ride the bus and there is a bus stop located near the home. The home does not provide general transportation throughout Newport Beach and other neighboring cities. The home provides transportation to only two locations: the treatment facility and St. John church. Both are within ten minutes of the home. St. John is located at 183 East Bay Street in Costa Mesa. The treatment.. facility is located at 154 East Bay Street in Costa Mesa. Route maps from the home to the treatment facility and from the home to St. John church are attached. In the morning, residents are transported to either church or treatment. All residents are prohibited from being in the house between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Additionally, all residents must return to the house by 4 :00 p.m. Finally, the vans that transport the residents are not parked onsite. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. YS 00165 Directions to 154 E Bay St, Costa G`' Mesa, CA 92627 Maas ,8 1 2.5 ml - about 8 min: From HOME to TREATMENT http: / /maps. google.com/maps?f- d &saddr- 1561 +Indus +Street, +Santa +Ana +92707 &dadd... 12/11/2008 IWIlill 11-11 1 1561 Indus St, Santa Ana, CA 92707 1. Head southeast on Indus St toward Redlands Dr 90 194 ft total 194 ft �► 2. Turn; eight at lear;l� go 341 ft total 0.1 m r► 3. Turn right at Pegasus St go 0.1 mi 4. Tum lef.at lW �01.8'mt About 6 mins total 2.0 mi. rp 5. Turn right at E 21st St go 0.2 mi About 1 min total 2.3 mi #1, 6. Turn teS at f ► g OcYrAai .., 1421.2:4'mi . 7. Turn right at E Bay St go 0.1 mi Destination will be on the right total 2.5 m; 154 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction projects, traffic; weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map results, and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or notices regarding your route. Map data 02008 , Tele Atlas http: / /maps- google.com /maps ?f= d&saddr -1561 +Indus +Street, +Santa +Ana +92707 &dadd... 12/11/2008 YS 00167 Directions to 183 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 htivps 2.4 mi — about 8 mina From HOME to CHURCH titLvvr P, o �tR v Struf bilk a : 3 �•• 8� WJta Mesa_ VnAa,M at ., 4 pink R � 0 .9w ':4 micrc PeB f symc�r — Pxh''i http:H maps .google.com /maps ?mod &saddr =1561 +Indus, +Santa +Ana, +CA +92707 &daddy... 12/23/2008 YS 00168 1 1561 Indus St, Santa Ana, CA 92707 1. Head southeast on Indus St toward Redlands Dr go 194 ft total ty? it 2. Turn rift at Redlands: '.f t go 341 ft total 01 Mi 3. Turn right at Pegasus St go 0.1 mi koiai Q.2 :tti 4. Turn left at Santa Ana Aire go 1.8 mi th`lout 8 inin., total 2.0 rm P5. Turn right at E 21st St go 0.2 mi Aboui 1 min total 2.3 n?: 41 6. Turn left at Orange Ave goo. 1 rrd total 2.4 mi 7. Turn right at E Bay St go 223 ft Destinaiion will be cn the left 14 tnj 183 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 These directions are for planning purposes only, You may find that construction projects, traffic, weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map results, and you shoutd plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or notices regarding your route. Map daua : Oxford House, Inc. Hereby grants a conditional charter to: Oxford House — Keystone Manor Newport Beach, CA Oxford House — Keystone Manor may enjoy all the privileges of Oxford House as long as it adheres to the following three conditions: 1. The House must be self -run on a democratic basis; 2. The House must be financially self - supporting; and 3. Any resident who drinks alcohol.or uses drugs must be immediately expelled. Granted by Oxford House, Inc. this 1 st day of March 2007 Conditional Charter valid through June I, 2007 By: U Oxford House, Inc. Z! '01 ssassossbs auolsmorjaA YS 00170 January 21, 2009 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Fax: (949) 644 -3229 website: www.citv.newoort- beach.ca.us Davis & Rayburn, Attorneys at Law Attention: Isaac R. Zfaty 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Dear Mr. Zfaty: Subject: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Property located at 1561 Indus Street Use Permit No. 2008 -034 (PA2008 -105) The City of Newport Beach will proceed with the use permit application hearing for the above referenced property on Thursday, February 5, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. This will be a public hearing and will take place before a third -party hearing officer. The City has scheduled this hearing despite the fact that your use permit application remains incomplete. Please be advised that by scheduling your application for a public hearing, the City is not deeming your application complete. Thank you for your follow -up submittal dated December 23, 2008, and received by the City on December 29, 2008. After reviewing the re- submittal material, the following items are incorrect or otherwise incomplete: 2. 3. Please revise the site plan (Sheet A -1) to show the building footprints on adjacent parcels, including the distances of those improvements from the property lines. Please note that your original submittal included a site plan showing portions of adjacent structures, but those plans were not accurately drawn, not drawn to scale, and the dimensions indicated were in error. Please add the location of the driveway and the street curb line (as distinguished from the front property line) to the site plan. The plans are not consistent with respect to th e The number of beds shown is 15 (2 downstairs inspection of the property indicates that there downstairs and 10 upstairs). number of beds provided. and 13 upstairs), but a site are a total of 12 beds (2 YS 00171 Yellowstone Women's First Step House Page 12 4. Municipal Code Section 20.91A.050 (C.2) states that the maximum number of residents is restricted to a total of two per bedroom plus one additional resident, resulting in a total of 11 residents for this specific property. As related to the foregoing item relative to the inconsistency of the beds shown, please clarify the total number of residents in the dwelling. If it is proposed to exceed the maximum of 11 residents, a justification needs to be submitted (please refer to page 3 of the application for those items to be considered in determining if a different occupancy limit is to be considered). 5. The architect's letter dated December 15, 2008 is not stamped, and Item "C° on the first page references two bedrooms on the first floor; however the plans and site inspection reveal that there is only one bedroom on the first floor. In addition to the above items, the application filing fee of $2,200 remains unpaid. However, per e-mail correspondence with both the City Attorney's Office and the Planning Department, it is our understanding you will be applying for a reasonable accommodation for a fee waiver based on disability- related financial hardship. This is in addition to the separate request for a reasonable accommodation to be treated as a single housekeeping unit. Pursuant to Chapter 20.98 of the Zoning Code, if the project for which the request for a reasonable accommodation is made requires another discretionary permit or approval (in this case, a use permit), the applicant may request that the Hearing Officer hear the request for a reasonable accommodation at the same time as the use permit. If you do not request a simultaneous hearing, the request for reasonable accommodation will not be heard until after a final decision has been made regarding the use permit. Please inform us of whether or not you wish to schedule the requests for reasonable accommodation to be treated as a single housekeeping unit and /or for a fee waiver at the same hearing as the use permit or at a later date. We will need this information by January 27, 2009, so that we may proceed appropriately with preparation of the staff report. The City of Newport Beach will proceed with the use permit application hearing for the above referenced property on Thursday, February 12, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. This will be a public hearing and will take place before a third -party hearing officer. The City has scheduled this hearing despite the fact that your use permit application remains incomplete. Please be advised that by scheduling your application for a public hearing, the City is not deeming your application complete. We will send a copy of the staff report which discusses your application to you and the hearing officer for review four to seven days in advance of the hearing date. YS 00172 Yellowstone Women's First Step House Page 13 If you have any questions regarding the process, please do not hesitate to contact me at (562) 989 -6664 or dclbc(&verizon.net, or you may contact Associate Planner Janet Brown at (949) 644 -3236 or ibrrownecity.newoort- beach.ca.us. cc: Dr. Honey Thames, Yellowstone Recovery Programs YS 00173 DAVIS•ZFATY n vx orssnce.c �. +w ccrvoe < *w.� January 23, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARMW JAN 27 IM CI1Y OF �1 PORT BEACH Re: Hearing for Use Permit Application and Reasonable Accommodations Dear Janet: I received your letters regarding the Permit Application for the Yellowstone pro waiver and our Single Housekeeping Uni heard on February 12, 2009 for all of the February 12, 2009 hearing date for the Use perties. We would like to have both our fee- t Requests for Reasonable Accommodation Yellowstone properties as well. As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY �4:�O� NICOLE COHRS 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 , 949.376.2828 - Fax 949.376.3875 info@dzattorneys.com www.dzattorneys.com YS 00174 DAVIS•ZFATY January 29, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 FEB G 2 2009 Re: Afdavits for Fee Waiver Reasonable Accommodation Dear Janet: Enclosed are the signed Affidavits of Disability Related Finan cial Ha There is a separate Affidavit for each of the four Yellowstone prope ship. rties. rd rd we discussed, our responses to the questions relating to the income of the residents pre and post - disability are based on the average resident for each of the homes. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFFATTYY NICOLE COHRS Enclosure 5£10 Broadwiy Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach. CA 92651 . 949.376.2828 - Fax <)49.375.3875 inio6;dntt0r11ey1'.c0m WW%V.dZattorneVS.con-i YS 00175 ti AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP 1561 Indus, Newport Beach I, Anna Marie Thames, declare: I am an authorized representative of disabled individuals; 2. I am submitting information specific to the financial status of a group of disabled individuals who reside in a household; 3. I am submitting the financial information herein voluntarily because I have requested a reasonable accommodation from the City of Newport Beach, which I believe is necessary because of financial hardship to the disabled individuals I represent; 4. Severe financial constraints which arose as a direct result of the disabled individuals I represent prevent them from complying with one or more provision or provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures generally applicable to the type of dwelling in which disabled persons I represent reside or wish to reside; 5. Such provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures, if applied to the dwelling in which the disabled individuals I represent reside, will deprive disabled individuals of the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice; 6. In order to afford the disabled individuals the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice, the permanent or temporary waiver of a fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Council Policy or customary procedure is necessary; The requested waiving of such fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement is necessary because of financial limitations which are the direct result of the disability of the individuals that I represent; -1- AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 00176 Tf the disabled individual on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested was able to work prior to becoming disabled, please provide information on such individual's pre- and post disability income: A. On the following dates, the disability of the persons I represent, rendered such persons severely limited in their ability to work or entirely unable to work: The individuals residing in the home were all affected by their disability at different times. During addiction, residents are unable to work. In sober living, however, all residents must fund a job. B. Prior to the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual household income from all sources was approximately $50,000 (on average). C. After the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual income from all sources was approximately $20,000 (on average). Typically, household income is cut approximately in half because of alcoholism. As a result of alcoholism, the residents of the home have been rendered financially disabled. In sober living, the residents must find a job, however, the jobs the residents seeks are near minimum wage ($8.00 per hour). 9. If the disabled individuals on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested were not employed prior to becoming disabled, please state why any financial limitations which render the disabled individuals unable to meet the financial requirements of complying with the Newport Beach Municipal Code are a direct result of such their disability. All residents were employed in some manner prior to their addiction. 10. Please provide any additional information you feel would enable City staff and/or hearing officers to determine whether disability- related financial hardship requires an exception form the application of the City's Municipal Code, Council Policies, or usual and customary procedures in order to afford the disabled individuals an opportunity to reside in a dwelling. The residents cannot afford their own places to live. Their income is based on near minimum wage hourly rates. Thus, if forced to live elsewhere they could not afford to pay rent, a security deposit for an apartment, food, or utilities. Yellowstone provides a fresh start for recovering alcoholics to begin their life with a clean slate. Our fees our low and donors in the community provide individual scholarships for residents who qualify. -2- AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 00177 Ydkmslmoisa ms�ePaa Wnfim Yalaaa aeLesaoinvmOmmd mbar.l nagpu mwnmomtreacowefi'm toaoo w ts*wts and Yellowsttme makes 'w profit ftm the reams. 3be ie ma by a SOUP of vnhttuears who ne ootmoitted to rettgningtim r badrro ilte comoumiWebao and salter ss tax.payhtg.cmww whp cm h* odter akahoiics. Asare * Y*RommWsawnk*acamota=mwmdatethe 12= apAcW( to Ew yeaow=m =Vcceuny mj gib City ranee a •"•�• *'ca• ad;m ina=dance. t deebreaader .peoahyofPajra7mdecthe his ditite Smte ofCa�t'amiathattha is true amd is w= Er wA edanft?9°dayadbmmy,2M,inMcapedBa C"bud �, rx i1, cl- t "., :.i 1 ' YC 1:1t ..J ee�noa.eeao OUO1SMC TTil .. w YS 00178 DAVIS•ZFATY rrs s�oxa i.,w ao.ro.nro� January 29, 2009 PLANNI ' - hiMENI FEB 0 2'L'V'J `` • rt CRY OF .__•_ Z175.1 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Request for Reasonable Accommodation: 1561 Indus Street Dear Ms. Brown: As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ("Yellowstone "). I recently spoke with Cathy Walcott of the City Attorney's office. She informed me of a few ambiguities in our Request for Reasonable Accommodation Worksheet for the 1561 Indus property (the "Property "). The purpose of this letter is to clarify these ambiguities. (Ouestion 5) Impairments Substantially Limiting Major Life Activities: Do the clients have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? What are those impairments? The residents of the Property are recovering from alcohol addiction. They manifest physical and mental symptoms which have prevented them from engaging in at least one of their major life activities. Although the residents work, they are recovering from a physical dependence on alcohol. Mentally, the residents are recovering from the inability to make healthy choices like the average person in the general population regarding their consumption of alcohol. Their impairments affect their ability to think, concentrate, and interact with others as compared to the ability of the average person in the general population to do the same. Thus, their disability is substantially limiting. Enclosed with this letter is a Declaration under penalty of perjury from the applicant, Honey Thames, manager of the Property, that every resident in the Property has physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of the residents' major life activities. Cathy Walcott mentioned that this would be acceptable given that the privacy concerns of the residents limit our ability to provide medical records or signatures of the residents. 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828 - Fax 949.376.:3875 info@dzattorneys.com • www.d7attomeys.com YS 00179 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Question 101 Parking: Describe the on -site parking resources and the staff and visitor parking plans. Parking on the Property is reserved for the manager and assistant manager, thus the maximum number of cars on the Property at any one time will be two. Residents are not permitted to park on the Property. Visitors are not permitted on the Property therefore there are no visitor parking issues. (Question 11) Operation of Vehicles: Describe client's availability to drive and operate a vehicle while residing at facility. The residents do not use cars. Instead, they rely on public transportation to and from the Property. (Question 12) Transportation: Does the facility provide transportation services? If yes, please describe the frequency, duration, and schedule of services and where the vehicles are stored Though the home generally does not provide transportation services, the home does provide some basic transportation to the nearby treatment facility and to St. John church. Both locations are within ten minutes of the home. There is a morning pickup at 8 a.m. and an evening drop off at 4 p.m. This is the only transportation provided. The vans that transport the residents are not parked on site. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. ( Ouestion 16) Interaction Within the Property How do the clients interact with each other within the unit? Is there joint use of common areas? Do clients share household activities and responsibilities? Will delivery trucks be provided at the facility? The Property provides the residents with a network of support to encourage recovery from the symptoms of alcoholism. The residents reside separately at the Property. There is a common area however each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, there are no delivery vehicles going to and from the Property. Finally, although Yellowstone owns four such homes in the Newport Beach area, there is no interaction between the homes. In other words, residents of the Property do not meet with the residents of other Yellowstone properties for dinners or other gatherings. Each home has its own residents and the residents of one home never interact with residents of a different home. YS 00180 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Question 19) Necessity of the Requested Accommodation: Please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary. Yellowstone hereby requests that a Reasonable Accommodation be made to Ordinance 2008 -5 such that Yellowstone is treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Reasonable Accommodation is necessary because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility. Instead, the Property more accurately fits the definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030. Residents are the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit. Like a Single Housekeeping Unit, there is a common area and each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager. In conformity with our request for a Reasonable Accommodation, we would like to request that we get an exemption from Section 20.91A. 050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which states that there shall be no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident- 1 hope that this clarifies any ambiguity with respect to our previous request for a Reasonable Accommodation. Please let me know if our responses need to be supplemented further and as always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation NICOLE COHRS cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) YS 00181 JAW -28 -2008 WED 0631 YN OAY1S N11Ytf" ape trot ML ana aro anro r. uc HO ApMEM OF AMA MARZUW"S I, Dr Amts Mme Thamm hereby declare as follows: 1. The matters staoed Lenin are !mown to me personally and if mlled upon to tesafy, I could and would compaleatly tm* d mmo as follows. 2. All individuals residing in the property located at 1561 Indus in Newport Beach are recovering fium ale" add edon. 3. Ailhough the n sided me recove t& they and meesal symptom ofewiraddiction vri" sutsrerally limit are or mere oftbe residents major lift activities I declare under penalty of perjury order the laws of the Stage of Califamia that tLe ferreting is u= and correct. Emecaned this 28th day o0anuary 2009, at Newport Beaek California. ANNA MARIE THAMES " -A oo�oo&oO&e Ouoasmorra• YS 00182 COST ANALYSIS OF OUR HOMES IN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS IN GENERAL, OUR WEEKLY FEES ARE BASED ON A SLIDING SCALE FROM $50.00 TO $160 PER WEEK OUR MORTGAGES AVERAGE $4500 PER MONTH A MINIMUM OF 15 RESIDENTS IS NEEDED TO PAY ALL THE EXPENSES FOR EACH HOUSE, INCLUDING LIGHTS, GAS, WATER AND TRASH. RENTS: SLIDING SCALE: $50.00 TO $160.00 PER WEEK AVERAGE: RESIDENTS: 16 AVERAGE RENT MONTHLY AVERAGE: EXPENSES: FOR EACH HOUSE AVERAGE UTILITIES FOOD: MORTGAGES: AVERAGE MONTHLY AVERAGE $100 $6400 INCOME $ 800 LIGHTS, GAS, WATER, PHONE $ 900 RECEIVED By $4500 Pw4 KING DEPAQWE -jpT '=Es J5 $6200 EXPENSES CITY OF k1 ucriCl YS 00183 01 �I st � ,ill .D 6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT CENTER Call Today (888) 941 -9048 - After Hours (949) 678 -9000 s.. HIGHLY SUCL'.: 5SFUL Ah>,. ' i''r INRU:31 J1,1YE: AL 0 M :.I:.OY "RV P..-L FCC ➢Y[.t t ,rl rNn MEN tlome ^PA °Mt Programs LEGAL PROBLEMS? WE CAN HELPI OnlPallec: programs UCENSED AND CERTIFIED BY ME STATE OF CAUFORNIA ]emn Serricas — ._J�ragrams Availahlo Our Homes -- -Our Staff -- -__ Mission Statement Schadula Contact UsJ.__�.. BYe— .�[ana Recovery lam a 90 Days: $7,500 Residential Treatment Sober Living: $160 . $160 pet vraBk a Outpatient: Sliding Seale $40 •560 Some scholersho available after 30 days i r n 1, In nla v'1' iT ifil' ❑N:i� hOMgthemlagNahoe.eam s Inclairlc'. Gait- 11,11son'i sttlo Re6r,!V. C., i•.r,'ait .'u Sk.tls Tai iiivi , J, b F I Ccm -Ili PrC+tjra!n S or ^as €'amity r>d ^e! eljJ - $ob r FernmsFap "r 14TAiy I7 nt oe eltl�t hitp:ltw .yellotvstonerecovery.comlcost- fees - drugrehab- alcoholtmatmentcenter- california.htm Page 1 of 1 YS 00184 DAVIS•ZFATY a npiIS3�GN�[ SI.w (LII::.I.pY February 13, 2009 VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 FO 131009 Re: Yellowstone Use Permit Applications and Reasonable Accommodation Requests Dear Ms. Wolcott and Ms. Brown: It has recently come to my attention there may be discrepancies between materials Yellowstone submitted with respect to its use permit applications and requests for reasonable accommodation for each of the four Yellowstone properties. Although this firm and the representatives of Yellowstone have made our best efforts to be clear and consistent, the materials submitted to the City in May 2008 reflect some inaccurate information. The purpose of this correspondence is to clarify these inconsistencies. Group Meetings Neither group treatment meetings nor individual treatment meetings occur on any of the four Yellowstone properties. All treatment is performed off site in Costa Mesa. The only meetings that occur at each of the four homes are weekly house meetings with the residents to discuss potential new residents and other administrative matters. Visitors Visitation with family and friends Mesa facility located at 154 East Bay Street. occurs on Sundays at Yellowstone's Costa 580 8roadwav Street, Suite 301 • Laguna Beach, CA 4651 - 949.376.2828 - Fix 949.376.3875 infoardzattorneyccom - www.dzatturneys.com YS 00185 Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown February 13, 2009 Page 2 of 2 In May 2008, Yellowstone submitted a request for reasonable accommodation that each of the four homes be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. It was recently brought to my attention that Yellowstone's response to Question 16, regarding resident interaction, needs clarification. Yellowstone does not have a contractual relationship with the residents of its properties. With respect to the residents of the four Yellowstone homes in Santa Ana Heights, Yellowstone's position is correctly stated in a letter to the City dated January 29, 2009: "the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager." More specifically, Yellowstone's Board of Directors does not determine who resides in each of the four homes. New residents are introduced and approved by the current residents during house meetings or they are not accepted. Many of Yellowstone's residents transition to sober living directly from treatment. Other residents learn about Yellowstone from other recovery centers or by community referral. Parking In May 2008, when the original Yellowstone use permit and reasonable accommodation applications were submitted to the City, Yellowstone requested that four cars be permitted to park at the 1561 Indus property. There is adequate room for four cars to park at 1561 Indus, however only the two resident managers for the home park on site. With respect to the three other Yellowstone properties, it has consistently been Yellowstone's position that only the two resident managers of the homes are allowed to park vehicles on site. I hope that this clarifies the ambiguities in our previous submissions to the City. As always, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a, professional corporation NICOLE COHRS, ESQ. YS 00186 EXHIBIT 4 SITE PLAN AND FLOOR PLANS YS 00187 _ - `1 I Vy 4 e> KEYS-rat M*M # � Im wo r . M. SM YS 00188 YS 00189 �r a ggt ii➢° P� R � I M x KEYSIOIE WIM �4Y N 4 eA #M SIMU 5ente Mac. %m 4 YS 00189 YS 00190 w W y ° a ° z ° � a ° a z x p E t r-v as xir v� a � ev Kersra� naa�oR d I W �� � g tyll YS 00190 �a A 1 ~ 0 r � ffi r ' ' fill KEYsrac amm fill im wo 4 i i 1 fli 1 i It { ICEY!511T WHIR N y m o 9tt N " % �GW YS 00192 EXHIBIT 5 FIRE MARSHAL CORRESPONDENCE AND FIRE CODE ANALYSIS SUBMITTAL YS 00193 STEVE Litwin, FIRC CmtKF January 29, 2009 Dr. Honey Thames 154 East Bay Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Re: Code Analysis for Yelowstone Recovery: 1561 Indus Street; 1621 Indus Street; 1571 Pegasus; 20172 Redlands, Newport Beach Dear Dr. Thames: Thank you for submitting the code analysis and floor plans for the above referenced properties. After reviewing the analysis, we have identified the following areas which will require further clarification: 1561 Indus Street 1.. Item # 5: Exception 1 to Califomia Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes "unless ... classified as Group R4". Recovery or treatment facilities for more than 6 clients are classified as Croup R4 by Section 310 of the CSC. 2. Item # 6: Stairwell'and other components of the means.of egress mutt be illuminated at all times. A switched circuit is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. the back -up illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90. minutes. Please indicate how the illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be In accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please indicate the net clear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. SAFETY .SERVICE PROFEBSIONAUSM - 1621 Indus Street 1. Item #S: Exception Ito California Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes 'unless ... classified as Group R4." 2. Item # 6: Stairwell and other components of the means of egress must be illuminated at all times. A switched circuit is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. The back -up illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90 minutes. Please Indicate how the illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be in accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please indicate the net clear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. 1571 Pe¢asus Street 1.. Item # 5: Exception 1 to California Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes "unless_ dassifted as Group R4:0 2. Item # 6: Stairwell and other components of the means of egress must be illuminated at all times. A switched circuit is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. The back -up Illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90 minutes. Please indicate how the illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be in accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please Indicate the net clear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. YS 00195 20172 Redlands Drive 1. Item # 5: Exception 1 to California Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes "unless... classified as Group RV 2, Item # 6: Stairwell and other components of the means of egress must be illuminated at all times. A switched circuit is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. The back -up Illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90 minutes. Please indicate how the illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be In accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please indicate the net clear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. If you have any questions regarding these issues, please call me at 949- 644 -3106. Sincerely, Steve Bunting Fire Marshal RECEPM -D By j2 -r J . January 29, 2009 v C i OF I C��li�OKi ,�CH Mr. Steve Bunting Fire Marshall CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FIRE AND MARINE DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca 92658 -8915 RE: Yellowstone Recovery ( "Keystone Manor" Residence) Coda Analysis For The Existing Building Dear Mr. Bunting, Alfred J. Boder, Architect has been contracted by Yellowstone Recovery to review details of their existing building, titled "Keystone Manor ", located at 1561 Indus Street, Santa Ana, Ca 92707, Yellowstone Recovery intends to change the use of the building from a single - family residence to a Residential Facility for the non - medical rehabilitation of drug abuse and alcoholism. We have surveyed the existing building and the summary of our findings and conclusions are as follows: A. The existing building was constructed in 1961, and was built as a single - family residence, occupancy type R -3. The building is a two -story structure with an attached garage. B. The building is set back from the front property line 26' -0 ". The side yard set back is 6' -0" clear on both sides of the structure. C. As the attached plans indicate, the residence is entered through the front door that faces the addressed street. The first floor consists of a living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, and two bedrooms. The second floor consists of four bedrooms, and two bathrooms. Based on this research, the following code issues are in compliance with the current code requirements of the California Building Code, CBC 2007. 01. Location On The Property: As indicated on the attached plans, the building setbacks for the side yards is five (12) feet from the property line. This distance includes the attached garage. Per CBC section 6, Table 602, the minimum fire separation distance is five feet. This setback is achieved to the property line and from the property line; the YS 00197 adjacent R -3 residence is also setback five (12) feet from the property line for a total of a ten (22) foot separation from the two buildings. Conclusion: The wall of the garage at the side yard is not required to be of fire rated construction and there are no penetrations or openings in the attached garage wall. 02. Section 419, Groun I -1. R -1. R -2. R -3, R -3.1, R -4: 419.2, Separation walls. Section does not apply. Note that the common wall between the attached garage is of one -hour fire rated construction to the bottom of the roof diaphragm and there are no penetrations in this wall. 03. Section 419.3. Horizontal Separation: This section does not apply per section 711.1. M Facilities in Group R -1. R -3.1 or R4 Occupancy (SFM): Per section 425.3.5, Limitations — Seven or More Clients; The second floor area is less than three thousand (3,000) square feet and therefore a one -hour fire rated construction is not required. 05. Section 425.7. Fire Protection System Provisions: Section 425.7.1, Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems. Per section 903.2.7, Group R, an automatic fire sprinkler system is not required per exceptions 1 and 3. Section 425.7.2. Fire Alarm Systems; Per section 907.2.8 an approved, hard -wired fire alarm system is installed as required per section 907.2.8.2. Section 427.7.3. Smoke Alarms; Per section 907.2.8.3, battery powered smoke detectors /alarms are installed in the required areas per section 907.2.10 Section 906.1, Portable Fire Extinguishers; Portable fire extinguishers are installed and located per the California Fire Code. 06. Chapter 10 Means Of Egress: Section 1006, means of egress illumination. There is illumination at the top, middle, and bottom of the staircase. Section 1009, Stairways; Per section 1009.1, exception 1, the staircase complies with the code requirement. YS 00198 I believe that this is a complete analysis of the code related items which apply to this building during the change of occupancy. Please call Anthony Grillo, my representative, at (949) 678 -3214 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Alfred Bodor — Architect Attachments; Scale as -built plans YS 00199 EXHIBIT 6 LETTERS IN SUPPORT (Submitted by Applicant) AND LETTERS IN OPPOSITION YS 00200 DATE: 01/24/09 TO aAMOM IT MAY CONCEPINI FROM: THE CROSSING CHURCH, JACKIE DAMS THE CROSSING CHURCH 4S JUST A € ILE A AJAY FROM YEe LOIRS70"NE. SATE ALL NOTICE WOMEN COMING TO OUR MEETINGS AND GETTING 11I1JOLVEV. THEY HELP WITH HANDLING OUT THE CHURCH BULLETINS. FOR EXAMPLE. LAST YEAR THEY HELPED U5 SERVE FOOD TO THE HOMELESS. YELLOWSTONE WOMEN SEND ME? STIAY " T?9 iel�"R CPOI� B WE ARE VERY PROUD THAT YELLOWSTONE IS P az T OF OUR COMPAUMR l r. WE DO W14AT WE CAN TO 14" OUR NEIGHBOR YELLOWSTOME . UST AS T14EY HELP US. PLEAPE CALL IF °VE CAM ANSWER AMY OUESTIONS: t V lw--oc� 'ACI IE DAVIS, THE CROSSING CHURCH, P49 SS5 9' -1 PLANNING JAN 2b CITY OF NEWPORT &CH YS 00201 DAVIS•ZFATY a rten such +i uw r000r +noe January 29, 2009 `;7IA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Yellowstone — Letters of Support Dear Janet: Pftnt, by ti GV n(� I noticed that the Exhibits to previous Use Permit Applications included letters from neighbors surrounding the homes. Enclosed are copies of letters from alumni of the Yellowstone homes showing their support. I thought you may tike to include these as exhibits to our Use Permit Application. As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZF /A_TYYI NICOLE COHRS Enclosures cc: Cathy Walcott, City of Newport Beach .580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92G51 - 949.376.2828 • Fax 949.376.3875 info @dzattorneys.com - W%AV.dzattorneys.com YS 00202 Md wamt is Avuete And I oheakaed unto Yelowstone iw. 20=. MU usimg and drw do.g had reaLLO spew Ktb life out of eowtrol, I was wm- pletele lost and ftlt Ulu I was bdwg eatew alive front the inside out, I was so empte awd broker. down iw the f wal dads &f Mel disease. I oouldw't iw&agiwe "&d life and other wad. Yellowstone lwtroduaed wce to A.A. and Reooverd and to a higher power. Mb life has sureld been turned around iw a wad I could have never thought possible. I fed free todad and mot a slave to a life that had wo proruise what so ever nor a purpose. 1 will forever be grateful to have the dads and dears that Yellowstone taught we how to live sober ........... I built rue fouwdattow at Yellowstone, t Learned how to be a friend again, how to be honest aga4i7 how to be dependable agaLw, kow to be a good sister, auntie, and daughter. ........... 1 have rµade Ti;j* Ae and REAL FRBNAs through YeU.owstone ........... I trade iw nto old friends for these new sober owes. and lift has a real purpose toolad and YeU.owstowe helped rue fwd ""d wad to it. I could go ow amd ow about all the wonderful things that reooverd and Yellowstone has given me but I doubt awe words ooul.d ever truld express what I've been given bd being freed from. ""e disease. I comt to Yellowstone everd weele and anti still. apart of this place stU.l to this dae....6 dears later. I Nape it is here for other girls to oome baele and works with the mew concern the wad I have been given the ohawoe too. It saves wia I n eums whew I weed it most. rruld Blessed, ' /, � /kwgela M. Sobrietd Date 11 -16 -02 YS 00203 My name is Gina and I have been sober for 92 Mays I came to Telrowstone 6ecause my fife was going nowhere andl couldn't get so6eron my own. TeiLwstone has helped me in so many ways. I'm reaming the program of UcohoficsAnonymous and how to five as a sober woman. I'm learning how to 6e rresponsi6k I've met wonderrfulpeople Here that care about me and support ma fly relationship with my famiy and my son is being restored and I'm uw*g again. I am forevergratefurto 7ellowstone for teaching me a new way of fife OAVE QATATA ?ICI -lE. Sincerely, Gina G So6riety Date 1012 0108 YS 00204 Hit my name is CoCoria I have been sod er for two ands haT years. I went trough yellowstone and truly believe that had this home not providedme with the foundation that I needed in AA .T would not have a life today, nor wouCd my daughter have her mother or my husband her w fe. 'When I decided to ,get help I couldn't think of going anywhere else. ?his is where I had seen women come back from the gates of helCand learn to become women of dignity with a joy for fife that was uni maginabCe to me. Hadl not found yellowstone I wouCd have never known that there was a 'way out of the xmisery and despair my life had become. yours �rruCy �- 2i -2E�c� Cp YS 00205 My name is Erika and I have been sober for 2 V2 years. If it wasn't for a place like Yellowstone, I would probably be dead today. I lived at Yellowstone for over a year where I was able to build a foundation upon how to live life on life's terms. Because of the opportunity that I got at Yellowstone I no longer have that hopelessness that I lived with for so long. I am able to be present in the lives of my children who I now have joint custody of Yellowstone is the place that I will continue to come back to and visit the new girls who are struggling the }same way I once did. Thank God for Yellowstone. Sincerely Yours, Erika j� 7/15/06 Jla+z"' YS 00206 MY NAME IS MEGAN DOYLE AND I -HAVE BEEN SOBER FOR FOUR YEARS. I CAME TO YELLOWSTONE AMIZ BEING LOCKED OU'r OF MY MOM'S HOUSE. I STAYED AT YELLOWSTONE 13 X MONTWS. I LEARNED #NOW ro woRx, LIVE A SOBER L.IKs Suxr uR AND SNOW UP EVERY DAY TO MYJO8, AND HANDLE LIFE SITuTIONS FOR THE FIRST TIME } I AM VERY GRATEFUL TO YELLOWSTONE AND THE PROGRAM OFALCHOLICS ANONYMOUS. I AM SELF SUPPORTING NOW AND MAKE AMENDS. I CAN BE OF SERVICE TO OTfEERS TODAY. SINCERELY MFORAN AM %A4vu SOBRIETY DATE: 04/18/05 YS 00207 MEMO TO: JANET BROWN, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM: HONEY THAMES, YELLOWSTONE SUBJECT: LETTERS OF SUPPORT COULD YOU PLEASE ADD THESE LETTERS OF SUPPORT T O OUR APPLICATION. ONE IS FROM ST. JOHN THE DIVINE CHURCH AND THE OTHER IS FROM A MOTHER WHOSE SON COMPLETED OUR PROGRAM TWO YEARS AGO. FINALLY, WE HAVE A PETITION FROM OUR NEAREST NEIGHBORS (WITHIN 300 FEET) SUPPORTING US AS A GOOD NEIGHBOR. THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR HELP / � r DATE: 2/03/09 x RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT F ER 05 lug.:; CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH YS 00208 IF ,o9y WE DESK OE Kim6erfy Black, Dear Yellowstone Staff, February 3, 2009 I wanted to take a few minutes to thank you all for the wonderful care my son received while at Yellowstone, as well as the continued support during his time in your sober living program. Today, I am proud to say my son is clean and sober? It's been almost three years since I called you on the telephone, desperate for help. Not only did you open your doors to us, but your hearts as well. I delivered to your doorstep a young man addicted to heroin (among other things) and suicidal. A few short months later I had my son back. You gave him the tools he needed to succeed. He worked very hard and today he is healthy and happy. I know his continued success will be in part to the support he still receives. He in turn gives back by helping others in their sobriety. I don't know where we would have turned had you not been there for us. I wish for families like ours that your doors will always be open and those arms that so warmly embraced us will never turn away a parent whose child is in danger. Thanks agalrr* all your help and support. rcerely, Kimberly Black RECEIVED BY PL41NING DEPARTMENT i "�l U7 L'Ui: c�ITllOF NEWPORT BEACH YS 00209 St. John the Divine Lam ^* si A perish of the Diocese of Los Angeles A congregation of the Episcopal Church in the United States A part of the wor"de Anglican Communion The Rev. Dr. Barbara R. Stewart, Rector 183 E. Bay Street phone 949448.2237 Costa Mass, CA 92827 -2145 fax 949548 -2238 www.stjohncFn.org bstewart@stjohncn.org January 31, 2009 To Whom It May Concern: I write in support of Yellowstone. The services offered by Yellowstone, helping people live sober and clean lives, are necessary in our society and important to the establishment and ongoing welfare not only of the individuals involved, but our community as well. To begin the process of reclaiming lives lost to alcohol and drugs is something to be valued and appreciated. St. John's is pleased to be able to support the work done by Yellowstone by offering our facility for some of their work. Sincerely, The Rev. Dr. Barbara Stewart PL"N NG DEPARIMEUF F8 05 7Ull; YS 00210 YELLOWSTONE IS A GOOD NEIGHBOR 4114Y*00:170 go� ADDRESS.l 71ee �..__ er 7 &A40 ev ) ;Pre 74 e.. 7- fAe' fee /_ NAME 4 ADDRESS NAME A s Pt�n� �CE1Y�D 6Y 1N6 OEP rj ADDRESS _ 1 S 17, 17ei,A S j j- rF8 05 2C i i CII� OF Ni YS 00211 DATE: 2/5/09 TO: Dave Kiff, Asst. City Manager FROM: Rita Bosley, Resident in Pegasus Tract, NB RE" Yellow stone Women's First Step House Public Hearing on group residential use permits 1561 Indus, 1621 Indus, 1571 Pegasui, 20172 Redlands, NB We have four sober living homes within a few hundred feet of each other in the Pegasus Tract, and I am fed up with my rights being subordinated to theirs. I am not a special interest group, so I have to rely on those who represent me to make sure the right thing happens. Can I rely on the City of NB? I oppose each of the four applications for permits and exempt status. The laws were put into effect for the purpose of keeping residential neighborhoods for families. These homes are not families, nor do the owners and residents of them care about the people who live here. Their only interest is making money as indicated by the request for three residents/ bedroom instead of 2. This is a single family neighborhood and even rentals are not officially lawful. To justify my strong feelings, just look what their presence is doing to aggravate the precarious situation the local residents are suffering. We have lived with the noise of the airport and have fallen into the problems of the slacking economy about which we can do very little. But to add insult to injury, we are forced to accept our rights being trampled with the current situation with the sober living homes. This places undue hardship on our properties. First, their presence in such great numbers for a very small area have changed the family nature of our neighborhood. Families are reluctant to let their children ride around the block on their bikes because of encounters their children may have with "recovering" people. Secondly, selling a property in this tract requires disclosing the presence of these homes so close to each other and other properties. Therefore, property values and sales have been affected. Getting refinancing is impossible because the last homes sold were sober living homes which went for forced sale prices. Third, we have cigarette butts and beer cans in front of our homes, even though the homes are supposed to be alcohol /drug free. Not only are the SL residents using, but so are their families who visit. SL residents also travel around the neighborhood in "gangs" as they go from home to home. YS 00212 Fourth, cars line the street on nights and weekends, leaving no parking for regular residents' cars and their guests. It is an invasion of our neighborhood. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!! ! If these requests are granted and the homes become such cash cows, why wouldn't every home in the neighborhood be a potential SL residence. Our large homes are even more attractive in this economy. Maybe the State should reimburse each local resident for undue hardship on us if these exceptions are enacted. The decision is yours! I hope the City uses its power wisely. And I am aware of the City's efforts to find a workable solution. Thank you, Dave, for your efforts towards our community in the past. YS 00213 Brown, Janet From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 11:24 AAA To: Brown, Janet; Wolcott, Cathy Subject: FW: Re: Hearing February 12, 2009 - Group Residential Permits - Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. For the record. We appear to be having assembly uses out there, too, among other things. From: Chet Groskreutz [ mailto:Chet@IvankoBarbell.corn] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 11:23 AM To: IOff, Dave Cc: Victoria Groskreutz; Rita Bosley; Prodancerl @aol. com Subject FW: Re: Hearing February 12, 2009 - Group Residential Permits - Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. - - - -- Original Message--- - From: Chet Groskreutz [mailto:Chet@IvankoBarbell.com] Sent: Friday, February 06, 200911:13 AM To: Dave Kiff Cc: Prodancerl@aol. com; Victoria Groskreutz; Rita Bosley Subject: Re: Hearing February 12, 2009 - Group Residential Permits Yelknvstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Re: 1561 INDUS STREET 1621 INDUS STREET 1571 PEGASUS STREET 20172 REDLANDS DRIVE Applications for the above use permits Dear Dave: I met you sometime ago at one of the annexation hearings when Santa Ana Heights annexation was being discussed. I wanted to e-mail and voice my opposition to all (4) of the applications Yellowstone has applied for based on the following complaints: 1. Vehicles that are not being used: 1 oppose all (4) applications. Although we have been told by Yellowstone officials at their own meetings that none of their residents are allowed to drive, we have evidence that the exact opposite is true, there are residents who are driving cars or trucks and parking them on our streets, many times loaded with personal possessions for extended periods of time. They just move the vehicles from street to street to avoid being ticketed or towed. 2. Parking problems: I oppose all (4) applications. On their meeting nites and during the day and on weekends, we cannot use any parking in front of our own homes because the spaces are full of attendees for these meetings I have posted notes on vehicles on several occasions during their meetings in the past years, telling the owners that the next time they park illegally I am going to have their car towed because it was blocking my driveway. Additionally, I have picked up soda cans, cigarette butts, even beer bottles YS 00214 interesting since these are supposed to be sober living homes) and other trash all over the street and on the sidewalk after these "meeting nites ".The meetings break up around 9:00 pm but often the attendees stand around in the street until 10:00 p.m. or later talking loudly and disturbing my granddaughters who are asleep. 3. Residential requirements exemption request for more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident: I oppose all (4) applications. I oppose any variance from the existing N BMC. As it is, there is no control over the massive influx of visitors to the residents of these homes, day and nits, visitors are constantly going back and forth from vehicles to these houses ... This means that in one of these 4-5 bedroom homes, they could have as many as they want per bedroom.... all it says is that they are asking for more than two residents per bedroom, it could be 3, 4, or even 5 or more residents per bedroom and that would mean in one 5 bedroom home, they could stick up to 25 people or more in the housel If 1 or 2 visitors come daily per resident, there's another potentially 100 people per day coming into our neighborhood, plus the 100 or so living in the houses, that's a potential of 200 more people in our neighborhood ... and the potential public health and safety impact should be obvious and in my view is a blatant disregard for the rights of taxpaying residents by Yellowstone Inc., it's nothing personal to them, its just business) 4. Unlicensed adult alcohol and /or drug abuse facilities: I oppose all (4) applications. I oppose any applications for the approval of the above use permits for operation of unlicensed adult alcohol and /or drug abuse facilities. Right now ... these homes are unlicensed and therefore are not under any licensing regulations. They are exemptThey should not be exempt. They should apply for the proper licenses that all other facilities of this kind is required by law to have. Their impact as a business on our residential community is and has been devastating. 5. Public safety: I oppose all (4) applications Last week, I think it was January 28th, when I came home, at about 9:50 pm. out complete tract was blocked off and I could not get into Pegasus Street because the police officer told me that there "was a man with a gun" in our neighborhood. It took a half an hour before I was finally let into my own neighborhood to go to bed, due to some wacko who allegedly had a gun. We never had in the 30 years I have lived in my house, ever anything like this happen. I do not think that this was coincidental and I believe that sooner or later, there will be one of these residents from an unlicensed adult facility or a relative or acquaintance of one of them, who will successfully commit some serious crime against someone. Statistically, to have this many (4) homes in such a small concentrated area, it's no surprise that there has only been (1) situation like what happened on Wednesday. Fortunately, no one was hurt .... but I fear the next time and there most assuredly will be a next time, if these unlicensed homes are allowed to go unchecked, we may not be so lucky. 6. 100% cost recovery approval: I oppose all (4) applications. I oppose this request on the grounds that this is a residential neighborhood and not Zoned for business. 100% cost recovery translates to pay for services rendered at these homes ... and thus Yellowstone is running (4) run for profit businesses out of our residential neighborhood. 7. Decline in property values: I oppose all (4) applications. Recently, we attempted to refinance our home and we were told that the appraised value of our home was affected by neighborhood properties. These values had fallen drastically. We believe the decline is values has been caused in great measure, by the operation of these (4) homes in our neighborhood. We believe that these home have had a negative impact on our property values and that we have suffered financial damages up to and including the inability to receive a YS 00215 fair appraisal of the value of our home due to the impact caused by the operation of the (4) Yellowstone properties as per above mentioned. In summary, I oppose all (4) applications for the YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. Sincerely, Chet P. Groskreutz 1551 Pegasus Street Newport Beach, Ca. Ph.(714) 545 -1832 Bus.:(310) 514 -1155 YS 00216 Brown, Janet From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:21 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: FW: Yellowstone Group Homes, West Santa Ana Heights From: mike mcdonough [ mailto :mmodonoughol @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:12 PM To: Kfff, Dave Subject: Yellowstone Group Homes, West Santa Ana Heights Mr. Kiff, I own 1562 Pegasus Street, Newport Beach. My wife and I are opposed to the granting of use permits for the Group homes in our neighborhood. We have resided at this location for 36 years, my four children grew up on this street, playing with the children of other long time residents. We have always felt safe in the past but now don't allow our grandchildren play in the front yard. On a daily basis we observe Individuals wandering the neighborhood, often In groups of 3 or 4, with no apparent business or destination. Trash, bottles, and cigarette butts on the street and parkways has increased, parking of vehicles for several days at a time is common, and groups from meetings mill about talking Ioudly.All these issues cause a negative impact on the neighborhood. In the last 2 years my vehicle has be entered at least twice and property stolen. Are the thefts related? No way to know for sure. Four sober living homes are within 100 yards of my front door. I have been advised by a real estate agent that I must disclose, to prospective buyers, the location of Sober Living Group homes close to my property. This has a negative impact on property values and If these properties are allowed to house, expand or increase the number of clients property values will continue to fall. Another consideration Is the cost of city services to these locations. The NBFD has responded several times on medical aid calls to sober living homes in the neighborhood. These drug and alcohol related medical calls are time consuming, costly in relation to personnel and equipment, and disruptive to the community. I urge the City to deny the use permits for these property and return our neighborhood to a family oriented community. Thank you, Mike McDonough 1562 Pegasus Street Newport Beach, Ca YS 00217 Brown, Janet From: Brian Wecklich [bwecklich @hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:04 AM To: Brian Wecklich; Brown, Janet Subject: Public hearing for use permits Hello I'm writing about the public hearing regarding the 4 rehab houses in the area of Pegasus St. Newport Beach. My house is located at 1552 Pegasus st. Newport Beach. I have not had any Issues with the houses you are trying to address at this time. At the same time I do not want to see any Issues in the future. The issue that comes to attention is parking in our neighborhood. Where these houses do not contribute to the problem at present I want to make sure they do not in the future. There is a rehab house at the comer of Pegasus and Santa Ana Ave that is run by another group. I do not know what the name of that group is. They are a major problem as far as parking goes. There are so many vehicles from that house that they park in front of four or five houses up the street. They have inadequate parking for their operation. If these type houses are going to operate in our neighborhood I want to make sure they do not infringe on the others in the neighborhood. So I gues I am saying that some sort of parking regulation or enforcement should go along with the Use Permits they are requesting. Thank You Brian Wecklich 1552 Pegasus St Newport Beach, California 714 609 1441 BWecklich(ftive .com YS 00218 Brown, Janet From: Michelle Rosenthal (shoppingfenatic143@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:45 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: PUBLIC HEARING 2/20: USE PERMITS FOR REHAB HOUSES To City of Newport Beach: My name is Michelle Rosenthal. I am a homeowner living at 1661 Indus Street. My husband and I just moved to this neighborhood in November 2007. It was not until after we moved into our neighborhood and began asking questions that we learned of these "rehab businesses" in our area. It was rather disappointing to find this out and it wasn't something that was disclosed at the time we purchased our home. The scenario is quite simple. These are not homes ... they are businesses: -Cars and people are constantly coming and going -These addicts wander from home to home without any regard for traffic -Their shuttle vans are parked all over the neighborhood -They host weekly meetings inviting more people like themselves into the neighborhood, parking all over the streets, smoking, and hanging in the streets -They take no pride in their homes and do not maintain them to the standards as a homeowner normally would -People congregate and smoke in their front yards -They generate massive amounts of trash with more people than a normal family living under one roof Bottom line, they depreciate the value of our neighborhood, I am not an addict, I am not in rehab, and do not wish to have these people living a few doors down from me. I paid FULL PRICE for my home, am a decent citizen and homeowner.... why do I have 4 homes being ran as businesses in my neighborhood, making a profit off people who are "recovering" from drug /alcohol abuse? "Halfway house" is what they call it and half way is how they maintain it and portray the neighborhood. My husband and I want to live in a family environment. If we stepped up the prestige of our community and became part of the city of Newport Beach, clean house and get the riff -raff out. PULL THEIR PERMITS AND GET THEM OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLEASE. Thank you for your time and attention to my strong feelings on this issue. YS 00219 Exhibit No. 7 Reasonable Accommodation Application dated August 22, 2008 YS 00220 RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DAVIS•RAYBURN AUG 2 G 2008 n r,meazio Nei law C0XFD.;II0N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 22, 2008 8005 -003 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Notice of Incomplete Application: 1561 Indus Street Dear Ms. Brown: As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Yellowstone "), We are in receipt of the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Incomplete Application for the property located at 1561 Indus Street (the "Property "). In response to that notice, we provide herewith the following: 1. Application Form 100, Item 2, Property Owner Information: the requested information is enclosed herewith. 2. Item 3B: We have no information regarding other similar uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. 3. Item 4: We cross - reference and incorporate the other applications, which are being provided concurrently under separate cover. 4. Item 5: We have no information regarding other conditional uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. 5. Item 6: A site plan is enclosed herewith. 6. Item 8B: Resident capacity is 10. Total capacity is 12. 7. Item 8C: A floor plan is enclosed herewith. 8. Item 8L: The acknowledgement re secondhand smoke is enclosed herewith. 9. ltem IOD: Dr. Thames is the facility Director. 10. Form 200: A board resolution is enclosed herewith. 11. Form 850: Fire Marshall Clearance is enclosed herewith. 12. Request for reasonable accommodation: See the enclosed form. The one item that we have not included in this correspondence is the requested $2,200.00 fee. After reviewing the code, we have been unable to locate any discussion of such fee. We mention this not to question the City's authority to impose such a fee, but rather because we have not seen any statutory scheme that should provide for a hardship exception. We would respectfully request that the City furnish such authority, and also provide us with any exemption 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach. CA 92651 . 449.376.2828 • Fax: 949.376.3875 infoCdavisrayburnlaw.com www.davisrayburnlaw.com YS 00221 City of Newport Beach August 22, 2008 Page 2 application. Alternatively, we would request an extension of time to remit such fee so that we might be able to raise the funds necessary to accommodate the City's request. As a final note, it is worth mentioning that it is our understanding that the Property is still currently located in an unincorporated area of Orange County known as Santa Ana Heights, and that the Newport Beach annex of the property is not yet complete.. If this is true, then we would submit that the city of Newport Beach does not have jurisdiction over this property. Any response that the City can provide regarding this matter would be greatly appreciated. To the extent that our understanding is correct, we would ask that the City simply hold our application until such time as the annexation is complete, so that the parties are not required to reinitiate this process. Please accept our apologies for the delay in providing the enclosed information. As always, if you have any questions regarding these applications, please feel free to contact us. Vert trgly yours, ZFATY IRZ/jmk cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie'rhames) 1'&11I13+40*a Escrow No.: 00031693 GF Title Order No.: 30137878 When Recorded Mall Document and Tax Statement To: ANNA THAM S his Document was electronically record; Fidelity National Title oordsd in Ofllchl Records Orange Coun Da Clerk ® 9.00 ` 2007000168889 03:51 pm 0311510 to zT coz 8043450OAOD00300D.000A00 GRANT DEED — - -- - - - -- — I � ��' THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(a) DECLARE($) Documentary Tranafer Tax is $889.00 %computed on full value of property conveyed, or CI computed full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at the time of sale unincorporated arejVCky of Santa Ana FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, recelpt of which in hereby acknowledged, Celts Johnson, a widow hereby GRANT(s) to Anna Thames -, AN UM ARRIED yroYAN 7 the following described real property in the City of Santa Ana County of Orange, State of Califomla LOT 14, TRACT 4307, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 153, 9 PAGES 18 TO 20 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE- OFFICE OF THE COUNTY REORDER OF SAID COUNTY. �- -. Kn- i.�_ oe: � STATE OF CALIFO lA COUNTY OF }SS: 1 On � r beforeme, a Notary Public, personally appeared personatly known to me (or to me an the basis of sallsfactory evidence} fA per($) whose ham s Su scribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he/aheghey executed the same In hialher/their authorized capacity i"), and that by his/her/their signatures) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the parson(s) acted, executed the Instrument. / � My WITNESS my hand and official seal. - SN "';N PREITYMAN> CGN1M. ti140949p NOTARY PIlBLIGCpL�Nh1 Signature c-o:�_ � Nr cnmm. EaF Apr 0. aDr MAIL TAX STATEMENT AS DIRECTED ABOVE YS 00223 TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM: DR. ANNA THAMES OWNER RE: AUTHORIZATION THIS IS AN OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR THE "OXFORD" HOUSE AT 1561 INDUS, NEWPORT BEACH, CAL. REGISTERED AS "KEYSTONE MANOR." DATE AUTHORIZED: JUNE A 2008 SIGNATURE YS 00224 ....,. . . . . . ...._. MISNOWn, . . i YS 00225 i • 3 jj'' 7 YS 00226 • 3 jj'' 7 YS 00226 I I• I r • �I' am am WIN 1 ■m G�1 • a= • ■!I fro y .. i� i 1 YS 00227 I I r • �I' am am WIN 1 ■m G�1 • a= • ■!I fro y .. i� i 1 YS 00227 �lll �7 _O l� OV YS 00228 C) cn YS 00229 �� _•�•• •y • •��•• ••rr••r• �••r� rp rvrv� �.�I..b ,..rN,NYJ VVIMIIW VVI1 ,IOyVII GL� Q Orange County Sober living Network (recommended) ❑ Other (please describe) L SECONDHAND SMOKE LIMITATIONS NBMC §20.91A.050.A directs that °no staff, clients, guests, or any otter uses of the facility may smoke in an area from which the secondhand smoke may be detected on arty parcel other than the parcel upon which the facility is located. Check and sign here to acknowledge this requirement and your use's adherence to it; AI acknowledge that I will oontrd secondhand smoke on my facility such that no secondhand smoke may be dmiWed on any pa�I other than the parcel upon which my facility Is located. Signature• /(1�9 az.r� Date: A. ?he ' owner of record' of the prop" or an authorized agent must sign this Application. Signing the application under SWIOn -10 means that the appltcerd certffi es. under penalty of perjury, that the infomtaton PR within the Application and Its at achments is true and correct: Per NBMC`§20.90.030.C, false statements. are grounds for denial or revocation. B. The Applicant acknowledges that he or she must comply with all other Federal, State. and local laws and regulations relating to this use. The Applicant understands that a Violation of Federal, State, and total is" WW reguratlons is grounds for revocation of the Permit The Applicant understands and acknowledges that it is against California tow to provide treatment (as defined) in an unlicensed facility. C. If the City Issues a Use Permit based on the information provided to this Application, the Applicanes signature below ceftes his or her agreement to comply with the terms of the Use Permit The Applicant understands and acknowledges that non- oomplance with the terms of the Use Permit is grounds for revocation of the Revocation of the Use Permit. NBMC §20.96.040.E provides that the City can revoke a Use Permit it • The permit was Issued under erroneous information of misrepresentation; or • The applicant made a false or misleading statement of materiel fad, or omitted a material fed; or • The 00nctions of use or other regulations or laws have been violated; or • There has been a discontinuance of use for 180 days or more. THE UNDERSIGNED ASSURES THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD HIS OR HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER ANY USE PERMIT ISSUED BASED ON THIS APPLICATION. A. If the app9card to a Bole proprietor, the application shall'be signed by the proprietor. B. N the applicant is a partnership, the application *hat be signed by each paMer. C. If the applicant is a firm, aswxhation, oorporstkm, county, city, Public agency or other governmental entity, the application shall be signed by the chief executive officer or the I dtvidual legally responsible for representing the agency. 18 YS 00230 YELLOWSTONE BOARD RESOLUTION: THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT AGREEENT AND ENDORSEMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF YELLOWSTONE FOR THE FOLLOWING. DR A.M. THAMES IS THE CEO OF THE BOARD AND AGREES TO REPRESENT YELLOWSTONE IN ALL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. SHE WILL SIGN ANY AND ALL FINAL AGREEMENTS. ATTORNEY ISAAC ZFATY, WILL PROVIDE LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN ALL MATTERS IN THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LEISHA MELLO, AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR YELLOWSTONE WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. THESE AGREEMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS ARE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS OF JULY 1, 2008. �W�P-3vl� 'm LISA TUMAN YS 00231 G 08/22/2808 15:48 9496465299 3TAT60FMFCR" FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION REQUEST VALLAATOR-SNAVM uce""a 'DtM4m*h4.f AsElocy NAME AND Lrtehai ADDRESS STUET C4 issm - qol. 7 12 IT r _ iii&k il. Ma YELLOWSTONE sow kmftwdam on mwso. I. O"101MAL A. Pa 2. RENEWAL B. Lff J. rAPACM cvAkdm 4. C 11 CHAM S. AMREB& CHMM 6. NAME ONAN$ff T. ol-,aR tom jq )z 02 YS 00232 'IV MBPEMM ALI"gRffy PIKE C'roL"-te fire Aothor*, AMNORM MOAN Am 67 mvf AMR@" my PI P" cw."WE 0&0 Vf#-'o OA L U q7 RE 2- FIRE CLEARAW* -6 AL _j rIlXffS M, WNSTRUMON TaLep#9 toAmm C. FIRO AURM CUPANOY Lal T ;;mwc iom .0 0 10 %AT U R 6 SPECIAL MAZAM 02 YS 00232 HgW PpRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH D = C,yi�pNS Supplemental Information for Reasonable Accommodation Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 To aid staff in determining that the necessary findings can be made in this particular case as set forth in Chapter 10.98 of the Municipal Code, please answer the following questions with regard to your request (Please attach on separate sheets, if necessary): Please see attached sheet Name of Applicant If provider of housing, name of facility, including legal name of corporation (Mailing Address of Applicant) (City/State) (Zip) (Telephone) (Fax number) (E -Mail address) (Subject Property Address) Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 1. Is this application being submitted by a person with a disability, that person's representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability? 2. Does the applicant, or individual(s) on whose behalf the application is being made, have physical or mental impairments that substantially lhnit one or more of such person's major life activities? If so, please state the impairment(s) and provide documentation of such impairment(s). Pagel of3 YS 00233 Application Number 3. From which specific Zoning Code provisions, policies or practices are you seeking an exception or modification? 4. Please explain why the specific exception or modification requested is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 5. Please explain why the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of the individual with a disability. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 6. Please explain how the individual with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation? Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 7. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary to make your facility economically viable in light of the relevant market and market participants. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 8. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary for your facility to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting taking into consideration the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. Page 2 of 3 YS 00234 Application Number 9. Please add any other information that may be helpful to the applicant to enable the City to determine whether the findings set forth in Chapter 20.98 can be made (Use additional pages if necessary.) YS 00235 V- Z -. , 1561 Indus Attachment Name of applicant: Yellowstone, Woman's First Step House, Inc., 1561 Indus St., Santa Ana Heights, CA 92701; Phone: 888.941.9048; Fax: 949.646.5296; APN: 119 - 361 -08. 1. This application is provided by a provider of housing for individuals with a disability. 2. The individuals are alcoholics. 3. Single family residence to multi - family residence. 4. The applicant provides the residents of the Property with housing where same is otherwise unavailable to them. Most residents are long -term residents who are able to live with their disability, and in a sober environment, as a result of the provision of the facility by the applicant. The success of sober living homes in assisting these disabled individuals throughout the United States is well documented. Similar success has been realized at the Property addressed herein. A sample of the literature on sober living homes was attached to the original application. Without the home addressed in this application, the individuals who live at this home would not have access to sober living homes, and would not be able to afford to live in such a home in Orange County. Yellowstone provides this home to satisfy the otherwise unaddressed need by these disabled individuals for an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. There is no question that, with their current use, this property affirmatively enhances the lives of many individuals with disabilities. Importantly, the rent charged to these individuals simply covers Yellowstone's costs; no profit is realized_ In fact, without charitable contributions, Yellowstone would operate at a loss. By no means is Yellowstone, or any individual involved with Yellowstone, a profiteer. Yellowstone simply makes available a sober living environment in an effort to help these disabled individuals, and with a view toward enhancing the community. To the extent that Yellowstone is forced to remove its operations from this property, it will suffer extreme economic hardship. Moreover, with any prospective closure of the property as a sober living home, the individuals with disabilities who live in the home will be without accommodation. Yellowstone is compliant with all of the requirements in the City of Newport Beach's Good Neighbor Principles, and is tenacious in ensuring that all residents at the Property strictly observe these requirements. Approval of this application would not alter the nature of the municipal code or impose any financial or administrative burden on the City.. This property has been operating under these same general guidelines for years without imposing any burden upon the County or City. The residential character of the neighborhoods in which this property is located will not be altered in any way with the approval of this application. In fact, there is no non - residential use at the property. Moreover, there is no campus established through the grant of this application. Residents this property are not allowed at any of other property operated by Yellowston, and there are no functions that include all residents. Yellowstone has never been cited by any municipality at this property for any of the complaints set forth specifically in Ordinance 2008 -5, I YS 00236 Page 4, Paragraph 13. No health, safety or physical damage issues are presented with granting of these applications. 5. See response to No. 4. 6. See response to No. 4, 7. See response to No. 4. The applicant is not a developer. The applicant has operated at the Property for years and currently can afford this property. Due to the economic decline, and specifically as it pertains to residential housing, the forced sale of this property would cause an extreme economic hardship. 8. See responses to No. 4 and 7. 9. The applicant is a long- standing tenant in the community, and has had a presence in Santa Ana Heights for years. The applicant prides itself in acting as a good neighbor. As noted above, the applicant has an extremely high success rate in assisting disabled individuals live and integrate into Orange County. The applicant affirmatively enhances the lives of its residents. Any abatement of this facility would be harmful to the community. 2 YS 00237 Exhibit No. 8 Applicant's Supportive Documentation YS 00238 f DAVIS•ZFATY 9 ? ?O�Fi:i4.tl A..n.. !OO.iCSAIIO�. FEB o 2 2009 January 29, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re:, Afdavits for Fee Waiver Reasonable Accommodation Dear Janet: Enclosed are the signed Affidavits of Disability Related Financial Hardship. There is a separate Affidavit for each of the four Yellowstone properties. As we discussed, our responses to the questions relating to the income of the residents pre and post - disability are based on the average resident for each of the homes. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY ;? AV• 4 r � NICOLE COHRS Enclosure 580 Broadway Sheer, Spite 3o7 - Laguna Beach. CA 92651 . 949.376,2828 Fax 949.3763875 infoc?dzattorneys.com . wwwAzattorneys.com YS 00239 AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP 1561 Indus, Newport Beach I, Anna Marie Thames, declare: I am an authorized representative of disabled individuals; 2. I am submitting information specific to the financial status of a group of disabled individuals who reside in a household; 3. I am submitting the financial information herein voluntarily because I have requested a reasonable accommodation from the City of Newport Beach, which I believe is necessary because of financial hardship to the disabled individuals I represent; 4. Severe financial constraints which arose as a direct result of the disabled individuals I represent prevent them from complying with one or more provision or provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures generally applicable to the type of dwelling in which disabled persons I represent reside or wish to reside; Such provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures, if applied to the dwelling in which the disabled individuals I represent reside, will deprive disabled individuals of the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice; 6. In order to afford the disabled individuals the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice, the permanent or temporary waiver of a fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Council Policy or customary procedure is necessary; 7. The requested waiving of such fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement is necessary because of financial limitations which are the direct result of the disability of the individuals that I represent; -I - AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 00240 If the disabled individual on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested was able to work prior to becoming disabled, please provide information on such individual's pre- and post disability income: A. On the following dates, the disability of the persons I represent, rendered such persons severely limited in their ability to work or entirely unable to work: The individuals residing in the home were all affected by their disability at different times. During addiction, residents are unable to work. In sober living, however, all residents must find a job. B. Prior to the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual household income from all sources was approximately $50,000 (on average). C. After the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual income from all sources was approximately $20,000 (on average). Typically, household income is cut approximately in half because of alcoholism. As a result of alcoholism, the residents of the home have been rendered financially disabled. In sober living, the residents must find a job, however, the jobs the residents seeks are near minimum wage ($8.00 per hour). 9. If the disabled individuals on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested were not employed prior to becoming disabled, please state why any financial limitations which render the disabled individuals unable to meet the financial requirements of complying with the Newport Beach Municipal Code are a direct result of such their disability. All residents were employed in some manner prior to their addiction. 10. Please provide any additional information you feel would enable City staff and/or hearing officers to determine whether disability - related financial hardship requires an exception form the application of the City's Municipal Code, Council Policies, or usual and customary procedures in order to afford the disabled individuals an opportunity to reside in a dwelling. The residents cannot afford their own places to live. Their income is based on near minimum wage hourly rates. Thus, if forced to live elsewhere they could not afford to pay rent, a security deposit for an apartment, food, or utilities. Yellowstone provides a fresh start for recovering alcoholics to begin their life with a clean slate. Our fees our low and donors in the community provide individual scholarships for residents who qualify. -2- AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY- RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 00241 rua w rr w w u� �u�aa• uasalY.Y� .Y�4 laO OYY WfY JIY' WSJ Yeliewairegamr�tlfrimg, YeloarllmelSas�ie.aad m it111m 'Die. Dees the iaaetmeErtao to wverirs poop and YcHowame main no profit fitmi dwraddewL Mmmpnhafmism by a gmnp cf vDhmtmm.whn are eommiftd to vebxWng the sasideas back to the ComminkYsleaaand sober as 0xvaying.eiom whoem b* other almbolks. M a tc9atk Yetta9Pskmss smelt bndget emtaot mcmrrt tm the $2XD application fee. Yeflawaujoe mvecdW[y requite test tax City make a:emomb'.e acw=wdatian in=ordawL I I dap. �mdarpmanYvipgitgtmdmrAxhw�oiateSmbe .cfCasso�iathectbe Sonegoiag it aoe and comem Bxeattad as We 29°` day a£Jamam y.200 .'m- Nwaiport9ei& CaWbmiL ��NAM�RY6'litAlutE3 1. w YS 00242 PLAINN1W i)t AR—IMENI DAVIS•ZFATY .S EEOIESSIpH1l tPM Cp0.W RP110N n.n .� � ^� 14 i O January 29, 2009 Z175.1 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Request for Reasonable Accommodation: 1561 Indus Street Dear Ms. Brown: As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ("Yellowstone'). I recently spoke with Cathy Walcott of the City Attorney's office. She informed me of a few ambiguities in our Request for Reasonable Accommodation Worksheet for the 1561 Indus property (the "Property "). The purpose of this letter is to clarify these ambiguities. (Ouestion 5) Imnairments Substantially Lhaidne Mnior Life Activities: Do the clients have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? What are those impairments? The residents of the Property are recovering from alcohol addiction. They manifest physical and mental symptoms which have prevented them from engaging in at least one of their major life activities. Although the residents work, they are recovering from a physical dependence on alcohol. Mentally, the residents are recovering from the inability to make healthy choices like the average person in the general population regarding their consumption of alcohol. Their impairments affect their ability to think, concentrate, and interact with others as compared to the ability of the average person in the general population to do the same. Thus, their disability is substantially limiting. Enclosed with this letter is a Declaration under penalty of perjury from the applicant, Honey Thames, manager of the Property, that every resident in the Property has physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of the residents' major life activities. Cathy Walcott mentioned that this would be acceptable given that the privacy concerns of the residents limit our ability to provide medical records or signatures of the residents. 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 • Fax 949.376.3875 info @dzattorneys.com - www.dzattorneys.com YS 00243 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Question 10) Parkin¢: Describe the on -site parking resources and the staff and visitor parking plans. Parking on the Property is reserved for the manager and assistant manager, thus the maximum number of cars on the Property at any one time will be two. Residents are not permitted to park on the Property. Visitors are not permitted on the Property therefore there are no visitor parking issues. (Question 11) Operation of Vehicles: Describe client's availability to drive and operate a vehicle while residing at facility. The residents do not use cars. Instead, they rely on public transportation to and from the Property. (Question 12) Transportation: Does the facility provide transportation services? If yes, please describe the frequency, duration, and schedule of services and where the vehicles are stored Though the home generally does not provide transportation services, the home does provide some basic transportation to the nearby treatment facility and to St. John church. Both locations are within ten minutes of the home. There is a morning pickup at 8 a.m. and an evening drop off at 4 p.m. This is the only transportation provided. The vans that transport the residents are not parked on site. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. (Question 16) Interaction Within the Property How do the clients interact with each other within the unit? Is there joint use of common areas? Do clients share household activities and responsibilities? Will delivery trucks be provided at the facility? The Property provides the residents with a network of support to encourage recovery from the symptoms of alcoholism. The residents reside separately at the Property. There is a common area however each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, there are no delivery vehicles going to and from the Property. Finally, although Yellowstone owns four such homes in the Newport Beach area, there is no interaction between the homes. In other words, residents of the Property do not meet with the residents of other Yellowstone properties for dinners or other gatherings. Each home has its own residents and the residents of one home never interact with residents of a different home. YS 00244 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Ouestion 19) Necessity of the Reauested Accommodation: Please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary. Yellowstone hereby requests that a Reasonable Accommodation be made to Ordinance 2008 -5 such that Yellowstone is treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined iu Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Reasonable Accommodation is necessary because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility. Instead, the Property more accurately fits the definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030. Residents are the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit. Like a Single Housekeeping Unit, there is a common area and each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager. In conformity with our request for a Reasonable Accommodation, we would like to request that we get an exemption from Section 20.91A. 050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which states that there shall be no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. I hope that this clarifies any ambiguity with respect to our previous request for a Reasonable Accommodation. Please let me know if our responses need to be supplemented further and as always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation NICOLE COHRS cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) YS 00245 JAN -28 -2009 RED 0837 PH DAVIS RAYBURN apc rfu Nv. 34d afe aura r. uc MAR&= OF ANNA NAM THAMES I, Dr. Anna Marie Thames, hemby declare as foliates: 1. The matters elated herein are known to me personally and if called upon to testify. I could and wadd conapammly .tes* dr- P' n as Mews. 2. All individuals residing in &a property located at 1561 iadrm in Newport Beach are recovering Smm alcohol addiction. 3. Ahbou# the residaxs sm recoverhg, they maoit ' oWdeal and mental symptom ofdrair•addictian which adb omdally limit one ar were of dm residents major Hf* activities I declare under penalty ofpmjnry render do laws of de State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 28th day of January 2009, at Newport Beach, California. YS 00246 COST ANALYSIS OF OUR HOMES IN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS IN GENERAL, OUR WEEKLY FEES ARE BASED ON A SLIDING SCALE FROM $50.00 TO $160 PER WEEK OUR MORTGAGES AVERAGE $4500 PER MONTH A MINIMUM OF 15 RESIDENTS IS NEEDED TO PAY ALL THE EXPENSES FOR EACH HOUSE, INCLUDING LIGHTS, GAS, WATER AND TRASH. RENTS: SLIDING SCALE: $50.00 TO $160.00 PER WEEK AVERAGE: RESIDENTS: 16 AVERAGE RENT $100 MONTHLY AVERAGE: $6400 INCOME EXPENSES: FOR EACH HOUSE AVERAGE UTILITIES $ 800 LIGHTS, GAS, WATER, PHONE FOOD: $ 900 RECENEDBY PIMIAIING DEPARTMENT MORTGAGES: AVERAGE $4500 MONTHLY AVERAGE $6200 EXPENSES lid F N fwik ) ii i� a YS 00247 Drug Rehab Cost: Low cost subtance abuse treatment center: Yellowstone Recovery SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT CENTER Call Today (888) 941 -9048 -After Hours (949) 678 -9000 .:0P. . K 1% AND LOYlt C:f'v:f DR''UI _'.Y F. 'Sf?;JCF' R! GOVL NI I f OR ,,A,19N AW, W-'X Hmnn I ^P.1writ . °, LEGAL PROBLEMS? WE CAN HELPI OulPelignl Praq: e.ns .__....-- _.- ...- ...____.. __ UCENSED 4NDCERRF1ED By THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Oetoa Sarvlces Pregro ........... O la ..._.. -ur Hmnzs....._._.. Our Staff --__-- m.. tp ",.n $talananl ,ratso us 9 etana� Rttt�li..l� Ye. aC Cove,.' a 90 Days: $7,500 Rosidorttial Treatment . Sober Living: $700 - $190 per wetk a Outpatient: Sliding Scale $40 - $90 Some scholarships available after 30 days r I ,. : honav[hamea®vehgo cglti 2/12109 10:07 PM CGllr tl, si:t 12 � p n.rll ef^ 1 u V ,31iloa art Thsr:fpy I. rh S',;ills lr fi ng .'In t) L..,,r,.,; -agr m :rphll ll[ clPilrj s11. I -rS �,. I - qiF. <5IF'1 ittp : /lwww.yellowstonerecovery.com( cost- Fees- drugrehah- alcoholtreatmentcenter- california.htm Page 1 of 1 YS 00248 Exhibit No. 9 Applicant's E -mail dated January 28, 2009 YS 00249 Brown, Janet From: Nicole Cohrs [nc @dzattorneys.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:11 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: Yellowstone -- all hearings in one day Thank goodness! I was worried about it since the deadline was yesterday. And yes, it is amazing when these things suddenly pop into my head at night. Here are the answers to your questions: 1. The number of beds in each home is as follows: 1561 Indus =12 1621 Indus =18 Redlands =17 Pegasus =18 1 apologize for the discrepancy. 2. The number of beds in each home exceeds the number permitted by the Code: 1561 Indus (Code = 11 max) Actual =12 1621 Indus (Code = 13 max) Actual =18 Redlands (Code = 13 max) Actual =17 Pegasus (Code = 13 max) Actual =18 As you can see, we plan to exceed the number specified by the Code in all four homes. The Code states that a Hearing Officer may set different occupancy limits based on structure characteristics, traffic and parking impacts, and the health, safety, and welfare of the persons residing in the facility and neighborhood. All four of the homes have fire clearance. Obtaining fire clearance takes into account the above - listed factors which are to b� considered by the Hearing Officer in increasing the number of beds. According to the City Fire Dept., the homes all meet the standards for fire clearance. We think that this is more than sufficient. Let me know if you need more detail. 3. 1 spoke to Honey Thames and the architect this morning. I am waiting for a response from her as to when the revised plans will be sent to you. I know that she already contacted the architect about this last week. ! will let you know as soon as I hear from her. Thanks. Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: nc0dzattorneys com Web: www.dzaftorneys.com M4111Y4. -1r1 This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and is protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use. dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail, and permanently delete all copies, electranic or other, that you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in message that is forwarded or attached.'"" DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828, Fax 949.376.3875 From: Brown, Janet [ mailto: JBrown @dty.newport- beach,ca.usj Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:06 AM To: Nicole Cohrs Subject: RE: Yellowstone -- all hearings in one day Importance: High It arrived in yesterday's mail. Thank you. (Amazing what we think of at night, hm.) I am meeting with the contract planners who are working on the staff reports this morning at 10:00 a.m., and I do have a few other questions for you. 1. to the January 21 St letter, we requested clarification as to number of resident beds in each dwelling, as there was a discrepancy on the floor plans vs. the written summary on the plans. When may we expect this information? 2. If the number of beds exceeds the number allowed by Code, as outlined in the 1/21 letter, a justification statement must be submitted. Has that been prepared? 3. When might we expect revised site plans providing the additional information requested in the 1/21 letter? The information requested in the January 21" letter is necessary for us to fully analyze the applications, and prepare the staff report. Given that we are running up against the deadline for obtaining a use permit, we need this information as soon as possible. Thank you. Janet Johnson Brown Associate Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 ibrown@city.newport-beach.ca.us From: Nicole Cohrs [ mailto nc@dzattorneys com] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:46 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: Yellowstone -- all hearings in one day Hi Janet, I was thinking about this last night... I just wanted to make sure that you got my letter expressing that we want all 3 issues to be heard on February 12. YS 00251 Did you get that letter? I sent it last week. Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: nc&dzattomevs.com Web: www.dzattomeys.com This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and is protected by privilege. if you are not the intended recipient any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other; that you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached."' DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828, Fax 949.376.3875 YS 00252 Exhibit No. 10 Applicant's Additional Correspondence dated February 13, 2009 YS 00253 Wolcott, Cathy From: Nicole Cohrs [nc @dzattomeys.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1 :55 PM To: Wolcott, Cathy Cc: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: Reasonable accommodation #2 - necessity clarification Yes Cathy, all of that is correct. Thank you. I am concerned by my conversation with you this afternoon. If you know of any other inconsistencies please let me know. I don't want to present an unclear report. I want to make sure that Yellowstone's answers are clear. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at all. I assure you that I will get the appropriate responses for you ASAP. I am in the office until 3 today, at which point I will be heading to the hearing scheduled at 4pm. If you need to talk to me at any other time my cell is Thanks again. Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: ncllOdzattorneys.com Web: www.dzattorneys.com is r, ^,rr r uncation. irdudincl anV nth eirn�nta ti w ��i. wo'al anu {s f rctarted key P v ! ,,tj. ff y;au ;l nc,t tt s i1 +;n l<;tl ..:ie iit z ,, zse, sent inz�rtn, aislribullon or copying of this commi to cation s slriolly peohlbded. If you I i,e received Ihs roman n ati:?n iii piF,r e im r ietely nolify the send:r by telephone or ., nia1, xrd permanm0y cl ^lelr all i,vHs ele!no uc or oche dial •nni'ok!y N8va The rr.:eoeing ppin;s even if tl -, netice is ^mbe Hd d n a mrssagc that is fummind o .xltflr l ec9. "` DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, Suite 301 Laguna Beacch, CA 02651 949.376.282£9. Fax 949.376).3875 From: Wolcott, Cathy [ mailto: CWolcott @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:20 PM To: Nicole Cohrs Cc: Brown, Janet Subject: Reasonable accommodation #2 - necessity clarification Hi Nicole, As we discussed on the phone this afternoon, I am writing to obtain further clarification of Yellowstone Recovery's request for reasonable accommodation. Specifically, Yellowstone has requested an exemption from the standards of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.91A.050, which states that there shall be no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident in residential care facilities granted a use permit under NBMC Section 20.91 A.040. However, there has been no formal explanation of the necessity of this exemption. In order to complete staff's analysis, by phone I requested that Yellowstone furnish the City with their explanation of why this accommodation is necessary to afford a disabled individual or individuals the opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling of their choice. 1 YS 00254 You supplied explanations for the necessity of this accommodation for current residents, and prospective residents 1) Current resldents at Yellowstone facilities in excess of numbers allowed under NBMC 20.91A.050 — You stated that current residents in excess of numbers specked in the NBMC's operating standards would be displaced Ka use permit were granted for a lesser amount of residents. Because of financial constraints related to the disability of the residents, you stated they would be unable to afford rent in another dwelling and would have nowhere to live, and therefore an exemption from the occupancy limits of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 is necessary. 2) Prospective residents at Yellowstone facilities in excess of numbers allowed under NBMC 20.91A.050 —You stated that prospective residents of Yellowstone facilities have financial constraints related to their disability, and would be unable to afford a dwelling K the Yellowstone facility is unavailable to them because of the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050. Therefore, an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 is necessary to provide housing to these prospective residents as well. In addition, yourclarified two inconsistencies among the various Yellowstone submissions. You stated that in May, 2008, when the original Yellowstone use permit and reasonable accommodation applications were submitted, four cars were permitted at 1561 Indus. There has been a change of policy at Yellowstone since that date, and at this time no resident is permitted use personal vehicles, to have personal vehicles onsite, or park personal vehicles In the neighborhood (with the exception of the two resident managers per site, who are allowed vehicles which are parked onsite.) You also stated, consistent with the applicant's previous submissions, that there are no meetings held onsite at any of the Yellowstone facilities in Newport Beach. All meetings are held at Yellowstone's Costa Mesa facility, and letters from Yellowstone alumnae that reference visiting Yellowstone are referring to the meetings at the Costa Mesa facility. Please confirm the above, and feel free to provide further clarification if needed Thank you, Catherine Wolcott Deputy City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92656 -8915 cwolcott@cily_. newport_beachca. us Phone(949)644 -3131 Facsimile(949)644 -3139 YS 00255 Brown, Janet From: Nicole Cohrs Inc@dzattorneys.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:40 AM To: Brown, Janet; Wolcott, Cathy Subject: Clarification Correspondence Attachments: 00C001.PDF Hello Cathy and Janet, I was recently informed that the City is concerned about a few inconsistencies between Yellowstone's early submittals to the City (back in May 2008) and our more recently submittals. The attached letter will hopefully clarify some of the City's concerns. A hard copy is being sent in the mail today, however I wanted you to have a PDF version so that you could include this information in your reports. Regards, Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: nc _dzattorneys.com Web: www.dzattomevs.com This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and is protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, that you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached. * ** DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828, Fax 949.376.3875 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: xerox@dzattorneys.com [mailto:xerox @dzattorneys.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:31 AM To: Nicole Cohrs Subject: Scan from a Xerox WorkCentre YS 00256 DAVIS•ZFATY A r.Ort55iGNAt LAW COU,OIAION February 13, 2009 VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 RA;<: it t)BY PIANNIN ^� MAMMEM FEB OPT BEACH Re: Yellowstone Use Permit Applications and Reasonable Accommodation Requests Dear Ms. Wolcott and Ms. Brown: It has recently come to my attention there may be discrepancies between materials Yellowstone submitted with respect to its use permit applications and requests for reasonable accommodation for each of the four Yellowstone properties. Although this firm and the representatives of Yellowstone have made our best efforts to be clear and consistent, the materials submitted to the City in May 2008 reflect some inaccurate information. The purpose of this correspondence is to clarify these inconsistencies. Grouu Meetings Neither group treatment meetings nor individual treatment meetings occur on any of the four Yellowstone properties. All treatment is performed off site in Costa Mesa. The only meetings that occur at each of the four homes are weekly house meetings with the residents to discuss potential new residents and other administrative matters. Visitors Visitation with family and friends occurs on Sundays at Yellowstone's Costa Mesa facility located at 154 Fast Bay Street. 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2628 • Fax 949.376.3875 info@dzatturneys.com . www.dzittornc.ys.com YS 00257 Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown February 13, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Contractual Arrangements with Residents and Resident Selection In May 2008, Yellowstone submitted a request for reasonable accommodation that each of the four homes be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. It was recently brought to my attention that Yellowstone's response to Question 16, regarding resident interaction, needs clarification. Yellowstone does not have a contractual relationship with the residents of its properties. With respect to the residents of the four Yellowstone homes in Santa Ana Heights, Yellowstone's position is correctly stated in a letter to the City dated January 29, 2009: "the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager." More specifically, Yellowstone's Board of Directors does not determine who resides in each of the four homes. New residents are introduced and approved by the current residents during house meetings or they are not accepted. Many of Yellowstone's residents transition to sober living directly from treatment. Other residents learn about Yellowstone from other recovery centers or by community referral. Parking In May 2008, when the original Yellowstone use permit and reasonable accommodation applications were submitted to the City, Yellowstone requested that four cars be permitted to park at the 1561 Indus property. There is adequate room for four cars to park at 1561 Indus, however only the two resident managers for the home park on site. With respect to the three other Yellowstone properties, it has consistently been Yellowstone's position that only the two resident managers of the homes are allowed to park vehicles on site. I hope that this clarifies the ambiguities in our previous submissions to the City. As always, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation NICOLE COHRS, ESQ. YS 00258 Exhibit No. 11 Additional Letters of Opposition Received After February 13, 2009 YS 00259 Brown, Janet From: Jeff Dangl [Jeff.Dangl(§advisys.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 200910:23 AM To: DKiff @city- newport- beach.ca.us; J13rown@city-newport-boach.ca.us Subject: Yellowstone Homes (No morel) Greetings Janet Brown and Dave Kiff, I am a resident of the Santa Ana Heights area west of Irvine Ave, which was recently annexed into the city of Newport Beach. My wife and 1(and 3 children) have lived in the area since 1995. We are active in the community and enjoy the bond and unity we have with other families who also live in this area. Aside from the noise we get from planes taking off out of John Wayne airport, I feel we have a great and safe environment for our family to live, grow and take part in. Becoming a part of Newport Beach has also affected us positively as we have received "here's what's up" newsletters from the city, additional police patrols, code enforcement, etc. My concern right now deals with the number of permits that have been issued for the use of halfway houses (and alcohol/ drug rehabilitation homes) by Yellowstone Homes. While I do not necessarily have anything against these residents and believe that they should be afforded the same rights to a comfortable life I enjoy, I feel that these residents do not necessarily have the same level concern for the welfare and wellbeing of the neighborhood as do families who are permanent residents. Over th€past several years, as homes have. been sold, it seems like more and more are being purchased by Yellowstone Homes rather than to families because Yellowstone Homes is able to offer more money than families knowing that they will receivefurLng and assistance from the state. I believe that the number of these halfway houses has now adversely affected our neighborhood as we have seen a decrease in house upkeep and an increase in parked cars along our streets. 1 am not sure how many Yellowstone Homes are in my neighborhood, but it seems like the ration of their homes to homes owned by families is out of skew. Please do not approve any more permits to Yellowstone Homes. Thanks for your attention to this matter, /Jeff Dangl 20081 Kline Drive, Newport Beach Advisys, Inc. (formerly known as Kettley) is a leading financial services technology company providing solutions to 65,000 professional advisors nationwide_ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and /or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Advisys, Inc. (formerly known as Kettley) is a leading financial services technology company providing solutions to 65,000 professional advisors nationwide. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. YS 00260 Brown Janet From: George Robertson [g_robertson@roodrunnercomj Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:12 AM To: Brown, Janet Cc: patrbrtson@aol.cwm Subject: Public comments re: Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. Dear Ms. Brown, Please enter these comments to the public record regarding the application of Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. to operate four unlicensed adult residential care facilities within the West Santa Ana Heights neighborhood., My primary concern are the inaccuracies contained in the city staff reports that 1 reviewed. However, please note that due to the lateness of the city's posting of these reports (Tuesday, February 17, 2009 after 4:30 pm) and the fact that two of the links to the reports did not work until sometime late Wednesday, February 18, 2DD9, I was only able to review two reports completely and one cursorily. Besides the inconsistencies contained in reports, that city staff has pointed out, 1 have a few comments regarding the accuracy of the reports. However, the scope of the comments below are not complete as my review of the staff reports was hurried and incomplete due to the reasons cited above. Initial comments are: (1) Parks a. The staff report on 1561 Indus Street (and by extension all other reports) states that there are no public parks located within the neighborhood. This is in fact a wrong statement. There is a neighborhood park located at the terminus of Orchard Drive, that was in place well before Yellowstone began operations in this neighborhood. This park is located within about 750 feet of the proposed facility at 20172 Redlands Drive. I would ask that the city review its decisions on all of the applications using this information. (2) House size and Number of bed rooms a. The staff reports states square footage of each house as one of the reasons to allow an exemption in the maximum number of residents allowed. However, the stated square footage, which I have to I assume was provided by the applicant, were considerably over exaggerated. I have the original builder's materials on the "Sherwood Estates" development and, as built, house sizes were either 2,650 sq. ft. or 2,585 sq, ft. The implications is that for the houses at 1621 Indus Street and 1571 Pegasus Street, the application is off by almost 25 %; 1 have to assume that this percentage also applies to the proposed house at 1621 Indus.. For the house located at 20172 Redlands Drive the excess square footage is almost 15 %. b. None of these houses, as built were larger than five bedrooms, yet two of the applications state that they have six bedrooms. I know that the house located at 20172 Redlands had some internal modifications done, at the time without a county building permit, but this house as built only had four bedrooms. c. The staff reports contain a stipulation on having the city's Fire Marshall review, which I support. In addition I would ask that the city also send a building inspector to verify (a) square footage; (b) number of bedrooms; and (c) whether any structural modifications, such as the addition of new bedrooms, are legal additions. (3) "Characteristics of Use /Treatment a. The report states that the applicant does not allow residents on any other Yellowstone property. However, this statement is negated by personal observations of residents from at least three of the four residences co- mingling at each other's residences. I have seen women from the Pegasus house walk up to Redlands, and on one occasion observed several women leave the Redlands house early in the morning before 7 a.m., ; implication is that they spent the night. I often see residences from the I YS 00261 Redlands house walk up to the house at 1621 Indus. Additionally on at least two occasions I have seen large groups walk up to the house on 1621 Indus mid -week, mid- morning. The assumption being made is that there are large group functions (treatments ?) being held onsite. (4) Transportation and parking a. Despite all of the inconsistencies contained in the staff report table, my biggest concern are the assertions that (a) transportation is not provided; and (b) that residents to not allowed to have cars. My personnel observations are: (a) that Yellowstone operates two large capacity vans on a routine basis. Over the years I have seen these vans pick up and drop off residents at both the men's and women's residences, in particular 1561 Indus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive. These vans (one of which has NANPOOV stenciled on the windows) have lately been parked each night in the neighborhood, typically alongside 20172 Redlands Drive near the intersection of Redlands Drive and Pegasus Street. Additionally I have observed private vehicles pick -up and drop off multiple residents at 20172 Redlands. These facts on the ground seem to contradict statements made by the applicant b. Manger parking. I have never seen any cars parked inside the garage of any of the four residences. Two cars I commonly see parked in the driveway are at 1561. One of these leaves each day before 7 am. So I am not sure that this is a managers vehicle or a residents vehicle who is leaving for work. (5) Smoking a. The staff report states that no complaints have been made regarding second hand smoke and that smoking is limited to the backyard patios. Again I have personally observed individuals (residents or guests I can't say) smoke in the front yards. Additionally, a walk along these houses will show cigarette butts in the gutters and driveways of these houses; I recently observed this at 1621 Indus on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 and at 20172 Redlands on Thursday, February 19, 2009. b. I was completely unaware until I read the staff report that there was a restriction on second hand smoke until I read the staff report. I would suggest that the lack of complaints cited in the staff report is an artifact of the neighbors not knowing that this was a legitimate issue that could be raised to the city's attention. I have personally detected second hand smoke outside the property, so I believe that the findings made regarding Section 20.91A.060A is wrong. (6) Approval selection process a. After reading the three staff reports, I was not able to determine why one facility was selected for approval over another. A comparison table would have been informative. In fact, the house at 20172 Redlands, which city staff has recommended be approved, is probably one of the more problematic houses with the most issues, vanpools, private car use, smoking, noise, litter, excessive trash. How did this house get selected over another? Availability of street parking? In closing 1 request that the city deny all of these application due to the inconsistencies and contradictions contained in the applications, as reflected in the staff report. I lieu of that decision, I request that, prior to any approvals being granted by the city, that staff verify the issues contained in #2 above, be more transparent on the decision process ( #6), provide sufficient time for the public to review all relevant documents, and get more public input before any final decisions are made. Additionally, I suggest to city staff that if the applicant is unaware of the facts -on -the ground (e.g., vanpools, residents co- mingling, use of private cars) that contradict statements made by the applicant as reflected in the staff report, that there is a disconnect between the on -site residence managers and the applicant; another issue for the city to clarify and rectify prior to any approvals. Finally, for any approvals granted, I ask that the city add a condition that the applicant provide all of the neighbors with a common set of "house" rules that is updated as changes are made. Finally I ask that the city provide the neighbors a method of reporting violations of these rules and a description of the city's actions would be under such instances. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Regards, George and Patricia Robertson YS 00262 Brown, Janet From: berry walker [bwarch.biziagmaii.00m] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 20091:51 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: Yellowstone Sue Permits Attachments: Yellowstone Use Permits.rtf Janet - Attached letter responding to the Use Permit Hearing notice They did not have a meeting at the Redlands house last week and have not for about 3 weeks, but when they do, the meetings seem to start about 6:00 and breakup in about 90 mins. Not real sure because we did not specifically watch for them, but they have held meetings there that seemed to draw about a dozen cars. Thanks Barry YS 00263 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA. Attn: Janet Brown , _ BY PL NNIN - '?PPARTMEM FEB 17 2009 rltY OF ,'aa�g,t��R� BEAN February 17, 2009 This letter is in response to the Use Permit Hearing notification for the Group Residential Use Permits that have been applied for by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. for 1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive. My primary objection to these use permit requests is the substantial increase in density that this represents for this neighborhood and the associated problems that come with a higher density usage than was originally planned for. The use permits request permission to raise the density from the original design of a probable max of 6 per household to 18 (plus supervision ?) per household. Although this request is for four houses, the neighborhood has an additional rehab house (and possibly two as a previous rehab house has recently changed hands and the new owner has not moved in yet), all within a 350' radius. This means that 6 houses out of 36 are involved with the rehab industry and that the possible population of the area increases from 216 to 282, a 30% increase in density. The reality is that this is an older neighborhood (most are empty nest at this point), and the average is probably more likely 2.5 3.0 people per household. That makes the number more like 108 residents and with the addition of the rehab houses, the population increases to 216, a 100% increase in the population density in this specific case. The increase in density has many environmental effects on the neighborhood. When these homes were planned, the target household was for a family unit of 5 -6 with 5 bedrooms and 3 baths (the typical floor plan encompassing about 2400 square feet) and a two car garage. The water supply and sanitary sewer were probably sized for the number of uses that 5 people would generate. As you can imagine, the systems will he over -used with a household of 18 people and we can anticipate system problems with an over - stressed older infrastructure. Parking will become a worse problem with the addition of more cars since the houses only have 2 off - street parking spaces at most (the garages are filled with "stuff' and not used for parking). When the house at 20172 has meetings (previously every Tuesday at about 6:00 pm.) both sides of two streets were lined with cars, passage was more difficult. Waste generation per house is substantially increased with several of the houses putting out 4 overflowing 90 gal, trash cans each week — with 18 people, I can only imagine the trash generation and disposal situation — 12 trash cans? Smoking, though not regulated as an outside activity, still creates its own problems as we are constantly picking up cigarette butts from our yards, driveways and gutters. Late night / early morning traffic as group home residents who do not drive are picked up and dropped off or just sitting in the car in the street as people talk — not a big deal with regular density, but with a doubling of the density, itjust happens more often and becomes an irritant. Lastly, when Yellowstone moved in, they did nothing to start a dialogue, like "here is the phone number of our customer service if there is problem we should address" which did nothing to get Yellowstone off to a good start and so we have no reason to believe they will be a good neighbor if these use permits are approved. Sincerely, Barry Walker 1571 Indus Street YS 00264 February 16, 2009 11� Newport Beach Planning Department FEB M Zg1 Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. 1� Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 f+1'(1] OF 111 Regarding: Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. application for Group Home Use permits to operate commercial business in a residential neighborhood. Yellowstone Women's First Step Rouse Inc. has been operating the above business for several years before West Santa Ana Heights was annexed into Newport Beach. To my knowledge these are unlicensed businesses and as such have changed the complexion and nature of our community. Yellowstone wishes to increase the number of clients and staff at these facilities. Based on the figures given by Yellowstone, 12 clients at 1561 Indus Street, 18 clients each at 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street, and 20172 Redlands Drive this is a total of 66 paying customers at any given time. 'Me application does not include live -on site st4 which I assume would be requited to maintain the enterprise. Assuming staff would not share a room with clients the dorm style rooms would have to sleep 4 and each of the 3 bathrooms per property would have to accommodate between 5 and 6 individuals. With the rapid turnover this represents several hundred clients per year. Basically, these are transient hotels without the controls placed on other similar businesses. These homes were not designed or intended for this requested use. If Yellowstone is granted the requested use permits and allowed to operate these businesses in this neighborhood, is the Planning Department willing to grant all other requests to operate business in our residential neighborhood? Newport Beach does not permit a homeowner to conduct weekly garage sale on their property because it is a business. Could another investment group purchase a home and set up a massage therapy parlor? I doubt it. Zoning is intended to maintain balance and community structure. Commercial, industrial, and residential neighborhoods are all important to maintain a strong city. Disregarding the zoning plans of a community and combining the different uses will impact property values, destroy the nature of family neighborhoods, and set a precedence that could negatively impact all concerned. For these reasons it is requested the applications related to these residences, to be operated as for profit businesses, be denied. Respectfully Submitt d, &44 ,eelclQ Michael McDonough Connie McDonough 1562 Pegasus Street (Newport Beach) Santa Ana Heights, Ca, 92707 YS 00265 v /.�� � «����\ � �� � � � � � � \ YS 00267 I ry �1 'r ty Y y" ` 1 11 l f a 3 I • i s ' �'1f• V'-1P -� f� L .�svw •l &r ,ewyR f.. � G t -e g 041 y "k e s rtq /....0 ;et. YS 00269 0 �o H Z h 0 O t` YS 00270 YM NIL A '+ f + 1' 7 + 1' IJ TO: Janet Johnson Brown, Planner City of Newport Beach CA FROM: Judy Hoyer Walker 1571 Indus St Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 DATE: FEB. 17, 2009 FEB 17 cftrlp SUBJECT: Comments on the City's Consideration of Special Use Permits for the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. I am a property owner at the above listed address and have resided at this property for over 20 years. The potential of ever increasing population density to my neighborhood is most disturbing. In the posted application for Use Permits by Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. I was overwhelmed by the proposed occupancy levels of these 4 properties. Three of the properties were listed as requesting occupancy for 16 "clients° and the fourth was listed for 12 "clients ". Many flags went up when I read this. 1) No mention is made of what additional "non - client" or supervisor personnel will also be residing in these dwellings. Personally I would not want to have these "clients" unsupervised. In my experience with these facilities thus far even with supervision the "client" behavior and activity is not within what I think or as residential, good neighbor, behavior. I would ask that the city have the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. group provide specific staffing / supervisory information as part of this permit review. And that residence is informed of what those staffing proposals are. 2) Even considering the occupancy density without knowing what additional headcount staff /supervisory personnel may add, I am very concerned. I will acknowledge that the dwellings in this neighborhood are large. Built in the early 60's they were'intended for families (as stated in marketing materials from the original sale of the development). At five bedrooms one could see that a family unit of 6 would have been comfortable, and that the dwelling could potentially have had 10 individuals. But in reality the general large family unit in the 60's would have been in the 5 to 7 range. You can do some mathematical weighting and estimate that the original neighborhood occupancy was 5.2 persons per dwelling. So if we look at the requested occupancy density we're looking at dwellings have 2.3 to 3.1 times the occupancy of a family neighborhood! And this is without staff /supervisor numbers being included. Given the fact that 40 years later the average Orange YS 00273 County nuclear family is lower than 40 years ago any comparison we do to the weighted occupancy number from 1960's is even greater. 3) So now we're looking at a somewhat physically dosed neighborhood (due to street layouts being closed to through traffic) we're looking at an effect of adding the equivalent of 8 additional housesf a. 4 dwellings contributing an excess of 40+ individuals: 60 requested clients in 4 dwellings, less the expected occupancy of 21, based on weighted occupancy rate. 40 excess divided by the weighted occupancy of 5.2 Is'— 8 additional dwellings. b. There just isn't physical room for 8 additional dwellings. And there is another factor that the proposed increased density to the neighborhood is not evenly distributed throughout the existing homes. There is a concentration to about half of the neighborhood. Is it reasonable that a burden such as this be so unevenly distributed? 4) Such very large increase on occupancy to individual properties gives me concern on many topics a. Infrastructure ......... specifically sewers and storm drains. The sewer and storm drain systems for this neighborhood were designed 40+ years ago. In my 20+ years of residency backups have been an issue. I suppose that I am overly sensitive due to the fact that my property is the lowest point for a portion of this development. We have experienced backups into our home due to the failure of the street system. Increasing occupancy density 3x is a frightening proposal. What has/will the city do to help mitigate the impact for an occupancy rate well over the imagined occupancy level at time of systems design? b. Traffic and parking......... While the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. group may tell the city that "clients" are not allowed to have vehicles during residency I would ask if they intend to make it a condition of employment for staff /supervisors to not have vehicles? Additionally I would ask if the city has reviewed what policies are in place now for "clients ". During the months that the facility next to my home has been in operation I have had "clients" park in front of my property rather than in the empty driveway of the Yellowstone Women's First Step Howse Inc.>facility. When I asked if the vehicle could be moved from in front of my property to somewhere within the parameters of the property of the facility, I was told "It isn't that simple ". So what are the guidelines that this group is giving that dissuades its client's from using the facilities that it owns? Why is burden being shifted to the neighborhood? And parking is not the only concern. With so many residences the general level of vehicles coming and going is higher now than prior to the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. purchasing the properties. I can specifically speak to the property next to me. There are vehicles coming and going, doing drop offs, or "visitor" standing or parking, and the YS 00274 duration of this activity goes from very early in the morning (5 am) to very late at night (past 11pm and sometimes well past midnight). And then there are the weekly evening meetings that are held at some of these facilities. While occasionally residences of the neighborhood may have a gathering, party or club meeting, these are not routine. The parking impact to the surrounding street of the meeting house is significant. c. Trash and refuse ........... I must question the city as to what would be considered reasonable for containment of refuse from one 3000 sq. it dwelling that houses 16+ individuals? I haven't done the math as to how many trash receptacles will physically fit along the curb of these lots, but I invite the city to make such calculations. I would venture to say that the number would not be sufficient to manage the number of proposed "clients" and staff /supervisors. While the sheer number of receptades is only a physical issue on trash collection day, my concern arises from the condition of the receptacles between collections. To date the receptacles placed at the curb at the addresses covered by this application have been in overflowing conditions. Items and plastic bags are readily exposed to the exterior of the container. It is important to keep in mind the physical location of this neighborhood. The boundaries of this area on two sides have large open unpopulated space (two golf courses), and part of the area is bounded by a drainage channel. All of these areas are habitats to wildlife. Having uncontained refuse is an invitation to unwanted wildlife which is known to be attracted by rubbish, such as possums and raccoons. Even vector control directs full containment of refuse as a necessary deterrent to raccoon infestation. I ask that the city look hard at this component of allowing such dense occupancy of a dwelling, and ask that Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. provide detailed policies and procedures for dealing with this aspect of their facilities. 1 have outlined those areas that can be spoken of in specific terms. My last area and one of the largest is how all of these factors compound together to change the character of what I purchased into...... a residential neighborhood. I purchased in the area because of the size of the property. And I fully expected to have families that were larger in number than if the dwellings were smaller. What is concerning to me is the change in the feel of the area. The °clients° of Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. are not in the property expecting to become a part of this community. They are temporary. Their attitude and behavior reflects this on an ongoing basis. Since Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. opened business in the property next to mine I now have more general debris in my yard; cellophane wrappers, plastic cup lids, cigarette butts. This is a change since the change of ownership. And it isn't just the difference of having a homeowner next door vs. a business. The former owner rented rooms, but she held her renters to strict rules and those included being respectful of the property and neighborhood. The property on my other boundary likewise is a YS 00275 rental with young adult children who have normal active lives. They too respect the neighborhood and treat it as if they were owners. I find it is the ,,smalr things that give a good indication of how a neighbor respects the others they are sharing the space with. I am always amazed that the facility next to me feels it totally acceptable to place their trash cans, not in front of their property, but instead in front of the property next to them. While they may try and cover this with some statement that it is less maneuvering the trash truck needs to snake, they seem to overlook the fact that they are blocking a fire hydrant. This is a safety issue for the residences of the street. Parking and standing vehicles across a neighbors drive. It's not an inconvenience to them just for the people who consider this as their home. When asked to do what is polite or common sense the first response I generally get is something to the effect that the action I am asking to change isn't bothering me! These temporary residents are giving proclamations as to what is and isn't bothersome to me. If it didn't bother me I wouldn't mention it. An individual who has a vested interest in selecting a neighborhood as a place of residence generally understands that their personal actions have an impact on others. This attitude and understanding has never been exhibited in any of my encounters with these facilities and .clients". The constant coming and going is tiresome. It's additional foot traffic as well as vehicular traffic. It has become extremely difficult to "know" what is normal for our area and what isn't. All the people and vehicles coming and going at all hours is un- nerving......... are they part of the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. group or are they individuals who are doing reconnaissance for potential crimes. The very secluded feel of the area is part of what is desirable, but it comes with a price of being more vigilant of what is normal or expected for the neighborhood. Likewise it is difficult to evaluate if the individual would be a potential *client" and expected to have access to the property. As example the facility next to me is reportedly a women's house, yet it isn't unusual for there to be several men wandering in and out of the facility. If I didn't have prior knowledge of the business being run in the building I would easily think that there was a potential brothel being run out of that address. I feel an added burden by sheer volume of all this activity to help insure that my family and property are safe. In closing I would comment that I feel a change in the atmosphere of the neighborhood since Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. has purchased properties in our development. The feel of a residential neighborhood is diminished. Today there is a much stronger feel of an apartment complex or even a hotel /motel complex. I understand that the disabilities act provides protection from discrimination for these individuals. However as a property owner whose home this area is, I expect that the city will not transfer burden to me. I believe that facilities could be run in a residential neighborhood, but careful attention to detail is paramount. The facilities must be closely supervised 2411. 0 YS 00276 Policies and procedures to ensure the temporary residents exhibit a demeanor that is respectful of the permanent residence should be strongly considered. Density of inhabitants should not be substantially different from the surrounding non - facility dwellings. Impact to infrastructure of the neighborhood has to be carefully studied. While much of what 1 would like to see put in place falls to the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. as proprietors of the business, I also feel that it is the responsibility�f the city to include provisions for review, monitoring, and reporting, on a routine basis, those conditions and stipulations established and defined by any use permit that might be granted. Thank you for the consideration of my concerns. YS 00277 February 14, 2009 Newport Beach Planning Department City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: 13P2008 -034, RA2009 -004 UP 2008 -035, RA 2009 -005 UP 2008 -036, RA2009 -006 UP 2008 -037, RA2009 -007 1592 Pegasus Street Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 Eta 91M � pw FEB 17 1t%'4 cm Objections are hereby made to the above referenced requests for approval of use and continued use of certain residential properties as designated and requested in those same applications. I am a resident of the community identified as Santa Ana Heights and a neighbor living adjacent to and in close proximity to the four single family residences that, if I understand correctly, are being used for commercial purposes inconsistent with current zoning and permitted uses and, f uthennore, incompatible with the character of the neighborhood. With respect to the assertion contained in the notice that the activities are categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class I (Existing Facilities), objection is made on two grounds. Firstly, the activities are not existing at the time of the lead agency's determination of the applicability of the categorical exemption in that the proposed activities will not "involve negligible or no expansion of the use existing at the time the exemption is granted." In the discussion of the application of section 13501 (CCR Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 19), it cannot be that the legislature intended to sanction unpermitted and unapproved uses as those uses for which a categorical exemption would apply. The uses contemplated under the Act as being existing and for which the exemption would apply are those that are consistent with the existing zoning and other land use regulations in effect and applicable to the property. YS 00278 Newport Beach Planning Department February 14, 2009 Page 2 The homes in the community are single - family dwellings, zoned for noncommercial uses. Without discussing what would constitute a "single family," the proposed uses, including providing residences for up to 18 transient adults, is hardly consistent with any definition of single family residence. In that same vein, the use contemplated, without giving distinction to the nature of the occupancy, is plainly commercial and not residential. That is, the purpose of operating the facilities, from the perspective of the owner, is the accumulation of rental, whether from the individual residents or some other source or form. That makes the use commercial and not residential. By way of example, if any resident of the community chose to lift up their garage door and sell antiques on the premises on more occasions than would be considered incidental, this City would assuredly require a business license and would likely object to the use to the extent such commercial activities were deemed incompatible with existing residential zoning. The dwellings for which the exemptions and permits are being sought are not apartment complexes. They are not retail establishments. They are not hotels. Yet, what is proposed would create those very sorts of commercial establishments. Secondly, the Class I exemption is applicable only to the extent there is no possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment. (Section 15300) In claiming an exemption, what the applicants overlook is the fact that there has never been an evaluation of the burden on the environment created by the very conditions they now seek to have approved. To the extent the proposed use has not previously been evaluated under CEQA and approved, consideration has not been given to the burden on infrastructure and other aspects of the environment that would result from the dramatic increase in occupancy density proposed under the applications. Admittedly without any census data to support the underlying assertion, it would not be unreasonable to assume that a "typical" residence of the size contained within the community for which the applications have been submitted (4-5 bedrooms, 2 -3 baths) would be occupied by 3 -6 people. The applicants propose a density 4 to 6 times that number, ranging from 12 individuals (UP2008 -34) to as many as 18. YS 00279 Newport Beach Planning Department February 14, 2009 Page 3 Such an increase in density will assuredly have a substantial impact on traffic, parking, noise, and use of emergency services including police and fire. While it may be suggested that the residents will not impact parking because of the prohibition against residents having cars, residents of the community can assuredly speak to a contrary condition. It is frequently observed that cars are parked on adjoining streets and the occupants then walk to the residences. Moreover, there are frequent occasions when cars line most ofthe streets, even spilling over into the surrounding areas on Santa Ana. Without any means of enforcing these self - described and self — imposed conditions, it is not proper for the City to rely on the assertion that there are no parking or traffic impacts in considering the application. Moreover, the City itself is in the best position to know of and, in consideration of County statistics applicable to the area pre- annexation, to evaluate the number of emergency service calls to the applicant residences as compared to the entirety of the remainder of the community. This factor is of considerable concern inasmuch as the community was only recently annexed to Newport Beach. As such, the City has likely not undertaken to fully evaluate the required level of emergency services necessary to support the community, without regard to the proposed density of activity proposed under the applications. Adding at least four residences with as many as 18 individuals in three and 12 individuals in the fourth dwelling will dramatically increase the burden placed upon the City to support the community. I wish to make clear, in submitting the foregoing objections, that I am not making a specific objection to any particular use or person. Rather, the objections are based on the fact, as acknowledged in the notice, that the proposed use is dramatically out of line with existing lawfully permitted and zoned uses for every other residence in the community. Suggesting that the proposed uses will have no impact on the environment ignores the very reasons behind passage of the Environmental Quality Act and does a disservice both to this community and the City to whom community residents look for support. Responsible land use planning takes into consideration the overall impacts of all development. Allowing uses that dramatically exceed zoned or otherwise permitted uses undermines the nature of planning. Claiming an exemption based on prior, unpermitted and unauthorized use merely encourages further disregard YS 00280 Newport Beach Planning Department February 14, 2009 Page 4 for land use restrictions, all of which are intended not to preclude reasonable uses of property but to harmonize conflicting interests and avoid unsustainable conditions. The proposed uses for the four residences invite the very sort of excessive uses and burdens for which CEQA review was designed. On the basis of the foregoing, I submit that the applications should be denied in their present form and the applicants required to submit the projects to a full CEQA review prior to the resubmission of any application for the proposed uses. Stephen Abraham YS 00281 WIVfq % , z4pnwee JAMES C. HARVEY DIANE E. HARVEY F 'g 8 299 1651 Indus Street Newport Beach, CA 92707���:v Telephone (714) 979 -7031 ''' t' - °:+ WWI Email: harvey5@roadrunner.com February 18, 2009 Thomas W. Allen Hearing Officer CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Opposition to Applications of Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. for Use Permits (1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street, & 20172 Redlands Drive) We cannot be present for the public hearing on February 20, 2009 but intend this letter to register our opposition to the granting of a Use Permit for any of the four (4) facilities currently operated by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. in the former West Santa Ana Heights. We ask that you either: (1) deny all four applications, or (2) impose strict conditions on Yellowstone's operations to conform to the City's Municipal Code. We bought a home in this neighborhood in 1998 because it was family- oriented with many small children. In the years since then, we believe that the residential character of the neighborhood has been substantially altered by the presence of Yellowstone's facilities. Those facilities have grown from the original one (at 1571 Pegasus Street) to the present four (4), all concentrated within a very small geographic area. We are concerned about noise, trash, traffic, and transitory persons in our neighborhood, all caused by the over concentration of Yellowstone's facilities. With two children in elementary school, we are particularly concerned by Yellowstone's facility for men at 20172 Redlands Drive, as our children have been approached by some of the transitory men living in that facility. We have no idea if the men living there are parolees, probationers, or registered sex offenders, and along with other families in the neighborhood we fear allowing our children to walk past that facility unescorted. That facility is also right across the street from the neighborhood school bus stop, where children congregate every morning. YS 00282 We urge you to deny Yellowstone's applications because they cannot satisfy the requirements of NBMC §20.91A.060: Yellowstone's use does not conform to all Mlicable provisions of NBMC §20.91A.050. A. We believe that Yellowstone is violating NBMC §20.91 A.050(Cx1) and State law by conducting unlicensed treatment services at 1621 Indus Street. On several occasions we have observed a line of men walk from the Yellowstone facility at 20172 Redlands Drive, enter the adjacent Yellowstone facility for women at 1621 Indus Street, and stay there for more than an hour. We believe that this indicates the facility is providing on -site services, for which a State license is required. B. We believe that Yellowstone has far more than two residents per bedroom, in violation of NBMC §20.91 A.050(C)(2). These are single-family homes with four or five bedrooms, and at least one of the bedrooms is quite small. Yellowstone may argue that each facility has more than five bedrooms, but if so that is based on conversion of living, family, or dining rooms into "bedrooms." 2. Yellowstone's use does not meet the standards of NBMC §20.91A.060. A. The properties are not physically suited to accommodate the proposed use. NBMC §20.91 A.060(C). 18 adults living in one single- family home (as Yellowstone proposes) is ridiculous and cannot be justified by anything other than a desire to maximize profits. One need only drive through our neighborhood on trash day to see the impact: while each family home has one or two cans out front, each Yellowstone facility has four, five, or sometimes six cans, all filled to overflowing with trash. No doubt each facility's use of electricity, water, and gas is also out of proportion for a single - family home. B. The use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. NBMC §20.91 A.060(D). In particular, the residential character of the neighborhood has been changed by over concentration of such facilities. In generally limiting the use to one per block, NBMC §20.91A.060(D)(3) directs the Hearing Officer to apply average or median block lengths, which are listed as 711 feet and 617 feet, respectively. We submit that by those measures our neighborhood already has more than one use per block. Using GoogleEarth, we calculate that the distance between 1621 Indus Street and 1561 Indus Street is less than 350 feet (they are only four doors apart on the same street). The distance between 1621 Indus Street and 20172 Redlands Street is less than 400 feet. C. Contrary to Yellowstone's past assertion that its residents do not park cars in our neighborhood, we have observed that many of their residents actually do park cars on our streets, especially along Pegasus Street adjacent to the 1571 Pegasus Street facility and on Redlands Drive adjacent to the 20172 Redlands Drive facility. In addition, a large passenger van associated with Yellowstone is often parked at night across the street from the 20172 Redlands Drive facility. We also observe numerous cars entering and leaving our neighborhood containing visitors to facility residents. These activities generate traffic out of proportion to the number of facilities. NBMC §20.91A.060(E). YS 00283 If any use is permitted. strict conditions should be imposed If you determine, despite the opposition of the neighboring homeowners, that Yellowstone should be granted any form of approval, we urge you to impose Conditions of Approval similar to those imposed on other applicants such as Balboa Horizons and Ocean Recovery: A. Due to over concentration in our neighborhood, at most only two of Yellowstone's applications should be granted. The other two facilities should be abated. B. No more than two (2) clients should be allowed per bedroom, and "bedroom" should be limited to those rooms designed for that purpose, not converted living, dining, or family rooms. C. No probationers, parolees, or registered sex offenders should be allowed to occupy any of the facilities at any time. We suggest that you impose a condition requiring Yellowstone to obtain from a resident, prior to placement, a signed statement that he or she has never been convicted of a sex offense against a minor. D. No more than one automobile per facility may be parked on neighborhood streets, and no commercial vehicles or passenger vans may remain overnight. 4. Yellowstone's re guests for reasonable accommodation should be denied. We presume that Yellowstone's request for reasonable accommodations involves the number of occupants allowed in its facilities, and we assume that Yellowstone claims that all its residents are persons with a "disability ". But Yellowstone's request has nothing to do with "enhancing the quality of life" of any disabled person (NBMC §20.98.025(C)(1)) or granting disabled persons "equal opportunity" (NBMC §20.98.025(C)(2)). Yellowstone simply wants to pack as many people as possible into each facility to generate maximum profits. Yellowstone cannot satisfy the requirements of NBMC §20.98.025, and per subsection (B), all the requirements must be met. Granting Yellowstone's application would undermine the City's zoning program and would continue to detract from the residential character of our neighborhood. Thank you for considering our objections and those of our neighbors. Very Truly Yours, James C. Harvey Diane E. Harvey cc: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager YS 00284 1621 INDUS: STAFF REPORT (w/ Exhibits 1 -11) FOR FEBRUARY 20, 2009 HEARING - %v.doc YS 00285 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEARING OFFICER'S STAFF REPORT February 20, 2009 Agenda Item #2 TO: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer SUBJECT: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street • Use Permit No. 2008 -035 • Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -05 APPLICANT: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Isaac R. Zfaty, Attorney CONTACT: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3236, ibrown@City.newnort- beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY This is a use permit application to allow the continued operation of an existing unlicensed adult residential care facility providing a sober living environment with a total occupancy of 17 persons. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. A reasonable accommodation application has also been submitted requesting: The residents of the facility be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NMBC); 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which restricts occupancy to two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; and 3. An exemption from NBMC Section 20.90.030 that states applications '.or discretionary approvals, including use permits, are accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer conduct a public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, the City of Newport Beach and its legal counsel, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends the Hearing Officer: V&11I11011:I1 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 2 Approve the use permit application with a reduction in the number of beds (from 17 to 15) within the facility based on the findings discussed in this report, and provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution of approval of Use Permit No. 2008 -035. 2. Deny the request for reasonable accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a single housekeeping unit subject to the findings discussed in this staff report. 3. If a use permit is granted for this facility, staff recommends that the requested accommodation for an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91 A.050 be granted as to the current residents. As to future residents of this facility, staff recommends continuance to a date certain pending receipt of additional financial information. 4. Staff recommends a continuance to a date certain for the request for reasonable accommodation for an exemption of the application filing fee requirement pending receipt of additional financial information. YS 00287 re i� Use Permit No, 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 3 Subject Property ON -SITE Detachcd Jr' /R1tl31 FaUmtlf iIi UgA 011R�IG Residential Care Facility NORTH City of Costa Mesa city of Costa Mesa Flood Control Channel SOUTH Single -Unit Residential SP -7 /Residential Single Single -unit residential dwellings Detached Familv EAST Single-Unit Residential SP-7/Residential Single Single unit residential dwellings Detached Family WEST Single-Unit Residential SP -7 /Residential Single Single-unit residential dwellings it YS 00288 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 4 Project Setting The subject property is located in Santa Ana Heights southeast of the intersection of Santa Ana Avenue and Bristol Street. The property is developed with a two -story single - family residential structure that was originally constructed in 1961, and is located on the north side of Indus Street. The neighborhood consists of single - family tract homes that were constructed at approximately the same time as the subject dwelling. To the north of the property (along the rear property line) is an Orange County Flood Control District Channel, and to the north of that is an extended -stay hotel fronting Bristol Street; both the Channel and the hotel are located in the City of Costa Mesa. The subject property is one of four sober living houses in the immediate neighborhood operated by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Zonina The zoning designation for the property and surrounding area is "SP -T' (Specific Plan District No. 7: Santa Ana Heights). This Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SAHSP) is incorporated into the Zoning Code in its entirety (Ch. 20.44). Thus, in the zoning exhibit at the right, the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan zoning designations are shown faded to denote that the zoning categories shown are not base Zoning Code categories but are instead unique to the Specific Plan. ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS WITHIN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (SUBJECT PROPERTY 13 "RSF ": RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE FA RAVI m� ta.4ef� : tfi�tLL ,> . hteig�hrs RMD (1000) (Santa Ana iY Ir11 Country Club) The subject property is zoned Residential — Single Family in the SAHSP. The principle land use allowed in this district is single family residential. The status of group homes as a permitted use under Ordinance No. 2008 -05 is addressed later in this report. Proiect Description The subject application is a request for approval of a Group Residential Use Permit to allow the continued operation of an existing adult residential sober living facility for up to 17 females. The facility is currently operated by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. as an "unlicensed 7 and more" facility. The applicant has also submitted an YS 00289 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 5 application for Reasonable Accommodation from the City's zoning and land use regulations, pursuant to the provisions of Section 20.98 of the NBMC. Specifically, the applicant requests that the residents of the facility be treated as a single housekeeping unit as that term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030; that the facility be allowed an occupancy per bedroom that is more than provided for in NBMC Section 20.91A.050; and that the application fees be waived due to disability- related financial hardship. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.98.015, if the project for which a request for reasonable accommodation is made required another discretionary permit, in this case a use permit, the applicant may request that the Hearing Officer hear the request for a reasonable accommodation at the same time as the other discretionary permit or approval. The applicant has made such a request, and the following report provides the analyses for a Group Residential Use Permit and Reasonable Accommodation. BACKGROUND Please see the staff report for 1561 Indus for additional background on this facility and the others operated by Yellowstone. This staff report for 1621 Indus includes only those issues and aspects of the application that are materially different from the 1561 Indus application. DISCUSSION Description of Project Operations The Yellowstone facility located at 1621 Indus Street, is also known as "South House", and has been in operation since 2003 prior to annexation to the City. The property is owned in fee by Dr. Anna Marie Thames, CEO of Yellowstone. This residential care facility is a sober living home for 17 women with past alcohol and drug dependence. This residential care facility operates in a two -story single - family dwelling containing five bedrooms, which are occupied as follows: Current Uses at 1621 Indus Street Bedrooms Beds/ Room Beds/ Unit First Floor 2 2/1 room 411 room 6 Second Floor 4 311 rooms 312 rooms 211 room 11 Total Bedrooms = 6 (RA application states 5 bedrooms YS 00290 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 6 Total Beds = 17 (RA application states 12 clients, floor plans show 17 beds) Total Parking Spaces = 4 12-car garage & 2 driveway spaces) As indicated, staff has made numerous efforts to communicate with the applicant to provide them an opportunity to correct the applications, which are internally inconsistent, and to process the applications in order to deem them complete. The following matrix has been prepared to illustrate the project operations as represented in the applications initially submitted and in subsequent submittals (Exhibits 2 and 3): Project Operation Application and Description Date of Reasonable Use Permit Submittal Accommodation Facility Users and Staffing 5 -20 -08 . 12 persons including 2 staff members • 18 persons including 2 staff members • Two staff members. No • House manager and other staff or caretakers that assistant manager visit on a daily or weekly basis 1/28/09 E -mail from applicant's attorney provided clarification of 12 bed occupancy for this facili Exhibit 9). Duration of Stay 5 -20 -08 12 months minimum 180 days (Staff was informed verbally that typical stay is 6 months, but some clients have stayed fora year or more. Characteristics of Use / rreatment 5 -20 -08 Sober living home; no medical services provided No alcohol and/or drug recovery or treatment • No counseling treatment services provided on -site. provided Residents at this property not allowed on any other properties & no function that includes all residents. 8 -22 -08 Residents at this property not allowed on any other Yellowstone properties & there are no functions that include all residents. 12 -23 -08 Residents prohibited from being in house between 8 YS 00291 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 7 Project Operation Application and Description Date of Reasonable Use Permit Submittal Accommodation a.m. and 3 p.m., and must return to house by 4 p.m. Transportation and 5 -20 -08 . Transportation not • Residents residing on- Parking provided. site not allowed to use • 2 -car garage and personal vehicles, and/or driveway available for staff keep on -site or nearby and visitor parking. • Clients use bus, carpools, • Four of the residents do bikes have autos and remainder • Staff vehicles parked in rely on public transportation driveway. or carpooling. Tenants allowed to have vehicles w/ prior approval, may only park in garage or driveway. 12 -23-08 Per correspondence from attorney: • Room for 4 cars to park on site. Residents not permitted to park there; only house manager and assistant manager permitted to park on -site. • Basic transportation provided to treatment facility and St. John Church • Transport van kept in other city when not in use 1 -29-09 Per correspondence from attorney: Parking on -site reserved for manager and assistant manager, thus max. number of cars at any time is two. • Residents not permitted to park on property. • Visitors not permitted on property; therefore, no visitor parking issues. • Residents do not use cars. Instead, they rely on public transportation to and from property. • Home does not generally provide transportation services; some basic transport to treatment facility and St. John Church. Morning pick up at 8 a.m. and evening drop off at 4 p.m. License/Permit 5 -20 -08 • No license_ • No license. History (i.e. ADP, .. Voluntary certification w/ • Orange County Sober DSS) and/or Oxford House Living Coalition Certification 8 -22 -08 Authorization to make application w/ statement the property is currently licensed with State of Califomia submitted 12 -23 08 Per correspondence from attorney: • No ADP license YS 00292 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 8 Project Operation Application and Description Date of Reasonable Use Permit Submittal Accommodation • Certified as a member of Orange County Sober Living Coalition • Date use as residential care facility began: 2003 Curfew and Quiet Hours 5 -20-08 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily Delivery Information 5 -20 -08 There are no delivery vehicles required as the Trash disposal 1 daytweek, no other delivery services property provided. Smoking 5 -20 -08 Acknowledged requirement 8.22 -08 to control secondhand smoke. (Smoking not permitted in house; restricted to backyard) Fire Marshal Review The Group Residential Use Permit Application also requires the submittal of a fire clearance from the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. The applicant provided a copy of a Fire Safety Inspection Request that was submitted to Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) prior to annexation to the City of Newport Beach with the August 22, 2008, supplemental submittal. However, the form was not signed by the OCFA, and further, the property is now under the authority of the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. On December 23, 2008, and again on January 29, 2009, the applicant submitted an analysis prepared by an architect that was submitted to the Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal has requested clarification on a number of items (Exhibit 5), but to date a fire clearance has not been issued. if this use permit is granted, condition of approval will be included stating that the use must comply with the requirements of the California Building Code and obtain a fire clearance from the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. Public Input The same public input applies here as does the public input provided and described in the discussion for 1561 Indus. (See Exhibits 6 and 11) ANALYSIS In addition to the statements in the 1561 Indus staff report, four critical areas are worthy of analysis here: YS 00293 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 9 Concentration of Uses About 73 group residential beds are in this neighborhood as shown below: ' Q�p :'ti{c.Y r� '20162 dpi 596' �A l F lu1 ffi rlwt 360' tia2a.. . 1511" tSSY 1136 � 1'261 -. 1344 - �'+, , •i \.IM]` 1964' 'tifo21 1sa2 ,. 1641130E 152111, 1 1602 1622 ;' -....r f081, ..201 +� .. '20291 !' 20302 403111-. 143' 6 is A�vt O tall 253' 16 / g7- Subject Property 321' 1881 1602. 32 . :1673 71 . " 20111 '\ 20082 j' 353 'zo2z1-„` ;-� *• ;,1 2' aaoaz " 30152 " �y 20141 '�-' Q6r1. Sp C......._...._..* Y r •a4i 20112 >•. 233` i9ib2 E —.... �' Q? 0122 a� .! J4 j 20L�Jl:y..•`Tj 20111 1631.... 20142 20121' f 1622.'' A `1691 y`20192 201 #1'•g I632" Fpq�\ 1671. I 20131 ��,77-`- ibal _ 2642'x' -;'jli ~��, 1641 20361,)-, '2v'�201 •, )^ =`ti 363E ' ",.,: 1662- �7.SS�N f 1641 -167 1624 '.:.f �y'1661+ .:20201' 1671�" 1" 20203 I�C�j'tbb2 ' `R 3690' ,1692 20272 :1644 % "'.^ 2Q262•,. 2Q271 r-,� 712 2722 1 1722 i ^201 As noted earlier in this report, Yellowstone operates three other sober living facilities in the neighborhood (distances below measured in a straight line from the nearest property line): 6 1561 Indus Street (12 residents), about 253 feet away; • 20172 Redlands Drive (18 residents), about 353 feet away; • 1571 Pegasus Street (18 residents), about 321 feet away; and in addition 6 1501 Pegasus (8 female residents) is about 596 feet away and is operated by another provider (Lynn House). In adopting Ordinance No. 2008 -05 the City made a number of findings including Finding No. 16 which states that "community residences should be scattered throughout YS 00294 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 10 residential districts rather than being concentrated on any single block or in any single neighborhood." The ordinance defines a "block" as "an area of land that is bounded on all sides by streets... or by streets and a cul -de -sac or by any other form of termination of the street." In the case of the subject property, it is in a neighborhood that is not characterized by a typical grid street pattern; but instead has meandering streets and cul -de -sacs. The ordinance recognizes that there are instances when the lack of a straight -line grid pattern street will make it difficult to exactly define a block; and also recognizes that blocks throughout the City are not always uniform in size. In those instances, Code Section 20.91A.060.D.3 provides that the Hearing Officer may apply the American Planning Association (APA) standard of 617 feet (median) or 711 feet (average) in determining the block size and configuration. Given the close proximity of this facility to the other similar uses located within the same neighborhood, it is critical to define "block" in this particular case. If the APA standard is used, and the median block length of 617 feet applied, the five houses would all fall within a single block area. Therefore, the subject property is located within a block and in close proximity to the other residential care facility uses with a combined total of 73 residents in the neighborhood. In staffs opinion, the presence of five residential care facilities in very close proximity to each other (100 to 400 feet) is an overconcentration, and two of the four Yellowstone homes should be abated. Parking The applicant has stated that currently all residents are not permitted to have vehicles, but it is the intent to allow the manager and assistant manger to have cars, which will be parked either on the driveway or in the garage. The NBMC requires off - street parking and loading spaces for a residential care facility at a ratio of one space for every three beds. The subject facility currently operates with 17 beds, resulting in a parking requirement of six off - street spaces. As noted above; the property has four spaces (two in an enclosed garage, and two in the driveway). If the property were restricted to the Code standard resulting in 13 beds, five parking spaces would be required. Also, if the facility were limited to 15 beds, five parking spaces would continue to be required due to the fact that under the NBMC parking provisions, the requirement is rounded up (13 -3 =4.33; 15 +3=5). Therefore, the property, if operated either at the Code standard or with two additional residents over the Code standard, would be deficient by one off - street parking space. The subject property, as well as the adjacent residential lots, is approximately 70 feet in width, which allows the parking of two to three cars on the street in front of each residence. Given the four off - street parking spaces, in staff's opinion, increasing the number of residents by two for a total of 15 residents, can be supported with respect to parking, provided that the following conditions apply: • All assembly uses are strictly prohibited; • Only the manager and assistant manager shall be permitted to have vehicles; • Visitors and guests be instructed to utilize the driveway for parking; I►&111110*11 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 11 • The garage shall be kept clear and available for the parking of two vehicles at all times; and • Van and/or other vehicles used for transporting residents to treatment and other off -site facilities, shall not be parked on -site nor within the neighborhood at any time, other than for normal passenger pick -up. Given the foregoing conditions, in staff's opinion the increase by two residents over the City standard, which results in a total of 15 residents, can be supported on the basis that the increase will not significantly adversely impact the parking demand if conditioned as recommended above. Conversely, an increase by four residents (total of 17) as requested by the applicant would require significantly more off - street parking spaces and would impact the surrounding neighborhood. Assembly Uses and Parking Residential care facilities may conduct meetings on -site, such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, for the residents who live on -site only. However, the NBMC does not allow the hosting of AA or similar type meetings for individuals who to not reside in the facility. The facilities may be used for residential use by the residents only. Correspondence submitted by residents within the neighborhood states that there are meetings held at the subject facility that involves persons other than the residents and that there is an influx of vehicles using on- street parking during these times, leaving little or no parking for the residents of the neighborhood. The applicant has stated that no such meetings occur. Staff is concerned about allegations from the neighbors regarding visitors during evening hour meetings and on weekends, and the impact on parking and additional traffic generated from these visitors to the surrounding neighborhood. If the use is approved, staff recommends conditions of approval that prohibits meetings on -site, restricts the allowance of vehicles to two staff members only, and requires staff parking on -site in the garage, reserving the driveway for visitor parking. Traffic and Generated Trips The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling unit. Trip rates for residential care facilities (also classified as an `assisted living" use by ITE) are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Staff recognizes that the use pattern of an assisted living or residential care facility is similar, but not identical to a sober living facility. However, the trip generation rates established by ITE for residential care facilities is the closest land use classification to a sober living home. Based on the ITE standards, a single family dwelling would generate approximately 10 average daily trips (rounded up), whereas a 17 -bed residential care facility would generate approximately 47 average daily trips. YS 00296 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 12 Maximum Number of Residents NBMC Section 20.91A.060.C.2 states that a maximum number of residents for any group home shall not exceed a standard of two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. The subject property has six bedrooms, which results in the maximum number of residents allowed to be thirteen. As indicated on the application, the applicant requests a total occupancy of 17 resident beds. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.91A.060.C.2, the Hearing Officer has discretion to set occupancy limits based upon the evidence provided by the applicant that additional occupancy is appropriate at the site. In determining whether to set a different occupancy limit, the Hearing Officer "shall consider the characteristics of the structure, whether there will be an impact on traffic and parking and whether the pubic health, safety, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the facility or adjacent to the facility will be impacted." In determining whether the findings an be made to allow an occupancy of 17 residents, staff considered evidence submitted by the applicant, as well as the size of the structure, parking, traffic generation, and impacts on adjacent and surrounding land uses. Based on the plans submitted, the total living area is 3,892 square feet, and there appears to be adequate room to allow more occupants than allowed per the code. Parking and traffic generation and the impacts those have on the surrounding neighborhood have been discussed under separate sections of this staff report above. In addition to the size of the dwelling, staff also considered the economic analysis submitted by the applicant, which is included as part of the applicants supplemental submittal packet (Exhibit 8). The applicant states in that analysis that the break -even point given mortgage payments, utility and food costs, is 15 residents. The facility currently operates with a maximum of 17 residents. Therefore, given the applicant's own financial analysis, the facility can still operate at an acceptable level if it were limited to a maximum of 15 beds. Another consideration with respect to the maximum residents per group care facility is the intent to maintain a residential character of the facility and avoidance of a "institutional" character of the facility. The American Institute of Planners, and other experts generally concur that between 13 and 15 residents is the maximum number in order to achieve this goal. The City standard would limit the subject facility to a maximum of 13 residents; however, under the NBMC, the Hearing Officer may consider additional residents over the standard. The applicant is requesting a total of 17 residents (four residents over the standard). However, given the applicant's financial statement, in order to maintain the residential character of the facility, and the intent to avoid an institutionalization of the facility, in staff's opinion, the total residents should not exceed 15. YS 00297 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 13 Required Findings Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2008 -05, the Hearing Officer shall make all of the 11 required findings per NBMC Sections 20.91.035 (A) and 20.91A.060 (see Findings Chart, Exhibit 1). The required findings and a discussion of each finding are as follows: NBMC Section 20.91.035 (A) Findings 1 through 4: 1. Finding: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and purposes of the district in which the site is located. As requested by the applicant, the use is only partially in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is location, unless modified as discussed below, the finding could not be made: The subject property is located within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7) area and is designated for Residential Single - Family (RSF) uses. The proposed use as a residential care facility is a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses in a residential district are subject to the provision of Chapter 20.91A of the NBMC. The proposed application for Use Permit 2008 -035 is in accord with the objectives and requirements of Chapter 20.91A with respect to the requirement for the submittal of an application for approval of a use permit to continue the use of the subject property as a residential care facility in the SP -7 /RSF District. The objectives of the code include provisions intended to reduce, through the use permit process, the potential for overconcentration of residential care facilities within a neighborhood and to protect public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use. The intensity of the use of 17 residents housed in sic bedrooms with two persons per bedroom in two bedrooms, 3 persons in three bedrooms and four persons in one bedroom, would not be consistent with a typical residential population in a single family dwelling unit in the SP -7 /RSF District and the surrounding properties within the neighborhood. However, for the reasons cited above, if the facility were limited to 15 residents (a decrease of two persons from the applicants requested 17 residents), the project could be found to be in compliance with the objectives of the code and the purposes of the SP- 7 /RSF District. In addition, the subject property's proximity to four other residential care facilities, all located within close proximity to each other, would result in an overconcentration of residential care facilities within the neighborhood. If two of the four Yellowstone group homes were to be closed as recommended by staff, this finding can be made. 2. Finding: That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which It would be operated or maintained will be YS 00298 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 14 consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working or adjacent to the neighborhood of such; and will not be detrimental to the properties or Improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. The location of the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and, if approved with conditions, will be consistent with the purpose of the district in which the site is located and this findina can be made for the following reasons: General Plan Policy LU 6.2.7 directs the City to regulate day care and residential care facilities to the maximum extent allowed by federal and state law so as to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include conditions of approval regulating the use and operational characteristics related to parking, traffic, curfew hours, and on -site meetings. As stated, the facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently four other residential care facilities in close proximity, which constitutes an overconcentration of residential care facilities in the immediate vicinity. However, as noted above, staff is recommending that two of the four Yellowstone homes be closed. Therefore, staff believes that the continued use of this property as a residential care facility, if approved as recommended by staff, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, and this finding can be made. 3. Finding: That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use In the district in which It would be located. As noted in Finding No. 2 above, the proposed use would not be consistent with the provisions of NBMC Section 20.91A.060.D in that the facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently at least four other residential care homes, exceeds the standard for maximum number of residents, and is not consistent with the parking regulations of the NBMC. However, as discussed in previous sections, if two of the other three group homes in the neighborhood were eliminated, if the maximum number of residents'were limited to 15, and if conditions relating to operational characteristics were to be included, this finding can be made. 4. Finding: If the use is proposed within a Residential District or in an area where residential uses are provided for in Planned Community Districts or Specific Plan Districts, the use is consistent with the purposes specified in Chapter 20.91 A and conforms to all requirements of that Chapter. One of the purposes of Chapter 20.91A is: "To protect and implement the recovery and residential integration of the disabled, including those receiving YS 00299 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 15 treatment and counseling in connection with dependency recovery. In doing so, the City seeks to avoid the overconcentration of residential care facilities so that such facilities are reasonably dispersed throughout the community and are not congregated or over concentrated in any particular area so as to institutionalize that area.' [sec. 20.91A.010.B] As noted in Finding No. 2 above, the proposed use would not be consistent with this purpose in that the facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently at least four other residential care homes, and does not meet the resident occupancy standards or off - street parking standards of the NBMC. However, as discussed in previous sections, if two of the four Yellowstone homes in the neighborhood were closed, if the maximum number of residents were limited to 15, and if conditions of approval relating to operational characteristics regulating parking, traffic, and on -site meetings were to be implemented, this finding can be made. NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Findings A through G: A. Finding: The use conforms to all applicable provisions of Section 20.91A.050. These development and operational standards are summarized as follows: a. No secondhand smoke can be detectable outside the property. b. Facility must comply with state and local law, and the submitted management plan, including any modifications required by this use permit. C. A contact name and number must be provided to the City d. No services requiring a license can be provided if the facility does not have a license for those services. e. There shall be no more than two persons per bedroom plus one additional resident, unless a greater occupancy is requested and granted. Occupancy must also comply with State licensing if applicable. f. If certification from an entity other than ADP's licensing program Is available, applicants must get that certification. g. All Individuals and entities involved in the facility's operation and ownership must be disclosed. h. No owner or manager shall have any demonstrated pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of the law. YS 00300 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 16 The use, if approved subject to conditions included with the use permit, will conform to the standards set forth in Section 20.91A.050, and this finding can be made as follows: a. Smoking is permitted only in the rear yard and patio area. Given the size of the lot and the proximity of the surrounding residential uses, it is unlikely that secondhand smoke can be detected outside the property, and no complaints have been submitted by adjacent neighbors regarding secondhand smoke. b. The facility has been in operation since 2003, and the applicant has submitted documentation that the facility has never been cited by a state or local agency as violating any of those agencies laws or regulations. C. Contact names and telephone numbers have been provided within the application. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide the City with the appropriate "after hours" names and contact information numbers. d. The residential care facility is used for housing purposes only and is not licensed for on -site treatment. All treatment services are provided at a site that is located approximately two and a half miles from the site in Costa Mesa, and transportation to the site is provided by van three days a week. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include a condition of approval limiting attendance of any type of meeting on -site to residents who reside on -site only. e. The unlicensed residential care facility has six bedrooms and there is a total occupancy of 17 residents. Therefore, the facility exceeds the standard of two persons per bedroom plus one additional resident by four, and does not comply with this operational standard. Staff is recommending that the maximum number of residents be reduced to 15. While the staff recommended 15 residents is in excess of the Code occupancy standard, staff does not consider this to be excessive in terms of traffic and parking impacts to the surrounding neighborhood with conditions of approval regulating on -site meetings, parking and transportation. f. The facility is certified as a member of the Orange County Sober Living Coalition, and proof of that certification has been provided by the applicant. g. The applicant has provided all names of those involved in the facility's operation within the application. YS 00301 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 17 h. There are no known violations or code violations for the facility or the individual operators and managers. B. Finding: The project Includes sufficient on -site parking for the use, and traffic and transportation impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. The NBMC requires off - street parking and loading spaces for a residential care facility at a ratio of one space for every three beds. The project site has an enclosed two -car garage and a driveway is that 24 feet deep, providing a total four off - street parking spaces. Therefore, the property does not meet the NBMC requirements for off - street parking. However, irrespective of whether the property would meet the resident standard of 13 or the staff recommended maximum number of residents of 15, the property would be one space deficient. As discussed above, in staff's opinion, given the large lots in the neighborhood as well as the operational characteristics of the facility, the one parking space deficiency will not cause significant adverse parking and traffic impacts provided that the facility does not exceed 15 residents. Van transportation to an off -site treatment facility and to a church is provided approximately three to four times a week, and residents utilize public transit for commuting to work (an OCTA bus stop is located on Santa Ana Avenue within walking distance). The vans are parked off -site and are only at the residence for a short period of time to pick -up and drop -off residents. With respect to traffic generation, the facility itself does not present an adverse impact to the neighborhood. However, staff is concerned about the comments from the area residents regarding the traffic and parking impacts from family and other visitors to the site during evening hours and on weekends, which results in cars parked throughout the vicinity. Staff notes that five group homes with a total of 73 residents exist in this neighborhood (see map in this staff report). As noted above, If two of those homes were closed in accordance with staff's recommendation, and if the subject property was restricted to a maximum of 15 residents, the on- street parking and traffic would be decreased significantly. It is further noted that one of the group care facilities that staff is recommending not be approved is boated on a cul-de -sac, with very limited on- street parking in front of or near the dwelling. The parking generated by that facility uses the street in front of other dwellings along the street, including the area in front of and near the subject property. Closing that group home would alleviate some of the guest and visitor parking in the immediate area. In summary, the facility provides sufficient off - street parking for management and residents, as well as guests. Given staffs recommendation to limit maximum number of residents to 15, as well as recommended conditions noted in previous sections of this staff report, including restricting the use of vehicles to staff YS 00302 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 18 members only, the traffic and parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated to an insignificant level. Therefore, this finding can be made. C. Finding: The property and existing structures are physically suited to accommodate the use. The subject property is approximately 7,500 square feet in area and the structure consists of approximately 3,892 square feet of living area with a total of six bedrooms. The size of the structure appears adequate to accommodate the use as a residential care facility with 15 beds. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department is the responsible agency for implementing fire protection of all group residential care facilities and residences. As discussed above, the property has not received a "fire clearance" from the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. Therefore, if the Hearing Officer approves the application, staff recommends that a condition of approval be included that provides that the use is approved subject to the approval by the Fire Marshal. Given the conditions recommended by staff and the staff - recommendation to restrict the facility to a maximum of 15 residents, this finding can be made. D. Finding: The use will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and the addition or continued maintenance of the use will not contribute to changing the residential character of the neighborhood, such as creating an over concentration of residential care uses in the vicinity of the proposed use. In making his finding or sustaining such a finding, the Hearing . Officer and/or City Council shall consider, as appropriate, the following factors: a. The proximity of the use location to schools, parks, other residential care facilities, outlets for alcoholic beverages and any other uses which could be affected by or affect the operation of the subject use; b. The existence of substandard physical characteristics of the area in which the use Is located such as lot widths, setbacks, narrow streets, limited available parking, short blocks, and other substandard characteristics which are pervasive In certain areas of the City of Newport Beach, including portions of West Newport, Lido Isle, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Corona del Mar and Newport Heights, which portions were depicted on a map referred to as the Nonstandard Subdivision Area presented to the Newport Beach Planning Commission on September 20, 2007 and on file with the Director of Planning; and C. Whether, In light of the factors applied in subsections 20.91 A. D.1 and D.2, it would be appropriate to apply the American Planning Association standard of permitting one or two such uses per block. YS 00303 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 19 Median block lengths in different areas of Newport Beach widely range from 300 feet In the Nonstandard Subdivision Areas to as much as 1,422 feet in standard subdivision areas. The average calculable block length in much of the standard subdivision areas Is 711 feet and the calculable median block length is 617 feet. The Hearing Officer shall apply the American Planning Association standard in all areas of Newport Beach in a manner that eliminates the differences In block lengths. In making this determination, the hearing officer shall be guided by average or median block lengths in standard subdivisions of the City. The Hearing Officer shall retain the discretion to apply any degree of separation of uses, which he or she deems appropriate In any given case. A copy of the American Planning Association standard is on file with the Director of Planning. The proposed use, as conditioned, will be compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood and will not contribute to creating an institutional character of the area, and this finding can be made for the following reasons: The project site is located within an established single - family residential neighborhood consisting of one and two story tract homes. There are no public or private schools, or public parks located within close proximity to the site. The closest elementary school is Kaiser Elementary School, which is, located approximately two miles to the south, and Brentwood Park located approximately one and a half miles to the south. Facilities licensed to sell or serve alcohol located within three blocks of the project site include a 7 -11 Store and a Mexican restaurant on the southeast corner of Santa Ana Avenue, and an AM/PM Service Station and Market on the northeast corner of Santa Ana Avenue. Those facilities are located within the City of Costa Mesa, approximately 2,000 feet or more walking distance from the subject property. The subject property is located in a neighborhood that is not characterized by standard physical characteristics such as a typical street grid pattern; but instead has meandering streets and cul -de -sacs. The ordinance recognizes that there are instances when the lack of a straight -line grid pattern street will, make it difficult to exactly define a block; and also recognizes that blocks through out the City are not always inform in size. In those instances, Code Section 20.91A.060.D.3 provides that the Hearing Officer may apply the American Planning Association (APA) standard of 617 feet (median) or 711 feet (average) in determining the block size and configuration. Given the close proximity of this facility to four group residential uses located within the same neighborhood, it is critical to define "block° in this particular case. If the APA standard is used, and the median block length of 617 feet applied, the four houses would all fall within a single block area. Therefore, the subject YS 00304 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 20 property is located within a block and in close proximity to four other residential care facility uses. In staffs opinion, the presence of five residential care facilities in very close proximity to each other is an overconcentration and two of the facilities are recommended for closure. Only if two of the use permits are denied can staff recommend that the use of the subject property as a residential care facility will not result in an overall adverse impact on the neighborhood and will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Given staffs recommendation for denial of two of the use permits, this finding can be made. E. Finding: The operation of buses and vans to transport residents to and from off -site activities does not generate vehicular traffic substantially greater than that normally generated by residential activities in the surrounding area. Residents of the facility do not have automobiles, and utilize public transit from an OCTA bus stop located on Santa Ana Avenue. Vans are used to take residents to a treatment facility and to church approximately three to four times a week. It is staff's opinion that the traffic generated from these van trips, separate from the overall traffic generation discussed earlier in this report, is not excessive. Therefore, this finding can be made. F. Finding: Arrangements for delivery of goods are made within the hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. Deliveries to the residences are typical of the normal use of the property for residential purposes. Shopping is done by management staff and delivered to the house during daytime or early evening hours. Therefore, staff believes that this findina can be made. G. Finding: Arrangements for commercial trash collection in excess of usual residential collection are made within hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. The facility utilizes the regularly- scheduled Costa Mesa Sanitary District residential refuse collection services provided throughout the neighborhood. Neighborhood complaints about excessive trash need to be evaluated further. In the event that the once -a -week trash service does not adequately serve this facility, staff suggests a condition allowing the City's Planning Director to require the facility to secure and maintain commercial bin service. With this condition, this findina can be made. Analysis Summary As indicated at the beginning of this report, staff recommends approval of this application for the following reasons: YS 00305 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 21 1. The ability to make all of the findings required by the NBMC Sections 20.91.035 (A) and 20.91A.060, provided that the facility is limited to a maximum of 15 residents and also provided that two of the group homes operated by Yellowstone in the vicinity are closed. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of NBMC Section 20.91A as set forth in Section 20.91A.010, and the requirements of Section 20.91.020 if limited to a maximum of 15 residents and with conditions of approval as recommended. If, after reviewing this report, and hearing testimony from the applicant and the public, the Hearing Officer agrees with staffs recommendation for approval, staff requests the Hearing Officer's direction to prepare a Resolution for Approval for adoption at a time and date set by the Hearing Officer. APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION BACKGROUND On May 20, 2008, the applicant submitted an Application for Reasonable Accommodation (Exhibit 2) that discussed the need for accommodation, but did not seek exemption from any specific City rule, policy or practice. On August 22, 2008, the applicant submitted an Application for Reasonable Accommodation that requested an exemption "from single family to multi - family residence." (Exhibit 7) The applicant also indicated the need for an accommodation from the required use permit fee due to financial hardship. Upon request for clarification and additional information from staff, the applicant's attorney submitted a supplemental request for accommodation from specific provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC ") on January 29, 2009. (Exhibit 8) The three specific accommodations requested are: 1. That the residents of the Yellowstone facility at 1621 Indus Street be treated as a single housekeeping unit, as the term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; 3. An exemption from the City's requirement that all use permit applicants pay a use permit application fee to permit cost recovery by the City. (NBMC Chapter 3.36 and NBMC Section 20.90.030) YS 00306 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 22 NBMC Section 20.98.015 provides that if the request for a Reasonable Accommodation requires another discretionary permit, the applicant may request a simultaneous hearing. In this case, the use of the property as a residential care facility does require a use permit, and the applicant has requested simultaneous hearing of both the use permit application and the various requests for reasonable accommodation. DISCUSSION The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), adopted in 1988, prohibit housing discrimination based on a resident's disability. Under the FHAA, it is discriminatory for government entities to refuse to make reasonable accommodations from rules, policies, and practices when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(13)). Cases interpreting the FHAA have held that a government agency has an affirmative duty to grant a requested reasonable accommodation if: (1) the request is made by or on behalf of a disabled individual or individuals, (2) the accommodation is necessary to afford the disabled applicant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and (3) the request is reasonable. Cities may find an accommodation request unreasonable if granting the request would: (1) result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program (often described as undermining "the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve "), or (2) would impose undue financial or administrative burdens on the city (See U.S. v. Village of Marshall, 787 F.Supp. 872,878 (W.D. Wisc. 1991). Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary must be determined on a case -by -case basis. Because the applicant has requested three very different types of reasonable accommodation, staff will present a separate analysis of each specific accommodation request. In the January 29, 2009 letter clarifying applicant's request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested its facility be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit, as that term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030. The applicant said the accommodation requested is necessary because the facility "is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility." The applicant stated: `Mhe Property more accurately fits the definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030. Residents are the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit. Like a Single Housekeeping Unit, there is a common area and each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses and chores ... The sole purpose of each resident living on the Properly is to live in a YS 00307 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 23 house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager." Ordinance No. 2008 -05 codified the procedures for requesting, reviewing and granting, conditionally granting, or denying all requests for reasonable accommodation in the City of Newport Beach. The Hearing Officer is designed to approve, conditionally approve, or deny all applications for a reasonable accommodation. The ordinance also established required findings and factors the Hearing Officer may consider when making those findings. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(6) of the NBMC, the written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. Finding: That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing laws. This finding can be made. The applicant submitted a statement signed under penalty of perjury that every resident of the facility is in recovery from alcohol addiction. Federal regulations and case law have defined recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction as a disability, because it is a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs one or more major daily life activities. 2. Finding: That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. This findina cannot be made. Staff does not question the need for sober living homes, nor the fact that persons with a disability must have the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. However, the exemption requested by the applicant is unnecessarily broad to achieve the goal of providing disabled housing. As staff informed the applicant's counsel, a request to be considered a Single Housekeeping Unit is essentially a request to be exempted from all of the provisions of Ordinance 2008 -05 which place any sort of reasonable regulation on the operations of residential care facilities. This is not necessary, because there are many more narrowly tailored accommodations that could enable facility residents to enjoy the housing of their choice without depriving the surrounding neighborhood of reasonable conditions that mitigate the adverse secondary impacts that emanate from this facility. Applicant's counsel asserts in his January 29, 2009 letter that being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary "because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility." 1 Even if ' The residents are recovering alcoholics living together in order to maintain their sobriety. Therefore, the facility closely fits the profile of a sober living home, or unlicensed recovery facility, , contrary to applicant's counsel's assertions. Whether the facility is transient or institutional in nature does not enter that analysis, although staff believes there is a strong YS 00308 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 24 the facility were not transient or institutional in nature, and did not clearly fit the definition of a sober living home, or unlicensed residential care facility, an exemption from the provisions of 2008 -05 is not necessary to afford its residents the opportunity to live in and enjoy a dwelling. However, the applicant raised the issue of how the facility should be characterized in its necessity argument, and asserted the facility more closely resembles a Single Housekeeping Unit than any other type of residential use. Staff has analyzed the facility's appropriate use classification based on the applicants submitted materials. Staff has determined the nature of applicant's facility operations, as reported in the original application for reasonable accommodation submitted in May 2008, most closely resembles a boarding house use. But for the fact residents are recovering alcoholics, the facility would be classified as a prohibited Group Residential use, or a Boarding or Rooming House as that term is defined in NBMC 20.05.030. (Residential Use Classifications) ( "A residence or dwelling unit, or part thereof, wherein a room or rooms are rented under two or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof ... ") On the May 2008 application for reasonable accommodation, the applicant states, 'The residents at the property reside separately at the property and interact within the property. There is individual use of common areas. The residents are responsible for their own meals, expenses and chores. Each individual resides at the property subject to a separate contractual arrangement with the applicant" (Italics added) In a follow -up conversation with staff, applicant's CEO, Dr. Anna Thames stated that the facility has no written leases with any of the residents. Rental agreements with residents are verbal. Again, the description of operations is much closer to the NBMC's definition of a boarding house or group residential use than a single housekeeping unit, as the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit requires dwellings rented to bona fide Single Housekeeping Units to be occupied under a single written lease. The self - reported pattern of facility operations and resident interaction in no way resembles the NBMC definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit. NBMC Section 20.03.030 (Definitions) defines as Single Housekeeping Unit as: "The functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of and responsibility for common areas, and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, household maintenance, and expenses, and where, if the unit is rented, all adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy the entire premises of the dwelling unit, under a single written argument that the existence of the three additional facilities owned and operated as sober living homes by the applicant within 100 to 300 feet of each other does create a quasi - institutional environment. YS 00309 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 25 lease with joint use and responsibility for the premises, and the makeup of the household occupying the unit is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the landlord or property manager." Applicant's resident clients may be an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit who share common areas, but the applicant's own submittals indicate there is no joint responsibility for meals or expenses, no single written lease (or any written leases at all), and the makeup of the household is determined by the applicant rather than the residents. Staff is troubled by the contradictory information submitted regarding whether the facility operator or the residents determine the household makeup. Given that both the May 20, 2008 reasonable accommodation application and the applicant's CEO stated that the applicant determines the household makeup, applicant's counsel's assertion in the January 29, 2009 letter that "the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager' is difficult to accept. The remainder of the applicant's presentation regarding classification as a "Single Housekeeping Unit" suffers from the inconsistency in the information it submitted to the City. After the inconsistency was pointed out to applicants counsel by staff, counsel submitted additional correspondence dated February 13, 2009, (Exhibit 10) addressing the discrepancy which staff believes still exists. NBMC Section 20.98.025(C) allows , the City to consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: A. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disability. If the requested accommodation is granted, any number of the applicant's current and potential clients will be able to live in a home in a single - family zone with other recovering alcoholics. This is a situation that can affirmatively enhance the quality of life of a person in recovery from addiction, unless overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhood interferes with the residents' re- integration into society. The applicants sliding scale of rental rates offers a sober living environment to residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in a single- family home in this area. B. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation. As stated above, the exemption requested by the applicant is broader than necessary to achieve the goal of enabling disabled individuals an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice. City staff discussed more narrowly tailored exemptions YS 00310 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 26 that could enable disabled individuals to reside at the applicant's facility, but the applicant has chosen to retain this request. C. In the case of a residential care facility, whether 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. The applicant does not state why being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make its facilities viable in light of the current market for the type of services it provides. In relation to Reasonable Accommodation Request #2, the applicant states that each facility requires 11 and provides a general summary of average In light of the analysis performed in full in Finding 2, Section C below, the evidence c treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is financially viable. residents in order to be financially viable, income and expenses for all four facilities. Reasonable Accommodation Request #2, oes not lead to the conclusion that being necessary to make applicant's facilities D. In the case of a residential care facility, 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. In 2007, City staff estimated that there were more than 315 sober living beds in the city (these are exclusive of the up to 213 ADP - licensed treatment beds). These numbers were compiled before applicants facilities, with a total of 58 sober living and eight staff beds, were added to the city's supply. Operators of many sober living facilities within the city have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Yellowstone clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment without granting the accommodation. Further, a recent agreement with Sober Living by the Sea, Inc., authorized SLBTS to provide up to 204 beds citywide. However, many of these alternate sober living beds are probably not offered on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. The evidence does not support the applicant's contention that treating residents of its facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit will change the availability of the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature, or afford them a substantially greater access to an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. Even if the applicant provides housing for the disabled, and even if the requested accommodation is necessary, the City is not required to grant a request for accommodation that is not reasonable. Cities may find a requested accommodation unreasonable if it either (1) imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, or (2) results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program, often described as undermining "the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve." 3. Finding: That 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. YS 00311 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 27 This finding can be made. Treating the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit would not impose a currently identifiable undue financial or administrative burden on the City. However, staff makes this finding with caution, because the applicant is requesting similar accommodations at each of its facilities. If this reasonable accommodation request were granted for all four Yellowstone facilities, the applicant would be able to house a number of residents far in excess of the 66 individuals currently residing in the four homes. Currently unidentifiable financial or administrative burdens could arise as a result. 4. Finding. That the requested accommodation will not 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. This finding cannot be made. The purpose of the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit is to allow staff to determine whether groups of related or unrelated individuals are living together in a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. This definition is necessary because of the persistent attempts by landlords to establish illegal boarding houses in dwellings within the City. Groups living as a single housekeeping unit can live together in any residential zone in Newport Beach. Groups not living as a single housekeeping unit are prohibited from establishing residences in any of the City's residential zones. There is, however, an important exception to the total prohibition of groups not living as a single housekeeping unit -- groups not living as a single housekeeping unit in residential care facilities of any size. Essentially, all residential care facilities in the City have already received a reasonable accommodation from the NBMC's restrictions on groups not living as a single housekeeping unit. The NBMC provides many opportunities for new facilities to establish, and has provisions for existing facilities to continue in their current locations with appropriate impact mitigation. Licensed facilities housing six or fewer residents can establish in any residential zone of the City. Although the residents of residential care facilities receive preferential treatment because of their disabled status, the NBMC's Zoning Code also applies regulations to unlicensed and larger (more than seven residents) licensed facilities. These regulations are in place to ensure that the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code can be achieved, and so the adverse secondary impacts higher density residential care facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated. If the facility is treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit, it is entirely exempt from any of the reasonable controls the City might place on it. The City would be unable to make any reasonable effort to reduce the adverse secondary impacts such as noise, overcrowding, and unruly behavior by residents of applicant's facility to the detriment of neighbors, in addition to finding solutions to the applicant's disproportionate consumption of available on- street parking, and the overconcentration of facilities within YS 00312 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 28 a single block to the point of creating a quasi - institutional environment in this neighborhood. It is highly likely that most other similar facilities within the City would request a similar exemption, thus nullifying the Ordinance's effect entirely. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(D) of the NBMC, the City may also consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program: A. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. Staff acknowledges that a petition stating, 'Yellowstone is a good neighbor" was presented to the City, signed by four residents of Pegasus Street (where one of the other facilities of applicant is located). However, these signatures of support were countered by letters, emails and phone calls from neighbors of the facilities that reported increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood as more of the applicant's facilities established there in recent years. The impacts reported include: • Litter in the neighborhood which complainants attribute to the applicants facilities, including cigarette butts, soda cans, and beer cans and bottles; • Family and other visitors to the facilities; • Facility residents traveling in groups between one facility and the others; • Meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicant's facilities, with outside attendees; • Excessive use of on- street parking by facility residents and their guests; and • Decline in property values in the neighborhood. Due to a number of factors, including general fluctuations in the real estate market, staff is reluctant to speculate that any decline in property values is a direct result of the operation of applicant's facilities. Accordingly, this consideration was not factored into Staff's analysis. A number of the neighbors' allegations appear credible, and directly contradict applicants representations to the City. Specifically, the applicant stated in its submittals that: There are no outside visitors allowed at the facility; Residents are not permitted to have cars while they reside at the facility and rely on public transportation, carpools with the resident managers to get to the full -time jobs which the applicant states all residents have, and facility vans to get to treatment facilities and church (although the May 20, 2008 use perrgit application stated that this facility then allowed up to four resident vehicles onsite); No interaction between the four facilities operated in close proximity by the applicant is permitted. YS 00313 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 29 Based on the misstatements and inconsistencies of the information supplied by the applicant in its use permit and reasonable accommodation applications, Staff views these representations about restrictions on visitors, cars and facility interaction with skepticism. In particular, staff does not find the applicant's statement about its "no visitors" policy to be credible, because one of the letters of support (Exhibit 6) submitted by a former Yellowstone resident said, "I come to Yellowstone every week and am still a part of this place still to this day ... 6 years later. I hope it is here for other girls to come back and work with the newcomers the way I have been given the chance too." Another former resident wrote, "Yellowstone is the place that I will continue to come back to and visit the new girls who are struggling the way I did .0 (Note: applicant's attorney states that these letters refer to meetings at another Yellowstone facility in Costa Mesa.) The applicant's possible misstatements of easily verifiable facts (such as policies about no meetings, no visitors, and no inter - facility interaction), and early written and oral representations that two of the facilities held ADP licenses (which they never had), causes staff concern about the overall responsibility of the operator, and its ability to successfully manage both its residents and the negative impacts its facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood. B. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking. Parking - The applicant stated in its original reasonable accommodation application for this property (May 20, 2008) that facility residents were not permitted to have personal vehicles at the property. The use permit application stated that four residents have personal vehicles they park onsite. Later correspondence and conversations with the applicant's attorneys indicated that no resident vehicles would be permitted onsite, and that only the two resident staff members would be permitted vehicles. The enclosed garage spaces and riveway parking spaces allow for the staff vehicles to be accommodated without impacting neighborhood parking. However, the weekly meetings and weekend visitors reported by neighbors and former residents of the facilities disproportionately consume available neighborhood parking. Four other facilities are located in the same neighborhood in close proximity to this site. The cumulative impact of having more than one facility operating within a very restricted distance results in increased traffic and parking demands. Traffic and Generated Trips The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling unit. Trip rates for residential care facilities (also classified as an "assisted living" use by ITE) are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Staff recognizes that the use pattern of an assisted living or residential care facility is similar, but not identical YS 00314 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 30 to a sober living facility. However, the trip generation rates established by ITE for residential care facilities is the closest land use classification to a sober living home. Based on the ITE standards, a single family dwelling would generate approximately 10 average daily trips (rounded up), whereas a 17 -bed residential care facility would generate approximately 47 average daily trips. 5. Finding: That 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. This findina can be made. A request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if granting it would pose "a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). This is a very limited exception and can only be used when, based on the specific facts of a situation, a requested accommodation results in a significant and particularized threat. Federal cases interpreting this exception in the FHAA indicate that requested accommodations cannot be denied due to generalized fears of the risks posed by disabled persons. SUMMARY — REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST #1 In summary, with regard to the applicant's request to provide reasonable accommodation that treats the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit, Findings 2 and 4 cannot be made. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, all five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. Therefore, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny the Reasonable Accommodation request for the residents of the subject property to be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. In the January 29, 2009 letter from applicant's counsel's clarifying and supplementing applicant's request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested that the facility receive an exemption from the occupancy standards of NBMC Section 20.91A.050. NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2) requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. All of applicant's facilities currently have residents in excess of the number that would be permitted under the use permit standards. One facility (1561 Indus) has 12 residents in five bedrooms; the other three (1621 Indus, 20172 Redlands, and 1571 Pegasus) have 18 residents in six bedrooms. Under the operating standards of NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2), a use permit issued to 1621 Indus would be limited to no more than 13 YS 00315 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 31 residents (six bedrooms x two residents per bedroom plus one = 13). The applicant requests an exemption from this requirement that will allow each facility to continue at its current occupancy level of 17. The applicant's counsel did not indicate in the January 29, 2009 letter why the accommodation requested is necessary, but clarified the assertion of necessity via telephone and email to staff on February 12, 2009. Applicant's counsel asserts that, as to current residents of 1621 Indus, the accommodation is necessary because if a use permit were granted restricting occupancy to 13, current residents would be displaced. Because of financial constraints on the displaced resident's earning capability that result from the resident's disability, the applicant's counsel states that the displaced resident would have no other place to reside in a sober environment. As to prospective residents of 1621 Indus, the applicants counsel states that the accommodation is necessary because the prospective residents of 1621 Indus also have financial constraints caused by their disability, and would be unable to afford to rent a dwelling if the additional bed(s) at 1621 Indus were unavailable to them because of the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2). Ordinance No. 2008 -05 codified the procedures for requesting, reviewing and granting, conditionally granting, or denying all requests for reasonable accommodation in the City of Newport Beach. The Hearing Officer is designed to approve, conditionally approve, or deny all applications for a reasonable accommodation. The ordinance also established required findings, and factors the Hearing Officer may consider when making those findings. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(B) of the NBMC, the written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. Finding: That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. This findina can be made. The applicant has submitted a statement signed under penalty of perjury that every resident of the facility is in recovery from alcohol addiction. Federal regulations and case law have defined recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction as a disability, because it is a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs one or more major daily life activities. 2. Finding: That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. As to current residents of 1621 Indus. This finding can be made. If a use permit is issued for this facility without the requested accommodation, five current residents of 1621 Indus would have to be removed from the facility in order comply with the terms of YS 00316 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 32 the use permit. The applicant reported in its application that the average length of stay for residents of this facility is six months; the applicant later verbally informed staff that residents stay six months to one year, sometimes longer. Granting the requested accommodation would allow that individual to remain in the dwelling for the remainder of her temporary stay, providing that individual with the opportunity to continue to live in her current dwelling for the necessary limited period of time. As to prospective residents of 1621 Indus: This finding cannot be made. Applicant states that it charges monthly fees on a sliding scale based on ability to pay, and that the applicants recovery services are needed services for many persons in recovery from alcoholism. Applicant has submitted an Affidavit of Disability- Related Hardship, signed under penalty of perjury, on behalf of the facility s residents. The affidavit states that before becoming disabled, Yellowstone residents earned an average of $50,000 per year, and that in recovery the residents are earning an average of $20,000 per year. It is plausible that persons in early recovery from addiction tend to have lower incomes than they had before addiction temporarily reduced their employment opportunities. This will necessitate shared living arrangements in one form or another. Adding beds, in the case of 1621 Indus, could afford an additional disabled individual the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The analysis does not stop at the financial needs of the potential residents, however. Were that the case, the City might be obligated to authorize an unlimited number of residents at the applicants facilities at greatly reduced rents; the population of recovering alcoholics with financial limitations is vast. Even the Ninth Circuit has noted that mandating lower rents for disabled individuals would probably not be considered a reasonable request. (See Giebeler v. M &B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)) NBMC Section 20.98.025(C) permits the City to consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: A. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disability. Staff does not question the need for sober living homes, nor the fact that persons with a disability must have the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. If the requested accommodation is granted, a slightly higher number of the applicant's current and potential clients will be able to live in a home in a single- family neighborhood with other recovering alcoholics. This is a situation that can affirmatively enhance the quality of life of a person in recovery from addiction, unless overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhood interferes with the residents' re- integration into society. The applicants sliding scale of rental rates offers a sober living environment to residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in a single- family home in this area. YS 00317 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 33 B. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation. As to current residents of 1621 Indus: If the use permit is granted and the accommodation is denied, five residents will be displaced from their temporary home. As to prospective residents of 1621 Indus: The applicant has not submitted information on whether the facility at 16211 Indus is currently operating at full census, or whether it has a waiting list of potential residents. However, if all of the applicant's Yellowstone facilities are running at full census with a waiting list of potential residents who can not afford to reside in a sober environment in any of the vacant beds in other facilities within the city, then denying the accommodation could deny prospective residents the opportunity to live in a sober living environment. C. In the case of a residential care facility, whether 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. The applicant states that each facility requires 15 residents in order to be financially viable, and provides a general summary of average income and expenses for all four facilities. In some federal cases in which a sober living or other group home made a similar statement in support of its request for an accommodation allowing additional residents, courts found that the accommodation should be granted. However, the courts generally consider more detailed, verified financial information to reach that conclusion. (See Oxford House - Evergreen v. City of Plainfield, 769 F.Supp. 1329 (1991)) The applicant has not submitted financial information specific to each facility, but it has supplied an average cost analysis for its four facilities overall. The analysis was not signed under penalty of perjury, and although staff requested it, the applicant did not submit specific evidence such as mortgage statements or utility bills by the date of this report. If a residential recovery home is adding residents for its own financial advantage rather than to accommodate the financial limitations of the residents, the City is not obligated to grant the requested accommodation. D. In the case of a residential care facility, 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. In 2007, City staff estimated that there were more than 315 sober Irving beds in the city (these are exclusive of the up to 213 ADP - licensed treatment beds). These numbers were compiled before applicant's facilities, with a total of 58 sober living and eight staff beds, were added to the city's supply. Operators of many sober living facilities within the city have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Yellowstone clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment YS 00318 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 34 without granting the accommodation. Further, a recent agreement with Sober Living by the Sea, Inc., authorized SLBTS to provide up to 204 beds citywide. However, many of these alternate sober living beds are probably not offered on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. The evidence does not support the applicant's contention that treating residents of its facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit will change the availability of the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature, or afford them a substantially greater access to an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. Even if the applicant provides housing for the disabled, and even if the requested accommodation is necessary, the City is not required to grant a request for accommodation that is not reasonable. Cities may find a requested accommodation unreasonable if it either (1) imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, or (2) results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program, often described as "undermining the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve." 3. Finding: That 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. As to current residents of 1621 Indus: This finding can be made. Allowing five additional beds on a temporary basis at the facility would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. Applicant states that the average length of stay for individual residents is 6 months. It creates little burden on the City to allow one of the current residents of 1621 Indus to complete her stay at the facility. Upon her departure, the facility s bed count will be within the range contemplated by the operating standards of the NBMC. The primary administrative burden on the City would be ensuring compliance. As to prospective residents of 1621 Indus: This finding can be made. Allowing five extra beds at this facility would not create a currently identifiable undue financial or administrative burden on the City. However, staff makes this finding with caution, because applicant is requesting similar accommodations at each of its facilities. If all use permits and reasonable accommodation requests are granted, this would create a total of 16 residents in excess of the highest number permitted for the four facilities by the operating standards of the NBMC. 4. Finding: That the requested accommodation will not 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. As to current residents: This findina can be made. Allowing five additional beds on a temporary basis at the facility would not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program. Applicant states that the average length of stay for individual residents is 6 months to one year. It does not fundamentally undermine the nature of the City's zoning program to allow one of the current residents of 1561 Indus YS 00319 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 35 to complete her stay at the facility. Upon her departure, the facility's bed count will be within the range contemplated by the zoning program. As to prospective residents: This finding cannot be made. Permanently allowing five additional beds in excess of the highest number allowed under the operational standards of the NBMC could undermine the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve. The basic purpose of the bed count limits is to draw a line at a reasonable density for a business providing residential recovery services within a residential neighborhood. Five additional beds can undermine the fundamental purpose of the zoning program, unless Yellowstone's program impacts are eliminated or substantially reduced at other facilities. Appellant may argue that five extra beds does not undermine the basic purpose the bed count restriction seeks to achieve, but the line must be drawn somewhere. The City Council found that that line was two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. These regulations are in place to ensure that the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code can be achieved, and so that secondary impacts of the higher density residential care facilities on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated. Staff is also concerned that if use permits are granted at each facility, and each facility receives the reasonable accommodation requested here, the extra 16 individuals could trigger an overconcentration that contributes even further to the change in the character of the neighborhood. The residents living in five recovery facilities located between 100 and 400 feet from each other are likely to create a quasi - institutional environment within the neighborhood. This will not benefit either the surrounding neighborhood or the recovering individuals attempting to reintegrate into the lifestyle found in a residential neighborhood. In a joint statement on the Fair Housing Act, the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have recognized it would adversely affect persons with disabilities and would be inconsistent with the object of integrating persons with disabilities into the community if a neighborhood came to be composed largely of group homes. They agree that it is appropriate to be concerned about the setting for a residential care facility, and that a consideration of overconcentration may be considered in this context. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(D) of the NBMC, the City may also consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program: A. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. Staff acknowledges a petition stating "Yellowstone is a good neighbor" was presented to the City, signed by four residents of Pegasus Street (where one of the other facilities of applicant is located). However, the petition was countered by letters, emails and phone YS 00320 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 36 calls from the facilities' neighbors reporting increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood as the applicant established more facilities in recent years. The letters of support, the letters of complaint, and the applicant's submissions do not indicate which Yellowstone facility the impacts are reported (or denied) for. Therefore, staff will analyze the reported impacts as if they apply to each facility equally. The impacts reported include: • Litter in the neighborhood which complainants attribute to the applicant's facilities, including cigarette butts, soda cans, and beer cans and bottles; • Family and other visitors to the facilities; • Facility residents traveling in groups between one facility and the others; • Meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicant's facilities, with outside attendees; • Excessive use of on- street parking by facility residents and their guests; and • Decline in property values in the neighborhood. Due to a number of factors, including general fluctuations in the real estate market, staff is reluctant to speculate whether any decline in property values is a direct result of the operation of applicant's facilities. This consideration was not included in staff's analysis. However, a number of the neighbors' allegations appear credible, and directly contradict representations made to the City by the applicants. Specifically, the applicant has stated in its reasonable accommodation applications and supplemental communications that: • There are no outside visitors allowed at the facility; • Residents are not permitted to have cars while they reside at the facility and rely on public transportation, carpools with the resident managers to get to the full -time jobs which the applicant states all residents have, and facility vans to get to treatment facilities and church (although the May 20, 2008 use permit application stated that this facility then allowed up to four resident vehicles onsite); and • No interaction between the four facilities operated in close proximity by the applicant is permitted. Based on the other misstatements and inconsistencies in the information supplied by the applicant in its use permit and reasonable accommodation applications, staff is Inclined to view the applicant's representations about restrictions on visitors, cars and facility interaction with skepticism. In particular, staff is not sure the applicant's statement about its `no visitors" policy is credible, because neighbors report visitors are common, and because one of the letters of support submitted by a former Yellowstone resident said, "I come to Yellowstone every week and am still a part of this place still to this day ... 6 years later. I hope it is here for other girls to come back and work with the newcomers the way I have been given the chance too" Another former resident wrote, "Yellowstone is the place that I will continue to come back to and visit the new girls who are struggling the way I did" YS 00321 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 37 (Exhibit 6) (Note: applicant's attorney states that these letters refer to meetings at another Yellowstone facility in Costa Mesa.) The applicant's possible misstatements of easily verifiable facts (such as policies about no meetings, no visitors, and no inter - facility interaction), and early written and oral representations that two of the facilities held ADP licenses (which they never had), causes staff concern about the overall responsibility of the operator, and its ability to successfully manage both its residents and the negative impacts its facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood. Allowing facilities that are not well run to operate with a high concentration of residents can lead to a further alteration in the character of the neighborhood. If a use permit in this location is granted, it may be necessary to scale back rather than expand the population of the facility, and increase supervision and enforcement of existing house rule to mitigate the impact of the facility on the surrounding neighborhood. Applicant's counsel has been informed of the inconsistencies in the applicant's submitted materials, and will submit additional information addressing the inconsistencies. On February 12, 2009, applicant's counsel informed staff by telephone that: Meetings referenced in Yellowstone alumni letters of support occur only at Yellowstone's Costa Mesa facility, and there are no meetings hell at the Newport Beach facilities. • There has been a change in policy since the original application for reasonable accommodation was submitted in May 2008. Personal vehicles are no longer allowed at 1561 Indus. Only the two resident managers may have vehicles in the neighborhood, which must be parked onsite. Letters from facility neighbors indicate this may not be the case. Public testimony at the hearing will allow the hearing officer and staff a clearer picture of the actual situation. B. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking. Parking - The applicant stated in its original reasonable accommodation application for this property (May 20, 2008) that facility residents were permitted to have four personal vehicles at the property. (This application also stated that the facility at 1621 Indus had 12 residents instead of the 18 referenced in other applications and correspondence — the original 1621 Indus reasonable accommodation applications appear to have been submitted with the 1561 Indus use permit application, and vice versa). The use permit application stated that no residents except the two resident managers have personal vehicles which they park onsite. Later correspondence and conversations with the applicant's attorneys indicated that facility policy has changed, and that now no resident vehicles are permitted onsite at any facility, and that only the two resident staff members would be permitted vehicles. If residents are not allowed personal vehicles in YS 00322 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 38 the neighborhood, then there should not be a substantial increase in insufficient parking as a result. However, the weekly meetings and weekend visitors reported by neighbors and former residents of the facilities do appear to impact neighborhood parking to an excessive degree. (Letters from the public say that meetings occur, but do not indicate which of the facilities hold meetings.) Three other facilities operated by the applicant are located in the same neighborhood at a distance that varies from 100 to 300 feet from each other. If requested reasonable accommodations are granted for all four of applicants facilities, 16 facility residents in excess of the operating standards would be allowed. The operating standards already limit the overall population at the four facilities to 50. The cumulative impact of having 16 extra residents in more than one facility operating within a very restricted distance could result in increased traffic and parking demands. Traffic and Generated Trips — The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. Trip rates for residential care facilities are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Based on these standards, an 18 -bed residential care facility would generate approximately 49.32 average daily trips. A 13 -bed facility would generate 35.62 average daily trips, arguably an appreciable difference in traffic generation. 5. Finding. That 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. This findina can be made. A request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if granting it would pose "a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the properly of others." See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). This is a very limited exception and can only be used when, based on the specific facts of a situation, a requested accommodation results in a significant and particularized threat. Federal cases interpreting this exception in the FHAA indicate that requested accommodations cannot be denied due to generalized fears of the risks posed by disabled persons. SUMMARY — REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST ft2 The applicant has requested that the facility at 1621 Indus continue to have five beds in excess of that allowed by the operating standards specified in the NBMC operating standards for the duration of the stay of the five extra residents. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, all five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. YS 00323 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 39 Current Residents: All five findings were made as to the current residents of 1621 Indus. I Staff recommends that if a use permit is granted for this facility, the Hearing Officer also grant the requested accommodation as to the current residents only. Prospective Residents., Findings 1, 3 and 5 can be made with respect to the additional prospective residents at this facility. However, Findings 2 and 4 cannot be made. All five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to grant the use permit. If a use permit is granted for this facility, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny this accommodation request. The applicant has stated that, as a non - profit organization that relies on contributions from the community to keep it from operating at a loss, paying the use permit application fee deposit presents a financial hardship. Staff offered a payment plan to enable the applicant to pay the application fee within a reasonable period of time. In lieu of the payment plan, the applicant has requested an exemption from the $2,200 use permit application deposit required to process the use permit application submitted for this facility. NBMC Chapter 3.36 sets forth the fee schedule for municipal services, and mandates 100% cost recovery for services when the fee schedule does not set forth a lower rate of recovery. Use permits processing is not one of the services that are generally provided at a rate below 100% cost recovery NBMC Section 20.90.030 states that applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. Federal courts have periodically reviewed whether the financial limitations of disabled individuals must be considered when analyzing reasonable accommodation requests, with inconsistent results. The Ninth Circuit has indicated that some disability- related financial constraints must be considered when the request is reasonable. As with all reasonable accommodations, the analysis of whether a requested accommodation from financial policies is reasonable must be determined on a case -by -case basis. The applicant has submitted a signed Affidavit of Disability- Related Financial Hardship that gives general information on the pre- and post - disability average income range of typical facility residents. The applicant has also submitted an unverified statement of the average income and expenses related to the four facility properties, discussed above in Reasonable Accommodation Request #2, Finding Two (C). SUMMARY — REASONABLE ACCOMMQDATION REQUEST #3 Although staff requested further verifiable financial information from the applicant, this information had not been received at the time this report was prepared. Therefore, staff is unable to perform an accurate analysis of the actual financial needs of the applicant YS 00324 Use Permit No, 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 40 at this time. Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer continue this portion of the applicant's reasonable accommodation requests to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to submit and staff to analyze verifiable financial information. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer conduct a public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, the City of Newport Beach and its legal counsel, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends the Hearing Officer: Approve the use permit application with a reduction in the number of beds (from 17 to 15) within the facility based on the findings discussed in this report, and provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution of approval of Use Permit No. 2008 -037. 2. Deny the request for reasonable accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a single housekeeping unit subject to the findings discussed in this staff report. 3. If a use permit is granted for this facility, staff recommends that the requested accommodation for an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91 A.050 be granted as to the current residents. As to future residents of this facility, staff recommends continuance to a date certain pending receipt of additional financial information. 4. Staff recommends a continuance to a date certain for the request for reasonable accommodation for an exemption of the application filing fee requirement pending receipt of additional financial information. Environmental Review This activity has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and therefore it is not subject to CEQA. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item YS 00325 Use Permit No. 2008 -035 February 20, 2009 Page 41 appeared upon the agenda for this meeting which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: William Cunningha , All Consulting Planner EXHIBITS Submitted by: Dave Kiff i g (� Assistant City Manager 1. Findings Chart 2. Initial Application Submittal dated May 20, 2008 3. Notices of Incomplete Application dated June 19, 2008, November 7, 2008, and January 14, 2009, Including Subsequent Submittals 4. Site Plan/Floor Plans 5. Fire Marshal Correspondence and Code Analysis Submittal 6. Letters in Support (submitted by Applicant) and Letters in Opposition 7. Application for Reasonable Accommodation dated August 22, 2008 8. Applicant's Supportive Documentation submitted for Reasonable Accommodation 9. Applicant's E -mail dated January 28, 2009 10. Applicant's Additional Correspondence dated February 13, 2009 1 t . Additional Letters of Opposition Received After February 13, 2009 YS 00326 D N I T_ v z G) N m A C 55 m v -i O D O m 2 G) O C m N v m Z D r C N m m N C W m O a m i 19 N rn N Z C N N m m --I m r r O O Z m T Vt rn 2 O N YS 00327 m YS 00328 GZ1RY�I 003301 EXHIBIT 2 INITIAL APPLICATION SUBMITTAL YS 00331 Mark S. Adams Scott R. Albrecht Ryan N. Bums Loren A. peters Howard Goldstein* Matthew A. Goldstein ** Beatriz M.G. Gordon Philip W. Green Megan G. Mayer Herbert N. Samuels * ** Hugh A. Sanders William L. Steel Martin J. Stein Isaac R. Vaty rm4uuo -ru0 For UrLuuO -uao 1621 INDUS STREET Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. *Also admitted in Nevada * *Also admitted in Arizona ** *Also admitted in New York and Florida May 20, 2008 HAND DELIVERED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Ordinance 2008 -5 (the "Ordinance ") Accommodation; Federal Exemption Application To Whom It May Concern: This firm is general counsel for ("Yellowstone"). Please direct all future cc Enclosed herewith are the following items: I. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application Newport Beach, CA 92707; Senior Counsel Jeffrey S. Grid= RECEIVFn MAY 2 0 2006 ulke OI the City Manager 8005 -003 Permit Application; Reasonable nit; Non - Conforming Use Women's First Step House, Inc. regarding this matter to this office. the property located at 1571 Pegasus, 2. Reasonable Accommodation Application for the Newport Beach, CA 92707; 3. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application for the Newport Beach, CA 92707; 4. Reasonable Accommodation Application forlte Newport Beach, CA 92707; property located at 1571 Pegasus, property located at 1621 Indus St., property located at 162I Indus St., 5. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application for he property located at 20172 Redlands Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92707; 19800 MacArthur Boulevard • Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 -2433 Telephone: (949) 263 -0004 • Facsimile: (949) 263 -0005 YS 00332 City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 2 6. Reasonable Accommodation Application for �he property located at 20172 Redlands Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92707; 7. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application r the property located at 1561 Indus, Newport Beach, CA 92707; and 8. Reasonable Accommodation Application fo} the property located at 1561 Indus, Newport Beach, CA 92707. Additionally, by and through the materials included herein (including this correspondence), Yellowstone seeks a Federal Exemption Permit and a grant of Non - Conforming Use for the continued use of the above referenced four properties (the "Properties ") as sober living homes. Yellowstone operates the Properties as not for and alcohol addictions can live in a sober and supp individuals are protected under, inter alia, the Americi the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments (the "F Yellowstone (the "Applicant ") on the behalf of all of Properties, both currently and prospectively. fit homes where individuals with drug re environment. As you know, these With Disabilities Act (the "ADA ") and A "). This application is brought by disabled individuals who reside at the It is worth noting that Yellowstone is less than cdent that the instant applications are necessary. Yellowstone hereby submits these applicatio out of an abundance of caution and in a continued effort to remain compliant with all applicable (Newport Beach ordinances. With respect to each of the Properties, the The Properties were originally purchased in the known as Santa Ana Heights. Recently, the Properties Beach. Further, Ordinance 2008 -5 was signed into law. submit the referenced applications under Ordinance 20.62.010, et seq., 20.91.010, et seq., 20.91A.010, et seq., The Ordinance requires that a number of question and also in connection with the request for reasonable requirements, Yellowstone provides the following speci provide medical services, or any other type of health cat Properties are available as separate and distinct sober l individuals who seek to live in a house with other similar a commitment to sobriety), in community, and with the p addressing their respective disabilities. facts apply: ncorporated area of Orange County re annexed by the City of Newport a result, Yellowstone has decided to 8 -5 and Municipal Code sections 120.98.010, et seq. be addressed in the permit application, wcommodation. In response to those is information: Yellowstone does not at any of the Properties. Rather, the ving homes of residence for disabled disabled individuals (who have made apose of maintaining that sobriety and YS 00333 City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 3 The success of sober living homes in assisting th United States is well documented. Similar success has b herein. A sample of the literature on sober living homes the sober living homes addressed in these applications, live at these homes would not have access to sober living to live in such a home in Orange County. Yellowstot otherwise unaddressed need by these disabled individu enjoy a dwelling. There is no question that, with their et enhance the lives of many individuals with disabilities. Importantly, the rent charged to these individua profit is realized. In fact, without charitable contributii By no means is Yellowstone, or any individual ii Yellowstone simply makes available a sober living disabled individuals, and with a view toward enhanc Yellowstone is forced to remove its operations from economic hardship. Moreover, with any prospective i living homes, the individuals with disabilities who accommodations. Yellowstone is compliant with all of the requirt Good Neighbor Principles, and is tenacious in ensuring t observe these requirements. Approval of these applica municipal code or impose any financial or administrativ have been operating under these same general guideli (depending upon the property) without imposing any 1 residential character of the neighborhoods in which th altered in any way with the approval of these application at any of the Properties. Moreover, there is no campus applications. Residents from any one Yellowstone prop Properties, and there are no functions that include all r cited by any municipality — at any of the Properties specifically in Ordinance 2008 -5, Page 4, Paragraph 13. issues are presented with granting of these applications. On a separate but related matter, Yellowstc Exemption Permit ( "FEP ") to continue its operatioi 20.91.035, et seq. We have been unable to locate Yesterday, Ms. Leisha Mello of Yellowstone person obtain such forms. She was informed by an individual that the FEP was no longer available, and that the mur had been amended to exclude the FEP. After re -revii :se disabled individuals throughout the -en realized at the Properties addressed s attached to the applications. Without .e., the Properties, the individuals who homes, and would not be able to afford e provides these homes to satisfy the Is for an equal opportunity to use and -rent use, these Properties affirmatively simply covers Yellowstone's costs; no o, Yellowstone would operate at a loss. >lved with Yellowstone, a profiteer. vironment in an effort to help these r the community. To the extent that ese Properties, it will suffer extreme sure of any of the Properties as sober ve in these homes will be without nents in the City of Newport Beach's at all residents at the Properties strictly ions would not alter the nature of the burden on the City. These Properties ies for between two and seven years irden upon the County or City. The se Properties are located will not be In fact, there is no non - residential use established through the grant of these rty are not allowed at any of the other sidents. Yellowstone has never been for any of the complaints set forth No health, safety or physical damage would like to apply for a Federal Pursuant to Municipal Code section y FEP forms on the City's website. appeared at City Hall to attempt to itifred as Mr. Alford, a senior planner, raI code as well as Ordinance 2008 -5, tg the municipal code, as well as the YS 00334 City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 4 Ordinance, this does not appear to be the case. Ac( FEP application be sent to us at your convenience, application requirements are satisfied with the infor that these applications be deemed FEP requests. Lastly, we would note that Yellowstone won continued use permit under the non - conforming use star et seq.). As with the FEP, Ms. Mello was informed that under this code section. That section provides that " become nonconforming due to reclassification, ordim continued subject to the provisions of this Chapter." As addressed in this application will fit this definition in th In that case, Yellowstone will have become nonconfc enactment of Ordinance 2008 -5. In reviewing the fact similar in nature to those required for the Use Permi application. Accordingly, Yellowstone incorporates the to this instant request for a non - conforming use permit. that "sufficient documentation" be provided to estal established. Given that: 1. The City annexation of d documented; 2. The public record duly reflects that the P. annexation; and 3. Ordinance 2005 -8 may have renderec noncompliant; Yellowstone sees no need to submit any a there are any documents that are required by the City which are not already in the City's possession, please ad supply any such documentation. In sum, Yellowstone submits that it provides a Beach at the Properties while, at the same time, avoidin; its residents. Yellowstone brings these applications in a of Newport Beach is fully apprised of all of its operation about Yellowstone or its character. As discussed above application some published materials that support the c We are further committed to provide the City with s connection with these applications (subject to any privac, is incorporated by this reference into each individual abov y, we would hereby request that an iatively, to the extent that the FEP provided herein, we would request I like to simultaneously apply for a :es (Municipal Code section 20.62.010 to forms currently exist for application Ises, buildings, structures or lots that ice changes, or annexations may be liscussed above, each of the Properties event that a use permit is not granted. ming due to reclassification and the rs that are to be considered, they are and the Reasonable Accommodation iaterials provided herein as they relate Of note, section 20.62.030D requires ish that the structure was lawfully Santa Ana Heights region is well - )perties at issue here are a part of such Yellowstone's use of these Properties ditional documentation to the City. If t undertaking this analysis, however, ise us of same, and we will diligently vital service for the City of Newport any burden whatsoever to the City or ;ominued effort to ensure that the City and that there are no misconceptions , we have attached to each individual intentions made in these applications. ny documentation that it requires in considerations). This correspondence ,- referenced application. YS 00335 City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 5 As always, if you have any questions contact us. IRZ/jn cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) these applications, please feel free to ATY YS 00336 W� Roe CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 �y yipµ ,� Request for Reasonable Accommodation Request Worksheet Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 The purpose of a request for 'Reasonable Accommodation" is to ensure compliance with City zoning regulations in the context of State and Federal Fair Housing law. Reasonable Accommodation is used here just as the term is used in the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments (FHAA) and the case law implementing the FHAA. Reasonable Accommodation shall be approved so long as there is substantial evidence in the administrative record that establishes that all of the following findings for approval have been made: 1. The exception sought is necessary to mitigate a handicap- related barrier to housing; and 2. The living group is not residing in the Dwelling or Dwellings as a Single Housekeeping Unit. 1 Reasonable Accommodation, if approved, would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a municipal program nor impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. To the extent authorized by law, the factors that a Hearing Officer or the City Council on review or appeal may consider in deciding whether to grant Reasonable Accommodation include, but are not necessarily limited to: (i) Whether the nature and/or extent of vehicular traffic, such as the frequency or duration of trips by commercial vehicles, would be altered to such an extent that it would be contrary to, or violate, any relevant provision of the Newport Beach General Plan, Specific Plan, Planned Community Text or Municipal Code if reasonable accommodation was approved. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the approval of Reasonable Accommodation does not tend to change the residential character of the neighborhood; or (ii) Whether development or use standards established in the Newport Beach Municipal Code applicable to other residential uses in the neighborhood would be violated. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the use of the property is not being substantially changed, for instance, by adding unpermitted, non - residential uses to a residential use in a residential zone; or (iii)Whether a Campus would be established in a residential zone if the Reasonable Accommodation request was granted. Page 1'of 5 YS 00337 Application Number To aid staff in determining that the necessary findings can be made in this particular case, please answer the following questions with regard to your request (Please attach on separate sheets, if necessary): 1. How many dwelling units exist on the property and how many bedrooms are within each unit? There is one dwelling unit with five bedrooms. 2. How many persons will reside at the location for which you are seeking this permit? 3. How many clients reside within each dwelling unit and how many reside in the total facility? 4. What is the anticipated average length of stay for residents? 12 months minimum 5. Do the clients have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? What are those impairments? Yes. The individuals who reside at the proper are all disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act 6. Are any of the clients below the age of 18 years old, if so, how many? No. 7. Are any of the clients provided any type of medical care, non - medical services or supervision on site? If so, please describe. _ No medical care or non - medical services are provided S. How many caretakers or other staff will reside at the location? How many additional caretakers or staff will visit the facility on a daily basis? Weekly basis? Two staff members reside at the ntoperty There are no other "caretakers" or "staff" that will visit the facility on a dail or weekly basis. 9. What is the operational nature of the facility (i.e. group home, sober living environment, recovery facility, varying types of non - medical care for persons in need of certain services essential for sustaining the activities of daily living)? The property is a sober living home. There are no medical services pLovided at this roe . This sober living home serves the function of providing a sober living environment for those who are disabled under the American With Disabilities Act 10. Describe available on -site parking resources and the staff avid visitor parking plans. The property has a two -car garage and a four parking space driveway. This parkins is ample for all of the property's needs Four of the residents at the property have automobiles and the remainder rely upon public transportation and /or carpooling._ t 1. Describe client's ability to drive and operate a vehicle while residing at the facility. The tenants' vehicles are allowed to have vehicles but they must be approved They may only be parked and /or utilized at the property upon prior approval and they uray only park to the garage and driveway. Page 2 of 5 YS 00338 Application Number 12.Does the facility provide transportation services (i.e. transportation to school, jobs, medical treatment, or other activities)? If yes, please describe the frequency, duration and schedule of services and where the vehicles are stored? No. 13.Are any physical alterations or changes proposed to the property or needed to accommodate the use? No. 14.Is counseling provided to clients? If so, is it provided on -site or off -site? If on -site, does counseling only include clients that reside within the unit or does it include other individuals? If counseling is provided off -site, where is it provided? No. 15.Please list location and describe operational characteristics of other facilities operated by same applicant (or owner or business or non - profit entity) within the City. Will this facility provide office functions to serve other facilities owned or operated by the same entity? alone, aria no otttce tuncfions are provided by any one facility for the benefit of another 16.How do the clients /residents interact with each other within the unit? Is there joint use of common areas? Do clients share household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, and expenses? Will goods or services that require the use of delivery vehicles be provided to the facility? The residents at the property reside separately at the property and responsible for their own meals expenses and chores Each individual resides at the proMrty subject to a separate contractual arrangement with the applicant There are no delivery vehicles required at the property 17.If the facility is operated within multiple dwelling units on a single property, does each unit operate independent of each other or do any units serve a function for the residents of other units (i.e. one unit serving the function of food preparation, office, laundry, group meeting space, counseling space, etc.). There are not multiple dwelling units at the property. 18. What types of licenses are required to be obtained from other agencies to operate this use (i.e. Department of Social Services, Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, etc.)? If any, describe agency, type, and capacity of licenses. None. The property does_ however, have voluntary certification with the Oxford House Carter in Washington D.C. 19. Please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary. 1s application is brought by to wnemer the instant request for accommodation is necessary, but the applicant is applying for a reasonable accommodation out of an abundance of caution The property was originally purchased as an unincomorated area of Orange County Recently, the VEMe was annexed by the City ofNeMrt Beach Further. Ordinance 2008-5 was signed into law. Page 3 of 5 Application Number would not be able to afford to live in a sober living home in Orange County. The rent Application Number 20. Please attach any house rules or "good neighbor" policies applicable to the proposed facility. All residents at the property follow the City of Newport Beach Good Neighbor Principles, as published on the City's website 21. What uses will occur on the property that are ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling? None. 22. Will the facility operator, manager or applicant live on the property? Yes. The manager and assistant manager live at the pro e�rty 23. Will any alterations to the internal or external structural form of the residence be made? 24. Will any evidence of uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling be visible from off the lot where the facility is located? N /A. 25. Will any equipment or materials needed for uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a dwelling be stored or used on the property outside the residence? N /A. 26. Will any equipment or process be used that will emit radiation or create noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the property for uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling? No. 27. Will the number of parking spaces available to each dwelling unit used by the facility be reduced to less than that required by NBMC Chapter 20.66 (Off - street Parking and Loading) and Section 20.62.060 (Nonconforming Parking)? No. 28. Will the facility create pedestrian, vehicle or track traffic significantly in excess of the normal amount in the area? No. 29. Will any vehicle associated with uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling be stored or repaired on the facility property? No. 30. Will the facility be open to visitors and clients without prior appointments for uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling? No. Page 5 of 5 YS 00341 Find Sober Housing In Your So. Cal. Community I Search By Area iw'. jG,;; The Sober Living Network A SOBER HOUSING VISION Someday there will be recovery supportive housing and community centers throughout the United States. These clusters will be developed with a variety that will include individual houses, apartments, and congregate living accommodations. There will be a mixture of housing with normal -cost apartments for recovery veterans and low -cost, supervised shared housing for those in early recovery. In many accommodations there will be specially designed housing sections for women and/or men with children that have play areas and childcare. Sober housing clusters will be designed to accommodate persons who are physically and mentally challenged. Sober housing clusters will be recovery- promoting incubators The clusters will include meeting spaces to host self -help and educational meetings, recreational, and social events. They will be operated within a democratic culture and a high level of recovery enthusiasm. These clusters will become islands of sobriety in our alcohol and drug using society. Sober housing and community centers will become continuously available as a recovery assistance resource for alcoholics, addicts, said family members. They will be available and noticeable not only to those who are fully into their addiction, but those who are in their earlier or experimental stages. Communities of stable recovering persons can easily absorb newly recovering persons into their community. Currently many sober living homes are trying w meet the needs of newly recovering persons without the benefit of . having a core of stable recovering residents or the management resources to meet their recovery service needs. The rationale for cluster housing is that the self -help learning process comes in bits and pieces. The greater the exposure to a comprehensive recovery environment with many recovery activities and a predominance of recovering people, the greater chance a person has to learn recovery. The need for a balance of recovery experiences became evident when twelve -step meetings dominated by newcomers were not as efrective in assisting Home Or¢anizin¢ Trainin¢ Community Coat; ® Copyright 2004 Sober Living Network All Hosting provided by Heller NetWorks and T1 http:// www .soberhousing.net/vision.htral 5/15/2008 YS 00342 HomeV isionOrganizingTrai.ningCommun ityContactSppmors Find Sober Housing In Your SoCal Community I Search ByArea :Ga The Sober Living Network COMMUNITY RECOVERY SUPPORT RESOURCES Community recovery resources offer a practical and cost- efficient way to assist alcoholics, addicts and family members to enter and maintain long -term recovery. The ctmmnt alcohol and drug treatment system does not have the capacity to meet the long -term recovery assistant needs required to meet the needs of the many. The treatment system is too heavily invested in short -term treatment and too little invested in the development of safe and healthy community recovery promoting environments and activities that are constantly available to support ruxovery and life style enhancements. Alcohol and drug treatment programs have been formatted by government and academic institutions into quality "people processing" treatment stations that are now too costly per person assisted to significantly reduce addiction problems.. Community recovery is based on the postulate that safe and sober places filled with healthy recovery activities provide the environments, motivation and recovery tools for alcoholics, addicts and family members to assist (process) thdmselves. Operotma maintain healthy and safe environments and promote individual recovery responsibility. Community recovery resounce include self -help meetings, Alamo clubs - which host self-help activity, community recovery centers, sober living housing and sober mcreatiorml and social gveuts. Community recovery centers are self - service spaces that offer education sessions, host aelf4mlp groups, hold sociaihaaestional evens and have counseling and therapy available by self election. Community recovery renters, activities and housing are easily adaptable to meet the broad ethnic, cultural and physically challenged needs. Community recovery resources are assisting millions of alcoholics, addicts and family members in recovery from alcoholism and other drug addictions with little or no support from government and health insurance funding sources. Sober living homes, Abuto chubs and community recovery centers are primarily created and supported by recovering persons motivated by a call to be of service to others. The SoberLiving Network P.O. boa 5235, Saab Monty, CA 90409 (310) 396-5270 NO MINKME HomeftanlzulgTrainiugCommun ityConiag5he ;Map ®Copyright 2004 Sober Hgmsil7g All Rights Reserved priyacy policy Hosting provided by Heliej.NOWorks and The Sober Musicisins- Project http:// env rw. soberhousing.net /community.html 5/15/2008 YS 00343 The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence fights the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions. Facts and Information Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Are America's Number One Health Problem The cost and consequences of alcoholism and drug dependence place an enormous burden on American society. As the nation's number one health problem, addiction strains the health care system, the economy, harms family life and threatens public safety. Substance abuse crosses all societal boundaries, affects both genders, every ethnic group, and people in every tax bracket. Scientific documentation defines alcoholism and drug dependence as a disease that has roots in both genetic susceptibility and. personal behavior. THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM • Thera are more deaths and disabilities each year in the U.S. from substance abuse than from any other cause. • About 18 million Americans have alcohol problems; about 5 to 6 million Americans have drug problems. ? • More than half of all adults have a family history of alcoholism or problem drinking. 3 • More than nine million children live with a parent dependent on alcohol and/or illicit drugs. 4 THE CONSEQUENCES One - quarter of all emergency room admissions, one- third of all suicides, and more than half of all homicides and incidents of domestic violence are alcohol- related. 5 httpJ/ www. neadd .orF)facts /numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00344 . Heavy drinking contributes to illness in each of the top three causes of death: heart disease, cancer and stroke. 6 . Almost half of all traffic fatalities are alcohol - related. 7 Between 48% and 64% of people who die in fires have blood alcohol levels indicating intoxication. 0 . Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation. 9 THE COST . Alcohol and drug abuse costs the American economy an estimated $276 billion per year in lost productivity, health care expenditures, crime, motor vehicle crashes and other conditions. 10 Untreated addiction is more expensive than heart disease, diabetes and cancer combined. 11 . Every American adult pays nearly $1,000 per year for the damages of addiction. 12 SO, WHAT CAN BE DOME? Like other diseases, addiction can be overcome with proper treatment, prevention and more research. By increasing access to care, the costly toll on society and the burden it pieces on families can be reduced. Research shows conclusively that successful prevention and treatment leads to reductions in traffic fatalities, crime, unwanted pregnancy, child abuse, HIV, cancer and heart disease. Treatment reduces. drug use, improves health, improves job performance, reduces involvement with the criminal justice system, reduces family dysfunction and improves quality of fife. The Comprehensive Assessment Treatment Outcomes Registry Data in Ohio have documented dramatic results in decreasing occupational problems, including the following reductions after treatment: . Absenteeism decreased by 89% http: / /www.ncadd.org /facts /numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00345 • Tardiness decreased by 92% • Problems with supervisors decreased by 56% • Mistakes in work decreased by 70% • Incomplete work decreased by 81 %'13 Additionally, a California Study found significant decreased health care costs from before to after treatment in: • Hospitalizations for physical health problems ( -36 %) • Drug overdose hospitalizations ( -58 %) • Mental health hospitalizations ( -44 %) • The num(ier of emergency room visits ( -36%) • The total number of hospital days (- 25 %)1.4. Americans increasingly recognize that alcoholism and drug dependence is a disease with consequences that affect both physical and behavioral health. Diagnostic and treatment services have changed in recent years and modem treatment, when adequately provided, enables a great many people to recover and rebuild productive lives. It is important that the public be aware of evidence generated by scientific inquiry, clinical evaluation and clinical experience. The evidence demonstrates that treatment for alcohol and other drug abuse works. Treatment not only saves lives, it also saves dollars that would otherwise be spent in other areas of medical care and social services. For every dollar spent on addiction treatment, seven dollars is saved in reduced health care costs.13 The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence is dedicated to fighting the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions by providing education, information, help and hope to the public. NCADD advocates prevention, intervention, and treatment through a network of 97 affiliates across the United States. For more information, visit: www.ncadd.orc. Alcoholism and drug dependence are treatable and millions of people achieve recovery. SOURCES 1. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1983. http:// www. ncadd .org/facts/numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00346 2. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 2001. 3. Position Paper on Drug Poiicy,.Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 4. Ibid. 5. "Sobering Facts on the Dangers of Alcohol," NY Newsday, April . 24; 2002. 6. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Stodies, 2000. 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Annual Report, 1992. 8. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1993. 9. E. Abel, "Incidence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Economic Impact of FAS- Related Anomalies," Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1987. 10. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 2001. 11. Ibid. 12. The National Drug Control Strategy, The White House, 1997. 13. Ohio Dept. of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, New Standards, inc.,,SL Paul, MN, 1994. 14. Gerstein, at al, "Evaluating Recovery Services: the California Drug and Alcohol Assessment," Sacramento, 1994. 15. Ibid. Compiled M2 National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. 244 East 58th Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022 phone: 2121269 -7797 fax:212/269 -7510 email: national@noadd_org http: / /www.ncadd.org HOPE LINE: 800 /NCA -CALL (24 -hour Affiliate referral) http:// www. nca, dd.org/facts/rkumberoneproIb.html 5115/2008 YS 00347 (general population Aceording to data from fine 2005 National Housahofd Survey an DruO Use and Health (NSDUH) -• • 112 mlfion Americans age 12 or older (48% d the population) reported tlicit drug use at least once in their fifahme • 14% reported use at a drug WIRM the Past yew • a% reported use of a drug within the past month, Data from the 2005 survey showed that marijuana and occaine use is the most prevelem among pstsons age 19 to 25. Age of mapondent 2004 Drug ON 12.17 18.26 28 or older madjwns Last month 6.5% 16.8% 4.1% Lest yew 13.3 26.0 6.9 Cocaine Less month 0.6% 10% 0.8% Letyear 1.7 6.9 1.5 Scace: SAMHSA Office of Appfied Sales, 2009 NaUDnel Savoy on Owe Use and Health. National pindkW, September 2006. The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) mordtore drug - related emergency department (ED) vfsna for the nation and for Bladed metropolitan areas. DAWN aim collects date on dnapaatated deaths Investigated by medical a enthas s and convert; In selected metropolitan areas and States. In zoos, DAVM estimates that nearly 1.4 million emergency department vista neflonwlde were associated with Ming misuse or abuse. An estimated 816,898 thug-ralsted emergency department visits irhvdved a major sub5amee of abuse. DAWN estimates that: • Co sine was invoked In 448,461 ED visits. • Madjuanewas imdved In 212,200 ED vieih. • Heroin was Involved In 164,672 ED wd1e. • atlmulaas, tedudad emphasemknss and melseangpinstardets. were Involved In 138,660 ED malls. • Other Akk dope. such tie PCP. Emtay, and GHB, wee muds kss haquemtho n wry tithe above. Source: U. S. Depatmem or Hemp and Humans Swvloes, SAMHSA. Oefoe of Applied ShMIM OroaAbrse Whrralea Network, 2008: Nafbnat El tmNr ofDmg4W fad EmagarcyDepartment VIeNs. DAWN Series D-29, DHHS Pub katlon No. (SMA) 07.4236, Rockville, MD, 2007. In 2003, 122 JurMdklbns in 35 metropolitan area and 6 Steles submitted mortality data to DAWN. The States, which are a8 new to DAWN, are Maine, Maryland. New Hampshire, New Mexkv, tkah, and Vermont. DAWN cenrol provide nation eeitWw of dntg- related deaths. In the nhatropoaah saes, needy has of drug misuse deaths, m average, Involved amsjorsubaarce of abase (cocaine, heroin, marina m% stimulants, dub drugs, hmitxMogans, a non- phanaceWed IMelads). Acmas this States, major subatsaras were reported in about a third of misuse dohs. SOI, maw substances were reported in 40% to 45% as drug miavee deaths in Maryland. New Mexioo, and Uah. Descriptions of drug abuse deaths m the patdpatrp metropolitan Gees we avalladein the Mentally Cab pan the DAS14V, 2003 repast _ Acoordirp to date fromlM 20001 UwWy Data tram OAWN— Cocaine sues the moMTrcquanlry reported 11icit Mug. In the drip misuse deaths, ccaim was among the top Stings in 29 of the 32 nre0opalten warn and al of the 6 Stable. On average, oocsh+e date OF in oombirhefion with dhwdnpe vres reported in 39 %oldru9 misuse deaths (range 9% to 70%). Aloohd was we of the 6 met command drug$ In 30 of the 32 metropolitan tee and 6 at the 6 Slates. In 29 of the32.mds pants area& mare drag nbehem deeta kwdved a op oieiopkid than any o*N hip. Source: U. S. DepaYnrrt of Health end Human SwNcsa, SAte4SA, OIfloe at Applied Studies, Gap Abaee Wamm$ Ne(work, 2003: Area Pro67w ofDrt7D4Ref uwf Mortality. DAWN Series D -27, DHHS Publication No. ISMA) 05+1023, Rockville, MD, 2DDS. Preview ashwa NJadk•SMtM11m teed dader add ;•weld mmwwab maYd,ijamdojaw Contents . BJS home page I Top of this page Next WP 9rudom arbMm fl" Ad pa{e Up[ lblWiu and Dbddmrn Poe, W r,Wad as Ayag Jl, 2007 http : / /www.ojp.gov/bjs /def /du.htm 5/14/2008 YS 00348 1';. Ilh�i lritnrt nt 111�inti14-A dl ➢Idircnuh I cs VI",rci0111Ss ' l4a;1atAUA.9as Ilvio.�t9:aiisItc x. w cenhnn Drugs wed Crime Faces Mrvlou6 Nam 7p 11%. ads Drug use Homo paps Yount I General population Youth • Use • Perceived risk • Student reports of availability of drugs Use The Monitoring the Future Study asked high school seniors, "On Rout many occasions, If any, have you used drugs or alcohol during the last 12 months or manthr Reported drug and alcohol use by It* school seniors, 2008 Used within the last: Drop 12 months' 30 days Alcohol 6815% 45.3% Iwdjuaha 31.5 16.3 Other oplatas 8.0 3.8 8tbwlarrb 8.1 3.7 Sedatives, e.6 3.0 Tranquilizers 6.6 2.7 Cocaine 5.7 25 HsSUCinogana 4.9 1.6 IMalettk 4.5 1,6 stwokis 1,6 1.1 , Heroin 0.8 0.4 lndud'ingthe Imd month. Source: Press release: 7ban drug use continues down N 2W4 pmdculmlyamong oWer lease; but use of praserlpSaldyps drugs remains hlph, Uriwratly of Michigan N%% and Information SwAeea. December 21, 2006. (Acrobat Me 578,81 KB) Sea -reports of drug use among high adud emum may under mires ent drug use among yank of that no becomes high acted drop" and trued" are not Included, and Muse gawps may hunt more involvement with dugs than those who slay in School. Percent of all college studen ti, 1995 -2006 Dag use 1995 1900 1997 1098 1099 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2000 Madjusna DeSywflhin lastnmMh 3.7% 2.8% 3.7% 4.0% 4.0% 4.8% 4.5% 4.1% 4.7% 4.5% 4.0% Last month 10.6 17.5 17.7 18.8 20.7 20.0 20.2 18.7 19.3, 18.9 17.1 Last year 312 33.1 31.8 35.9 351 34.0 35.6 34.7 33.7 33.3 33.3 Cocaur Dally wISNn Iastmonth O.D% 0.0 %.0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Lastmanth 0.7 0.8 1.6 1.6 12 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.9 24 1.8 Last year 3.6 29 3.4 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.6 64 6.6 5.7 Len than 0.05% Raps of past year cocaine use by college Muderde have vaned ovor Me poet 10 years form a low of 2.9% In 1996 to a high of 5.7 %In2006. Peat yam menjuana use has ranged from a Ion of 31.2% In 199610 a high of 35.9% in 1998. Source: Unlversiry of Michigan, Monitoring See Future National SuveyResuffs on bag Use, 18762005, Volume Ito College Students and Adults Agee 18.45, 2005, October 2006. (Acrobat file 2.31 CAB) Of high school senlms In 2005 - • 44.8% reported having ever used medU+snathashish 8.0% reported heNng ever used coceine • 1.5% reported having aver used heroic. http : / /www,ojp.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm 5/14/2008 YS 00349 ' Source: University of Michigan. Mant odng the Future National Resuls on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview a /Key Findings 2006, April 2008. (Acrobat fib 442.T7KB) The Increase in the we of morikki a has been especially pronounced. Behveen 1992 and 2006 peel -month was of madjuane Increased tam: . 12% to 20% among high school seniors. • 8 %1015 %amongitthgraders. . 4% to 7% among Mr, graders. Reported use of medjuana by high Wheel seniors during the past month peeked in 1978 at 37% and declined to its lowest level In 1992 in 12 %. The use of cocaine within the post month of the survey by high school eenkirs peaked In 1085 at 6.7 %, up from 1.9% In 1976 at the surveys Inception. Cocaine use declined to a low of 1.3% In 1992 and 1993. In 2005, 2.3% of high schad senors reported pas -month cocaine use Source: University of Michigan, Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug Use; Overview of Key Findings 2008, April 2006. (Actebal Ale 442.77KB). I Cocaine use among high ached sericre peeked In 1985. SU' Click on the chants view the data. Source: Press release: Teen Mug use continues dower in 20M PaMeularlysmaing older "a"&; but use of PwaiPBamsyine daw mamba high, University of Michigan News and Information Saviors, December, 21, 2006. (Acrobat file 576.81KB). Percelved risk From 1987 to 2008 me percentage cc high ached sent= that were asked, "Has much do you think people risk harming themsehn,07 remsloed virtually at". Those students answering "greet risk' In regular use accounted kw the taBoMng _ Click on ft than to view the dada. 10 Source: Prase release: Teen drug use continues down M 2000, partlosedy among older Mans; but use of prescdp8ar -type &We mmahw high. University of Michigan News and Information Services, December 21, 2000. (Acrobat file 678.1l Student reports of avellablily of drugs Percent of high school seniors reporting dray could obtain drugs fairly easily m very easily, 2006 http : / /www.ojp.gov/bjs/def /du.httn 5/14/2008 YS 00350 Mediums 84.8% Amphetamines 52,8 Cocaine 46.5 Barbiturates 43.8 Crack 38.8 LSD 29.0 Heroin 27.4 Crystal methemphetemins 28.7 7ranquilmrs 24A PCP 23.1 Amyllbutyl rdtdtes 16.4 Source: Press release. Tomb drug use continues down In 2886, particularly among older t8m; but use of prescription -type drugs remains high, Univereity of Michigan New and Iaormetlon Services, December 21, 2008. (ACrobd fde 676.81KS) In 2005, 25 %a at students in grades 8 through 12 reported someone had offered, add, or given them an Illegal drug on school property. There was w measurable change with the percentage at studeme who reported that drugs were of rretl, add, orghen to them at stlroolbetween 2003 and 2006. Moles ware more likely than females b report that drugs were uttered, sold, or given to them on schod property in each survey yew between 1983 and 2005. In 2005, 20% of mates and 22% of females, reported avallabalty of drugs Source: BJS pintiy with the U.S. Department of Education, Indtcatora of School Crime and Safety, 2006, NCJ 214262, Decanter 2008. - + To the top General population According to data frmn the 2005 HaOOnsf ffousehddSawayon Ong Um and Health (NSDIJH) - • 112 wagon Americans age 12 w order (48 %of the population) reported iuia drug use at lead aroe in their Alders • .14% reported use of a drug wlihinthe past yew a a% reported we of a drug within the pest month. Data from the 2005 an" stmVwd that mai)uarne and accounts use a the most prevalent anang personage 18 to 25. Age of respondent, 2004 Drug use 12.17 18.28 28 colder marpuma Lest month 6.8% 46.6% 4.1% Lastyear 13.3 28.0 6.8 Cocalm, last month 0,696 26% 0.8% Lmtymr 1.7 6.6 1.5 Source: SAMHSA, Dike of Applied Sudes, 8006 National Survey an Drug Use andHeadh: National Findings, Seplarr6m 2006. The Dr gAbuse Warming AlMmrk (DAW" mwuiWn dril4elatad emergency department (ED) vshe IN the nation end roe selected mauopoftn areas. DAWN wee collects date on drug4darad deaths investigated by medical exendnes and wronam in selected metropoalen areal and Stales. In 2005, DAWN estimates that newly 1.4 million emergency depar mart Nsas na0onwide want essOdaedwith drag nMauu Of abuse. An wilmtted 818,888 drug- relsled emergency, depatmma Nees Imdved a make substance M some. DAVYN eaimass the: • Cocalnewas involved in 448,481 ED Neils. • Metjuane wee involved in 242,200 ED vials. • Heroin was involved In 164,572 ED vela • Stimulants, Included ampfMenYnm and mathemphelendne, were involved In 136,960 ED vs8e. • Other iWUt drugs, such as PCP, Ecalwy, and OHS, were much lees frequent then airy or the above. Sauros. U. S. Department of Health end Human Services, SAMHSA. Office of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse Mla ing Network 2005: National Estimates of Thug -Belted EmergencyDapalmenf VfaHa. DAWM Series D- 29, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 07-4250, Rockville, MO, 2007. In 2003,122 jwisdfctons In 35 metropolitan area and 6 Stores submitted mortality dads 10 DAWN. The Stelae, which ere all rear to DAWN, are Maine, Maryland, New Ham"re, New Me". Utah, and Vermont. DAWN cannot provide national sar matae of drug-m etacl deaths. In the maimpdasn arena, newly had of drug misuse doom, on average, involved a m*r substance of abuse (Cocaine, heroin, http :/ /www,ojp- gov/bistdr,f /du.htrn 5/14/2008 YS 00351 madtuana, stimulants, dub daigs, helluolnagers, or non-phermeceu5cd intense"). Accosts the 6 States, motor substances were reported in about a third of mi it ae deaths. Still. major substances were reported in 40% to 45% of drug misuse deaths in Maryland, New Maxhw' and Utah. Desctpliorns W drug abuse deaths in the WIdNing metropolaon ambe are available In the nodality Date horn ft DAWN, 2009 report.. Aecording to data from the 2003 Mortality Dow bom DAWN— Cocaine was the most frequently reported illicit drug. In the drug misuse deaths, woatne was among the top 5 drugs In 26 of the 32 mabopolgan awes and all of the 6 Slates. On average, 000nthe alone or In combinntlon with other dugs wan reported in 39% W drug misuse deaths (range 8% to 70 %). Alcohol was one of the 6 moat comment drugs M 3o of the 32 metropolitan areas and 5 of the 6 States. In 29 of the 32 metropolitan areas, income drug income deaths Involved an opiatefoWdd oast any other drug. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Office or Appeal Studies, Drug Abuse Wanting Nstwud4 2003: Arse Prortlee of Drug - Related Uanaiify. DAWN Bodes D-27, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 05 -4023, Rockville, MD, 2005. Previous Contents Next f3J6 home page ) Top of this page anion ofJvake Slalouw DIP Ir,aWem oflefermtllan Act Yoe ewwn}p..W, j.sovhW LMal Palkka and Dlaetoiwew Bend <ommula to mlindsoudel,Yav Page tut mieW on A oat 11,1007 http: / /www.ojp.gov /bjs/dcf/du.htm 5/14/2008 YS 00352 Westside Santa Ana Heights Homeowner's Guide May 2(187 Edarard "Ted" EtosWY (949) 2942126 TedBoale vahoo.com servke • taagft. cmeoddereat CompkmaAr of Ted Bosky, YourNetgbboraad = Pmfusrona! WWW TEDEtoSLEY C0M Great source for RE information, tools plus Ell- monthly Ted Bosley Appointed to SAH Project Advisory Colr miftG 1 started attending the SAH PAC meetings 5 years ago, mostly so that I could learnAs much as possible about events affectiM our community. You, the readers of my periodic newsletters, have been the henatactors since I have shared with you much of what was leaned in that forum as well as Supervisor, City Council and LAFCO meetings. Many of you have also been in attendance at those same meetings. I appreciate being appointed to serve on the SAH Project Advisory Committee. This gores me the' opportunity to'serve on critical subcommittees that make recommendations to the Bd of Supervlems and to NB City Cotmdl on Matters that have signh erd impact on our community. V. r+laferpointe to Start Development on urcharr. In a recent response to my inquiry about the timeline for this Westside SAH project, i received the following statement Mra aye stlil processing- oorlYnal-mop voith the County of Orange. Once recorria- . tion of file mep occur-s we are planning or.• $ faritnq file project.... Once again 1 thank you for your assistance in gaffing this project approved." Garrett Calacd. . Waterpoints Development Principal Westside SAH Annexation Update Administration, 12 Civic Center Plue,�5en AM in the Planning Commission Hearing Room. The City of Newport Beach's spprsofloo for a sphere of Influence change and c0=ffMnt a sphere of annexation of West Sards Ana Haunts and the City of Costs Mesa's app Nuance change for the Banning Ranch property will be aNtsidered by LAFCO on this date. Surf reports for bath proposals will be available for review on Wednesday afternoon, MaY 2, 2007, on this Orange County LAFCO webstW. www ocanae LAFCO ca oov. Cfldc on the Agenda and Minutes° fnk, then dick on agenda itern. This is the meeting we all Love been wailing for. LAFCO is supPow to carne to a final : resolution on the West Side Mnaxation to Newport at this Meeting. PAC will be there to support . Annexation as always.' Source a this infarnadw is uwrw SAHPAC.Com If you would No more infom aflon retaft to the history of flhis effort please visit Sober ]Living Holmes Make Their Community Christmas Contribution Were you as surprised as I by the amazing decorations exhibited by the residents of thg. Slat that . Redlands St , tithe ?.YeliawstDne jwmryttDmes"dudng the Christ ry r +a Home mas holidays? One of the reasons was a little cOMpetl- tion between the 3 homes along with the help the mews home provided to the other 2 women's homes. Pegasus Street Their efot also brought out the eornpaUtive spirit In Indus Street Warren's Home some of the other hones In the neighborhood ... Women s Home Congnatuiationall Golf Course or Parldng Loth` . Daily Pilot Article an April `IM discusses this subject If you do not take the Pilot you can go to www.daiivoilot.corn/ art, ties /2007AWi8 /politics /dnt•aolfcoursel8_txt to view It °cmmffiaNarr' to Weahskia SAPS Mk tadm Cvl- dc-Ses woraws Haas What I cannot understand is why anyone on the Airport . Committee would suggest that a Car Rental Auto Storage fadflty should replace the Newport Beach Golf Course Bads 9, that brings so much pleasure to so many, when their lease is up at the end of July, 2007. (Cw 0wed wrpMe 2) Swrc; an wl aV to John Moorlach(aocaov tom AND TedBosleV(MVah00Caronm 8th your opinion ft aaalmlity of not ealin�?.A he lease f, or thf, NP, Gott r"IIII ... AND to let me know of your intoceat in rxarti aun In this saaconlo OC ra rn ii YS 00353 rn4vvo -, ua ror uezuva.uso 1621 INDUS STREET Yellowstone Women's First Step House, City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION STANDARD GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION (Form 100— Revised March 2008) 2. APPLICANTIFACILITY PROGRAM INFORMATION STEP 1: Completely fill out Form 150 (attached). STEP 2: Fill out the following: TYPE OF ORGANIZATION: ❑ For Profit N Nonprofit ❑ Other, please explain: PROPERTY OWNERSHIP: ❑ Own ❑ Rent N Lease ❑ Other (specify): Inc. IS THE OPERATORIMANAGER ALSO THE LESSEE OF THIS PROPERTY? N Yes ❑ No ❑ If no, please explain: IS THE APPLICANT OR PROGRAM OPERATOR PART OF A PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, FIRM, OR ASSOCIATION? N Yes 1 ❑ No If yes, please fill out and attach either Form 2000 (if 200C, applicants must fill out Form 200D) or Form 200P, whichever is applicable. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION (E -Mail address) E name YS 00354 5 3. SIMILAR USES A. Your Firm's Current Uses. Do you or your firm (or any entity or person affiliated with you or your firm) currently operate, manage, or own other group residential uses in Newport Beach? ® Yes ❑ No if yes, cite address(es) of facility(ies) (attach more pages if necessary): EXAMPLE: 1234 Main Street, Newport Beach Unlicensed "Sober Living" 7 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity 1571 Pegasus, Newport Beach Cert. Sober 'Living 18 Site Address . Type of Use Bed Capacity 20172 Redlands Dr.. Newport Beach Cart. Sober Living 18 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity 1561 Indus, Newport Beach Oxford Sober Livina 12 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity 10 YS 00355 9 B. Other Similar Uses. What uses, not operated by or affiliated with You or Your firm, are of a similar type as your proposed use here in Newport Beach? Please cite address(es) of facility(ies) (attach more pages if necessary): EXAMPLE: 1234 Main Street. Newport Beach Unlicensed "Sober Livina" 7 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed.Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed. Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity C. Evidence of Need for this Extent of Use. Per NBMC §20.91A.030 (E), please attach Evidence of Capacity and Need by residents of Newport Beach for this capacity based on published sources. 4. YOUR FIRM'S HISTORIC USES Per the requirements of NBMC §20.91A.030.G & H, in the past five (5) years, have you or your firm or any entity or Person affiliated with you or your firm operated, managed, or owned other group residential uses in California? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, show the site address(es) of each facilfty(ies) and show whether the facility(ies) have ever been in violation of Federal, State or local law (attach additional pages if necessary): EXAMPLE: 1234 Main Street Santa Barbara ADP- Licensed Facility 8 11 YS 00356 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, please Facility #1 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please explain: Facility #2 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please explain: Facility #3 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please explain: Facility #4 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No 12 YS 00357 If Yes, please explain: 5. LOCATION MAP AND SIMILAR USES Provide a Location Map showing the location of the proposed use plus all known conditional uses within a three - block radius. Include the property addresses of the proposed use and known conditional uses. Please consult the Newport Beach Planning Department (949- 644 -3225) for nearby conditional uses. 6. SITE PLAN Provide a Site Plan that shows the facility's building footprint and property lines. Include property lines and . building footprints on immediately adjacent parcels. Note the uses (i.e. single family use, group residential use, or other) on adjacent parcels. LICENSE AND PERMIT HISTORY OF APPLICANT, A. Per NBMC §20.91A.030(H), please summarize the license and permit history of each facility applicant or operator has managed, owned, or operated in the State of California within the last five (5) years which require either a license or a permit by the State or by a locality (attach additional sheets if necessary): Name of Facility (Facility Address) (City) (Zip) Please describe the nature of the license or use permit, the issuing agency, its reference number (if applicable), and any enforcement actions by any agency against the license or use permit: B. Has the applicant ever voluntarily surrendered, had a denial, suspension, or revocation of a residential license for an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility or a facility licensed by the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) or the California Department of Social Services - Community Care Licensing? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, the date license was surrendered, denied, suspended, or revoked: Reason for revocation, surrender, denial, or suspension: C. Has the applicant ever voluntarily surrendered, had a denial, suspension, or revocation of a Use Permit or similar permit for a group residential use in this community or another community? ❑ Yes ® No 13 YS 00358 If yes, the date Use Permit (or similar) was surrendered, denied, suspended, or revoked: Reason for revocation, surrender, denial, or suspension: D. Has the applicant ever voluntarily surrendered, had a denial, suspension or revocation of a certification by any public or private agency other than ADP or the California Department of Social Services - Community Care Licensing for a group residential use in this community or another community? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, the date Use Permit (or similar) was surrendered, denied, suspended, or revoked: Reason for revocation, surrender, denial, or suspension: S. NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED USE Per NBMC §20.91A.030(A -D), please provide the following information about each proposed facility (attach additional sheets if necessary). The components of this Section 8 (and other sections) comprise the Operations and Management Plan and Rules of Conduct envisioned by NBMC §20.91A.050.8: A. TYPE OF ALCOHOL AND /OR OTHER DRUG RECOVERY OR TREATMENT SERVICES PROVIDED (for ADP - licensed facilities only —check all that apply): . ❑ Non - Medical Detoxification ❑ Group Sessions ❑ One-on -One Sessions ❑ Educational Sessions ❑ Recovery or Treatment Planning ® Other. None B. NUMBERS AND TYPES OF FACILITY USERS & STAFF: TOTAL OCCUPANCY OF FACILITY (This is the maximum number of individuals who live at the facility and are approved by the fire safety inspector.) These individuals include the residents receiving recovery, treatment or detoxification services, Children of the residents, and staff. Staff includes individuals who work for the applicant in exchange for either monetary or in -kind compensation (e.g., room and board). Total occupancy cannot be exceeded for any reason. 18 MAXIMUM REQUESTED ADULT RESIDENT CAPACITY OF THE FACILITY (The number of adult residents that receive recovery, treatment or detoxification services at any one time, which cannot be greater than the total occupancy shown above): 0 MAXIMUM NUMBER AND AGE RANGE OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN WHO ARE SUPERVISED BY THEIR PARENT(S) IN THE FACILITY. This Includes temporary residing (i.e., overnight, weekend visits) of dependent children. (Since there must always be at least one adult being served, the maximum number of dependent children housed must be at least one less than the total occupancy, determined by the fire inspector, as shown above): 0 Are all clients who reside on -site disabled persons? _ 14 YS 00359 Number of staff who will reside on -site: 2 Maximum number of staff who will provide services during any one week to clients at the facility: 2 Provide the Facility Staffing Form shown as Form 400 to this Application. Total number of employees of provider: Please characterize the nature of staff services to the facility (i.e., nutritionists, massage therapists, counselors, maids, cooks, etc): House Manager Assist Manager Maximum number of clients who will use the facility on any one day but reside elsewhere: 0 Maximum number of client visitors who will visit the facility during any one week: 0 Maximum number of others who wRI visit the facility during any one week: 0 Please explain: C. BUILDING DIAGRAM /FLOOR PLAN Include a Building Diagram showing all building(s) to be occupied, including a floor plan of all rooms intended for residents' use. Include the grounds showing buildings, setbacks, driveways, fences, storage areas, pools, gardens, recreational area and other spaces. All sketches shall show dimensions but need not be to scale. Identify the number of residents per bedroom and the location and the number of beds for all reskents, including the location of beds for Infanta and other non - ambulatory persons. The Building Diagram supplied with this application must be accurate as to existing conditions in the building. and must be consistent with the building plans currently on file with the Newport Beach Building Department for permitted construction. D. DURATION OF TYPICAL CLIENT STAY IN FACILITY (in days): 180 If you wish, please explain: E. IS THE FACILITY ACCESSIBLE TO INDIVIDUALS IN WHEELCHAIRS OR OTHER NONAMBULATORY CONDITIONS? ❑ Yes ® No NOTE: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is a comprehensive federal anti - discrimination law for people with disabilities. The City reminds all providers of residential recovery facilities that discrimination against persons with disabilities is prohibited. Please contact Newport Beach's Building Department (949- 644 -3275) for specific ADA requirements that may apply to your facility. F. ACTIVITY INFORMATION Hours which facility will be in use: 15 YS 00360 G. H. Z 24/7 ❑ Other (please describe) Will there be a curfew? If so, please note quiet hours: ® 10 P.M. —8 a.m. ❑ Other (please describe) Besides household activities, what types of care - related activities will occur on -site, and how many residents and non - residents (including staff and clients from other facilities) will attend? ❑ "AW -type meetings ❑ ADP - Treatment (see 5A) ❑ Meal preparation /delivery _ ❑ Physical Fitness (gym, yoga, etc) ❑ Other wellness (massage, etc) _ ❑ Other: Provide the Weekly Schedule of Services shown as Form 500 to this Application. DELIVERY INFORMATION: What types of deliveries will occur at the facility and how often (per day or per week — circle whichever is applicable) will they occur? ❑ Laundry Sevices: /day or week ❑ Meals: /day or week ® Trash disposal or recycling: t /day -or week ❑ Business products: /day or week ❑ Correspondence, packages (other than USPS): /day or week ❑ Medical Products/Medical Waste Pickup: /day or week ❑ Other: TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING: /day or week Will clients residing on -site be allowed to use personal vehicles and/or keep them on -site or nearby? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, describe where clients will park personal vehicles (garage, carport, on- street location, other— if on- street, be specific about which streets) If No, describe other modes of transportation that clients will use (bus, other transit, bicycle, other). Bus — Camools. bikes Please provide a Route Map showing transit and travel routes that will be used to transport clients off -site, showing destinations of travel and approximate times of departure and return. Wig staff serving the facility be allowed to drive personal vehicles to the site? 16 YS 00361 S Yes ❑ No If Yes, describe where staff will park personal vehicles (garage, carport, on- street location, other — if on- street, be specific about which streets) In driveway NOTE: The City may not authorize on- street parking for clients or staff depending upon how impacted the facility's streets are. MEDICAL AND 810-WASTE NBMC §8.04.120 (Health and Sanitation: Prohibited Materials) prohibits the disposal of certain medical waste or bio -waste into the City's refuse disposal system. Syringes, needles, urinalysis cups, and other waste must be disposed of in accordance with the NBMC and other applicable laws. If you are uncertain as to what wastes can be disposed of in the City's disposal system, contact the City's General Services Department at 949 -644 -3066. Applicants who will be disposing medical waste or other bio -waste must provide a Disposal Plan for Medical and Bio -Waste showing how and where these wastes are disposed of (required by NBMC §20.91A.030.1). Please attach the Disposal Plan if applicable. J. RULES OF CONDUCT — GOOD NEIGHBOR PRINCIPLES If you have them, please include any documents that describe rules of client conduct and/or Good Neighbor Principles that your facility's staff and clients will adhere to if the City Issues a Use Permit for this facility. The City of Newport Beach has developed Good Neighbor Principles for these uses (see the City's website under Group Residential Uses). Please state whether you agree voluntarily to comply with the City's Good Neighbor Principles: ® Yes ❑ No K. OTHER AVAILABLE CERTIFICATIONS N BMC §20.91A.050.C.4 directs that applicants shall attain certification (or similar validation), where available, from a governmental agency or qualified non - profit organization. This includes: • The Orange County Sheriffs Department's Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification Program (see www.ocsd.orp for more information or contact Certificate Coordinator Lt. Jeff Bardzik at 714 - 773 -4523 or ibar9zik2ocsd.orq or Margo Grise at 714 -773 -4521 at mgrise(docsd.ora. This certification is required. • The Orange County Sober Living Network (see http :! /www.soberhousina.nef/oranae county html or contact Grant McNiff at 714- 875.2954. This certification is recommended. You do not have to attain the OCSD certification to apply for a Use Permit, but we suggest that you attain the certification within a reasonable amount of time (twelve [121 months) following your application submittal. Should a Use Permit be issued, it may include a condition that certification be obtained within a stated time period. If you have attained this certification prior to applying for the Use Permit, verify here that you have attained this certification, and attach the verifying document from the certifying entity: 17 YS 00362 ❑ Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification (required) ® Orange County Sober Living Network (recommended) ❑ Other (please describe) L. SECONDHAND SMOKE LIMITATIONS NBMC §20.91A.050.A directs that "no staff, clients, guests, or any other uses of the facility may smoke in an area from which the secondhand smoke may be detected on any parcel other than the parcel upon which the facility is located. Check and sign here to acknowledge this requirement and your use's adherence to it: ® 1 acknowledge that I will control secon nd smoke on my facility such that no secondhand smoke may be detected on any arcel other than he p 1 upon which my facility is located. Signature, Date: a 0 9. APPLICANT OBLIGATIONS A. The "owner of record" of the property or an authorized agent must sign this Application. Signing the application under Section 10 means that the applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that the information provided within the Application and its attachments is true and correct. Per NBMC §20.90.030.C, false statements are grounds for denial or revocation. B. The Applicant acknowledges that he or she must comply with all other Federal, State, and local laws and regulations relating to this use. The Applicant understands that a violation of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations is grounds for revocation of the Permit. The Applicant understands and acknowledges that it is against California law to provide treatment (as defined) in an unlicensed facility. C. If the City issues a Use Permit based on the information provided in this Application, the Applicants signature below certifies his or her agreement to comply with the terms of the Use Permit. The Applicant understands and acknowledges that non - compliance with the terms of the Use Permit is grounds for revocation of the Permit. Revocation of the Use Permit. NBMC §20.98.040.E provides that the City can revoke a Use Permit if: • The permit was issued under erroneous information or misrepresentation; or • The applicant made a false or misleading statement of material fact, or omitted a material fact; or • The conditions of use or other regulations or laws have been violated; or • There has been a discontinuance of use for 180 days or more. 10. AUTHORIZED SI NA UR APPLICANT THE UNDERSIGNED ASSURES THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD HIS OR HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER ANY USE PERMIT ISSUED BASED ON THIS APPLICATION. A. If the applicant is a sole proprietor, the application shall be signed by the proprietor. B. If the applicant is a partnership, the application shall be signed by each partner. C. If the applicant is a firm, association, corporation, county, city, public agency or other governmental entity, the application shall be signed by the chief executive officer or the individual legally responsible for representing the agency. 18 YS 00363 D. The applicant(s) affirms that the facts contained in this aaolicafion and su000rtina documents are true and (Title) (Date) (Signature) (Title) (Date) 19 YS 00364 !A vision for Goner riousmg L�rril5v §'AbF.u^rLwM't$ Merrwatan.aiw�n THE >C7BE=R �U '�' Home Vision d anizing r ' in Communes conlgct Sgansot Find Sober Housing In Your So. Cal. Community jSsarch By Area r +(#d The Sober Living Network . °A SOBER HOUSING VISION Someday them will be recovery supportive housing and community centers throughout the United States. These clusters will be developed with a variety that will include individual houses, apartments, and congregate living accommodations. There will be a mixture of housing with normal -cost apartments for recovery veterans and low -cost, supervised shared housing for those in early recovery. In many accommodations there will be specially designed housing sections for women and/or men with children that have play areas and childcare. Sober housing clusters will be designed to accommodate persons who are physically and mentally challenged. Sober housing clusters will be recovery- promoting incubators. The clusters will include meeting spaces to host self -belp and educational meetings, tecrmiloaal, and social events. They will be operated within a democratic culture and a high level of recovery enthusiasm. These clusters will become Islands of sobriety in our alcohol and drug using society. Sober housing and community centers will become continuously available as a recovery assistance resource for alcoholics, addicts, and family members. They will be available and noticeable not only to those who are fully into their addiction, but those who are in their earlier or experimental stages. Cammunitias of stable recovering persons can easily absorb newly recovering persona into the community. Ctivrantly many sober living homes are trying to meat the needs of newly recovering persons without the benefit of having a core of stable recovering residents or the management resources to meet their recovery Service needs. The rationale for cluster housing is that the self -hop learning proem comes In bib and pieces. The greater the rWgKwm to a comprehensive recovery environment with many recovery: activities and a predominance of ecovering people, the greater chance a person has to learn recovvery.'The need for a balance of recovery otperiames became evident when twelve step meetings dominated by newcomers were not as effective in assisting MW. pa _.ded by All http:l/www.soberhousing.net/vision.htnl nl rage 1 US 1 5/15/2008 YS 00365 sober dousing i ommumry lceeovery ragc t ur r HorneVisio . g pizi_1 H-d ningComrpgn ContactSponsors Find Sober Housing In Your SoCal Community I Search By Area � 1 The Sober Living Network COMMUNITY RECOVERY SUPPORT RESOURCES Community recovery resources offer a practical and cost - efficient way to assist alcoholics, addicts and family members to enter and maintain long -term recovery. The current alcohol and drug treatment system does not have the capac lty to meet the long -term recovery assistance needs required to meet the needs of the muny. The treatment systam is too heavily invested m shad -term treatment and too little invested in the development of sate and healthy eusnmunity recovery promodrng envirionmenls and activities that aroconstendy amiable to support . recovery and Gfe styk enhancements. . Alcohol and drug treatment programs have been formatted by government and academic institutions into quality "people processing" nasmreat stations that are now too mstly per petsmr assisted to significantly reduce addietkn problems. Community recovery is based on the postulate that safe and sober places filled widi.heahtly recovery activities provide the ercvcommentr, motivation and recovery tools for aloohoiics, addicts and famili . mm®bes to awist (process) dmmsdves. C•paatms maintain healthy and salt eavanaments and promote recomyresponsibility. Community recovery resources mclud a self -help ma dings; Aleno clubs -which host self-help activity, community recovery centers, sober limg.lousmg, and sober meeallonal and social events. Community tecevary centers am self-service spaces that ollisr education sesaione, host self -help groups, hold aocial/roaeetional events and have counseling and thasVy available by sdf-seleckm Community recovery centers, activities and housing are easily adaptable to menu the broad ethnic, cultural and physically challenged needs. Community recovery resources are assisting millions of alcoholics, addicts and family members in recovery from alcoholism and oferdrug addictions with little or no support from government and heal& insurance funding sources. Sober living homes, Alamo clubs and community recovery centers are Primarily created and supported by recovering persons motivated by a call to be of service to othetg, The SoberUvhrg Network P.O. Bo: 5235, Sand Monk; CA 95409 (310) 3% -5270 HomeOrganizi i)gT:raining_CommunLtyCogt4etSite Map ®Copyright 2004 Sober Housing All Rights Reserved privacy policy, Hosting provided by Heller NetWorks and The Sober Musicians project http:// www .soberhousing.neVcommunity.html 5/15/2008 YS 00366 Pacts: America's Number vne rearm rroolem - Nauonat i,ouncu on t-uconousm ano ur... rage i of 4 The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence fights the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drag addictions. Facts and Information Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Are America's Number One Health Problem The cost and consequences of alcoholism and drug dependence place an enormous burden on American society. jAs the nation's number one health problem, addiction strains the health care system, the economy, harms family life and threatens public safety. Substance abuse crosses all societal boundaries, affects both genders, every ethnic group, and people in every tax bracket. Scientific documentation defines alcoholism and drug dependence as a disease that has roots in both genetic susceptibility and personal behavior. THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM . There are more .deaths and disabilities each year in the U.S. from substance abuse than from any other cause. . About 18 million Americans have alcohol problems, about 5 to 6 million Americans have drug problems . More than half of all adults have a family history of alcoholism or problem drin/dng. 3 . More than nine million children live with a parent: dependent on alcohol and/or illicit drugs. 4 THE CONSEQUENCES . One - quarter of all emergency room admissions, one- third of all suicides, and more than half of all homicides and incidents of domestic violence are alcohol - related. 5 http:// www. neadd .org/facts/nurnberoneprob.htrnl 5/15/2008 YS 00367 . Pacts: Amenca s iNurnoer vne rreaun rrowem - nauuruu l.uuncu un tuconuusin anu l r... rage L ui 4 • Heavy drinking contributes to &an in each of the top three causes of death: heart disease, cancer and stroke. 6 • Almost half of all traffic fatalities are alcohol- related. Z • Between 48% and 64% of people who die in fires have blood alcohol levels indicating intoxication. s . Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation. 8 THE COST • Alcohol and drug abuse costs the American economy an estimated $276 billion per year in lost productivity, health care expenditures, crime, motor vehicle crashes and other conditions. 10 . Untreated addiction is more expensive than heart disease, diabetes and cancer combined. I • Every American adult pays nearly $1, 000 per year for the damages of addiction. 122 SO, WHAT CAN BE DONE? Like other diseases, addiction can be overcome with proper treatment, prevention and more research. By increasing access to care, the costly toll on society and the burden it places on families can be reduced. Research shows conclusively that successful prevention and treatment leads to reductions in:traffic fatalities, crime, unwanted pregnancy, child abuse, HIV, cancer and heart disease. Treatment reduces drug use, improves health, improves job performance, reduces involvement with the criminal justice system, reduces family dysfunction and improves quality of life. The Comprehensive Assessment Treatment Outcomes Registry Data in Ohio have documented dramatic results in decreasing occupational problems, including the following reductions after treatment: Absenteeism decreased by 89% http:// www. ncadd .org/facts /nurnberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00368 Pacts: Amenca' s NUmner vne heann rroojem - 1V auonai % -ouncn on Pacononsm anu Ur... Yage J of 4 • Tardiness decreased by 92% • Problems with supervisors decreased by 56% • Mistakes in wont decreased by 70% • incomplete work decreased by 81% 13 Additionally, a California Study found significant decreased health care costs from before to after treatment in: • Hospitalizations for physical health problems ( -36 %) • Drug overdose hospitalizations (_5896) • Mental health hospitalizations (-44 %) • The number of emergency room visits ( -36 %) • The total number of hospital days ( -25 %) M Americans increasingly recognize that alcoholism and drug dependence is a disease with consequences that affect both physical and behavioral health.. Diagnostic and treatment services have changed in recent years and modem treatment, when adequately provided, enables a great many people to recover and rebuild productive lives. It is important that the public be aware of evidence generated by scientific inquiry, clinical evaluation and clinical experience. The evidence demonstrates that treatment for alcohol and other drug abuse works. Treatment not only saves lives, it also saves dollars that would otherwise be spent in other areas of medical care and social services. For every dollar spent on addiction treatment, seven dollars is saved in reduced health care c osts.1 s The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence is dedicated to fighting the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions by providing education, information, help and hope to the public. NCADD advocates prevention, intervention, and treatment through a network of 97 affiliates across the United States. For more information; visit: mm.mcadd.or . Alcoholism and drug dependence are treatable and millions of people achieve recovery. SOURCES 1. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis Univarslty,1993. http:// www. neadd .org/facts/numberoneprob.htmi 5/15/2008 YS 00369 1'aCrS: PMenCa'S 1V1nnDer Vne realm rrODlem - tvauuuru I.UUUL:Il Ull liluU11Ul1Dlr1 dRU L!'... ragc Y Vl Y 2. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 2001. 3. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 4. Ibid. 5. "Sobering Facts on the Dangers of Alcohol," NY Newsday, April 24, 2002. S. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician, Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Annual Report, 1992. 8. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1993. 9. E. Abel, "Incidence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Economic Impact of FAS- Related Anomalies," Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1987. 10. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Polley, Brandeis University, 2001. 11. Ibid. 12. The National Drug Control Strategy, The White House,1997. 13. Ohio Dept. of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, New Standards, Inc., SL Paul, MN, 199C 14. Gerstein, at al, "Evaluating Recovery Services: the California Drug and Alcohol Assessment," Sacramento, 1994. 16. Ibid. C..., ,.,, _,..,1r NCADD National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. 244 East 58tH Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022 phone: 212t269-7797 fax.212/269 -7510 email: nationaI&C— gdd.org http: /twww.ncadd.org HOPE LINE: 9001NCA-CALL (24-hour Affiliate referral) http:// www. ncadd .org/facts/numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00370 .Bureau of Justice Statistics Drugs and Crime racts: Drug use in the genera) popu)ation Genres] papulgi According to data Mom the 2886 National Hou whdd Survey on Drug Use and HeaM (NSDUH) – 0 112 mll6on Amadcans age 12 or older (48% of the population) reported illidt drug use at lmet once in their life0me • 14% reported use of a drug udlhln the peel year • 6% epated use a a drug whhln the past month. Date from the 2086 survey slrowed that marrluana and 000SIm use is the moat prevalent among person age 18 to 25. The Mug Abuse WenMg NeMwM (DAWN) monitors drug -related emergency department (ED) Nsus for the nation and fa selected metropwan comas DAwN also collects date on drug - related cleanse investlpated by medical examinant and wronars In selected metropolitan area and SWea. In 2006, DAWN asamanea that nearly 1A million a argerwy deparmsrd Nsda na6omride wen associated with drug misuse, or douse. An estimated 618.666 df WWzded emergency department Ness lnvoloed a w,*r sul etenee of abuse. DAWN estimates that: • Cocaine tyres involved In 448,481 ED Nshs. • Marguas was IrwWwd In 242,200 ED Wens: • Herctn wa Involved in 104,572 ED visits. • Stimalards, included amplsdarNna and meNemphetemine, Vhro hrvohred in 198,050 ED visits • Ohrarll6dt clops, suer a POP. Ecstasy. and". ware much late frequent thin any of.the above. Soeos: U. & Depadna a Heidi ad Mwre Servims, SAMHSA, OMce aAppled SW". DAW Abet rAwnhp Nahvolk 2006: National 6timabs ofD;v"alAfad Feagenoypapeymarf Waftr. DAWN Series O-z, DI1HS Prrbgmtlon W. (SMA) 0742260.. RotlMM, MO. 2007. to 1609,122JW WMbn In 95 MWOPcbts amen and 6 States sulmd6ai moddby data to DAWN. The States, which ore d new to DAWN, ore Maine, Merytard, New Hampshire, Nov Mexico, Utah, and Vermerd. DAWN cannot provide nilaW ea male s of dr,94di ed deaths. In the metropolitan areas. needy halt of drip misuse deaths, on an erege: Involved a major inlet elce of abuse (cool", heroin. madJua m, ammdards, dub drupq hallucinogens, or non- phanssarbml INslmant). Across, this 8 Slates; motor eubsarma.ware repurtad In about a third of rNssedeelha. the gam W WM Mee M lben ep�ere in 40%10bn %e drip misuse deaths In Maryland, Ness Madm, and IAdL Datalpbma of drop abuse deaths In MoawwwDate.MsntirsOAK 2009repon., - was snonp � drugs In parr area end ell of the 6 Slahm. O ly iege, wc*m � curd can drug with dhefdnge von mpoted In 96 %01 dug (MOM death$ (rape 6%b 70%). Almind wean of do 6 mat'oommad drug in 90 of ten 32 sMrapoiben aaa and 6 of th 8 Ss1es. In 26 of ten 32 malmpctltan area, mare drip misuse doWs Wand an opstelopbid8rara coney ather drip. Seam: U. & Department of Health and Human Services, 5AMMk Office W AWW eludes, Drag Abase p amby Nanwwk• IN& Area Prettiest o ibrog- RalaWalafetiK W1wN seder D-V, OHMS Pualcabon No. (SMA) 06 -4029, Rockville, MD, 2006. 1=1—M awaw orJ•wkiabiba. wv. .vWWa•Mpa' Sad aisam0, 0 eeWjsf�ub�.eov ContsMs &B home Pegs I Top of this papa Hext OJP4mWm.N'LhnuadonAar Paso Laid P.D.W and m•ddaa• Poe I••t•wb•d w.lraalr, ley rage i or i YS 00371 Age of respondent, 2004 .18.26 Drug uss 12.17 X25 or older Marijuana Lest month 8.0% 18.41% 4.1% Last year 13.3 20.0 6.6 Cocaine Laatmonth 0.8% 218% 0:8% Last yw 1.7 6.0 1.5 Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Sh de% 2008 Natioow Surveyor Dlwg the and HWM. Nationl Findings. September 2006. The Mug Abuse WenMg NeMwM (DAWN) monitors drug -related emergency department (ED) Nsus for the nation and fa selected metropwan comas DAwN also collects date on drug - related cleanse investlpated by medical examinant and wronars In selected metropolitan area and SWea. In 2006, DAWN asamanea that nearly 1A million a argerwy deparmsrd Nsda na6omride wen associated with drug misuse, or douse. An estimated 618.666 df WWzded emergency department Ness lnvoloed a w,*r sul etenee of abuse. DAWN estimates that: • Cocaine tyres involved In 448,481 ED Nshs. • Marguas was IrwWwd In 242,200 ED Wens: • Herctn wa Involved in 104,572 ED visits. • Stimalards, included amplsdarNna and meNemphetemine, Vhro hrvohred in 198,050 ED visits • Ohrarll6dt clops, suer a POP. Ecstasy. and". ware much late frequent thin any of.the above. Soeos: U. & Depadna a Heidi ad Mwre Servims, SAMHSA, OMce aAppled SW". DAW Abet rAwnhp Nahvolk 2006: National 6timabs ofD;v"alAfad Feagenoypapeymarf Waftr. DAWN Series O-z, DI1HS Prrbgmtlon W. (SMA) 0742260.. RotlMM, MO. 2007. to 1609,122JW WMbn In 95 MWOPcbts amen and 6 States sulmd6ai moddby data to DAWN. The States, which ore d new to DAWN, ore Maine, Merytard, New Hampshire, Nov Mexico, Utah, and Vermerd. DAWN cannot provide nilaW ea male s of dr,94di ed deaths. In the metropolitan areas. needy halt of drip misuse deaths, on an erege: Involved a major inlet elce of abuse (cool", heroin. madJua m, ammdards, dub drupq hallucinogens, or non- phanssarbml INslmant). Across, this 8 Slates; motor eubsarma.ware repurtad In about a third of rNssedeelha. the gam W WM Mee M lben ep�ere in 40%10bn %e drip misuse deaths In Maryland, Ness Madm, and IAdL Datalpbma of drop abuse deaths In MoawwwDate.MsntirsOAK 2009repon., - was snonp � drugs In parr area end ell of the 6 Slahm. O ly iege, wc*m � curd can drug with dhefdnge von mpoted In 96 %01 dug (MOM death$ (rape 6%b 70%). Almind wean of do 6 mat'oommad drug in 90 of ten 32 sMrapoiben aaa and 6 of th 8 Ss1es. In 26 of ten 32 malmpctltan area, mare drip misuse doWs Wand an opstelopbid8rara coney ather drip. Seam: U. & Department of Health and Human Services, 5AMMk Office W AWW eludes, Drag Abase p amby Nanwwk• IN& Area Prettiest o ibrog- RalaWalafetiK W1wN seder D-V, OHMS Pualcabon No. (SMA) 06 -4029, Rockville, MD, 2006. 1=1—M awaw orJ•wkiabiba. wv. .vWWa•Mpa' Sad aisam0, 0 eeWjsf�ub�.eov ContsMs &B home Pegs I Top of this papa Hext OJP4mWm.N'LhnuadonAar Paso Laid P.D.W and m•ddaa• Poe I••t•wb•d w.lraalr, ley rage i or i YS 00371 Bureau of Justice smusucs Drugs ana 4xune racrs: i,rug use in uie genera, pupwauun ragc d ua Y t� +l'.'.S Ilia 1y�14nnwt nt{ lu n y i(a)ht1t.�;�nt hwstiLC I' kol,f 6iulL nt -1,1 fuS�ic tif,ttl5tic.' cecM•M , Drvge and Cram Facts Prwbw Mat 1• M• aJa Mme peas M Drug use Youth I Genesee Population Youth • Use • Pemefved dak • Student reports of avallab6Ny of drugs use The Madtofing the FUN" Study asked high school cement, `On haw many accaelona, 0 any,. have you used drupe a alcohol during the late 12 months a man" ssdlere, 2008 and alcohol use by high school Used within the last Drugs 12 -Mo n w 30 days Alcohol v�. 86.5% 483% Mad)wna 31.6 18.3 OHM Cohan 9.0 39 StIMdMma 8.1 3.7 sedative 6.6 3,0 TranquMsea 8.6 2.7 cocalra 5.7 2.5 Hallucinogens 4.9 1.5 Inhalants 4.6 tit Stemift 1.8 - 1.1 momm 0.6 0A •Indu*o the IM month Sarce: Pre" release: Town *so we con6auea down to Roos, Po*~yamong older fears; Aug rrsoal Michigan IrtortnrAbffSer �u Decarnber 21, 2008.(Aocbal too 576.81KS) Sao- retorts of drug use MOM high admd station, may ruder rsgeswnt drug on among ywihaf Oat age because high ad" dropouts and finenm are nd included, and arses one" May have more Involvement Wth drugs than these vine atey n ached. Percent of e9 caihw amdooft 198544 . OM gas 1999 1996 1997 1996 ,999 2000 2601 2se2 2003 2004 201m • Late than 0.06% Roes or pact year calse use by MOW Mudeos haw waded maw the pact 10 years from a low Of 2.9% In 1066le a high of 5 rn .7% in 2005. Pact year marUuahe use has ranged from a forr of 31.2% in 1996 to a high of 36.9%m 1088. Source: Unbremay, of MWOW, Monftsdng the FLOMM AWkwal SrmayResults on Drug use, 107&20M Volume ll: Ccfbgo Students and Adults Agar 10.48, 2006, catcher 2006. (Acrobat Be 2.31 MIS) Of high ached asnicm In 2005 - • 44.6% reported having ever used med Uanefhashish • 8.0% reported having over used wren • 1.5 94reported having overused havinn. YS 00372 FH i InnnA' Daily wrNlMm last M MM 3.7% 29% 3.7% 4,0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.5% 4.1% 4,7% 4.6% 4.0% Led mnrMBi 18.6 17.8 17.7 18,6 20,7 2D.0 202 19.7 19.3 48,9 17.1 Lntyew 31.2 33.1 31.6 36.6 352 34.0 35.8 34.7 33.7 334. 33.3 Dally within . lwwAmh 0.0% 0.0% 0.o% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ' 04.% 0.1% LaM month 0,7 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.2 to 1.9 1.6 1.9 24 1.6 Lost year 3.6 29 3,4 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.6 5.4 6.8 63 • Late than 0.06% Roes or pact year calse use by MOW Mudeos haw waded maw the pact 10 years from a low Of 2.9% In 1066le a high of 5 rn .7% in 2005. Pact year marUuahe use has ranged from a forr of 31.2% in 1996 to a high of 36.9%m 1088. Source: Unbremay, of MWOW, Monftsdng the FLOMM AWkwal SrmayResults on Drug use, 107&20M Volume ll: Ccfbgo Students and Adults Agar 10.48, 2006, catcher 2006. (Acrobat Be 2.31 MIS) Of high ached asnicm In 2005 - • 44.6% reported having ever used med Uanefhashish • 8.0% reported having over used wren • 1.5 94reported having overused havinn. YS 00372 FH i InnnA' bureau oY Justice Ntansncs Drugs ana t-'rune racts: Drug use in the general poputauuu Souza: Uhdversily of Michigan, MonNoft the Future Naffonaf Reffaft on Adofesowd &W Leo: Ov tow of Key F119111ga 2890, Apd) 2006. (Awobal Me 442.77KB) The increase In the used maripans has been especially pronounced, BehVesr11902 end 2005 past-month use of merljaaa9 increased from: • 12% to 20% among high school serdora -. a %tot5%smongiOfhgradsra • 4% to 7% smong 8th graders. Reported uce or marijuana by high ectlad eenlors during the past month peaked In 1978 at i7% and declared to its lowest level In 1992 al 12%. The use of amine within the peat month of the survey by high schod s mfors peaked In 1986 at 8.7%, up from 1 9% in 1875 at the surveys inception. Cocaine use declined to a low of 1.3 %in 1992 and 1993. In 2005.2.3% of high school serdam reported Pest -mordh coal" use. Source: Ud-r* of Mid*W. Monitoring rive Fuhme National Results an Adolescent MW UM-Overview of Key Findings 2000, April 2006. (Acrobat file 442.77KB). Cocaine M MMM No school eanlom peaked in 1885. ®' Cllek an to chart to view the data Soace: Press rdeaea: Tees dtog roe conNMres do" M 20014 pnt*& lriy4MtMg aKiateaes; brd.ues of 1009. V MNa *We mmeho �, Unlersky a Michigan News; ard ulomhaum services. December 21, Perceived risk Prom 1987 to 2008te percentage of high sahod sale s VW "to sated, "low much do you think people dek beat mll temeshnaT fernal ed vlrktady stable. Those students anaredrp -gam der to regular rue accounted for the fdk wft- 0 .. Click on the shed to vise the dole. Source: Press feteeN: Tees drug use continues down M 2004 particularlyanong older deem; but ass of pmsmvfiondype drugs rarr a ea high, Udve" of Middgar News and Information services, December 21. 2006, (Acrobm file 678.81M Student roporls of availability of drugs Percent of high school seldom reporting they could obtain drugs fairly easily or very easily, 8006 rags c U1 y YS 00373 Sureau of Justice natisttcs ijrugs ana unme Pacts: urug use in Lne general pcpumuvil rage .1 Ua Y Marynms 84.9% Amphetamines - 52.8 Cac*W 48.6 Barbiturates 43.8 C 0k 38.8 LSD 28.0 Heroin 27.4 Crystal metMaphetemine 26.7 Trw4ugaea 24A PCP 23.1 Amybbolyl nlbftes IBA Source: Press mieeee: roan dap we coMlnues down In 2004 padloalady among -older Kona: but we of promr4nilon4yise crags 7emei s high, University, of Michigan Neweand Information Services. December 21, 2005. (Aaoba) file 576.81K8) In 2005,25% of all students in grades 9 through 12 repodetl someone had offered. add, or given them an"drug on school property. .There was no meesaahle change with the percentage of students vdho reported that drugs were offered, sold, orginn to them at school be~ 2003 and 2006. Males were more likely than females to report that dope were offered, add, orglvah to them on school property In each survey yea betwerl 1983 and 2006. In 2005, 20% of me= WA 22% of females reported availability of drops. Sou ca. SJS jointly wNh its U.S. Department of Education, Kdka ors of School Crime and Safety, 2006, NC.I 214262, DeeslNer 2006, 4 To the tap General papulaaon - According to data from the 2005 Natio alNaueehofd Survey on Cog Use andffeefih (NSDUH) - . tit million Americana am 12 «older (46 %cf tie popfe8on) reported NIW drug use at left onoe M their lifetime • 14% reported use of a drug wWn the pad year • 8% reported useof a drug weNnthe pest rapid Data hum the 2005 survey showed reel mertjuane sod cocaine toe Is the mod pmvaWd among persons age 18 to 25. Source: SAMHSk Otica of Applied SWdlee, 2008 IASUCIW SUrwyon Drug UW &WHsSNb: Natlormf Jam, SepWnd)w2W& The mrrg AWse tammmg Nework (DAY" moraae dnp ohnit emergency deperanem (EDl vidia for the nation and for Mooted metropolitan tees. DAWN am catleda data on dnrgratated deaths investigated by medical aaarrere and coroners In selected malropd8an areas end States. In 2006. DAWN estimates died needy 1.4 million emergency depaimaA veto momwkle were associated with drug misuse or ahem An a llmeled 018,898 drugtdaled OMM90M depatmamll Nees (mdved a major substance of abuse. DAWN estimates that • Cocdns was Involved In 448,481 ED visfta • Mar*wft was kmmived In 242,2x9 ED vbtls. • Heroin was Involved M 194.972 ED vidtL • Stimulants, Included amplMaNnea and madampkrarNna, were kw*md In 138,950 ED visits. • Olhr illldi doge, auah es PCP, Ecelany, she GM, were much lass frequam norm any alms, above. Source: U.S. Department of Hearth and Human Son4cm, SAMHSA, Offlos dApplied Studies. DnrgAbuse Ong Network 2008: National EegmsKs ofbrV9RelsledEmrgarcyDeparfmsnf MisNs. DAWN Was D- 29, MiS PW &dm No. (SMA) 074288, No"Ne. MO. 211177. In 21103,122 jurisdictions in 35 metmpolilm areas end 6 States submitted mortdmY data to DAWN. The Stets, which we al. new W DAV1N, we Mire, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mahan, Utah, and Vermor0. DAWN cam v. provide ne9ohel estimates of drugaatated deaths. - In the metropolitan areas, needy fury of dog misues deaths, on average, involved s major subslence of abuse (cocaine, haroim, YS 00374 Ape at n epondard, 2004, Onguse - 1217 1038 48orolder. Winkm Lestmmth 6.9% 18.8% 4.1% uuywr catome 13.3 29.0 8.9 Last mrM 0.0% 2.8% 0.8% Lntysr 1.7 6.9 1.5 Source: SAMHSk Otica of Applied SWdlee, 2008 IASUCIW SUrwyon Drug UW &WHsSNb: Natlormf Jam, SepWnd)w2W& The mrrg AWse tammmg Nework (DAY" moraae dnp ohnit emergency deperanem (EDl vidia for the nation and for Mooted metropolitan tees. DAWN am catleda data on dnrgratated deaths investigated by medical aaarrere and coroners In selected malropd8an areas end States. In 2006. DAWN estimates died needy 1.4 million emergency depaimaA veto momwkle were associated with drug misuse or ahem An a llmeled 018,898 drugtdaled OMM90M depatmamll Nees (mdved a major substance of abuse. DAWN estimates that • Cocdns was Involved In 448,481 ED visfta • Mar*wft was kmmived In 242,2x9 ED vbtls. • Heroin was Involved M 194.972 ED vidtL • Stimulants, Included amplMaNnea and madampkrarNna, were kw*md In 138,950 ED visits. • Olhr illldi doge, auah es PCP, Ecelany, she GM, were much lass frequam norm any alms, above. Source: U.S. Department of Hearth and Human Son4cm, SAMHSA, Offlos dApplied Studies. DnrgAbuse Ong Network 2008: National EegmsKs ofbrV9RelsledEmrgarcyDeparfmsnf MisNs. DAWN Was D- 29, MiS PW &dm No. (SMA) 074288, No"Ne. MO. 211177. In 21103,122 jurisdictions in 35 metmpolilm areas end 6 States submitted mortdmY data to DAWN. The Stets, which we al. new W DAV1N, we Mire, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mahan, Utah, and Vermor0. DAWN cam v. provide ne9ohel estimates of drugaatated deaths. - In the metropolitan areas, needy fury of dog misues deaths, on average, involved s major subslence of abuse (cocaine, haroim, YS 00374 Bureau of Justice Statistics Drugs ana urtme racrs: Drug use to Lae gencruw popuiduvu m r1juarm, stimulants, dub drugs, hallucinogens, or non-phamreosukal Inhdsds). Ataossihe il States, major sulaxwoee were reported Ih about a tMrd d adauee deaths. SM. major substances were reported in40%to 45 %of drug ndause deaflu In Maryland, New M=W. and Utah. Ossalpllans of drug abuse deaths in the psr6dpadrg aWrapditan area are MWO In the MwreMty Data hom the DAVA 2003 report. Acoording to date from the 2003 ARVWW Data from DAWN — Cocaine mass the moid hequm0y reported ifik l drug. In the drug idauaa deaths, coasim was rrarg the top 6 drugs in 28 of the 32 rnet waillen areee and ell of a States. On average, tocsin stone or m aoml ne8wr with other drupe was reported M 39% of drug mleuee deaths (range 8% to 70%). Akohoh was one of the 5 moat comment drugs In 30 a? We S2 mefropoliten areas and 5 of the 6 States. In 29 of Um 32 medopmen Gress, more drug misuse deaths invdwd en o0ahstopioid than any other drug. Sow= U. S. Depeftem of Hetddt and Human Services, SAMHSA, Offim of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse Wammg Netsmrkr NO., Am WolQes ofDlug- AelafedMurwft. DAWN $anoe D -27, DHHS PublIcallon No. (SMA) 05-4023, Rockulle, MD, 2005. - - Previous contents Neat BJ8 home page I Top of this Page anreau erjeslk sletwo w .JP.uednj•geelbAl send eemmeeb re nkbja@w k.M OP Preedwr of W"satiee Aar peas LWI POW" W Daebiernr has her Me" .Ape 11. am r d6c w Ul t YS 00.375 �- WestsldeSanta Ana Hefglrtr Homeowner's Guide May 2007 Comp/lmanxr ofTad.Besky, YexrNagbbw and BE Rofanxonal Done 16 Edward "Teti" Bosley (949) 294 -2126 TedBOSley(Myaho_0 com Salvo" • hrteIfts CaroaiUnaa wm.TEDBOSt.EY.COM Great source for RE infantation, baols.plus %monthly OC Homeowner's Guide Teak Boslay Appointed to SAH I Watespointe to Start. Project Advisory Ccaln� misuse Devolopment on Orchard I started attending the SAH PAC meetings 5 years ago, mostly so that.1 could learnt as much as possible about events affecWem r community. You, the readers of my periodic newslatlers, have been the benefactors ohm 1 have shared with you much of what was learned in that foram as wall as Supervisor, City Council and LAFCO meetings. Many of you have also been in attendance at those same meetings. I appreciate being appointed to sews an the SAH Project Advisory Committee. Tho gives no the' opportunity to'serve on critical sub-committees that matte recommendations to the Bd of Supervisors and the NS City Council on rdat ars trot have significant impact on our community. In a recent response to my inquiry about the timeline for this Westaida SAH protect, I received the fdbwhp statement 14 /a era still p-rocessing-ourfinal-map with the Cororty of Orange Office recorda- tion of file map occurs we are planning on starting the project ... Once again f thank you for your assistance in getting this project approved.' Garrett Cala at, . Waterpoints Development Principal Westside SAH Annexation Update Administration, 12 Civic Gender Plem, Saida Ana, in the Planning Commission Hearing Room The City of Newport Bash's application for a sphere of hnfluence change and aonxmrre nt annexation of Wand Santa Ana Heights and the City of Costa Mess's application for a sphere of iMusnce change for the Bannba Ranch property will be fired by LAFCO ion this dsW StsfF reports for both proposals will be available for review on Wednesday aitemoon, May Z 2007, on the Orange Courtly LAFCO weballx www.oranoe.LAFCQ.ca.mov. Click on the `Agende and lAnutW ink, then dick an agenda ban. This is the meeting we on have bow welling for. LAFCO is suppose to Come to a final resolutlon on the Wet Slide Ameom_ lion to Newport at 06 medfing. PAC wig be there to support Annexation as always.' source,ff thfe brbmretion Is www.SAHPAC.com if your would like more wann®llan refs" to an hfai!ury, of this eAbrtpfetrae vim Sober Living Homes Make Their Community Christmas Contribution .r Were you as surprised as I by thmazng ca westaiac era:= 143 deoaatlane exhibited by the reside j o it6t RrMlgrMs 8t ` thne) Yatibwstone�soovety Iw dnMng the Christ- IA n liens womes9 Beiw mac hoWays4 One of the reasons was a itde compai tion between ths8 fames along with the helpfhe men's home provided to the other 2 womerts homes. Their effort also brought out the competitive spirit in Indus 8dest Pegasus Strew! some of the direr homes In the neighborhood.... women's Home woman% Home Cangratui :tkansli Golf Course or P2 rking Lot? Daffy Pilot Article on April 18th discusses this subject, if you do not take the Pilot you can go to v }twva.daihyollot.coml articies/ 20071 O4J1 8fpolitics /dui- uoltcourse1 8.tx; to view It What I cannot understand is why anyone on the Airport Committee would suggest that a Car Rental Auho Storage facility should replace the Newport Beach Golf Course.. Back 9, that brings so much pleasure to so many, when their issue is up at the and of July, 2007. (Cononuad m pw 2) . SFi,xr A?! rnuw to JohmMoorlachfa ocgov.eom AND Tod BosleVC}ayaheO.Cor1 vAW Your klt:h:iorn Of #w I;0*6i4lfi y pi rho #ax¢ tx "ny;,du I! - :i ?i .t• 1,:Lal :ill.:£' .- ..' r'.IrI: iC b C L.: e.P...n.h AciRi fY Se.l.: i, i'lii:iI'@ :3ri�[.FC;iWl }1 at YS 00376 - !U1 mdus newport beach ca Y2IU4 - U00gle Maps GoAddress 1821 Indus St Ma Santa Ana, CA 92707 rage 1 of 1 Get Wogle Maps on your P- TerttM wdd'GMAVS'to 466453 lqw http:// maps. google .com / maps? N& hl= en&geocode = &q =1 621 +indus+newport+beach+,ca... 5/14/2008 -- YS 00377 Attachment 7A 1. 1571 Pegasus, Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 2. 1621 Indus St., Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 3. 20172 Redlands Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 4. 1561 Indus, Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 x YS 00379 E m c m a s J-3 .0 ? 6 im g m °n w Z c U � a � H _A W IL � o fA W<" JOC4 O � Jim LL c :2 LL ? R �. 3L J-3 .0 ? 6 im g m YS 06380 U. I.- 0 7 a c Eta 0A o Q oay � q w mZ'E�. L a oa E 1 W ® Ss t= a c m E z O � � W 4 h YS 06380 City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION & DELEGATION INFORMATION - CORPORATIONS (Form 200 — February 2008) INSTRUCTIONS: This form must be updated and submittedto the Clty each time there is a change In officers or change in the corporation . r A\ L t ,n _ _ r__l e-i CORPORATION n _ of Principal office Of business_ city �G Y,$0. zip Code ]a.(,27 Telepirorte 7 qQ"LifO�`t`LQ y Corded Person Lr a 1 7L^2.Il8 Tide !A 1 in DO . Telephone 9_I7- �0 -676I Nmnes and addresses of all persons who am ten per cent (1095) or more of stock In coWratlon. %— &—. Governing 9oard of Diredots a. Number of Board Members / b. Tenn of Office a Fraqusncy of Meetings g; Ji)�NTh� d. Mell" of Selacllon v d'I' -e Board OfBrara and Members USE A SEPARATE SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL NAMES QfOCe Nwtw Buetneas Address I5 City & Vp Code Telephone Number Term Exploatlen, ProsldeM n j�.m' JJ r. I7 y� rv1 lsq .8a S�� C� /r +'eScl� Cw- C1O a IIO Vke F'reaideM l�r- �r►`�t^ lg"' �ucen�l N'twea v+ 549-- �al,r.n Seas" e tl10 1 Gs" v! n�,'.�ac P ° +x. �7 �337� i 61 D 9 2j Treasurer TS'Q 4 �(7(� TrA VS-� . P r . 9A oo r7 �78:fh76 a fX D� a >Ci^aK �a vYl�esc � Other YS 00381 City of Newport Beach GROUVRESIDENTIAL USES - USE PERMIT APPLICATION DELEGATION FORM - CORPORATIONS (Form 200D - February 2008) STATEMENT OF CORPORATE DELEGATION Applicants who are corporations shall attach board resolutions authorizing a delegation to the Program Director and/or Administrator or other appropriate staff. Applicant Name: 2. Program Name: 3. Program Address 4. City: f t ew d 5. Teleph one: (�[ 6. 466ti 7. 6r+ (-IL County ►� W1 Q -? ®_ Zip Code: M02 .... .. w.. by ... is hereby designated as administrator, program manager, or agent of the above -named program and is authorized to receive at the above named program on my behalf, any documents including reports of inspections and consultations, accusations, and civil and administrative processes. I WILL NOTIFY THE CITY WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF ANY CHANGE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF 8. Title: pC) g. Address: r• a f1ti8._ �-„6 Gam 10. City. IV Y A r �� , County %a Zip Code: YS 00382 City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, SOLE PROPRIETOR, AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS (Farm 200P — February 2008) 1. Atlach a copy of the parinershlp agreement // //,?- 2. Partners PARTNERSHIPS Type of ParNership Name Business Address, City and Zip Code 1atPartner r3 Limited 2nd Partner Genera ❑ Limited Partner 3rd Peer Genera ❑ united dUt Partner ❑ Umfted Conted Person Titie Telephone 6 SOLE PROPRIETOR/OTHER ASSOCIATIONS Sole Proprietara/o W assodatians must also provide a list of an persorKs) legally responsift for the organization. line contact person, and appropriate legal dowmenle (flct tious creme statement, business license) vWrtcdi set forty legal responsibility of the organization and aecoumabiiy for opening the program. Use the follow g spaoa or attach a separate sheet YS 00383 Cltyof-Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION WEEKLY ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE (Form 600 — February 2008) WEEKLY SCHEDULE OF SERVICES Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 6 -7 a.m. 7-8 a.m. 8-9 a.m. .. 9 -10 a.m.. .._...� 10-11 a.m. 11 a.m.-12 12 -1 p.m. 1 -2 p.m. 23 p.m. 3-4 p.m. 4.5 p.m. 5 8 P.M. 6-7 p.m. 7 -8 p.m. 1 v i „r. nvurco MK VNttK OF INDIVIDUAUGROUP/EDUCATION SESIONS, R RY OR TREATMENT PLANNING, AND DETOXIFICATION SERVICES (IF PROVIDED): Comments: City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION YS 00384 STATEOFCAUFORN3A FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION REQUEST "sm.e6Dow -1o811 - Seeins&uctlwsanrevww. AGENCYOOMACB NAME 1ELPPN3NEMKm REQtEITDATE PA37GRAN EVAL.Up70R'BNME REO11ESMOAGENCYPACARYNUMBER REMA TODDE lA CODES 1. ORIGINAL A FIRE CLEARANCE UCENSDIG F11eFBdnm OfAkoM $ Drug Pmg,Nm, AGENCY I.iamoing and Calficaticm BTSacb 2 RENEWAL B. LIFE SAFETY NAME AND 1700 K Skeet 3. CAPACITY CHANGE ADDRESS SgcrammtD Ca 95 8-144037 4. OWNERSHIP CHANGE L 5. ADDRESS CHANGE - 0. NAME CHANGE 7. OTHER AMBULATORY NONAMBUL.ATORY BEDRIDDEN TOTAL CAPACITY coPAcRY PReMACAPACIVY cAPACDY srol3BrnPACm CAPACITY FvEVwusOaPACm, 18 -�.. FAUUlYNAAE Woman's Recovery Of Cd fo_ a YcHOw9WUe4 TGdus , I Akohd4hW FBDitity 8TRWrA00RFM(A*WLow" - 1621 Indus Skeet NUM�ROFBIAIffiIDB CITY SBniaAns,CA 92707 RESRwNF FMYRY CCNTA0r PaUoVS NAME Dr- A AL (Hvmey) Thames HOURS BPBCW. o"u"pg 24110188 FIRE �E/I'�+r�N/y ' art ,/nly DES AUTHORITY / X ^� __ Ar,4 (✓ / FIRE CLEARANCE GRANTED HAMS AND '7w7� 2 FRE Q.E/ mmm DENIED ADDRESS IX-vi 4e I G/+. ��i i�/r A EXm . L I & CONSTRUCTION J C" ME ALARM NSPECf�iBNAAE(✓Yw�°r - Tom"ONENUNm CRRB NUMER OCpNWVYGASS D. SPRINIQLERS E HOUSEf�MB V6-7-- F. SPECIAL NAZPM MOWPECITWOR88mmum G. OTHER go YS 00385 C O t bA VI W z 0 3 0 a a w d 4 FN y 4 N �O 9 r� w O 0 y O Ni N � o En ar .5 3 4 VA u � a O P. y b �yy � 41 00 rte! rN �w U r O U 0 o fU Ic 0 tj W Iii a p J Q W W Z O a a 0 W 0 ul Q W C9 Z_ O O Minim -iii a EXHIBIT 3 CORRESPONDENCE AND SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION SUBMITTALS YS 00387 June 19, 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92658 (949) 644. 3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. c/o Isaac R. Zfaty SGSA Lawyers 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 Dear Mr. Zfaty: Subject: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Use Permit No. 2008 -035 Property located at 1621 Indus Street This letter serves as notification that the Planning Department is in receipt of your application submittal regarding the proposed Use Permit for property located at the above referenced address. Upon review of your submitted application, documents and exhibits, the application has been deemed incomplete. Please provide the following clarifications and/or additional information: 1. Application Form 100, Item 2. Property Owner Information: Please provide a copy of a Preliminary Title Report or property profile that is less than 60 days old that verifies the legal owner of the property, and written authorization -from the legal owner authorizing filing of this application. 2. Application Form 100, Item 3B. Other Similar Uses: Information on other Similar Use permits within the City is not provided, but will be provided by City staff from City records. However, the application is not complete until this information is included in application package. 3. Application Form 100, Item 4, Finn's Historic Uses; Other managed group residential uses are checked no, however your applications indicate that three other group homes are operated in Newport Beach. Please list these uses. 4. ADI)lication Form 100, Item 5. Conditional Uses Within 3 Block Radius: Information on other Use permits within the 3 block radius area is not provided, but will be provided by City staff from City records. However, the application is not complete until this information is included in application package. 5. Application Form 100, Item 6, Site Plan: Please provide a site plan which shows the building footprint and property lines and the building footprints and property lines for immediately adjacent properties. Show dimensions and setbacks. YS 00388 Notice of Incomplete Application Use Permit No. 2008 -035 Page 2 6. Application Form 100, Item 8B. Facility Users and Staff: The maximum resident capacity is stated as zero (0) but the total occupancy is stated as 18. As two staff residents are indicated does that mean the resident capacity is 16? Please clarify. 7. Application Form 100, Item 8C. Floor Plan: Please provide a floor plan identifying the number of residents per bedroom. The diagram must also show setbacks, driveways, and usable outdoor spaces. 8. Application Form 100, Item 8L. Secondhand Smoke: As Dr. Anna Marie Thames is indicated as facility Administrator/Director, please have her sign the acknowledgement to control secondhand smoke. It is not clear what role Leisha Mello plays at the facility. 9. Application Form 100, Item 1 OD, Signature of Applicant: Leisha Mello is lined as administrator, however Dr. Anna Marie Thames is indicated as facility Administrator /Director on Form 150. Please clarify. 10. Application Form 200, Corporate Delegation: Please provide corporate board resolution(s) authorizing delegation of corporate representation to the person indicated on line 6 of the form. Line 6 designates Leisha Mello as administrator /program manager. Please clarify the roles and responsibilities of Leisha Mello and Dr. Anna Marie Thames as Dr. Thames is indicated as facility administrator /director on Form '150. 11. Application Form 850, Fire Marshall Clearance: Please provide evidence (Form 850) of recent Fire Marshall clearance. 12. Filing Fee: Please remit the Use permit filing fee of $2,200.00. 13. Reguest For Reasonable Accommodation: Please provide additional information regarding the Request for Reasonable Accommodation using the enclosed forms. Should you have any questions regarding the requested clarifications or additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 266 -7548. Sincerely, LIM cc: Janet Brown, Associate Planner YS 00389 Dr. Anna Marie Thames, Yellowstone Women's First Step House DAVIS•RAYBURN A PROFFSSIUN <1 k . C09101w11.v July 25, 2008 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARMIEW JUL 2 ° 203 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH '� BEACH Planning Department gy 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Use Permit Applications; 2008 -034; 2008 -035; 2008 -036; and 2008 -037 To Whom It May Concern: This firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. This correspondence is in response to your notices of incomplete application concerning the above - referenced Use Permit Applications for the following properties: 1561 Indus, 1621 Indus, 1571 Pegasus, and 20172 Redlands. Our office is currently gathering the required information referenced in your notices in order to complete our applications. We should have the information forwarded to you within the next twenty -one (21) days. Thank you for your courtesy and if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact us. Very truly yours, DAVIS & RAYBURN a professional corporation ISAAC R. ZFATY IRZ:jdb 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 , Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 , Fax: 949.376.3875 info @clavisrayburnlaw.com - www.davisrayburniaw.com YS 00390 RECEMD By PLAMOG DEPWMM AUG 25 2008 CBY 0j ►NEWPORT BEACH DAVIS•RAYBURN A PROr MIOHAL LAW COPT ORAa ON August 22, 2008 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Notice of Incomplete Application: 1621 Indus Street Dear Ms. Brown: As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Yellowstone"). We are in receipt of the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Incomplete Application for the property located at 1621 Indus Street (the "Property"). In response to that notice, we provide herewith the following: 1. Application Form 100, Item 2, Property Owner Information: the requested information is enclosed herewith. 2. Item 313: We have no information regarding other similar uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. 3. Item 4: We cross - reference and incorporate the other applications, which are being provided concurrently under separate cover. 4. Item 5: We have no information regarding other conditional uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. 5. Item 6: A site plan is enclosed herewith. 6. Item 8B: Resident capacity is 16. Total capacity is 18. 7. Item 8C: A floor plan is enclosed herewith. 8. Item 8L: The acknowledgement re secondhand smoke is enclosed herewith. 9. Item l OD: Dr. Thames is the facility Director. 10. Form 200: A board resolution is enclosed herewith. 11. Form 850: Fire Marshall Clearance is enclosed herewith. 12. Request for reasonable accommodation: See the enclosed form. The one item that we have not included in this correspondence is the requested $2,200.00 fee. After reviewing the code, we have been unable to locate any discussion of such fee. We mention this not to question the City's authority to impose such a fee, but rather because we have not seen any statutory scheme that should provide for a hardship exception. We would respectfully request that the City furnish such authority, and also provide us with any exemption 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949,376.2828 • Fax: 949.376.3875 infogdavisrayburnlaw.com - www.davisrayburniaw.com YS 00391 City of Newport Beach August 22, 2008 Page 2 application. Alternatively, we would request an extension of time to remit such fee so that,we might be able to raise the funds necessary to accommodate the City's request. As a final note, it is worth mentioning that it is our understanding that the Property is still currently located in an unincorporated area of Orange County known as Santa Ana Heights, and that the Newport Beach annex of the property is not yet complete. If this is true, then we would submit that the city of Newport Beach does not have jurisdiction over this property. Any response that the City can provide regarding this matter would be greatly appreciated. To the extent that our understanding is correct, we would ask that the City simply hold our application until such time as the annexation is complete, so that the parties are not required to reinitiate this process. Please accept our apologies for the delay in providing the enclosed information. As always, if you have any questions regarding these applications, please feel free to contact us. IRZ/jmk cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) s, TY YS 00392 This Document was electronically recorded by ER Cert Mail D Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Tam Daly, Clerk- Recorder 11111111111111 9.00 :ORDING REQUESTED BY: 100960102 20070001100#010:25am 02!21/07 ANNA MARIE THAMES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO AND MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: Dr. A.M. Thames, Trustee 28 Ima Loa >ort Beach, CA 92663 TH&SPACEFORRECORDERS -1110 undersigned Grantordecla:es that this conveys= transfers APNi: 119-361-04 111* interest to her Revocable Living Trust and is exempt from the Documentary Transfer Tax pursuant to R 11: T Code 111911. DEED TO A REVOCABLE TRUST DR. ANNA M. THAMES, HEREBY GRANTS TO ANNA MARIE THAMES, as Trustee of THE THAMES TRUST, UTA dated January 25, 2007, The real property at 1621 Industrial Street, Santa Ana, Califomia, described as: LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS HEREBY ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A" AND IS MADE A PART HEREOF. Executed on January 25, 2007, in Orange County, Califomia. DR. ANNA M.THAMES STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE On this 2rday of January, 2007, before me (BRIAN MANDEL, a Notary Public in and for said State), personally appeared DR. ANNA M. THAMES, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her authorized capacity, and that by her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS m and and official seal. ��% � 24& _ [SEAL] NOTARY PUBLIC �41ti YS 00393 TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM: DR. ANNA THAMES, OWNER RE: AUTHORIZATION THIS IS AN OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE APPLICATIONS FOR MY RESIDENCE AT 1621 INDUS , NEWPORT BEACH, CAL. IT IS CURRENTLY LICENSED WITH THE STATE OF Crk\iflal-pi`II:� DATE AUTHORIZED: JUNE 30, 2008 .y (ti`K;i�1 YS 00394 .1 YS 00395 91 ,Eis i .1 YS 00395 I �'- T- '; • DAD � -. K�TG{EN 7'♦. GKRAAF� �nr cri • uvt�� o • • •• YS 00396 I . .:l L7� •, " I .. • • i ww1A . • M I I I I I I . .:l L7� •, " I .. • • i ww1A . • M I I I I I� i YS 00397 7D O � -10 y� Me• C- LP LA � b YS 00398 O i 7 �l 1 O ~ O i 1 W ; [`r�l .KIP i✓'s I.�tLu . r Q ' Y S i � f C' 1'j czW . YS 00399 ❑ Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certiflcstlon (required) ❑ Orange County Sober Living Network (recommended) ❑ Other (please describe) L SECONDHAND SMOKE IMITATIONS NBMC §20.91A6050A directs that 'no stall clients, guests, or any other uses of the facility may smoke In an area from which the secondhand smoke may be detected on any parcel other than the parcel upon which the facility is located. Check and sign here to acknowledge this requireitent and your use's adherence to it I aknowledge that I will control secondhand smoke on my facility such that no secondhand smoke may be on any per other than the parcel upon which my facility is located. // p Signsture_ ��� Date: � r 9. APPLICANTdBLtGATiONS A. _ The "owner of record' of the property or an authorized agent must sign this Application. Signing the application under SecUai 10 means that the applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that the Information provided within the Ap-plication and Us attachments Is true end correct: Per N8MC'§20.90.W0.C, febe statements are grounds for denied or revocation. B. The Applicant acknowledges that he or she must comply with all other Federici. State, and local laws and regulations relating to this use. The Applicant: udersfakds that a violation of Federal. State. and local lows and regulations is grounds for revocation of the Permit The Applicant understands and that it Is against California low to provide treatment (as defined) in an unlicensed facility. C. If the City issues a Use Permit based on the Inforatlon provided In this Ash, the Applicants signature below certifies his or her agrewnent to comply with the tents of the Use Pemmlt. The Applicant understands and admwiedges that noncarplhence with the terns of this Use Permit is grounds for revocation of the Permit Revocation of the Use Permit, N8MC §20.96. 040.E provides that the City can revoke a Use Permit It • The permit was issued under erroneous information or • or • The applicant made a false or misleadkhg statement of materiel fact, or omitted a material fact or • The conditions of use or other regulations or tsars have been violated; or • Them has been a discontinuance of use for 180 days or more. 10. AUTHORIZED SIQHMREfS1 OF APPL ssftr THE UNDERSIGNED ASSURES THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD HIS OR HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER ANY USE PERMIT ISSUED BASED ON THIS APPLICATION. A. If the applicant is a sole proprietor, the application shat be signed by the proprietor. B. If the applicant Is a partnership, the application shat be signed by each pater. C. If the "Icard at a firm, association, corporation, county. city, public agency or other govemmental may, the application shall be signed by the chief executive ofter or the individual legally responsible for representing the agency. 18 YS 00400 YELLOWSTONE BOARD RESOLUTION: THE THE BOARD SIGNATURES TRUSTEES YELLOWSTONE O THE FOLLOWING OF DR A.M. THAMES IS THE CEO OF THE BOARD AND AGREES TO REPRESENT YELLOWSTONE IN ALL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. SHE WILL SIGN ANY AND ALL FINAL AGREEMENTS. ATTORNEY ISAAC ZFATY, WILL PROVIDE LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN ALL MATTERS IN THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LEISHA MELLO, AS ADNIl TRA�TOAR FOR TO THE AG��NIF,NT5 WITH BE WILL ALSO AVAILABLE FOR DISCUSSIONS THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. THESE AGREEMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS ARE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS OF JULY I, 2008- i �d -w— � LISA TUMAN YS 00401 1 XeuawamDe,� a�i sLiaet G... swoaAns6CIL 92797 Fib mss �CnIA�B ► G� 926/9 L —1 J 7 J -: S86&W&MOomaniinAX8ea. IA A FsLe OLKARAHM 2 A NAL a LFE &LFM 3 CM'ACLw CM14M . 4 OWMVWMV aE . 5. AVORMS CHMM a CHAHM 7. OTHER I is 24 bows FM CLEARANCE GRRTW 2 FM CWARAHCE DENIED A. sacs a COMSTRICMM C_ ME A M D. spFUNRIM «A� F- HOUMMEOFM F. sPECML HAZARD 0. OTHER IY_uw�m.aroawwr...+y 77r3 A, q/r ee t.*;43 fig - .. ®� cooft —C{. ,1r �ni�/ 0 .4e �i97�a�rd/ vlO /4��� 4 W� ¢��KfS� t✓I/l�H /l +��er f7.nri v&KIllL IIyIA �ev+roar o� F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5 �" ^��n�,,. Supplemental Information for Reasonable Accommodation Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 (949)644 -3200 To aid staff in determining that the necessary findings can be made in this particular case as set forth in Chapter 20.98 of the Municipal Code, please answer the following questions . with regard to your request (Please attach on separate sheets, if necessary): Please see attached sheet Name of Applicant If provider of housing, name of facility, including legal name of corporation (Mailing Address of Applicant) (City/State) (Zip) (Telephone) (Fax number) (E -Mail address) (Subject Property Address) Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 1. Is this application being submitted by a person with a disability, that person's representative, or. a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability? 2. Does the applicant, or individual(s) on whose behalf the application is being made, have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? If so, please state the impairment(s) and provide documentation of such impairment(s). Page 1 of YS 00403 Application Number 3. From which specific Zoning Code provisions, policies or practices are you seeking an exception or modification? 4. Please explain why the specific exception or modification requested is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 5. Please explain why the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of the individual with a disability. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 6. Please explain how the individual with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation? Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 7. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary to make your facility economically viable in light of the relevant market and market participants. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 8. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary for your facility to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting taking into consideration the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. Page 2 of 3 YS 00404 Application Number 9. Please add any other information that may be helpful to the applicant to enable the City to determine whether the findings set forth in Chapter 20.98 can be made (Use additional pages if necessary Page 3 of 3 YS 00405 1621 Indus Attachment Name of applicant: Yellowstone, Woman's First Step House, Inc., 1621 Indus St., Santa Ana Heights, CA 92701; Phone: 888.941.9048; Fax: 949.646.5296; APN: 119 - 361 -04. 1. This application is provided by a provider of housing for individuals with a disability. 2. The individuals are alcoholics. 3. Single family residence to multi - family residence. 4. The applicant provides the residents of the Property with housing where same is otherwise unavailable to them. Most residents are long -term residents who are able to live with their disability, and in a sober environment, as a result of the provision of the facility by the applicant. The success of sober living homes in assisting these disabled individuals throughout the United States is well documented. Similar success has been realized at the Property addressed herein. A sample of the literature on sober living homes was attached to the original application. Without the home addressed in this application, the individuals who live at this home would not have access to sober living homes, and would not be able to afford to live in such a home in Orange County. Yellowstone provides this home to satisfy the otherwise unaddressed need by these disabled individuals for an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. There is no question that, with their current use, this property affirmatively enhances the lives of many individuals with disabilities. Importantly, the rent charged to these individuals simply covers Yellowstone's costs; no profit is realized. In fact, without charitable contributions, Yellowstone would operate at a loss. By no means is Yellowstone, or any individual involved with Yellowstone, a profiteer. Yellowstone simply makes available a sober living environment in an effort to help these disabled individuals, and with a view toward enhancing the community. To the extent that Yellowstone is forced to remove its operations from this property, it will suffer extreme economic hardship. Moreover, with any prospective closure of the property as a sober living home, the individuals with disabilities who live in the home will be without accommodation. Yellowstone is compliant with all of the requirements in the City of Newport Beach's Good Neighbor Principles, and is tenacious in ensuring that all residents at the Property strictly observe these requirements. Approval of this application would not alter the nature of the municipal code or impose any financial or administrative burden on the City. This property has been operating under these same general guidelines for years without imposing any burden upon the County or City. The residential character of the neighborhoods in which this property is located will not be altered in any way with the approval of this application. In fact, there is no non - residential use at the property. Moreover, there is no campus established through the grant of this application. Residents this property are not allowed at any of other property operated by Yellowston, and there are no functions that include all residents. Yellowstone has never been cited by any municipality at this property for any of the complaints set forth specifically in Ordinance 2008 -5, 1 YS 00406 Page 4, Paragraph 13. No health, safety or physical damage issues are presented with granting of these applications. 5. See response to No. 4. 6. See response to No. 4. 7. See response to No. 4. The applicant is not a developer. The applicant has operated at the Property for years and currently can afford this property. Due to the economic decline, and specifically as it pertains to residential housing, the forced sale of this property would cause an extreme economic hardship. 8. See responses to No. 4 and 7. 9. The applicant is a long- standing tenant in the community, and has had a presence in Santa Ana Heights for years. The applicant prides itself in acting as a good neighbor. As noted above, the applicant has an extremely high success rate in assisting disabled individuals live and integrate into Orange County. The applicant affirmatively enhances the lives of its residents. Any abatement of this facility would be harmful to the community. 2 YS 00407 November 7, 2008 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Fax: (949) 644 -3229 website: www.city.newoort- beach.ca.us YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. c/o Isaac R. Zfaty Davis & Rayburn, Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Dear Mr. Zfaty: Subject: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Use Permit No. 2008 -035 Property located at 1621 Indus Street I am writing as the City of Newport Beach's consulting case planner for this use permit application. This letter is a response to your letter dated August 22, 2008, in which you responded to the City's Notice of Incomplete Application dated June 19, 2008, and is also a follow -up to our October 8, 2008, meeting at the City. The City appreciates your responses and the opportunity to meet with you. However, at this time your application for Use Permit No. 2008 -035 for property located at 1621 Indus Street remains incomplete. As we discussed at our October 8t' meeting, the area of West Santa Ana Heights was formally annexed to the City of Newport Beach, effective January 1, 2008, and the property located at 1621 Indus Street is therefore subject to the City's land use regulations, including the Residential Care provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). With respect to the items that continue to be deficient or missing from the use permit application submittal, please provide the following: A Preliminary Title Report that is less than 60 days old. This requirement is necessary to not only verify the ownership of record, but also will verify any deed restrictions (or lack thereof) such as CC &Rs that may place restrictions on the use of the property. YS 00408 2. The site plan submitted does not appear to be accurately drawn when reviewing it against aerial photographs, and the site plan and floor plans are not drawn to scale. The site plan must show the property line dimensions, distance or setback from property lines to the building, usable outdoor spaces, and the location of driveways. The site plan must also include the property lines and building footprints on immediately adjacent parcels. The floor plans must provide an accurate count of bedrooms and number of beds /residents within each bedroom, as well as all rooms intended for residents' use, and the location and dimension of the garage. 3. As noted at the meeting of October 8th you are required to provide the City of Newport Beach Fire Marshal with a comprehensive code analysis prepared by a licensed architect. Requirements for the code analysis were provided to you at the meeting. However, should you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact Steve Bunting, Fire Marshal, at (949) 644 -3106. In addition, please provide the Fire Marshal with the year the home began to be used for sober living purposes. The plans that are required to be prepared for the code analysis may also be used to satisfy the requirement for a site plan and floor plans as noted above. 4. Please provide an explanation of the number of parking spaces provided on site and information regarding the maximum number of employees or others on site at any one time that will have autos. Include an explanation of the use of vans to transport residents to treatment facilities and other activities and provide a transportation route diagram. 5. You have discussed the unlicensed status of the Yellowstone facility at this address with our City Attorney's Office. Please review the Disclosure Statement and revise the licensing statement made in the application if necessary. 6. If certification specific to the type of facility is available from a governmental agency or qualified nonprofit organization, the facility shall receive such certification including without limitation, certification by Orange County under its Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification Program. Please provide evidence of any certifications held for this address. You also have requested information regarding the City's authority to impose an Application Fee of $2,200 and have asked for evidence of such City authority. Please note Section 20.90.030(D) (Application Filing) of Title 20 of the NBMC states that "Applications for discretionary approvals shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council." In addition, Chapter 3.36 of the NBMC provides the basis for recovering actual costs for application processing. On the basis of the foregoing requirements, you may wish to reevaluate and amend the Reasonable Accommodation application you have submitted with the use permit VIR41I1L111-01 application. In addition, Item 2 on the Reasonable Accommodation supplemental form requests documentation of the disability for which the request for a reasonable accommodation is being made. That documentation has not been provided. Please provide documentation that the individuals on whose behalf the application is made are disabled under the governing law. The City leaves to the discretion of Yellowstone Women's First Step House and /or the individuals the nature of the documentation to be submitted. Understanding the concerns about privacy, the City will accept documentation disclosing only the person's first name or initials (with all other identifying information redacted). Please be advised that failure to obtain a use permit for the residential care facility use of the subject property shall render the use of property nonconforming. Nonconforming uses of property are subject to abatement, per Section 20.62.090 of the NBMC, and if the required use permit is not obtained by February 9, 2009, the use will be subject to abatement in accordance with the Code. City staff appreciates your continuing cooperation. However, we are unable to process your Use Permit application and Reasonable Accommodation application and schedule a public hearing until we receive the pending submittal items outlined above_ Should you have questions regarding the aforementioned, please contact me at (562) 989 -6664 or by email at dgbc@vedzon.net. Sincerely, By "wr �-- William Cunningham Consulting Planner Cc: Janet Brown, Associate Planner Dr. Anna Marie Thames, Yellowstone Women's First Step House YS 00410 PL4IVN� NGD RARmMENI, rseressio Hs i DEC 29 20 0 8 DAVIS •ZFATY 17YOFN pT Y v 1A. CO.10.Arion A yH December 23, 2008 Z175.1 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Re: Notice of Incomplete Application: Yellowstone - 1621 Indus Dear Ms. Brown: This firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Yellowstone "). We are in receipt of the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Incomplete Application dated November 7, 2008 in which the City asked Yellowstone to address six deficiencies in its Use Permit Application for 1621 Indus, Enclosed herewith is the documentation you requested. Below is a brief description of the enclosed materials. Preliminary Title Reports A preliminary title report for 1621 Indus is included. As requested, the preliminary title report is less than 60 days old. Site Plans The site plans for 1621 Indus show the property dimensions, setback from the property line to the buildings, useable outdoor space, and the location of driveways. The site plans also include the property lines and building footprints on immediately adjacent parcels. Finally, the site plans include an accurate count of bedrooms in the home, the number of residents within each bedroom, the rooms intended to be used by residents, and the location and dimension of the garage. 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 • Fax 949.376.3875 infoadzanorneys.com . www.dzattorneys.com YS 00411 Ms. Janet Brown December 23, 2008 Code Analysis A code analysis is provided herewith. The code analysis discusses the property, which is in compliance with the R4 Building and Fire Code Requirements. Also, your November 7, 2008 letter requested that we provide the Fire Marshal with the year each of the homes began to be used for sober living purposes. Those dates are as follows: 1561 Indus — 2007 1621 Indus — 2003 20172 Redlands — 2005 1571 Pegasus —2005 Parking and Transportation The documentation enclosed provides the number of available parking spaces at 1621 Indus and the number of employees who park on site. Route maps from the home to treatment and from the home to St. John church are also provided. With respect to parking and transportation to and from 1621 Indus, we would like to address variations in previous submittals that have since been resolved. Paragraph 10 of the Request for Reasonable Accommodation for 1621 Indus states that four of the residents have automobiles. This is no longer the case. As correctly stated in Paragraph 8(H) of the Use Permit Application and the enclosed documentation, personal vehicles are not permitted onsite. Paragraph 11 of the Request for Reasonable Accommodation for 1621 Indus that we previously submitted states that tenants are allowed to have vehicles provided that such vehicles are approved and are parked in the garage or driveway. This is no longer true. Residents are no longer permitted to have vehicles on site. As stated in Paragraph 8(B) of the Use Permit Application and the included documentation, the only two employees residing onsite are the home's manager and assistant manager. As stated in Paragraph 8(H) of the Use Permit Application and the enclosed documentation, their cars are will be parked onsite in the driveway and no other cars are permitted on the premises. Finally, Paragraph 12 of the Request for Reasonable Accommodation for 1621 Indus states that Yellowstone does not provide transportation. Though this is generally true, upon further review, we feel that it is important to note that the home provides some basic transportation to other non - Newport Beach facilities and to St. John church. Both locations are within ten minutes of the home and, as stated above, we have included route maps for your convenience. Finally, the vans that transport the residents are not parked onsite. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. YS 00412 Ms. Janet Brown December 23, 2008 Licensine Status As we have discussed, none of the four homes is ADP licensed. To the extent that any prior representations regarding ADP licensing were made, we have learned that same were incorrect. If you have any questions regarding this item, or need any further explanation as to the reasons for our error, we are more than happy to provide same. As we have never provided treatment in these facilities (nor represented that in any prior communication with the City), this does not represent a material change to our application. Certifications Enclosed is a copy of the certification for 1621 Indus. The home is certified as a member of the Orange County Sober Living Coalition. I hope that the enclosed materials complete Yellowstone's Application and clarify any ambiguities in our previous submissions to the city regarding 1621 Indus. As always, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY, a professional corporation NICOLE COHRS YS 00413 YELLOWSTONE 1. Preliminary Title Report —1621 INDUS PQNiNG D F.FCF;; 29 [uit8 2. Code Analysis CRY CRY OF BEACH f EAC 3. Parking and Route Maps 4. Certification YS 00414 (9 CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY RSWXMT. 1621 INDUS STREET Newport Beady, CALIFORNIA PRELIMINARY REPORT Doted as Of: NWMnbw 18, zoos Order No.: 8110=122-W at 7:W AM I to the�ttW for a pricy d tft ise n ref0►01►oed hweK TIN that It k to issue, or cause to be as d the data bored, a etletMrrd d� tha land the saw or t+tmeec therein haneYrtlDBr set farlh, re=sort cr defect. Mn or encintwerm rest shown ar rehrlad to as aft=on rtlid iroen wm p s mrt to� prkd@d Sdfackim Con Mbm and Stipr,iowm or Cw d km d aekt polcyfm.. This report (and any sr8rplemats oray� hereto) fa blued sok for map d d a brae d a Is desired ppolmy odf � ksgrrar�e WW no o or Comm shoal be 8 k that Np r" be umed� rite k+wrerrce d a The polrAo) of We Insurance to be blued hersunderwu be po1Ic W of Chl�c goTWO Ineraaace Company- pa f�romtura� A mW . mm r utm m nrowMaa vau vrtrh as cf�irrd -- widd re not It Is ire ilm to note dwat this Is not a w�Ntan repnwmndon as to the oondidw of this and rely not Ihavdl a0 na,defeataandenourt3 caae�MtletotlwWal The form of Pdfcy or Policies of We kamrarwe contemplated bytNs report Is: ANIMC32 LAW TrfW LSaOCIAME L0AN 1102aW (6- 17 -06) • A Two Deparanent: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY 16969 VON KARMN 19MM, CA 92606 (949)263 -6800 Fax: (949)263 -0872 JOHN ALLEN Tole O81oer YS 00415 H4 ,l -40 if It, :�\ OtdarNa 880523122 004 Your PAf L The estate or interest in the land haeiaefta desai'bed or rdorredto comed by flea report is: A FEE 2. Tuk to said estate or interest at the date hared isvesied is AmA HARIB TBAtt88, AS TRIISTRB OF TBB TAAtm TRDST, O/A DATBD JANUARY 25, 2007 3. The land referred to in chit report is situated in the note of CaMmia, County of ORAv= and is deaarbed as fdilow&- LOT 18 OF TRAMP NO. 4307, AS BMW ON A MAP RSOORDSa IN BOOK 153, PAGES 18, 19 AND 20 OF MISCELLUMMS N"S, RBCORDS OF ORAtt08 COMM C hLIFaMA. YS 00416 SCHEDULE B Page 1 nrder Nnr RAOR21122 S06 YOWR& At the date hermf cmwpf= to coverage in addition to Wt prided Exmptimas and Rmclnim in the poHey form ducted 0a the face page offt Reportw&Ahe as foBow : A 1. PROPERTY TARES, 314MUD32IG MY ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED WITH TAXES, TO BE LEVIED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2009 -2010 THAT ARE A LIRE NOT YET DUE. a 2. PROPERTY TAXES FOR TEE FISCAL YEAR SHOWS BELOW ARE PAID. FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES THE AMOUNTS ARE: 218CAL YEAR: 2008 -2009 1ST INSTAIJAUM: $3,821.52 2ND INBTALLMRWT: $3,521.52 EXEMPTION: $POT SHOW CODE AREA: 07212 ASSESSMENT NO: 119- 361 -04 C 3. SAID PROPERTY HAS SEEN DECLARED TAX- DEPAULTED FOR NOM - PAYMENT OF DELINQUENT TAXES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004 (AND SMMMM$NY YEARS, IF ANY) AMOUNT TO REDEEM: $33,049.34 IF PAID BY: NOVEMBER 30, 2008 AMOUNT TO REDEEM: $33,383.17 IF PAID BY: DECEMBER 31, 2008 a $267 DEEDED -TO -STATE FEE IS INCLUDED IN REDEMPTION AMOUNTS a 4. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL OR ESCAPED ASSESSMENTS OF PROPERTY TAXES, IF ANY, MADE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIMS OF PART 0.5, CHAPTER 3.5 OR PART 2, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLES 3 AND 4 RESPECTIVELY (LG WITH SECTION 75) OF THE REVBNUS AND TAXATICE CODE OF THE 87ATE OF CALIFORNIA AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF TITLE TO THE VESTSE NAMED IN SCHEDULE At OR AS A RESULT OF CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP OR NEW CONSTRUCTION OCCORRI1mG PRIOR TO DATE OF POLICY. r S. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS BUT OMI4TING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, 19 ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COIF, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION. FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, SANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF IHOOM$, AS SET FORTH ME APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVMM OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAN AS SET FORTH IN TUB DOCUMENT RECORDED: IN BOOK 437 PAGE 231 OF OFFICIAL RBMRDS o SAID COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS PROVIDE THAT A VIOLATION YS 00417 P8V 2 OrderNa 980523129 804 YowRLE I 1-4 :I' I'i; •' •: [. -.fC •: 13rvf •' T1: r'1 j' tr•gt Ae "'if 1: It SAID INSTRUMENT ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE LEVY OF ASSESWi811T8, THE LIEN OF WHICH 18 STATED TO BE SUBORDINATE TO THE LIEF OF CERTAIN MKIRIMM OR DEEDS OF TRUST MADE IN GOOD FAITS AND FOR VALUE. z NADIFICATION(S) OF SAID COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 1�1 [i 11Ci1 L, :, � ;. ac • ZV� JV7�a�7�7 w'rj:31 ?_] J 6. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS BUT OKITTI11G ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAAL STATUS. DIBABnaTY, EABDICAP, NATIONAAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FOWM IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO TEE R3.TENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW AS SST FORTS IN THE DOCOMB W RECORDED: IS BOOR 123 PAGE 266 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS x SAID COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS PROVIDE THAT A VIOLATION THEREOF SHALL NOT DEFEAT THE LIEN OF ANY 14ORTGAM OR USED OF TRUST MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE. z SAID INSTHSAGINT ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE LEVY OF ASSBSSNMTS, THE LIM OF WHICH IS STATED TO BE SUBORDINATE TO TEE LIES OF CERTAIN NIORTGROSS OR DEEDS OF TRUST MADE 339 GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE. e 7. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS BUT CNQTTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF 11100183, AS SET FORTS IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT Ta THE ZXTMT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW AS SET FORTH IS THE DOCUMENT RECORDED. IN BOOK 255 PAGE 139 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS s SAID COVENANTS, CLRIDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS PROVIDE THAT A VIOLATION THEREOF SHALL NOT DEFEAT THE LIM OF ANY MORTGAGE OR D® OF TRUST MADE IN GOOD. FAITH AND FOR VALUE. a SAID INSTRUMENT ALSO PROVIDES FOR TUB LEVY OF ASSEBSMUATTB, THE LIEN OF WHICH IS STATED TO BE SUBORDINATE 70 THE LIEN OF CERTAIN MUtT6AG8S OR DEEDS OF TRUST MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE. D S. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS BUT CMITTXNG ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONSt 17 ANY, BASED UPON RAGS, COLOR, RIKaGION, SEX, SEXUAL YS 00418 Page 3 qw i-+► ., z , Ordar Na: 880523122 804 You R:BE ORIENTATION. FAMILIAL S'T'ATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISH LITr, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, BRCBPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PMMTTED BY APPLICABLE LAW AS SST FORTH IN THE DOCUMMM RECORDED: IN BOOK 513 PAGE 111 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 0 SAID COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS PROVIDE THAT A VIOLATION THEREOF SHALL NOT DEFEAT THE LIEN OF ANY MORTGAGE OR DEW OF TRUST MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE. R SAID INSTRUMENT ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS, TES LIEN OF MEICH IS STATED TO BE SUSORDIDATE TO THE LIEN OF CERTAIN MORTGAGES OR DEEDS OF TRUST MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE. a 9. AN EASEMENT FOR BRMER LINES AS SHOW ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT AND AS SET FORTH IN nWfFMMM RECORDED IN 8008 4566 PAGES 57 AND 59, OFFICIAL RECORDS AND RE- RECORDED IN BOOK 4588 PAGES 72 AND 74, OFFICIAL RECORDS, OVER TUB NORTHERLY 33 FEET OF THE LAND T 10. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS BUT ONNITTIIN3 ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY. BASER UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION. SEH, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, F MIIaA- STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH 33 APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAMS, EXCEPT TO THE RaTmu THAT SAID COVSNAMT OR RESTRICTION IS PSRMITTRD BY APPLICABLE LAW AS SST FORTH IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED: IN BOOR 5923 PAGE 378 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS a SAID COVERANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS PROVIDE THAT A VIOLATION THEREOF SHALL NOT DEFEAT THE LIEN OF ANY !8]R'TGAGE OR USED OF TRUST MIDDB IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE. v SAID INSTRUMENT ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE LEVY OF ASSESBM M, THE LISM OF WHICH 18 STATED TO BB SOBORDIMATE TO THE LIEN OF CERTAIN NNORWAM OR DEEDS OF TRUST MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE. ■ 11. AN BASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOT BELOM AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SBT FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: NOT SPAM PURPOSE: BITHBR OR BOTH POLE LINES, CHITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED: IN BOOK 6009 PAGB 242 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AFFECTS: OVER THE NORTHERLY 12 FEET OF TER LAN/ Y 12. AN RABR[UMT FOR THE PURPOSE MW BRUW AM RIORM 314MMM THERETO AS YS 00419 PSP 4 OnkrNo: 880523122 804 YOurReE GRANTED TO: NOT EHOMR PURPOSE: EITHER OR BOTH POLE 1-1000. CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED: IN BOOK 6023 PAGE 2 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTSs OVER THE REAR 10 PEST OF THE JAN) z SAID DEED PROVIDES TRAT NO BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OVER IS FEET Ja Himew OR NEARER THAN 3 FEET TO ANY POI 3, SHALL BE ERECTED ON SAID WWWWY. s 13. THE EFFECT OF A NAP PURPORTING TO BROW TSB LAND AND 07HER PROPERTY, FILED BOOK 110, PAGES 39 - 42 nXWSIVE OF RECORD OF SURVEYS. HOTS: A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "RECORD OF SURVEY CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION* RECORDED NOVEMBER 27, 1985 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 85- 479201 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. AA 14. THE EFFECT OF A NAP PURPORTING TO SHOW THE LAND AID OTHER PROPERTY, FILED BOOR 117, PAGE 5 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS. AS 15. THE EFFECT OF A MAP PURPORTING TO BROW THE LAND AND OTHER PROPERTY, FILED BOOK 118, PAGES 24 AND Z5 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS. A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "TRACT OR PARCEL MAP CERTIFICi1TS OF CORRECTION• RECORDED JANUARY 8, 1992 AS INSTEDNEST NO. 92- 011710 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. AC 16. THU FACT THAT THE LAND LIES ATTHW THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LARD USE DISTRICT MAP SANTA ANA HSIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN RBDEVSIA MEET PROJECT AREA, AS DISCLOSED BY THE DOCOMBNT RECORDED MAY 4, 1990 AS INSTRUMENT 80. 90- 235869 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. AD 17. AN EASEMENT FOR TUB PURPOSE SHOWS BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SST FORTE IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: COUNTY OF URANUS PURPOSE: NOT SHOMN RECORDED: APRIL 29, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT 90. 91- 200914 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS- SAID LAND AS NOTE- SAID EASEMENT. RECITES IN PART: THIS BASEMENT CONSTITUTES A PERPETUAL AND SHIMCSABLS RESTRICTION, AND IS BINDING UPON O'RANTOR, ITS SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS AND ALL PERSONS AUTHORIBBn BY THEN TO OCCUPY OR ESTER UPON THE SUWBCT PROPERTY. TSIH Ek==T IS APPURTMUL= TO, FOR THE SffiU4PIT OF, AND RUN$ WITH THE LAND IN RESPECT OF THAT CBRTAIR PROPERTY cm my mm AS in. YS 00420 N Iz1� Page 5 OrdmrNm 880523122 804 you m AV 18. THE EFFECT OF A DAP PURPORTING TO SHOW THE LAND AND OTHER PROPERTY, FILED HOOK 138, PAGE 28 OF RECORD OF SURVEZS. Aa 19. RIGHTS OF PARTIES IN POSSESSION OF TEN: LAND BY REASON OF UNRECORDED LZU318, IF ANY. AN 20. ACQUISITION USED INCLUDHD PROPERTY USE RESTHICTION, A 5 -15 CONDITION "STATIDNBNTB' Ar 21. A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "CERTIFICATE OF COMB MION (NEST SANTA ANA EEI(AT8 REORGANIZATION TO THE CITY OF NEMDORT SMACK (RO 06- 25))", MM SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 EXECUTED BY ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMRSSION, SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS THEREIN Cam, RECORDED SBPTOMER 17, 2007 AS INSTRMUM PAD. 2007000566527 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. As 22. A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN IINDEBTRUSISS IN THE 02201NAL AlNOUffP SHONEN BELOW AMOUNT: $637,500.00 DATED: JULY 1, 2005 TRUSTOR: DR. ANNA M THAMES, A MARRIED NOME AS EER SOLE AND SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUSTEE: TONS AND COUNTRY TITLE SERVICES, INC. BENEFICIARY: AMERIQUSST PERTGADB CMUMNY, A CORPORATION RECORDED: JULY 12, 2005 AS JUSTAMUM NO. 2005000536838 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS ORIGINAL IRAN NUMBER: NOT sum R iI7�M`lua 1 ;u] u NOTE NO. 1: THE ONLY CONVEYANM AFFECTING SAID LAND, MEICH RECORDED WITHIN TWENTYPOUR (24) MONTHS OF THE DATE OF TRIG REPORT, ARE AS FOLLOMS: GRANTOR: DR. ARM M. TEAM GRANTEE: ANNA MARES THAMES, AS TRUSTER OF THE THAMES TRUST, V/A DATED JANUARY 25, 2007 RECORDED: FEBRUARY 21, 2007 AS FILE NO. 2007000110650, OFFICIAL RECORDS AN NOTE NO. 2: WE WILL REQUIRE A STATEMENT OF INFORMATION FROM THE PARTIES NAAM DRUM IM ORDER TO COMPLETE THIS REPORT, BASED ON TEN EFFECT OF DOCUMENTS, PROCEEDIIN68, IXEM, UBCREES. OR OTHER MATTERS MHICE DO NOT. SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE SAID LAND, BUT MHICH, IF ANY DO MIST, MAY AFFECT THE ..TITLE OR DNPOSE LIENS OR ENCUMBRANCES THEREON. YS 00421 Pop 6 PARTIES: ALL PARTIES (NOTE: THE STATIMUST OF INFORMATION I8 NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE SERRCH AND EXAMINATION OF TITLE MGM THIS ORDER. ANY TITLE SEARCH nDlPmam MATTERS THAT ARE INDEXED BY NAME ONLY, AMID HAVING] A COMPLETED STATEMENT OF INFORMATION ASSISTS THE COMPANY IN THE ELIMINRTI0N OF COMM MATTE=S NHNICN APPEAR TO ISVOLVB THE PARTIES BUT IN PACT AFFECT ANOTHER PARTY WITH THE SAME OR SIMILAR NAME. HE ASSUMED THAT THE STATEMENT OF INFORMTI001 IS ESSENTIAL AMID WILL HE KEPT STRICTLY GCFI7?IDTMM TO TUIB FILE.) 1W NOTE 80. 3: IF THIS COMPANY 28 REQUESTED TO DISBURSE FUNDS IN CMMBMOK WITH THIS TRANSACTION, CHAPTER 598, STATUTES OF 1989 MQ wmS BOLD PERIODS PM CHECKS DEPOSITED TO ESCROW OR 808- ESCROF ACCOUNTS. TUB lMNIDATORY HOLD PERIOD FOR CASHIER'S CENCRB, CERTIFIED CHECKS AND TELL11 -8 CDOM IS ONE BUSIINSSS DAY AFTER THE DAY DEPOSITED. OTHER CHECKS REOU33M A BOLD PERIOD OF FROM TWO TO FIVE BUSI1NB88 DAYS AFTER THE DAY DEPOSITED. IN THE EVENT THAT THE PARTIES TO THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTION WISH TO RECORD PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR DISBURSEMENT (AM SUBJECT TO COMM APPROVAL), THE COPANY WILL REQUIRE THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE PARTIES. UPON REQUEST, A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMPANY AUTRORIS2M0 SAID EARLY RECORDING WAY BE PROVIDED TO ESCROW FOR EXECUTION.. WIRE TRANSFERS THERE IS NO MANDATED BOLD PERIOD FOR FUNDS DEPOSITED BY CONFIRMED WIRE TRANSFER. THE COMPANY MAY DISBURSE SUM FUNDS THE SAME DAY. WIRE -IN IMTRUCTIGMX : BANK: COUNTRYWIDE BANK FSB 1199 W. FAIRFAX ST., SUITS 500 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 BANK ABA: 056009110 ACCOUNT NAME: CHICAGO TITLE, COMPANY ORANGE MARKET CEN'T'ER ACCOUNT NO.: 412684 FOR CREDIT TO: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY 16969 VON RATOMAN IRVINE, CA 92606 FURTHER CREDIT TO: ORDER NO.: 880523122 FEDERAL RESERVE WIRR SHORT NAMMB: Q0MTMYWMS BRFSB ALSXAI®RIA, VIRGINIA YS 00422 Page 7 Orderxo. 580523122 804 rl�7 Your" AO ROTE NO. 4: ON THE DATE YOU FUND THE LOAN AND WIRE FUNDS TO CHICAGO TITLE AM REFERENCE THE ABOVE ORDER NUMBER, YOU MUST SEWD WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE TITLE OFFICER'S UNIT BY MESSENGER OR E -WAIL THAT YOU SENT THE FUNDS. CHICAGO TITLE WILL SEND AN EMAIL AS PRACTICABLE. CHICAGO TITLE WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBILE FOR ANY DELAY IN CLOSING AND RECORDING TOM TRANSACTION, MR WILL CHICAGO TITLE BE LIABLL POR ANY CLAIM OF LAST INTEREST UNLESS SUCH WRITTEN NOTICE I8 SENT THE DAY OF FUMING AND CHICAGO TITLE HAS ACRNONLEDM RECEIPT OF FONDS. An NOTE NO. 5: NONE OF THE ITEMS BMW IN THIS REPORT WILL CAUSE THE COMM TO DECLINE TO ATTACH CLTA ENDORSEMENT FORM 100 TO AN ALTA LOAN POLICY, WHEN ISSUED. AO NOTE NO. 6: THEM IS LOCATED ON SAID LAND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RNOWN AS: 1621 INDUS (INDUSTRIAL) STREET, AREA OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AR NOTE NO. 7: IF A COUNTY RECORDER, TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, ESCROW COMPANY, REAL ESTATE BROKER, REAL ESTATE AGENT OR ASSOCIATION PROVIDES A COPY OF A DECLARATION, GOVERNING DOC'UMBUT OR DEED TO ANY PERSON, CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THAT THE DOCUMENT PROVIDED SKILL INCLUDE A STATBKMT RSIiARDING ANY UNLAWFUL RESTRICTIONS. SAID 07MMMPT IS TO BE IN AT LEAST 14 -POII1T BOLD FACE TYPE AND MAY BE STAMM ON THE FIRST PAGE OF ANY DOCUMENT PROVIDED OR INCLDDBD AS A COVER PAGE ATTACKED TO THE REQURBTSD DOCUMENT. SHOULD A PARTY TO THIS TRANSACTION REQUEST A COPY OF ANY DOCUMENT REPORTED IBRBIN THAT FITS THIS CATEGORY, THE STATEMENT I8 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED. As NOTE NO. 5: NO ESAMIPATION OF THE COMPAHY'8 RECORDS HAS BREW MADE FOR, NOR IS REPORT MADE IN THIS PRELIMINARY REPORT OF, MONETARY HERB, OR ENCUMBRANCES. IF ANY, WHICH MAY AFFECT TITLE TO AN ESTATE OR IPTERBBT IN THE LAM DESCRIBED HEREIN ACQUIRED BY A PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS. AT NOTE NO. 9: THE CURRENT OWNER DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR TUB $20.00 DISCOUNT PURSUANT TO TLB COORDINATED STIPULATED juDommurs ENTERED IN ACTIONS FILED BY BOTH -THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND PRIVATE CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS FOR THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY. AO NOTE NO. 30: THE CHARGE FOR A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, WHEN ISSUED THRODGR THIS TITLE ORDER, WILL BE BASED ON THE SHDRT -TRRM RATE. AV NOTTE NO. 11: IF TITLE IS TO BE INSURED IN TUB TRUSTEES) OF A TRUST, (OR IF THEIR ACT I8 TO BE INSURED), THIS COMPANY WILL REQUIRE A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL TRUST AGREEMENT INCLUDING ALL WMIBITS LISTING REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TRAMP== nM THE TRWT TOORTHER WITH CO! UM COPIN OF ANY YS 00423 M.1. t Per 8 OcderNo: 880523122 so: You ReE AM T$ OR mmnaCATIONS THERETO. THE COMANY MAST ALSO BE FURNZSRED WITH A VHRIFICATION OF ALL PR8SWT TRUSTERS STATING MOLT THE COPY $EIIiG FORNISHRD IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ENTIRE TRUST AGP INCLUDING ALL MODIFICATIONS OR ASPS: THAT THE TRUST IS CURRENTLY XR FULL PORCH AND EFFECT; AND TRAT IT EAS NOT BERN REOOESa OR THTHD. ax TR -T /R �Bearmrpek YS 00424 You may be entitled to receive a $20.00 discount on escrow services if you purchased, sold or refinanced residential property in California between May 19, 1995 and November 1, 2002. If you had more than one qualifying transaction, you may be added to multiple discounts. If your previous transaction involved the same property that is the subject of you current transaction, you do not have to do anything; the Company will provide the discount, provided you are paying for escrow or title services in this transaction. 1. If your previous transaction involved property difforent from the property that is subject of you current transaction, you must - prior to the dose of the current uwmctkm - inform the Company of the earlier transaction, provide the address of the involved in the previous transaction, and the date or approximate date that the escrow to be eligible for the discount. Unless you inform the Company of the prior transaction on property that is not the subject of this transaction, the Company has no obligation to conduct an investigation to determine if you qualify for a discount If you provide the Company information concermag a prior transaction, the Company is required to determine if you qualify for a discount which is subject to other terms and conditions. YS 00425 rn K b - p - ysyy�yti w� C 0 N W71G�bw� i YS 00426 BhotlY.Cafw s/1/aooe Fldift Meft W Fklant K Inc. hm am hs arbmidari s Min "all" ft F" and am* d yow IN III amhdon rPaawW yyaarrFWN"hlanrwdarismodeff0p 1 ddeaTMsPMerayUNWlstrepl++a t 1Pt it doanmdon vie me*A tram you am blur ow �d ahaaoaa, mad lo Minn a m�¢Y be dshdowd Rrf hrNorw tiM 1 h dhM PAwiq Slawrhard end. dapmuYp on fir OwI pwbMW, FW QMOWM mlq YMw h l wft ms PtraaMd balertMmon Oolbord • VV* nmoaudpannnerhfmmdonsimpAyoufmMdatolim" oiraso: • hbnmhyori we rseber from ywr an a otllor lwn% ash s yon► nmr, ad&ao% soda saou lli- mlmbw, Lot hlalh"ll, Ic mmdwo ammdhbarxcOn arW klaaar�p • I ko, aft wm moOo trwn you f w4h ow bilmew A ill acct"yow maim addwr, hLnhat Prolood addrhahb amm whdaMm MnMa you h�bwrwabdtas ,andyabrdolywidauftert Aoftewwabshaa. sboat your barhrotlorha with or mWAM pwbnsd by s6 wn dmmLm, or atihwi much • hdattrrldlwh 00Th0a1n410 l ou► t�oby, prolrlm PMt+wd Maury, hb limm abautyow home a other tad property, hfmnlgbtr ban lethdate amd aBw:" Pw*" Ynolwd it such' lmhascim aooa®dbsLnas andorodtordlnfottlhWon and • Manaft wsmadYSAanaae. mwaadrrwpalhlptpadpsndpubpdytaoaded. claaaro ceftmW 'in artlatt • ft"WP *WBVQ PQMW lMommft.Ooducftkd nudmwsmwlva/ romwaahamaraogtaadlmporNn- vawhdaajbwabna PA tfram ddoaiss mgNidhtftbMtlhohaPYtlad, tlrk= etMhodratlon 9Mh leas ab toff atlow aotMMnws b retllia • TohwaosagaMS bmkwRnptswdetHera w4P a0wdi ohM Grodmilop ywMfhstdoaaywhawts *mobd , sdbaheWa umb ddsaa ptsvemahlmhhd ectlriAr, kaa1. masrhl mlpaPrerwNdoa.a h7ah0aMahootarNahaVMlf m ihahtahoerLwrerotaha • To ar6paty oawador or atavism phoVWSra to to P ;mse d derMndnhn you etgtaoil foe an booms befMm a psyitMiR and/or pha•Id)hgymu� ham • To s harms , a Ian � or adrr povmrmranhl , In a dull scan, In amraatloth wMh a aahpomnt of a • To as that pwkttn Mmkb hp aaviva on ow bdWf of to other *wWd hdhhdar wish ~ we have had idm ttwNatin9 • TTooMr hdw% mnhdaar, b+ �wsMasdiMa, aalrrnattlsh> hIIerawmwftwmam inWMhtftMrsdamaItdoodnmdbe Vvmmay dPO dhdosyour PwamW YMam"M bothwswhentw bdleus, hpoalLXh, lhdmuehdMCoaaa NtrereonWysaratytom loy wahlhmtama b prordYr tadydma ohdbrhrrs, anlpbyeem,apeopwyaM/ab marpywph a}aipW prormdhp,oamtadra Mpd prom m. OMM • V% am pwrditd by Lw m dam yaw nma, a II and facia abmd your irmnroisrh what cow R F JAM s aaapWS, agarat and adw coal males swulem pmMdws b proMda you wNh m N I m 1 you have raWma , for a ed wa ' a b mhrlral I as rAm to yea. Vh do m*, hohw w decor hhotrrron wo oom tram Ya0wwiswhhowanlialsadMwwflil Voraorae hom.1m.�ywMhapp9owbMIlMuni rmudtdfadharNh as BUM- M%donWdWOMPNSM o hmatlnebodourwabrnrmeribtmwoasmwsbsONM asatlwwNmpwmbrdby law. Medtldrd arhd 8amu*ot Pan" Mormsalrh ftieftle swrb Parma" hfaaleft shout to %%mWmanpfh111 ,alaobwhb,andptoedaakpds0 AOOya tD ParaOaa ht3mtnalbth/ As tpusd by appon" law OlMd You Me find auto when by wmrtry awraMhblNbdawr coca b wQYerals, esbkbfth vow teghieWta: CMWFOMWOMW tidf+1,.. . Fihancid, Im col Fill' dm odn .Ia*wnv , FL 32M C WQfttothis Many Oblamu d TMs PrWaw SMbnrmmaVbm rnwuisdkan dmmbtYnmar..'WBh appliaaEk p waoytmw, Wom weawome m Maw suanwd. we •ral psta notlos dmach canpson owwabaM. TM dlsdwderr duds PrMm abai mem, as dalmdabwa, indbalslM MUSmmtMm PdmW lMMmwdwswNamdorm cgmbmd. FMACYr -"/MAA YS 00427 �MITALTri u ' Paucu( .sie man ]. Gw...m�ri.mrW 76 dao WoYd m m. d•.Mm ft a ---W i �wm Imd� 1 'R6 .me 4"V 4.7elmks w as dY..tai d mm umm MIS u.ttta m.d m w idm Ya�el�o.ammw �m�m.R�rrsdamamama ID 4d*kka b m Eslm m ym m =1 •&*A km, cm Mm.q.' dem, r m Ymm i AgYtebm. m k. dwYcb .mmmeme4w..Ydiimr.Yr�m.mb.my � dlY•Imer w<IYurdP�Yl�m•...dmlo. m.b t/caPm(k TwFA4m mtlaMOOm MY.tW6me�Rl.owtarm�YlYm 19a[UaMr�tl 1 Agora ---WI .mb.•wympmkmmer.nbd mm Ym.mmb �• gimme ed�Om<r sWCb��IVYSVIkr1Y (d.MeyerOfOAO..dm mmryeYYm.dOmmdMb6a 1. ar Yen w �✓�Fi' . �. i u . • .. �n a ♦. ;r r,: ' . mfkspsJ i rat. 2 9yeed®aem dm W. •.k. mlm d On -MAW Qm ram Nor" bm 1 pbYe mmJ m Dm of Pm* b. m Yum mmi4wkYw0lmis oa�ve.dldabD•k d re0q d lworld ad oe.ow oft - mW a SC8SD=8ePARTI IDICHFrKISPRONCOVSRAOS M& PCNWdMm.. w. +ybmk.vleeea¢(aad�et»nP7MYmP9•� �aryr�).tlmmaymmmdr PARTI 1. hmr<meameme MFymmea.. m 40ft Em y 4 mvnh of MW bobs i grsmyY, �vmo ,pm,erakrmrm,ma.abympiBe.maa amemal ebv .im wIm w mmmm m ml P ww w y 0. Pok eemb, a Y.�ep..dm, meet Y Y.r4 Y.sl • a We P.—M-Ptr Fd . gFw-mm mm mm. besw.memeeq smkmdw PomCbpwwmwnmbm .ymeme6dwePmrwympeYlkemld• 1 amMia.mnmem4rr r mmbe..ymPi,Bemrw z Am bcq d.m. temmb m bbvwwid m m bep y 1Y p.Yp many m Mk► (•) Dimes �•t •(rlm4 (W rmrmk.. a m"M b PY.+. m Y Am Pmm>wee l.mmr. ya. bRwelm Mmr k.. wwtW myrmmmyp•. s ewewl"dmm Kftw weem0 yampdfie .Mmew >mm D(CGml- m /s /mM l'•P l YS 00428 A1TAOM ONE ( l S T. tmlwepdiw beb bwbeYr besbd dNrp�Aid�eBY�ii0�6[I WoabYrfbw @rAUb laMr�,Hs �pYrlw LV �m�ela abrw4:abtaepdgeAeebldeA ldoerPtbewUwbmtLlsgl TY1Pdgrr etl beba W us 6svO�rp it Hs NmV�4�r got P9' m4�' Ma [p�A ill! air4 wro[at L Trleae eb�esdiawwfbaesveetdslw IF an err* d mw ama Ofl rfts br w � r r PaObw 011[ Oe Prb bbda y PvYea W wabld rW 1wb r 4w w rrvbq v vlbbat bm Plmeab[,+babllvrtroeaylrleex4dtl v Pdlrtweb. z Maab.lmnmvml�.elmwmeewePmw weases.w . yobwwlraaftbe bed ww" MV be ewb0 yPl go L bbdr. 4. Ulaw[wb.mralbmrdW llr[+aa. raw maw _ wnw caiNAYeler s i r.uawuvwNSUev+tss A sisl amps v mpl�r r pur em eme�erpdae0b �7s �+b�s Wpm a[��MOVVrI� aloft to IN 4W 1[t b10» R bmt eb e�M YS'{ lbaelaet polite it am (A brlsordn� bOeberO CYreC (Q rlmia{vPIeMyYweOY bDeYdPa�9ibwRtlY00elOSe�'Orid bevrep rbt db1614vMJcv rt..beber.rs[a.earnlreb ` tbedlYYMdOeMe�Mgl�ebei�edYOY [I�r7CSdr bebat to mw* l[Y>TIY[elLb by d ft rse [bua W (oi Y i Tr aw w�rmo e.Paw.a rodw.msa.ae welwr> srrm ��,, h wr. a w m. mare. em r>w.lw e. mpnw elr<a1■. f s abtb4ldtlaa�eP1P Wgadebe r�bli.bbeigHePaoblm W w�ye lwpoftd r ", WiM row4MV(d14CeepwWEwpwar,,egela I bmwe- ltrlewtw v ct 1. Wlbm oe Nelreeb ur ew uat doneWlybw�P Wenumbefew aMOlq t!d rb OW 4r rrplpew a10Vdw Ndle[w8G Q1) P'000ede1 bleP 4d9'n[7aJRbtY�+at�O[Ld/.' RtpIWP d[tl 2 bobAw PM*lCdbV6WbKhW�nW � 1� e�+psarybeitleBmut �md LUL ee imPealooduet amarurae leyea�r,TMyp�mmbiwPnuyu, 3 rrvaq,111orvesrro,vawbebnm [ wdv yuePMmebs. 4. Agebacemwwl .mmq..Awy4vdvvefeemluwAbubP1Y 1HIt 1YtT�aAlkdtdtbi4lr ealdbdd aorP� Sdeonwd�iadr eat A W tmlbo d WAWA dehagdeh" ((�b}} aerw� v mR1rr h PW v & Am vbbfeePmrr.su.eae(gIWWIV 4ddoW tdebvbf,Vbdbnwvlthe .ewnrpwmr GA P7.aS<Iwlbalayrish W o[em1dL PAP YS 00429 ATrA, rr(DM (00"NOMM 71eel pdigfaam+beiabdbamfdddm & ad d-' 111 atgdded YaJdlkabbeebewbebdebfeaDbagd ,YSBb�1lseCaaOosadri a YbdYdCbaf5 PWq� IaIOWIWd�lYadi�e�dYe,YObOr�P 7bipofgdw�l Ywatua6keradafe/e(atlibaf7wapgwa Rt Piade ,abwap•Ypeat�wbkbabaef(weaaE �. 'Am a aabram+Neb w as loan of adaly Buf tv da awedm d e naYt w:s4 am take m or unweaned ke aA pie9mb o b de Pwi aaad< Pbmedlo� pYrmadomWaa4�tYmawsrdgaft dbb pnvisde tw kwomm dambJlbaawbdbbepgaf daydieaoade L M'YdR�1W .Yra R.Yrad as wb lnnb�W Pb�wm6Me Mb! bvltl Oeaame.L bPmkepeaia dde bwd Rwtlb a�bf acmes b)p ®aeY P� i BbsglSYraMbllOblq /�RNd19011d,fCdbAMb)9eplBbfYada IL �atlsihaa.b� Las madrke.ad4 amer am dmna' aq. a�11s0arrlaY (6aw�otrowistlrl�MeamA.. 1 (q odd" aYll� Atlas{0p aaaaYOaf R aeallo� i p�Ya� r Y OA Of�le�otP�led��� (gwdam �pRWPeebmal�wYAaaem/Y Oak" d" demo deb ad ft R dwa do Im aR amd14RYd1 ap � Psap A Defmyfwe,aaalaey, dwmeddabadbr 83UM14adab4aabd.afpedbb ) drmddCi maltomme" dr mPe9'. w ewrdd i eL /lalb flmbddb d PoW�,ha TIN laepdigamagbebaebfff dcftaShadafna baP�mbdmaaa. LadYdbbtlaabbke lriebCdYCMWbe8mgaosfaamntli •aaedeadObweateptbrwd�dobdeb aMmftnmgoeefbea(bwn� 7bbPOYpdmewWwyliptY^R (mom wilwdpladRdbm3 tfaean, ioaawedEtwaoaab 7. (q lkeva meaeaY Ydw w�aa stddly dmefPYd nwededrP eoded9 eked hwke m a daeeaewm ow dad papab a q db ewe adeada� Pmxddie/ bgaPdYe eyaq met mfPdgW Y ma aseemoaY, a bddead � p®e�,vYNer a ed dma 4 dx nestle dab ePlbq a� W !tlb taobAL 2 Mg: ab�ilgW, Ylwd4atbtoel ldwadaioe9YdIC ►WNCBdmIbYd Moo"" erb dta¢imff. (l a�pDUOSO) 11fLndaelhCfa)bbefadkdl�PamLP ®s - wrAWAA A�al�a�ewawa .Mael�Iis4d�m�ewa�d�ae 7YetldwsYbYdbd 4mwmw mdaaPbM �rlamldbdLed eedDm waddYa,gedwe®eAfmni >. (q Dopesad m6 ea"{ (h) aanatlaf R onPliom i p o of Y AN m4witlfdlleYwmYaeeE (ojwladlpgd�rsR�YYwlawbdasaandr mdlmadepad agar (q, (q, a (a9 wdwa4� Iwe 9aoAc PAPS YS 00430 ATrACHNEC(M () btld6lmbnetr<pplurb8tebieb,Yamm Moedl lYn➢a1md.11mtI'lgberimrldly0mc 1. %=P od ow cfto v .IOI.Iia a 4 m y r •IIYerA . Iy+ iUcLwdh�m ,ima0w{�l�tlmmlmelei ♦ Yiam ibltlbtA LdWM study t./eas LIaAm nt.tm S s b WI'ww1Yft"m *As*NklowAmI ad ab.r 12011oomp"34 Ymr Waumb rmbYamtCarab ltlbllNtlaLbsWaACawni�eestr�oYaC PolMaa tYtMLSl 6a01LYarDM10Y1Amma00e7rslo0o�i� YaLYptlC'4waY&halA. TbetAelAsa�oaua0.aodam ddY. Y4lawaabtdliAmrbbs Caaadtilte jab%gAfaY J r (.RItW Ylw� cbwee tits �aliuOAS v YYr) Mla tYkli j�d/lB9Aaert v 11rJ QavOtitle jMaIPbftArwr Sam �arbia) E7WA04- Wraffl7AA Y�.avar�m ►�ix�.�. aeewaa,.ul..aaa.al..aar. it IL wmv Yrpaloloaalrrwaretweamraoewetratemaue bmar IN" ariq a t1 bow abwmaa►etliwi+abra4Y t�muft pyMY+ YlbY bitabiiYeulai4deIrrYalitMLwOi A briers Lmb.rttidOlAaaWbawA mlgy.•ariir tllu`ef,tiirA arl aaa[m m.alaawaer tram rrr aii Yailpm mq• avYial M 'bn>natltA.v�aarrl �iardavmtlsYSbt lrl. 6 7. a A PW4 YS 00431 December 15, 2008 Mr. Steve Bunting Fire Marshall CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FIRE AND MARINE DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca 92658 -8915 RE: Yellowstone Recovery ( "South House" Residence) Coda Analysis For The Existing Building Dear Mr. Bunting, Alfred J. Boder, Architect has been contracted by Yellowstone Recovery to review details of their existing building, titled "South House ", located at 1621 Indus Street, Santa Ana, Ca 92707. Yellowstone Recovery intends to change the use of the building from a single - family residence to a Residential Facility for the non - medical rehabilitation of drug abuse and alcoholism. We have surveyed the existing building and the summary of our findings and conclusions are as follows: A. The existing building was constructed in 1961, and was built as a single - family residence, occupancy type R-3. The building is a two -story structure with an attached garage. B. The building is set back from the front property line 26' -0 ". The side yard set back is 20'-0" clear on the north side and 8 %0" clear on the south side of the structure. C. As the attached plans indicate, the residence is entered through the front door that faces the addressed street. The first floor consists of a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, bathroom, and two bedrooms. The second floor consists of four bedrooms, and two bathrooms. Based on this research, the following code issues are in compliance with the current code requirements of the California Building Code, CBC 2007. 01. Location On The Property: As indicated on the attached plans, the building setbacks for the side yard is 20' -0" from the property line. This distance includes the attached garage. Per CBC section 6, Table 602, the minimum fire separation distance is five feet. This setback is achieved to the property lines. YS 00432 Conchuision: The wall of the garage at the side yard is not required to be of fire rated construction and there are no penetrations or openings in the attached garage wall. 02. Section 419, Group I -1. R -1, R-21 R 32R -3.1. R4: 419.2, Separation walls. Section does not apply. Note that the common wall between the attached garage is of one -hour fire rated construction to the bottom of the roof diaphragm and the door from the house is a hour rated fire door. 03. Section 4193. Horizontal Separation: This section does not apply per section 711.1. MY, I Facilities in Group R -1, R-3.1 or R-4 Occupancy (SFM): Per section 425.3.5, Limitations — Seven or More Clients; The second floor area is less than three thousand (3,000) square feet and therefore a one -hour fire rated construction is not required. 05. Section 425.7 Fire Protection m Provisions: Section 425.7.1, Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems. Per section 903.2.7, Group R, an automatic fire sprinkler system is not required per exceptions 1 and 3. Section 425.7.2. Fire Alarm Systems: Per section 907.2.8 an approved, hard -wired fire alarm system is installed as required per section 907.2.8.2. Section 427.73. Smoke Alarms: Per section 907.2.8.3, battery powered smoke detectors/alarms are installed in the required areas per section 907.2.10. Section 906.1. Portable Fire Extinguishers: Portable fire extinguishers are installed and located per the California Fire Code. 06. Chapter 10 Means Of Egress: Section 1006, means of egress illumination. There is illumination at the top, middle, and bottom of the staircase. Section 1009. Stairways: Per section 1009.1, exception i, the staircase complies with the code requirement. I believe that this is a complete analysis of the code related items which apply to this building during the change of occupancy. Please call Anthony Grillo, my representative, at (949) 678 -3214 if you have any questions. YS 00433 Sincerely, ) f Alfred Bodor — Architect '40epo�os *�� Attachments; Scale as -built plans YS 00434 PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION There is room for four cars to park on the property; however, residents are not permitted to park there. Only the house manager and assistant manager are permitted to park onsite. Thus, the maximum number of cars parked onsite at any time will be two. Most residents ride the bus and there is a bus stop located near the home. The home does not provide general transportation throughout Newport Beach and other neighboring cities. The home provides transportation to only two locations: the treatment facility and St. John church. Both are within ten minutes of the home. St. John is located at 183 East Bay Street in Costa Mesa. The treatment facility is located at 154 East Bay Street in Costa Mesa. Route maps from the home to the treatment facility and from the home to St. John church are attached. In the morning, residents are transported to either church or treatment. All residents are prohibited from being in the house between 8:00 am. and 3:00 p.m. Additionally, all residents must return to the house by 4 :00 p.m. Finally, the vans that transport the residents are not parked onsite. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. YS 00435 Indus St, Santa Ana, CA 92707 to 154 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 - Google Maps Page I of 2 Directions to 164 E Bay St, Costa Go Mesa, CA 92627 Maps 2.6 ml — about 8 mina From HOME to TREATMENT http:/ /maps.google.comlmaps ?f= d &saddr -165 +Indus +St, +Santa +Ana, +California +9270... 12/11/2008 YS 00436 Indus St, Santa Ana, CA 92707 to 154 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 - Google Maps Page 2 of 2 Indus St, Santa Ana, CA 92707 1. Head west on Indus St toward Redlands Dr go 138 ft total 138 ft 2. Turn Uft at ROCII atrl+t if go-3411 fil total 479 tt r► 3. Turn right at Pegasus St goo. 1 M1 total 0.2 mi 41 4. Turn-" at S'atft; 06 t ''M1 About 6 mtns � :. .. .• - � ` total 2.0 M1 ` 5. Turn right at E 21st St go 0.2 mi 1 About 1 min total 2.3 mi #! 6. Turn lei at drlge ga 0.1.mi . total 2.4 mi P7. Turn right at E Bay St goo. I all Destination will be on'the right total 2.5 mi It 154 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 These directions are for planning purposes only, You may find that construction projects, traffic; weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map results; and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or notices regarding your route. Map data 02008 . Tale Atlas http:// maps.google.cont/maps7Fd &saddr--165 +Indus+St, +Santa +Ana, +California +9270... 12/11/2008 YS 00437 1621 Indus St, Santa Ana, CA 92707 to 183 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 - Google ... Page i of 2 Directions to 183 E Bay St, Costa G'� Mesa, CA 92627 2.4 ml — about 8 mins From HOME to CHURCH ucp* �w► 5 Gal �d Ski http: / /maps.google.com/maps ?f —d &saddr =1621 +Indus, +Santa +Ana, +CA +92707 &daddr. 12/23/2008 YS 00438 1621 Indus St, Santa Ana, CA 92707 to 183 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 - Google ... 1621 Indus St, Santa Ana, CA 92707 1. Head west on Indus St toward Redlands Dr 2. Turn to& aft. ew. �i 3. Turn right at Pegasus St t# 4. Turn left at Sarfa /A1a Aire About 6 mins } 5. Turn right at E 21st St About 1 rain 6. Turn left at Orange Ave 7. Turn right at E Bay St Destination will be on the left 183 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Page 2 of 2 go 75 ft total 5 N go 341 ft total 417 ft goo. I mi total U 2 ar go 1.8 mi total 2.0 rnt go 0.2 mi total 2.2 mi go 0:1 mi total 2 4 mi go 223 ft totitl 2,4 ;7)� These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction projects, trartic, weather, or other events inay cause conditions to differ from the map results, and you should plan your route accordingly. You ?oust obey all signs or notices regarding your route. Map data 02008, Teie Atlas YS 00439 http: / /maps.google.com /maps ?f= d &saddr =1621 +Indus, +Santa +Ana, +CA +92707 &daddr... 12/23/2008 O z TTO^ Vl i+ H l ' rOr� V1 W z 0 H 0 a a w R V Zi o� Myi wa 5 Y^.p Q C �•�y�y W •�1 0 bA bq � •� b o a" Q y .wi Q y � ELI y 77- %.0 �16� Y I Y� U O V O AM U . f J 0 LAM tLl d IL 0 ui LLI �NN Z 0. YS 00440 January 21, 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Fax: (949) 644 -3229 website: www.citv.newoort- beach.ca.us Davis & Rayburn, Attorneys at Law Attention: Isaac R. Zfaty 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Dear Mr. Zfaty: Subject: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Property located at 1621 Indus Street Use Permit No. 2008 -035 (PA2008 -106) Thank you for your follow -up submittal dated December 23, 2008, and received by the City on December 29, 2008. After reviewing the re- submittal material, the following items are incorrect or otherwise incomplete: Please revise the site plan (Sheet A -1) to show the building footprints on adjacent parcels, including the distances of those improvements from the property lines. Please note that your original submittal included a site plan showing portions of adjacent structures, but those plans were not accurately dfawn, not drawn to scale, and the dimensions indicated were in error. 2. Please add the location of the driveway and the street curb line (as distinguished from the front property line) to the site plan. 3. The plans are not consistent with respect to the number of beds provided. The number of beds shown on the plans total 17 (11 upstairs and 6 downstairs), but the bed summary indicates that there are 16 beds. A site inspection of the property indicates that there are a total of 16 beds. 4. Municipal Code Section 20.91A.050 (C.2) states that the maximum number of residents is restricted to a total of two per bedroom plus one additional resident, resulting in a total of 13 residents for this specific property. As related to the foregoing item relative to the inconsistency of the beds shown, please clarify the total number of residents in the dwelling. If it is proposed to exceed the maximum of 13 residents, a justification needs to be submitted YS 00441 Yellowstone Women's First Step House Page 2 (please refer to page 3 of the application for those items to be considered in determining if a different occupancy limit is to be considered). In addition to the above items, the application filing fee of $2,200 remains unpaid. However, per e-mail correspondence with both the City Attorney's Office and the Planning Department, it is our understanding you will be applying for a reasonable accommodation for a fee waiver based on disability- related financial hardship. This is in addition to the separate request for a reasonable accommodation to be treated as a single housekeeping unit. Pursuant to Chapter 20.98 of the Zoning Code, if the project for which the request for a reasonable accommodation is made requires another discretionary permit or approval (in this case, a use permit), the applicant may request that the Hearing Officer hear the request for a reasonable accommodation at the same time as the use permit. If you do not request a simultaneous hearing, the request for reasonable accommodation will not be heard until after a final decision has been made regarding the use permit. Please inform us of whether or not you wish to schedule the requests for reasonable accommodation to be treated as a single housekeeping unit and /or for a fee waiver at the same hearing as the use permit or at a later date. We will need this information by January 27, 2009, so that we may proceed appropriately with preparation of the staff report. Please be advised that the City of Newport Beach will proceed with the use permit application hearing for the above referenced property on Thursday, February 12, 2009, at 4:OO p.m. in the City Council Chambers. This will be a public hearing and will take place before a third -party hearing officer. The City has scheduled this hearing despite the fact that your use permit application remains incomplete. Please be advised that by scheduling your application for a public hearing, the City is not deeming your application complete. We will send a copy of the staff report which discusses your application to you and the hearing officer for review four to seven days in advance of the hearing date. If you have any questions regarding the process, please do not hesitate to contact me at (562) 989 -6664 or dgbc verizon.net, or you may contact Associate Planner Janet Brown at (949) 644 -3236 or ibrown(&city.newoort- beach.ca.us. Sincerel ., i is unningham, ntr Planner cc: Dr. Honey Thames, Yellowstone Recovery Programs YS 00442 DAVIS•ZFATY A ilOf[SSIONAL :AW COIIUVtIIpN January 23, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMEM JAN 2 I= CITY OF NEWPORT BKH Re: Hearing for Use Permit Application and Reasonable Accommodations Dear Janet: I received your letters regarding the February 12, 2009 hearing date for the Use Permit Application for the Yellowstone properties. We would like to have both our fee - waiver and our Single Housekeeping Unit Requests for Reasonable Accommodation heard on February 12, 2009 for all of the Yellowstone properties as well. As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY NICOLE COHRS 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 - Fax 949.376.3875 info @dzattorneys.com www.dzattorneys.com YS 00443 i . dY ® +'UN NiW`;Di_iA>tTMEM DAVIS•ZFATY FEB 0 2 2009 w 1.0111510.gl LAw <01109A ➢Ox _ _ CI,Y OF �...- !;1_5 J January 29, 2009 Z175.1 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Request for Reasonable Accommodation: 1621 Indus Street Dear Ms. Brown: As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc, ( "Yellowstone "). I recently spoke with Cathy Walcott of the City Attorney's office. She informed me of a few ambiguities in our Request for Reasonable Accommodation Worksheet for the 1621 Indus property (the "Property"). The purpose of this letter is to clarify these ambiguities. (Question 5) Impairments Substantially Limiting Maior Life Activities: Do the clients have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? What are those impairments? The residents of the Property are recovering from alcohol addiction. They manifest physical and mental symptoms which have prevented them from engaging in at least one of their major life activities. Although the residents work, they are recovering from a physical dependence on alcohol. Mentally, the residents are recovering from the inability to make healthy choices like the average person in the general population regarding their consumption of alcohol. Their impairments affect their ability to think, concentrate, and interact with others as compared to the ability of the average person in the general population to do the same. Thus, their disability is substantially limiting. Enclosed with this letter is a Declaration under penalty of perjury from the applicant, Honey Thames, manager of the Property, that every resident in the Property has physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of the residents' major life activities. Cathy Walcott mentioned that this would be acceptable given that the privacy concerns of the residents limit our ability to provide medical records or signatures of the residents. 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 - Fax 949.376.3875 info @dzattorneys.com • www.dzattorneys.com YS 00444 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Ouestion 10) Parking: Describe the on -site parking resources and the staff and visitor parking plans. Parking on the Property is reserved for the manager and assistant manager, thus the maximum number of cars on the Property at any one time will be two. Residents are not permitted to park on the Property. Visitors are not permitted on the Property therefore there are no visitor parking issues. nestion 11) Operation of Vehicles: Describe client's availability to drive and operate a vehicle while residing at facility. The residents do not use cars. Instead, they rely on public transportation to and from the Property. (Ouestion 12) Transportation: Does the facility provide transportation services? If yes, please describe the frequency, duration, and schedule of services and where the vehicles are stored Though the home generally does not provide transportation services, the home does provide some basic transportation to the nearby treatment facility and to St. John church. Both locations are within ten minutes of the home. There is a morning pickup at 8 a.m. and an evening drop off at 4 p.m. This is the only transportation provided. The vans that transport the residents are not parked on site. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. (Ouestion 16) Interaction Within the Property: How do the clients interact with each other within the unit? Is there joint use of common areas? Do clients share household activities and responsibilities? Will delivery trucks be provided at the facility? The Property provides the residents with a network of support to encourage recovery from the symptoms of alcoholism. The residents reside separately at the Property. There is a common area however each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, there are no delivery vehicles going to and from the Property. Finally, although Yellowstone owns four such homes in the Newport Beach area, there is no interaction between the homes. In other words, residents of the Property do not meet with the residents of other Yellowstone properties for dinners or other gatherings. Each home has its own residents and the residents of one home never interact with residents of a different home. YS 00445 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 Please explain why the accommodation is necessary. Yellowstone hereby requests that a Reasonable Accommodation be made to Ordinance 2008 -5 such that Yellowstone is treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Reasonable Accommodation is necessary because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility. Instead, the Property more accurately fits the definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030. Residents are the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit. Like a Single Housekeeping Unit, there is a common area and each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager. In conformity with our request for a Reasonable Accommodation, we would like to request that we get an exemption from Section 20.91A. 050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which states that there shall be no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. I hope that this clarifies any ambiguity with respect to our previous request for a Reasonable Accommodation. Please let me know if our responses need to be supplemented fiuther and as always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation NICOLE COHRS cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) YS 00446 � v ... • uw�1 ��.. � IMI IM VN JIV WI.Y DRCLARALIMMANUMMMAM I. Dr. Amia Wm Themes, lavby dccbm s t'oltomc 1. Tbarmenus ghmaineekaMompusonftmdifci&dupmlo tradfj.I could and would is ter ftWo as io Lmm 2 . All hAvidimmnaift is the property locas:d at 1621 Iadtie Ncwpmt Beech"seera:overiagfi�ou� akx�hol addiaioe. 3. AiThoaRhthezemerec�ovarLg .cy�mide�pistmd"nKadal sympAaoascfdxiraddiaronvdd� limitane esmome ofdK n awmjijor life aam iet I dad= enderpeachyefperjrnynndetdrohavaofdeSaftof *d du ftle ieg a am and enact Pxewbed dis 2b.h dayafJmmy 20011, aaNawpwBeseb, 9-d 96dS9t9646 euo%smotta/, a. W YS 00447 DAVIS•ZFATY A PRJfESS10NAt ;TW CJ0.)J4Ai!ON January 29, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Taal 441 FEB 0 2 2009 Re: Affidavits for Fee Waiver Reasonable Accommodation Dear Janet: Enclosed are the signed Affidavits of Disability Related Financial Hardship. There is a separate Affidavit for each of the four Yellowstone properties. As we discussed, our responses to the questions relating to the income of the residents pre and post - disability are based on the average resident for each of the homes. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFAAYY ,^ T A ' �r� NICOLE COHRS Enclosure 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • 949.376.2828 - Fax 949.376.3875 info @dzattorneys.com www.dzattorneys.com YS 00448 AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP 1621 Indus, Newport Beach 1, Anna Marie Thames, declare: I am an authorized representative of disabled individuals; 2. I am submitting information specific to the financial status of a group of disabled individuals who reside in a household; 3. I am submitting the financial information herein voluntarily because I have requested a reasonable accommodation from the City of Newport Beach, which I believe is necessary because of financial hardship to the disabled individuals I represent; 4. Severe financial constraints which arose as a direct result of the disabled individuals I represent prevent them from complying with one or more provision or provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures generally applicable to the type of dwelling in which disabled persons I represent reside or wish to reside; 5. Such provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures, if applied to the dwelling in which the disabled individuals I represent reside, will deprive disabled individuals of the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice; 6. In order to afford the disabled individuals the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice, the permanent or temporary waiver of a fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Council Policy or customary procedure is necessary; 7. The requested waiving of such fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement is necessary because of financial limitations which are the direct result of the disability of the individuals that I represent; -1- AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 00449 8. If the disabled individual on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested was able to work prior to becoming disabled, please provide information on such individual's pre- and post disability income: A. On the following dates, the disability of the persons I represent, rendered such persons severely limited in their ability to work or entirely unable to work: The individuals residing in the home were all affected by their disability at different times. During addiction, residents are unable to work. In sober living, however, all residents must find a job. B. Prior to the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual household income from all sources was approximately $50,000 (on average). C. After the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual income from all sources was approximately $20,000 (on average). Typically, household income is cut approximately in half because of alcoholism. As a result of alcoholism, the residents of the home have been rendered financially disabled. In sober living, the residents must find a job, however, the jobs the residents seeks are near minimum wage ($8.00 per hour). 9. If the disabled individuals on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested were not employed prior to becoming disabled, please state why any financial limitations which render the disabled individuals unable to meet the financial requirements of complying with the Newport Beach Municipal Code are a direct result of such their disability. All residents were employed in some manner prior to their addiction. 10. Please provide any additional information you feel would enable City staff and/or hearing officers to determine whether disability- related financial hardship requires an exception form the application of the City's Municipal Code, Council Policies, or usual and customary procedures in order to afford the disabled individuals an opportunity to reside in a dwelling. The residents cannot afford their own places to live. Their income is based on near minimum wage hourly rates. Thus, if forced to live elsewhere they could not afford to pay rent, a security deposit for an apartment, food, or utilities. Yellowstone provides a fiesh start for recovering alcoholics to begin their life with a clean slate. Our fees our low and donors in the community provide individual scholarships for residents who qualify. -2- AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY- RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 00450 �.�• W u..r �� �.��� • �f� �ra� •M -M•Y W� i Yooe �amapmo5at neon . YeBoarc no iaresm�s aad no low. Mw=w imo dm ma the ameame fmm Lo cam ift mafa and Yelt WMW maiam no profit from the t+Cddettts. •TIk organ =d= is seta by a grip of volunt zts who we cam 3i to terra ihi them' de:As back to We co mtwity atasn.and saber as Wx pay!" ciihmns who c6a Lcp athtz alwhaiic3 � s _ rensit, =!2occ starx's s 9t' k ge:: ^^t com '.=ts twe as ZaG apphCaram fet. Ytllowmane ti~raee+fi�ty r!gtasb W- the Cez, -:!a.4a a rca-0 ble ac- -- ode"im ill aammd' i declare zmderpeteaky ofperjtay �derthe Iaw9 oftlte � of Califor�e that the f ngoiug is tme and catrect Eto�tOed oA ibis 29M.4ay of Jartafay, 2M9, in Newport Bead, caufo d& e•d AH MES 962S9U9646 auoysmottaA YS 00451 COST ANALYSIS OF OUR HOMES IN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS IN GENERAL, OUR WEEKLY FEES ARE BASED ON A SLIDING SCALE FROM $50.00 TO $160 PER WEEK OUR MORTGAGES AVERAGE $4500 PER MONTH A MINIMUM OF 15 RESIDENTS IS NEEDED TO PAY ALL THE EXPENSES FOR EACH HOUSE, INCLUDING LIGHTS, GAS, WATER AND TRASH. RENTS: SLIDING SCALE: $50.00 TO $160.00 PER WEEK AVERAGE: RESIDENTS: 16 AVERAGE RENT $100 MONTHLY AVERAGE: $6400 INCOME EXPENSES: FOR EACH HOUSE AVERAGE UTILITIES $ 800 LIGHTS, GAS, WATER, PHONE FOOD: $ 900 RECFNED By is °I!n!!NG DEPARlty: ".T MORTGAGES: AVERAGE $4500 c t, ;.- LS MONTHLY AVERAGE $6200 EXPENSES '��� CYVF'Uhl ur�j I YS 00452 Drug Rehab Cost: Low cost subtance abuse treatment center: Yellowstone Recovery 07 -,'T: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT CENTER Call Today (888) 941 -9048 - After Hours (949) 678 -9000 I - lir +- E."ra alr ii)'Ii A HIGHLY $UCCEWFLIL �ka LCIMCOSV DAU-3 fl140 ALCOHOL ^nEt;t1Vri RY RRICCRl vi i ..t': ' 410 4i''.i -M Homo InP.tient Programs_ LEGAL PROBLEMS? WE CAN HELP! On,Parient Programs _�_ LICENSED AND CERTIFIED BY ME STA TE OF CAUFORNIA Detoa Service. Program, Available Our Homes our Stan Mission slalam.m school.]. ^ Gamact Us OYellmvatgm as .t zVowsrorle :ern:n:ry 'Fhuncui. " "equvemems a 90 Days: $7,500 Reside ntlal Treatmatt o Sober Livina: $160 - $180 =6V 1t o Outpatient: Sliding Scale $e0 - $80 Some scholarships available after 30 days a3 rnr Ml r,dl anu ]. n l'! honevNamw&vahoo.com ....c.. t a>ts. r:a I ....... 2/12/09 10:07 PM Soltvic'es Wr Aare: {.t}Uri, Ltais Dh';< Step RtfcC veI} C C'`;ii;;g n, q Therauy -ife Sx lis Trairh'i;j • 3o ?lacelusrr. Fronram 3pon >, rn rgnuiy 18C• iw 5 F ,Ir I.. WIh I Lta,l ,xiit[:g i �_.r,,r i;a!npirq http : / /www.yellmsionerecovery.com /cost- fees - drugrehab- alcoholtreatmer,tcenter- california.htm Page 1 of I YS 00453 DAVIS•ZFATY i nO�I331JN�[ 1/.W fOr.r'�.��JY February 13, 2009 VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 by FEB 131009 •T- Jam.- ..nTT- Re: Yellowstone Use Permit Applications and Reasonable Accommodation Requests Dear Ms. Wolcott and Ms. Brown: It has recently come to my attention there may be discrepancies between materials Yellowstone submitted with respect to its use permit applications and requests for reasonable accommodation for each of the four Yellowstone properties. Although this firm and the representatives of Yellowstone have made our best efforts to be clear and consistent, the materials submitted to the City in May 2008 reflect some inaccurate information. The purpose of this correspondence is to clarify these inconsistencies. Group Meetings Neither group treatment meetings nor individual treatment meetings occur on any of the four Yellowstone properties. All treatment is performed off site in Costa Mesa. The only meetings that occur at each of the four homes are weekly house meetings with the residents to discuss potential new residents and other administrative matters. Visitors Visitation with family and friends Mesa facility located at 154 East Bay Street. occurs on Sundays at Yellowstone's Costa .580 Rroadwav Street, Suite 301 , Lagunl Reach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 - Fax 949376.3875 nfo&dzattorneys.corn • wwwAzattomeys.com YS 00454 Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown February 13, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Contractual Arramgpments with Residents and Resident Selection In May 2008, Yellowstone submitted a request for reasonable accommodation that each of the four homes be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. It was recently brought to my attention that Yellowstone's response to Question 16, regarding resident interaction, needs clarification. Yellowstone does not have a contractual relationship with the residents of its properties. With respect to the residents of the four Yellowstone homes in Santa Ana Heights, Yellowstone's position is correctly stated in a letter to the City dated January 29, 2009: "the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager." More specifically, Yellowstone's Board of Directors does not determine who resides in each of the four homes. New residents are introduced and approved by the current residents during house meetings or they are not accepted. Many of Yellowstone's residents transition to sober living directly from treatment. Other residents team about Yellowstone from other recovery centers or by community referral. Parking In May 2008, when the original Yellowstone use permit and reasonable accommodation applications were submitted to the City, Yellowstone requested that four cars be permitted to park at the 1561 Indus property. There is adequate room for four cars to park at 1561 Indus, however only the two resident managers for the home park on site. With respect to the three other Yellowstone properties, it has consistently been Yellowstone's position that only the two resident managers of the homes are allowed to park vehicles on site. I hope that this clarifies the ambiguities in our previous submissions to the City. As always, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation e;, � NICOLE COHRS, ESQ. YS 00455 EXHIBIT 4 SITE PLAN AND FLOOR PLANS YS 00456 i` ■ 3 ¥ Bt firs . K� � | ! I � 2 I i I || I . � ■■ I � I e « YS 00457 YS 00458 %■ __.__ � � h■ - q.�� ■ - - § ■k |h| -�- , � - � ■ 7 � . YS 00458 YS 00459 �■ --- vim of ¢ �■ ¢|| !! � , L § | | ! YS 00459 YS 00460 YS 00461 EXHIBIT 5 FIRE MARSHAL CORRESPONDENCE AND FIRE CODE ANALYSIS SUBMITTAL YS 00462 ORT BLVIO. NeNfrtl'i�r 8T6vC Lewis, FIRC Cmiar January 29, 2009 Dr. Honey Thames 154 East Bay Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Re: Code Analysis for Yelowstone Recovery: 1561 Indus Street; 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus; 20172 Redlands, Newport Beach Dear Dr. Thames: Thank you for submitting the code analysis and floor plans for the above referenced properties. After reviewing the analysis, we have identified the following areas which Will require further clarification: 1561 Indus Street 1. Item # 5: Exception 1 to California Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes aunlets ... classifled as Group 114". Recovery or treatment facilities for more than 6 clients are classified as Group R4 by Section 310 of the CBC. 2. Rem # 6: Stairwell.and other components of the means -of egress must be illuminated at all times. A switched circuit is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. The back -up . illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90 minutes. Please indicate how the illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be in accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please .indicate the net dear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. SAFETY BERvfCE PROFEHHIGNALISM. YS 00463 1621 Indus Street 1. Item # 5: Exception Ito California Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes "uniess...classifled as Group R4." 2. Item # 6: Stairwell and other components of the means of egress must be illuminated at all times. A switched circuit Is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. The back -up Illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90 minutes. Please Indicate how the illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be in accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please indicate the net clear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. 1571 Penasus Street I.. Item # S: Exception 1 to California Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes "uniess...classifled as Group R4." 2. Item # 6: Stairwell and other components of the means of egress must be Illuminated at all times. A switched circuit is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. The back -up illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90 minutes. Please indicate how the illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be in accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please Indicate the net clear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. YS 00464 20172 Redlands Drive 1. Item # 5: Exception 1 to California Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes "unless...classifled as Group R4." 2. Item # 6: Stairwell and other components of the means of egress must be Illuminated at all times. A switched circuit Is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. The back -up Illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90 minutes. Please indicate how the Illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be In accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please indicate the net dear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. If you have any questions regarding these issues, please call me at 949 -644 -3106. Sincerely, S -- Steve Bunting Fire Marshal YS 00465 January 29, 2009 Mr. Steve Bunting Fire Marshall CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FIRE AND MARINE DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca 92658 -8915 RECEIVED ey PLANif uAk^ 4 -` AQTM%lr hr �i11 �jr rte, RE: Yellowstone Recovery ( "South House" Residence) Coda Analysis For The Existing Building Dear Mr. Bunting, Alfred J. Boder, Architect has been contracted by Yellowstone Recovery to review details of their existing building, titled "South House ", located at 1621 Indus Street, Santa Ana, Ca 92707. Yellowstone Recovery intends to change the use of the building from a single - family residence to a Residential Facility for the non - medical rehabilitation of drug abuse and alcoholism. We have surveyed the existing building and the summary of our findings and conclusions are as follows: A. The existing building was constructed in 1961, and was built as a single - family residence, occupancy type R -3. The building is a two -story structure with an attached garage. B. The building is set back from the front property line 26' -0". The side yard set back is 20' -0" clear on the north side and 8' -0" clear on the south side of the structure. C. As the attached plans indicate, the residence is entered through the front door that faces the addressed street. The fast floor consists of a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, bathroom, and two bedrooms. The second floor consists of four bedrooms, and two bathrooms. Based on this research, the following code issues are in compliance with the current code requirements of the California Building Code, CBC 2007. 01. Location On The Property: As indicated on the attached plans, the building setbacks for the side yard is 20`-0" from the property line. This distance includes the attached garage. Per CBC section 6, Table 602, the minimum fire separation distance is five feet. This setback is achieved to the property lines. YS 00466 Conclusion: The wall of the garage at the side yard is not required to be of fire rated construction and there are no penetrations or openings in the attached garage wall. 02. Section 419, Group I -1. R -1, R -2, R -3, R -3.1, R-4: 419.2, Separation walls. Section does not apply. Note that the common wall between the attached garage is of one -hour fire rated construction to the bottom of the roof diaphragm and the door from the house is a hour rated fire door. 03. Section 4193, Horizontal Separation: This section does not apply per section 711.1. DO Facilities in Group R -1, R -3.1 or R -4 Occupancy (SFM): Per section 425.3.5, Limitations — Seven or More Clients; The second floor area is less than three thousand (3,000) square feet and therefore a one -hour fire rated construction is not required. 05. Section 425.7, Fire Protection Svstem Provisions: Section 425.7.1, Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems. Per section 903.2.7, Group R, an automatic fire sprinkler system is not required per exceptions 1 and 3. Section 425.7.2. Fire Alarm Systems; Per section 907.2.8 an approved, hard -wired fire alarm system is installed as required per section 907.2.8.2. Section 427.7.3. Smoke Alarms; Per section 907.2.8.3, battery powered smoke detectors/alarms are installed in the required areas per section 907.2.10. Section 906.1, Portable Fire Extinguishers; Portable fire extinguishers are installed and located per the California Fire Code. 06, Chapter 10 Means Of Egress: Section 1006, means of egress illumination. There is illumination at the top, middle, and bottom of the staircase. Section 1009, Stairways; Per section 1009. 1, exception 1, the staircase complies with the code requirement. I believe that this is a complete analysis of the code related items which apply to this building during the change of occupancy. Please call Anthony Grillo, my representative, at (949) 678 -3214 if you have any questions. YS 00467 Sincerely, Alfred Bodor — Architect Attachments; Scale as -built plans YS 00468 EXHIBIT 6 LETTERS IN SUPPORT (Submitted by Applicant) AND LETTERS IN OPPOSITION YS 00469 DA72: 01/7-4/09 —17---M 17 'AAM r77pTkX7AM F-71,74: 7A? Cs O11, aIMS CilURCIlt JAC CIE DAMS 7 Xt CTZ STNIS IS JUS Ti A, SP'LE AWAY F7?k0,'jl''F.LL #gl?;7C ME. WE Af-L 140T CE VV0,V1?111 Cd"+NIPMG 7, OUl KP4 :Es` IVIGS AND GE77 lFiG °,'`N-013-VIED. °. E Y HELP W4 E M MAJ 4rU7jII- OUT 's THE ,,RtlrtC! 77 -3ULLETIMS, FOR "r-XW; -LE. LAS 7 YEAR ` NE4• MFIL ED US SrIRIVE FOOD TO 7ME N!OMWF.ESS. �v- L�•,�+L*�.:;? ^�g�' ��,t�9.iIETa4 A�Rn �A�F�. S7a4'?' It24' ^L': "7-` e�ev- °I T.?!.?� C�4Ja°araa VVE AP.E WIRY PROUD 7HA7 YELLOW �' , eOPI E IS PA7 7 OF U, CC:nAf,'lAr:Ir4r"l °,. °ATE I3'3 k "u'?s!A° WE CAI4 TC 4 r P (?'43E!' -H'C Y L9 «1s?.lr. w, ,S ' AS THIF :' Y FI-P US. rLErw'ar: CALL IF WE CAM ANSL' I? ARiSS: s-LMM IIS: o � CI 4r- —61 „ ` IR T, 9 .1 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT tip c:y 40J CIIYOF NEWPORT BEACH YS 00470 DAVIS•ZFATY A 1a. CO.101gTIO. January 29, 2009 Vi" Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Yellowstone — Letters of Support Dear Janet: � », s' LY�V ,r I noticed that the Exhibits to previous Use Permit Applications included letters from neighbors surrounding the homes. Enclosed are copies of letters from alumni of the Yellowstone homes showing their support. I thought you may like to include these as exhibits to our Use Permit Application. As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS IS ZFATYY/ ./ /' A vnq NICOLE COHRS Enclosures cc: Cathy Walcott, City of Newport Beach 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 . Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 - Fax 949.376.3875 inioodzattorneys.com www.dzattorneys.com YS 00471 Md tam t Ls r4mgle and i checked Lwto YeU.owstowe Lw W02. Md ust" awd dKKk m.g had reaLLd spew" Life out of eowtroL, I was eom -pLeteld Lost and felt Wee I was beimg eatem, alive front the Lms%de out, t was so emtiptd awd broleew doww Lw the ft"L dads Of and disease. I wuldw't LmAagimt me Life a" other wad. yeLLowstomt iwtrodu.ced me to A-A. and Recover awd to a higher power. Md Life has sureLd beewtu.rwed around Lw a wad i could have mever thought possible. I feel free todad awd not a slave to a LL fe that had wo prOm se what so ever wor a purpose. I wiLL forever be grateful to have the dads and dears that YeU.owstome taught w4t how to live sober ........... I buLLt ru.d foumdatLow at ydLowstome, I Learned how to be a ft L agaLK, how to be howest aga" how to be depewdabLe agaim., how to be a good sister, auwtie, amd daughter. ........... I have made TRI46 awd REAL F2.tENz s through yeLLowstome ........... I trade Lw rod oLd friends for these mew sober owes. Md LLfe has a real purpose todad a" yellowstowe helped me fund Kto wad to Lt. I could go ow and ow about aLL the wowderfuL thiwgs that reeoverd awd `(eLlowstomt has givew v e but I doubt awd words could ever truld express what I've beet givew bd belwg freed front mtid disease. I come to yeLLowstowe everd weele awd amt sOU, apart of this place stUt to this dad .... a, dears Later. I hope it is here for other girLs to come bade amd worle wltk the mew com trs the wad I have beew givew the chamae too. It saves mxe I w tiwtes whew I need it most. TruLd Blessed, .4wgtla M. sobrietd Date u -s6-02 YS 00472 ably name is Gina and I have been sober for 92 days I came to Telrowstone because my fife was going nowhere andl couldn't get sober on my own. Tel%wstone Figs Helped me in so many ways. I'm learning the program ofAcohofusAnonymous and Flow to five as a sober woman. I'm learning how to be responsible. I've met wondefidpeople Here that care about me and support me. Xy relationship with my family and my son is being restored and I'm working again. I am forevergrateful to 7effmstone for teaching me a new way of fife OBE QATATA T15WT. Sincerely, Gina G Sobriety mate 10120108 YS 00473 Hi' my name is gCoria I have been sober for two and a hay-- years. I went trough yellowstone and truly beCieve that hadthis home not provided me with the foundation that I needed in .mil I would not have a Cie today, nor would my daughter have her mother or my husband her wife. 'When .T decided to get heCp I couldn't think of going anywhere eCse. This is where Thad seen women come back from the gates of helCanddlearn to become women of dignity with a joy for We that was unimaginabCe to me. Hadl not found yellowstone I would have never, known that there was a way out of the misery and despair my life had become. yours TruCy �- 211--20© Cr, YS 00474 My name is Erika and I have been sober for 2 V2 years. If it wasn't for a place like Yellowstone, I would probably be dead today. I lived at Yellowstone for over a year where I was able to build a foundation upon how to live life on life's terms. Because of the opportunity that I got at Yellowstone I no longer have that hopelessness that I lived with for so long. I am able to be present in the lives of my children who I now have joint custody of Yellowstone is the place that I will continue to come back to and visit the new girls who are struggling the same way I once did. Thank God for Yellowstone. Sincerely Yours, Erika j� 7/15/06 r 50hr; -e44� d 'atL". YS 00475 MY NAME IS MEVAN DOYL£ AND I -HAVE BEEN SOBER FOR FOUR YEARS. I CAM£ TO YELLOWSTONE ASTER BEING LOCKED OUT OF MY MOM'S HOUSE. I STAYED AT YELLOWSTONE 13 % MON7WS. I LEARNED }HOW TO WORK, LIVE A SOBER LIFE, SUIT UP AND SHOW UP EVERY DAY TO MYJOB, AND VANDLE LIFE SITUTIONS FOR T}fE FIRST TIME- 1 I AM VERY GRATEFUL TO YELLOWSTONE AND TWE PROGRAM OFALC#OLICS ANONYMOUS. I AM SELF SUPPORTING NOW AND MAKE AMENDS. I CAN BE OF SERVICE TO OTW ERS TODAY. SINCERELY MEORAN I*w SO$RI £TY 'DA Tf: 04/18/05 YS 00476 MEMO TO: JANET BROWN, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM: HONEY THAMES, YELLOWSTONE SUBJECT: LETTERS OF SUPPORT COULD YOU PLEASE ADD THESE LETTERS OF SUPPORT TO OUR APPLICATION. ONE IS FROM ST. JOHN THE DIVINE CHURCH AND THE OTHER IS FROM A MOTHER WHOSE SON COMPLETED OUR PROGRAM TWO YEARS AGO. FINALLY, WE HAVE A PETITION FROM OUR NEAREST NEIGHBORS (WITHIN 300 FEET) SUPPORTING US AS A GOOD NEIGHBOR. THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR HELP DATE: 2/03/09 .. !: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT `E8 05 2k CRY OF NEWPORT EACH YS 00477 ER0911 WE DESK OE Kimberly BCack Dear Yellowstone Staff, February 3, 2009 I wanted to take a few minutes to thank you all for the wonderful care my son received while at Yellowstone, as well as the continued support during his time in your sober living program. Today, I am proud to say my son is clean and sober! It's been almost three years since I called you on the telephone, desperate for help. Not only did you open your doors to us, but your hearts as well. t delivered to your doorstep a young man addicted to heroin (among other things) and suicidal. A few short months later I had my son back. You gave him the tools he needed to succeed. Ile worked very hard and today he is healthy and happy. 1 know his continued success will be in part to the support he still receives. He in turn gives back by helping others in their sobriety. I don't know where we would have turned had you not been there for us. i wish for families like ours that your doors will always be open and those arms that so warmly embraced us will never turn away a parent whose child is in danger. Thanks agahrfot, all your help and support. Kimberly Black RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT F.B 05 2Jia.: CITY OF NFV 0 6EACH YS 00478 St. John the Divine A parish of the Diocese of Los Angeles A congregation of the Episcopal Church in the United States A pant of the world-wide Anglican Communion The Rev. Dc Barbara R. Stewart, Rector 183 E. Bay Street phone 949 -548 -2237 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 -2145 fax 949- 548 -2238 www.sQchncm.org bstawart@sQohnem.org January 31, 2009 To Whom It May Concern: I write in support of Yellowstone. The services offered by Yellowstone, helping people live sober and clean lives, are necessary in our society and important to the establishment and ongoing welfare not only of the individuals involved, but our community as well. To begin the process of reclaiming lives lost to alcohol and drugs is something to be valued and appreciated. St. John's is pleased to be able to support the work done by Yellowstone by offering our facility for some of their work. Sincerely, The Rev. Dr. Barbara Stewart PWIN NG DEPARTMENT :-fps 0 51`Ui , .:Ill' OF YS 00479 YELLOWSTONE IS A GOOD NEIGHBOR NAME A/AYik� 17,0014403f f G1.Ga Rid ?ci�G�. OF ADDRESS y� .7"o? e.vT fof/- Ave. w 7W%15{ NAME w4eiv ADDRESS /5S�2 u,715 ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS ) &'T7., ?6 g kj G w� PLANNING DAD By .'¢OJT CITY OF NEWrtrr;° YS 00480 DATE: 2/5/09 TO: Dave Kiff, Asst. City Manager FROM: Rita Bosley, Resident in Pegasus Tract, NB RE" Yellow stone Women's First Step House Public Hearing on group residential use permits 1561 Indus, 1621 Indus, 1571 Pegasus, 20172 Redlands, NB We have four sober living homes within a few hundred feet of each other in the Pegasus Tract, and I am fed up with my rights being subordinated to theirs. I am not a special interest group, so I have to rely on those who represent me to make sure the right thing happens. Can I rely on the City of NB? I oppose each of the four applications for permits and exempt status. The laws were put into effect for the purpose of keeping residential neighborhoods for families. These homes are not families, nor do the owners and residents of them care about the people who live here. Their only interest is making money as indicated by the request for three residents/ bedroom instead of 2. This is a single family neighborhood and even rentals are not officially lawful. To justify my strong feelings, just look what their presence is doing to aggravate the Precarious situation the local residents are suffering. We have lived with the noise of the airport and have fallen into the problems of the slacking economy about which we can do very little. But to add insult to injury, we are forced to accept our rights being trampled with the current situation with the sober living homes. This places undue hardship on our properties. First, their presence in such great numbers for a very small area have changed the family nature of our neighborhood. Families are reluctant to let their children ride around the block on their bikes because of encounters their children may have with "recovering" people. Secondly, selling a property in this tract requires disclosing the presence of these homes so close to each other and other properties. Therefore, property values and sales have been affected. Getting refinancing is impossible because the last homes sold were sober living homes which went for forced sale prices. Third, we have cigarette butts and beer cans in front of our homes, even though the homes are supposed to be alcohol/drug free. Not only are the SL residents using, but so are their families who visit. SL residents also travel around the neighborhood in "gangs" as they go from home to home. YS 00481 Fourth, cars line the street on nights and weekends, leaving no parking for regular residents' cars and their guests. It is an invasion of our neighborhood. ENOUGH IS ENOUGHM If these requests are granted and the homes become such cash cows, why wouldn't every home in the neighborhood be a potential SL residence. Our large homes are even more attractive in this economy. Maybe the State should reimburse each local resident for undue hardship on us if these exceptions are enacted. The decision is yours! I hope the City uses its power wisely. And I am aware of the City's efforts to find a workable solution. Thank you, Dave, for your efforts towards our community in the past. YS 00482 Brown, Janet From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 11:24 AM To: Brown, Janet; Wolcott, Cathy Subject: FW: Re: Hearing February 12, 2009 - Group Residential Permits - Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. For the record. We appear to be having assembly uses out there, too, among other things. From: Chet Groskreutz [mailto:Chet@IvankoBarbell.com] Sent: Friday, February 06, 200911:23 AM To: Kfff, Dave Cc: Victoria Groskreutz; Rita Bosley; Prodancerl @aol. am Subject: FW: Re: Hearing February 12, 2009 - Group Residential Permits - Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. -- Original Message— From: Chet Groskreutz [mailto:Chet @IvankoBarbell.com] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 11:13 AM To: Dave Kiff Cc: Prodancerl @aol. cam; Victoria Groskreutz; Rita Bosley Subject: Re: Hearing February 12, 2009 - Group Residential Permits - Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Re: 1561 INDUS STREET 1621 INDUS STREET 1571 PEGASUS STREET 20172 REDLANDS DRIVE Applications for the above use permits Dear Dave: I met you sometime ago at one of the annexation hearings when Santa Ana Heights annexation was being discussed. I wanted to e-mail and voice my opposition to all (4) of the applications Yellowstone has applied for based on the following complaints: 1. Vehicles that are not being used I oppose all (4) applications. Although we have been told by Yellowstone officials at their own meetings that none of their residents are allowed to drive, we have evidence that the exact opposite is true, there are residents who are driving cars or trucks and parking them on our streets, many times loaded with personal possessions for extended periods of time. They just move the vehicles from street to street to avoid being ticketed or towed. 2. Parking problems: oppose ail (4) applications On their meeting nites and during the day and on weekends, we cannot use any parking in front of our own homes because the spaces are full of attendees for these meetings I have posted notes on vehicles on several occasions during their meetings in the past years, telling the owners that the next time they park illegally I am going to have their car towed because it was blocking my driveway. Additionally, I have picked up soda cans, cigarette butts, even beer bottles YS 00483 interesting since these are supposed to be sober living homes) and other trash all over the street and on the sidewalk after these "meeting nites' The meetings break up around 9:00 pm but often the attendees stand around in the street until 10:00 p.m. or later talking loudly and disturbing my granddaughters who are asleep. 3. Residential requirements exemption request for more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident I oppose all (4) applications. I oppose any variance from the existing NBMC. As it is, there is no control over the massive influx of visitors to the residents of these homes, day and nite, visitors are constantly going back and forth from vehicles to these houses ... This means that in one of these 4-5 bedroom homes, they could have as many as they want per bedroom .... all it says is that they are asking for more than two residents per bedroom, it could be 3, 4, or even 5 or more residents per bedroom and that would mean in one 5 bedroom home, they could stick up to 25 people or more in the housel If 1 or 2 visitors come daily per resident, there's another potentially 100 people per day coming into our neighborhood, plus the 100 or so Irving in the houses, that's a potential of 200 more people in our neighborhood ... and the potential public health and safety impact should be obvious and in my view is a blatant disregard for the rights of taxpaying residents by Yellowstone Inc., it's nothing personal to them, its just businessl 4. Unlicensed adult alcohol and/or drug abuse facilities: I oppose all (4) applications I oppose any applications for the approval of the above use permits for operation of unlicensed adult alcohol and /or drug abuse facilities. Right now ... these homes are unlicensed and therefore are not under any licensing regulations. They are exempt.They should not be exempt. They should apply for the proper licenses that all other facilities of this kind is required by law to have. Their impact as a business on our residential community is and has been devastating. 5. Public safety: 1 oppose all (4) applications Last week, I think it was January 28th, when I came home, at about 9:50 pm. out complete tract was blocked off and could not get into Pegasus Street because the police officer told me that there "was a man with a gun" in our neighborhood. It took a half an hour before I was finally let into my own neighborhood to go to bed, due to some wacko who allegedly had a gun. We never had in the 30 years I have lived in my house, ever anything like this happen. I do not think that this was coincidental and I believe that sooner or later, there will be one of these residents from an unlicensed adult facility or a relative or acquaintance of one of them, who will successfully commit some serious crime against someone. Statistically, to have this many (4) homes in such a small concentrated area, its no surprise that there has only been (1) situation like what happened on Wednesday. Fortunately, no one was hurt .... but I fear the next time and there most assuredly will be a next time, if these unlicensed homes are allowed to go unchecked, we may not be so lucky. 6. 100% cost recovery approval: I oppose all (4) applications. I oppose this request on the grounds that this is a residential neighborhood and not zoned for business. 100% cost recovery translates to pay for services rendered at these homes ... and thus Yellowstone is running (4) run for profit businesses out of our residential neighborhood. 7. Decline in property values: 1 oppose all (4) applications. Recently, we attempted to refinance our home and we were told that the appraised value of our home was affected by neighborhood properties. These values had fallen drastically. We believe the decline is values has been caused in great measure, by the operation of these (4) homes in our neighborhood. We believe that these home have had a negative impact on our property values and that we have suffered financial damages up to and including the inability to receive a YS 00484 fair appraisal of the value of our home due to the impact caused by the operation of the (4) Yellowstone properties as per above mentioned. In summary, I oppose all (4) applications for the YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. Sincerely, Chet P. Groskreutz 1551 Pegasus Street Newport Beach, Ca. Ph.(714) 545 -1832 Bus.:(310) 514 -1155 YS 00485 Brown, Janet From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:21 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: FW: Yellowstone Group Homes, West Santa Ana Heights From: mike modonough [ mailto:mmoionough0l @hotmail.comj Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:12 PM To: Kiff, Dave Subject: Yellowstone Group Homes, West Santa Ana Heights Mr. Kiff, I own 1562 Pegasus Street, Newport Beach. My wife and I are opposed to the granting of use permits for the Group homes In our neighborhood. We have resided at this location for 36 years, my four children grew up on this street, playing with the children of other long time residents. We have always felt safe in the past but now don't allow our grandchildren play in the front yard. On a daily basis we observe individuals wandering the neighborhood, often in groups of 3 or 4, with no apparent business or destination. Trash, bottles, and cigarette butts on the street and parkways has increased, parking of vehicles for several days at a time is common, and groups from meetings mill about talking Ioudly.All these issues cause a negative impact on the neighborhood. In the last 2 years my vehicle has be entered at least twice and property stolen. Are the thefts related? No way to know for sure. Four sober living homes are within 100 yards of my front door. I have been advised by a real estate agent that I must disclose, to prospective buyers, the location of Sober Living Group homes close to my property. This has a negative impact on property values and if these properties are allowed to house, expand or increase the number of clients property values will continue to fall. Another consideration is the cost of city services to these locations. The NBFD has responded several times on medical aid calls to sober living homes in the neighborhood. These drug and alcohol related medical calls are time consuming, costly in relation to personnel and equipment, and disruptive to the community. I urge the City to deny the use permits for these property and return our neighborhood to a family oriented community. Thank you, Mike McDonough 1562 Pegasus Street Newport Beach, Ca YS 00486 Brown, Janet From: Brian Wecklich [becklich @hotmail.comj Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:04 AM To: Brian Wecklich; Brown, Janet Subject: Public hearing for use permits Hello I'm writing about the public hearing regarding the 4 rehab houses in the area of Pegasus St. Newport Beach. My house is located at 1552 Pegasus st. Newport Beach. I have not had any issues with the houses you are trying to address at this time. At the same time I do not want to see any issues in the future. The issue that comes to attention is parking in our neighborhood. Where these houses do not contribute to the problem at present I want to make sure they do not in the future. There is a rehab house at the comer of Pegasus and Santa Ana Ave that is run by another group. I do not know what the name of that group is. They are a major problem as far as parking goes. There are so many vehicles from that house that they park in front of four or five houses up the street. They have inadequate parking for their operation. If these type houses are going to operate in our neighborhood I want to make sure they do not infringe on the others in the neighborhood. So I gues I am saying that some sort of parking regulation or enforcement should go along with the Use Permits they are requesting. Thank You Brian Wecklich 1552 Pegasus St Newport Beach, California 714 609 1441 BWecklichOUve .corn YS 00487 Brown, Janet From: Michelle Rosenthal [shoppingfenatic143 @yahoo.comj Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:45 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: PUBLIC HEARING 2120. USE PERMITS FOR REHAB HOUSES To City of Newport Beach: My name is Michelle Rosenthal. I am a homeowner living at 1661 Indus Street. My husband and I just moved to this neighborhood in November 2007. It was not until after we moved into our neighborhood and began asking questions that we learned of these "rehab businesses" in our area. It was rather disappointing to find this out and it wasn't something that was disclosed at the time we purchased our home. The scenario is quite simple. These are not homes... they are businesses: -Cars and people are constantly coming and going -These addicts wander from home to home without any regard for traffic -Their shuttle vans are parked all over the neighborhood -They host weekly meetings inviting more people like themselves into the neighborhood, parking all over the streets, smoking, and hanging in the streets -They take no pride in their homes and do not maintain them to the standards as a homeowner normally would -People congregate and smoke in their front yards -They generate massive amounts of trash with more people than a normal family living under one roof Bottom line, they depreciate the value of our neighborhood, I am not an addict, I am not in rehab, and do not wish to have these people living a few doors down from me. I paid FULL PRICE for my home, am a decent citizen and homeowner.... why do I have 4 homes being ran as businesses in my neighborhood, making a profit off people who are "recovering" from drug /alcohol abuse? "Halfway house" is what they call it and half way is how they maintain it and portray the neighborhood. My husband and I want to live in a family environment. If we stepped up the prestige of our community and became part of the city of Newport Beach, clean house and get the riff -raff out. PULL THEIR PERMITS AND GET THEM OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLEASE. Thank you for your time and attention to my strong feelings on this issue. Exhibit No. 7 Reasonable Accommodation Application dated August 22, 2008 YS 00489 By PLAWNt GDE ARWO AUG 25 2008 CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH DAVIS•RAYBURN A YPOIf55104A1 LAW CORPORATION August 22, 2008 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Notice of Incomplete Application: 1621 Indus Street Dear Ms. Brown: As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Yellowstone "). We are in receipt of the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Incomplete Application for the property located at 1621 Indus Street (the "Property "). In response to that notice, we provide herewith the following: 1. Application Form 100, Item 2, Property Owner Information: the requested information is enclosed herewith. 2. Item 3B: We have no information regarding other similar uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. 3. Item 4: We cross - reference and incorporate the other applications, which are being provided concurrently under separate cover. 4. Item 5: We have no information regarding other conditional uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. 5. Item 6: A site plan is enclosed herewith. 6. Item 8B: Resident capacity is 16. Total capacity is 18. 7. Item 8C: A floor plan is enclosed herewith. 8. Item 8L: The acknowledgement re secondhand smoke is enclosed herewith. 9. Item IOD: Dr. Thames is the facility Director. 10. Form 200: A board resolution is enclosed herewith. 11. Form 850: Fire Marshall Clearance is enclosed herewith. 12. Request for reasonable accommodation: See the enclosed form. The one item that we have not included in this correspondence is the requested $2,200.00 fee. After reviewing the code, we have been unable to locate any discussion of such fee. We mention this not to question the City's authority to impose such a fee, but rather because we have not seen any statutory scheme that should provide for a hardship exception. We would respectfully request that the City furnish such authority, and also provide us with any exemption 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828 Fax: 949.376.3875 Y$ 00490 info @davisrayburnlaw.com - www.davisrayburnlaw.corn City of Newport Beach August 22, 2008 Page 2 application. Alternatively, we would request an extension of time to remit such fee so that we might be able to raise the funds necessary to accommodate the City's request. As a final note, it is worth mentioning that it is our understanding that the Property is still currently located in an unincorporated area of Orange County known as Santa Ana Heights, and that the Newport Beach annex of the property is not yet complete. If this is true, then we would submit that the city of Newport Beach does not have jurisdiction over this property. Any response that the City can provide regarding this matter would be greatly appreciated. To the extent that our understanding is correct, we would ask that the City simply hold our application until such time as the annexation is complete, so that the parties are not required to reinitiate this process. Please accept our apologies for the delay in providing the enclosed information. As always, if you have any questions regarding these applications, please feel free to contact us. truly yours, ZFATY IRZ/jmk cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) YS 00491 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: ANNA MARIE THAMES WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO AND MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: Dr. A.M. Thames, Tmstee 28 Inca Loa CA 92663 This Document was electronically recorded by ER Cert Mail 0 Recorded In Official Records, Orange County Tom Daly, Clerk- Recorder IIII�iI ®11 ® ®� 9.00 200700011066010:26am 02121/07 100 96 010 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 THISSPACE FOR RECORDERS USE ONLY APN: 119-361-04 her interest to her Revocable Living Tmst and is exempt from the Documentary Trandcr Tax pursuant to R & T Code §1.1911. DEED TO A REVOCABLE TRUST DR. ANNA M. THAMES, HEREBY GRANTS TO ANNA MARIE THAMES, as Trustee of THE THAMES TRUST, U/A dated January 25, 2007, The real property at 162I Industrial Street, Santa Ana, California, described as: LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS HEREBY ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A" AND IS MADE A PART HEREOF. Executed on January 25, 2007, in Orange County, California. DIL ANNA M.THAMES STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE On this 13 day of January, 2007, before me (BRIAN MANDEL, a Notary Public in and for said State), personally appeared DR. ANNA M. THAMES, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her authorized capacity, and that by her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS m and and official seal. VA& NOTARY PUBLIC [SEAL] BRIAN MANDEL COMM,alet.tast � N RLI 0 COW. E%pIRE8 OCT. tB, 2= 1 YS 00492 TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM: DR. ANNA THAMES, OWNER RE: AUTHORIZATION THIS IS AN OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE APPLICATIONS FOR MY RESIDENCE AT 1621 INDUS , NEWPORT BEACH, CAL. IT IS CURRENTLY LICENSED WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. DATE AUTHORIZED: JUNE 30, 2008 611 MOVA 1: YS 00493 • AE lit 171 O off, 0 1 U■ MYWY • MdI • AE lit 171 O off, 0 1 U■ MYWY YS 00494 MdI YS 00494 .T I IM • Sum ROOM �,•1 11 .• PW < J i� i` 31co i /I ' • . t� ►�►•:•.�i.�i v' YS 00495 SEO i= YS 00496 • SEO i= YS 00496 -n z -�t cLp T b z YS 00497 Ie t I o � � S I rT ` UD �� ,• �r O -h I� IL�iitit llll_ ►at_. i YS 00498 ❑ Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober living Faces Certification (required) ❑ Orange County Sober Living Network (recommended) ❑ Other (please describe) L. SECONDHAND SMOKE LIMITATIONS NBMC §20.91A.050A directs that'no stall, clients, guests, or any other uses of the facility may smoke in an area from which the secondhand smoke may be detected on any parcel other than the parcel upon which the facility Is located. Check and sign here to acknowledge this requirement and your us's adherence to t: I acknowledge that 1 will control secondhand smoke on my Willy such that no secondhand smoke may be ed on arty pa I other than the Parcel upon which my facility is located. Signature: / Dale: A.., The Oowner of record' of the property or an aut hodzed agent must sign this Application. Signing the application under Sec ion°I0 means that the applicant certifies, under penally of perjury, that the information provided within the ApplkoGon and its attachments is true and carrel. Per NBMC)r20.90.030.C, false statements are grounds for denial or revocation. B. The Applicant acknowledges that he or she must wn*y with all other Federal. State, and local laws and regulations relating to this use. The Applicant undekstarde that a violation of Federal, Side, and local laws and regulations is grounds for revocation of the Permit The Applicant understands and acknowledges that it is against California law to provide treatment (as defined) in an unikxrnsed facilly. C. If the City issues a Use Permit based on the Information provided in this Application, the Applicants signature below certifies his or her agreement to comply with the temp of the Use Permit. The Applicant understands and acknowledges that non-compliance with the terms of the Use Permit is grounds for revocation of the Revocation of the Use Permit. NBMC §20.96. 040.E proves that the City Can revoke a Use Permit it • The permit was Issued under erareous information or misrepresentation; or • The applicant made a false or misleading statement of ,,qrW l fed, or omitted a materiol fac; or • The conditions of use or other regulation or laws have been violated; or • There has been a discontinuance of use for 180 days or more. THE UNDERSIGNED ASSURES THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD HIS OR HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER ANY USE PERMIT ISSUED BASED ON THIS APPLICATION. A If the applicant is a sole proprietor, the application shall be signed by the proprietor. B. If the applicant is a partnership, the application shall be signed by each parhux. C. If the applicant is a firm, association, corporation, county, city, public agency or other governmental erdlty, the application shag be signed by the chief executive officer or the individual legally responsible for representing the agency. 18 YS 00499 YELLOWSTONE BOARD RESOLUTION: TIM THE BOARD F TRUSTEES OF YELLOWSTONE E O THE FOLLOWING: ENDORSEMENT OF DR. A.M. THAMES IS THE CEO OF THE BOARD AND AGREES TO REPRESENT YELLOWSTONE IN ALL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. SHE WILL SIGN ANY AND ALL FINAL AGREEMENTS- ATTORNEY ISAAC S IN THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY REPRESENTATION NEWPORT IN ALL MATTE BEACH LEISHA DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO THEE AGREEMENTS YELLOWSTONE WITH BE THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. THESE AGREEMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS ARE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS OF JULY It 2008. rs� .vii LISA TUMAN YS 00500 SAFETY WSPECIION REQUEST &W oniii+sm& IA {''� 1.ORNIMAL AFMCLEARANCE FL 1 of &Di 2 1 &IpESAFFTf Af 6MM I aodCa _ _ _ a CARACM Cwwni. M W AND :105 $4od 4. aNgnm P CKVM ' ADDRESS , ..:: _ S=MomtN OL 958-144037 S (71At�IfiE - J 1 8. NAME CHANGE L Z O *R _ 18 of CaSannia. YCnewsone.TTd— 04 i621� _ Sam Am, CA 92707 r �� .� p Pits �. -� NAMEAND ADDOM r1iv..zP r GA 9?.d�y L -I Fir FISCLEARANCEORWrED 12. FIRE CLEARANCE CQ� A EMS L CONSTaCCM+ O. FIREALARM 0. x"Mm. m NANCME. MOIL P. SPEpAi. wmw a. arHER %S GA Cp(o4,i..5 �rn t 1 o0,re c{7o " h{eo� OV 4 brio. -dc 4 �c1,Ae�aae -ate w c c0,7e%wOda, .7 -17 -a %, T4 a ?q 00 ee/ 4»-r� YS 00501 �1E R \m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH "� Supplemental Information ��4FOP�' for Reasonable Accommodation Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 (949)644 -3200 To aid staff in determining that the necessary findings can be made in this particular case as set forth in Chapter 20.98 of the Municipal Code, please answer the following questions . with regard to your request (Please attach on separate sheets, if necessary): Please see attached sheet Name of Applicant If provider of housing, name of facility, including legal name of corporation (Mailing Address of Applicant) (Telephone) (E -Mail address) (Subject Property Address) (City /State) (Fax number) (Zip) Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 1. Is this application being submitted by a person with a disability, that person's representative, or, a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability? 2. Does the applicant, or individual(s) on whose behalf the application is being made, have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? If so, please state the impairment(s) and provide documentation of such impairment(s). YS 00502 Page 1 of 3 Application Number 3. From which specific Zoning Code provisions, policies or practices are you seeking an exception or modification? 4. Please explain why the specific exception or modification requested is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence. Please provide documentation, if airy, to support your explanation. 5. Please explain why the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of the individual with a disability. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 6. Please explain how the individual with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation? Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 7. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary to make your facility economically viable in light of the relevant market and market participants. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 8. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary for your facility to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting taking into consideration the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your. explanation. Paer z of 3 YS 00503 Application Number 9. Please add any other information that may be helpful to the applicant to enable the City to determine whether the findings set forth in Chapter 20.98 can be made (Use additional pages if necessary YS 00504 Page 3 of 3 1621 Indus Attachment Name of applicant: Yellowstone, Woman's First Step House, Inc., 1621 Indus St., Santa Ana Heights, CA 92701; Phone: 888.941.9048; Fax: 949.646.5296; APN: 119 - 361 -04. 1. This application is provided by a provider of housing for individuals with a disability. 2. The individuals are alcoholics. 3. Single family residence to multi- family residence. 4. The applicant provides the residents of the Property with housing where same is otherwise unavailable to them. Most residents are long -term residents who are able to live with their disability, and in a sober environment, as a result of the provision of the facility by the applicant. The success of sober living homes in assisting these disabled individuals throughout the United States is well documented. Similar success has been realized at the Property addressed herein. A sample of the literature on sober living homes was attached to the original application. Without the home addressed in this application, the individuals who live at this home would not have access to sober living homes, and would not be able to afford to live in such a home in Orange County. Yellowstone provides this home to satisfy the otherwise unaddressed need by these disabled individuals for an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. There is no question that, with their current use, this property affirmatively enhances the lives of many individuals with disabilities. Importantly, the rent charged to these individuals simply covers Yellowstone's costs; no profit is realized. In fact, without charitable contributions, Yellowstone would operate at a loss. By no means is Yellowstone, or any individual involved with Yellowstone, a profiteer. Yellowstone simply makes available a sober living environment in an effort to help these disabled individuals, and with a view toward enhancing the community. To the extent that Yellowstone is forced to remove its operations from this property, it will suffer extreme economic hardship. Moreover, with any prospective closure of the property as a sober living home, the individuals with disabilities who live in the home will be without accommodation. Yellowstone is compliant with all of the requirements in the City of Newport Beach's Good Neighbor Principles, and is tenacious in ensuring that all residents at the Property strictly observe these requirements. Approval of this application would not alter the nature of the municipal code or impose any financial or administrative burden on the City. This property has been operating under these same general guidelines for years without imposing any burden upon the County or City. The residential character of the neighborhoods in which this property is located will not be altered in any way with the approval of this application. In fact, there is no non - residential use at the property. Moreover, there is no campus established through the grant of this application. Residents this property are not allowed at any of other property operated by Yellowston, and there are no functions that include all residents. Yellowstone has never been cited by any municipality at this property for any of the complaints set forth specifically in Ordinance 2008 -5, 1 YS 00505 Page 4, Paragraph 13. No health, safety or physical damage issues are presented with granting of these applications. S. See response to No. 4. 6. See response to No. 4, 7. See response to No. 4. The applicant is not a developer. The applicant has operated at the Property for years and currently can afford this property. Due to the economic decline, and specifically as it pertains to residential housing, the forced sale of this property would cause an extreme economic hardship. S. See responses to No. 4 and 7. 9. The applicant is a long - standing tenant in the community, and has had a presence in Santa Ana Heights for years. The applicant prides itself in acting as a good neighbor. As noted above, the applicant has an extremely high success rate in assisting disabled individuals live and integrate into Orange County. The applicant affirmatively enhances the lives of its residents. Any abatement of this facility would be harmful to the community. 2 YS 00506 Exhibit No. 8 Applicant's Supportive Documentation YS 00507 is I isY PLANNIN61; BLPAOMENT FEB 0 2 2009 DAVIS•ZFATY /. ffOfyyyIONAI l.yW COIIyOyI.IION ` January 29, 2009 Z175.1 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Request for Reasonable Accommodation: 1621 Indus Street Dear Ms. Brown: As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Yellowstone "). I recently spoke with Cathy Walcott of the City Attorney's office. She informed me of a few ambiguities in our Request for Reasonable Accommodation Worksheet for the 1621 Indus property (the "Property"). The purpose of this letter is to clarify these ambiguities. LQuestion 5) Impairments Substantially Limiting Major Life Activities: Do the clients have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? What are those impairments? The residents of the Property are recovering from alcohol addiction. They manifest physical and mental symptoms which have prevented them from engaging in at least one of their major life activities. Although the residents work, they are recovering from a physical dependence on alcohol. Mentally, the residents are recovering from the inability to make healthy choices like the average person in the general population regarding their consumption of alcohol. Their impairments affect their ability to think, concentrate, and interact with others as compared to the ability of the average person in the general population to do the same. Thus, their disability is substantially limiting. Enclosed with this letter is a Declaration under penalty of perjury from the applicant, Honey Thames, manager of the Property, that every resident in the Property has physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of the residents' major life activities. Cathy Walcott mentioned that this would be acceptable given that the privacy concerns of the residents limit our ability to provide medical records or signatures of the residents. 580 Broadway Street. Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • 949.376,2828 - Fax 949.376.3875 infoOdzettorneys.com www.dzattorneys.com YS 00508 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Question 10) Parking: Describe the on -site parking resources and the staff and visitor parking plans. Parking on the Property is reserved for the manager and assistant manager, thus the maximum number of cars on the Property at any one time will be two. Residents are not permitted to park on the Property. Visitors are not permitted on the Property therefore there are no visitor parking issues. (Ouestion 11) Operation of Vehicles: Describe client's availability to drive and operate a vehicle while residing at facility. The residents do not use cars. Instead, they rely on public transportation to and from the Property. ( Ouestion 12) Transportation: Does the facility provide transportation services? If yes, please describe the frequency, duration, and schedule of services and where the vehicles are stored Though the home generally does not provide transportation services, the home does provide some basic transportation to the nearby treatment facility and to St. John church. Both locations are within ten minutes of the home. There is a morning pickup at 8 a.m. and an evening drop off at 4 p.m. This is the only transportation provided. The vans that transport the residents are not parked on site. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. (Question 16) Interaction Within the Property: How do the clients interact with each other within the unit? Is there joint use of common areas? Do clients share household activities and responsibilities? Will delivery trucks be provided at the facility? The Property provides the residents with a network of support to encourage recovery from the symptoms of alcoholism. The residents reside separately at the Property. There is a common area however each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, there are no delivery vehicles going to and from the Property. Finally, although Yellowstone owns four such homes in the Newport Beach area, there is no interaction between the homes. In other words, residents of the Property do not meet with the residents of other Yellowstone properties for dinners or other gatherings. Each home has its own residents and the residents of one home never interact with residents of a different home. YS 00509 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Question 19) Necessity of the Reauested Accommodation: Please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary. Yellowstone hereby requests that a Reasonable Accommodation be made to Ordinance 2008 -5 such that Yellowstone is treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Reasonable Accommodation is necessary because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility. Instead, the Property more accurately fits the definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030. Residents are the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit. Like a Single Housekeeping Unit, there is a common area and each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager. In conformity with our request for a Reasonable Accommodation, we would like to request that we get an exemption from Section 20.91A. 050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which states that there shall be no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. 1 hope that this clarifies any ambiguity with respect to our previous request for a Reasonable Accommodation. Please let me know if our responses need to be supplemented further and as always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation NICOLE COHRS cc: Yellowstone (arm: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) YS 00510 BSCLARAIMN0?'AMMAMliffAm . L Dr. Amm Momlbmnek hasty dada c w foltmwe: 1. mCm81mstated bank amkrambmepmmonUywdifoledq mlm teaufj� lcooid amd waaldcompdeatlyteanfjrth�eto asfolwVIL I - All kdlvldoa)arcMW. in the piclaty located at 101 Iadtm NcwIpwt Bach am mcova>ag fan dwhd s&bdim 3. Aitmu&do rmdom aemepveomg .tlnymaaifm$Vdaapdmaatsl em POW OfthCl[i1ddlCttmm v16dC1l.Sah Bliy Ilmtit em arm= atom Todd aft major aativis" I dechn vodet pemlty ofpmjaTy mderth bm of ew State of CaBAWWM to ffie tbreg�g istine amd eoaeet. Bxxutoddda2>b. . yoflAmy2M.8tNff4mlB=:kC*bhmdL w•d q R7.Cq*gn*R auD%SmOTTaA YS 00511 DAVIS -ZFATY 1t01l SSIONA4 LAW CORIORATION January 29, 2009 _VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL a Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (oar a A MN1', t : i MENT FEB 0 2 2009 Re: Afdavits for Fee Waiver Reasonable Accommodation Dear Janet: Enclosed are the signed Affidavits of Disability Related Financial Hardship. There is a separate Affidavit for each of the four Yellowstone properties. As we discussed, our responses to the questions relating to the income of the residents pre and post - disability are based on the average resident for each of the homes. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY ;7 !41_� NICOLE COHRS Enclosure 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • 949.376.2828 - Fax 949.376.3875 info @dzattorneys.com . www.dzattorne.ys.com YS 00512 AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP 1621 Indus, Newport Beach I, Anna Marie Thames, declare: I am an authorized representative of disabled individuals; 2. I am submitting information specific to the financial status of a group of disabled individuals who reside in a household; 3. I am submitting the financial information herein voluntarily because I have requested a reasonable accommodation from the City of Newport Beach, which I believe is necessary because of financial hardship to the disabled individuals I represent; 4. Severe financial constraints which arose as a direct result of the disabled individuals I represent prevent them from complying with one or more provision or provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures generally applicable to the type of dwelling in which disabled persons I represent reside or wish to reside; 5. Such provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures, if applied to the dwelling in which the disabled individuals I represent reside, will deprive disabled individuals of the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice; 6. In order to afford the disabled individuals the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice, the permanent or temporary waiver of a fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Council Policy or customary procedure is necessary; The requested waiving of such fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement is necessary because of financial limitations which are the direct result of the disability of the individuals that I represent; -1- AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY- RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 00513 8. If the disabled individual on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested was able to work prior to becoming disabled, please provide information on such individual's pre- and post disability income: A. On the following dates, the disability of the persons I represent, rendered such persons severely limited in their ability to work or entirely unable to work: The individuals residing in the home were all affected by their disability at different times. During addiction, residents are unable to work. In sober living, however, all residents must find a job. B. Prior to the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual household income from all sources was approximately $50,000 (on average). C. After the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual income from all sources was approximately $20,000 (on average). Typically, household income is out approximately in half because of alcoholism. As a result of alcoholism, the residents of the home have been rendered financially disabled. In sober living, the residents must find a job, however, the jobs the residents seeks are near minimum wage ($8.00 per hour). 4. If the disabled individuals on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested were not employed prior to becoming disabled, please state why any financial limitations which render the disabled individuals unable to meet the financial requirements of complying with the Newport Beach Municipal Code are a direct result of such their disability. All residents were employed in some manner prior to their addiction. 10. Please provide any additional information you feel would enable City staff and/or hearing officers to determine whether disability - related financial hardship requires an exception form the application of the City's Municipal Code, Council Policies, or usual and customary procedures in order to afford the disabled individuals an opportunity to reside in a dwelling. The residents cannot afford their own places to live. Their income is based on near minimum wage hourly rates. Thus, if forced to live elsewhere they could not afford to pay rent, a security deposit for an apartment, food, or utilities. Yellowstone provides a fresh start for recovering alcoholics to begin their life with a clean slate. Our fees our low and donors in the community provide individual scholarships for residents who qualify. -2- AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 00514 .•.r - r••w - •r - • .� •YO .•M YiY `Y•V � /•v �• �• r 1 YeI[ a�ermmoeisanon +ptol#oi�moQatioa. YeHowstas no to ms 'ilia irtg�ott awr"r = iaoaeaa $amxmi and Yellowstona snadres'no profit from On rasid=IL by a ZmLp of volunimm who we coumdtted to mm L communitv . clean.and sober as tax paying ciiiaas a?oohulics 1+� a r ~wtk, Y'eliacrsioua's ssrzZ LKxl�t s 52,200 a_pcadon fee. YeBows om resoeed Y rte+ a mmonabiE siiiTiT 3i+ke.¢t is t E3sr.' ==a I deee underpmalty ofpatjwy under the Taws foregoing is true amd catram F_d Faaemsed oa *k29$.day of Tamrary, MM, is i t 1 t orga urdott Iu m 1te.resAe as back to Can bL-P Other t accommodate the tact the City =*kc afcdffDrjda tbatthe 96ZS9b9646 au"Smo t I SA Y8 00515 COST ANALYSIS OF OUR HOMES IN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS IN GENERAL, OUR WEEKLY FEES ARE BASED ON A SLIDING SCALE FROM $50.00 TO $160 PER WEEK OUR MORTGAGES AVERAGE $4500 PER MONTH A MINIMUM OF 15 RESIDENTS IS NEEDED TO PAY ALLTHE EXPENSES FOR EACH HOUSE, INCLUDING LIGHTS, GAS, WATER AND TRASH. RENTS: SLIDING SCALE: $50.00 TO $160.00 PER WEEK AVERAGE: RESIDENTS: 16 AVERAGE RENT $100 MONTHLY AVERAGE: EXPENSES: FOR EACH HOUSE AVERAGE UTILITIES FOOD: MORTGAGES: AVERAGE MONTHLY AVERAGE $6400 INCOME $ 800 LIGHTS, GAS, WATER, PHONE $ 900 RE%r`i!rcn BY $4500 $6200 EXPENSES � I° rr.YV uli'l c+Lrit l YS 00516 Drug Rehab Cost: Low cost subtance abuse treatment center: Yellowstone Recovery SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT CENTER Call Today (888) 941 -9048 - After Hours (949) 678 -9000 in;•r -:Car. 1. ^r.: .1 ry t:; - 2 0 Q 9 A HIGHLY SWCESSFUL.AMC LOW COST DRUG ANi7 RLCLtrC i. PROGRAM FOR WGIVIEN .1ti1' 'i0f Home IrPallenl Programs LEGAL PROBLEMS? WE CAN HELP! 001`110801 Programs 4& ._ LICENSED ANOCERTIFIED BY THESTATEOFCALIFORAMA Dtfox S.M..$ Programs Available r Our Home. Our Staff Yellowstone ReCOYery YlnanCl31 Regoiren'ents Mission statement . 90 Days: $7,500 Residential Treatment scn.am• . Sober LNing: 5100 - ;150 par.W6.* Contact I.J. . Outpatient: Sliding Scale $ 0 • $80 Some Scholarships available after 30 days 19aa -S6 F if Mk ., ... = -'� nQnevtltamealRVahoo com 2+1209 10:07 PM Si;ri'ii -5S i r {:?I iflv7' Caur. idl5on • 72 uiep RaCD'dera o ronlU ✓I .A't Therapy life Skills Training - ,loli Iflqccirienr Program .52r So1 ba4 Sc L. C: irrirj- =4o�,"w O taro .Low.. 2 http: //w .yellowstonerecovery.com /cost- fees - drugrehab- alcoholtreatmentcen ter- california.htm YS -,Pd9,} ff 1 Exhibit No. 9 Applicant's E -mail dated January 28, 2009 YS 00518 Brown, Janet From: Nicole Cohrs [nc@dzattomeys.comj Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 200912:11 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: Yellowstone — all hearings in one day Thank goodness! I was worried about it since the deadline was yesterday. And yes, it is amazing when these things suddenly pop into my head at night. Here are the answers to your questions: 1. The number of beds in each home is as follows: 1561 Indus =12 1621 Indus =18 Redlands =17 Pegasus =18 I apologize for the discrepancy. 2. The number of beds in each home exceeds the number permitted by the Code: 1561 Indus (Code =11 max) Actual =12 1621 Indus (Code = 13 max) Actual =18 Redlands (Code =13 max) Actual =17 Pegasus (Code =13 max) Actual =18 As you can see, we plan to exceed the number specified by the Code in all four homes. The Code states that a Hearing Officer may set different occupancy limits based on structure characteristics, traffic and parking impacts, and the health, safety, and welfare of the persons residing in the facility and neighborhood. All four of the homes have fire clearance, Obtaining fire clearance takes into account the above - listed factors which are to be considered by the Hearing Officer in increasing the number of beds. According to the City Fire Dept., the homes all meet the standards for fire clearance. We think that this is more than sufficient. Let me know if you need more detail. 3. 1 spoke to Honey Thames and the architect this morning. I am waiting for a response from her as to when the revised plans will be sent to you. I know that she already contacted the architect about this last week. I will let you know as soon as I hear from her. Thanks. Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: ncCa)dzattomeys.com Web: www.dzattomeys.com YS 00519 This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and is protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use. dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, that you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached."" DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828, Fax 949.376.3875 From: Brown, Janet [ mailto: JBrown @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:06 AM To: Nicole Cohrs Subject: RE: Yellowstone — all hearings in one day Importance: High It arrived in yesterday's mail. Thank you. (Amazing what we think of at night, hm.) I am meeting with the contract planners who are working on the staff reports this morning at 10:00 a.m., and I do have a few other questions for you. 1. In the January 21st letter, we requested clarification as to number of resident beds in each dwelling, as there was a discrepancy on the floor plans vs. the written summary on the plans. When may we expect this information? 2. If the number of beds exceeds the number allowed by Code, as outlined in the 1121 letter, a justification statement must be submitted. Has that been prepared? 3. When might we expect revised site plans providing the additional information requested in the 1121 letter? The information requested in the January 218t letter is necessary for us to fully analyze the applications, and prepare the staff report. Given that we are running up against the deadline for obtaining a use permit, we need this information as soon as possible. Thank you. Janet Johnson Brown Associate Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 ibrown@city.newport-beach.ca.us From: Nicole Cohrs (mailto:nc @dzattorneys.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8 :46 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: Yellowstone -- all hearings In one day Hi Janet, I was thinking about this last night... I just wanted to make sure that you got my letter expressing that we want all 3 issues to be heard on February 12. YS 00520 Did you get that letter? I sent it last week. Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: ncOdzattomevs.com Web: www.dzattomevs.com This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and is protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use. dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, that you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached'"' DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828, Fax 949.376.3875 YS 00521 Exhibit No. 90 Applicant's Additional Correspondence dated February 13, 2009 YS 00522 Wolcott, Cathy From: Nicole Cohrs fnc@dzattorneys.com) Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:55 PM To: Wolcott, Cathy Cc: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: Reasonable accommodation #2 - necessity clarification Yes Cathy, all of that is correct. Thank you. I am concerned by my conversation with you this afternoon. If you know of any other inconsistencies please let me know. I don't want to present an unclear report. I want to make sure that Yellowstone's answers are clear. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at all. I assure you that I will get the appropriate responses for you ASAP. I am in the office until 3 today, at which point I will be heading to the hearing scheduled at 4pm. If you need to talk to me at any other time my cell is Thanks again. Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: nc &dzattornevs.com Web: www.dzaUomeys.com this ,,cmmunication, including any aftachn ents, is confidential and is protected by priviiage, If you ;are not the intended recipient ant° use, iissemfnatiao, distribution or copying of this communiafion is strictly prohibited. If you have received this camn nnication in error. pivase immediately notify tl le sender by telephone or a -mail, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other; that you may have. 1'he foregoing applies even if this notice is ernbedded i t a mrissagethat is forwarded or attached.'., DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828, Fax 940.376.3875 From: Wolcott, Cathy [ mailto :CWolcott@city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:20 PM To: Nicole Collins Cc: Brown, Janet Subject: Reasonable accommodation #2 - necessity clarification Hi Nicole, As we discussed on the phone this afternoon, I am writing to obtain further clarification of Yellowstone Recovery's request for reasonable accommodation. Specifically, Yellowstone has requested an exemption from the standards of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.91A.050; which states that there shall be no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident in residential care facilities granted a use permit under NBMC Section 20.91A.040. However, there has been no formal explanation of the necessity of this exemption. In order to complete staff's analysis, by phone I requested that Yellowstone furnish the City with their explanation of why this accommodation is necessary to afford a disabled individual or individuals the opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling of their choice. YS 00523 You supplied explanations for the necessity of this accommodation for current residents, and prospective residents 1) Current residents at Yellowstone facilities in excess of numbers allowed under NBMC 20.91A.050 — You stated that current residents in excess of numbers specked in the NBMC's operating standards would be displaced if a use permit were granted for a lesser amount of residents. Because of financial constraints related to the disability of the residents, you stated they would be unable to afford rent in another dwelling and would have nowhere to live, and therefore an exemption from the occupancy limits of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 is necessary. 2) Prospective residents at Yellowstone facilities in excess of numbers allowed under NBMC 20.91A.050 — You stated that prospective residents of Yellowstone facilities have financial constraints related. to their disability, and would be unable to afford a dwelling if the Yellowstone facility is unavailable to them because of the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050. Therefore, an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 is necessary to provide housing to these prospective residents as well. In addition, you clarified two inconsistencies among the various Yellowstone submissions. You stated that in May, 2008,' when the original Yellowstone use permit and reasonable accommodation applications were submitted, four cars were permitted at 1561 Indus. There has been a change of policy at Yellowstone since that date, and at this time no resident is permitted use personal vehicles, to have personal vehicles onsite, or park personal vehicles in the neighborhood (with the exception of the two resident managers per site, who are allowed vehicles which are parked onsite.) You also stated, consistent with the applicant's previous submissions, that there are no meetings held onsite at any of the Yellowstone facilities in Newport Beach. All meetings are held at Yellowstone's Costa Mesa facility, and letters from Yellowstone alumnae that reference visiting Yellowstone are referring to the meetings at the Costa Mesa facility. Please confirm the above, and feel free to provide further clarification if needed Thank you, Catherine Wolcott Deputy City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 cwolcott&i ty, newpord- beach.ca.0 s Phone (949)644 -3131 Facsimile (949)044 -3139 2 YS 00524 Brown, Janet From: Nicole Cohrs [nc@dzattomeys.com) Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:40 AM To: Brown, Janet; Wolcott, Cathy Subject: Clarification Correspondence Attachments: D00001.PDF Hello Cathy and Janet, I was recently informed that the City is concerned about a few inconsistencies between Yellowstone's early submittals to the City (back in May 2008) and our more recently submittals. The attached letter will hopefully clarify some of the City's concerns. A hard copy is being sent in the mail today, however I wanted you to have a PDF version so that you could include this information in your reports. Regards, Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: ncAdzattorneys.com Web: www.dzattomeys.com This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and is protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, that you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached. *'* DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828, Fax 949.376.3875 -- Original Message— From: xerox @dzattorneys.com [mailto:xerox @dzattomeys.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:31 AM To: Nicole Cohrs Subject: Scan from a Xerox WorkCentre YS 00525 DAVIS•ZFATY iNC!($$IJNA1 LAY COROJi PL:OH February 13, 2009 VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 . BY ?LANNIN —� r?fPA?7PAENT I F91 A LYiiS Re: Yellowstone Use Permit Applications and Reasonable Accommodation Requests Dear Ms. Wolcott and Ms. Brown: It has recently come to my attention there may be discrepancies between materials Yellowstone submitted with respect to its use permit applications and requests for reasonable accommodation for each of the four Yellowstone properties. Although this firm and the representatives of Yellowstone have made our best efforts to be clear and consistent, the materials submitted to the City in May 2008 reflect some inaccurate information. The purpose of this correspondence is to clarify these inconsistencies. Group Meetings Neither group treatment meetings nor individual treatment meetings occur on any of the four Yellowstone properties. All treatment is performed off site in Costa Mesa. The only meetings that occur at each of the four homes are weekly house meetings with the residents to discuss potential new residents and other administrative matters. Visitors Visitation with family and friends Mesa facility located at 154 East Bay Street. occurs on Sundays at Yellowstone's Costa 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 • Fax 949.376.3875 infoOd7att0rncys.c0m • www.dzattorneys.coni OCH YS 00526 Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown February 13, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Contractual Arrangements with Residents and Resident Selection In May 2008, Yellowstone submitted a request for reasonable accommodation that each of the four homes be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. It was recently brought to my attention that Yellowstone's response to Question 16, regarding resident interaction, needs clarification. Yellowstone does not have a contractual relationship with the residents of its properties. With respect to the residents of the four Yellowstone homes in Santa Ana Heights, Yellowstone's position is correctly stated in a letter to the City dated January 29, 2009: "the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager." More specifically, Yellowstone's Board of Directors does not determine who resides in each of the four homes. New residents are introduced and approved by the current residents during house meetings or they are not accepted. Many of Yellowstone's residents transition to sober living directly from treatment. Other residents learn about Yellowstone from other recovery centers or by community referral. Parkin¢ In May 2008, when the original Yellowstone use permit and reasonable accommodation applications were submitted to the City, Yellowstone requested that four cars be permitted to park at the 1561 Indus property. There is adequate room for four cars to park at 1561 Indus, however only the two resident managers for the home park on site. With respect to the three other Yellowstone properties, it has consistently been Yellowstone's position that only the two resident managers of the homes are allowed to park vehicles on site. I hope that this clarifies the ambiguities in our previous submissions to the City. As always, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation / /• G %4-� NICOLE COHRS, ESQ. YS 00527 Exhibit No. 11 Additional Letters of Opposition Received After February 13, 2009 YS 00528 Brown, Janet From: Jeff Dangl [Jeff.Dangl @advisys.com) Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:23 AM To: DKiff@city- newport- beach.ca.us; JBrown@city- newport - beach.ca.us Subject: Yellowstone Homes (No morel) Greetings Janet Brown and Dave Kiff, I am a resident of the Santa Ana Heights area west of Irvine Ave, which was recently annexed into the city of Newport Beach. My wife and I (and 3 children) have lived in the area since 1995. We are active in the community and enjoy the bond and unity we have with other families who also live in this area. Aside from the noise we get from planes taking off out of John Wayne airport, I feel we have a great and safe environment for our family to live, grow and take part in. Becoming a part of Newport Beach has also affected us positively as we have received "here's what's up" newsletters from the city, additional police patrols, code enforcement, etc. My concern right now deals with the number of permits that have been issued for the use of halfway houses (and alcohol/ drug rehabilitation homes) by Yellowstone Homes. While I do not necessarily have anything against these residents and believe that they should be afforded the same rights to a comfortable life I enjoy, I feel that these residents do not necessarily have the same level concern for the welfare and wellbeing of the neighborhood as do families who are permanent residents. Over the past several years, as homes have been sold, it seems like more and more are being purchased by Yellowstone Homes rather than to families because Yellowstone Homes is able to offer more money than families knowing that they will receive funding and assistance from the state. I believe that the number of these halfway houses has now adversely affected our neighborhood as we have seen a decrease in house upkeep and an increase in parked cars along our streets. I am not sure how many Yellowstone Homes are in my neighborhood, but it seems like the ration of their homes to homes owned by families is out of skew. Please do not approve any more permits to Yellowstone Homes. Thanks for your attention to this matter, /Jeff Dangl 20081 Kline Drive, Newport Beach Advisys, Inc. (formerly known as Kettley) is a leading financial services technology company providing solutions to 65,000 professional advisors nationwide. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which K is addressed and may contain confidential and /or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Advisys, Inc. (formerly known as Kettley) is a leading financial services technology company providing solutions to 65,000 professional advisors nationwide. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and /or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. YS 00529 Brown, Janet From: George Robertson (g_robertson @roadrunner.00m] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:12 AM To: Brown, Janet Cc: patrbrtson@aol.com Subject: Public comments re: Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. Dear Ms. Brown, Please enter these comments to the public record regarding the application of Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. to operate four unlicensed adult residential care facilities within the West Santa Ana Heights neighborhood. My primary concern are the inaccuracies contained in the city staff reports that I reviewed. However, please note that due to the lateness of the city's posting of these reports (Tuesday, February 17, 2009 after 4:30 pm) and the fact that two of the links to the reports did not work until sometime late Wednesday, February 18, 2009,1 was only able to review two reports completely and one cursorily. Besides the inconsistencies contained in reports, that city staff has pointed out, I have a few comments regarding the accuracy of the reports. However, the scope of the comments below are not complete as my review of the staff reports was hurried and incomplete due to the reasons cited above. Initial comments are: (1) Parks a. The staff report on 1561 Indus Street (and by extension all other reports) states that there are no public parks located within the neighborhood. This is in fact a wrong statement. There is a neighborhood park located at the terminus of Orchard Drive, that was in place well before Yellowstone began operations in this neighborhood. This park is located within about 750 feet of the proposed facility at 20172 Redlands Drive. I would ask that the city review its decisions on all of the applications using this information. (2) House size and Number of bed rooms a. The staff reports states square footage of each house as one of the reasons to allow an exemption in the maximum number of residents allowed. However, the stated square footage, which I have to I assume was provided by the applicant, were considerably over exaggerated. I have the original builder's materials on the "Sherwood Estates" development and, as built, house sizes were either 2,650 sq. ft. or 2,585 sq. ft. The implications is that for the houses at 1621 Indus Street and 1571 Pegasus Street, the application is off by almost 25 %; 1 have to assume that this percentage also applies to the proposed house at 1621 Indus.. For the house located at 20172 Redlands Drive the excess square footage is almost 15 %. b. None of these houses, as built were larger than five bedrooms, yet two of the applications state that they have six bedrooms. I know that the house located at 20172 Redlands had some internal modifications done, at the time without a county building permit, but this house as built only had four bedrooms. c. The staff reports contain a stipulation on having the city's Fire Marshall review, which I support. In addition I would ask that the city also send a building inspector to verify (a) square footage; (b) number of bedrooms; and (c) whether any structural modifications, such as the addition of new bedrooms, are legal additions. (3) "Characteristics of Use/Treatment a. The report states that the applicant does not allow residents on any other Yellowstone property. However, this statement is negated by personal observations of residents from at least three of the four residences co- mingling at each other's residences. I have seen women from the Pegasus house walk up to Redlands, and on one occasion observed several women leave the Redlands house early in the morning before 7 a.m., ; implication is that they spent the night. I often see residences from the YS 00530 Redlands house walk up to the house at 1621 Indus. Additionally on at least two occasions I have seen large groups walk up to the house on 1621 Indus mid -week, mid- morning. The assumption being made is that there are large group functions (treatments ?) being held onsite. (4) Transportation and Parking a. Despite all of the inconsistencies contained in the staff report table, my biggest concern are the assertions that (a) transportation is not provided; and (b) that residents to not allowed to have cars. My personnel observations are: (a) that Yellowstone operates two large capacity vans on a routine basis. Over the years I have seen these vans pick up and drop off residents at both the men's and women's residences, in particular 1561 Indus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive. These vans (one of which has NANPOOV stenciled on the windows) have lately been parked each night in the neighborhood, typically alongside 20172 Redlands Drive near the intersection of Redlands Drive and Pegasus Street. Additionally I have observed private vehicles pick -up and drop off multiple residents at 20172 Redlands. These facts on the ground seem to contradict statements made by the applicant b. Manger parking. I have never seen any cars parked inside the garage of any of the four residences. Two cars I commonly see parked in the driveway are at 1561. One of these leaves each day before 7 am. So I am not sure that this is a managers vehicle or a residents vehicle who is leaving for work. (5) Smoking a. The staff report states that no complaints have been made regarding second hand smoke and that smoking is limited to the backyard patios. Again I have personally observed individuals (residents or guests I can't say) smoke in the front yards. Additionally, a walk along these houses will show cigarette butts in the gutters and driveways of these houses; I recently observed this at 1621 Indus on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 and at 20172 Redlands on Thursday, February 19, 2009. b. I was completely unaware until I read the staff report that there was a restriction on second hand smoke until I read the staff report. I would suggest that the lack of complaints cited in the staff report is an artifact of the neighbors not knowing that this was a legitimate issue that could be raised to the city s attention. I have personally detected second hand smoke outside the property, so I believe that the findings made regarding Section 20.91A.060A is wrong. (6) Approval selection process a. After reading the three staff reports, I was not able to determine why one facility was selected for approval over another. A comparison table would have been informative. In fact, the house at 20172 Redlands, which city staff has recommended be approved, is probably one of the more problematic houses with the most issues, vanpools, private car use, smoking, noise, litter, excessive trash. How did this house get selected over another? Availability of street parking? In closing I request that the city deny all of these application due to the inconsistencies and contradictions contained in the applications, as reflected in the staff report. I lieu of that decision, I request that, prior to any approvals being granted by the city, that staff verify the issues contained in #2 above, be more transparent on the decision process ( #6), provide sufficient time for the public to review all relevant documents, and get more public input before any final decisions are made. Additionally, I suggest to city staff that if the applicant is unaware of the facts -on -the ground (e.g., vanpools, residents co- mingling, use of private cars) that contradict statements made by the applicant as reflected in the staff report, that there is a disconnect between the on -site residence managers and the applicant; another issue for the city to clarify and rectify prior to any approvals. Finally, for any approvals granted, I ask that the city add a condition that the applicant provide all of the neighbors with a common set of "house" rules that is updated as changes are made. Finally I ask that the city provide the neighbors a method of reporting violations of these rules and a description of the city's actions would be under such instances. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Rega rds, George and Patricia Robertson YS 00531 Brown, Janet From: berry walker [bwarch.biz@gmaii.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 1:51 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: Yellowstone Sue Permits Attachments: Yellowstone Use Permits.rtf Janet - Attached letter responding to the Use Permit Hearing notice They did not have a meeting at the Redlands house last week and have not for about 3 weeks, but when they do, the meetings seem to start about 6:00 and breakup in about 90 rains. Not real sure because we did not specifically watch for them, but they have held meetings there that seemed to draw about a dozen cars. Thanks Barry YS 00532 BY City of Newport Beach 1N1!V��a ?'MEM February 17, 2009 3300 Newport Blvd. FEB 17 209 Newport Beach, CA_ Attn: Janet Brown Oly 0 This letter is in response to the Use Permit Hearing notification for the Group Residential Use Permits that have been applied for by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. for 1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive. My primary objection to these use permit requests is the substantial increase in density that this represents for this neighborhood and the associated problems that come with a higher density usage than was originally planned for. The use permits request permission to raise the density from the original design of a probable max of 6 per household to 18 (plus supervision ?) per household. Although this request is for four houses, the neighborhood has an additional rehab house (and possibly two as a previous rehab house has recently changed hands and the new owner has not moved in yet), all within a 350' radius. This means that 6 houses out of 36 are involved with the rehab industry and that the possible population of the area increases from 216 to 282, a 301/o increase in density. The reality is that this is an older neighborhood (most are empty nest at this point), and the average is probably more likely 2.5 — 3.0 people per household. That makes the number more like 108 residents and with the addition of the rehab houses, the population increases to 216, a 100% increase in the population density in this specific case. The increase in density has many environmental effects on the neighborhood. When these homes were planned, the target household was for a family unit of 5 -6 with 5 bedrooms and 3 baths (the typical floor plan, encompassing about 2400 square feet) and a two car garage. The water supply and sanitary sewer were probably sized for the number of uses that 6 people would generate. As you can imagine, the systems will be over -used with a household of 18 people and we can anticipate system problems with an over - stressed older infrastructure. Parking will become a worse problem with the addition of more cars since the houses only have 2 off - street parking spaces at most (the garages are filled with "stuff' and not used for parking). When the house at 20172 has meetings (previously every Tuesday at about 6:00 pm.) both sides of two streets were lined with cars, passage was more difficult. Waste generation per house is substantially increased with several of the houses putting out 4 overflowing 90 gal. trash cans each week — with 18 people, I can only imagine the trash generation and disposal situation —12 trash cans? Smoking, though not regulated as an outside activity, still creates its own problems as we are constantly picking up cigarette butts from our yards, driveways and gutters. Late night / early morning traffic as group home residents who do not drive are picked up and dropped off or just sitting in the car in the street as people talk — not a big deal with regular density, but with a doubling of the density, it just happens more often and becomes an irritant. Lastly, when Yellowstone moved in, they did nothing to start a dialogue, like "here is the phone number of our customer service if there is problem we should address" which did nothing to get Yellowstone off to a good start and so we have no reason to believe they will be a good neighbor if these use permits are approved. Sincerely, Barry Walker 1571 Indus Street YS 00533 February 16, 2009 REGE1�9�jMktsl PLPS��GQ� Newport Beach Planning Department FE61" Newport Beach City Hall *� nt Blvd- Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Regarding: Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc application for Group Home Use permits to operate commercial business in a residential neighborhood. Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. has been operating the above business for several years before West Santa Ana Heights was annexed into Newport Beach. To my knowledge these are unlicensed businesses and as such have changed the complexion and nature of our community. Yellowstone wishes to increase the number of clients and staff at these facilities_ Based on the figures given by Yellowstone, 12 clients at 1561 Indus Street, IS clients each at 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street, and 20172 Redlands Drive this is a total of 66 paying customers at any given time. The application does not include live -on site staff, which I assume would be required to maintain the enterprise. Assuming staff would not share a room with clients the dorm style rooms would have to sleep 4 and each of the 3 bathrooms per property would have to accommodate between 5 and 6 individuals. With the rapid turnover this represents several hundred clients per year. Basically, these are transient hotels without the controls placed on other similar businesses. These homes were not designed or intended for this requested use. If Yellowstone is granted the requested use permits and allowed to operate these businesses in this neighborhood, is the Planning Department willing to grant all other requests to operate business in our residential neighborhood? Newport Beach does not permit a homeowner to conduct weekly garage sale on their property because it is a business. Could another investment group purchase a home and set up a massage therapy parlor? I doubt it. Zoning is intended to maintain balance and community structure. Commercial, industrial, and residential neighborhoods are all important to maintain a strong city. Disregarding the zoning plans of a community and combining the different uses will impact property values, destroy the nature of family neighborhoods, and set a precedence that could negatively impact all concerned For these reasons it is requested the applications related to these residences, to be operated as for profit businesses, be denied. Respectfully Submi y, Michael McDonough Connie McDonough 1562 Pegasus Street (Newport Beach) Santa Ana Heights, Ca. 92707 YS 00534 ,Zlly- 4, 1� NK Imam I I ti w. AD AL I ■ p 0 0 0. 3 0 r ii r � � 1 �s t, 1. ��17 ��� a y.�r' � l � i 1 YS 00541 1n 0 0 o 0 Q Q� 4 "S* TO: Janet Johnson Brown, Planner City of Newport Beach CA FROM: Judy Hoyer Walker 1571 Indus St Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 DATE: FEB. 17, 2009 FEB 17 2% SUBJECT: Comments on the City's Consideration of Special Use Permits for the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. I am a property owner at the above listed address and have resided at this property for over 20 years. The potential of ever increasing population density to my neighborhood is most disturbing. In the posted application for Use Permits by Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc_ I was overwhelmed by the proposed occupancy levels of these 4 properties. Three of the properties were listed as requesting occupancy for 16 "clients" and the fourth was listed for 12 "clients ". Many flags went up when I read this. 1) No mention is made of what additional "non - client" or supervisor personnel will also be residing in these dwellings. Personally I would not want to have these "clients° unsupervised. In my experience with these facilities thus far even with supervision the "client behavior and activity is not within what I think or as residential, good neighbor, behavior. I would ask that the city have the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. group provide specific staffing / supervisory information as part of this permit review. And that residence is informed of what those staffing proposals are. 2) Even considering the occupancy density without knowing what additional headcount staff /supervisory personnel may add, I am very concerned. I will acknowledge that the dwellings in this neighborhood are large. Built in the early 60's they were intended for families (as stated in marketing materials from the original sale of the development). At five bedrooms one could see that a family unit of 6 would have been comfortable, and that the dwelling could potentially have had 10 individuals. But in reality the general large family unit in the 60's would have been in the 5 to 7 range. You can do some mathematical weighting and estimate that the original neighborhood occupancy was 5.2 persons per dwelling. So if we look at the requested occupancy density we're looking at dwellings have 2.3 to 3.1 times the occupancy of a family neighborhood! And this is without staff /supervisor numbers being included. Given the fact that 40 years later the average Orange YS 00542 County nuclear family is lower than 40 years ago any comparison we do to the weighted occupancy number from 1960's is even greater. 3) So now we're looking at a somewhat physically closed neighborhood (due to street layouts being closed to through traffic) we're looking at an effect of adding the equivalent of 8 additional houses! a. 4 dwellings contributing an excess of 40+ individuals: 60 requested clients in 4 dwellings, less the expected occupancy of 21, based on weighted occupancy rate. 40 excess divided by the weighted occupancy of 5.2 is 8 additional dwellings. b. There just isn't physical room for 8 additional dwellings. And there is another factor that the proposed increased density to the neighborhood is not evenly distributed throughout the existing homes. There is a concentration to about half of the neighborhood. is it reasonable that a burden such as this be so unevenly distributed? 4) Such very large increase on occupancy to individual properties gives me concern on many topics a. Infrastructure ......... specifically sewers and storm drains. The sewer and storm drain systems for this neighborhood were designed 40+ years ago. In my 20+ years of residency backups have been an issue. I suppose that I am overly sensitive due to the fact that my property is the lowest point for a portion of this development. We have experienced backups into our home due to the failure of the street system. Increasing occupancy density 3x is a frightening proposal. What hastwill the city do to help mitigate the impact for an occupancy rate well over the imagined occupancy level at time of systems design? b. Traffic and parking......... While the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. group may tell the city that "clients" are not allowed to have vehicles during residency I would ask if they intend to make it a condition of employment for staff /supervisors to not have vehicles? Additionally I would ask if the city has reviewed what policies are in place now for "clients". During the months that the facility next to my home has been in operation I have had "clients" park in front of my property rather than in the empty driveway of the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. >facility. When I asked if the vehicle could be moved from in front of my property to somewhere within the parameters of the property of the facility, I was told "It isn't that simple ". So what are the guidelines that this group is giving that dissuades its client's from using the facilities that it owns? Why is burden being shifted to the neighborhood? And parking is not the only concern. With so many residences the general level of vehicles coming and going is higher now than prior to the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. purchasing the properties. I can specifically speak to the property next to me. There are vehicles coming and going, doing drop offs, or "visitor" standing or parking, and the 2 YS 00543 duration of this activity goes from very early in the morning (5 am) to very late at night (past 11 pm and sometimes well past midnight). And then there are the weekly evening meetings that are held at some of these facilities. While occasionally residences of the neighborhood may have a gathering, party or club meeting, these are not routine. The parking impact to the surrounding street of the meeting house is significant. c. Trash and refuse ........... I must question the city as to what would be considered reasonable for containment of refuse from one 3000 sq. ft. dwelling that houses 16+ individuals? I haven't done the math as to how many trash receptacles will physically fit along the curb of these lots, but I invite the city to make such calculations. I would venture to say that the number would not be sufficient to manage the number of proposed "clients° and staff /supervisors. While the sheer number of receptacles is only a physical issue on trash collection day, my concern arises from the condition of the receptacles between collections. To date the receptacles placed at the curb at the addresses covered by this application have been in overflowing conditions. Items and plastic bags are readily exposed to the exterior of the container. It is important to keep in mind the physical location of this neighborhood. The boundaries of this area on two sides have large open unpopulated space (two golf courses), and part of the area is bounded by a drainage channel. All of these areas are habitats to wildlife. Having uncontained refuse is an invitation to unwanted wildlife which is known to be attracted by rubbish, such as possums and raccoons. Even vector control directs full containment of refuse as a necessary deterrent to raccoon infestation. I ask that the city look hard at this component of allowing such dense occupancy of a dwelling, and ask that Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. provide detailed policies and procedures for dealing with this aspect of their facilities. I have outlined those areas that can be spoken of in specific terms. My last area and one of the largest is how all of these factors compound together to change the character of what I purchased into ...... a residential neighborhood. purchased in the area because of the size of the property. And I fully expected to have families that were larger in number than if the dwellings were smaller. What is concerning to me is the change in the feel of the area. The "clients" of Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. are not in the property expecting to become a part of this community. They are temporary. Their attitude and behavior reflects this on an ongoing basis. Since Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. opened business in the property next to mine I now have more general debris in my yard; cellophane wrappers, plastic cup lids, cigarette butts. This is a change since the change of ownership. And it isn't just the difference of having a homeowner next door vs. a business. The former owner rented rooms, but she held her renters to strict rules and those included being respectful of the property and neighborhood. The property on my other boundary likewise is a rental with young adult children who have normal active lives. They too respect the neighborhood and treat it as if they were owners. I find it is the "small" things that give a good indication of how a neighbor respects the others they are sharing the space with. I am always amazed that the facility next to me feels it totally acceptable to place their trash cans, not in front of their property, but instead in front of the property next to them. While they may try and cover this with some statement that it is less maneuvering the trash truck needs to make, they seem to overlook the fact that they are blocking a fire hydrant. This is a safety issue for the residences of the street. Parking and standing vehicles across a neighbors drive. It's not an inconvenience to them just for the people who consider this as their home. When asked to do what is polite or common sense the first response I generally get is something to the effect that the action 1 am asking to change isn't bothering me! These temporary residents are giving proclamations as to what is and isn't bothersome to me. If it didn't bother me I wouldn't mention it. An individual who has a vested interest in selecting a neighborhood as a place of residence generally understands that their personal actions have an impact on others. This attitude and understanding has never been exhibited in any of my encounters with these facilities and .clients*. The constant coming and going is tiresome. It's additional foot traffic as well as vehicular traffic. It has become extremely difficult to "know° what is normal for our area and what isn't. All the people and vehicles coming and going at all hours is un- nerving......... are they part of the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. group or are they individuals who are doing reconnaissance for potential crimes. The very secluded feel of the area is part of what is desirable, but it comes with a price of being more vigilant of what is normal or expected for the neighborhood. Likewise it is difficult to evaluate if the individual would be a potential "client° and expected to have access to the property. As example the facility next to me is reportedly a women's house, yet it isn't unusual for there to be several men wandering in and out of the facility. If I didn't have prior knowledge of the business being run in the building 1 would easily think that there was a potential brothel being run out of that address. I feel an added burden by sheer volume of all this activity to help insure that my family and property are safe. In closing I would comment that I feel a change in the atmosphere of the neighborhood since Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. has purchased properties in our development. The feel of a residential neighborhood is diminished. Today there is a much stronger feel of an apartment complex or even a hotel /motel complex. I understand that the disabilities act provides protection from discrimination for these individuals. However as a property owner whose home this area is, I expect that the city will not transfer burden to me. I believe that facilities could be run in a residential neighborhood, but careful attention to detail is paramount. The facilities must be closely supervised 2417. 4 YS 00545 Policies and procedures to ensure the temporary residents exhibit a demeanor that is respectful of the permanent residence should be strongly considered. Density of inhabitants should not be substantially different from the surrounding non - facility dwellings. Impact to infrastructure of the neighborhood has to be carefully studied. While much of what I would like to see put in place falls to the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. as proprietors of the business, I also feel that it is the responsibility of the city to include provisions for review, monitoring, and reporting, on a routine basis, those conditions and stipulations established and defined by any use permit that might be granted. Thank you for the consideration of my concerns. YS 00546 February 14, 2009 Newport Beach Planning Department City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: UP2008 -034, RA2009 -004 UP 2008 -035, RA 2009 -005 UP 2008 -036, RA2009 -006 UP 2008 -037, RA2009 -007 1592 Pegasus Street Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 s+> OCUOVI L� Objections are hereby made to the above referenced requests for approval of use and continued use of certain residential properties as designated and requested in those same applications. I am a resident of the community identified as Santa Ana Heights and a neighbor living adjacent to and in close proximity to the four single family residences that, if I understand correctly, are being used for commercial purposes inconsistent with current zoning and permitted uses and, furthermore, incompatible with the character of the neighborhood. With respect to the assertion contained in the notice that the activities are categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1(Existing Facilities), objection is made on two grounds. Firstly, the activities are not existing at the time of the lead agency's determination of the applicability of the categorical exemption in that the proposed activities will not "involve negligible or no expansion of the use existing at the time the exemption is granted." In the discussion of the application of section 13501 (CCR Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 19), it cannot be that the legislature intended to sanction unpermitted and unapproved uses as those uses for which a categorical exemption would apply. The uses contemplated under the Act as being existing and for which the exemption would apply are those that are consistent with the existing zoning and other land use regulations in effect and applicable to the property. YS 00547 Newport Beach Planning Department February 14, 2009 Page 2 The homes in the community are single - family dwellings, zoned for noncommercial uses. Without discussing what would constitute a "single family," the proposed uses, including providing residences for up to 18 transient adults, is hardly consistent with any definition of single family residence. In that same vein, the use contemplated, without giving distinction to the nature of the occupancy, is plainly commercial and not residential. That is, the purpose of operating the facilities, from the perspective of the owner, is the accumulation of rental, whether from the individual residents or some other source or form. That makes the use commercial and not residential. By way of example, if any resident of the community chose to lift up their garage door and sell antiques on the premises on more occasions than would be considered incidental, this City would assuredly require a business license and would likely object to the use to the extent such commercial activities were deemed incompatible with existing residential zoning. The dwellings for which the exemptions and permits are being sought are not apartment complexes. They are not retail establishments. They are not hotels. Yet, what is proposed would create those very sorts of commercial establishments. Secondly, the Class 1 exemption is applicable only to the extent there is no possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment. (Section 15300) In claiming an exemption, what the applicants overlook is the fact that there has never been an evaluation of the burden on the environment created by the very conditions they now seek to have approved. To the extent the proposed use has not previously been evaluated under CEQA and approved, consideration has not been given to the burden on infrastructure and other aspects of the environment that would result from the dramatic increase in occupancy density proposed under the applications. Admittedly without any census data to support the underlying assertion, it would not be unreasonable to assume that a "typical' residence of the size contained within the community for which the applications have been submitted (4 -5 bedrooms, 2 -3 baths) would be occupied by 3 -6 people. The applicants propose a density 4 to 6 times that number, ranging from 12 individuals (UP2008 -34) to as many as 18. YS 00548 Newport Beach Planning Department February 14, 2009 Page 3 Such an increase in density will assuredly have a substantial impact on traffic, parking, noise, and use of emergency services including police and fire. While it may be suggested that the residents will not impact parking because of the prohibition against residents having cars, residents of the community can assuredly speak to a contrary condition. It is frequently observed that cars are parked on adjoining streets and the occupants then walk to the residences. Moreover, there are frequent occasions when cars line most of the streets, even spilling over into the surrounding areas on Santa Ana. Without any means of enforcing these self - described and self — imposed conditions, it is not proper for the City to rely on the assertion that there are no parking or traffic impacts in considering the application. Moreover, the City itself is in the best position to know of and, in consideration of County statistics applicable to the area pre - annexation, to evaluate the number of emergency service calls to the applicant residences as compared to the entirety of the remainder of the community. This factor is of considerable concern inasmuch as the community was only recently annexed to Newport Beach. As such, the City has likely not undertaken to fully evaluate the required level of emergency services necessary to support the community, without regard to the proposed density of activity proposed under the applications. Adding at least four residences with as many as 18 individuals in three and 12 individuals in the fourth dwelling will dramatically increase the burden placed upon the City to support the community. I wish to make clear, in submitting the foregoing objections, that I am not making a specific objection to any particular use or person. Rather, the objections are based on the fact, as acknowledged in the notice, that the proposed use is dramatically out of line with existing lawfully permitted and zoned uses for every other residence in the community. Suggesting that the proposed uses will have no impact on the environment ignores the very reasons behind passage of the Environmental Quality Act and does a disservice both to this community and the City to whom community residents look for support. Responsible land use planning takes into consideration the overall impacts of all development. Allowing uses that dramatically exceed zoned or otherwise permitted uses undermines the nature of planning. Claiming an exemption based on prior, unpermitted and unauthorized use merely encourages further disregard YS 00549 Newport Beach Planning Department February 14, 2009 Page 4 for land use restrictions, all of which are intended not to preclude reasonable uses of property but to harmonize conflicting interests and avoid unsustainable conditions. The proposed uses for the four residences invite the very sort of excessive uses and burdens for which CEQA review was designed. On the basis of the foregoing, I submit that the applications should be denied in their present form and the applicants required to submit the projects to a full CEQA review prior to the resubmission of any application for the proposed uses. Respectfully Stephen Abraham YS 00550 JAMES C. HARVEY DIANE E. HARVEY 1651 Indus Street Newport Beach, CA 92707 Telephone (714) 979 -7031 Email: harvey5@roadrunner.com February 18, 2009 Thomas W. Allen Hearing Officer CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 'VENT FE`B 18 Re: Opposition to Applications of Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. for Use Permits (1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street, & 20172 Redlands Drive) We cannot be present for the public hearing on February 20, 2009 but intend this letter to register our opposition to the granting of a Use Permit for any of the four (4) facilities currently operated by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. in the former West Santa Ana Heights. We ask that you either: (1) deny all four applications, or (2) impose strict conditions on Yellowstone's operations to conform to the City's Municipal Code. We bought a home in this neighborhood in 1998 because it was family- oriented with many small children. In the years since then, we believe that the residential character of the neighborhood has been substantially altered by the presence of Yellowstone's facilities. Those facilities have grown from the original one (at 1571 Pegasus Street) to the present four (4), all concentrated within a very small geographic area. We are concerned about noise, trash, traffic, and transitory persons in our neighborhood, all caused by the over concentration of Yellowstone's facilities. With two children in elementary school, we are particularly concerned by Yellowstone's facility for men at 20172 Redlands Drive, as our children have been approached by some of the transitory men living in that facility. We have no idea if the men living there are parolees, probationers, or registered sex offenders, and along with other families in the neighborhood we fear allowing our children to walk past that facility unescorted. That facility is also right across the street from the neighborhood school bus stop, where children congregate every morning. YS 00551 We urge you to deny Yellowstone's applications because they cannot satisfy the requirements of NBMC §20.91A.060: Yellowstone's use does not conform to all applicable provisions of NBMC 520.91A.054. A. We believe that Yellowstone is violating NBMC §20.91A.050(C)(1) and State law by conducting unlicensed treatment services at 1621 Indus Street. On several occasions we have observed a line of men walk from the Yellowstone facility at 20172 Redlands Drive, enter the adjacent Yellowstone facility for women at 1621 Indus Street, and stay there for more than an hour. We believe that this indicates the facility is providing on -site services, for which a State license is required. B. We believe that Yellowstone has far more than two residents per bedroom, in violation of NBMC §20.91A.050(C)(2). These are single - family homes with four or five bedrooms, and at least one of the bedrooms is quite small. Yellowstone may argue that each facility has more than five bedrooms, but if so that is based on conversion of living, family, or dining rooms into "bedrooms." 2. Yellowstone's use does not meet the standards of NBMC §20.91A.060. A. The properties are not physically suited to accommodate the proposed use. NBMC §20.91A.060(C). 18 adults living in one single - family home (as Yellowstone proposes) is ridiculous and cannot be justified by anything other than a desire to maximize profits. One need only drive through our neighborhood on trash day to see the impact: while each family home has one or two cans out front, each Yellowstone facility has four, five, or sometimes six cans, all filled to overflowing with trash. No doubt each facility's use of electricity, water, and gas is also out of proportion for a single -family home. B. The use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. NBMC §20.91 A.060(D). In particular, the residential character of the neighborhood has been changed by over concentration of such facilities. In generally limiting the use to one per block, NBMC §20.91A.060(D)(3) directs the Hearing Officer to apply average or median block lengths, which are listed as 711 feet and 617 feet, respectively. We submit that by those measures our neighborhood already has more than one use per block. Using GoogleEarth, we calculate that the distance between 1621 Indus Street and 1561 Indus Street is less than 350 feet (they are only four doors apart on the same street). The distance between 1621 Indus Street and 20172 Redlands Street is less than 400 feet. C. Contrary to Yellowstone's past assertion that its residents do not park cars in our neighborhood, we have observed that many of their residents actually do park cars on our streets, especially along Pegasus Street adjacent to the 1571 Pegasus Street facility and on Redlands Drive adjacent to the 20172 Redlands Drive facility. In addition, a large passenger van associated with Yellowstone is often parked at night across the street from the 20172 Redlands Drive facility. We also observe numerous cars entering and leaving our neighborhood containing visitors to facility residents. These activities generate traffic out of proportion to the number of facilities. NBMC §20.91A.060(E). 3. If any use is permitted, strict conditions should be imposed. If you determine, despite the opposition of the neighboring homeowners, that Yellowstone should be granted any form of approval, we urge you to impose Conditions of Approval similar to those imposed on other applicants such as Balboa Horizons and Ocean Recovery: A. Due to over concentration in our neighborhood, at most only two of Yellowstone's applications should be granted. The other two facilities should be abated. B. No more than two (2) clients should be allowed per bedroom, and "bedroom" should be limited to those rooms designed for that purpose, not converted living, dining, or family rooms. C. No probationers, parolees, or registered sex offenders should be allowed to occupy any of the facilities at any time. We suggest that you impose a condition requiring Yellowstone to obtain from a resident, prior to placement, a signed statement that he or she has never been convicted of a sex offense against a minor. D. No more than one automobile per facility may be parked on neighborhood streets, and no commercial vehicles or passenger vans may remain overnight. 4. Yellowstone's requests for reasonable accommodation should be denied. We presume that Yellowstone's request for reasonable accommodations involves the number of occupants allowed in its facilities, and we assume that Yellowstone claims that all its residents are persons with a "disability". But Yellowstone's request has nothing to do with "enhancing the quality of life" of any disabled person (NBMC §20.98.025(C)(1)) or granting disabled persons "equal opportunity" (NBMC §20.98.025(C)(2)). Yellowstone simply wants to pack as many people as possible into each facility to generate maximum profits. Yellowstone cannot satisfy the requirements of NBMC §20.98.025, and per subsection (B), all the requirements must be met. Granting Yellowstone's application would undermine the City's zoning program and would continue to detract from the residential character of our neighborhood. Thank you for considering our objections and those of our neighbors. Very Truly Yours, James C. Harvey Diane E. Harvey cc: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager YS 00553 2/11/09 To: Janet Johnson Brown — Planner 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 From: Eric Rosenthal 1661 Indus Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 3V FEB 18 2009 o-, I am a recent resident to the city ofNewport Beach. I worked the hardest I could to full - fill my dream of living in the famous Newport Beach.. The prestige, the safety, the family life, the residents and the culture are so alluring. There is no place like it on earth. I have been employed at Fletcher Jones for almost 9 years now. I have a constant pulse on the city and some of its elite residents. This whole issue of Rehab housing in our city leaves such a sour taste in everyone's mouth. These rehab homes are filled with society's problem rejects, coming in and out in herds. These people don't need to be in the most prestigious city in the world to attempt their rehab. It's unnecessary, unwanted, undeserved and unwelcome. I simply do not understand why Newport Beach would want to allow herds of these people in its city. The saddest part is I know people with kids who happen to be a couple doors down from one of these "rehab" homes. They have 3 children who never never get to play outside or in their front yard because their parents do not feel safe with the herds of people coming in and out all the times and hanging out it front yard smoking 24 hours a day, its simply ghetto. I have taken great pride in my home as a Newport Beach homeowner. The owners and these rehab patients are business operators and clients, with little regard to the maintenance and appearance of their homes. Cutb appeal is an important aspect of property values. Worst of all the pure mention of one of these rehab homes, especially in ones neighborhood, makes outsiders and residents cringe. I am so 100% against these homes in our city and speaking for the other 6500 Fletcher Jones Clients I have worked with over the past 9 years, they all feel the same way. Please call me with any questions. 1 Eric Rosenthal 949 -718 -3163 erosenthal@fmercedes.com ROSENTHAL 1661 INDUS STREET YS 00554 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Dave IGff Planning Department, City of Newport Beach PiANPJ!'i "'41 °TMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach , Calif 92663 FEB 19 iM Ref PA2008 -105, PA- 2008 -106, PA2009 -107 PA2008 -108 i 4 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (7I1Y 0� Dear Sr, I formally protest about the applications for an increase of inmate in 1621 Indus, in particular. They congregate right under my bedroom and bathroom windows, to smoke and cackle on a patio which is 10 feet by 10. The smoking is so strong it starts my chronic cough when I go in my passage way between the 2 houses. This goes on at all times 8 In the morning, 11 at night, 3 in the morning. When the county sold that house they "fixed" the fence so poorly that it has now collapsed. l have given my phone number to the women who manages the place, asking dW the owner contact me to do a proper fencing. No one has called me They have piled cardboard, palm Waves, to keep the dog of the manager from wandering into my backyard. What will keep mentally disturbed people who are akwholics and drug addicts from coming into my backyard and maybe dram themselves in the 2 feet of water of my pond when 1 am not at home? This owner Is totally irresponsible and now you want to allow her to stick 3 people in all the rooms of the house ?. This house is a 5 bedroom house, that means the den will be converted into a bedroom too. Furthermore They gafha into the back room for parties and conferences, or simply to wait for the bus, so I get all the other inmates, male and female from the neighborhood around 8 in the morning. Our street alone has 2 of these business locations and there are 2 more on Pegasus and Kline. Has our neighborhood been elected to be the dumping ground of all the drunks ans addicts of Newport Beach? And please don't pretend they are sober, or they would not be here in the first place. What is proposed Is by no means a reasonable accomodation for a single family residential neighborhood . It is just a way for the owner to make more money to turn our area into a ghetto for Newport Beach rejects. The fence is riddled with termites is collapsing and I cannot close my gate. I have been quote. 7500 dollars to build a simple wall. I believe it is the responsability of the city to require from people who do not live In the neighborhood but get to have a business In a residential area, that they take some measures to minimize the impact on their neighbours. instead of continuously get exmptions from the basic rules and taxpayer money to boot. Your class of project is havina a sin cant effect on me . This should be treated as a business and be removed from res ntia areas. Michele Welsmann 1631 Indus 949. 6454064 J'' YS 00555 1571 PEGASUS: STAFF REPORT (w/ Exhibits 1 -11) FOR FEBRUARY 20, 2009 HEARING - \v.aoc YS 00556 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT February 20, 2009 Agenda Item #3 SUBJECT: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -107) 1571 Pegasus Street • Use Permit No. 2008 -036 • Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -06 APPLICANT: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., Isaac R. Zfaty, Attorney CONTACT: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3236, ibrown @citv.newoort- beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY A use permit application to allow the continued operation of an existing unlicensed adult residential sober living facility with a total occupancy of 18. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. A reasonable accommodation application has also been submitted requesting: 1. The residents of the facility be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NMBC); 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which restricts occupancy to two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; and 3. An exemption from NBMC Section 20.90.030 that states applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, are accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer conduct a public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, the City of Newport Beach and its legal counsel, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends the Hearing Officer: Deny the use permit application based on the findings discussed in this report, and provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution of denial with prejudice of Use Permit No. 2008 -036. Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 2 2. Deny the request for reasonable accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a single housekeeping unit subject to the findings discussed in this staff report. 3. If a use permit is granted for this facility, staff recommends that the requested accommodation for an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91 A.050 be granted as to the current residents. As to future residents of this facility, staff recommends continuance to a date certain pending receipt of additional financial information. 4. Staff recommends a continuance to a date certain for the request for reasonable accommodation for an exemption of the application filing fee requirement pending receipt of additional financial information. M411114-1-1 i Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 3 YS 00559 VICINITY MAP Pt R Subject Propertyi r w� r 137 w btih w- w w$ 4 GENERAL PLAN ZONING 7,41 f i Ya °f LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE Single -Unit Residential SP -7 /Residential Single Residential Care Facility Detached Fami NORTH Multiple Unit Residential SP -7 /Residential Multiple Apartment Complex Family SOUTH Single -Unit Residential SP -7 /Residential Single Single unit residential dwellings Detached Family EAST Single -Unit Residential SP -7 /Residential Single Single -unit residential dwellings Detached Family WEST Single-Unit Residential SP -7 /Residential Single Single-unit residential dwellings YS 00559 Detached I Family INTRODUCTION Project Settina Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 4 The subject property is located in Santa Ana Heights southeast of the intersection of Santa Ana Avenue and Bristol Street. The property is developed with a two -story single - family residential structure originally constructed in 1961, and is located on Pegasus Street just east of Santa Ana Avenue. The neighborhood consists of single -family tract homes that were also constructed at approximately the same time as the subject dwelling. The subject property is one of four sober living houses in the immediate neighborhood operated by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Zoning The zoning designation for the property and surrounding area is "SP -7" (Specific Plan District No. 7: Santa Ana Heights). This Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SAHSP) is incorporated into the Zoning Code in its entirety (Ch. 20.44). Thus, in the zoning exhibit at the right, the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan zoning designations are shown faded to denote that the zoning categories shown are not base Zoning Code categories but are instead unique to the Specific Plan. The subject property is zoned Residential — Single Family (RSF) in the SAHSP. The principle land use allowed in this district is single family residential. The status of group homes as a permitted use under Ordinance 2008 -05 is addressed later in this report. Project Description The subject application is a request for approval of a Group Residential Use Permit to allow the continued operation of an existing adult residential sober living facility for up to 18 females. The facility is currently operated by Yellowstone Women's First Step YS 00560 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 5 House, Inc. as an "unlicensed 7 and more" facility. The applicant has also submitted an application for Reasonable Accommodation from the City's zoning and land use regulations, pursuant to the provisions of Section 20.98 of the NBMC. Specifically, the applicant requests that the residents of the facility be treated as a single housekeeping unit as that term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030; that the facility be allowed an occupancy per bedroom that is more than provided for in NBMC Section 20.91 A050; and that the application fees be waived due to disability- related financial hardship. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.98.015, if the project for which a request for reasonable accommodation is made required another discretionary permit, in this case a use permit, the applicant may request that the Hearing Officer hear the request for a reasonable accommodation at the same time as the other discretionary permit or approval. The applicant has made such a request, and the following report provides the analyses for a Group Residential Use Permit and Reasonable Accommodation. BACKGROUND Please see the staff report for 1561 Indus for additional background on this facility and the others operated by Yellowstone. This staff report for 1571 Pegasus includes only those issues and aspects of the application that are materially different from the 1561 Indus application. Description of Project Operations The Yellowstone facility located at 1571 Pegasus Stre House ", and has been in operation since 2005 prior 1 property is owned in fee by Dr. Anna Marie Thami residential care facility is sober living home for 18 wor dependence. This residential care facility operates in a containing six bedrooms, which are occupied as follows: et, is also known as "Pegasus annexation to the City. The m, CEO of Yellowstone. This ien with past alcohol and drug two -story single - family dwelling Current Uses at 1571 Pegasus Street Bedrooms Beds/ Room Beds/ Unit First Floor 2 2/1 room 3/1 room 5 Second Floor 4 4/2 rooms 3/1 rooms 211 room 13 Total Bedrooms = 6 YS 00561 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 6 Total Beds = 18 Total Parking Spaces = 4 2 -car garage & 2 driveway spaces) As indicated, staff has made numerous efforts to communicate with the applicant to provide them an opportunity to correct the applications, which are internally inconsistent and to process the applications in order to deem them complete. The following matrix has been prepared to illustrate the project operations as represented in the applications initially submitted and in subsequent submittals (Exhibits 2 and 3): Project Operation Application and Description Date of Reasonable Use Permit Submittal Accommodation Facility Users and Staffing 5 -20 -08 • 18 persons including 2 staff members a 18 persons including 2 staff members • Two staff members. No • House manager and other staff or caretakers that assistant manager visit on a daily or weekly basis 1/28/09 E -mail from applicant's attorney provided clarification of 12 bed occupancy for this facili Exhibit 9). Duration of Stay 5 -20 -08 Six months 1180 days (Staff was informed verbally that typical stay is 6 months, but some clients have staved fora year or more. Characteristics of Uselrreatment 5 -20 -08 . Sober living home; no medical care or non- No alcohol and/or drug recovery or treatment medical services provided services provided on -site. • Residents at this property not allowed on any other properties & no function that includes all residents. 8 -22 -08 Residents at this property not allowed on any other Yellowstone properties & there are no functions that include all residents. 12 -23 -08 Residents prohibited from being in house between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., and must return to house by 4 D.M. YS 00562 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 7 Project Operation Application and Description Date of Reasonable Use Permit Submittal Accommodation Transportation and 5 -20 -08 • Transportation not • Residents residing on- Parking provided. site not allowed to use • 2 -car garage and personal vehicles, and/or driveway available for staff keep on -site or nearby and visitor parking. • Clients use bus, carpools, • Residents do not have bikes auto and rely on public • Staff vehicles parked in transportation or carpooling. driveway. • Tenants' vehicles not allowed to be parked or utilized at property. 12 -23 -08 Per correspondence from attorney: • Room for 4 cars to park on site. Residents not permitted to park there; only house manager and assistant manager permitted to park on -site. • Basic transportation provided to treatment facility and St. John Church • Transport van kept in other city when not in use 1 -29 -09 Per correspondence from attorney: • Parking on -site reserved for manager and assistant manager, thus max. number of cars at any time is two. • Residents not permitted to park on property. • Visitors not permitted on property; therefore, no visitor parking issues. • Residents do not use cars. Instead, they rely on public transportation to and from property. • Home does not generally provide transportation services; some basic transport to treatment facility and St. John Church. Morning pick up at 8 a.m. and evening drop off at 4 p.m. Llcensa/Permit 5.20 -08 . No license. • No license. History (i.e. ADP, . Voluntary certification • Orange County Sober DSS) and/or by Orange County Sheriffs Living Coalition Certification Dept., and Orange County Sober Living Coalition 12 -23 -08 Per correspondence from attorney: • No ADP license • Certified as a member of Orange County Sober Living Coalition • Date use as residential care facility began: 2005 1 -7 -09 Oxford House Certification submitted YS 00563 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 8 Project Operation Application and Description Date of Reasonable Use Permit Submittal Accommodation Curfew and Quiet 5 -20 -08 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily Hours Delivery Information 5 -20 -08 There are no delivery vehicles required as the Trash disposal 1 day/week, no other delivery services property provided. Smoking 5 -20 -08 Acknowledged requirement 8 -22.08 to control secondhand smoke. (Smoking not permitted in house; restricted to backyard) Fire Marshal Review The Group Residential Use Permit Application also requires the submittal of a fire clearance from the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. The applicant provided a copy of a Fire Safety Inspection Request that was submitted to Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) prior to annexation to the City of Newport Beach with the August 22, 2008, supplemental submittal. However, the form was not signed by the OCFA, and further, the property is now under the authority of the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. On December 23, 2008, and again on January 29, 2009, the applicant submitted an analysis prepared by an architect that was submitted to the Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal has requested clarification on a number of items (Exhibit 5), but to date a fire clearance has not been issued. If this use permit is granted, condition of approval will be included stating that the use must comply with the requirements of the California Building Code and obtain a fire clearance from the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. Public Input The same public input applies here as does the public input provided and described in the discussion for 1561 Indus. (Exhibits 6 and 11) ANALYSIS In addition to the statements in the 1561 Indus stal of analysis here: Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 9 Concentration of Uses About 73 group residential beds are in this neighborhood: ST ` 20162. f 380 fa> 253, 8 12' .' 1601 �2 f 1631 143' 1 � 3641 1'302 t 360' 2v. 165f 312 1x61 • t,.::' t03a'�'�:. ,. 2g x.1602 353' " zot t t s / 20063. Subject Property 91 N 20091 , is" 1601,`, 20123:';/ �.l-. 1� z0062 1538`.., 1551 _. .. f 20102 ISM /% % "'\ .�147 ' i .20141 ��Q'S/ 201la •... `rr �. r I _.,../, •,1536' ti. 15x1 ; Ib02� 0162 2o77i i ��� 2M'V 19N. ,1571 ./ . 1001 1554 �., :::f .;..201'31; `'-y. � • r 20102 ...,1531 1702•, a '1991 n w 1631 20112 '20123 r \1621 75411571 •;, ~ " 1601 f,. %1622 i' >� fa7f 20352 2014/ - >1 % 20112. O* - %f 1632.f�pFC+r,�^f1671 I 20151,!' 20122y/ „1941 t~'l !� F': a^, { zl '+,�, 'IM? I661, 20 1a1 y �.�i2oi4E 0 1 3631 1 QT / 1772 1662 .,� `' aMel Tf %.`20192 y 1641.'.. :E 1616 ?' 1624 ,'l \���1061 . 2692 '`� if 2016 .'� 2020 f`� ;!1671 -.: 170a��' 20782» .• 20271 f 1691 ? $ f'16 b2 ~ .I70f 1722 26192/ s' 20261 /69D 20291.yxi Qg f692��. 1721 20301 / 34'''20272 ,Ib94r.. /1731." 20311 ` �:z0at12 ., zoar7' viz,. �`.0' 200ft As noted earlier in this report, Yellowstone operates three other sober living facilities in the neighborhood (distances below measured in a straight line from the nearest property line): • 1561 Indus Street (12 residents), about 143 feet away; • 1621 Indus Street (17 residents), about 321 feet away; • 20172 Redlands Drive (18 residents), about 233 feet away; and in addition • 1501 Pegasus Street (8 female residents) is about 360 feet away and is operated by another provider (Lynn House). YS 00565 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 10 In adopting Ordinance No. 2008 -05 the City made a number of findings including Finding No. 16 which states that "community residences should be scattered throughout residential districts rather than being concentrated on any single block or in any single neighborhood ° The ordinance defines a `block" as "an area of land that is bounded on all sides by streets... or by streets and a cul -de -sac or by any other form of termination of the street." In the case of the subject property, it is in a neighborhood that is not characterized by a typical grid street pattern; but instead has meandering streets and cul -de -sacs. The ordinance recognizes that there are instances when the lack of a straight -line grid pattern street will make it difficult to exactly define a block; and also recognizes that blocks throughout the City are not always uniform in size. In those instances, Code Section 20.91A.060.D.3 provides that the Hearing Officer may apply the American Planning Association (APA) standard of 617 feet (median) or 711 feet (average) in determining the block size and configuration. Given the close proximity of this facility to the other similar uses located within the same neighborhood, it is critical to define "block" in this particular case. If the APA standard is used, and the median block length of 617 feet applied, the five houses would all fall within a single block area. Therefore, the subject property is located within a block and in close proximity to the other residential care facility uses with a combined total of 73 residents in the neighborhood. In staffs opinion, the presence of five residential care facilities in very close proximity to each other is an overconcentration, and two of the four Yellowstone homes should be closed. Assembly Uses and Parking Residential care facilities may conduct meetings on -site, such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, for the residents who live on -site only. However, the NBMC does not allow the hosting of AA or similar type meetings for individuals who to not reside in the facility. The facilities may be used for residential use by the residents only. Correspondence submitted by residents within the neighborhood states that there are meetings held at the subject facility that involves persons other than the residents and that there is an influx of vehicles using on- street parking during these times, leaving little or no parking for the residents of the neighborhood. The applicant has stated that no such meetings occur. Staff is concerned about allegations from the neighbors regarding visitors during evening hour meetings and on weekends, and the impact on parking and additional traffic generated from these visitors to the surrounding neighborhood. If the use is approved, staff recommends conditions of approval that prohibits meetings on -site, restricts the allowance of vehicles to two staff members only, and requires staff parking on -site in the garage, reserving the driveway for visitor parking. YS 00566 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 11 Traffic and Generated Trips The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling unit. Trip rates for residential care facilities (also classified as an "assisted living" use by ITE) are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Staff recognizes that the use pattern of an assisted living or residential care facility is similar, but not identical to a sober living facility. However, the trip generation rates established by ITE for residential care facilities is the closest land use classification to a sober living home. Based on the ITE standards, a single family dwelling would generate approximately 10 average daily trips (rounded up), whereas an 18 -bed residential care facility would generate approximately 50 average daily trips. Maximum Number of Residents NBMC Section 20.91A.060.C.2 states that a maximum number of residents for any group home shall not exceed a standard of two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. The subject property has six bedrooms, which results in the maximum number of residents allowed to be thirteen. As indicated on the application, the applicant requests a total occupancy of 18 resident beds. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.91A.060.C.2, the Hearing Officer has discretion to set occupancy limits based upon the evidence provided by the applicant that additional occupancy is appropriate at the site. In determining whether to set a different occupancy limit, the Hearing Officer "shall consider the characteristics of the structure, whether there will be an impact on traffic and parking and whether the pubic health, safety, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the facility or adjacent to the facility will be impacted." In determining whether the findings an be made to allow an occupancy of 18 residents, staff considered evidence submitted by the applicant, as well as the size of the structure, parking, traffic generation, and impacts on adjacent and surrounding land uses. Based on the plans submitted,'the total living area is 3,197 square feet, and there appears to be adequate room to allow two more occupants more than allowed per the code. Therefore, staff supports the increased occupancy to allow 15 residents, but opposes the request to allow 18 residents as requested by the applicant. The applicant has stated that only the manager and assistant manager have vehicles, which are parked in the two -car garage or on the driveway, and residents are not permitted to have vehicles. Therefore, sufficient parking appears to be provided on -site. Traffic and parking impacts described by residents in the neighborhood may not be directly related to this specific facility. Staff believes the applicant has provided adequate documentation for the Hearing Officer to make the necessary findings to grant VI&III1I4 4A Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 12 an increase in occupancy to a maximum of 15 residents. If the use is approved, staff recommends a condition of approval that allows a maximum occupancy of 15 residents, restricts the allowance of vehicles to two staff members only, and requires staff parking on -site in the garage, reserving the driveway for visitor parking. Required Findings Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2008 -05, the Hearing Officer shall make all of the 11 required findings per NBMC Sections 20.91.035 (A) and 20.91A.060 (see Findings Chart, Exhibit 1). The required findings, and discussion of each finding are as follows: NBMC Section 20.91.035 (A) Findings 1 through 4: 1. Finding: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and purposes of the district In which the site Is located. The use is only partially in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is location, and therefore; this finding cannot be made for the following reasons: The subject property is located within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7) area and is designated for Residential Single - Family (RSF) uses. The proposed use as a residential care facility is a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses in a residential district are subject to the provision of Chapter 20.91A of the NBMC. The proposed application for Use Permit 2008 -034 is in accord with the objectives and requirements of Chapter 20.91A with respect to the requirement for the submittal of an application for approval of a use permit to continue the use of the subject property as a residential care facility in the SP -7 /RSF District. The objectives of the code include provisions intended to reduce, through the use permit process, the potential for overconcentration of residential care facilities within a neighborhood and to protect public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use. The subject property's proximity to four other residential care facilities would result in an overconcentration of residential care facilities within the neighborhood. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. 2. Finding: That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working or adjacent to the neighborhood of such; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. YS 00568 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 13 The location of the proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan. However, the use if approved with conditions, will be consistent with the purpose of the district in which the site is Iocated.This finding cannot be made for the following reasons: General Plan Policy LU 6.2.7 directs the City to regulate day care and residential care facilities to the maximum extent allowed by federal and state law so as to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include a condition of approval regulating the use and operational characteristics related to parking, traffic, curfew hours, and on -site meetings. As stated, the facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently four other residential care facilities in close proximity, which constitutes an overconcentration of residential care facilities in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, staff believes that the continued use of this property as a residential care facility, if approved, would be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, and this findina cannot be made. 3. Finding: That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, Including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. As noted in Finding No. 2 above, the proposed use would not be consistent with the provisions of NBMC Section 20.91A.060.D in that the facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently four other residential care homes. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. 4. Finding: If the use Is proposed within a Residential District or in an area where residential uses are provided for in Planned Community Districts or Specific Plan Districts, the use is consistent with the purposes specified in Chapter 20.91 A and conforms to all requirements of that Chapter. One of the stated purposes of NBMC Section 20.91A.010.B is: "To protect and implement the recovery and residential integration of the disabled, including those receiving treatment and counseling in connection with dependency recovery. In doing so, the City seeks to avoid the overconcentration of residential care facilities so that such facilities are reasonably dispersed throughout the community and are not congregated or over concentrated in any particular area so as to institutionalize that area." As noted in Finding No. 2 above, the proposed use would not be consistent with this purpose in that the facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently four other residential care facilities. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. NBMC Section 20.91 A.060 Findings A through G: I►&111114 *] Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 14 A. Finding: The use conforms to all applicable provisions of Section 20.91A.050. These development and operational standards are summarized as follows: a. No secondhand smoke can be detectable outside the property. b. Operations must comply with state and local law, the submitted management plan, Including any modifications required by this Use Permit. C. A contact name and number be provided. d. No services requiring a license can be provided If the facility does not have a license for those services. e. There shall be no more than 2 persons per bedroom plus one additional resident, unless a greater occupancy is requested and granted. Occupancy must also comply with State licensing if applicable. f. If certification from an entity other than ADP's license program Is available, applicants must get that certification. g. All individuals and entities involved in the facility's operation and ownership must be disclosed. h. No owner or manager shall have any demonstrated pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of the law. The use, if approved subject to conditions included with the use permit, will conform to the standards set forth in Section 20.91 A.050, and this finding cannot be made as follows: a. Smoking is permitted only in the rear yard and patio area. Given the size of the lot and the proximity of the surrounding residential uses, it is unlikely that secondhand smoke can be detected outside the property, and no complaints have been submitted by adjacent neighbors regarding secondhand smoke. b. The facility has been in operation since 2005, and the applicant has submitted documentation that the facility has never been cited by a state or local agency as violating any of those agencies laws or regulations. C. Contact names and telephone numbers have been provided within the application. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include a YS 00570 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 15 condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide the City with the appropriate "after hours" names and contact information numbers. d. The residential care facility is used for housing purposes only and is not licensed for on -site treatment. All treatment services are provided at a site that is located approximately two and a half miles from the site in Costa Mesa, and transportation to the site is provided by van three days a week. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include a condition of approval limiting attendance of any type of meeting on -site to residents who reside on -site only. e. The unlicensed residential care facility has six bedrooms and there is a total occupancy of 18 residents. Therefore, the facility exceeds the standard of two persons per bedroom plus one additional resident by five, and does not comply with this operational standard. However, staff believes the applicant has provided adequate documentation for the Hearing Officer to make thenecesssary findings to grant an increase in occupancy to a maximum of 15 residents, with conditions of approval limited theoccupancy to 15 reidents, restricting the allowance of vehicles to staff members only, and requiring the staff to park on -site in the garage, reserving the driveway for visitor parking. I. The facility holds a voluntary certification with the Orange County Sober Living Coalition, and the Orange County Sheriff's Department, and proof of that certification has been provided by the applicant. g. The applicant has provided all names of those involved in the facility's operation within the application. h. There are no known violations or code violations for the facility or the individual operators and managers. While the provisions of all except V can be met, Section 20.91A.050 requires that all of the standards must be met. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. B. Finding: The project includes sufficient: on -site parking for the use, and traffic and transportation impacts have been mitigated to a level of Insignificance. The NBMC requires off - street parking and loading spaces for a residential care facility at a ratio of one space for every three beds. The project site has an enclosed two -car garage and a driveway is that 26 feet deep, providing a total four off - street parking spaces. The current capacity of 18 beds requires a total of six off - street parking spaces; therefore the property does not meet the NBMC requirements for off - street parking. YS 00571 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 16 Van transportation to an off -site treatment facility and to a church is provided approximately three to four times a week, and residents utilize public transit for commuting to work (an OCTA bus stop is located on Santa Ana Avenue within walking distance). With respect to traffic generation, the facility itself does not present an adverse impact to the neighborhood. However, staff is concerned about the comments from the area residents regarding the traffic and parking impacts from family and other visitors to the site during evening hours and on weekends, which results in cars parked throughout the vicinity. As noted above, the property site does not provide the number of off - street parking spaces required by the NBMC and is two spaces deficient. Staff notes that four other group homes exist within close proximity to the subject facility. In summary, the facility does not provide sufficient off - street parking for management and residents, and the traffic and parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood cannot be mitigated to an insignificant level due to the site's off - street parking deficiency, and due to the presence of other group care homes in close proximity to the subject property. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. C. Finding: The property and existing structures are physically suited to accommodate the use. The subject property is approximately 7,500 square feet in area and the structure consists of approximately 3,197 square feet of living area with a total of six bedrooms. White the size of the structure appears adequate to accommodate the use as a residential care facility with 18 beds, as noted above, the property does not conform with the NBMC parking standards in that six off - street parking spaces are required, and only four spaces are provided. Therefore, this findin cannot be made. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department is the responsible agency for implementing fire protection of all group residential care facilities and residences. As discussed above, the property has not received a 'fire clearance" from the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. Therefore, if the Hearing Officer approves the application, staff recommends that a condition of approval be included that provides that the use is approved subject to the approval by the Fire Marshal. D. Finding: The use will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and the addition or continued maintenance of the use will not contribute to changing the residential character of the neighborhood, such as creating an over concentration of residential care uses In the vicinity of the proposed use. In making his finding or sustaining such a finding, the Hearing Officer and/or City Council shall consider, as appropriate, the following factors: V&11I1I.if&A Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 17 a. The proximity of the site location to schools, parks, other residential care facilities, outlets for alcoholic beverages and any other uses which could be affected by or affect the operation of the subject use; b. The existence of substandard physical characteristics of the area in which the use is located such as lot widths, setbacks, narrow streets, limited available parking, short blocks, and other substandard characteristics which are pervasive in certain areas of the City of Newport Beach, including portions of West Newport, Lido Isle, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Corona del Mar and Newport Heights, which portions were depicted on a map referred to as the Nonstandard Subdivisions Area presented to the Newport Beach Planning Commission on September 20, 2007, and on file with the Director of Planning; and C. Whether, in light of the factors applied in subsections 20.91 A.D.1 and D.29 it would be appropriate to apply the American Planning Association standard of permitting one or two such uses per block. Median block lengths in different areas of Newport Beach widely range from 300 feet In the Nonstandard Subdivision Areas to as much as 1, 422 feet in standard subdivision areas. The average calculable block length In much of the standard subdivision areas Is 711 feet and the calculable median block length is 617 feet. The Hearing Officer shall apply the American Planning Association standard in all areas of Newport Beach In a manner that eliminates the differences in block lengths. In making this determination, the Hearing Officer shall be guided by average or median block lengths In standard subdivisions of the City. The Hearing Office shall retain the discretion to apply any degree of separation of uses, which he or she deems appropriate In any given case. A copy of the American Planning Association standard is on file with the Director of Planning. The project site is located within an established single - family residential neighborhood consisting of one and two story tract homes. There are no public or private schools, or public parks located within close proximity to the site. The closest elementary school is Kaiser Elementary School, which is located approximately two miles to the south, and Brentwood Park located approximately one and a half miles to the south. Facilities licensed to sell or serve alcohol located within three blocks of the project site include a 7 -11 Store and a Mexican restaurant on the southeast comer of Santa Ana Avenue, and an AWPM Service Station and Market on the northeast corner of Santa Ana Avenue. Those facilities are located within the City of Costa Mesa, approximately 1,200 feet walking distance or more from the subject property. YS 00573 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 18 The subject property is located in a neighborhood that is not characterized by standard physical characteristics such as a typical street grid pattern; but instead has meandering streets and cul -de -sacs. The ordinance recognizes that there are instances when the lack of a straight -line grid pattern street will make it difficult to exactly define a block; and also recognizes that blocks through out the City are not always inform in size. In those instances, Code Section 20.91A.060.D.3 provides that the Hearing Officer may apply the American Planning Association (APA) standard of 817 feet (median) or 711 feet (average) in determining the block size and configuration. Given the close proximity of this facility to the other four houses located within the same neighborhood, it is critical to define "block° in this particular case. If the APA standard is used, and the median block length of 617 feet applied, the five houses would all fall within a single block area. Therefore, the subject property is located within a block and in close proximity to four other residential care facility uses with a combined total of 73 residents. In staff's opinion, the presence of five residential care facilities in very close proximity to each other is an overconcentration and the use of the subject property as a residential care facility results in an overall adverse impact on the neighborhood and will not be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. E. Finding: The operation of buses and vans to transport residents to and from off -site activities does not generate vehicular traffic substantially greater than that normally generated by residential activities in the surrounding area. Other than the resident manager and assistant manager, residents of the facility do not have automobiles and utilize public transit from an OCTA bus stop located on Santa Ana Avenue. Vans are used to take residents to a treatment facility and to church approximately three to four times a week. It is staff's opinion that the traffic generated just from these van trips is not excessive. Therefore, this finding can be made. F. Finding: Arrangements for delivery of goods are made within the hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. Deliveries to the residences are typical of the normal use of property for residential purposes. Shopping is done by management staff and delivered to the house during normal daytime or early evening hours. Therefore, staff believes that this findina can be made. G. Finding: Arrangements for commercial trash collection in excess of usual residential collection are made within hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. YS 00574 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 19 The facility utilizes the regularly - scheduled Costa Mesa Sanitary District residential refuse collection services provided throughout the neighborhood. Neighborhood complaints about excessive trash need to be evaluated further — in the event that the once -a -week trash service does not adequately serve this facility, staff suggests a condition allowing the City's Planning Director to require the facility to secure and maintain commercial bin service. With this condition, this finding can be made. Analysis Summary As indicated at the beginning of this report, staff recommends denial of this Use Permit application for the following reasons: Inability to make all of the findings required by the NBMC Sections 20.91.035 (A) and 20.91 A.060. 2. The proposed use is not consistent with the purposes of NBMC Section 20.91A as set forth in Section 20.91A.010, and the requirements of Section 20.91.020. 3. There are inconsistencies and/or factual misrepresentations in the application documentation. This recommendation is based on analysis of the proposed project's submitted documentation, review of the property setting, apparent documentation contradictions and/or misrepresentations, and staffs conclusion that the required findings from NBMC Section 20.91.035 (A) Findings Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 cannot be made, that the required findings from NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Findings A, B, C and D cannot be made. If, after reviewing this report, and hearing testimony from the applicant, the Hearing Officer agrees with staff's recommendation for denial, staff requests the Hearing Officer's direction to prepare a resolution for denial for adoption at a time and date set by the Hearing Officer. APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION BACKGROUND On May 20, 2008, the applicant submitted an Application for Reasonable Accommodation (Exhibit 2) that discussed the need for accommodation, but did not seek exemption from any specific City rule, policy or practice. On August 22, 2008, the applicant submitted an Application for Reasonable Accommodation that requested an exemption "from single family to multi - family residence." (Exhibit 7) The applicant also indicated the need for an accommodation from the required use permit fee due to financial hardship. Upon request for clarification YS 00575 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 20 and additional information from staff, the applicant's attorney submitted a supplemental request for accommodation from specific provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC ") on January 29, 2009. (Exhibit 8) The three specific accommodations requested are: That the 18 residents of the Yellowstone facility at 1571 Pegasus Street be treated as a single housekeeping unit, as the term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; 3. An exemption from the City's requirement that all use permit applicants pay a use permit application fee to permit cost recovery by the City. (NBMC Chapter 3.36 and NBMC Section 20.90.030) NBMC Section 20.98.015 provides that if the request for a Reasonable Accommodation requires another discretionary permit, the applicant may request a simultaneous hearing. In this case, the use of the property as a residential care facility does require a use permit, and the applicant has requested simultaneous hearing of both the use permit application and the various requests for reasonable accommodation. DISCUSSION The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), adopted in 1988, prohibit housing discrimination based on a resident's disability. Under the FHAA, it is discriminatory for government entities to refuse to make reasonable accommodations from rules, policies, and practices when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(13)). Cases interpreting the FHAA have held that a government agency has an affirmative duty to grant a requested reasonable accommodation if: (1) the request is made by or on behalf of a disabled individual or individuals, (2) the accommodation is necessary to afford the disabled applicant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and (3) the request is reasonable. Cities may find an accommodation request unreasonable if granting the request would: (1) result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program (often described as undermining "the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve "), or (2) would impose undue financial or administrative burdens on the city (See U.S. v. Village of Marshall, 787 F.Supp. 872, 878 (W.D. Wisc. 1991). Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary must be determined on a case -by -case basis. Because the applicant has requested three very different YS 00576 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 21 types of reasonable accommodation, staff will present a separate analysis of each specific accommodation request. In the January 29, 2009 letter clarifying applicants request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested its facility be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit, as that term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030. The applicant said the accommodation requested is necessary because the facility "is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility" The applicant stated: "Mhe Property more accurately Tits the definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030. Residents are the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit. Like a Single Housekeeping Unit, there is a common area and each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses and chores ... The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager. Ordinance No. 2008 -05 codified the procedures for requesting, reviewing and granting, conditionally granting, or denying all requests for reasonable accommodation in the City of Newport Beach. The Hearing Officer is designed to approve, conditionally approve, or deny all applications for a reasonable accommodation. The ordinance also established required findings and factors the Hearing Officer may consider when making those findings. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(8) of the NBMC, the written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. Finding: That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. This findina can be made. The applicant submitted a statement signed under penalty of perjury that every resident of the facility is in recovery from alcohol addiction. Federal regulations and case law have defined recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction as a disability, because it is a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs one or more major daily life activities. 2. Finding: That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. YS 00577 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 22 This finding cannot be made. Staff does not question the need for sober living homes, nor the fact that persons with a disability must have the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. However, the exemption requested by the applicant is unnecessarily broad to achieve the goal of providing disabled housing. As staff informed the applicant's counsel, a request to be considered a Single Housekeeping Unit is essentially a request to be exempted from aU of the provisions of Ordinance 2008 -05 which place any sort of reasonable regulation on the operations of residential care facilities. This is not necessary, because there are many more narrowly tailored accommodations that could enable facility residents to enjoy the housing of their choice without depriving the surrounding neighborhood of reasonable conditions that mitigate the adverse secondary impacts that emanate from this facility. Applicant's counsel asserts in his January 29, 2009 letter that being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary "because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility." I Even if the facility were not transient or institutional in nature, and did not clearly fit the definition of a sober living home, or unlicensed residential care facility, an exemption from the provisions of 2008 -05 is not necessary to afford its residents the opportunity to live in and enjoy a dwelling. However, the applicant raised the issue of how the facility should be characterized in its necessity argument, and asserted the facility more closely resembles a Single Housekeeping Unit than any other type of residential use. Staff has analyzed the facility's appropriate use classification based on the applicant's submitted materials. Staff has determined the nature of applicants facility operations, as reported in the original application for reasonable accommodation submitted in May 2008, most closely resembles a boarding house use. But for the fact residents are recovering alcoholics, the facility would be classified as a prohibited Group Residential use, or a Boarding or Rooming House as that term is defined in NBMC 20.05.030. (Residential Use Classifications) ( "A residence or dwelling unit, or part thereof, wherein a room or rooms are rented under two or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof ... ") On the May 2008 application for reasonable accommodation, the applicant states, 'The residents at the property reside separately at the property and interact within the property. There is individual use of common areas. The residents are responsible for ` The residents are recovering alcoholics living together in order to maintain their sobriety. Therefore, the facility closely fits the profile of a sober living home, or unlicensed recovery facility, contrary to applicant's counsel's assertions. Whether the facility is transient or institutional in nature does not enter that analysis, although staff believes there is a strong argument that the existence of the three additional facilities owned and operated as sober living homes by the applicant within 100 to 300 feet of each other does create a quasi - institutional environment. VI&IIIII -Y&I Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 23 their own meals, expenses and chores. Each individual resides at the property subject to a separate contractual arrangement with the applicant." (Italics added) In a follow -up conversation with staff, applicants CEO, Dr. Anna Thames stated that the facility has no written leases with any of the residents. Rental agreements with residents are verbal. Again, the description of operations is much closer to the NBMC's definition of a boarding house or group residential use than a single housekeeping unit, as the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit requires dwellings rented to bona fide Single Housekeeping Units to be occupied under.a single written lease. The self- reported pattern of facility operations and resident interaction in no way resembles the NBMC definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit. NBMC Section 20.03.030 (Definitions) defines as Single Housekeeping Unit as: "The functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of and responsibility for common areas, and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, household maintenance, and expenses, and where, if the unit is rented, all adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy the entire premises of the dwelling unit, under a single written lease with joint use and responsibility for the premises, and the makeup of the household occupying the unit is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the landlord or property manager." Applicants resident clients may be an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit who share common areas, but the applicants own submittals indicate there is no joint responsibility for meals or expenses, no single written lease (or any written leases at all), and the makeup of the household is determined by the applicant rather than the residents. Staff is troubled by the contradictory information submitted regarding whether the facility operator or the residents determine the household makeup. Given that both the May 20, 2008 reasonable accommodation application and the applicants CEO stated that the applicant determines the household makeup, applicants counsel's assertion in the January 29, 2009 letter that "the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager" is difficult to accept. The remainder of the applicants presentation regarding classification as a "Single Housekeeping Unit" suffers from the inconsistency in the information it submitted to the City. After the inconsistency was pointed out to applicant's counsel by staff, counsel submitted additional correspondence dated February 13, 2009, (Exhibit 10) addressing the discrepancy which staff believes still exists. NBMC Section 20.98.025(C) allows the City to consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: YS 00579 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 24 A. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disability. If the requested accommodation is granted, any number of the applicant's current and potential clients will be able to live in a home in a single - family zone with other recovering alcoholics. This is a situation that can affirmatively enhance the quality of life of a person in recovery from addiction, unless overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhood interferes with the residents' re- integration into society. The applicants sliding scale of rental rates offers a sober living environment to residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in a single - family home in this area. B. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation. As stated above, the exemption requested by the applicant is broader than necessary to achieve the goal of enabling disabled individuals an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice. City staff discussed more narrowly tailored exemptions that could enable disabled individuals to reside at the applicant's facility, but the applicant has chosen to retain this request. C. In the case of a residential care facility, whether 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. The applicant does not state why being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make its facilities viable in light of the current market for the type of services it provides. In relation to Reasonable Accommodation Request #2, the applicant states that each facility requires 15 residents in order to be financially viable, and provides a general summary of average income and expenses for all four facilities. In light of the analysis performed in full in Reasonable Accommodation Request #2, Finding 2, Section C below, the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make applicants facilities financially viable. D. In the case of a residential care facility, 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. In 2007, City staff estimated that there were more than 315 sober living beds in the city (these are exclusive of the up to 213 ADP - licensed treatment beds). These numbers were compiled before applicant's facilities, with a total of 58 sober living and eight staff beds, were added to the city's supply. Operators of many sober living facilities within the city have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Yellowstone clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment YS 00580 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 25 without granting the accommodation. Further, a recent agreement with Sober Living by the Sea, Inc., authorized SLBTS to provide up to 204 beds citywide. However, many of these alternate sober living beds are probably not offered on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. The evidence does not support the applicant's contention that treating residents of its facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit will change the availability of the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature, or afford them a substantially greater access to an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. Even if the applicant provides housing for the disabled, and even if the requested accommodation is necessary, the City is not required to grant a request for accommodation that is not reasonable. Cities may find a requested accommodation unreasonable if it either (1) imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, or (2) results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program, often described as undermining "the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve:' 3. Finding: That 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. This finding can be made. Treating the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit would not impose a currently identifiable undue financial or administrative burden on the City. However, staff makes this finding with caution, because the applicant is requesting similar accommodations at each of its facilities. If this reasonable accommodation request were granted for all four Yellowstone facilities, the applicant would be able to house a number of residents far in excess of the 66 individuals currently residing in the four homes. Currently unidentifiable financial or administrative burdens could arise as a result. 4. Finding: That the requested accommodation will not 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. This findino cannot be made. The purpose of the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit is to allow staff to determine whether groups of related or unrelated individuals are living together in a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. This definition is necessary because of the persistent attempts by landlords to establish illegal boarding houses in dwellings within the City. Groups living as a single housekeeping unit can live together in any residential zone in Newport Beach. Groups not living as a single housekeeping unit are prohibited from establishing residences in any of the City's residential zones. There is, however, an important exception to the total prohibition of groups not living as a single housekeeping unit -- groups not living as a single housekeeping unit in residential care facilities of any size. M4111I.f:7il Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 26 Essentially, all residential care facilities in the City have already received a reasonable accommodation from the NBMC's restrictions on groups not living as a single housekeeping unit. The NBMC provides many opportunities for new facilities to establish, and has provisions for existing facilities to continue in their current locations with appropriate impact mitigation. Licensed facilities housing six or fewer residents can establish in any residential zone of the City. Although the residents of residential care facilities receive preferential treatment because of their disabled status, the NBMC's Zoning Code also applies regulations to unlicensed and larger (more than seven residents) licensed facilities. These regulations are in place to ensure that the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code can be achieved, and so the adverse secondary impacts higher density residential care facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated. If the facility is treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit, it is entirely exempt from any of the reasonable controls the City might place on it. The City would be unable to make any reasonable effort to reduce the adverse secondary impacts such as noise, overcrowding, and unruly behavior by residents of applicant's facility to the detriment of neighbors, in addition to finding solutions to the applicant's disproportionate consumption of available on- street parking, and the overconcentration of facilities within a single block to the point of creating a quasi - institutional environment in this neighborhood. It is highly likely that most other similar facilities within the City would request a similar exemption, thus nullifying the Ordinance's effect entirely. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(D) of the NBMC, the City may also consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program: A. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. Staff acknowledges that a petition stating, "Yellowstone is a good neighbor" was presented to the City, signed by four residents of Pegasus Street (where one of the other facilities of applicant is located). However, these signatures of support were countered by letters, ematls and phone calls from neighbors of the facilities that reported increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood as more of the applicant's facilities established there in recent years. The impacts reported include: • Litter in the neighborhood which complainants attribute to the applicant's facilities, including cigarette butts, soda cans, and beer cans and bottles; • Family and other visitors to the facilities; • Facility residents traveling in groups between one facility and the others; • Meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicant's facilities, with outside attendees; • Excessive use of on- street parking by facility residents and their guests; and • Decline in property values in the neighborhood. YS 00582 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 27 Due to a number of factors, including general fluctuations in the real estate market, staff is reluctant to speculate that any decline in property values is a direct result of the operation of applicant's facilities. Accordingly, this consideration was not factored into Staff's analysis. A number of the neighbors' allegations appear credible, and directly contradict applicant's representations to the City. Specifically, the applicant stated in its submittals that: • There are no outside visitors allowed at the facility; • Residents are not permitted to have cars while they reside at the facility and rely on public transportation, carpools with the resident managers to get to the full -time jobs which the applicant states all residents have, and facility vans to get to treatment facilities and church (although the May 20, 2008 use permit application stated that this facility then allowed up to four resident vehicles onsite); • No interaction between the four facilities operated in close proximity by the applicant is permitted. Based on the misstatements and inconsistencies of the information supplied by the applicant in its use permit and reasonable accommodation applications, Staff views these representations about restrictions on visitors, cars and facility interaction with skepticism. In particular, staff does not find the applicant's statement about its "no visitors" policy to be credible, because one of the letters of support (Exhibit 6) submitted by a former Yellowstone resident said, "I come to Yellowstone every week and am still a part of this place still to this day ... 6 years later. I hope it is here for other girls to come back and work with the newcomers the way I have been given the chance too." Another former resident wrote, "Yellowstone is the place that I will continue to come back to and visit the new girls who are struggling the way I did." (Note: applicant's attorney states that these letters refer to meetings at another Yellowstone facility in Costa Mesa.) The applicant's possible misstatements of easily verifiable facts (such as policies about no meetings, no visitors, and no inter - facility interaction), and early written and oral representations that two of the facilities held ADP licenses (which they never had), causes staff concern about the overall responsibility of the operator, and its ability to successfully manage both its residents and the negative impacts its facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood. B. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking. Parking - The applicant stated in its original reasonable accommodation application for this property (May 20, 2008) that facility residents were not permitted to have personal vehicles at the property. The use permit application stated that four residents have V&11I1I.f:R3 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 28 personal vehicles they park onsite. Later correspondence and conversations with the applicant's attorneys indicated that no resident vehicles would be permitted onsite, and that only the two resident staff members would be permitted vehicles. The enclosed garage spaces and driveway parking spaces allow for the staff vehicles to be accommodated without impacting neighborhood parking. However, the weekly meetings and weekend visitors reported by neighbors and former residents of the facilities disproportionately consume available neighborhood parking. Four other facilities are located in the same neighborhood in close proximity to this site. The cumulative impact of having more than one facility operating within a very restricted distance results in increased traffic and parking demands. Traffic and Generated Trips The Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. Trip rates for residential care facilities are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Based on these standards, an 18 -bed residential care facility is estimated to generate approximately 49.32 average daily trips. Applying this formula, it appears that the facility will generate average daily trips substantially in excess of surrounding single family dwellings. If the facility's bed count is reduced to the 13 beds permitted under the use permit operating standards of NBMC Chapter 20.91A.050, the facility could generate approximately 35.62 average daily trips. 5. Finding: That 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. This findino can be made. A request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if granting it would pose "a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). This is a very limited exception and can only be used when, based on the specific facts of a situation, a requested accommodation results in a significant and particularized threat. Federal cases interpreting this exception in the FHAA indicate that requested accommodations cannot be denied due to generalized fears of the risks posed by disabled persons. SUMMARY — REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST #1 In summary, with regard to the applicant's request to provide reasonable accommodation that treats the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit, Findings 2 and 4 cannot be made. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, all five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. Therefore, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer YS 00584 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 29 deny the Reasonable Accommodation request for the residents of the subject property to be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. In the January 29, 2009 letter from applicant's counsers clarifying and supplementing applicants request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested that the facility receive an exemption from the occupancy standards of NBMC Section 20.91A.050. NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2) requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. All of applicants facilities currently have residents in excess of the number that would be permitted under the use permit standards. One facility (1561 Indus) has 12 residents in five bedrooms; the other three (1621 Indus, 20172 Redlands, and 1571 Pegasus) have 18 residents in six bedrooms. Under the operating standards of NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2), a use permit issued to 1571 Pegasus would be limited to no more than 13 residents (six bedrooms x two residents per bedroom plus one = 13). The applicant requests an exemption from this requirement that will allow each facility to continue at its current occupancy level of 18. The applicants counsel did not indicate in the January 29, 2009 letter why the accommodation requested is necessary, but clarified the assertion of necessity via telephone and email to staff on February 12, 2009. Applicants counsel asserts that, as to current residents of 1571 Pegasus, the accommodation is necessary because if a use permit were granted restricting occupancy to 13, current residents would be displaced. Because of financial constraints on the displaced residents earning capability that result from the residents disability, the applicants counsel states that the displaced resident would have no other place to reside in a sober environment. As to prospective residents of 1571 Pegasus, the applicants counsel states that the accommodation. is necessary because the prospective residents of 1571 Pegasus also have financial constraints caused by their disability, and would be unable to afford to rent a dwelling if the additional bed(s) at 1571 Pegasus were unavailable to them because of the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2). Ordinance No. 2008 -05 codified the procedures for requesting, reviewing and granting, conditionally granting, or denying all requests for reasonable accommodation in the City of Newport Beach. The Hearing Officer is designed to approve, conditionally approve, or deny all applications for a reasonable accommodation. The ordinance also established required findings, and factors the Hearing Officer may consider when making those findings. M41111-131 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 30 Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(8) of the NBMC, the written decision to approve; conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. 1. Finding: That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. This findina can be made. The applicant has submitted a statement signed under penalty of perjury that every resident of the facility is in recovery from alcohol addiction. Federal regulations and case law have defined recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction as a disability, because it is a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs one or more major daily life activities. 2. Finding: That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. As to current residents of 1571 Pegasus: This finding can be made. If a use permit is issued for this facility without the requested accommodation, five current residents of 1571 Pegasus would have to be removed from the facility in order comply with the terms of the use permit. The applicant reported in its application that the average length of stay for residents of this facility is six months; the applicant later verbally informed staff that residents stay six months to one year, sometimes longer. Granting the requested accommodation would allow that individual to remain in the dwelling for the remainder of her temporary stay, providing that individual with the opportunity to continue to live in her current dwelling for the necessary limited period of time. As to prospective residents of 1571 Pegasus: This finding cannot be made. Applicant states that it charges monthly fees on a sliding scale based on ability to pay, and that the applicant's recovery services are needed services for many persons in recovery from alcoholism. Applicant has submitted an Affidavit of Disability- Related Hardship, signed under penalty of perjury, on behalf of the facility's residents. The affidavit states that before becoming disabled, Yellowstone residents earned an average of $50,000 per year, and that in recovery the residents are earning an average of $20,000 per year. It is plausible that persons in early recovery from addiction tend to have lower incomes than they had before addiction temporarily reduced their employment opportunities. This will necessitate shared living arrangements in one form or another. Adding beds, in the case of 1571 Pegasus, could afford an additional disabled individual the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The analysis does not stop at the financial needs of the potential residents, however. Were that the case, the City might be obligated to authorize an unlimited number of residents at the applicants facilities at greatly reduced rents; the population of recovering alcoholics with financial limitations is vast. Even the Ninth Circuit has noted that mandating lower rents for disabled individuals would probably not be considered a M41111-1-11 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 31 reasonable request. (See Giebeler v. M &B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)) NBMC Section 20.98.025(C) permits the City to consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: A. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disability. Staff does not question the need for sober living homes, nor the fact that persons with a disability must have the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. If the requested accommodation is granted, a slightly higher number of the applicant's current and potential clients will be able to live in a home in a single- family neighborhood with other recovering alcoholics. This is a situation that can affirmatively enhance the quality of fife of a person in recovery from addiction, unless overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhood interferes with the residents' re- integration into society. The applicant's sliding scale of rental rates offers a sober living environment to residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in a single- family home in this area. B. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation. As to current residents of 1571 Pegasus: If the use permit is granted and the accommodation is denied, five residents will be displaced from their temporary home. As to prospective residents of 1571 Pegasus: The applicant has not submitted information on whether the facility at 1571 Pegasus is currently operating at full census, or whether it has a waiting list of potential residents. However, if all of the applicant's Yellowstone facilities are running at full census with a waiting list of potential residents who cannot afford to reside in a sober environment in any of the vacant beds, in other facilities within the city, then denying the accommodation could deny prospective residents the opportunity to live in a sober living environment. C. In the case of a residential care facility, whether 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. The applicant states that each facility requires 15 residents in order to be financially viable, and provides a general summary of average income and expenses for all four facilities. In some federal cases in which a sober living or other group home made a similar statement in support of its request for an accommodation allowing additional residents, courts found that the accommodation should be granted. However, the courts generally consider more detailed, verified financial information to reach that 1' 4111I.f:3/ Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 32 conclusion. (See Oxford House- Evergreen v. City of Plainfield, 769 F.Supp. 1329 (1991)) The applicant has not submitted financial information specific to each facility, but it has supplied an average cost analysis for its four facilities overall. The analysis was not signed under penalty of perjury, and although staff requested it, the applicant did not submit specific evidence such as mortgage statements or utility bills by the date of this report. If a residential recovery home is adding residents for its own financial advantage rather than to accommodate the financial limitations of the residents, the City is not obligated to grant the requested accommodation. D. In the case of a residential care facility, 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. In 2007, City staff estimated that there were more than 315 sober living beds in the city (these are exclusive of the up to 213 ADP - licensed treatment beds). These numbers were compiled before applicant's facilities, with a total of 58 sober living and eight staff beds, were added to the city's supply. Operators of many sober living facilities within the city have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Yellowstone clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment without granting the accommodation. Further, a recent agreement with Sober Living by the Sea, Inc., authorized SLBTS to provide up to 204 beds citywide. However, many of these alternate sober living beds are probably not offered on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. The evidence does not support the applicant's contention that treating residents of its facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit will change the availability of the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature, or afford them a substantially greater access to an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. Even if the applicant provides housing for the disabled, and even if the requested accommodation is necessary, the City is not required to grant a request for accommodation that is not reasonable. Cities may find a requested accommodation unreasonable if it either (1) imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, or (2) results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program, often described as "undermining the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve." 3. Finding: That 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. As to current residents of 1571 Pegasus: This finding can be made. Allowing five additional beds on a temporary basis at the facility would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. Applicant states that the average length of stay for individual residents is 6 months. It creates little burden on the City to allow five of the current residents of 1571 Pegasus to complete their stay at the facility. Upon her departure, the facility's bed count will be within the range contemplated by the operating M41111.1-1.1 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 33 standards of the NBMC. The primary administrative burden on the City would be ensuring compliance. As to prospective residents of 1571 Pegasus: This finding can be made. Allowing five extra beds at this facility would not create a currently identifiable undue financial or administrative burden on the City. However, staff makes this finding with caution, because applicant is requesting similar accommodations at each of its facilities. If all use permits and reasonable accommodation requests are granted, this would create a total of 16 residents in excess of the highest number permitted for the four facilities by the operating standards of the NBMC. 4. Finding: That the requested accommodation will not 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. As to current residents: This findina can be made. Allowing five additional beds on a temporary basis at the facility would not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program. Applicant states that the average length of stay for individual residents is 6 months to one year. It does not fundamentally undermine the nature of the City's zoning program to allow one of the current residents of 1561 Indus to complete her stay at the facility. Upon her departure, the facility's bed count will be within the range contemplated by the zoning program. As to prospective residents: This finding cannot be made. Permanently allowing five additional beds in excess of the highest number allowed under the operational standards of the NBMC could undermine the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve. The basic purpose of the bed count limits is to draw a line at a reasonable density for a business providing residential recovery services within a residential neighborhood. Five additional beds can undermine the fundamental purpose of the zoning program, unless Yellowstone's program impacts are eliminated or substantially reduced at other facilities. Appellant may argue that five extra beds does not undermine the basic purpose the bed count restriction seeks to achieve, but the line must be drawn somewhere. The City Council found that that line was two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. These regulations are in place to ensure that the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code can be achieved, and so that secondary impacts of the higher density residential care facilities on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated. Staff is also concerned that if use permits are granted at each facility, and each facility receives the reasonable accommodation requested here, the extra 16 individuals could trigger an overconcentration that contributes even further to the change in the character of the neighborhood. The residents living in five recovery facilities located between 100 and 400 feet from each other are likely to create a quasi - institutional environment within the neighborhood. This will not benefit either the surrounding neighborhood or the M41111-13.81 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 34 recovering individuals attempting to reintegrate into the lifestyle found in a residential neighborhood. In a joint statement on the Fair Housing Act, the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have recognized it would adversely affect persons with disabilities and would be inconsistent with the object of integrating persons with disabilities into the community if a neighborhood came to be composed largely of group homes. They agree that it is appropriate to be concerned about the setting for a residential care facility, and that a consideration of overconcentration may be considered in this context. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(D) of the NBMC, the City may also consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program: A. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. Staff acknowledges a petition stating "Yellowstone is a good neighbor" was presented to the City, signed by four residents of Pegasus Street (where one of the other facilities of applicant is located). However, the petition was countered by letters, emails and phone calls from the facilities' neighbors reporting increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood as the applicant established more facilities in recent years. The letters of support, the letters of complaint, and the applicant's submissions do not indicate which Yellowstone facility the impacts are reported (or denied) for. Therefore, staff will analyze the reported impacts as if they apply to each facility equally. The impacts reported include: • Litter in the neighborhood which complainants attribute to the applicant's facilities, including cigarette butts, soda cans, and beer cans and bottles; • Family and other visitors to the facilities; • Facility residents traveling in groups between one facility and the others; • Meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicant's facilities, with outside attendees; • Excessive use of on- street parking by facility residents and their guests; and • Decline in property values in tfie neighborhood. Due to a number of factors, including general fluctuations in the real estate market, staff is reluctant to speculate whether any decline in property values is a direct result of the operation of applicant's facilities. This consideration was not included in staff's analysis. However, a number of the neighbors' allegations appear credible, and directly contradict representations made to the City by the applicants. Specifically, the applicant has stated in its reasonable accommodation applications and supplemental communications that: YS 00590 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 35 • There are no outside visitors allowed at the facility; • Residents are not permitted to have cars while they reside at the facility and rely on public transportation, carpools with the resident managers to get to the full -time jobs which the applicant states all residents have, and facility vans to get to treatment facilities and church (although the May 20, 2008 use permit application stated that this facility then allowed up to four resident vehicles onsite); and • No interaction between the four facilities operated in close proximity by the applicant is permitted. Based on the other misstatements and inconsistencies in the information supplied by the applicant in its use permit and reasonable accommodation applications, staff is inclined to view the applicant's representations about restrictions on visitors, cars and facility interaction with skepticism. In particular, staff is not sure the applicant's statement about its "no visitors" policy is credible, because neighbors report visitors are common, and because one of the letters of support submitted by a former Yellowstone resident said, "I come to Yellowstone every week and am still a part of this place still to this day ... 6 years later. I hope it is here for other girls to come back and work with the newcomers the way I have been given the chance too." Another former resident wrote, "Yellowstone is the place that I will continue to come back to and visit the new girls who are struggling the way I did" (Exhibit 6) (Note: applicant's attorney states that these letters refer to meetings at another Yellowstone facility in Costa Mesa.) The applicant's possible misstatements of easily verifiable facts (such as policies about no meetings, no visitors, and no inter - facility interaction), and early written and oral representations that two of the facilities held ADP licenses (which they never had), causes staff concern about the overall responsibility of the operator, and its ability to successfully manage both its residents and the negative impacts its facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood. Allowing facilities that are not well run to operate with a high concentration of residents can lead to a further alteration in the character of the neighborhood. If a use permit in this location is granted, it may be necessary to scale back rather than expand the population of the facility, and increase supervision and enforcement of existing house rule to mitigate the impact of the facility on the surrounding neighborhood. Applicant's counsel has been informed of the inconsistencies in the applicant's submitted materials, and will submit additional information addressing the inconsistencies. On February 12, 2009, applicant's counsel informed staff by telephone that: • Meetings referenced in Yellowstone alumni letters of support occur only at Yellowstone's Costa Mesa facility, and there are no meetings held at the Newport Beach facilities. YS 00591 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February.20, 2009 Page 36 There has been a change in policy since the original application for reasonable accommodation was submitted in May 2008. Personal vehicles are no longer allowed at 1751 Pegasus. Only the two resident managers may have vehicles in the neighborhood, which must be parked onsite. Letters from facility neighbors indicate this may not be the case. Public testimony at the hearing will allow the hearing officer and staff a clearer picture of the actual situation. B. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking. Parking - The applicant stated in its original reasonable accommodation application for this property (May 20, 2008) that facility residents were permitted to have four personal vehicles at the property. The use permit application stated that no residents except the two resident managers have personal vehicles which they park onsite. Later correspondence and conversations with the applicant's attorneys indicated that facility policy has changed, and that now no resident vehicles are permitted onsite at any facility, and that only the two resident staff members would be permitted vehicles. If residents are not allowed personal vehicles in the neighborhood, then there should not be a substantial increase in insufficient parking as a result. However, the weekly meetings and weekend visitors reported by neighbors and former residents of the facilities do appear to impact neighborhood parking to an excessive degree. (Letters from the public say that meetings occur, but do not indicate which of the facilities hold meetings.) Three other facilities operated by the applicant are located in the same neighborhood at a distance that varies from 100 to 300 feet from each other. If requested reasonable accommodations are granted for all four of applicants facilities, 16 facility residents in excess of the operating standards would be allowed. The operating standards already limit the overall population at the four facilities to 50. The cumulative impact of having 16 extra residents in more than one facility operating within a very restricted distance could result in increased traffic and parking demands. Traffic and Generated Trips — The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. Trip rates for residential care facilities are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Based on these standards, an 18 -bed residential care facility would generate approximately 49.32 average daily trips. A 13 -bed facility would generate 35.62 average daily trips, arguably an appreciable difference in traffic generation. 5. Finding: That 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. YS 00592 Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 37 This finding can be made. A request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if granting it would pose "a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). This is a very limited exception and can only be used when, based on the specific facts of a situation, a requested accommodation results in a significant and particularized threat. Federal cases interpreting this exception in the FHAA indicate that requested accommodations cannot be denied due to generalized fears of the risks posed by disabled persons. SUMMARY — REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST #2 The applicant has requested that the facility at 1571 Pegasus continue to have five beds in excess of that allowed by the operating standards specified in the NBMC operating standards for the duration of the stay of the five extra residents. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, all five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. Current Residents: All five findings were made as to the current residents of 1571 Pegasus. Staff recommends that if a use permit is granted for this facility, the Hearing Officer also grant the requested accommodation as to the current residents only. Prospective Residents: Findings 1, 3 and 5 can be made with respect to the additional prospective residents at this facility. However, Findings 2 and 4 cannot be made. All five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to grant the use permit. If a use permit is granted for this facility, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny this accommodation request. The applicant has stated that, as a non - profit organization that relies on contributions from the community to keep it from operating at a loss, paying the use permit application fee deposit presents a financial hardship. Staff offered a payment plan to enable the applicant to pay the application fee within a reasonable period of time. In lieu of the payment plan, the applicant has requested an exemption from the $2,200 use permit application deposit required to process the use permit application submitted for this facility. NBMC Chapter 3.36 sets forth the fee schedule for municipal services, and mandates 100% cost recovery for services when the fee schedule does not set forth a lower rate of recovery. Use permits processing is not one of the services that are generally provided at a rate below 100% cost recovery NBMC Section 20.90.030 states that applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. M4111MON Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 38 Federal courts have periodically reviewed whether the financial limitations of disabled individuals must be considered when analyzing reasonable accommodation requests, with inconsistent results. The Ninth Circuit has indicated that some disability- related financial constraints must be considered when the request is reasonable. As with all reasonable accommodations, the analysis of whether a requested accommodation from financial policies is reasonable must be determined on a case -by -case basis. The applicant has submitted a signed Affidavit of Disability - Related Financial Hardship that gives general information on the pre- and post - disability average income range of typical facility residents. The applicant has also submitted an unverified statement of the average income and expenses related to the four facility properties, discussed above in Reasonable Accommodation Request #2, Finding Two (C). SUMMARY — REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST #3 Although staff requested further verifiable financial information from the applicant, this information had not been received at the time this report was prepared. Therefore, staff is unable to perform an accurate analysis of the actual financial needs of the applicant at this time. Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer continue this portion of the applicant's reasonable accommodation requests to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to submit and staff to analyze verifiable financial information. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer conduct a public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, the City of Newport Beach and its legal counsel, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends the Hearing Officer: 1. Deny the use permit application based on the findings discussed in this report, and provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution of denial with prejudice of Use Permit No. 2008 -034. 2. Deny the request for reasonable accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a single housekeeping unit subject to the findings discussed in this staff report. 3. If a use permit is granted for this facility, staff recommends that the requested accommodation for an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 be granted as to the current residents. As to future residents of this facility, staff recommends continuance to a date certain pending receipt of additional financial information. 4. Staff recommends a continuance to a date certain for the request for reasonable accommodation for an exemption of the application filing fee requirement pending receipt of additional financial information. M4111I.i 6LI Use Permit No. 2008 -036 February 20, 2009 Page 39 Environmental Review This activity has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and therefore it is not subject to CEQA. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: �'atl_awrence, AICP Consulting Planner EXHIBITS Submitted by: Dave Kiff Assistant City Manager 1. Findings Chart 2. Initial Application Submittal dated May 20, 2008 3. Notices of Incomplete Application dated June 19, 2008, November 7, 2008, and January 14, 2009, including subsequent submittals 4. Site Plan /Floor Plans 5. Fire Marshal Correspondence and Code Anvilysis Submittal 6. Letters in Support (submitted by Applicant) and Letters in Opposition 7. Application for Reasonable Accommodation dated August 22, 2008 8. Applicants Supportive Documentation submitted for Reasonable Accommodation 9. Applicants E -mail dated January 28, 2009 10. Applicants Additional Correspondence dated February 13, 2009 11. Additional Letters of Opposition Received After February 13, 2009 VI&II11I46I.1 N C D m � l7 N � I � T O z 'G p m C m Fes- A u' C V M M v m G) O N D C 0 N :U N O —I C � m m M 2 � N � C) m = r O 0 C m N O 0 M m z T C (A N m 0 m m a YS 00596 t. r= ' Nim �n. REEHUM- 4 � 7 t r E,,, lid+ ,P Lt y�y D -I N T Z v Z N m A c m O O D v O m W m N Z D 00 r m D f') O v z m m A c m YS 00597 / \�4 /�t \\ /I } > :. . �� . � m , �2 \ _�� »£� ® /\ \TRW-. ~»■' . ? ; & Sig YS 00598 tt YS 00599 EXHIBIT 2 INITIAL APPLICATION SUBMITTAL YS 00600 Made S. Adams Scott R. Albrecht Ryan N. Bruns Loren A. Deters Howard Goldstein* Matthew A. Goldstein ** Beatriz M.G. Gordon Philip W. Green Megan G. Mayer Herbert N. Samuels * ** Hugh A. Sanders William L. Steel Martin J. Stein Isaac R. Zfaty F P,ZVUa•wr w, .. - ----. - -- 1571 PEGASUS STREET Yellowstone Women's First Step House. Inc. *Also admitted in Nevada * *Also admitted in Arizona ** *Also admitted in New York and Florida May 20, 2008 HAND DELIVERED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Senior counsel of Jeffrey S. Grider RECEIVFn MAY 2 0 2008 V1LOe Or the City Manager l :ll �i Re: Ordinance 2008 -5 (the "Ordinance ") Use Permit Application; Reasonable Accommodation; Federal Exemption Permit; Non- Conforming Use Application To Whom It May Concern: This firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Yellowstone "). Please direct all future correspondences regarding this matter to this office. Enclosed herewith are the following items: 1. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application for the property located at 1571 Pegasus, Newport Beach, CA 92707; 2. Reasonable Accommodation Application for the property located at 1571 Pegasus, Newport Beach, CA 92707; 3. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application for the property located at 1621 Indus St., Newport Beach, CA 92707; 4. Reasonable Accommodation Application for the property located at 1621 Indus St., Newport Beach, CA 92707; 5. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application for the property located at 20172 Redlands Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92707; 19800 MacArthur Boulevard • Stute 1000 * Twine, CA 92612 -2433 YS 00601 Telephone: (949) 263 -0004 * Facsimile: (949) 263 -0005 City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 2 6. Reasonable Accommodation Application for the property located at 20172 Redlands Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92707; Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application for the property located at 1561 Indus, Newport Beach, CA 92707; and 8. Reasonable Accommodation Application for the property located at 1561 Indus, Newport Beach, CA 92707. Additionally, by and through the materials included herein (including this correspondence), Yellowstone seeks a Federal Exemption Permit and a grant of Non - Conforming Use for the continued use of the above referenced four properties (the "Properties ") as sober living homes. Yellowstone operates the Properties as not for profit homes where individuals with drug and alcohol addictions can live in a sober and supportive environment. As you know, these individuals are protected under, inter aiia, the Americans With Disabilities Act (the "ADA ") and the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments (the "FHAA "). This application is brought by Yellowstone (the "Applicant) on the behalf of all of the disabled individuals who reside at the Properties, both currently and prospectively. It is worth noting that Yellowstone is less than confident that the instant applications are necessary. Yellowstone hereby submits these applications out of an abundance of caution and in a continued effort to remain compliant with all applicable Newport Beach ordinances. With respect to each of the Properties, the following facts apply: The Properties were originally purchased in the unincorporated area of Orange County known as Santa Ana Heights. Recently, the Properties were annexed by the City of Newport Beach. Further, Ordinance 2008 -5 was signed into law. As a result, Yellowstone has decided to submit the referenced applications under Ordinance 2008 -5 and Municipal Code sections 20.62.010, et seq., 20.91.010, et seq., 20.91A.0 10, et seq., and 20.98.010, et seq. The Ordinance requires that a number of questions be addressed in the permit application, and also in connection with the request for reasonable accommodation. In response to those requirements, Yellowstone provides the following specific information: Yellowstone does not provide medical services, or any other type of health care, at any of the Properties. Rather, the Properties are available as separate and distinct sober living homes of residence for disabled individuals who seek to live in a house with other similarly disabled individuals (who have made a commitment to sobriety), in community, and with the purpose of maintaining that sobriety and addressing their respective disabilities. YS 00602 City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 3 The success of sober living homes in assisting these disabled individuals throughout the United States is well documented. Similar success has been realized at the Properties addressed herein. A sample of the literature on sober living homes is attached to the applications. Without the sober living homes addressed in these applications, i.e., the Properties, the individuals who live at these homes would not have access to sober living homes, and would not be able to afford to live in such a home in Orange County. Yellowstone provides these homes to satisfy the otherwise unaddressed need by these disabled individuals for an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. There is no question that, with their current use, these Properties affirmatively enhance the lives of many individuals with disabilities. Importantly, the rent charged to these individuals simply covers Yellowstone's costs; no profit is realized. In fact, without charitable contributions, Yellowstone would operate at a loss. By no means is Yellowstone, or any individual involved with Yellowstone, a profiteer. Yellowstone simply makes available a sober living environment in an effort to help these disabled individuals, and with a view toward enhancing the community. To the extent that Yellowstone is forced to remove its operations from these Properties, it will suffer extreme economic hardship. Moreover, with any prospective closure of any of the Properties as sober living homes, the individuals with disabilities who live in these homes will be without accommodations. Yellowstone is compliant with all of the requirements in the City of Newport Beach's Good Neighbor Principles, and is tenacious in ensuring that all residents at the Properties strictly observe these requirements. Approval of these applications would not alter the nature of the municipal code or impose any financial or administrative burden on the City. These Properties have been operating under these same general guidelines for between two and seven years (depending upon the property) without imposing any burden upon the County or City. The residential character of the neighborhoods in which these Properties are located will not be altered in any way with the approval of these applications. In fact, there is no non - residential use at any of the Properties. Moreover, there is no campus established through the grant of these applications. Residents from any one Yellowstone property are not allowed at any of the other Properties, and there are no functions that include all residents. Yellowstone has never been cited by any municipality — at any of the Properties — for any of the complaints set forth specifically in Ordinance 2008 -5, Page 4, Paragraph 13. No health, safety or physical damage issues are presented with granting of these applications. On a separate but related matter, Yellowstone would like to apply for a Federal Exemption Permit ( "FEP") to continue its operations, pursuant to Municipal Code section 20.91.035, et seq. We have been unable to locate any FEP forms on the City's website. Yesterday, Ms. Leisha Mello of Yellowstone personally appeared at City Hall to attempt to obtain'such forms. She was informed by an individual identified as Mr. Alford, a senior planner, that the FEP was no longer available, and that the municipal code as well as Ordinance 2008 -5, had been amended to exclude the FEP. After re- reviewing the municipal code, as well as the YS 00603 City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 4 Ordinance, this does not appear to be the case. Accordingly, we would hereby request that an FEP application be sent to us at your convenience. Alternatively, to the extent that the FEP application requirements are satisfied with the information provided herein, we would request that these applications be deemed FEP requests. Lastly, we would note that Yellowstone would like to simultaneously apply for a continued use permit under the non - conforming use statutes (Municipal Code section 20.62.010 et seq.). As with the FEP, Ms. Mello was informed that no forms currently exist for application under this code section. That section provides that "Uses, buildings, structures or lots that become nonconforming due to reclassification, ordinance changes, or annexations may be continued subject to the provisions of this Chapter." As discussed above, each of the Properties addressed in this application will fit this definition in the event that a use permit is not granted. In that case, Yellowstone will have become nonconforming due to reclassification and the enactment of Ordinance 2008 -5. In reviewing the factors that are to be considered, they are similar in nature to those required for the Use Permit and the Reasonable Accommodation application. Accordingly, Yellowstone incorporates the materials provided herein as they relate to this instant request for a non - conforming use permit. Of note, section 20.62.030D requires that "sufficient documentation" be provided to establish that the structure was lawfully established. Given that: 1. The City annexation of the Santa Ana Heights region is well - documented; 2. The public record duly reflects that the Properties at issue here are a part of such annexation; and 3. Ordinance 2005 -8 may have rendered Yellowstone's use of these Properties noncompliant; Yellowstone sees no need to submit any additional documentation to the City. If there are any documents that are required by the City in undertaking this analysis, however, which are not already in the City's possession, please advise us of same, and we will diligently supply any such documentation. In sum, Yellowstone submits that it provides a vital service for the City of Newport Beach at the Properties while, at the same time, avoiding any burden whatsoever to the City or its residents. Yellowstone brings these applications in a continued effort to ensure that the City of Newport Beach is fully apprised of all of its operations, and that there are no misconceptions about Yellowstone or its character. As discussed above, we have attached to each individual application some published materials that support the contentions made in these applications. We are further committed to provide the City with any documentation that it requires in connection with these applications (subject to any privacy considerations). This correspondence is incorporated by this reference into each individual above - referenced application. City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 5 As always, if you have any questions regarding these applications, please feel free to contact us. VAAC yours, IRZ/jn IS .ZFATY cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) V&11I111*11 a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Request for Reasonable Accommodation Request Worksheet Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 The purpose of a request for "Reasonable Accommodation" is to ensure compliance with City zoning regulations in the context of State and Federal Fair Housing law. Reasonable Accommodation is used here just as the term is used in the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments (FHAA) and the case law implementing the FHAA. Reasonable Accommodation shall be approved so long as there is substantial evidence in the administrative record that establishes that all of the following findings for approval have been made: 1. The exception sought is necessary to mitigate a handicap - related barrier to housing; and 2. The living group is not residing in the Dwelling or Dwellings as a Single Housekeeping Unit. 3. Reasonable Accommodation, if approved, would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a municipal program nor impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. To the extent authorized by law, the factors that a Hearing Officer or the City Council on review or appeal may consider in deciding whether to grant Reasonable Accommodation include, but are not necessarily limited to: (i) Whether the nature and/or extent of vehicular traffic, such as the frequency or duration of trips by commercial vehicles, would be altered to such an extent that it would be contrary to, or violate, any relevant provision of the Newport Beach General Plan, Specific Plan, Planned Community Text or Municipal Code if reasonable accommodation was approved. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the approval of Reasonable Accommodation does not tend to change the residential character of the neighborhood; or (ii) Whether development or use standards established in the Newport Beach Municipal Code applicable to other residential uses in the neighborhood would be violated. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the use of the property is not being substantially changed, for instance, by adding unpermitted, non - residential uses to a residential use in a residential zone; or (iii)Whether a Campus would be established in a residential zone if the Reasonable Accommodation request was granted. Page 1 of 5 YS 00606 Application Number To aid staff in determining that the necessary findings can be made in this particular case, please answer the following questions with regard to your request (Please attach on separate sheets, if necessary): 1. How many dwelling units exist on the property and how many bedrooms are within each unit? There is one dwelling unit with six bedrooms 2. How many persons will reside at the location for which you are seeking this permit? 3. How many clients reside within each dwelling unit and how many reside in the total facility? 4. What is the anticipated average length of stay for residents? Six months 5. Do the clients have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? What are those impairments? Yes. The individuals 6. Are any of the clients below the age of 18 years old, if so, how many? No. 7. Are any of the clients provided any type of medical care, non- medical services or supervision on site? If so, please describe. No medical care or non - medical services are provided 8. How many caretakers or other staff will reside at the location? How many additional caretakers or staff will visit the facility on a daily basis? Weekly basis? Two staff members reside at the proR y There are no other "caretakers" or "staff" that will visit the facility on a daily or weekly basis 9. What is the operational nature of the facility (i.e. group home, sober living environment, recovery facility, varying types of non - medical care for persons in need of certain services essential for sustaining the activities of daily living)? The property is a sober living_ home. There are no medical services provided at this property. This sober living_ 10. Describe available on -site parking res:+urces and the staff and visitor parking plans. The rroneerty has a two -car &Mge and a driveway. This parking is amble for all of the property's needs. The residents at the property do not have automobiles and rely upon public transportation and/or carpooling 11. Describe client's ability to drive and operate a vehicle while residing at the facility. _ The tenants' vehicles are not allowed to be parked and/or utilized at the property. Page 2 of 5 YS 00607 Application Number 12.Does the facility provide transportation services (i.e. transportation to school, jobs, medical treatment, or other activities)? If yes, please describe the frequency, duration and schedule of services and where the vehicles are stored? No. I3.Are any physical alterations or changes proposed to the property or needed to accommodate the use? No. 14.Is counseling provided to clients? if so, is it provided on -site or off -site? If on -site, does counseling only include clients that reside within the unit or does it include other individuals? If counseling is provided off -site, where is it provided? No. LS.Please list location and describe operational characteristics of other facilities operated by same applicant (or owner or business or non - profit entity) within the City. Will this facility provide office functions to serve other facilities owned or operated by the same entity? alone and no office functions are provided by any one facility for the benefit of another. 16.How do the clients /residents interact with each other within the unit? Is there joint use of common areas? Do clients share household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, and expenses? Will goods or services that require the use of delivery vehicles be provided to the facility? The residents at the property reside separately at the property and interact within the property There is individual use of common areas The residents are delivery vehicles reggired at t e pLoperty. 17.If the facility is operated within multiple dwelling units on a single property, does each unit operate independent of each other or do any units serve a function for the residents of other. units (i.e. one unit serving the function of food preparation, office, laundry, group meeting space, counseling space, etc.). _ There are not multiple dwelling units at the prooetty. 18. What types of licenses are required to be obtained from other agencies to operate this use (i.e. Department of Social Services, Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, etc.)? If any, describe agency, type, and capacity of licenses. None. The Looper(y does. however, have voluntary certification by the Orange County Sheriff's Department and the Orange County Sober Living Coalition 19.Please explain why the requested accommodation is necessarv. This aonlication is brought to wnemer me instant request for accommodation is necessary but the applicant is applying for a reasonable accommodation out of an abundance of caution The property was Page 3 of 5 YS 00608 Application Number As a result, the applicant has decided to ask for a reasonable accommodation under section 20.98.010 et sea The applicant does not provide medical services or any other type of health community, and with the purpose of maintaining sobriety and addressing their respective disabilities. The success of sober living homes throughout the United States is well- documented. Similar success has been realized at the property Without sober living homes the individuals who live at the property would not have access to sober living homes and would not be able to afford to live in a sober living home in Orange County. The rent in this application. There is no non - residential use at the property. There is no campus established through the grant of this reasonable accommodation Residents from any one City of Newport Beach at the property while at the same time avoiding Any burden to the City and its residents Importantly the applicant has never been cited by anv mueicinality .- �. v. our vuLor —,Vr anv or me comptamrs set forth speetttcalty m UrdLnence 2008 -5, Page 4. Paragraph 13 Page 4 of 5 1'�YtItI�tk] Application Number 20. Please attach any house rules or "good neighbor" policies applicable to the proposed facility. All residents at the property follow the City of Newport Beach Good Neighbor Principles, as published on the City's website 21. What uses will occur on the property that are ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling? None. 22. Will the facility operator, manager or applicant live on the property? Yes. The manager and assistant manager live at the property. 23. Will any alterations to the internal or external structural form of the residence be made? No. 24. Will any evidence of uses ancillary, accessory of secondary to. use of the property as a residential dwelling be visible from off the lot where the facility is located? N /A. 25. Will any equipment or materials needed for uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a dwelling be stored or used on the property outside the residence? N /A. 26. Will any equipment or process be used that will emit radiation or create noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the property for uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling? ,.T- 27. Will the number of parking spaces available to each dwelling unit used by the facility be reduced to less than that required by NBMC Chapter 20.66 (Off -street Parking and Loading) and Section 20.62.060 (Nonconforming Parking)? No. 28. Will the facility create pedestrian, vehicle or truck traffic significantly in excess of the normal amount in the area? No. 29. Will any vehicle associated with uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling be stored or repaired on the facility property? No. 30. Will the facility be open to visitors and clients without prior appointments for uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling? No. Page 5 of 5 YS 00610 Find Sober Housing In Your So. Cal, Community I Search By Area ! ' The Sober Living Network A SOBER HOUSING VISION Someday there will be recovery supportive housing and community centers throughout the United States. These clusters will be developed with a variety that will include individual houses, apartments, and congregate living accommodations. There will be a mixture of housing with normal -cost apartments for recovery veterans and low -cost, supervised shared housing for those in early recovery. In many accommodations there will be specially designed housing sections for women and/or men with children that have play areas and childcare. Sober housing clusters will be designed to accommodate persons who are physically and mentally challenged. Sober housing clusters will be recovery- promoting incubators. The clusters will include meeting spaces to host self -help and educational meetings, recreational, and social events. They will be operated within a democratic culture and a high level of recovery enthusiasm. These clusters will become islands of sobriety in our alcohol and drug using society. Sober housing and community centers will become continuously available as a recovery assistance resource for alcoholics, addicts, and family members. They will be available and noticeable not only to those who are fully into their addiction, but those who are in their earlier or experimental stages. Communities of stable recovering persons can easily absorb newly recovering persons into their community. Currently many sober living homes are trying to meet the needs of newly recovering persons without the benefit of having a core of stable recovering residents or the management resources to meet their recovery service needs. The rationale for cluster housing is that the self-help learning process comes in bits and pieces. Tae greater the exposure to a comprehensive recovery environment with many recovery activities and a predominance of recovering people, the greater chance a person has to learn recovery. The need for a balance of recovery experiences * become �ident when twelve-stop mcesings dominated by newcomers were not as effective in assisting ..�Wyl� �i 3`::��'��'Y.+'c�3�� ✓t )t t � fir,'.. .e. - � it J' 1... _ �n ! � .7 •• .. ' http:// www .soberhousing.net/vision.htini 5/15/2008 YS 00611 Nome V is ionOrganizingTrainingCommunityContwt9ponsots Find Sober Housing In Your SoCal Community I Search By Area The Sober Living Network COMMUNITY RECOVERY SUPPORT RESOURCES Community recovery resources offer a practical and cost- efficient way to assist alcoholics, addicts and family members to enter and maintain long -term recovery. The current alcohol and drug treatment system does not have the capacity to meet the long -term recovery assistance needs required to meat the needs of the many. The treatment system is too heavily invested in short-term treatment and too little invested in the development of safe and healthy eommuaity recovery Promoting environments and activities that are constantly available to support tecovmy and life style enhancements. Alcohol and drug treatment programs have been formatted by government and academic institutions into quality "People processing" treatment stations that are now too costly per person assisted to significantly reduce addiction problems. Community recovery is based on the postulate that safe and sober pleas filled with healthy recovery activities provide the environments, motivation and recovery tools for alcoholics, addicts and family members to aseiat (process} themselves. Operatua non vidual recovery responsibili7 7 re include colt lubs•whidhost self p ty tec canterssober living ionaand social evend. y rcenters are tf-servim apeas sessielp groups, bolVrecreational events and have cmuaseling and therapy available by self selection. Community recovery centers, activities amt housing are easily adaptable t meet to broad ethnic, cultrel and pbystca0y challenged needs. Community recovery resources are assisting millions of alcoholics, addicts and family members in recovery from alcoholism and other drug addictions with lisle or no support fiom government and health insurance funding sources Sober living homes, Alano clubs and community recovery centers are Primarily seated and supported by mcwvamg persons motivated by a call to be of service to others, Tice SeberLivieg Network P.O. Box 5235, Saari Monies, CA 90409 (310) 396 -5270 HomeOrgan zing Training Communi Contagi;%te Map ®Copyright 2004 Sober Housing All Rights Reserved privacy pglicy Hosting provided by geUer NclWorlc and The, Sober Musicians Yroj_ect http:// www. soberhousing.net/community.html 5/15/2008 YS 00612 The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence fights the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions. Facts and Information Alcoholism and Drug .Dependence Are America's Number One Health Problem • cm The cost and consequences of alcoholism and drug dependence place an enormous burden on American society. As the nation's number one health problem, addiction strains the health care system, the economy, harms family life and threatens public safety. Substance abuse crosses all societal boundaries, affects both genders, every ethnic group, and people in every tax bracket. Scientific documentation defines alcoholism and drug dependence as a disease that has roots in both genetic susceptibility and personal behavior. THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM • There are more deaths and disabilities each year in the U.S. from substance abuse than from any other cause. • About 18 million Americans have alcohol problems, about 5 to 6 million Americans have drug problems. 9 • More than half of all adults have a family history of alcoholism or problem drinking. 3 • More than nine million children live with a parent dependent on alcohol and/or illicit drugs. 4 THE CONSEQUENCES One - quarter of all emergency room admissions, one - third of all suicides, and more than half of all homicides and incidents of domestic violence are alcohol - related. 5 http:// www. ncadd .org/facts /numberoneprob.himi 5/15/2008 YS 00613 . Heavy drinking contributes to illness in each of the top three causes of death: heart disease, cancer and stroke. 6 • Almost half of all traffic fatalities are alcohol- related. 7 . Between 48% and 64% of people who die in fires have blood alcohol levels indicating intoxication. e . Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation. 9 THE COST • Alcohol and drug abuse costs the American economy an estimated $276 billion per year in lost productivity, health care expenditures, crime, motor vehicle crashes and other conditions. ?o Untreated addiction is more expensive than heart disease, diabetes and cancer combined. Every American adult pays nearly $1, 000 per year for the damages of addiction. t? SO, WHAT CAN BE DONE? Like other diseases, addiction can be overcome with proper treatment, prevention and more research. By increasing access to care, the costly toll on society and the burden it places on families can be reduced. Research shows conclusively that successful prevention and treatment leads to reductions in traffic fatalities, crime, unwanted pregnancy, child abuse, HIV, cancer and heart disease. Treatment reduces drug use, improves health, improves job performance, reduces involvement with the criminal justice system, reduces family dysfunction and improves quality of life. The Comprehensive Assessment Treatment Outcomes Registry Data in Ohio have documented dramatic results in decreasing occupational problems, including the following reductions after treatment: • Absenteeism decreased by 89% http: / /www.ncadd .org/facts /numberoneprob.htmi 5/15/2008 YS 00614 • Tardiness decreased by 92% • Problems with supervisors decreased by 56% • Mistakes in work decreased by 70% • Incomplete work decreased by 81% 13 Additionally, a California Study found significant decreased health care costs from before to after treatment in: • Hospitalizations for physical health problems ( -36 %) Drug overdose hospitalizations ( -58 %) • Mental health hospitalizations (44 %) . The number of emergency room visits ( -36 91.) The total number of hospital days ( -25 %) 14 Americans increasingly recognize that alcoholism and drug dependence is a disease with consequences that affect both physical and behavioral health. Diagnostic and treatment services have changed in recent years and modem treatment, when adequately provided, enables a great many people to recover and rebuild productive lives. It is important that the public be aware of evidence generated by scientific inquiry, clinical evaluation and clinical experience. The evidence demonstrates that treatment for alcohol and other drug abuse works. Treatment not only saves lives, it also saves dollars that would otherwise be spent in other areas of medical care and social services. For every dollar spent on addiction treatment, seven dollars is saved in reduced health care costs.75 The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence is dedicated to fighting the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions by providing education, information, help and hope to the public. NCADD advocates prevention, intervention, and treatment through a network of 97 affiliates across the United States. For more information, visit: www.ncadd.o_gr . Alcoholism and drug dependence are treatable and millions of people achieve recovery. SOURCES 1. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1993. http:// www. neadd ,org/facts/numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 I►&1111I -1 V 2. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem,", Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 2001. 3. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 4. Ibid. S. "Sobering Facts on the Dangers of Alcohol," NY Newsday, April 24, 2002. 6. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Annual Report, 1992. 8. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1993. 9. E. Abel, "Incidence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Economic Impact of FAS- Related Anomalies," Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1987. 10. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 2001. 11. Ibid. It The National Drug Control Strategy, The Whits House, 1997. 13. Ohio Dept of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, New Standards, Inc., St Paul, MN, 1994. 14. Gerstein, at al, "Evaluating Recovery Services: the California Drug and Alcohol Assessment," Sacramento, 1994. 15. Ibid. Compiled 6102 NCADD National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. 244 East 58th Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022 phone: 2121269-7797 fax: 212/269 -7510 email: national®ncadd org http: /Avww.ncadd.org HOPE LINE: 8001NCA -CALL (24 -hour Affiliate referral) http: / /www.ncadd .org/facts /nurnberoneprob.htntl 5/15/2008 M41111-111 11 General population According to date Nom the 2006 Nalfonal Housshold Surveyon Thug Use and Health (NSDUH) — • 112 Indian Americans; age 12 or older (48% of the population) reported Illicit dog use al least once in their lifetime • 14% reported use of a drug within the past year • e% reported use of a drug within the past month. Data from the 2006 survey showed thad marijuana and cocaine use is the mdst prevalent ernong persons age 1810 25, The Drug Abase WarnNUp Network (DANM) monitors drug- ralaled emergency department (ED) visits for the nation and for selected metropolitan areas. DAWN also cotieds data an drug-related deaths investigated by medical esaMnere and coroners In winched metropolitan name and Stales. In 2005. DAWN ee6mates gulf many 1.4 million emergency depadmerd vishe nationwide were associated with drug minutes, o abuse. An estimated 618,696 drug- meted emergency department visits Involved a m*r substance of abuse. DAWN estimates that • Cocaine was involved in 448,481 ED vista. • Men umnswas involved In 242,200 ED Nets. • Herrin wee involved in 164,572 ED visits. • Sgmofanta kl Wsd emphelmntles end melnampMtastlm, went Involved in 1311,950 ED vista. • Other KIM drugs, such as PCP, Ecrdesy, aid GHB, were much lase frequent than &my of the above. Source: U. S. DeWmerl of Health and Hunan Services, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse WAmlfg Network, 20M., Netbns,l EstywO r o7D7ug-Relsted EmerganeyDapamnenf Mats, DAVIT! Sedes D-29, DHHS publication No. (SMA) 07 -4256, Rockville, MD, 2007. In 2003, 122 predictors; in 35 metropoHhan areas and 6 Stales submitted mortality data to DAWN. The Staten, which are all nave to DAWN, are Maine Maryland. New Hampehim. New Medco, Uhi and Vermont. DAWN as NA provkk national estimates of drug - related deaths In the metropolitan areae, neatly half of drug misue, deaths, on everage. Involved a majorsubstanoe of abuse, (coca e, heroin, nmdjuane, stimdanls, dub drugs, ha6uctnwgem, or Inn- pharmaceu8ael inhalants). Acmes the 6 Slates, major substances wave reported in about a third at mis es, deaths. StIn, major substances were reported in 40% to 46% of drug Inflow deaths In Maryland, New Madw, and Utah. Descriptions of drug abues deaths in the participating metropo8lan stuns are evallable in the MataW Data Dam the DAWN, 2003 report. AamrckV to data from the 2003 Modai Dais from DAWN— Cocalm was the moot frequently reported Aid dog. In the time misuse desire, cocaine was anamg the tap 5 drugs In 28 or the 32 mebopoWm ani and all or IM 6 States. On average; cocaine done or In combination with olhw dr ga new reported in 39% of dmg nfause deaths (range 8% to 70 %). Alcohol was one of the 8 most comment drugs In 30 of the 32 metropolitan areas and s of the 6 Slates. In 29 of the 32 metropolitan ore ea, more ring misuse deaths involved an opiddopiad than arty other drug. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Ot of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse, Warning Network, 2003: Aron P-mm of Ong- ReletedMortality. DAWN Sales 0.27, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 054023, Rockville. MD, 2006. previous avav afJ•YWSmbta Sanw.elP ...ft d AlY S¢enh W to a+a6jr�u4oj.n•v Contents BJS Mme pass I Top of thin page Nerd e!PPruden Y' Divielev. Act amp Local led rinii lib abddno� 1'wge Inn rsvbpd naAP'M fl. Iatl7 http : / /www.ojp.gov/bjs/def /du.htm 5/14/2008 YS 00617 Age of respondent, 2004 Drug use 12 -17 18.25 26 or older Marijuana Last month 6.6% 16.6% 4.1% Last year 13.3 28.0 6.9 Cocaine Last month 0.60A 2.6% 0.8% Last year 1.7 6.9 1.9 Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, 208ff National Survey on Drug Use and Heaffb: NeNonal Rndlrtgn, September 2006. The Drug Abase WarnNUp Network (DANM) monitors drug- ralaled emergency department (ED) visits for the nation and for selected metropolitan areas. DAWN also cotieds data an drug-related deaths investigated by medical esaMnere and coroners In winched metropolitan name and Stales. In 2005. DAWN ee6mates gulf many 1.4 million emergency depadmerd vishe nationwide were associated with drug minutes, o abuse. An estimated 618,696 drug- meted emergency department visits Involved a m*r substance of abuse. DAWN estimates that • Cocaine was involved in 448,481 ED vista. • Men umnswas involved In 242,200 ED Nets. • Herrin wee involved in 164,572 ED visits. • Sgmofanta kl Wsd emphelmntles end melnampMtastlm, went Involved in 1311,950 ED vista. • Other KIM drugs, such as PCP, Ecrdesy, aid GHB, were much lase frequent than &my of the above. Source: U. S. DeWmerl of Health and Hunan Services, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse WAmlfg Network, 20M., Netbns,l EstywO r o7D7ug-Relsted EmerganeyDapamnenf Mats, DAVIT! Sedes D-29, DHHS publication No. (SMA) 07 -4256, Rockville, MD, 2007. In 2003, 122 predictors; in 35 metropoHhan areas and 6 Stales submitted mortality data to DAWN. The Staten, which are all nave to DAWN, are Maine Maryland. New Hampehim. New Medco, Uhi and Vermont. DAWN as NA provkk national estimates of drug - related deaths In the metropolitan areae, neatly half of drug misue, deaths, on everage. Involved a majorsubstanoe of abuse, (coca e, heroin, nmdjuane, stimdanls, dub drugs, ha6uctnwgem, or Inn- pharmaceu8ael inhalants). Acmes the 6 Slates, major substances wave reported in about a third at mis es, deaths. StIn, major substances were reported in 40% to 46% of drug Inflow deaths In Maryland, New Madw, and Utah. Descriptions of drug abues deaths in the participating metropo8lan stuns are evallable in the MataW Data Dam the DAWN, 2003 report. AamrckV to data from the 2003 Modai Dais from DAWN— Cocalm was the moot frequently reported Aid dog. In the time misuse desire, cocaine was anamg the tap 5 drugs In 28 or the 32 mebopoWm ani and all or IM 6 States. On average; cocaine done or In combination with olhw dr ga new reported in 39% of dmg nfause deaths (range 8% to 70 %). Alcohol was one of the 8 most comment drugs In 30 of the 32 metropolitan areas and s of the 6 Slates. In 29 of the 32 metropolitan ore ea, more ring misuse deaths involved an opiddopiad than arty other drug. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Ot of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse, Warning Network, 2003: Aron P-mm of Ong- ReletedMortality. DAWN Sales 0.27, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 054023, Rockville. MD, 2006. previous avav afJ•YWSmbta Sanw.elP ...ft d AlY S¢enh W to a+a6jr�u4oj.n•v Contents BJS Mme pass I Top of thin page Nerd e!PPruden Y' Divielev. Act amp Local led rinii lib abddno� 1'wge Inn rsvbpd naAP'M fl. Iatl7 http : / /www.ojp.gov/bjs/def /du.htm 5/14/2008 YS 00617 Cantmn Orups and Crane Facts - POYI.Ue Nan 10 MOWS Drug use hem. P.O. Veto I Ganeral population Youth • Use • Pemalvad dsk • Student reports of avallabllNy, of drugs Liao The Monitoring the Future Study asked high school seniors, 'on how many occasions, It any have you used dnpa or alcohol during the lad 12 monma or morrhT Reported drug and alcohol use by high school sadom, 2000 Used within the last: Drugs 12 months' 30 days Alcohol 66.5% 46.3% Marquette 31.6 18.3 Other Opiates 9.0 3.8 Stimulants 8.1 3.7 Sedatives 6.6 3.0 Tranqu91»rs 6.6 27 Cocaine 6.7 2.5 Hallucinogen - 4.9 1.5 inhalants 4,5 1.5 Steroids 1.8 1.1 Heroin 0.8 0.4 'Including the last month. Source: Press release: Teen drug use continues down in 2000. paraMdarlyamong older Now; but use of pwMptlon -type drugs remains high, University, of Mbhipen News and Warrenton Services, December 21, 2008. (Acrobat her 576.81KB) 9elbfepoda of drug use MMO np high school swim may under represent dreg use among Youth dthat age because high school dropouts and truants ere not Included and these groups may have more Involvement with drugs thanthorm who day M stool. Percent of all college students, 1888.2008 Drug use 1805 1880 1887 1898 1989 2000 2001 2002 2000 2004 2008 "Meat Dally within lastmomh 3.7% 2.8% 3.7% 4.0% 4.0% 4.6% 4.5% 4.1% 4.7% 4.5% 4.0% LadmOnth 18.6 17.5 171 18.8 20.7 20.0 202 19.7 19.3 189 17.1 Lastyear 31.2 33.1 31.0 '36.9 35.2 34.0 35.6 34.7 33.7 38,3 33.3 Coealee Daly within last month 09% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Last month 0.7 o.e t.o 1.6 12 1.4 1.9 1.6 1.9 24 1.8 Last year 18 2.9 3.4 4.8 4.6 4.B 4.7 4.8 5.4 6.8 5.7 Less then 0.05% Rules of pad year cscales use by college students have vwled oval the pad 10 Years from a low of 2.9% In 1999 to a high Of 5.7% in 2006. Paw yew marijuana user hoe ranged iron a low of 31.2% In 1995 to a high of 35.9 %In 1998. Source: University of Michigan, 8fonleodng the FutureNat7ond Survey Results on Drug Use, IOM2005, Volume lb College Students and Adults Ages 19.44 2004 October 21108. (Aaobd file 2.31 MS) Of high school'aeriom in 2005 - . 44.8% reported having over used m rlIuenalhasmsh • 8.0% reported having ever used Cocaine 1.5% reported having ever used heroin. http: / /www.ojp.gov/bjs /dcf/du.htm 5/14/2008 YS 00618 Source: Univme0y, of Michigan, Monfforfng the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug Use: CNefvlew of Key Findings 2006, April 2006. (Acrobat file 442.771,08) The increase in the use of marijuana has been especially pronounced. Between 1992 and 2005 past -mmnh use of nmd)uans increased from • 12% to 20% among high school sanlom - r e %to 15 %among 10th gredem. - • 4 %10 7% among Blh Carders Reported use of madjuena by high whod seniors during the past month peeked In 1978 at 37% and declined to Its lowest level In 1992 m 12 %. The use of cocaine wtttdn the past month of the sunray by high adval sernfine peeked In 1985 at 8.7 %, up from 1.9% In 1975 m the survey's imeptlon. Cocaine use declined to a law of 1.3 %in 1982 and 1993. In 2005, 2.3% of NO It school sedans reported past- month'cocaine use. Source: Unhwsdy of Michigan, MonlioNng the Futwe National Results on Adolescent Drug the: Ovmvlew of Key Findings 2005, Apd 2006. (Acrobat file 442.77KB). Cocaine use among high school sailors peaked In 1985. P1 alck an the chart to New the deice Source: Preg fdeseK Teed mW use condnues down M 2088, partk:Wady among olderteena; bof use of prwc:r4dbm6pe ftw rwnaha high, UdwraiBl of Mk:hloan News and Information Services, December21, 2006. (Acrobat Ne 578.8118 Perceived risk Prom 1987 to 2008 the percentage of high sdod seniors t alwere asked, link much do you think people dais harming thernnehnsr remained Nmiaily stable. nurse studeds answmin; -grem chic' In regular use accounted for the fo0owbg — Ctidr an the chart to New the data (D) Source: Press release: Tom dmg use Continues sown In 200E particularly among alder teens; but use of preacdprlan."a drugs remains high. Unin" of Michigan hfewe end Informallon Services, December 21, 208. (Aambet Me 876.81 K8) Student reports of avalleblf ly of drugs Percent of high school seniors reporting they =old obtain drugs fairly easily or very easily,' 2008 5 http : / /www.ojp.gov/bjs/dcf /du.htm 5/14/2008 YS 00619 Martinets 84.9% Amphetamines 62.9 Ccod" 46.5 Barbiturates 43.8 Credo 36.8 LSD 29.0 Hearin 27.4 Crystal mathamphatamine 26.7 Tranquilizem 24.4 PCP 23.1 Amylatayl Witless 18.4 Source: Press release: Teen drug use confinuss down In 2006, paAtoutady among older teens; but use of prescdpfion•ppe drugs ram ins high. University of Michigan News and Inlormalion Services, Deramher 21, 2008. (Acrobat f +le 576.81K8) In 2005, 25% of all students in grades 9lhrough 12 reported someone had offered, said, or given thmn an illegal Mug on wheat property. There was no measurabie change with the percentage of students who reported that drugs ware offered, add, or given to them ar school between 2003 and 2005. Males were mare likely than females to report that drugs were offered, add, or given to them on ached property in each survey year between 1993 erW 2005. In 2005, 29:6 of males and 22 %orfin, ea reported availabfity of drug& Source: BJS joidly with the U.S. Department of Edueailon, Indicators of School Crane and Safety, 2006, NCJ 214262, December 2006. 4 To the top General population Awardtng W date from the 2005 Nefanal Household Srrveyan Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) - • 112 million Amarkane age 12 or older (46 %d the population) reported Whall drug mat feast once In their detlrras 14% reported use at a dmg within the pent year • 8% reported use of a drag within the peel month. Del& from the 2D06 survey showed that medjuane and cocehre use Is the most prevalam among persons age 18 to 28. Aga drespoodenf, 2004 Drug use 12.17 1846 26 M older aladluane Last month 8.8% 16.6% 4.1% Last year 13.3 28.0 6.9 Cocaine Last mole 0.6% 2.6% 01% Lamyeaa 1.7 6.9 1.5 Source- SAMHSA, Office of Applied ShaMe, 2008 Nallond Survey on Drug Iles and Hsafdu Naaond F4Ml . September 2008. The Drug Abuse a4mhng NeMrorh (DAMN) rtrondon dng•raleled amergerxp department (ED) virile for the Watch and for selected metropolitan mesa. DAWN also collects data on dwo4elaled deaths Investigated by medical examines, and coroners in selected melropol6an erase and States. In 2005, DAWN aWmetes that nearly 1.4 million emergency deparAnent vtsits nationwide were associated with drug misuse W abuse. An estimated 616,898 Mug-relatetl emergency department Wells Involved a major substance ol abuse. DAWN eedmmes that. • Cocaine was brvdved in 448,481 ED visits. • Madluana war Involved kn 242,20D ED virile. • Heroin was involved In 164,572 ED visits. • Stfmdama, included enghat urtmes and methamphefamine, were involved In 138.960 ED visit. • Other V dfdrugs, such as PCP, Eatesy, and GHB, were muds lees frequent then my of the above. Source: U. S. Wanting Mel 29, OHMS Pt rD3 In 2003,122 judadic bns in 36 metropolitan erects and 5 Stales stdm9ned modality dale to DAWN. The States, which are an rune to DAWN, are Maim, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Utah, and Vermont. DAWN cannot provide national estimates of drug-related deaths. In the metropolitan am, neat' het d drug misuse deaths, on average, involved a major substance of abuse (wealne, hetdn, http : / /www.ojp.gov /bjs /def/du,htm 5/14/2008 YS 00620 marijuana stimulants, dub drugs, hallucinagene, or non - pharmaceutical inhalants). Across the a States, major substances were reported in about a INro of rdeuse deaths. Still, major substances were eported in 40% to 46% of drug misuse deaths in Maryland, New Mexico, and Utah. Descriptions of drug abuse deaths In the participating metropofden areas are available in the Mortality Data hum theDAWTl, 2003 sport. According to date from the 2003 Mcdebly Data from DAWN— Cocaine was the moat frequently reported 1111dt drug. In the drug misuse deaths, cocaine was among the top 5 drugs in 28 of the 32 metropolitan areas and ell of the 8 States. On average, cocaine atone or in combination win other drugs was reported in 39% of drug misuse deaths (range 8% to 70 %). Alcohol was one of the 5 moat comment drugs M 30 d the 32 metropolitan areas and 5 of the 6 Stales. in 29 of the 32 malropoldan areas, more drug misuse deaths involved an opimelapiotd than any other drug. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse Warning NelworM, 2003: Area Prefgaa of Dmg.Ralsted Mortality. DAWN Series D-27, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 06-4023, Rockville, MD, 2005, Previous Bnmae of Jnfica Sulblie www4p.ued48orl6jv Saad PPmmae IP ukhj- (Anolj -Po http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/def/du.htm Contents BJS home page I Top of this page Next 0JP anaadma of rnfmmpbn Act P.V Cesar Pduia 0n4 Dealerman P "e Ins railed Ps Arv1f 11, Seat 5/1412008 YS 00621 Wesiside Santa Ana Heights Homeowner's Guide May 2007 Edward "Ted" Bosley (949) 294 -2126 TedBosley@Yahoo.cam swvice . ~ft a ce.nonitment Www.TEDBos4EY.com Great source for RE information, toots plus Bi- monthly ®C Homeowner's Guide Compliments of Ted Bosley, Your Naigbborand M Professional Ted Book y Appointed to Bard Project Advisory Gomm ttse i started attending the SAH PAC meetings 5 years ago, mostly so that I could learn as much as possible about events affecting, our community. You, the readers of my periodic newslotters, have been the benefactors since I have shared with you much of what was learned in that forum as well as Supervisor, City Council and LAFCO meetings. Many of you have also been in attendance at those same meetings. i appreciate being appointed to serve on the SAH Project Advisory Committee. This gives me the opportunity to solve on critical sutro011117111i0ees that make reoommendations to the Bd cif Supervisors and the NB City Council on ntletters that have signtik:afit impact on our community. Issue 16 5fie'alterpoitlte O:at'dsl: Deveiopme-i-it on Orchard in a record response to my inquiry about the timeline for this Westside SAH project, I received the following statement: "INe Sri= still processing ourrrnal -map - with the County of Orange. Once rocada- tion of the map occurs we are planning on starting the project ... Once again I thank you ior your assistance in geffing.this project approved." Garrett Cslaccl, Waterpointe Development Principal Westsldei SAH Annexation Update Administration, 12 Civic Center Plaza. Santa. Ana, in the Planning commission Hewing Room. The City of Newport Beach's application for a sphere of influence change and concurrent annexation of West Santa Ana Heights and the City of Costa Muse's appGcatiort for a sphere of Influence change:for the Barring Ranch property will be considered by LAFCO on this date. Staff reports for both proposals will be available for review on Wednesday afternoon, May 2, 2007, on the Orange County LAFCO website: wwm& oran LAFCO.ca.00v. Click an the 'Agenda and td8nutes° link, then dick on agenda item. This is the moo" we all have been wading tor- LAFCO is suppose to rxrne to a One] resolution on Use West Side Annexation to Newport at this alto". PAC will be there to support Annexation as always -' Satires, of this Information Is www.SAHPAC.com If you would like more infmma6on relating to the history of this effort please visit Sober giving Homes Make Their Coutni icy Christmas Contribution Were you as surprised as 1 by the amszing decorations erdfibited by the residents of the 3 jet that Pwo:mnws Redlands St. , tt_me) Yellowstone fa ewvmy fomwduiing the Christ- ]N®n'a Home mas holidays? One of the reasons was a little competi- tion between the 3 homes along with the help the men's home provided to the other 2 women's domes. . Their effort also brought out competitive spirit to omeus Street, some of the other homes in the neighborhood ... Women's Home Congratulationoll Golf Course or Parking Lot? Daily Pilot Article on April 18th discusses this subject If you do not take the Pilot you can go to v, rww.daiivoilot.com/ articies12007 /0411 ¢looliti6s/dpt- ooltcourse13 tyt to view it TbaK tAA °GOrrtrtbatbrt'" to Weaatisiae SAH 316s0bWL9vin8R e Win, ca4deaae Wosm's Rave What I cannot understand is why anyone on the Airport . Committee would suggest: that a Car Rental Auto Storage facility should replace the Newport Beach Goff Course Bade 9, that brings so much pleasure to so many, when their lease is up at the end cif July, 2007. . tconrinaedonpngez) ;aaa.d an esnrav is Jahn Moorlach(rpoagov.com AND 7sdSosley(alnahcxi.com znith your opinion of the posefbefty Of � extendlnri-tlur iwse for list, Hsi Golf C;ouraetl .,: APJG to let amc Know.. of your intersst in perti :ip;,5rrg if: tlets �asart'u tti'f2`J V 'na0I III &11111**A N <c PA2008 -107 for UP2008 -036 1571 PEGASUS STREET Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. City of Newport Beach GROUP. RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION STANDARD GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION (Form 100 — Revised March 2008) 1. 2. APPLICANTIFACILITY PROGRAM INFORMATION STEP 1: Completely fill out Form 150 (attached). STEP 2: Fill out the following: TYPE OF ORGANIZATION: ❑ For Profit ® Nonprofit ❑ Other, please explain: PROPERTY OWNERSHIP: ❑ Own ❑ Rent ® Lease ❑ Other (specify): IS THE OPERATORIMANAGER ALSO THE LESSEE OF THIS PROPERTY? KW_. ❑ If no, please explain: ❑ No IS THE APPLICANT OR PROGRAM OPERATOR PART OF A PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, FIRM, OR ASSOCIATION? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, please fill out and attach either Form 200C (if 200C, applicants must fill out Form 200D) or Form 200P, whichever is applicable. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name of where facility is proposed (if Corporation, legal name of Corporation) (Mailing Address of Property Owner) (949) 254 -7000 (Telephone) (Fax number) (E -Mail address) (ZIP) 1571 Pegasus St., Newport Beach 119 - 361 -14 (Subject Property Address) Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 1'�YrIrI��3 3. SIMILAR USES A. Your Firma Current Uses. Do you or your firm (or any entity or person affiliated with you or your firm) currently operate, manage, or own other group residential uses in Newport Beach? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, cite address(es) of faciiity(ies) (attach more pages if necessary): fTul9W;4 1234 Main Street, Newport Beach Unlicensed "Sober Living° 7 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity 1621 Indus St., Newport Beach Cart. Sober Living 18 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity 20172 Redlands Dr., Newport Beach Cert. Sober Living 17 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity 1561 Indus, Newport Beach Oxford Sober Living 12 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use tied Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity 10 VI&IrIrI -tz, I 0 B. Other Similar Uses. What uses, not operated by or affiliated with you or your firm, are of a similar type as your proposed use here in Newport Beach? Please cite address(es) of facility(ies) (attach more pages if necessary): EXAMPLE: 1234 Main Street Newport Beach _ Unlicensed "Sober Living" 7 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity C. Evidence of Need for this Extent of Use. Per NBMC §20.91A.030 (E), please attach Evidence of Capacity and Need by residents of Newport Beach for this capacity based on published sources. 4. YOUR FIRM'S HISTORIC USES Per the requirements of NBMC §20.91A.030.G & H, in the past five f5) years, have you or your firm or any entity or person affiliated with you or your firm operated, managed, or owned other group residential uses in California? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, show the site address(es) of each facility(les) and show whether the facility(les) have ever been in violation of Federal, State or local law (attach additional pages if necessary): EXAMPLE: 1234 Main Street, Santa Barbara ADP- Licensed Facility 8 11 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ®No If Yes, please explain: Facility #1 Street Address, City Type of Use; Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please explain: Facility #2 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please explain: Facility #3 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please explain: Facility #4 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No 12 YS 00626 0 If Yes, please explain: S. LOCATION MAP AND SIMILAR USES Provide a Location Map showing the location of the proposed use plus all known conditional uses within a three - block radius. Include the property addresses of the proposed use and known conditional uses. Please consult the Newport Beach Planning Department (949 -644 -3225) for nearby conditional uses. 6. SITE PLAN Provide a Site Plan that shows the facility's building footprint and property lines. Include property lines and building footprints on immediately adjacent parcels. Note the uses (i.e. single family use, group residential use, or other) on adjacent parcels. 7. LICENSE AND PERMIT HISTORY OF APPLICANT A. Per NBMC §20.91A.030(H), please summarize the license and permit history of each facility applicant or operator has managed, owned, or operated in the State of California within the last five (5) years which require either a license or a permit by the State or by a locality (attach additional sheets K necessary): Name of Facility (Facility Address) (City) (Zip) Please describe the nature of the license or use permit, the issuing agency, its reference number (if applicable), and any enforcement actions by any agency against the license or use permit: B. Has the applicant ever voluntarily surrendered, had a denial, suspension, or revocation of a residential license for an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility or a facility licensed by the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) or the California Department of Soclal Services , Community Care Licensing? ❑ Yes - ® No If yes, the date license was surrendered, denied, suspended, or revoked: Reason for revocation, surrender, denial, or suspension: C. Has the applicant ever voluntarily surrendered, had a denial, suspension, or revocation of a Use Permit or similar permit for a group residential use in this community or another community? ❑ Yes ® No 13 VI&IrIrI -tAr/ S. If yes, the date Use Permit (or similar) was surrendered, denied, suspended, or revoked: Reason for revocation, surrender, denial, or suspension: D. Has the applicant ever voluntarily surrendered, had a denial, suspension or revocation of a certification by any public or private agency other than ADP or the California Department of Social Services - Community Care Licensing for a group residential use in this community or another community? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, the date Use Permit (or similar) was surrendered, denied, suspended, or revoked: Reason for revocation, surrender, denial, or suspension: NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED USE Per NBMC §20.91A.030(A -D), please provide the following information about each proposed facility (attach additional sheets if necessary). The components of this Section 8 (and other sections) comprise the Operations and Management Plan and Rules of Conduct envisioned by NBMC §20.91A.050.B: A. TYPE OF ALCOHOL AND /OR OTHER DRUG RECOVERY OR TREATMENT SERVICES PROVIDED (for ADP - licensed facilities only — check all that apply): ❑ Non - Medical Detoxification ❑ Group Sessions ❑ One-on -One Sessions ❑ Educational Sessions ❑ Recovery or Treatment Planning ® Other: None B. NUMBERS AND TYPES OF FACILITY USERS & STAFF: TOTAL OCCUPANCY OF FACILITY (This is the maximum number of individuals who live at the facility and are approved by the fire safety inspector.) These individuals include the residents receiving recovery, treatment or detoxification services, children of the residents, and staff. Staff includes individuals who work for the applicant in exchange fru either monetary or in -kind compensation (e.g., room and board). Total occupancy cannot be exceeded for any reason. 1$ MAXIMUM REQUESTED ADULT RESIDENT CAPACITY OF THE FACILITY (The number of adult residents that receive recovery, treatment or detoxification services at any one time, which cannot be greater than the total occupancy shown above): 0 MAXIMUM NUMBER AND AGE RANGE OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN WHO ARE SUPERVISED BY THEIR PARENT(S) IN THE FACILITY. This includes temporary residing (i.e., overnight, weekend visits) of dependent children. (Since there must always be at least one adult being served, the maximum number of dependent children housed must be at least one less than the total occupancy, determined by the fire inspector, as shown above): 0 Are all clients who reside on -site disabled persons? Yes 14 YS 00628 Number of staff who will reside on -site: 2 Maximum number of staff who will provide services during any one week to clients at the facility: 2 Provide the Facility Staffina Form shown as Form 400 to this Application. Total number of employees of provider. Please characterize the nature of staff services to the facility (i.e., nutritionists, massage therapists, counselors, maids, cooks, etc): House Manager Assist Manager Maximum number of clients who will use the facility on any one day but reside elsewhere: 0 Maximum number of client visitors who will visit the facility during any one week: 0 Maximum number of others who will visit the facility during any one week: 0 . Please explain: C: BUILDING DIAGRAMIFL06R PLAN Include a Building Diagram showing all building(s) to be occupied, including a floor plan of all rooms intended for residents' use. Include the grounds showing buildings, setbacks, driveways, fences, storage areas, pools, gardens, recreational area and other spaces. All sketches shall show dimensions but need not be to scale. Identify the number of residents per bedroom and the location and the number of beds for all residents, including the location of beds for infants and other non - ambulatory persons. The Building Diagram supplied with this application must be accurate as to existing conditions in the building and must be consistent with the building plans currently on file with the Newport Beach Building Department for permitted construction. 0. DURATION OF TYPICAL CLIENT STAY IN FACILITY (in days): 180 If you wish, please explain: E. IS THE FACILITY ACCESSIBLE TO INDIVIDUALS IN WHEELCHAIRS OR OTHER NONAMBUILATORY CONDITIONS? ❑ Yes ® No NOTE: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is a comprehensive federal anti - discrimination law for people with disabilities. The City reminds all providers of residential recovery facilities that discrimination against persons with disabilities is prohibited. Please contact Newport Beach's Building Department (949- 644 -3275) for specific ADA requirements that may apply to your facility. F. ACTIVITY INFORMATION Hours which facility will be in use: 15 G. H. 02417 ❑ Other (please describe) Will there be a curfew? If so, please note quiet hours: ® 10 p.m. — 8 a.m. ❑ Other (please describe) Besides household activities, what types of care - related activities will occur on -site, and how many residents and non - residents (including staff and clients from other facilities) will attend? ❑ "AA" -type meetings _ ❑ Physical Fitness (gym, yoga, etc) _ ❑ ADP- Treatment (see 5A) _ ❑ Other wellness (massage, etc) ❑ Meal preparation /delivery„ ❑ Other Provide the Weekly Schedule of Services shown as Form 500 to this Application. DELIVERY INFORMATION: What types of deliveries will occur at the facility and how often (per day or per week — circle whichever is applicable) will they occur? ❑ Laundry Sevices: /day or week ❑ Meals: /day or week ® Trash disposal or recycling: 1 /day -or week ❑ Business products: /day or week ❑ Correspondence, packages (other than USPS): /day or week ❑ Medical Products/Medical Waste Pickup: Idav or week ❑ Other: TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING: /day or week Will clients residing on -site be allowed to use personal vehicles and /or keep them on -site or nearby? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, describe where clients will park personal vehicles (garage, carport, on- street location, other— if on- street, be specific about which streets) If No, describe other modes of transportation that clients will use (bus, other transit, bicycle, other). Bus — Carpools. bikes Please provide a Route Map showing transit and travel routes that will be used to transport clients off -site, showing destinations of travel and approximate times of departure and return. Will staff serving the facility be allowed to drive personal vehicles to the site? 16 V&11I11 *111 ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, describe where staff will park personal vehicles (garage, carport, on- street location, other — if on- street, be specific about which streets) In driveway NOTE: The City may not authorize on- street parking for clients or staff depending upon how impacted the facility's streets are. MEDICAL AND BIO -WASTE NBMC §6.04.120 (Health and Sanitation: Prohibited Materials) prohibits the disposal of certain medical waste or bio -waste into the City's refuse disposal system. Syringes, needles, urinalysis cups, and other waste must be disposed of in accordance with the NBMC and other applicable laws. If you are uncertain as to what wastes can be disposed of in the City's disposal system, contact the City's General Services Department at 949-644 -3066. Applicants who will be disposing medical waste or other bio -waste must provide a Disposal Plan for Medical and Bio -Waste showing how and where these wastes are disposed of (required by NBMC §20.91A.030.1). Please attach the Disposal Plan if applicable. J. RULES OF CONDUCT — GOOD NEIGHBOR PRINCIPLES If you have them, please include any documents that describe rules of client conduct andlor Good Neighbor Principles that your facility's staff and clients will adhere to if the City issues a Use Permit for this facility. The City of Newport Beach has developed Good Neighbor Principles for these uses (see the City's website under Group Residential Uses). Please slate whether you agree voluntarily to comply with the City's Good Neighbor Principles: ® Yes ❑ No K. OTHER AVAILABLE CERTIFICATIONS NBMC §20.91A.050.C.4 directs that applicants shall attain certification (or similar validation), where available, from a governmental agency or qualified non -profit organization. This includes: • The Orange County Sheriffs Departme.it's Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification Program (see www.ocsd.orn for more information or contact Certificate Coordinator Lt. Jeff Bardzik at 714 - 7734523 or ibardzik0ocsd.oro or Margo Grise at 714 - 7734521 at mgris .ocsd.org. This certification is required. • The Orange County Sober Living Network (see http :l /www.soberhousing.net/orange countv.html or contact Grant McNiff at 714 - 875 -2954. This certification is recommended. You do not have to attain the OCSD certification to apply for a Use Permit, but we suggest that you attain the certification within a reasonable amount of time (twelve [12] months) following your application submittal. Should a Use Permit be Issued, it may include a condition that certification be obtained within a stated time period. If you have attained this certification prior to applying for the Use Permit, verify here that you have attained this certification, and attach the verifying document from the certifying entity: . 17 1' 4111I -tiil ❑ Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification (required) ® Orange County Sober Living Network (recommended) ❑ Other (please describe) L. SECONDHAND SMOKE LIMITATIONS NBMC §20.91A.050.A directs that "no staff, clients, guests, or any other uses of the facility may smoke in an area from which the secondhand smoke may be detected on any parcel other than the parcel upon which the facility is located. Check and sign here to acknowledge this requirement and your use's adherence to it: ® [acknowledge that I will control sec dhand smoke on my facility such that no secondhand smoke may be detected on any arcel Cher tha the at upon which my facility is located. \, r Signature: Date: J 9. APPLICANT OBLIGATIONS A. The "owner of record" of the property or an authorized agent must sign this Application. Signing the application under Section 10 means that the applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that the information provided within the Application and its attachments is true and correct. Per NBMC §20.90.030.C, false statements are grounds for denial or revocation. B. The Applicant acknowledges that he or she must comply with all other Federal, State, and local laws and regulations relating to this use. The Applicant understands that a violation of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations is grounds for revocation of the Permit. The Applicant understands and acknowledges that It is against California law to provide treatment (as defined) in an unlicensed facility. C. If the City issues a Use Permit based on the information provided in this Application, the Applicant's signature below certifies his or her agreement to comply with the terms of the Use Permit. The Applicant understands and acknowledges that noncompliance with the terms of the Use Permit is grounds for revocation of the Permit. Revocation of the Use Permit. NBMC §20.96.040.E provides that the City can revoke a Use Permit if: • The permit was issued under erroneous information or misrepresentation; or • The applicant made a false or misleading statement of material fact, or omitted a material fact; or • The conditions of use or other regulations or laws have been violated; or • There has been a discontinuance of use for 180 days or more. 10. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE(SI OF APPLICANT THE UNDERSIGNED ASSURES THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD HIS OR HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER ANY USE PERMIT ISSUED BASED ON THIS APPLICATION. A. If the applicant is a sole proprietor, the application shall be signed by the proprietor. B. If the applicant is a partnership, the application shall be signed by each partner. C. If the applicant is a firm, association, corporation, county, city, public agency or other govemmental entity, the application shall be signed by the chief executive officer or the individual legally responsible for representing the agency. 18 YS 00632 D. The applicant(s) affirms that the facts contained in this application and supporting documents are true and —­6 (Title) (Date) (Signature) (Title) (Date) 19 YS 00633 Someday them will be recovery supportive housing and community centers throughout the United States. These clusters will be developed with a variety that will include individual houses, apartments, and congregate living accommodations. There will be a mixture of housing with normal-cost apartments for recovery veterans and low -cost, supervised shared housing for those in early recovery. In many accommodations therm will be specially designed housing sections for women and/or men with children that have play areas and childcare. Sober housing clusters will be designed to accommodate persons who are physically and mentally challenged. Sober housing clusters.will be recovery- promoting incubators. The clusters will include meeting spaces to host self -help and educational meetings, recreational, and social events. They will be operated within a democratic culture and a high level of recovery enthusiasm. These clusters will become islands of sobriety In our &"hot and drag using society. Sober housing and, comm mity centers will become continuously available as a recovery assistance resource for alcoholics, addicts, and family members. They wilt be available and noticeable not only to those who arm fully into their addiction, but those who are in their earlier or experimental stages. Communities of stable recovering persons can easily absorb newly recovering persons into their' community. Currently merry sober living homes are trying to meet the needs of newly recovering persons without the banefd of having a core of stable recovering residents or the management resources to meet their recovery service needs. The rationale for cluster housing is that the self-help 11MIM1118 process comes In bib end pieces. The greater the exposure to a oomprehatsive recovery eovironment with many recovery activities and a predominance of recovering lteoPlo, the greater chance a person has to learn recovery. The need for a balance of recovery exper[enoes ttecame evident when twelve -step meetings dominated by newcomers were not as effective in assisting Train rr¢ Community C ontact Sponsors Site a 0 Copyright 2004 Sober Living Network All Rights ]reserved nrivacytolicy. Hosting provided by Heller NetWorks and The Sober Musicians Project http:// www .soberhousing.net(vision.html 5/15/2008 YS 00634 Uv uva sa.vwuuag �.v.............� .�...... ....� Home VisionOrganizinb,Tra iningComrp_un-ibContactSponsors Find Sober Housing In Your SoCal Community Search By Area .'( A The Sober Living Network COMMUNPI'Y RECOVERY SUPPORT RESOURCES Community recovery, resources offer a practical and cost - efficient way to assist alcoholics, addicts and family members to eater and maintain long-term recovery. The current alcohol and drug treatment system does not have the capacity to meet the long -tam recovery assistance needs required to mast the needs of the many. The treatment system is too heathy invested in short-tam treatment and too little invested in done development of safe and healthy . community recovery promoting environments and activities tier are constantly available to support recovery and life style eahancenetim. . Alcohol and drug treatment programs have been formatted by government and academic institutions into quality "people processing" treatment stations that are now too costly per person assisted to significantly reduce addiction problems. - Community recovery is based on the postulate that safe and sober plum tiled with healthy recovery activities provide the envbanmeats, motivation and recovery tools for alcdalics, addicts and family members to assist (process) themselves. Operators maintain healthy and.as& environments and promote individual recovery responsibility. Community recovery resources Include self -help meet mge, Alaao. clubs -which host self-help acdvity, community recovery centers, sober living housing and sober recreational and social emit. Community recovery centers are self-service spaces that offer education sessions, host self -help groups, bold eoci iVremmflonal events and have commssling and therapy available by self-selection. Community recovery centers, activities and housing are easily adaptable to meat the broad ethnic, cultural and physically challenged needs. . Community recovery resources are assisting millions of alcoholics, addicts and family members m recovery from alcohollam and otherdnrg addictions: with tilde or to BMW fiom goverment Rod health insurance finding sources. Sober living homes, Alano chins and community recovery centers am primarily created and supported by recovering persons motivated by a call to be of service to others. 7be Soberl3viug Network P.0. Bonn 5235, Saab Bleel r, CA 40409 (310)396 -3270 HomeOrganizingTrainitl > i ContactSite Map ®Copyright 2004 Sober Housing All Rights Reserved privacy policy Hosting provided by Helier Networks and The Sober Musicians Project http:// wvw .soberhousing.net/community.htrnl 5/15/2008 YS 00635 &ULN: ltll1Cl'wn 5 AV ULIUVL vaa. u..uaau ♦ a.ra.y..aya — y�a.u...m ................ The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence fights the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions. Facts and Information Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Are America's Number One Health Problem The cost and consequences of alcoholism and drug dependence place an enormous burden on American society. As the nation's number one health problem, addiction strains the health care system, the economy, harms family life and threatens public safety. p Substance abuse crosses all societal boundaries, affects both genders, every ethnic group, and people in every tax bracket.. Scientific documentation defines alcoholism and drug . . dependence as a disease that has roots in both genetic susceptibility personal behavior. P dY and pe THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM • There are more deaths and disabilities each year in.the U.S, from substance abuse than from any other cause. ! . About 98 million Americans have alcohol problems, about 5 to 6 million Americans have drug problems. 2 . More than half of all adults have a family history of alcoholism or problem drinking. 3 More than nine million children live with a parent dependent on alcohol andlor.illbt drugs. 4 THE CONSEQUENCES . One - quarter of all emergency room admissions, one third of all suicides, and more than half of all homicides and incidents of domestic violence are alcohol- related. ? http:// www. ncadd .org/factstnumberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00636 1'WrW.ILL11Yll�u .. ♦.w .... .. ., wu. .... ... • Heavy drinking contributes to illness in each of the top three causes of death :. heart disease, cancer and stroke. 6 • Almost half of all traffic fatalities are alcohol- related. 7 . Between 48% and 64% of people who the in fires have blood alcohol levels indicating intoxication. 0 • Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation. s THE COST .. Alcohol and drug abuse costs the American economy an estimated $276 billion per year in lost produclivity, health care expenditures, crime, motor vehicle crashes and other conditions. 10 Untreated addiction is more expensive than heart disease, diabetes and cancer combined.. 1 Every American adult pays nearty $1,000 per year for the damages of addiction. $0, WHAT CAN BE DONE? Like other diseases, addiction can be overcome with proper treatment, prevention and more research. By increasing access to care, the costly toU on society and the burden it places on families can be reduced. Research shows conclusively that successful prevention and treatment.leads to reductions in traffic fatalities, crime, unwanted pregnancy, . child abuse, HIV, cancer and heart disease. Treatment reduces drug use, improves health, improves job performance, reduces involvement. with the criminal justice system, reduces family dysfunction and improves quality of life. The Comprehensive Assessment Treatment Outcomes Registry Data in Ohio have documented dramatic results in decreasing occupational problems, including the following . reductions after treatment: . Absenteeism decreased by 89% http: / /www.neadd .org/facts /numberoneprob.hbnl 5/15/2008 YS 00637 . Tardiness decreased by 92% . Problems with supervisors decreased by 56% . Mistakes in work decreased by 70% . Incomplete work decreased by 81 % 13 Additionally, a California Study found significant decreased health care costs from before to after treatment in: • Hospitalizations for physical health problems ( -36 %) • Drug overdose hospitalizations ( -58%) • Mental health hospitalizations (44 %) . • The number of emergency room visits ( -36 %) The total number of hospital days ( -25 %) 14 Americans increasingly recognize that alcoholism and drug dependence is a disease with consequences that affect both . physical and behavioral health. Diagnostic and treatment services have changed in recent years and modem treatment, when adequately provided, enables a great many people to recover and rebuild productive lives. It is important that the public be aware of evidence generated by scientific inquiry, clinical evaluation and clinical experience. The evidence demonstrates that treatment for alcohol and other drug abuse works. Treatment not only saves lives, it also saves dollars that would otherwise be spent in other areas of medical care and social services. For every dollar spent on addiction treatment, seven dollars is saved in reduced health care costs.l5 The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence is dedicated to fighting the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions by providing education, information, help and hope to the public. NCADD advocates prevention, intervention, and treatment through a network of 97 affiliates across the United States. For more information, visit !A ncadd orcl. Alcoholism and drug, dependence are treatable and millions of people achieve recovery. SOURCES 1. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Ineflhft for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1993. htt p:// www. ncadd .org/facts/numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00638 2. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 2001. 3. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNOP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 4. Ibid. 5. "Sobering Facts on the Dangers of Alcohol," NY Newsday, April 24, 2002. S. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Carder for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Annual Report, 1992. 8. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1991. 9. E. Abel, "Incidence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Economic Impact of FAS.Ralated Anomalies," Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1987. .10. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis Unhrersity, 2001. 11. Ibid: 12. The National Drug Control Strategy, The White House, 1997. . 13. Ohio Dept of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, New Standards, Inc., St Paul, MN, 1994. 14. Gerstein, at al, "Evaluating Recovery Services: the California Drug and Alcohol Assessment," Sacramento, 1994. 16. Ibid. Compiled &V2 WFICAL' D National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. 244 Fast 58th Street, 4th Floor, New Yor14 NY 10022 phone: 212/269 -7797 fax: 212/269 -7510 email: nati.Qnsl(cpadd:org http* /Iwww,ncadd.org HOPE UNE: SOO INCA -CALL (24-hour Affiliate referral) http:// www. ncadd .org/facts/numberoneprob.htnil 5/15/2008 YS 00639 DUICaU VL JLWLArV �suaam+w u....b., ..aaa. ,_,..uav a avow........ General population A= ng to data from the 2005 NakywW Household Survey on Dng Use andHelth (NSDUH) — - • 112 mutton Amalcans age 12 or dI(W (40% of the papulallon) reported Ron drug mat least oncein thalr sfellme • 14% reported use of a drug within the pad year • 8%n ported use of a dog within this peat month. Data from the 2006 survey showed that medians and cocaine use is the most pmvelerd.an wV parsons arts 16 to 25. Aga of rospondent 2004 Drug to a 1247 18-25 T 26 or older Marl "M Last month 6.8% 16.6% 4.1% Leat. year 13.3 26.0 6.9 Cocains Last month -. 0.6% 2.6% 0.0% Last year 1.7 8.9 1.5 Soars. SAMHSA. Omdro of Applied SW W, 2006 Midland Survey an Dnrp Use arW Haergr: NefbW Fl xN . September 2006. The Deg Abuse Wbn mg NehvoAr (DAWN) r WAM drug -Weted emergency d"Arnent,(ED) MRS for the nation and for selected mebapoliten mess DAMN also collects data on drug - elated deaths imromlgaled by medic! ermnsmus and coroners in selected nrobopol ten areas end Some. In 2005. DAWN aellmles Wet nearly t.4 million emergency depmtmerd Netts nationwide mere associated with drug misuse or abuse. An estimated 819.696 drugaelerod emergency department vielts Involved, a nw* substance of abuse. DAWN estimates that: • Comme was Involved in 448,481 ED Naite. • "Juarm was Imfolved In 242,288 ED Nam:. • Haroln was involved In 164.572 ED NsAe. . Sdmulacs, inducted amphelenlrim end rmthadnphatartdna, uero mvaWnd n 138,990 m N!W . . Other Halt &ugq such ae PCP. Ecstasy. and 014B, were much lea frequent than any of the above. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Human SeNges, SAMHSA, Dittos of Applled SWAes. Drug Musa Wemine NWWDA6 2006: N00oaaf15011011108 OfDMWRlemd EmmgenarDOPMO ntIdeas. DAWN Sodas D-29. DHHS Publication No.(SPAA) 074256, RdcrNlla, MD, 2007. .. In 2003,122judelicgons In 35 metropolitan seas and 6 Slates subl8ed mortally data to DAWN. Tiro States, which ant aC new to DAWN, are Maria, Maryland, Now HempWm, New Mmdds, t1Wh, cud Vemrml. DAWN cannot provide notionall aelWelea of dnMga tad dadtlra In the metropoNan wens, needy helfddrup mhw- de fhe: an average, Irrvdved arrajw subsan a of abuse (mcalm. heroin, malluarm a0mcanta, dub digs, hattuabogerro, or nm- Plmmtaceullcd lnbl ems). Armes the a Steles, me)orWast rrmeswom repaled in about tMr d of misuse deaths. $TPo, roger WbAlhosswe mpmted W 40% to 45% of drug resum daatlro In Maryland, New 01 1 , and 1.110. Doom"ere of dng same deaths In the porldpAhg metropolitan areas are avallotle.in the Wdaf ,Data berm the DANK, 20W ropolL Acmrdng to datafram the 2003 AbdW Data east DANK— Commute, the raatfrequently, sabered IM drug. In the "misuse deaths, cocaine . wee smog the tap 5 digs In 29 of the 32 meuopd8an areas and all at the 6 Shim. On average, comma Acne or in combination aAh a0 wdnge wee mpoded In 39% of drug misuse deaths (range 8% to 70 %). Almhd a o,ans d the 5 moat ogernwd dogs In 30 of the 32 metropd6en Naas end 6 of the 8 Stelae. In 29 of the 32 mdropokon ores, rem dug m1swee deaths lashed an epfeleepbM then am other drug. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Hamm Services, SAMHSA, Of m a1App0ed Sables. Drop Abuse WamhW Nelroi5 2M. Am ProMee MOrupRetated Mad@W: DAWN Series D-27, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 064023. Rockville, MD. 2005. Previous 6,draw errurintighWb �+ +IP++ddnwr►W amid mrmeab a nWJsowftj w - -� - hi1'n�7lunifrar riiri Bnw/hic /Arf /flit hurt Coster SJS harts page I Top or this pogo oJ! Fmoten •r refwasabe Ash wee teal roan mw Drwprw peV our mbar sM.shr, leay &11111* 111 5/14/2008 ptuaau ut du6urw uwu.auw ... ,. ,..... ___ � U.�9 IIh P Ail tnhi n,tl�,ut lw ltuV �ul lu,vli<< I'I Inn. 1� r e all r)t I))sti« �tatltillC {� =� o•nMds Drugs and Crime Facts Prwba• NM T•w•GJa Drug use sore. we• Youth i Oenent poputalua Youth • Use • Perceived risk • Student reports of availability of drugs Liao The Monitoring the Future Study asked high awwl sainora, "On holy many 00CRSIOM6 0 any, have you used drugs a alcohol during the lest 12 months or =run?' Reported drug and ahwhol news by high school saNam, 2006 Used wHUn Saint Drugs T 12 mo~, 30 days - -•__ Asohot .88.5% 45.3 % Marguan 31.5 18.3 Omaropsss 9.0 3.0 Stimulants 8.1 3.7 Sedatlms 6.8 3.0 7ranpr9sms 6.8 27 Cocaine 5.7 2.6 Hallue8wgwu 4.9 1.5 IMssrlb 4.6 1.5 8terolds 1.0 ' 1.1 Hotels 0.6 0.4 . 'Inducing theisq month. . . SMOG: Pre» resase: teen Ong ass Nndswa down In WK Par8ndmlyamong wdBrtwrw but saw or �dnrw nmaMs blplr, Udvenlly d Mkhigan News and ilbnnatlotN SerNCaa, lMOember21. 2006. (A� ee 67e.e1lcel SdFnpode of drug Gas emNg high GONNA MW= mtg' ulnti reproaan drug tae anwxV youth of that We becwee high GOwd dmpous and tmws are nd Anduded, end these groups may have more kwdvsm rd with drugs then those who May in ached. Pasant wall cduw Students, 1e96&1008 . Drug twi 1996 1908. 1997 1988 1989 2000 2001 2002. 2003 2104 2608 Madllnn. Dally WVNR IM moms 3.7% 2.8% 3.7% 4.0% 4.0% 4.6% 4.6% 4.1% 4.7% 4:6%.4.0% Lest month 18.8 17.8 17.7 1 8,0. 20.7 20.0 20.2 19.7 19.3 16.9 17.1 lastyear 31.2 33.1 31.6 WIG 35.2 34.0 35.6 34.7 33.7 33.3 33.3 Cocaine Daily within . sat mono 0.0% 0.0% OR% .0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0%. 0.0% ' 0.0% 0.1% Lent maro 0.7 0.9 1.8 1.0 1.2 1,4 1.9 IS 1.9 24 1.8 Last Year 3.6 2.9 3.4 4.6 4.8 4,8 4.7 4.6 5.4 6.6 5.7 • Lewes than 0.05% Rasa wPool yearmedN use by cdsge studerde turve veded aver the pact 10 yearn hem a bw d 2.9% In 1996 to a high d 6.7% in 2005. Pat year marijuana as has niged ham aloe d 31,2%41199616 a tdgh d 35.9%6 1998. Saaca: Unlverehy of Mlchlgah; 8usN14rh ..60 Furore National SurveyReeulb an Dory Mier 1976 -2006, VOlume It' COMWO ShWbnb andAduhs Aga, 1940, 2006, October 2006. (Acrobol9s 2,91 MS) Or high school sedore In 2006 - • 44.6 %repoMd having over used malluanaitahsb . 8.0% reported having ever usac hoc lne • 1.5% mPorW having ever used hemhl. M411IIMI II 5/141MOR J3UredU W .tubuw JLdUbL11,6 1 1%460 u.n, I.,,- . --- ---e, •• - ••• ••••• Sane: Unhe ally of Michigan, htonibring the Future Nedone! Revolts on Adat"vent Drug Uce: 0"Maw of Key Findings 2040, Apra 2008. (Aaobsl ft 442.77KB) The increase In the use of mariijusne has been especially Pron s unoed. Batman 1982 and 2005 past -madh use Of meryuans inerewedfrone • '12% to 20%amorp high school eedore. • 5 %to 15 %anloeg 10th - graders. . 4% to 7% among Bth graders. Repotted use of mmfjuene by blab school serion during Oro past month peaked in 1979 at 37% and detained to Its lowest level in 1992 at 12%. The use of rnceloowlitin the pest month OF the survey by high aohod sanion poked in ISa5 at 8.7%, up from 1.9% In 1075 at the surveys inception. Cocaine use declined to a lav of 1.3% In 1992 and 1993. In 2009, 2.3% of high sehod sedan reported Paid-month cecaice uss. Source: Unlvem9y, of Michigan, Monitortng do Future NathmW Results an Atlateeeent Drug Use: Overview of Key Mailings, 2008, Apr2 2006- (Acrobat Poe 442.77KB). Cocaine use smog Wo ached seniors peeked in 1985. U Click on the crowd to New the dS1S. Source: Preen neleiaC; Most drug we continues; down In 206 particularly among order teens; but Masi Of prescdpdomsype drugs tetwh s high, University of Michigan Neva and Information Services, Decerrmber 21. .2006,(Apobd fie 670-81 KB). - peraeive0rlsk From 1987 to 2006 the percenage of high scrod wi ion Met sere asked. *How mum do you think people risk hamming themHtM7' remainedskwaliy alable. Those students anslverine'graid AW In regular ma concurred for the loAontrtp- Chok or191e dlort to %Am the dale. [M Source: Press release: Teen dnw use congnues down In 2008, particularly among oideinede; but use of jmowdjoske ype drugs nroubs, high, Udverdly of Michigan News and Indanndinn Servlcen, December 21, 2008.(ADOW Me1i7 AIM) . Student reports of availability gf dregs Percent of high school seniors reporting they could obtain.druge fairly easily or very easily, 2008 ".. .i4:,•ll..,.;,: :. �:.. ,,.,,;/F;ic7iir,f /An'h1m YS 00642 5/14/2008 .ISUTGt1U U1 Jubklw u•uuo••w ✓.erg., .u•.. ✓•uu... ...,w. Ma* 84.9% Amphetamines 52.9 Cocaine 48.6 Bardturet s 43.8 Credo 311A LSD 29.0 Heroin 27A Crystal methemphetemine 25.7 Trenqullizen 24.4 PCP 23.1 Amypbrdyl ribites 16.4 Scum: Pees release: Teen drug use continues down In 2006, perdcderlyamena older tome; but use of prescdptbn -type dnrgs ma elan high. University d Michigan Newe end IdamsBon Services, Decomber 21, 2005. (Acrobat Ole 576.81115) In 2005.25 %of sat Students in grades 9 through 12 reported someone had offered, add, a given them an goo dug on Schad property. There wee no measurable change with the Percentage of students who fepaded that drugs were offered, Sold, or given to Mehl at Schad bonuses 2903 and 2O06. Met" wen mare 1kelY than ROW" to spoil that dugs wars offered, sold, or given to them on ednol propady In each Survey Year between 1803 and 20N. In 2005, 291% of mates and 22% of Image reported avaaa6101y of drugs. Sours: BJS PWCY with the U.S. Deprlma d dEducatiun, Indicators of School Crime and SaW 2008, NCJ 214282, Da embgr 2008. T To the top Garteml population ACCordirg to data lrost the 2O05 Mafia" Household Surveyan AW Use and Health (NSDUPI)- • 112 micron Amedeeo age 12 b drier (48 %of the populatlan)'repaded Bid drug use er least once In their Higgins • 14% reported use da drug w6hinthe pest yea • 8 %rcpaUdusedadrogulthinthepodmonth, Dais ham the 2886 Survey Shoved Bret InSTISa o aid cocaine ,te ls the moat jwnsfers aaag psems aga 181025. Age of aspondant,'2084 " Drug use 12.17 18,26 28 a order MaSueme Lad mode 6.8% 16.6% " 4.7% - Lpetyau 13,3 28.0 6.0 Cocalre tastwo m 0.6% 2.6% 0.8% Last you 1.7 6.0 1.6 Saurco: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Sbdles. mph Naffavud Survey as Drag Use and Health: Flageolet . lgaaurge, BePfarnbet 2006: ' The Drug Abu" t837ag Nehtortr ( DAWN) martinis drag- related emergency depammd (ED) vista forthe nation and for Selected mehopolsn grew, DAWN elsacugecradaa on drag- related deaths investigated by medical exardne s and covers in selected melropoilwo saes and Stems. M 2005, DAWN adivatse that nasty 1A 1MWM emergency depadmenl *M natimordewere associated with drug Msue or abase. An egbmded 816,696 ring -melded amaga,y dapedmaM ,owls jmdved a major subs)anm of abuse. DAWN eeHmateS that • Cocable was "hwalved in 448,481 ED vista. • Ma*MW was Invalvad in 242,200 FD ValW • Heroin wu Mvakvd In 164,572 ED Naite. Othe�i lick doge. Such as PCP Ines azl, and G pMadm, was hvdvad In 136,850 the EcstNy, Sena GHB, were much lase trequem Men any d tte abov, Source: U. S. Depadnrerd of Healthy and Henan SWWCM, SAMHSA, OIHce of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse Wamhg NeMwod* m0a: Netlonel Eatimalse of Drug•Hehded Emergency DAWmem vfsHS. DAWN Series D- 20. DHHS PUdlcethon No (SMA) D1 -4258, RodwM^ MD, 2007. In 2003,122 JudsdlcHans is 35 maropdtm OWNS and 6 States sulwi ted modality.dae to DAWN. The Slates, Which am all new to DAWN, $e Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Nee MVdCO, Utah, and Vemraa. DAWN cannot provide national estimates of drug -related deaths. - In Ilia metropolitan Stage, resdY hall of drug mlaues deaBS. on average, irvdwd a mop; substance of abuse (cocaine, heroin, bt-M ... __ ..... ... ..... ... . i&K111M K 5/14/2008 mad)uena, sUmuhmt%dub drupe, tWhldnogene, or nonrpharmac -dical WWwda). Adasethe 6 States, major sobatences were reported In about a third of misuse dgaths. Silk, m larsubstanoes ware sported M 40%W46%of drug misuse desths In Maryland. New Mmdco, and Utah. Dmxxfpfisw of drug muse deaths in the participating mslropotiten stew we mama In the A46fts : Date cam the DAWN, 200a report. Aecording to data from the 2003 Mwtaaty Oafs gam DAWN — Cocalne wee th o most frmqum* reported I" drug. In the drug ndswe deaths, WC&m0 was among the lop 5 drug$ In 26 Of ins 32 mafropolllen stale and all of the 6 States. On ev*M% oocakm slans or in combination with other drugs was reported In 39% of drug misuse deaths (range 8% to 70%). Alcohol vies one of the 6 moat comment drugs In 30 N the 32 mem potaw areas and 6 of the 6 States. In 29 of the 32 metropolitan 0re866 more drug Meuse deaths Nwolved an opidnfopidd than any other drug. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Human SeNces, SAMHSA, woe of Applied Stuck", Drag Abuse Warning Neffork, 2003: Area Prufts al'Ona 17emfed Nortsuty. DAWN States D-27, DHHS, Publication No. (SMA) 051023• Rockville, MD, 2005. Previous Contents Next 6JS home page Top of this page Buren erkrufipaglalb Q1PFreedem'of fe /nenn�ioe Ael tinge sudei•a..rakb No Wet APR 11,r Sets ceeMmhla mbble@rrdNde. h$e bet rnkW se Apra ll, 2007 YS 00644 AH..• / /snanni'nir r*nir /kid / rf /rin htm. _. .- .. 5/W2008 - _ Weshide Santa Ana Height; Homeowner's Guide bray 2097 C"Anesir of Ted $salty, YorrrN&ghhar aad Ii,B Prefar&vod Tone 16 `` ' Ted Bosley Appointed to SAM Waterpointe to Start Project Advisory Cohtttrllttee development on Orchard 1 started atendkg the SAH PAC meetings 5 to a recent response to my inquiry about m asmuch the timeline for this Wesbide SAH project, years ago, mostly so that I could la possible about events ateeftorir r ommunty t reeved O"d"g atatiamenC - - We sit stol ptocessfng-ou"nal-map - n You, the readers of my periodic nevtsleters. Have i been the benefactors since I have wed with you arlth the Gnunfy of Orange. Once records much of what was learned In that forum as well as Bon of the map occurs we ere planning on Supervisor, City Council and LAFCtI meeWhge starting the project.... Once again I thank you for your assistance in getting. this Many of you have also been In attendance at those : project approved.' c.'. same meetings. I appreciate being appointed to serve on the SAH Garrett Principal . Project Advisory Committee. This gives melts' Waterpoirrte Development Pdndpal opportunity to serve on critical vib-orahmilltses that ° make recommendations fo that Bd Of Supervisors r 'I Edward "Ted" Bosley and the NB City Ctu ndl on matters that have 0 (949) 294 -2126 significant Impact on our community. I TedBosley yahoo.com serwae. mte6riat: t emormie■t Westside Stet Annexation Update Tha ruM l ArM haiodnn o fn 66ev an + sM refln A1A ' t[ig tulw i•+ t is MAR of Admin�ratbn,12 Ctndc Carder Plaza. Sarnia. Ana, in to Planning Commission Heating Room The City of Newport Beach's application for a sphere of Influence charge and concurrent annexation of West Soft Arne Heights and the City of Costs Mesa's application for a sphere 01. influence dvange for the flaming Ranch property will be considered by LAFCO on this date. Staff reports for both proposals wo be evatabte.for review on Wednesday afternoon, May Z MW 2007, on the Orange Corsrty L11FC0 vwebefie: www orsnae LAFCG ca oov. Ctdc on the "Agenda wiMIPI.TEDBosLEY_coM and Minns• link, then dick on agenda Item. Greatsonme for RE information, This is the meeting we at have beers waiting for LAFCO.is suppose to come to a oral tools plus Ell-monthly resolution on the West SIS AnrerMtiort :to Newport at this meeting. PAC will be mere to support Annexation as always. Sourseof M 6UbraeUon 1s www.SAHPAC.com f)C Roneeowner's Guide If would like mom Worms don ndeft to. ft tdslwy of 0. * Malt please wool e sietter www.salroac. corn/sys -tmpki dddeanrmxagoi Sc�bet Living Ioena s Make t Neil ;mMuniiy Christmas Contribution °Ce,nM4uiS�m" Were you as surprised as I by the arnazkg W WeaWma SAH decorations exhibited by the residents of ", 3 -(et that Redlafb off.., ;lib »flame timer Yellowstone- Recolemytomes-during the Chdat- AAsru� limns hod u Cd deSae mas holidays? One of the reasons was a Inge comped wO O" tim between the 3 homes along with the help the mart's home provided to the other 2 women's homes. Their effort also brought out the competitive spirit in Indus Sbast ism sue• some of to other homes in the neighborhood ... Women's Home Women's Home Conegrstulation.0 Golf Course or Parkin I, ®t? What I cannot understand is why anyone, on the Airport . Committee would suggest that a Car Rental Auto Storage Daily Pilot Article on April 18th discusses 11111s; subject. M facility should replace the Newport Beach Golf Course . you do not take the Pilot you can go to ww w.daiivniiot.com/ Bade 9. that brings so much pleasure to so many, when ar icles12007 /04 /10/ politics /dot-c,)_oifcourse18.bct to view It their lease is up at the end of July, 2007. _ (Continued on page 2) *' ,nc,' :u, wont to John.PAoorlach(i'iocciov.com AND TedBosievOyF1100.eom wetlt tit f3;t- ;::n3i:itilihlp tx: fi '1ei�eti^.iiw > "'s ailed: <:i i ": ,..::;t .: r..? t,. ,s3 +rrr; snow v. zeta -iaainresf "ir::rti ^.il;tari,:c is tai: see.NS r' SFr ,wfztas!! �YS 00645 1 J I 1 1 6640ub ll � W F1V11 lrirOlAl v4 >41 VT - v V VL'j+v luuro Address 1671 Pegasus St Google- Santa Ana, CA 92707 Maps • -6- a — a Get Google Maps on yotr phone 7adthewad"Gh7pPS' to 6453 R http: // maps. google.c om /maps`IF —q& hl= en&geocode =&q= 1571 +Pegasus+newport+beach +... 5/14/2008 YS 00646 Attachment 7 1. 1571 Pegasus, Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 2. 1621 Indus St., Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 3. 20172 Redlands Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 4. 1561 Indus, Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 1 4111IMI 1.1 m N c m m � m W �U 10 Q n 3 z O a� c .Q+ U rmm� O J a E RLLh _a W IL �U E w W � I o � UJ �' "` o mW LL v �O�LL o �0a 46:3 IL z; € m LL LL f) � m RLLh r I rm m c c r O V Cb 'o a O JI Z'E i T9 IL T oCL ° o W 6'a � w H � 'a c R �s t m O W L YS OQ649 U4 i vs � W CL a . -Z'z 0 'Z,b 7 9. UL V t- _j � z P'a r Cc YS 09.650 �I 1 Z3; u rLLU c Z io I I YS 00651 City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES - USE PERMIT APPLICATION ADMINISTRATORIDIRECTOR INFORMATION (Formru 1150 - Feb�aN 2008) EDUCATION CIRCLE THE HIGHEST GRADE Y OMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE YES NO 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 9 9 10 11 2 PASSED HIGH SCHOOL EQUIVALENCY TESTS YES 6 ra COMPLETED TO NAME AND LOCATION OF r Io SEMESTER QUARTER I G60 Mao C fe OR SfTY COURSE STUDY UNITS UNITS DEG O AINED DATE_C PLETED `i (= L Lz- 0. Q Period Held Issuing Agency Cedt ir,,e— } u 3 j 10. 1 f t (' YvN'e_ ' 0. -e 0 C (rlr- MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE Troe, Title Dale Started Data Ended Reason fn Lr-avft e o r,1e 6 ra ! 1R. S TO r r Io 6 terns I G60 Mao 09 y- V an DO YOU HAVE A PROFESSKHVL LICENSE OR CERTIFICATE? Yes No IF YES COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING 'type Period Held Issuing Agency Cedt ir,,e— f' 67rf,, j 10. 1 f t (' YvN'e_ ' 0. -e 0 C (rlr- wcn�.c. ucvm Rr n i wn rNp I r% NE I vrvKK EXPERimmum. Lrb r ALL EKPERIEiiCF ROLE V AR I TO Triro " FE OF va. Daft Name and Address of Employer Duties Reason for Left" p �u8 ►�� c 60 _ ! 1R. S TO FROMa ���i mYn r1ote oY nT &ry yt'TCi0.iert3YlCa �, 0, V0.�7j 2 re- 4.I��. t Ci �.. 11 FROM TO Signed dA,--0�` Date VI&III111.1- a Y' City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION ADMINISTRAVVE ORGANIZATION & DELEGATION INFORMATION - CORPORATIONS (Form 200 — February 2008) INSTRUCTIONS: This form must be updated and submitted to the City each time there is a Change in Dfflcers or change in the corporation. Pdnclw office Address of bush esa: ofty TG mYSQ Zip coda %,3_7 TeIeptmne 9 '!a ifer`t`L`l �sw J s +, �S , T", relep,ereCoectPareWLLi� It'Q,y6 irK.JL (06y-d. j( 7y 9 l I__ Nome and addresses of all persona who mm ten per cent (tD %) or nun of stook In cor widlon. LJL Gow• nkV Board of DIrectors a. Number of Board Members / B] 0. Tartu of O(ftoe 0. ngs Frequencyof Meed kJr�Y}o�OMTh.`1.1 d. MelhodofSelo Won V6-I,C� Board Ofters and Members USE A SEPARATE SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL NAMES Otflas Mann ausirwss Address i CRY d Zip Cade Tokwhons Number Term Eaplmftlnn Prealderd r• •m'm 1$y�cs • C3a� S°i<� 147,�.sq� C_"o._ 9�7f/ V dJ U f DD. wee - President (r r),t:4 T cr^ I� /Lvicen�1 Ntiimper -�� QH9— ��I71. U L/c, "r) . ! Secretary k�,s� 46- r � v, r h�a � �9 p � a a in�ll o r^t- ?Cl Treasurer �Oa`� �i7G'Iravg� Yr Id 0:77 44 671-6749 aaV Dow YS 00653 City of NeWport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL. USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION DELEGATION FORM - CORPORATIONS (Form 200D — February 2008) STATEMENT OF CORPORATE DELEGATION Applicants who are corporations shall attach board resolutions authorizing a delegation to the Program Director and /or Administrator or other appropriate staff_ 2. 3. 4. 5. s. Applicant Name: Program Name: Program Address: City: Telephone: I qY' -4.4 4 County: a r^anA& Zip Code: 9a?D� is hereby designated as administrator, program manager, or agent of the above -named program and Is authorized to receive at the above named program on my behalf, any documents including reports of Inspections and consultations, accusations: and civil and administrative processes. I WILL NOTIFY THE CITY WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF ANY CHANGE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE F40LIT_Y. Signature of 8. Title: L6 0 9. Address: d 0 L - cs- t �0 01_ 10. Cy: p County P4 4 qQ -'e—_ Zip Code: / Clty of Newport Boagh GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION - PARTNERSHIPS, SOLE PROPRIETOR, AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS (Form 200P — February 2008) PARTNERSHIPS 1. Attach a copy of ft partnership agreement 2. Partners Type of Pertnerat9p Name Business Address, City and Zip Coda 1al Partner ❑ C"ft —d 2nd Partner ❑ Gamrs Limited 3rd Partner 13 Genre Limited nth Partner ❑ =� Limited Contact Person 'life Tetephons B SOLE PROPRIETOMOTHER ASSOCIATIONS doc anrda (fictitious name Etelement, buatress'Hcerme av4ioh sst fonts respane org the contact ty person, for o and opening proga m. Use Me fodaMng space or attach a separate sheet ) responsibiary of ane orgaMietlon and a000wdabiliry for opening the program. YS 00655 City of Newport Beach `GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION WEEKLY ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE (Form 500 — February 208) WEEKLY SCHEDULE OF SERVICES Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 8-7 a.m. 7-8 a.m. 8 9 a-m, 8 -10 am. 10=11 a.m. 11 a.m. -12 pp Jl' 12 -1 p.m. 1 -2 p.m. 2-3-p.m. 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. S8 P.M. 8 -7 p.m. 7$ p,m. Tr]TAI rani DOC Dan i.me -...,� ...... .._ .W : "ry yr inuroluuAL/fiRE)UP/EDUCATiON SESIONS, R RY O TREATMENT PLANNING, AND DETOXIFICATION SERVICES (IF PROVIDED): Comments: City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION rskr- .SAirrI T imzirra. I IVN mr— %4lcbl 'wtn ase,ww ,m., A!JEMCYk Browning t'B NAME T5.64l01EtaAtEGt ___ FdOMM HTDATE ChurJc Bmwaiitg - 916 1322-2091 429 -03 ANRF EWAMTORaNNA6 Cb ttO1c Browning WN6AOENCYFACiItytAr,�EA ASMGNED YET AEpI®70ODE to coma t. ORIGRIAL A FCRE CLEARANCE LICENSING �pl of AlaohOl & Dtug PtDgcEma AGENCY � 2 RENkYIAL L LiE 8gPE4y NASD? ADD . lAIbOBiE1g 8Dd %a'blioa110n BDECII 3' CAPACf1Y CHANGE ADDRE88 . 1700 K. Sheet 4. ONMERffiBP CHANGE L88CrMment0, Ca. 95814 -4037 S. ADDRESS CHANGE ' _1 a MANE CHANGE 7 OTHER AMBULATORY MONAMHULATODY 'aEDR810EH CAPACIY FREUKRZOApAWY TOTAL CAPACIff C ply t]1PAfitt i ' spry 18 18 FACUrrNA►EE WOMEN'S REODVERY OF CALiFOBNIA, YEL LOWSTONB PEGASUS Al aDIE£TAt1YiM(ArA,leMMe AlcohDUDcug Feta7ity 1571 Pegmus Street HUMBEttOFOMMUs c"v . SMa Ana Ha4ga. CWMMWR 91707 nEStRAxr FACE =tYCOMTADTPBt80M8NA m -- �'-'— " - -"-- Dc A M (Honey) Tbm= — xouRE 8PE7N.00NDlTK= 24 . To BE COMPLEM BY 818PECTINB AIRHORHY FM AUTHIMITYAS ✓� y •�C7�,/�'/ NAME AHD J AODIUMS 7 o�in �y All e J . C,q jr-76 J -yp-) 13cf4ft— 1 K6- Z =/- v-3. 3,4"MC 2 FIRE CLEARANCE DEtRW .AMUTS & CONBTRUCTM C. FIRE ALARM M, VI&IIIIII-14/ 1 1, r�$0 z .f a i 0 3 ELI M 4[r Cq 4 O a a w Q N N h h B W 0 �4 0 0 4 N C: � S •fJ O SO •~ . S � o Cgou c 2-0.5 W Q W U O U O ti L .W r M3 4 Ix 0 LL LLJ t�- 0 a IL 0 w v c� O a YS 00658 EXHIBIT 3 CORRESPONDENCE AND SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION SUBMITTALS VI&II111:14.01 June 19, 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92868 (949) 644 -3200: FAX (949) 8443229 YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. c/o Isaac R. Zfaty SGSA Lawyers 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 Dear Mr. Zfaty: Subject: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Use Permit No. 2008 -036 Property located at 1571 Pegasus Street This letter serves as notification that the Planning Department is in receipt of your application submittal regarding the proposed Use Permit for property located at the above referenced address. Upon review of your submitted application, documents and exhibits, the application has been deemed incomplete. Please provide the following clarifications and/or additional information: 1. of a Preliminary Title Report or property verifies the legal owner of the property, owner authorizing filing of this application. caner Information: Please provide a copy profile that is less than 60 days old that and written authorization from the legal 2. ARRlication Form 100 Item 3B Other Similar Uses: Information on other Similar Use permits within the City is not provided, but will be provided by City staff from City records. However, the application is not complete until this information is included in application package. 3. Application Form 100. Item 4 Firm's Historic Uses: Other managed group residential uses are checked no, however your applications indicate that three other group homes are operated in Newport Beach. Please list these uses. El Information on other Use permits within the 3 block radius area is not provided, but Will be provided by City staff from City records. However, the application is not complete until this information is included in application package. 5. Application Form 100. Item 6 Site Plan: Please provide a site plan which shows the building footprint and property lines and the building footprints and property lines for immediately adjacent properties. Show dimensions and setbacks. YS 00660 Notice of Incomplete Application Use Permit No. 2008 -036 Page 2 6. Application Form 100, Item 8B. Facility Users and Staff: The maximum resident capacity is stated as zero (0) but the total occupancy is stated as 18. As two staff residents are indicated does that mean the resident capacity is 16? Please clarify. 7. Application Form 100, Item 8C. Floor Plan: The floor plan needs to identify the number of residents per bedroom. The diagram must also show setbacks, driveways, and usable outdoor spaces. 8. Application Form 100, Item 8L. Secondhand Smoke: As Dr. Anna Marie Thames is indicated as facility Administrator/Director, please have her sign the acknowledgement to control secondhand smoke. It is not clear what role Leisha Mello plays at the facility. 9. Application Form 100, Item 10D. Siqnature of Applicant: Leisha Mello is listed as administrator, however Dr. Anna Marie Thames is indicated as facility AdministratodDirector on Form 150. Please clarify. 10. Application Form 200. Coroorpte Delegation. Please provide corporate board resolution(s) authorizing delegation of corporate representation to the person indicated on line 6 of the form. Line 6 designates Leisha Mello as Administrator/program manager. Please clarify the roles and responsibilities of Leisha Mello and Dr. Anna Marie Thames as Dr. Thames is indicated as facility administrator /director on Form 150. 11. Application Form 850, Fire Marshall Clearance: Please provide evidence (Form 850) of recent Fire Marshall clearance. 12. Filing Fee: Please remit the Use permit filing fee of $2,200.00. 13. Request For Reasonable Accommodation: Please provide additional information regarding the Request for Reasonable Accommodation using the enclosed forms. Should you have any questions regarding the requested clarifications or additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 266 -7548. Sinnxxaly In cc: Janet Brown, Associate Planner YS 00661 Dr. Anna Marie Thames, Yellowstone Women's First Step House VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL DAVIS•RAYBURN A.AOFFSSIONAI 4W cOn OAAIJ" July 25, 2008 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JuL 2 2000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AITY OF NEWRI BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Use Permit Applications; 2008 -034; 2008 -035; 2008 -036; and 2008 -037 To Whom It May Concern: This firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. This correspondence is in response to your notices of incomplete application concerning the above - referenced Use Permit Applications for the following properties: 1561 Indus, 1621 Indus, 1571 Pegasus, and 20172 Redlands. Our office is currently gathering the required information referenced in your notices in order to complete our applications. We should have the information forwarded to you within the next twenty -one (2 1) days. Thank you for your courtesy and if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact us. Very truly yours, DAVIS & RAYBURN a professional corporation ISAAC R. ZFATY IRZ:jdb 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 Fax: 949.376.3875 info @davisrayburnlaw.com • www.davisrayburnlaw.com YS 00662 DAVIS-RAYBURN • PROFf SSIONAf IOW CORRORArioN August 22, 2008 RECEIVED BY 8005 -003 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ms. Janet Brown AUG 2 G ZQOg CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Cff Y OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Notice of Incomplete Application: 1571 Pegasus Dear Ms. Brown: As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Yellowstone " ). We are in receipt of the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Incomplete Application for the property located at 1571 Pegasus Street (the "Property"), In response to that notice, we provide herewith the following: 1. Application Form 100, Item 2, Property Owner Information: the requested information is enclosed herewith. 2. Item 3B: We have no information regarding other similar uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. 3. Item 4: We cross - reference and incorporate the other applications, which are being provided concurrently under separate cover. 4. Item 5: We have no information regarding other conditional uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. 5. Item 6: A site plan is enclosed herewith. 6. Item 8B: Resident capacity is 16. Total capacity is 18. 7. Item 8C: A floor plan is enclosed herewith. 8. Item 8L: The acknowledgement re secondhand smoke is enclosed herewith. 9. Item l OD: Dr. Thames is the facility Director. 10. Form 200: A board resolution is enclosed herewith. 11. Form 850: Fire Marshall Clearance is enclosed herewith. 12. Request for reasonable accommodation: See the enclosed form. The one item that we have not included in this correspondence is the requested $2,200.00 fee. After reviewing the code, we have been unable to locate any discussion of such fee. We mention this not to question the City's authority to impose such a fee, but rather because we have not seen any statutory scheme that should provide for a hardship exception. We would respectfully request that the City furnish such authority, and also provide us with any exemption 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828 Fax: 949.376.3875 info @davisrayburnlaw.com www.davisrayburnlaw.com YS 00663 City of Newport Beach August 22, 2008 Page 2 application. Alternatively, we would request an extension of time to remit such fee so that we might be able to raise the funds necessary to accommodate the City's request. As a final note, it is worth mentioning that it is our understanding that the Property is still currently located in an unincorporated area of Orange County known as Santa Ana Heights, and that the Newport Beach annex of the property is not yet complete. If this is true, then we would submit that the city of Newport Beach does not have jurisdiction over this property. Any response that the City can provide regarding this matter would be greatly appreciated. To the extent that our understanding is correct, we would ask that the City simply hold our application until such time as the annexation is complete, so that the parties are not required to reinitiate this process. Please accept our apologies for the delay in providing the enclosed information. As always, if you have any questions regarding these applications, please feel free to contact us. V y ruly yours, IS AA R. ATY IRZ/jmk cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) V&11I1I1-1-i! RECORDING REQUESTED BY: Financial Title Company ORDER NO,: 00116984 ESCROW NO.: 19042709 -EC AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Anna Marie Thames 1571, Pegasus Drive Santa Ana, CA 92627 Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Tom Daly, Clork- Recorder 11IM901111111IM RM1111Y6.ao 2539235 03:46Qm 98111106 106 200 002 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OVE THIS LINE IS GRANT DEED ( X ) This conveyance chaff the momma In which title B held , granhor(s) and grantee(s) remain the same and continue to hold the same proportionate I ntt:riest. R 8: T 4 11911. ( ) computed on full value of properly conveyed, or ( ) computed on full value less liars or encumbrances remaining at time of sale (_X ): City.of Santa.Ana FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which Is hereby acknowledged, Paul BheAge, a married man as his sole and separate property hereby, GRANTS) to, Paul Etheridge, a married man as his sole and separate property and Anna Marie Thames, an unmarried woman, as joint tenants the Following described real property in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California: Lot 8 of Tract No. 4307, In the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange. State of California, as per map recorded in Book 46+3 , pages48 to -20; inchashre- efmise-mapa in- thwo #iee- af- OreEountyReeomer -cf-wk County -- Dated: April 7, 2005 STATE OF CALIF.ORNrA_--- -.-- .. .. COl1Mtt F -- - - On before me Paul Ethebdge Personmy appeared 1� Pennnalty kwm to me (WePIXIMI Is of SatlaPacOOry eNdence) to be the persorr(arydrose name(e) subsa to dwwkvi merit end S o�Medged to mm't hat e/E execu ed the same In /Chair authorized ), and that by',jRhwfflwlr agOn ;hrstrumwk t /� /I hee�mny upon behalf of I W old offtlal D 1 a: CLAUDE T. ROWEM COMM. #1522723 NOTARY PUBLIC • CAUFOHN1A ORANGE COUNTY O My Comm. ermkn Omeer 20.20" Gram Deed - IndWdral (290) 10-04 MAIL TAX STATEMENfS AS DIRECTED ABOVE frNsarmfsr iffid notryeW) VI&II111I-11-11 1A TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM: PAUL ETHEREDGE, OWNER RE: AUTHORIZATION THIS IS AN OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE APPLICATIONS FOR MY RESIDENCE AT 1571 PEGASUS , NEWPORT BEACH, CAL. IT IS CURRENTLY REGISTERED AS AN "OXFORD HOUSE" DATE AUTHORIZED: JUNE 30, 2008 i VI&IIIIII-14/ -�, _ - gip IC1�1�1 LkNINCZ: •:- P-K. l'. f : IKZ YS 00668 f ._..� YS 00669 f i i �I: III f ._..� YS 00669 OD a. M4 M rn -Q 0 '* S > LOA M YS 00670 'I- m-u M < C. >,35 V., 3: .�c Li YS 00671 0 k. 3 ca > X ,AJ m-u M < C. >,35 V., 3: .�c Li YS 00671 ❑ Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification (required) ❑ Orange County Sober Living Network (recommended) ❑ Other (please describe) L. SECONDHAND SMOKE LIMITATIONS NBMC §20.91A.050A directs that 'no staff, clients, guests, or any other uses of the facility may smoke in an area from which the secondhand smoke may be detected on any parcel other than the parcel upon which the fppp,,a,,,���cility is located. Check and sign here to acknowledge this requirement and your use's adherence to it �y I acknowledge that I will control secondhand smoke on my facility such that no secondhand smoke may be d ecled on any pa el other than the parcel upon which my facility is located. Signature. �?�s >� =—z Dom: 9. ARPLICANT,OBLIGATIONS A. _The 4owner of reconr of the properly or an authorized agent must sign this Application. Signing the application under Secthon'110 means that the applicant certifies under penalty of perjury, that the Information provided within the App°lication and its attachments is true and correct: Per NBMC §20.90.030.C, false statements are grounds for denial or revocation. B. The Applicant acknowledges that he or must comply with all other Federal, State, and local laws and regulations relating to this use. The Applicant understands that a violation of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations is grounds for revocation of the Permit The Applicant understands and adamwledges that it is against California law to provide treatment (as defined) in an unlicensed facility. C. If the City issues a Use Permit based on the information provided in this Application, the Applk=Ws signature beloWbertifies his or her8grOSMOrdtocomplywith tie terms of Ole Use Permit. The Applicant understands and acknowledges that non - compliance with the terra of the Use Permit is grounds for revocation of the Permit Revocation of the Use Permit, NBMC §20.96.040.E provides that the City can revoke a Use Permit it. • The permit was issued under erroneous Information or misrepresentation; or • The applicant made a false or misleading staeemntd of material fact, or omitted a materiel fact or • The conditions of use or other regulations or laws have been violated: or • There has been a discontinuance of use for 180 days or more. 10. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE131 OF WILF" THE UNDERSIGNED ASSURES THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD HIS OR HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER ANY USE PERN9T ISSUED BASED ON THIS APPLICATION. A. If the applicant is a sole proprietor, the application shall be signed by the proprietor. B. If the applicant is a partnership. the application stall be signed by each partner. C. H the applicant is a firm. association, corporation, county. city, public agency or other governmental entity, the application shall be signed by the chief execu#ve officer or the Individual legally responsible for representing the agency. lu 1' 1111I3f'a YELLOWSTONE BOARD RESOLUTION: THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT AGREEENT AND ENDORSEMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF YELLOWSTONE FOR THE FOLLOWING: DR A.M. THAMES IS THE CEO OF THE BOARD AND AGREES TO REPRESENT YELLOWSTONE IN ALL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. SHE WILL SIGN ANY AND ALL FINAL AGREEMENTS. ATTORNEY ISAAC ZFATY, WILL PROVIDE LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN ALL MATTERS IN THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LEISHA MELLO, AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR YELLOWSTONE WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. THESE AGREEMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS ARE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS OF JULY I, 2008. rt ft t� t::t• t / A LISA TUMAN f, 4111ztK3 ct^rc 1 l uv5rc1,,11um P=wuca I 6SWCOMPO 9RA C - Ch=* 8mmou g TEUMO EMNA a 416 1 327 -2991 mommumn 4 -24-03 vrasla A/DBF VMnK1CWSW►i Citldc BmwRiog VPMMW= AS6PWWOIIIYrpA N(ir ASSIGNED YUr COM IA . �DapariTamtofAlcoLal$Ihag COO@8 I.Cmasum AFMCIFARANM 1.IFDDRT6 - Prams A6 m3ICY ZPJOMML LtFe8AFM NAYS AND ( amd Cadfi= om Bm& S CAPACITY CHAfM ADD<YM _ l arad3tow CHUM 1700 S. SUCmt 8. ADORMCHAMM ' LSmmmmt%CrL958144037 J L OPJAE MANGE r calm Ig W4 Vm jr1#11,1ey 010 -a CRY scads 18 1 24 . TO Im CORWt9M YY R18PECTR16 AUTHORITY OGS AUi� iT aQAQG 'S% {f�Af1YT/ �CrtNRWWi® NAY¢ AND ! !!! 2 FIRE CLEARMW DEMM ADDFAM 5�7 pw A PJOS 41 ,�,� p7276 / Q FW AARY - CNiBIAA69t OppIPo{NCIICCA4R O• SP . / F- HO1 F. SPBOAL HAZMW cA^a a ammicronaaexAnwres./� % /./r —Y— -- - - -- a_ oTHeie YS 00674 d� CIT'Y OF NEWPORT BEACH 3 = C1U pOPMS Supplemental Information for Reasonable Accommodation Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 To aid staff in determining that the necessary findings can be made in this particular case as set forth in Chapter 20.98 of the Municipal Code, please answer the following questions with regard to your request (Please attach on separate sheets, if necessary): Please see attached sheet Name of Applicant If provider of housing, name of facility, including legal name of corporation (Mailing Address of Applicant) (City/State) (Zip) (Telephone) (Fax number) (E -Mail address) (Subject Property Address) Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 1. Is this application being submitted by a person with a disability, that person's representative, or, a developer or providgr of housing for individuals' with a disability? 2. Does the applicant, or individual(s) on whose behalf the application is being made, have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? If so, please state the impairment(s) and provide documentation of such impairment(s). Page 1 of YS 00675 Application Number 3. From which specific Zoning Code provisions, policies or practices are you seeking an exception or modification? 4. Please explain why the specific exception or modification requested is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 5. Please explain why the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of the individual with a disability. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 6. Please explain how the individual with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation? Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanatiort_ 7. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary to make your facility economically viable in light of the relevant market and market participants. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 8. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary for your facility to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting taking into consideration the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. Page 2 of 3 YS 00676 Application Number 9. Please add any other information that may be helpful to the applicant to enable the City to determine whether the findings set forth in Chapter 20.98 can be made (Use additional pages if necessary.) Page 3 of 3 YS 00677 NE"�Rr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Supplemental Information for Reasonable Accommodation Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92(158 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 To aid staff in determining that the necessary findings can be made in this particular case as set forth in Chapter 20.98 of the Municipal Code, please answer the following questions with regard to your request (Please attach on separate sheets, if necessary): Please see attached sheet Name of Applicant If provider of housing, name of facility, including legal name of corporation (Mailing Address of Applicant) (City /State) (Zip) (Telephone) (Fax number) (E -Mail address) (Subject Property Address) Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) I. Is this application being submitted by a person with a disability, that person's representative, or, 'a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability? 2. Does the applicant, or individual(s) on whose behalf the application is being made, have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? If so, please state the impairment(s) and provide documentation of such Page 1 of YS 00678 Application Number 3. From which specific Zoning Code provisions, policies or practices are you seeking an exception or modification? 4. Please explain why the specific exception or modification requested is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. S. Please explain why the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of the individual with a disability. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 6. Please explain how the individual with a disability will he denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation? Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 7. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary to make your facility economically viable in light of the relevant market and market participants. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 8. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary for your facility to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting taking into consideration the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. Page 2 of 3 YS 00679 Application Number 9. Please add any other information that may be helpful to the applicant to enable the City to determine whether the findings set forth in Chapter 20.98 can be made (Use additional pages if necessary.) Page 3 of 3 YS 00680 . 1571 Pegasus Attachment Name of applicant: Yellowstone, Woman's First Step House, Inc., 1571 Pegasus St„ Santa Ana Heights, CA 92701; Phone: 888.941.9048; Fax: 949.646.5296; APN: 119 -361- 14. 1. This application is provided by a provider of housing for individuals with a disability. 2. The individuals are alcoholics. 3. Single family residence to multi - family residence. 4. The applicant provides the residents of the Property with housing where same is otherwise unavailable to them. Most residents are long -term residents who are able to live with their disability, and in a sober environment, as a result of the provision of the facility by the applicant. The success of sober living homes in assisting these disabled individuals throughout the United States is well documented. Similar success has been realized at the Property addressed herein. A sample of the literature on sober living homes was attached to the original application. Without the home addressed in this application, the individuals who live at this home would not have access to sober living homes, and would not be able to afford to live in such a home in Orange County. Yellowstone provides this home to satisfy the otherwise unaddressed need by these disabled individuals for an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. There is no question that, with their current use, this property affirmatively enhances the lives of many individuals with disabilities. Importantly, the rent charged to these individuals simply covers Yellowstone's costs; no profit is realized. In fact, without charitable contributions, Yellowstone would operate at a loss. By no means is Yellowstone, or any individual involved with Yellowstone, a profiteer. Yellowstone simply makes available a sober living environment in an effort to help these disabled individuals, and with a view toward enhancing the community. To the extent that Yellowstone is forced to remove its operations from this property, it will suffer extreme economic hardship. Moreover, with any prospective closure of the property as a sober living home, the individuals with disabilities who live in the home will be without accommodation. Yellowstone is compliant with all of the requirements in the City of Newport Beach's Good Neighbor Principles, and is tenacious in ensuring that all residents at the Property strictly observe these requirements. Approval of this application would not alter the nature of the municipal code )r impose any financial or administrative burden on the City. This property has been operating under these same general guidelines for years without imposing any burden upon the County or City. The residential character of the neighborhoods in which this property is located will not be altered in any way with the approval of this application. In fact, there is no non - residential use at the property. Moreover, there is no campus established through the grant of this application. Residents this property are not allowed at any of other property operated. by Yellowston, and there are no functions that include all residents. Yellowstone has never been cited by any municipality at this property for any of the complaints set forth specifically in Ordinance 2008 -5, I YS 00681 Page 4, Paragraph 13. No health, safety or physical damage issues are presented with granting of these applications. 5. See response to No. 4. 6. See response to No. 4. 7. See response to No. 4. The applicant is not a developer. The applicant has operated at the Property for years and currently can afford this property. Due to the economic decline, and specifically as it pertains to residential housing, the forced sale of this property would cause an extreme economic hardship. S. See responses to No. 4 and 7. 9. The applicant is a long - standing tenant in the community, and has had a presence in Santa Ana Heights for years. The applicant prides itself in acting as a good neighbor. As noted above, the applicant has an extremely high success rate in assisting disabled individuals live and integrate into Orange County. The applicant affirmatively enhances the lives of its residents. Any abatement of this facility would be harmful to the community. 2 YS 00682 November 7, 2008 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Fax: (949) 644 -3229 website: www.citv.newoort- beach.ca.us YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. Go Isaac R. Zfaty Davis & Rayburn, Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Dear Mr. Zfaty: Subject: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Use Permit No. 2008 -036 Property located at 1571 Pegasus Street I am writing as the City of Newport Beach's consulting case planner for this use permit application. This letter is a response to your letter dated August 22, 2008, in which you responded to the City's Notice of Incomplete Application dated June 19, 2008, and is also a follow -up to our October 8, 2008, meeting at the City. The City appreciates your responses and the opportunity to meet with you. However, at this time your application for Use Permit No. 2008 -036 for property located at 1571 Pegasus Street remains incomplete. As we discussed at our October 8th meeting, the area of West Santa Ana Heights was formally annexed to the City of Newport Beach, effective January 1, 2008, and the property located at 1571 Pegasus Street is therefore subject to the City's land use regulations, including the Residential Care provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). With respect to the items that continue to be deficient or missing from the use permit application submittal, please provide the following: A Preliminary Title Report that is less than 60 days old. This requirement is necessary to not only verify the ownership of record, but also will verify any deed V&11I1I1-13c3 restrictions (or lack thereof) such as CC &Rs that may place restrictions on the use of the property. 2. The site plan submitted does not appear to be accurately drawn when reviewing it against aerial photographs, and the site plan and floor plans are not drawn to scale. The site plan must show the property line dimensions, distance or setback from property lines to the building, usable outdoor spaces, and the location of driveways. The site plan must also include the property lines and building footprints on immediately adjacent parcels. The floor plans must provide an accurate count of bedrooms and number of beds /residents within each bedroom, as well as all rooms intended for residents' use, and the location and dimension of the garage. 3. As noted at the meeting of October 81h you are required to provide the City of Newport Beach Fire Marshal with a comprehensive code analysis prepared by a licensed architect. Requirements for the code analysis were provided to you at the meeting. However, should you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact Steve Bunting, Fire Marshal, at (949) 644 -3106. In addition, please provide the Fire Marshal with the year the home began to be used for sober living purposes. The plans that are required to be prepared for the code analysis may also be used to satisfy the requirement for a site plan and floor plans as noted above. 4. Please provide an explanation of the number of parking spaces provided on site and information regarding the maximum number of employees or others on site at any one time that will have autos. Include an explanation of the use of vans to transport residents to treatment facilities and other activities and provide a transportation route diagram. 5. You have discussed the unlicensed status of the Yellowstone facility at this address with our City Attomey's Office. Please review the Disclosure Statement and revise the licensing statement made in the application if necessary. 6. if certification specific to the type of facility is available from a governmental agency or qualified nonprofit organization, the facility shall receive such certification including without limitation, certification by Orange County under its Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification Program. Please provide evidence of any certifications held for this address. You also have requested information regarding the City's authority to impose an Application Fee of $2,200 and have asked for evidence of such City authority. Please note Section 20.90.030(D) (Application Filing) of Title 20 of the NBMC states that "Applications for discretionary approvals shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council." In addition, Chapter 3.36 of the NBMC provides the basis for recovering actual costs for application processing. YS 00684 On the basis of the foregoing requirements, you may wish to reevaluate and amend the Reasonable Accommodation application you have submitted with the use permit application. In addition, Item 2 on the Reasonable Accommodation supplemental form requests documentation of the disability for which the request for a reasonable accommodation is being made. That documentation has not been provided. Please provide documentation that the individuals on whose behalf the application is made are disabled under the governing law. The City leaves to the discretion of Yellowstone Women's First Step House and /or the individuals the nature of the documentation to be submitted. Understanding the concerns about privacy, the City will accept documentation disclosing only the person's first name or initials (with all other identifying information redacted). Please be advised that failure to obtain a use permit for the residential care facility use of the subject property shall render the use of property nonconforming. Nonconforming uses of property are subject to abatement, per Section 20.62.090 of the NBMC, and if the required use permit is not obtained by February 9, 2009, the use will be subject to abatement in accordance with the Code. City staff appreciates your continuing cooperation. However, we are unable to process your Use Permit application and Reasonable Accommodation application and schedule a public hearing until we receive the pending submittal items outlined above. Should you have questions regarding the aforementioned, please contact me at (949) 661 -8175 or by email at Ix4.@sbcglobal.net Sincerely, r nc Cc: Janet Brown, Associate Planner Dr. Anna Marie Thames, Yellowstone Women's First Step House VI&III111-131 RECEKIC V PLANNING DEPARIMEM - DEC 29 2008 DAVIS•ZFATY ' 1 °O1 E55i bee "" `, 2008" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 23, 2008 Z175.1 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Re: Notice of Incomplete Application: Yellowstone — 15 71 Pegasus Dear Ms. Brown: This firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Yellowstone "). We are in receipt of the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Incomplete Application dated November 7, 2008 in which the City asked Yellowstone to address six deficiencies in its Use Permit Application for 1571 Pegasus. Enclosed herewith is the documentation you requested. Below is a brief description of the enclosed materials. Preliminary Title Reports A, preliminary title report for 1571 Pegasus is included. As requested, the preliminary title report is less than 60 days old. Site Plans The site plans for 1571 Pegasus show the property dimensions, setback from the property line to the buildings, useable outdoor space, and the location of driveways. The site plans also include the property lines and building footprints on immediately adjacent parcels. Finally, the site plans include an accurate count of bedrooms in the home, the number of residents within each bedroom, the rooms intended to be used by residents, and the location and dimension of the garage. 580 Broadway Street, Suite 3o1 • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 - Fax 949.376.3875 info @dzattorneys.com www,dzattorneys.com YS 00686 Ms. Janet Brown December 23, 2008 Code Analysis A code analysis is provided herewith. The code analysis discusses the property, which is compliance with the R4 Building and Fire Code Requirements. Also, your November 7, 2008 letter requested that we provide the Fire Marshal with the year each of the homes began to be used for sober living purposes. Those dates are as follows: 1561 Indus — 2007 1621 Indus — 2003 20172 Redlands — 2005 1571 Pegasus — 2005 Parkins and Transportation The documentation enclosed provides the number of available parking spaces at 1571 Pegasus and the number of employees who park on site. Route maps from the home to treatment and from the home to St. John church are also provided. With respect to transportation to and from 1571 Pegasus, we would like to address variations in previous submittals that have since been resolved. Paragraph 12 of the Request for Reasonable Accommodation for 1571 Pegasus states that Yellowstone does not provide transportation. Though this is generally true, upon further review, we feel that it is important to note that the home provides some basic transportation to other non- Newport Beach facilities and to St. John church. Both locations are within ten minutes of the home and, as stated above, we have included route maps for your convenience. Finally, the vans that transport the residents are not parked on site. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. Licensing Status As we have discussed, none of the four homes is ADP licensed. To the extent that any prior representations regarding ADP licensing were made, we have learned that same were incorrect. If you have any questions regarding this item, or need any further explanation as to the reasons for our error, we are more than happy to provide same. As we have never provided treatment in these facilities (nor represented that in any prior communication with the City), this does not represent a material change to our application. Certifications Enclosed is a copy of the certification for 1571 Pegasus. The home is certified a member of the Orange County Sober Living Coalition. V&ff1I1Id:ld Ms. Janet Brown December 23, 2008 I hope that the enclosed materials complete Yellowstone's Application and clarify any ambiguities in our previous submissions to the city regarding 1571 Pegasus. As always, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY, a professional corporation NICOLE COHRS V&11I1Id:I:1 YELLOWSTONE —1571 PEGASUS 1. Preliminary Title Report 2. Code Analysis 3. Parking and Route Maps 4. Certification rLCEIrt. V rV-J4NRNG DEPARTMENT 29 Mg CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V&1111T:13.8l 0 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY PRELIMINARY REPORT In response to the applIcadon for a policy of title insurance referenced herein, Fidelity Nafiand Title Insurance Company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued as of the date hereof, a policy or policies of title insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereirrafter set forth, insuring against lass which may be sustained by reason of any defect lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception herein or not excluded from coverage pursuant to tie printed Schedules, Conditions and Shpu ons or Conditions ofsaid policyforms. The printed Eueptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered JUrb ofsaid policy or policies are set forth in Attachment One The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option ofeither the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties Limitations on Covered Risb applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Ded icable Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit ofLiabiUtyfor certain coverages are also set forth in Attachment One. Copies of the policy forms should be read They are available from the o#ke which issued this report. This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of fkWaring the issuance of a Policy of title inswwwe and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that li &Cv be assumed prior to the issuance of a Policy o, (fide insrrmrce, a Binder or Commitment should be requested The policy(s) of title insurance to be issued hereunder will be policy(s) ofFidelily National? de Insurance Company. Please read Ike exceptions shown or referred to kerda and the exceptions and exchnimirs see fenk in Altatkned one of this report carefn8y. The exceptions and eaodusiow are meant to provide you with nadee qr morons wkkk we not coveted under Ike terns of the fide i sarnmee policy and should be carefally considered It is important to note that this prelimtnmy report is not a wry representadon as to the condffion of dde and may itol Use all Bens, defects and excumbnsmces a fedttg title Io Ike land Dated: IM SI200S Countersigned .1S 12- 6 7f Sramr A Fdtdd Page 1 of I s Ft ktq Nano id Wak Iusnmaace Cmpally sBAI. �,(y,1,,. Prcrine� ATTEST I lirry CLTA Preliminay Report Form - Modified (11/17/06) YS 00690 PRELIMINARY REPORT Loan No.: NA Title No: 1763950 -1 Rate: $625.00 PROPERTY ADDRESS:1871 PEGASUS ST, SANTA ANA, CA, 8270746319 EFFECTIVE DATE: 11118/2008 The form of policy or policies of the tide insurance contemplated by this report is: American Land Tide Association Loan Policy 2006 with ALTA endorsement coverage I- THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: Fee Simple 2. TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: Paul Etheridge, a married man as his sole and separate property and Anna Marie Theme, an unmarried woman as joint tenants 3. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SEE EXHIBIT " A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF TAX ID: 119361 -14 Pep 2 of 15 CLTA Preiiminery Report Form. Modified (11 /17M) YS 00691 LEGAL EXHIBIT "A" All that certain parcel of land situate In the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange and State of California being known and designated as follows: Lot 8 of Tract No. 4307, in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 153, pages 18 to 20, inclusive of misc maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County Being more fully described in Deed Doc: 2008 - 539235 dated 4/7/2005 recorded 811112008. Page 3 of 15 QTA PYWimi "RepnRForm - Modified (11 /17/06) YS 00692 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT "A" All that certain parcel of land situate in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange and State of California being known and designated as follows: Lot 8 of Tract No. 4307, in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 153, pages 18 to 20, inclusive of misc maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County Being more fully described in Deed Doc: 2006- 539235 dated 4f712005 recorded 8/1112005. Page 4 of 15 CLTA Preliminary Rgrori Fmm - Modifiod (11117/06) YS 00693 Title No: 1763950 -1 AT THE DATE HEREOF, ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AND EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The lien of supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, made pursuant to the provisions of Part 0.5, Chapter 3.5 or Part 2, Chapter 3, Articles 3 and 4 respectively (commencing with Section 75) of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California as a result of the transfer of title to the Vestes named in Schedule A; or as a result of changes in ownership or new construction occurring prior to the date of policy. 2. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exception in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records. 3. A dead of trust to secure Indebtedness in the original amount shown below. Amount: $650,000.00 Dated: 03/27/2006 Trustor Paul Etheridge Trustee: Fidelity National Title Beneficiary: MERS, Inc. as nominee for Bondoorp Realty Services, Inc. Recorded: 04114/2006 in Doc: 2006 - 249106 Original Loan Number: RR1/8653022 4. A deed of trust to secure indebtedness in the original amount shown below. Amount. $92,500.00 Dated: 0312742006 Trustor. Paul Etheridge Trustee: Bondoorp Realty Services, Inc. Beneficiary: MERS, Inc. as nominee for Bondoorp Realty Services, Inc. Recorded: 04/14/2008 in Doc: 2006 - 249107 Original Loan Number: RR118853094 Open Ended to $92,500.00. 5. 2008/20091 at installment County Taxes are Open in the amount of $4,298.97 due 12/1012008. Taxes accruing in the current year. Tax ID 119 - 361 -14. NOTE. CONTACT LOCAL TAX AUTHORITIES FOR EXACT AMOUNTS DUE, PRIOR TO LOAN CLOSING. Exemption: NIA Code Area: 07212 6. 2008/2009 2nd installment County Taxes are Open in the amount of $4,298.97 due 04/10/2009. Taxes accruing in the current year. Tax ID 119- 361 -14. NOTE: CONTACT LOCAL TAX AUTHORITIES FOR EXACT AMOUNTS DUE, PRIOR TO LOAN CLOSING. Exemption: N/A Code Area: 07212 7. 2007/20081 at & 2nd installment County Taxes are Delinquent in the amount of $10,121.62 plus interest and penalties. Taxes accruing in the current year. Tax ID 119- 361 -14. NOTE: CONTACT LOCAL TAX AUTHORITIES FOR EXACT AMOUNTS DUE, PRIOR TO LOAN CLOSING. Delinquent Real Estate taxes and any adverse effect upon the interest herein including but not limited to any tax sale occurring prior to or subsequent to date of final policy. Exemption: N/A Code Area: 07212 PW 5 of I5 CLTA Frelirmnay Report Form - MWifW (11 /17/06) YS 00694 8. Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 9. Covenants, conditions and restrictions in the declaration of restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, martial status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry or source ofincome, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law. Recorded: January 30, 1928, Book 123, Page 266, of Official Records 10. Covenants, conditions and restrictions in the declaration of restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, martial status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry or source ofinoome, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law. Recorded: November 27, 1961, Book 5923, Page 378, of Official Records 11. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as disclosed bya document; Purpose: Public Utilities Recorded: February 14, 1962, Book 6009, Page 242, of Official Records Affects: The Northeasterly 6 feet of said land 12. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as disclosed by a document; Purpose: Public Utilities Recorded: February 28, 1962, Book 6023, Page 2, of Official Records Affects: The Northeasterly 5 feet of said land 13. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as disclosed by a document; Purpose: Avigation Recorded: July 18, 1990, InstrumentlFile No. 1990 - 0377135, of Official Records Affects: A portion of said land as described therein 14. Said land is included within the "Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan" adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on October 1, 1986 as amended and disclosed by that certain instrument recorded May 4, 1990 as instrument no. 1980 - 0235869, Official Records. END OF ITEMS Page 6 of 15 CLTA Prdimmary Report Form - Modified (I 1/17/D6) YS 00695 Title No: 1763950 -1 1. There is located on said land a Single Family residence, known as: 1571 PEGASUS ST, City of SANTA ANA, County of ORANGE, and State of California. 2. Amended Civil Code Section 2941, which becomes effective on January 1, 2002, sets the fee for the processing and recordation of the reconvey and recordation of the reconveyance of each Deed of Trust being paid off through this transaction at $45.00. The reconveyance fee must be dearly set forth In the Beneficiary's Payoff Demand Statement ("demand'). In addition, an assignment or authorized release of that fee, from the Beneficiary to the Trustee of record, must be included. An example of the required language is as follows: "The Beneficiary identified above hereby assigns, releases, or transfers to the Trustee of record, the sum of $45.00, included herein as a Reconveyance Fee, for the processing and recordation of the Rsoonveyance of the Dead of Trust securing the Indebtedness covered hereby, and the escrow company or title company processing this pay-off Is authorized to deduct the Reconveyance Fee from this Demand and forward said fee to the Trustee of record or the successor Trustee under the Trust Deed to be paid off in full." In the event that the reconveyance fee and the assignment, release or transfer thereof is not included within the demand statement, then Chicago Title Company may decline to process the reconveyance and will be forced to return all documentation directly to the Beneficiary for compliance with the requirements." 3. If Anna Marie Thames is deceased or will not be signing the new mortgege/deed of trust, please call The Company prior to dosing of the new ban. Title may be re- searched and additional requirements and/or exception: may be added to the Commitment to insure, as may be deemed necessary. 4. Properly drafted and executed owner's affidavit from Paul Etheridge, a married man as his sole and separate property and Anna Marie Thams, and spouse, if any. 5• The current owner does not quality for $20.00 discount pursuant to the coordinated stipulated judgments entered in actions filed by both the Attorney General and private class action plaintiffs for the herein described property. 6. Record instruments conveying or encumbering the estate or interest to be insured, briefly described: Properly drafted and executed Deed of Trust from Paul Etheridge, a married man as his sole and separate property and Anna Marie Theme, and spouse if any, to Lender to be determined, securing a lien in the amount of $400,000.00. NOTE: Marital status must be stated on the Deed of Trust Document ANY DEED PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS TRANSACTION MUST INCLUDE THE RELATIONSHIP OF GRANTOR AND GRANTEE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF TRANSFER TAXES, IF ANY. ENO OF NOTES Page 7 of 15 CLTA Prelimian Report Form - Modified (1IN7lO6) YS 00696 Notice You may be entitled to receive a $20.00 discount on escrow services if you purchased, sold or refinanced residential property in between May 19, 1995 and November 1, 2002. If you had more than one qualifying transaction, you may be entitled to multiple discounts. If your previous transaction involved the same property that is the subject of your current transaction, you do not have to do anything; the Company will provide the discount, provided you are paying for escrow or UM services in this transaction. If your previous transaction involved property different from the property that is subject of your current transaction, you must inform the Company of the earlier transaction, provide the address of the property involved in the previous transaction, and the date or approiamats data that the escrow closed to be eligible for the discount. unless you inform the Company of the prior transaction on property that is not the subject of this transaction, the Company has no obligation to conduct an investigation to determine if you qualify for a discount If you provide the Company information concerning a prior transaction, the Company is required to determine if you qualify for a discount. rWsorrs YS 00697 Request for $20.00 Discount — CA Settlement Use one form for each qualifying properly. To: Fidelity National Title Insurance Company Date: From: name Current Address: I believe that I am qualified for the $20.00 discount pursuant to the coordinated stipulated judgments entered in actionsfiled by both the Attorney General and private class action plaintiffs. I have not previously received a cash payment or a discountfrom another Company an the property described below. Signed: Date: Address of qualifying roart : Approximate date of transaction: THIS SECTION IS FOR TITLE DEPARTMENT USE ONLY. OR The above referenced party is entitled to receive a $20.00 discount on escrow services or title insurance pursuant to the coordinated stipulated judgments entered in actions filed by both the Attorney General and private class action plaintiffs. The above referenced party does NOT qualify for the $20.00 discount pursuant to the coordinated stipulated judgments entered in actions filed by both the Attorney General and private class action plaintiffs for the following reason: The party has previously received credit for the transaction described above. The transaction described above did not occur in the time period allowed by the stipulated judgments— May 19, 1995 to November 1, 2002. Title Dparbnertt pleas* fax your response to: Escrow No: Escrow Officer. Fax Number. PW9nf J5 YS 00698 ATTACHWNT ONE Order No: 1763950 -I AMERICAN IANOTITLE ASSOCIATION RESIDENTIA L TITLE INSURANCE P OLICY(61.87) EXCLUSIONS naddtan tothe Escptlos In Sohsdids 8, youire not inva ed aping Ws. dwtr, 3. Title Rlsls: anameve fees, andl w nNtnp fold: I Oowmmual pow the . to a• areated.yhhw@d r apreedIn bymou . plot and exMana a %Wzlon of any pa a powrrrra i iepumm. 7haindrMs bumdnp and tamp adna ces wA ADD a . to am Isaan b ++ppu, t0A not to us. an" Palloy 103111-WAM tseY apparedinto vi6Eo reoords wsaWrepdionscosardnp: • tnengiinnollossssto you haw use �atsmthelaW • tat rig atEd Sow ttk atr tM Pot Dam - fns does nd ad tr hborr and m�i kn oovaape In \mpof lbwM TIM Risks pgWuebr pu tMe. 5. idf eenne�ayryaomnaantael pprolidenn ofa as yp SM aroa spedMaM daalbed and n4mdbin That OCdWINSndoes notwlrM SM zoA�uowape d�aafbed m- sena�2aaM lam at dWW 13 of Co+wnd Tlk Rbds. nsteas.atgs.reiatuwals riataaoh yarriand 2. TMddttotdalM lard pp�yrrondwwft k unkss Thb: lsdwkn dos not On* to access caeaape in !ld 5 of Cowed TM andoe ofsaaignptM dpkappeasnthepubM nooNsanti Fdwdy psk� Dam • thanking happanW pinto M Pomoy D"a wW is Mn&V w you ff luu In addLm to Me EsWSSeisns. IOU ate m inrld to" Mm rigs, aimep, ia�dplaceit�. rdaisrs�dpaas n posmlm ofth baW not shown 2. � eptiblonmmwdL r funs nat !hose bbvdAabga ng,rM. This dos not mvt the 6m cowagln bun 8 of CowredTM@ iigcs. 3. Anyfadsabasth@MWwhiAm omdsww"odd dbdog,adwMn>e not !wn b�rthe p�qo reaade. Thge dos nd iNt tM faded renawl oowrape in Lan 13 of Cowed Tile ffiks. 4. Arhywardplts rdaitw rtMet ramrn rudv/M land. whWwrrnt gwwnbythe public reaade. CA UFORNIA LANOTITLEASSO CIATION STANDARD COVERA OE POLICY -1880 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The bidding nNum; eapo(natwe pul=mmaeeir� nut par bides a dst�.co animus hssoorr 1. Gdiid, io iYdnp irA torryl larrws jr�m nd prahalMp ralaap rieom�pa�oxug,rn�oMl the daager. drrangow rlo®¢bn ofaryrrmupgmsVW*l t now r has!!r ad8is ods aonaof:Le1aW�orany sppamdaWsofl owcrtalan0b�_a ak that a mum otilhe ent snrifwcot d aW! of a dob . Ilan rrt8ru ce reiesuvop a. drn a Vd er tw,dxiccya. aManpto land hs been mo%tW nDA d. Y Aayfpwnhaag ooboe pewr nor dialed byra]atow artpetepn eaters tlia a rotioe of the exareke thereof a a nal(oi of a rtierid, bon r encuumarce —uMny fold a dotubn r alkped gdsim 2*0* are land 0. has beenreoorded lnth pt"oreca is a Dam of patio). 2. RiaW of eminent d plain Unless ache of fi .was. t anent ha. h..n 631 of Po6w3s bug of amid aft �dkbowin wk. Delbe m the dge ft Waged ow kwe EXCEPrgfS FRRO COVERAGE This poeoydoes rw wwae apebwt loss rdou pe (gWthe Cwpanyaa na payoffs, atmaya• rasr l ;esefjwhioh Brig, byrwan of PART 1 1. lass r asassna is which New shown ase"no mans by#* raaNS of *anytadnp a � " w u taws r assmm@as on rag prgwty r by pub M Rocelftsbyapablongedo ichnnydemin mw rsstsm@ns,ornalas of such yyrooeedog t. w rnashowabyrie redads otsrwphttasp,aayorbyta pubEO steads. 2. Arty lots, {ldoh iaasa r dawns which at not grown by der pubmo Mybe b lW by in pis y� spealan of to IaW r whkh been sugabad Nthe is a br tM @gate or 3. E oelntla. sera araarffnbrmces wcLmnstl0 of not gaan bytha pubio needs. a. n bows nines in era, a wry teas ehkh a owp sun+Y �. are eat shoon n d. n)aW �. (6) r .xpoM s m pie AdiaWwdAW the neeaeot( .dafmardlete dwhr err nat to manes eaeeppd aWa (a} N (o) are shown bythe pt68oreaads. Page10or s Adschmmt One(I1 /17ft) YS 00699 ATTACHMENT ONE Order No: 1763950 -1 (CONTINUED) AMERICAN LA NO TRUE A SSOCKT1ON LOAN POLICY (10.17 -92) VTNA.L EXLUSNFO ORO OE COS ENDORSEMENT-FORM f manrs a�mnsdr exdudsd tan Me co e d abdsd "hen b b shed 10"Wroaas under aormrrwta/ y i�°rvor- pay rags or dange. aab, aR'Mns1r fis ai °reanp�rfaar�e or So MUG In. armor u� [(f) mpW ft in toss r datup which **W not hm ban vanined N tie regddre tudrtg bit me iWwddctabura had PaidwMr trtlwimuedrtwr 9 ae. l boil and zo l flats, ow 00rrsn a ) oy will g, 4. Ibtes of tithe ben oto nnefd mortgage Vvif Mown of1M biaof my r b the. rl oupawy. use. r en)oyne n w ffuw d M F or o f lies bt PafcP. r m y wp r bFsa d airy tlme W;Me sa rlmtbn of mybt�pmxmwsrest abspnnl sorer of 1r iMtlaMaus. b band. with zPpllrNa ddnP W feaed mtho iced; (Iqa separallm in ovnenNo bra dtaryte to budnes IsrsotlM !tf to which the Mtdk 9urid lomuirana ofehe taM_rmlrpmel of whlohtM taasasa 5. Ndidtyruettymsabiyoftlalmof thoinsse4 nwtbagk•roykrrMnat o. 2. Rights of McIDevpaudomain Wines notice d ttheEge�mobt�ptltw�sor has ash 7. Nry darn which rises as pof the ra waft otaatiq the It•emst d to Men inanf'vmO &Maooa W0 rm Oft mrasoy dice 8ff[[ s rroSAX r-siniira�i�rYildesas opwation Mpd " recorded bMng orethomtgwsdaprdtaerbr wdwualnseydgf. fawdibrt An the YsraR at ft iwad matyaSee being 3. Dfbds, Bum raunbtanrs.ahrse dalna. rMrmilum a noerfa r Lenated.aaftned. ammedaragreedm ItsrafddanauC f MdnaiOn Or tlY8 YYtle� Ot 1d. Illpt(�M as a Itllt ) rot loran b me Cartpanit rem recorded F td. pbsotfopds f om d c theapPErbm title doctrine wile lesd iordinalan:r PaEa %be known to the Yaased dailuo ad nd tlalofed In wino b the 0� M tmsaafon treating the hies= of 0w Instead mongages being Carpaty by fie irmsed domain pdor b tae dri tlrf irmnd dabrrA dien'wd n pdrrdrl traWfr crap whrw IM paMrehl t cots Dewrtw m rraufd udrtlasPcf tomthf fiMf: meminnoless fbtleinsaad �mtirmly ordthe kWnavradlransfrr r anar see: rinm..0__aoe d. airy . %tope aeon of sWl naorfabn m ktpat ndee m a pru�duser tit dales r a sSury one Wr rrdaes. tiger or ntstu or to an emit Insurance is - - maardether %aided Coverage rErtmded C°waoe. Inaddaonmae abm aerpe in a ftwW d Cowmge pokydlaim MUM fw tlWt4 Eloep" tom CaMrpe: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERA OE This poloyM°s not Won against loss or dsnagp(adtho comne"yaT not PayoWff, asaneW Nesr, etpenses)whidt arise byreum of 1. Taaryse{ syJrnpasseamstatls�vhieh�sasynnot dww�w�nmeArlagpenaubyfa °otretcooradrspat 3. Eiwnwou.NrWrenoWMtaower li thereat not shown bvdwpblo ad Pad =Pmomempsbya or6=roY isoa reiaYd- redtth rani a. p�e��ndes�cagtlaanbandatfliwx Ina.. diwloadartds.r raswssswrts,rtwtices ei saabppeene6tgs. wlwthrrnershown bytlw =now. which a °and uadey vmdd dose. and which as not maoaNs dsuh agawyorbythe Mrdi dawn byde ouNb records. 2. Any ycta, ddrs. Into r chi ms ddeh ate not drown by M p6Eo f. (a) lkpmrad mhdrp dad.: (p) famova lone r aaoepdotit Yt pall�is r ra°°NS bualtlimddbeaart obWbymintpetriondte Mtdwo" }r Msaatwddngtheimmefweot(°)watrr s.ddms ortgNto eatr. maybe missed bypercmin possaalonittrecL shadier °r non td. males aeapeed under (a} (b) r (o) an drown bYthe A The and 2M A ME I a CAN LfXNEL7 18NSSFROY COVEPo40EP0 UCY (01 -17•x) rho aovragf of gds policy. amft alb~ fees. r abased 4. W theM°ger°A�ofMm lo"Zo n n: f those bus, ad'nawes, or vmxttrm d. pmovillo � Cow d ion 6p) does not swift r Irtit oomrape e. rrtMroov a dedd uneOC wTMWs� f(ic)tions not trodryr 2. Rights of am it domain. This EYdouydmm does reremm�mordlV rink the Vdiodurnin Covered 3. gassdMtM.wWtw°apt 7vM to6y°rM kwnd_Ctratlat_ 7. The abmpoEaorytammaybe issued m aft, dHtw Stadard Coverings rEdaded Cowana.le add Montotla above Bcdueiortt tram Cowragf.tre BwWdom Ern Coverage in a Standard Cowapf poloysildst krdudo M 6Eodag BmfplaW fan Cotwtaga: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This plloydoes not Insure agaket loser dwnapf (nd1M Crrpam/wM nos pryoods. almwya'imsr eaprnwa)tlae aloe bymsn Ot 1. lore) Ta��xermsgqra�,adapqor�gksyvyntleymtsinaaa notot shovnas abinglk°ebyes new pd�syoff 3. (3srnads Sm ranoWrsreraes. aolahrstlWno}. not dawn bytM Public ore Pu66E Reoadt, (DJ�oYapur Reaads. aassesmtns.an d proaedfm ,• a dw•nb be 4. Amy awrorhmrt enubranoe. vtdalan. viakn, r adverse circumstance records ofwmh agwmyrhythe Public RaaoNC. Y saitayg to Ta°1en world w dvdoo fi Man m S. sM ompla° lad 2. AnYyas udreds. or deimvtha we not drown byte Pubm Records a) Uhpo ho d minis not shownbmeP Records. bu that tie ascertained by air in of 1d. land a that may M d. a) Urpmntad rrlNtrg ciaMns: (�pp) mes�rvetloma a min ppmmnfs a aunts birPVsawin possession oldie land. kit AasaMhods rigabeissanor decoct a)vaurdp�s amlAlftovder, " or n the rradrs eauped u� (a} (bZ air (a) we shorn by the Page it of 14 A#WAmmn Ono (11 /17/)6) YS 00700 ATTAC"I ENT ONE Order No: 1763950 - 1 (CONTINUED) AN ERICAN IA NO TITLE A N8FRMC ER'POLICY(10.17.92) SOO aal Meo'i npamyn"1i iS nR'par fas ar mmaOe Shawls, 1Yan Of �. 2. 4 en . poser not amlWad by (m)abnow. exotpptto Xwe .01. IR' n'sssatn' 0 tM°6Vnar Men lha above pokylam myb.Isated n adord GUM Swndwd Covwape or P' ad Co n addtlonto 1w erew Emedlamfan Co%wap.theEsoeptbnsfan CowapelnaSladad CoversfepofdyoMalsohohftthe Now... Btapdamfan Covareps: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This polloydoes not suuaa agwticss or damage Ondtlm mmpanyrM rmt pay msw,aSmmyC 1w w e>ybtwes)aNOh adte bytaasen of I- Taxes" a�wN�an na rioan asaisigeem mopes of 3. des, ianswenomobranoworoPahoOww ;narshoonbytlnpubb amft>tfn f aNat ntF NNansostapx�ros or assessmb on proipeemlj or by moards. shpraas the sseso records. Acoeed iudf pm' ceNa s s. a arn'�=@1112 w 4. aiyaSier 4ots a aar�'ea rywroeYiaM Asdose'a, and olYeh r name w asxasnarts,wnetloes of p mosardssoofssLmh a�pamyyarb�yoir moods. �y fps p.pEp §map by S. i �q (o��}r p{M��gtM oc" 2. ra&ds bui ol'ddr-oodd be asoedntd oq ai won o�fthe" ffM or bMch f m 7�s aL*h • zi nEe m Issuance tlfdsr Px�(oh as sr tm. e, In pawas or maybe asserted bypanms b possessbndweor waM. by thepufbreoads. 2006 AMERICAN LAND TITLE E S POLICY (M17.08) IONS OM G and me,Carlpa M 27 R pirysidss or dsrape, *aosbt'r'y[6rniy 'Ei' j w She efM!'�ofss�ryd%iollmtlon of$m be& a�nmasA ar aM. 'U Riri kp) dos rmt 6 er t >� A+r /osansnaanaaWl.Pogft Peraww. TaNds &dudm l (b) does mt mafy w 2. hb o �yamm,"ad da THa BroWm*� not mmft w bet the 2. Oa ds.6am�'denwrnbmmssadw�a .crodw ratters The above Pobyfammybe Iswd b afore ~ SMndwd Coverage or EWwWad Commingle. In mWonto to above Bobsbnsfom Cowap.the BDapdm fom Cowpeins 8twrdwd Coverafepollgwid aboewbiM the bNwrkq Booepdons from Coverage: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE TNSpefeydoes nairww 203H11111 beewdwra6eOmdit CompatgwM notpay Cosa, mmurpe fes we)Wn )ritadse bymmn ot: 1. (1 Tmopsw�anasaftf sRrioa eAKbmfmnsbydm wnab�e 3. �nents. fianswammnWarroas ,wadmsMarao; nalwanby*4 Public b Rmadr0 tpwhrw bo� Mels�f a nWOfd�mlllry n 4. Anyaiaoadanaa aaunOranoe MohMai whFai,wadMrae doanYnaa w i$ei9lMtaa, rmbtl 01- .•heFlQerliOt A e a}bori6 the TMe t(ta sarM kn sM�y �aampims IMd records ofstm nuywby" su .t1the landandtlatan not n 2. yyas�dts'z1 = ord�m am rio.n lnr� wyb Racads 5. (a) ulpatenad rdoft claims: 0) w in pmwas w but the chid bi med�nod oy angtM�p nor oftbe laM wMf maybe n Ada aumodd fm isuema tbree� ro)r�q el tMetl assededbypenwsb possesom ofOm W�a'�n. maw. Whether wn'�t tlm mazes ossprsd dndr p} of a an shown by the Public Records. Pegs 12 of 15 Admol nett One (11/17106) YS 00701 ATTACN6ENTONE Order No: 1763950 -1 (CONTINUED) CLTA ALTA HONED NERS P(O`LII�CyYD&M�LE NSURANC611042-031 E %CLUSRIHS N addlbn todla Baepdorrs in Soharkta B, You senrhwad v#Wm loss, assts, ata■nayrt trs, ad atOwes mullirnp San: 1. Ooananrtti pdae power. and IM a litalwa or tiablion of my law or 4. Rants: regdalon THs includes ordnan as, Ism and IpWrtloro a. , .rspeedmbY Yoa,■Mdrr rnotttryappm b. p .� to You afie�e.DUnarao ua.whuftymppaw, e: �on land 6. . the 1r! oaaC�roaOrrUa Poky Dave —dit does net M the aoverpe t enaimnnaal prreorion 6 p��to �lydrato�r Y�OR TaMiaa0�4. 7Y.23.24rZ6. Thk aces not ePgssetnxmaa appmsr in tm Pubb Pam UwePo r e: tae tooD }a Nit a(Sdadula /r aYd ��y desa ed and ieMIM m iI nmtbs entree violation or en 1 sI$�Y laid OTNsae Fmiaian does not knit Ls swage described in Covered Risk 14, 16, 10, D, nsOeMS.lels,r wawa La/suohta Iald 17 r 24. This F Sion does"HinIttha wwragedaanaed N Oovaad 1%& 11 ar 10. z. Tn �eM.T a Your..�!�1.. �a�r e�alri!�i.]�.a 3. Ta. MrT taatfe l'idyomR 6rkmi� otearabhp 1M11¢931ppaasin five PtM RSOardsatMPoloy 0. tit n■ i.e un�9Paoq s bidlnp an YOU N Yon LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS YomNaaana fartta MMkp Cowed Rdd b lntad onthe O■rre /s Covemas Sblarat as tclb■s: a Fr Covered Rids 14. 16. t0and 10. Yom OtduaON Aroutand Our idaMam Oolw Lknaof UiNkiyM■nin SdoddeA 7Mdadu■6blmunr"nw0 umdatar Nitsdownon Sdodule Aareas IAms: ram QaduelbrAmnaa Covered Rdr 14 L11116%ppppo��ff pfloky �nunt i lo�oDo $(wldohavats lass) Covered "I tic lmtof P01IWA rs $26DDODD r $ is lasd) Covered Ran lR tmt of Pd wArmrg $7600000 $¢Ag,pp r CaaaRgwlskss) Coveted Rsk IS: _ Imaof F91WArmuet $6jmm $ r �t verisless) . ALTA EXPANDED IMIOE RESISENMLLOAN POLICY(1M131Ot) 4. a re in loss r�edn arnage which would not have bow tt thd Cis. wnfda idaMm WNainahlt Wore, of the Insured a Dr o W or 01ty or tdkn al are 3. 0. 7. a. 0. 1*T'1 ttoD to new. d to fumed i wbnidrthamae tram bakers t a sewage provided in Cowed Page 13 of 15 YS 00702 Fidelity National Financial, Inc. Privacy Statement Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries ( "FNFJ respect the privacy and security of your non-public personal information ('Personal Informationj and protecting your Personal Information is one of our top priorities. This Privacy Statement explains FNF's privacy practices, including how we use the Personal Information we receive from you and from other specified sources, and to whom it may be disclosed. FNF follows the privacy practices described in this Privacy Statement and, depending on the business performed, FNF companies may share information as described herein. Personal Information Collected We may collect Personal Information about you from the following sources: • Information we receive from you on applications or other forms, such as your name, address, social security number, tax identification number, asset information, and income information; • Information we receive from you through our Intemet websites, such as your name, address, email address, Internet Protocol address, the website links you used to get to our webskes, and your activity while using or reviewing ourwabshes; • Information about your transactions with or services performed by us, our affiliates, or others, such as information concerning your policy, premiums, payment history, information about your home or other real property, information from lenders and other third parties involved in such transaction, account balances, and credit card information; and • Information we receive from consumer or other reporting agendas and publicly recorded documents. Olsdosure of Personal Information We may provide your Personal Information (excluding information we receive from consumer or other credit reporting agencies) to various individuals and companies, as permitted by law, wit out obtaining your prior authorization. Such laws do not allow consumers to restrict these disclosures Disclosures may include, without limitation,the following: • To insurance agents, brokers, representatives, support organizations, or others to provide you with services you have requested, and to enable us to detect or prevent criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or nondisclosure in connection with an insurance transaction; • To third -party contractors or service providers for the purpose of determining your eligibility for an insurance benefit or payment and/or providing you with services you have requested; • To an insurance regulatory authority, or a law enforcement or other governmental authority, in a civil action, in connection with a subpoena or a governmental investigation; • To companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or to other financial institutions with which we have joint marketing agreements; and%or • To lenders, lien holders, judgment creditors, or other parties claiming an encumbrance or an interest in title whose claim or interest must be determined, settled, paid or released prior to a title or escrow closing. We may also disclose your Personal Information to others when we believe, in good faith, that such disclosure is reasonably necessary to complywith the law or to protect the safety of our Privacy Statement Effective Date 5111I2008 Page to of is YS 00703 customers, employees, at property and/or to comply with a judicial proceeding, court order or legal process. "closure to Affiliatad Companies - We are permitted by law to share your name, address and facts about your transaction with other FNF companies, such as insurance companies, agents, and other real estate service providers to provide you with services you have requested, for marketing or product development research, or to market products or services to you. We do not, however, disclose information we collect from consumer or credit reporting agencies with our affiliates or others without your consent, in conformity with applicable law, unless such disclosure is otherwise permitted by law. Disclosure to Nanarfiialad Third Parties - We do not disclose Personal Information about our customers or former customers to nonaffiliated third parties, except as outlined herein or as otherwise permitted by law. Confidentiality, and Security of Personal Informadon We restrict access to Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguardsthat complywilh federal regulations to guard Personal Information. Access to Personal Information/ Requests for Correction, Amendment, or Deletion of Personal Information As required by applicable law, we will afford you the right to access your Personal Information, under certain circumstances to find out to whom your Personal Information has been disclosed, and request correction or deletion of your Personal Information. However, FNF's current policy is For your protection, all reauasta made under this ca .tinn muffi he in writing and must induda your notarized signature to establish your identity. Where permitted by law, we may charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs incurred in responding to such requests. Please send requests to: Chief Privacy Officer Fidelity National Financial, Inc. 601 Riverside Avenue Jacksonville. FL32204 Changes to this Privacy Statement This Privacy Statement may be amended from time to time consistent with applicable privacy laws. When we amend this Privacy Statement, we will post a notice of such changes an our website. The effective date of this Privacy Statement, as stated above, indicates the last tine this Privacy Statement was revised or materially changed. Privacy Statement Etfecfive Date 5/11/2008 Pegs 15 of 15 YS 00704 December 15, 2008 Mr. Steve Bunting Fire Marshall CrrY OF NEWPORT BEACH FIRE AND MARINE DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca 92658 -8915 RE: Yellowstone Recovery ("Pegasus House" Residence) Coda Analysis For The Existing Building Dear Mr. Bunting, Alfred J. Boder, Architect has been contracted by Yellowstone Recovery to review details of their existing building, titled "Pegasus House ", located at 1571 Pegasus Street, Santa Ana, Ca 92707. Yellowstone Recovery intends to change the use of the building from a single - family residence to a Residential Facility for the non - medical rehabilitation of drug abuse and alcoholism. We have surveyed the existing building and the summary of our findings and conclusions are as follows: A. The existing building was constructed in 1961, and was built as a single - family residence, occupancy type R -3. The building is a two -story structure with an attached garage. B. The building is set back from the front property line 26' -0 ". The side yard set back is 6'-0" clear on both sides of the structure. C. As the attached plans indicate, the residence is entered through the front door that faces the addressed street. The first floor consists of a living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, and two bedrooms. The second floor consists of four bedrooms, and two bathrooms. Based on this research, the following code issues are in compliance with the current code requirements of the California Building Code, CBC 2007. 01. Location On The Property: As indicated on the attached plans, the building setbacks for the side yards is five (6) feet from the property line. This distance includes the attached garage. Per CBC section 6, Table 602, the minimum fire separation distance is five feet. This setback is achieved to the property line and from the property line; the V&IIIIIIIII adjacent R -3 residence is also setback five (5) feet from the property line for a total of a ten (11) foot separation from the two buildings. Conclusion: The wall of the garage at the side yard is not required to be of fire rated construction and there are no penetrations or openings in the attached garage wall 02. Section 419, Group I -1 R -1 R -2 R -3 R -31 R4• 419.2, Separation walls. Section does not apply. Note that the common wall between the attached garage is of one -hour fire rated construction to the bottom of the roof diaphragm and there are no penetrations in this wail. 03. Section 419.3. Horizontal Separation: This section does not apply per section 711.1. roll FAMAtes to Simon K -1- R -7.1 or R4 Occu acv f FMl• Per section 425.3.5, Limitations — Seven or More Clients; The second floor area is less than three thousand (3,000) square feet and therefore a one -hour fire rated construction is not required. 05. Section 425.7. Fire Protection System Provisions: Section 425.7.1, Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems. Per section 903.2.7, Group R, an automatic fire sprinkler system is not required per exceptions 1 and 3. Section 425.7.2 Fire Alarm Systems; Per section 907.2.8 an approved, hard -wired fire alarm system is installed as required per section 907.2.8.2. Section 427.7.3. Smoke Alarms; Per section 907.2.8.3, battery powered smoke detectors/alarms are installed in the required areas per section 907.2.10. Section 906.1 Portable Fire Extinguishers; Portable fire extinguishers are installed and located per the California Fire Code. 06. Chapter 10 Means Of Egress: Section 1006, means of egress illumination. There is illumination at the top, middle, and bottom of the staircase. Section 1009, Stairways; Per section 1009.1, exception 1, the staircase complies with the code requirement. V&IIIIIIIII I believe that this is a complete analysis of the code related items which apply to this building during the change of occupancy. Please call Anthony Grillo, my representative, at (949) 678 -3214 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Alfred Bodor — Architect Attachments; Scale as -built plans YS 00707 PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION There is room for four cars to park on the property; however residents are not permitted to park there. Only the house manager and assistant manager are permitted to park onsite. Thus, the maximum number of cars parked onsite at any time will be two. Most residents ride the bus and there is a bus stop located near the home. The home does not provide general transportation throughout Newport Beach and other neighboring cities. The home provides transportation to only two locations: the treatment facility and St. John church. Both are within ten minutes of the home. St. John is located at 183 East Bay Street in Costa Mesa. The treatment facility is located at 154 East Bay Street in Costa Mesa. Route maps from the home to the treatment facility and from the home to St. John church are attached. In the morning, residents are transported to either church or treatment. All residents are prohibited from being in the house between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Additionally, all residents must return to the house by 4:00 p.m. Finally, the vans that transport the residents are not parked onsite. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. YS 00708 1571 Pegasus St, Santa Ana, CA 92707 to 154 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 - Google... Page I of 2 Directions to 154 E Bay St, Costa �0� ., Mesa, CA 92627 maps 2.4 ml — about 8 mans From HOME to TREATMENT http: / /maps.google.com /maps ?f= d &saddr- 1571 +Pegasus, +Santa +Ana, +California, +9270... 12/11/2008 YS 00709 1571 Pegasus St, Santa Ana, CA 92707 to 154 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 - Google... Page 2 of 2 1571 Pegasus St, Santa Ana, CA 92707 1. Head northwest on Pegasus St toward Santa Ana Ave go 4223 ft total 423 ft 2. Turn tofi.at St l i U ntr Flbout6mins - -total i.9mi 3. Turn right at E 21st St go 0.2 mi About 1 min total 2.1 mi 4. Turn lit at Oevhs t 9a 0 -r rni total 2.3 mi 5. Turn right at E Bay St goo. 1 mi Destination will be on the right total 2.4 mi 154 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction projects, traffic, weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map results: and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or notices regarding your route. Map data (02008. Tale Atlas http: // maps .google.com /traps ?f= d &saddr--1571 +Pegasus, +Santa +Ana, +California, +9270... 12/11/2008 YS 00710 1571 Pegasus St, Santa Ana, CA 92707 to 183 E Say St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 - Google... Page 1 of 2 Goo moo Directions to 183 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 2.3 mi — about 7 mina From HOME to CHURCH .. I wi http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&saddr=l 571+Pegasus,+Santa+Ana,+CA+92707&dad... 12/23/2008 YS 00711 F`oj 6 to Me? Y o f 3tm r ail( g'IN i y A = r� M1 r1. Orange Coast .h [ Xy4w iJt 4 >.GG' Yt N 5 r !x �- a: a Ar `inarar Palmy Coaray .Oraap ;14mpNnsa4ro F BrowWara i unary t.3ub Ca6F0 Mesa, Rar :. t 1r; krw Park L� ..,sM Nov Beath , f loaf 'JVv Wl �Ca� ` .s. w malpL Costa meSa '� .st.:=r` t °s, ,rnt,' http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&saddr=l 571+Pegasus,+Santa+Ana,+CA+92707&dad... 12/23/2008 YS 00711 F`oj 6 Upper carport Bay �, i y M1 r1. gi "Ot 5 r !x �- a: ':Afarucr Rar :. 1r; krw Park L� ..,sM http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&saddr=l 571+Pegasus,+Santa+Ana,+CA+92707&dad... 12/23/2008 YS 00711 .. a et. Upper carport Bay �, g,y_ M1 r1. gi "Ot 5 r !x a: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&saddr=l 571+Pegasus,+Santa+Ana,+CA+92707&dad... 12/23/2008 YS 00711 1571 Pegasus St, Santa Ana, CA 92707 to 183 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 - Google... Page 2 of 2 1 1571 Pegasus St, Santa Ana, CA 92707 1. Head northwest on Pegasus St toward Santa Ana Ave 4 2. Turn left at Sam Aga Ave About 6 mins 3. Turn right at E 21st St About 1 min ( 4. Tutu tis(t at OmW Ave r# 5. Turn right at E Bay St Destination will be on the left 1 183 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 go 423 ft total 42.', It so 1.8 mi total 1 9 mi go 0.2 mi total 2.1 mi. go 0.1 mi total 2.:3 mi go 223 ft total 2.3 mi These direction=. are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction projects, traffic,, weather, or other events May cause conditions to differ from the map results; and you should plan your route acCOrdingiy. You mist cbey all Signs or notiees regarding your route. Nlap data @2008 . Tale Atlas YS 00712 http: / /maps.google.com/n aps?l= d&saddr =1571 +Pegasus, +Santa +Ana, +CA +92707 &dad... 12/23/2008 0 bq a u 0 d 0o v� U v' rr No bo .� 3 w U Wo o o El 41 :� > o .d . Wbo .� 0 0 w 0 W P Z d CL arc 0 a W z O .a YS 00713 By RMNNG DEPARTMENT JAN 12 iy1019 DAVIS - 2 F A -I Y ctq 6 OF t- i&AvjV0Rt BEACH A ii0)(!lICN�i II.W [OiiOLLIION January 7, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Oxford Certification for 1571 Pegasus Dear Ms. Brown- Enclosed is a copy of the permanent Oxford Certification for the property located at 1571 Pegasus. The materials we submitted to you on December 23, 2008 contained a provisional Oxford Certification. In our previous phone conversation you said that the provisional Oxford_ Certification was - acceptable and to send a copy of the permanent certification once the certificate was reduced in size. As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, D�AVyISyZFATY NICOLE COHRS 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 • Fax 949.376.3875 infoOdzallumeys.com . www.dzattorneys.com YS 00714 Oxford Tlouse, Inc. m mi --YtlQr+ & C' A Pomwnemt- Cfartff Tr* &W.Ilary*"artQYr of0*41&.0 &Waska&umwt&fa&" rfwar amdtt"&- x. T& ?Contra must & self -run m a demur -mtfa basis; s. ?lie ?Goose must & finamfaQy self- s%"vr9*W and 3. Any resfdent wCto drfnis akAd or uses (Cru®s must 6e fmmedfatebj axpeffe(C as..rr WO On Appovd M1a. WWW down& Ca- bonder k CMd6t99 Wtve (Nlicer Ot�rd Houm,lrm o %m d er .2b ,298 DATE YS 00715 January 21, 2009 FLANKING DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644-3200 Fax: (949) 644 -3229 website: www.citv.newoort- beach.ca.us Davis & Rayburn, Attorneys at Law Attention: Isaac R. Zfaty 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Dear Mr. Zfaty: Subject•. Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Property Located at 1571 Pegasus Street Use Permit No. 2008 -036 (PA2008 -107) Thank you for your follow -up submittal dated December 23, 2008, received by the City on December 29, 2008. After reviewing the resubmittal material, the following items are incorrect or otherwise incomplete: Please revise the site plan (Sheet A -1) to show the building footprints on adjacent parcels, including the distances of those improvements from the property lines. Please note that your original submittal included a site plan showing portions of adjacent structures, but those plans were not accurately drawn, not drawn to scale, and the dimensions indicated were in error. 2. The plans are not internally consistent with respect to the number of beds provided. That is, the number of beds shown graphically on the floor plans is 18 but the written summary on Sheet A -2 indicates 17. Please provide the correct number. 3. Please add the driveway and the street curb line to the site plan (as distinguished from the front property line). 4. Municipal Code Section 20.91A.050 (C.2) states that the maximum number of residents is restricted to a total of two per bedroom plus one additional resident, resulting in a total of 13 residents for this six- bedroom house. If it proposed to exceed this maximum, a justification must be submitted: Please refer to page 3 of the application for those items to be considered in determining if a different occupancy limit is to be considered. 5. The architect's letter dated December 15, 2008 is not stamped and is not signed by the architect. Also, in the last paragraph of the first page, it states that "...the building setbacks for the side yards is five (6) feet..:' The same type of discrepancy occurs at the top of the second page. Please clarify which numbers are correct. YS 00716 Yellowstone Women's First Step House Pegasus Street Unit Page 2 In addition to the above items, the application filing fee of $2,200 remains unpaid. However, per e-mail correspondence with both the City Attorney's Office and the Planning Department, it is our understanding you will be applying for a reasonable accommodation for a fee waiver based on disability- related financial hardship. This is in addition to the separate request for a reasonable accommodation to be treated as a single housekeeping unit. Pursuant to Chapter 20.98 of the Zoning Code, if the project for which the request for a reasonable accommodation is made requires another discretionary permit or approval (in this case, a use permit), the applicant may request that the Hearing Officer hear the request for a reasonable accommodation at the same time as the use permit. If you do not request a simultaneous hearing, the request for reasonable accommodation will not be heard until after a final decision has been made regarding the use permit. Please inform us of whether or not you wish to schedule the requests for reasonable accommodation to be treated as a single housekeeping unit and/or for a fee waiver at the same hearing as the use permit or at a later date. We will need this information by January 27, 2009, so that we may proceed appropriately with preparation of the staff report. Please be advised that the City of Newport Beach will proceed with the use permit application hearing for the above referenced property on Thursday, February 12, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. This will be a public hearing and will take place before a third -party hearing officer. The City has scheduled this hearing despite the fact that your use permit application remains incomplete. Please be advised that by scheduling your application for a public hearing, the City is not deeming your application complete. We will send a copy of the staff report which addresses your application to you and the hearing officer for review four to seven days in advance of the hearing date. If you have any questions regarding the process, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949- 661 -8175 (Lx4 @sbcglobal.net), or Janet Brown at 949 -644 -3236 abrown @city. newport- beach.ca.us). Sincerely, Z arty L wrence A CP ons ing Case Planner cc: Dr. Anna Marie Thames, Yellowstone Recovery Programs VI&IrIrif Irl RECEIVED BY PWNNING DEPARM0 JAN 21 ZY DAVIS•ZFATY .. Wore »�ax�c uw cavvavenon CIS OF NEWPORT BEACH January 23, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Hearing for Use Permit Application and Reasonable Accommodations Dear Janet: I received your letters regarding the February 12, 2009 hearing date for the Use Permit Application for the Yellowstone properties. We would like to have both our fee - waiver and our Single Housekeeping Unit Requests for Reasonable Accommodation heard on February 12, 2009 for all of the Yellowstone properties as well. As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY NICOLE COHRS 380 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Reath, CA 92651 . 949.376.2828 Fax 949.376.3875 info@d7attorneys.corn www•.dzattorneys.com YS 00718 FS 0 2 2009 DAVIS•ZFATY ,eo�rss�oHSi uw <cocxaiau.: j_ _�••�/ 7 . ^.1 January 29, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Request for Reasonable Accommodation: 1571 Pegasus Dear Ms. Brown: Z175.1 As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ("Yellowstone'). I recently spoke with Cathy Walcott of the City Attorney's office. She informed me of a few ambiguities in our Request for Reasonable Accommodation Worksheet for the 157,1 Pegasus property (the "Property "). The purpose of this letter is to clarify these ambiguities. uestion 5 Im airments Substantial Li itin 2 Ma'or Life Activities: Do the clients have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? What are those impairments? The residents of the Property are recovering from alcohol addiction. They manifest physical and mental symptoms which have prevented them from engaging in at least one of their major life activities. Although the residents work, they are recovering from a physical dependence on alcohol. Mentally, the residents are recovering from the inability to make healthy choices like the average person in the general population regarding their consumption of alcohol. Their impairments affect their ability to think, concentrate, and interact with others as compared to the ability of the average person in the general population to do the same. Thus, their disability is substantially limiting. Enclosed with this letter is a Declaration under penalty of perjury from the applicant, Honey Thames, manager of the Property, that every resident in the Property has physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of the residents' major life activities. Cathy Walcott mentioned that this would be acceptable given that the privacy concerns of the residents limit our ability to provide medical records or signatures of the residents. 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828.• Fax 949.376.3875 info(Ndzattorneys.com wwwAzattornevs.com V&11I1141'1 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Ouestion 10) Parking: Describe the on -site parking resources and the staff and visitor parking plans. Parking on the Property is reserved for the manager and assistant manager, thus the maximum number of cars on the Property at any one time will be two. Residents are not permitted to park on the Property. Visitors are not permitted on the Property therefore there are no visitor parking issues. (_Question 11) Operation of Vehicles: Describe client's availability to drive and operate a vehicle while residing at facility. The residents do not use cars. Instead, they rely on public transportation to and from the Property. (Ouestion 12) Transportation: Does the facility provide transportation services? If yes, please describe the frequency, duration, and schedule of services and where the vehicles are stored Though the home generally does not provide transportation services, the home does provide some basic transportation to the nearby treatment facility and to St. John church. Both locations are within ten minutes of the home. There is a morning pickup at 8 a.m. and an evening drop off at 4 p.m. This is the only transportation provided. The vans that transport the residents are not parked on site. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. (Question 16) Interaction Within the Property: How do the clients interact with each other within the unit? Is there joint use of common areas? Do clients share household activities and responsibilities? Will delivery trucks be provided at the facility? The Property provides the residents with a network of support to encourage recovery from the symptoms of alcoholism. The residents reside separately at the Property. There is a common area however each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, there are no delivery vehicles going to and from the Property. Finally, although Yellowstone owns four such homes in the Newport Beach area, there is no interaction between the homes. In other words, residents of the Property do not meet with the residents of other Yellowstone properties for dinners or other gatherings. Each home has its own residents and the residents of one home never interact with residents of a different home. V&11I11*111 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Question 19) Necessity of the Requested Accommodation: Please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary. Yellowstone hereby requests that a Reasonable Accommodation be made to Ordinance 2008 -5 such that Yellowstone is treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Reasonable Accommodation is necessary because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility. Instead, the Property more accurately fits the definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030. Residents are the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit. Like a Single Housekeeping Unit, there is a common area and each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager. In conformity with our request for a Reasonable Accommodation, we would like to request that we get an exemption from Section 20.91A. 050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which states that there shall be no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. I hope that this clarifies any ambiguity with respect to our previous request for a Reasonable Accommodation. Please let me know if our responses need to be supplemented further and as always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation NICOLE COHRS cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) YS 00721 J91l- zb -LUUU WED Ub :JI rn DAVIS KRYBM ape PBX PM MV orb JbIS r. U4 E ORM AUAMN Of ANNA MAREC I U&M 1, Dr. Ama Marie Thames, hereby declare as follows: I . The matters stated herein we known to me personally and if called upon to to *, r ca$d and would competently testify dmrm as follows. 2. All individualsreaiding in the ptopaty located at 1571 Pegasus in Newport Beach are recova lag 5om ale" addichom 3. Although tre residemts are recoveting, they mamfestphy wd and mental symptoms of tleir addiction whicb sm6smetially limit one or more of the resit major life activities I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that &a foregoing is true and Carmel. Executed this 28th day of January 2009, at Newport Be&* California. WREA YS 00722 9 "d 96ZS9b96f6 auoanmotTaA DAVIS•ZFATY January 29, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 FEB a 2 2009 Re: sly davits for Fee Waiver Reasonable Accommodation Dear Janet: Enclosed are the signed Affidavits of Disability Related Financial Hardship. There is a separate Affidavit for each of the four Yellowstone properties. As we discussed, our responses to the questions relating to the income of the residents pre and post - disability are based on the average resident for each of the homes. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATT�Y ^ A" pr' NICOLE COHRS Enclosure s80 Broadway Strect, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2328 - Fax 949376.3875 h1i0@0dzatt0rners.com . wwwAzattornecs.com YS 00723 AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY- RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP 1571 Pegasus, Newport Beach I, Anna Marie Thames, declare: I am an authorized representative of disabled individuals; 2. I am submitting information specific to the financial status of a group of disabled individuals who reside in a household; I am submitting the financial information herein voluntarily because I have requested a reasonable accommodation from the City of Newport Beach, which I believe is necessary because of financial hardship to the disabled individuals I represent; 4. Severe financial constraints which arose as a direct result of the disabled individuals I represent prevent them from complying with one or more provision or provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures generally applicable to the type of dwelling in which disabled persons I represent reside or wish to reside; 5. Such provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures, if applied to the dwelling in which the disabled individuals I represent reside, will deprive disabled individuals of the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice; 6. In order to afford the disabled individuals the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice, the permanent or temporary waiver of a fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Council Policy or customary procedure is necessary; The requested waiving of such fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement is necessary because of financial limitations which are the direct result of the disability of the individuals that I represent; -I- AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP 8. If the disabled individual on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested was able to work prior to becoming disabled, please provide information on such individual's pre- and post disability income: A. On the following dates, the disability of the persons I represent, rendered such persons severely limited in their ability to work or entirely unable to work: The individuals residing in the home were all affected by their disability at different times. During addiction, residents are unable to work. In sober living, however, all residents must find a job. B. Prior to the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual household income from all sources was approximately $50,000 (on average). C. After the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual income from all sources was approximately $20,000 (on average). Typically, household income is cut approximately in half because of alcoholism. As a result of alcoholism, the residents of the home have been rendered financially disabled. In sober living, the residents must find a job, however, the jobs the residents seeks are near minimum wage ($8.00 per hour). 9. If the disabled individuals on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested were not employed prior to becoming disabled, please state why any financial limitations which render the disabled individuals unable to meet the financial requirements of complying with the Newport Beach Municipal Code are a direct result of such their disability. All residents were employed in some manner prior to their addiction. 10. Please provide any additional information you feel would enable City staff and/or hearing officers to determine whether disability- related financial hardship requires an exception form the application of the City's Municipal Code, Council Policies, or usual and customary procedures in order to afford the disabled individuals an opportunity to reside in a dwelling. The residents cannot afford their own places to live. Their income is based on near minimum wage hourly rates. Thus, if forced to live elsewhere they could not afford to pay rent, a security deposit for an apartment, food, or utilities. Yellowstone provides a fresh start for recovering alcoholics to begin their life with a clean slate. Our fees our low and donors in the community provide individual scholarships for residents who qualify. -2- AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY- RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 00725 ..w .�... w . w w..... • • ten. . ..w. .r,....... w... .. .. YeI luwataoaisaaoarproBRarg�oeioa.. Ydiaareeoaepusnoio�cmotasaad no k es me iocmro fivat reaidaats m eavr?ts GNU aed YeUosrshme mates no p v& from Tire oddwm Tie m aab adon is am, by a group of vol mien s wbo are commimd to musing the resideals bwk to ;ae m minty dean and sober as tax payiu3.mircrs who can hdp other aicanoiics_ As a Tcwk Yvl:owsmuz's mmb.budgacwa rtoT ac n�unodate the 52,200 Vpliaadm fee. Ystiowstoar seTccTfW ly mqua s the 1 L 4 Cily m4h :rommablea, commoda km in . I dedami pmahy ofpe*n Tmder me laws aftita Stare of CaSf omia mat ma knpaog is true and coaact. Fmcrad an INa206 day of w my. 2M.in NewpwEcack Caffmnif ANMM1►M'EE AIM �I1. i!' i. -:4,1:itp l lkff '/7 OF.111011 "t Y ,:JI YCl1' YS 00726 OT 'd Sa2ssos64B auo'ssmoTTsA COST ANALYSIS OF OUR HOMES IN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS IN GENERAL, OUR WEEKLY FEES ARE BASED ON A SLIDING SCALE FROM $50.00 TO $160 PER WEEK OUR MORTGAGES AVERAGE $4500 PER MONTH A MINIMUM OF 15 RESIDENTS IS NEEDED TO PAY ALL THE EXPENSES FOR EACH HOUSE, INCLUDING LIGHTS, GAS, WATER AND TRASH. RENTS: SLIDING SCALE: $50.00 TO $160.00 PER WEEK AVERAGE: RESIDENTS: 16 AVERAGE RENT MONTHLY AVERAGE: EXPENSES: FOR EACH HOUSE AVERAGE UTILITIES FOOD: MORTGAGES: AVERAGE MONTHLY AVERAGE $100 $6400 INCOME $ 800 LIGHTS, GAS, WATER, PHONE $ 900 RECD! -n DY $4500 $6200 EXPENSES VI&IIIII&AFA Drug Rehab Cost: Low cost subtance abuse treatment center: Yellowstone Recovery • .�. *& "45 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT CENTER Call Today (888) 941 -9048 - After Hours (949) 678 -9000 �. 'i t A HICf;Lf -SUCCCSSFIR. ANN LOW C'18 'r DF!i.dG A140 dALCOHDI, i<:EC:Ck'rii ?'T PROGRAM 1:0I4 4iHC;Llf~NN ",illy 77EE Home InPalient Pre°ram.— LEGAL PROBLEMS? WE CAN HELPI OulPetient P rogrema 4 - - - - -- UCEHSED ANDCEMMED BY THE STATE O CAUFOFAA Dem. Sww"s Programs Available Our Homes Our sun �-- Y2ilowstpne r7ecovvey Finiancial Reaukr irlenls mission slelement a 90 Days: $7.600 Residential Treabtsent scnaaule T a Sober Living: $160 -$160 par weak comact us , Outpatient Sliding Scale $40 .$S0 Some schdarshios available after 30 days prlialsRion Reyu rwends C: rdl 4: +.xn zppantsr... m:c' :zF rd:crE 11gwov ". ... �.....: +: bmevtltamea!wanoo corn 2/1210910:07 FM S ?Y'!ri.,op is!n lr Me; Col tat l iaison , '12 Step # ?couvny - Qoulm'dinr Art Therapy Ufe Skills ' {raining - Jou Placernm Program Secatstr!'!�. ferriiiy :'vle: inns -Sobel Fr:'r:;aysh;o ,. r 3ol!hall - Sobel Ctirniting , I Z �, .� � : , k �lil1� UiN.L ^i�'� {I "r rr http : / /www.yellmstonefecovery-comi cost- fees- drugrehab- alcoholtr eatmentcenter- california.htm Page 1 of 1 YS 00728 DAVIS•ZFATY February 13, 2009 VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 BY FEB 13 2009 Re: Yellowstone Use Permit Applications and Reasonable Accommodation Requests Dear Ms. Wolcott and Ms. Brown: It has recently come to my attention there may be discrepancies between materials Yellowstone submitted with respect to its use permit applications and requests for reasonable accommodation for each of the four Yellowstone properties. Although this firm and the representatives of Yellowstone have made our best efforts to be clear and consistent, the materials submitted to the City in May 2008 reflect some inaccurate information. The purpose of this correspondence is to clarify these inconsistencies. Group Meetings Neither group treatment meetings nor individual treatment meetings occur on any of the four Yellowstone properties. All treatment is performed off site in Costa Mesa. The only meetings that occur at each of the four homes are weekly house meetings with the residents to discuss potential new residents and other administrative matters. Visitors Visitation with family and friends occurs on Sundays at Yellowstone's Costa Mesa facility located at 154 East Bay Street. .560 Broadwav StrttM, Suite 301 - .Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949376.2828 Fax 949 3 %.3875 infoOdza+torneys.com - wwwAzattorneys.cmn YS 00729 Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown February 13, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Contractual Arrangements with Residents and Resident Selection In May 2008, Yellowstone submitted a request for reasonable accommodation that each of the four homes be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. It was recently brought to my attention that Yellowstone's response to Question 16, regarding resident interaction, needs clarification. Yellowstone does not have a contractual relationship with the residents of its properties. With respect to the residents of the four Yellowstone homes in Santa Ana Heights, Yellowstone's position is correctly stated in a letter to the City dated January 29, 2009: "the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property. manager." More specifically, Yellowstone's Board of Directors does not determine who resides in each of the four homes. New residents are introduced and approved by the current residents during house meetings or they are not accepted. Many of Yellowstone's residents transition to sober living directly from treatment. Other residents learn about Yellowstone from other recovery centers or by community referral. Parking In May 2008, when the original Yellowstone use permit and reasonable accommodation applications were submitted to the City, Yellowstone requested that four cars be permitted to park at the 1561 Indus property. There is adequate room for four cars to park at 1561 Indus, however only the two resident managers for the home park on site. With respect to the three other Yellowstone properties, it has consistently been Yellowstone's position that only the two resident managers of the homes are allowed to park vehicles on site. I hope that this clarifies the ambiguities in our previous submissions to the City. As always, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation NICOLE COHRS, ESQ. YS 00730 EXHIBIT 4 SITE PLAN AND FLOOR PLANS YS 00731 ��a�� 35fbla �15V93d 6 �6 II TO �---1 s YS 00732 M412a# `■ �J , § ■ ■, .. � $ \ � 7 | | ; t M412a# YS 00734 i .ldl Pff Pl JFI ur i € I )p � 9@ { yy ss yy YY YA H alf YS 00734 �■ ■ m .S � ! , . � ) ' ■ § ■ § . � � ` K ` K / , | ■° | � ) \ \ . | . � M112aI YS 00736 Pi 35fYIll5fl5v93d ` 1L � 4 r Fal YS 00736 EXHIBIT 5 FIRE MARSHAL CORRESPONDENCE AND FIRE CODE ANALYSIS SUBMITTAL YS 00737 BTeve Lewis, FIRE CHIEF January 29, 2009 Dr. Honey Thames 154 East Bay Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Re: Code Analysis for Yelowstone Recovery: 1561 Indus Street; 1621 Indus Street; 1571 Pegasus; 20172 Redlands, Newport Beach Dear D'r. Thames: Thank you for submitting the code analysis and floor plans for the above referenced properties. After reviewing the analysis, we have identified the following areas which Will require further clarification: 1561 Indus Street 1.. Item # 5: Exception 1 to California Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes *unless... classified as Group R4". Recovery or treatment facilities for more than 6 clients are classified as Group R4 by Section 310 of the CBC. 2. Item # 6: Stairwell.and other components of the means.of egress must be illuminated at all times. A switched circuit Is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. The back -up illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90. minutes. Please indicate how the illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be in accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please indicate the net dear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor . . for each bedroom window opening SAFETY SERVICE �. PROFESSIONALISM YS 00738 1621 Indus Street I. Item # 5: Exception 1 to California Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes "uniess...classified as Group RV 2. Item # 6: Stairwell and other components of the means of egress must be Illuminated at all times. A switched circuit is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. The back -up Illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90 minutes. Please Indicate how the illumination will be accomplished. .3. Bedroom egress windows shall be in accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please indicate the net clear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. 1571 Pegasus Street 1.. Item # 5. Exception 1 to California Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes "unless.. classified as Group RV 2. Item # 6: Stairwell and other components of the means of egress must be illuminated at all times. A switched circuit Is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. The back -up Illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90 minutes. Please Indicate how the illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be in accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please Indicate the net clear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. YS 00739 20172 Redlands Drive 1. Item q 5: Exception 1 to California Building Code {CBC} Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes "unless... classified as Group R4." 2. Item If 6: Stairwell and other components of the means of egress must be Illuminated at all times. A switched circuit is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. The back -up illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90 minutes. Please indicate how the Illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be in accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please indicate the net dear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. January 29, 2009 Mr. Steve Bunting Fire Marshall CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FIRE AND MARINE DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca 92658 -8915 RE: Yellowstone Recovery ( "Pegasus House" Residence) Coda Analysis For The Existing Building Dear Mr. Bunting, REC;7pl�r) By tiJ. vrl�f`irr �� �H Alfred J. Boder, Architect has been contracted by Yellowstone Recovery to review details of their existing building, titled "Pegasus House ", located at 1571 Pegasus Street, Santa Ana, Ca 92707. Yellowstone Recovery intends to change the use of the building from a single - family residence to a Residential Facility for the non - medical rehabilitation of drug abuse and alcoholism. We have surveyed the existing building and the summary of our findings and conclusions are as follows: A. The existing building was constructed in 1961, and was built as a single - family residence, occupancy type R -3. The building is a two -story structure with an attached garage. B. The building is set back from the front property line 26' -0". The side yard set back is 6' -0" clear on both sides of the structure. C. As the attached plans indicate, the residence is entered through the front door that faces the addressed street. The first floor consists of a living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, and two bedrooms. The second floor consists of four bedrooms, and two bathrooms. Based on this research, the following code issues are in compliance with the current code requirements of the California Building Code, CBC 2007. 01. Location On The Property: As indicated on the attached plans, the building setbacks for the side yards is five (6) feet from the property Line. This distance includes the attached garage. Per CBC section 6, Table 602, the minimum fire separation distance is five feet. This setback is achieved to the property line and from the property line; the YS 00741 adjacent R -3 residence is also setback five (5) feet from the property line for a total of a ten (11) foot separation from the two buildings. Conclusion: The wall of the garage at the side yard is not required to be of fire rated construction and there are no penetrations or openings in the attached garage wall. 02. Section 419, Group I -1. R -1, R -2, R -3, R -3.1, R -4: 419.2, Separation walls. Section does not apply. Note that the common wall between the attached garage is of one -hour fire rated construction to the bottom of the roof diaphragm and there are no penetrations in this wall. 03. Section 419.3. Horizontal Separation: This section does not apply per section 711.1. M Facilities in Group R -1. R -3.1 or R4 Occupancy (SFM): Per section 425.3.5, Limitations — Seven or More Clients; The second floor area is less than three thousand (3,000) square feet and therefore a one -hour fire rated construction is not required. 05. Section 425.7, Fire Protection System Provisions: Section 425.7.1, Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems. Per section 903.2.7, Group R, an automatic fine sprinkler system is not required per exceptions 1 and 3. Section 425.7.2. Fire Alarm Systems; Per section 907.2.8 an approved, hard -wired fire alarm system is installed as required per section 907.2.8.2. Section 427.7.3, Smoke Alarms; Per section 907.2.8.3, battery powered smoke detectors /alarms are installed in the required areas per section 907.2.10. Section 906.1, Portable Fire Extinguishers; Portable fire extinguishers are installed and located per the California Fire Code. 06. Chapter 10 Means Of Egress: Section 1006, means of egress illumination. There is illumination at the top, middle, and bottom of the staircase. Section 1009, Stairways; Per section 1009.1, exception 1, the staircase complies with the code requirement. V&IIIIiLPA Y I believe that this is a complete analysis of the code related items which apply to this building during the change of occupancy. Please call Anthony Grillo, my representative, at (949) 678 -3214 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Alfred Bodor— Architect Attachments; Scale as-built plans uia u YS 00743 EXHIBIT 6 LETTERS IN SUPPORT (Submitted by Applicant) AND LETTERS IN OPPOSITION YS 00744 DATE: 01/24/019 I"' OM. : THE CROSSING CHURCH, JACKIE DAVIS THE CROSSINIG CHURCH 15 JUST A MILE A!AfAY FROM YELLOWSTONE. 1 -14E ALL NOTICE WOMEN COMING TO OUR MEETINGS AND GET TING INVOLVED. 74-v FY HELD WITH HANDLING OUT TME CHURCH BULLETINS, FOR EXAMPLE. LAST YEAR THrf HELPED US SERVE FOOT) TO THE HOMELESS. YFLLOWS 1 ONE WOMEN' A!¢* O !4 ETI '57A i iNVOL ED I ITe. H OUR C9'^IU$iCH WE ARE VERY ;'RIOUD THAT YELLOIVU OPIE IS ?ART OF OUR Ct;II11 MUN i V. 111E DO WHAT WE CAN TO HELP OUR NEIGHBOR YELLOWSTONE UST AS THEY HELP US. rL ;A.SE CALL IF WE CAM ANSAMTf? AP!7 QUESTIONS: '"Aff"N"E DAMS, THE c „i'iC- SS31NIG 4,.HI1' -`I�M, ° -`,i49 8'66 790z RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT jAN 29 CI1Y0F NEWPORT BEACH YS 00745 DAVIS•ZFATY January 29, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL, Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Yellowstone — Letters of Support Dear Janet: . �NNln�• y.tEra-"Y Arr 1WYO�t �t�L9 I noticed that the Exhibits to previous Use Permit Applications included letters from neighbors surrounding the homes. Enclosed are copies of letters from alumni of the Yellowstone homes showing their support. I thought you may like to include these as exhibits to our Use Permit Application. As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY L %� NICOLE COHRS Enclosures cc: Cathy Walcott, City of Newport Beach 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2628 Fax 949.376.3675 inlo@cizattorneys.com www.dzattorneys.axn YS 00746 Mid mame is /Fmgit and I checluct unto YdLowstome Lw 2002. MLJ ust" and dr4%Kmg had reaLLd spun and Ltfe out of control, I was oorKpLeteld Lost and felt tilee t was beLwg eaten alive frorK the Lws%ale out, I was so ermpto and broleew. doww Lw the IUAL dabs of YKU disease. I wuLolmt Wagimt woo Life awl other wad. YeLLowstome Lwtroduced mt to A-A. and R.ecoverU and to a higher power. Md Lift has surde beem turned around Lw a wall I could Have mtver thought possible. I feel free todad aMd mot a slave to a lift that had no promise what so ever nor a purpose. t wUL forever be gratt(uL to have the daUs and Ocars that ycUowstomt taught Mot how to LLve sober ........... I built mo foundation at Yd.towstowe, t LearNtd how to be a fri end agaLw, how to be honest agaLw, how to be dependable agatw, how to be a good sister, auwtit, and daughter ........... I have mAole TR 46 aKd R-EAt. MIEMDS through YeLLowstowe ........... I trade Lm mo oLd friends for these ntw sober owes. Mb Life has a real purpose todad and YdLowstowe heLped wee -f *A mil wad to Lt. t could go ow and ow about aLL the wonderful things that reeovero and YeUowstomt has given. Mee but I doubt and words eouLol ever truLd express what I've been gLvew bU being freed from and disease. I tome to YetLowstone evero well¢ and ant stiU apart of this place stU,t to this daU .... c. aears Later. I hope it Ls here for other gLrLs to comt bade and worse with the mew comtrs the wail I have been gLvew the chance too. It saves me Lw tirats whew I weed it Most. rruLo Blessed, Avteda M. Sobrietd Date ii -26-02 VI&IIII]FL, N Aty name is Gina and I have been so6erfor 92 days. I came to Yellowstone 6ecause my Cafe was going nowhere and I coufiln't get sober on my own. Yellowstone has helped me in so many ways. I'm feaming the program ofAlcohoCacsAnonymous and how to Cave as a sober woman. I'm learning how to 6e responsible. I've met wonderful people here that care about me and support me. �Wy relationship with my family and my son is being restored and I'm working again. I am forevergrateful to Tellawstone for teaching me a new way of Cafe OAS QATATA V9VE. Sincerely, Gina G S06riety Date 1012 0108 YS 00748 3li my name is Coloria I have been sod er for two and a half years. I went trough yellowstone and truly beCteve that hadthis home,not providedme with the foundation that I needed in AA I would not have a life today, nor would my daughter have her mother or my husband her wife. 'When .T decided to ,get help I couldn't think of going anywhere else. This is where I had seen women come back from the gates of helland learn to become women of dignity with a joy for Cfe that was unimaginable to me. Hadl not found Yellowstone I would have never known that there was a way out of the misery and despair my Cfe had become. yours Truly So oy- YS 00749 My name is Erika and I have been sober for 2 1/2 years. If it wasn't for a place like Yellowstone, I would probably be dead today. I lived at Yellowstone for over a year where I was able to build a foundation upon how to live life on life's terms. Because of the opportunity that I got at Yellowstone I no longer have that hopelessness that I lived with for so long. I am able to be present in the lives of my children who I now have joint custody of Yellowstone is the place that I will continue to come back to and visit the new girls who are struggling the same way I once did. Thank God for Yellowstone. Sincerely Yours, Erika MM 7/15/06 -- 150)r M411114-111 MY NAME IS MEQRAN DOYLE AND I }PAVE BEEN SOBER FOR FOUR YEARS. I CAME TO YELLOWSTONE AFTER BEING LOCKED OUT OF MY MOM'S HOUSE. I STAYED AT YELLOWSTONE 13 34 MONT3fS. I LEARNED #OW TO WORK, LIVE A SOBER LIFE., SUIT UP AND SHOW UP EVERY DAY TO MYJOB, AND HANDLE LIFE SITZ(TIONS FOR T74E FIRST TIME. I AM VERY GRATEFUL TO YELLOWSTONE AND p w"w THE PROGRAM OF ALCHOLICS ANONYMOUS. I AM SELF SUPPORTING NOW AND MAKE AMENDS. I CAN BE OF SERVICE TO OT W FORS TODAY. SINCERELY MRjXAN VW SOBRIETY DATE: 04118105 VI&IIIIII -II MEMO TO: JANET BROWN, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM: HONEY THAMES, YELLOWSTONE SUBJECT: LETTERS OF SUPPORT COULD YOU PLEASE ADD THESE LETTERS OF SUPPORT TO OUR APPLICATION. ONE IS FROM ST. JOHN THE DIVINE CHURCH AND THE OTHER IS FROM A MOTHER WHOSE SON COMPLETED OUR PROGRAM TWO YEARS AGO. FINALLY, WE HAVE A PETITION FROM OUR NEAREST NEIGHBORS (WITHIN 300 FEET) SUPPORTING US AS A GOOD NEIGHBOR. THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR HELP DATE: 2/03/09 f. RECEND BY PUINNING D PARiMENT CITY OF NEWPORT UACH EMW qVE (DESK OT Xim6erfy Mack Dear Yellowstone Staff, February 3, 2009 I wanted to take a few minutes to thank you all for the wonderful care my son received while at Yellowstone, as well as the continued support during his time in your sober living program. Today, I am proud to say my son is clean and sober! It's been almost three years since I called you on the telephone, desperate for help. Not only did you open your doors to us, but your hearts as well. I delivered to your doorstep a young man addicted to heroin (among other things) and suicidal. A few short months later I had my son back. You gave him the tools he needed to succeed. He worked very hard and today he is healthy and happy. I know his continued success will be in part to the support he still receives. He in turn gives back by helping others in their sobriety. I don't know where we would have turned had you not been there for us. I wish for families like ours that your doors will always be open and those arms that so warmly embraced us will never turn away a parent whose child is in danger. Kimberly Black all your help and support. RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT E 05 Ni)', CliV CF NEWPORT MACH St. John the Divine A parish of the Diocese of Los Angelas A congregation of the Episcopal Church in the United States A part of the world-wide Anglican Communion The Rev. Dr. Barbara R. Stewart, Rector 183 E. Bay Street phone 949- 548 -2237 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 -2145 fax 949- 548-2238 www.stohncrn.org bstawart@gohncrn.org January 31, 2009 To Whom It May Concern: I write in support of Yellowstone. The services offered by Yellowstone, helping people live sober and clean lives, are necessary in our society and important to the establishment and ongoing welfare not only of the individuals involved, but our community as well. To begin the process of reclaiming lives lost to alcohol and drugs is something to be valued and appreciated. St. John's is pleased to be able to support the work done by Yellowstone by offering our facility for some of their work. Sincerely, � / I The Rev. Dr. Barbara Stewart PLAN"IN DEPAMMENi `FB os 2UO, ::11YCFNEWPOkTdfACH V&11Ttr1i' I YELLOWSTONE IS A GOOD NEIGHBOR NAME 41/4ydloe� jof �w g.��G'} fcl�a a..��o�•�� r ADDRESS ! G/ P� _�. ;yam 7 f e O7- �; •� 7,, c d 71d{ Ave w )O%pRr .4"e,4.c.-r NAME 4 ADDRESS NAME IN RECEIVED By G PLAnInaIN6 DEPARTM -,JT ADDRESS -'1 CITY JF NE W+'Ufr � DATE: 2/5/09 TO: Dave Kiff, Asst. City Manager FROM: Rita Bosley, Resident in Pegasus Tract, NB RE" Yellow stone Women's First Step House Public Hearing on group residential use permits 1561 Indus, 1621 Indus, 1571 Pegasus, 20172 Redlands, NB We have four sober living homes within a few hundred feet of each other in the Pegasus Tract, and I am fed up with my rights being subordinated to theirs. I am not a special interest group, so I have to rely on those who represent me to make sure the right thing happens. Can I rely on the City of NB? I oppose each of the four applications for permits and exempt status. The laws were put into effect for the purpose of keeping residential neighborhoods for families. These homes are not families, nor do the owners and residents of them care about the people who live here. Their only interest is making money as indicated by the request for three residents/ bedroom instead of 2. This is a single family neighborhood and even rentals are not officially lawful To justify my strong feelings, just look what their presence is doing to aggravate the precarious situation the local residents are suffering. We have lived with the noise of the airport and have fallen into the problems of the slacking economy about which we can do very little. But to add insult to injury, we are forced to accept our. rights being trampled with the current situation with the sober living homes. This places undue hardship on our properties. First, their presence in such great numbers for a very small area have changed the family nature of our neighborhood. Families are reluctant to let their children ride around the block on their bikes because of encounters their children may have with "recovering" people. Secondly, selling a property in this tract requires disclosing the presence of these homes so close to each other and other properties. Therefore, property values and sales have been affected. Getting refinancing is impossible because the last homes sold were sober living homes which went for forced sale prices. Third, we have cigarette butts and beer cans in front of our homes, even though the homes are supposed to be alcohol /drug free. Not only are the SL residents using, but so are their families who visit. SL residents also travel around the neighborhood in "gangs" as they go from home to home. YS 00756 Fourth, cars line the street on nights and weekends, leaving no parking for regular residents' cars and their guests. It is an invasion of our neighborhood. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!! ! If these requests are granted and the homes become such cash cows, why wouldn't every home in the neighborhood be a potential SL residence. Our large homes are even more attractive in this economy. Maybe the State should reimburse each local resident for undue hardship on us if these exceptions are enacted. The decision is yours! I hope the City uses its power wisely. And I am aware of the City's efferts to find a workable solution. Thank you, Dave, for your efforts towards our community in the past. YS 00757 Brown, Janet From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Friday, February 06, 200911:24 AM To: Brown, Janet; Wolcott, Cathy Subject: FW Re: Hearing February 12, 2009 - Group Residential Permits - Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. For the record. We appear to be having assembly uses out there, too, among other things. From: Chet Groskreutz [mailto:Chet @IvankoBarbell.com] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 11:23 AM To: IGff, Dave Cc: Victoria Groskreutz; Rita Bosley; Prodancerl@aol. corn Subject: FW: Re: Hearing February 12, 2009 - Group Residential Permits - Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. - -- Original Message From: Chet Groskreutz [mailto:Chet @IvankoBarbell.com] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 11:13 AM To: Dave Iriff Cc: Prodancerl @aol. com; Victoria Groskreutz; Rita Bosley Subject: Re: Hearing February 12, 2009 - Group Residential Permits - Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Re: 1561 INDUS STREET 1621 INDUS STREET 1571 PEGASUS STREET 20172 REDLANDS DRIVE Applications for the above use permits Dear Dave: I.met you sometime ago at one of the annexation hearings when Santa Ana Heights annexation was being discussed. I wanted to e-mail and voice my opposition to all (4) of the applications Yellowstone has applied for based on the following complaints: 1. Vehicles that are not being used oppose all (4) applications Although we have been told by Yellowstone officials at their own meetings that none of their residents are allowed to drive, we have evidence that the exact opposite is true, there are residents who are driving cars or trucks and parking them on our streets, many times loaded with personal possessions for extended periods of time. They just move the vehicles from street to street to avoid being ticketed or towed. 2. Parking problems I oppose all (4) applications On their meeting nites and during the day and on weekends, we cannot use any parking in front of our own homes because the spaces are full of attendees for these meetings I have posted notes on vehicles on several occasions during their meetings in the past years, telling the owners that the next time they park illegally I am going to have their car towed because it was blocking my driveway. Additionally, I have picked up soda cans, cigarette butts, even beer bottles interesting since these are supposed to be sober living homes) and other trash all over the street and on the sidewalk after these "meeting nites ".The meetings break up around 9:00 pm but often the attendees stand around in the street until 10:00 p.m. or later talking loudly and disturbing my granddaughters who are asleep. 3. Residential requirements exemption request for more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. I oppose all (4) applications. I oppose any variance from the existing NBMC. As it is, there is no control over the massive influx of visitors to the residents of these homes, day and nite, visitors are constantly going back and forth from vehicles to these houses ... This means that in one of these 4 -5 bedroom homes, they could have as many as they want per bedroom .... all it says is that they are asking for more than two residents per bedroom, it could be 3, 4, or even 5 or more residents per bedroom and that would mean in one 5 bedroom home, they could stick up to 25 people or more in the housel If 1 or 2 visitors come daily per resident, there's another potentially 100 people per day coming into our neighborhood, plus the 100 or so living in the houses, that's a potential of 200 more people in our neighborhood ... and the potential public health and safety impact should be obvious and in my view is a blatant disregard for the rights of taxpaying residents by Yellowstone Inc., it's nothing personal to them, its just business! 4. Unlicensed adult alcohol andlor drug abuse facilities: I oppose all (4) applications. I oppose any applications for the approval of the above use permits for operation of unlicensed adult alcohol andlor drug abuse faciities. Right now ... these homes are unlicensed and therefore are not under any licensing regulations. They are exempt.They should not be exempt. They should apply for the proper licenses that all other facilities of this kind is required by law to have. Their impact as a business on our residential community is and has been devastating. 5. Public safety: I oppose all (4) applications. Last week, I think it was January 28th, when I came home, at about 9:50 pm. out complete tract was blocked off and could not get into Pegasus Street because the police officer told me that there "was a man with a gun" in our neighborhood. It took a half an hour before I was finally let into my own neighborhood to go to bed, due to some wacko who allegedly had a gun. We never had in the 30 years I have lived in my house, ever anything like this happen. I do not think that this was coincidental and I believe that sooner or later, there will be one of these residents from an unlicensed adult facility or a relative or acquaintance of one of them, who will successfully commit some serious crime against someone. Statistically, to have this many (4) homes in such a small concentrated area, it's no surprise that there has only been (1) situation like what happened on Wednesday. Fortunately, no one was hurt .... but I fear the next time and there most assuredly will be a next time, if these unlicensed homes are allowed to go unchecked, we may not be so lucky. 6. 100% cost recovery approval: I oppose all (4) applications. I oppose this request on the grounds that this is a residential neighborhood and not zoned for business_ 100% cost recovery translates to pay for services rendered at these homes... and thus Yellowstone is running (4) run for profit businesses out of our residential neighborhood. 7. Decline in property values: I oppose all (4) applications. Recently, we attempted to refinance our home and we were told that the appraised value of our home was affected by neighborhood properties. These values had fallen drastically. We believe the decline is values has been caused in great measure, by the operation of these (4) homes in our neighborhood. We believe that these home have had a negative impact on our property values and that we have suffered financial damages up to and including the inability to receive a YS 00759 fair appraisal of the value of our home due to the impact caused by the operation of the (4) Yellowstone properties as per above mentioned. In summary, I oppose all (4) applications for the YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. Sincerely, Chet P. Groskreutz 1551 Pegasus Street Newport Beach, Ca. Ph.(714) 545 -1832 Bus.:(310) 514 -1155 YS 00760 Brown, Janet From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 721 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: FW Yellowstone Group Homes, West Santa Ana Heights From: mike mcdonough [ maiito :mmcdonough0l@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:12 PM To: Kiff, Dave Subject: Yellowstone Group Homes, West Santa Ana Heights Mr. Kiff, I own 1562 Pegasus Street, Newport Beach. My wife and I are opposed to the granting of use permits for the Group homes in our neighborhood. We have resided at this location for 36 years, my four children grew up on this street, playing with the children of other long time residents. We have always felt safe in the past but now don't allow our grandchildren play in the front yard. On a daily basis we observe individuals wandering the neighborhood, often in groups of 3 or 4, with no apparent business or destination. Trash, bottles, and cigarette butts on the street and parkways has increased, parking of vehicles for several days at a time is common, and groups from meetings mill about talking Ioudly.All these issues cause a negative impact on the neighborhood. In the last 2 years my vehicle has be entered at least twice and property stolen. Are the thefts related? No way to know for sure. Four sober living homes are within 100 yards of my front door. I have been advised by a real estate agent that I must disclose, to prospective buyers, the location of Sober living Group homes close to my property. This has a negative impact on property values and if these properties are allowed to house, expand or increase the number of clients property values will continue to fall. Another consideration is the cost of city services to these locations. The NBFD has responded several times on medical aid calls to sober living homes in the neighborhood. These drug and alcohol related medical calls are time consuming, costly in relation to personnel and equipment, and disruptive to the community. I urge the City to deny the use permits for these property and return our neighborhood to a family oriented community. Thank you, Mike McDonough 1562 Pegasus Street Newport Beach, Ca YS 00761 Brown, Janet From: Brian Wecklich (bwecklich@hotmail.crom] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:04 AM To: Brian Wecklich; Brown, Janet Subject: Public hearing for use permits Hello I'm writing about the public hearing regarding the 4 rehab houses in the area of Pegasus St. Newport Beach. My house is located at 1552 Pegasus st. Newport Beach. I have not had any issues with the houses you are trying to address at this time. At the same time I do not want to see any Issues In the future. The issue that comes to attention is parking in our neighborhood. Where these houses do not contribute to the problem at present I want to make sure they do not in the future. There is a rehab house at the corner of Pegasus and Santa Ana Ave that is run by another group. I do not know what the name of that group is. They are a major problem as far as parking goes. There are so many vehicles from that house that they park in front of four or five houses up the street. They have inadequate parking for their operation. If these type houses are going to operate in our neighborhood I want to make sure they do not infringe on the others in the neighborhood. So I gues I am saying that some sort of parking regulation or enforcement should go along with the Use Permits they are requesting. Thank You Brian Wecklich 1552 Pegasus St Newport Beach, California 714 609 1441 BWecklich(@Live .com YS 00762 Brown, Janet From: Michelle Rosenthal [shoppingfenatic143@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 20094:45 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: PUBLIC HEARING 2120: USE PERMITS FOR REHAB HOUSES To City of Newport Beach: My name is Michelle Rosenthal. I am a homeowner living at 1661 Indus Street. My husband and I just moved to this neighborhood in November 2007. It was not until after we moved into our neighborhood and began asking questions that we learned of these "rehab businesses" in our area. It was rather disappointing to find this out and it wasn't something that was disclosed at the time we purchased our home. The scenario is quite simple. These are not homes... they are businesses: -Cars and people are constantly coming and going -These addicts wander from home to home without any regard for traffic -Their shuttle vans are parked all over the neighborhood -They host weekly meetings inviting more people like themselves into the neighborhood, parking all over the streets, smoking, and hanging in the streets -They take no pride in their homes and do not maintain them to the standards as a homeowner normally would -People congregate and smoke in their front yards -They generate massive amounts of trash with more people than a normal family living under one roof Bottom line, they depreciate the value of our neighborhood, I am not an addict, I am not in rehab, and do not wish to have these people living a few doors down from me. I paid FULL PRICE for my home, am a decent citizen and homeowner.... why do I have 4 homes being ran as businesses in my neighborhood, making a profit off people who are "recovering" from druglalcohol abuse? "Halfway house" is what they call it and half way is how they maintain it and portray the neighborhood. My husband and 1 want to live in a family environment. If we stepped up the prestige of our community and became part of the city of Newport Beach, clean house and get the riff -raff out. PULL THEIR PERMITS AND GET THEM OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLEASE. Thank you for your time and attention to my strong feelings on this issue YS 00763 Exhibit No. 7 Reasonable Accommodation Application dated August 22, 2008 YS 00764 DAVIS•RAYBURN A PROIESS10NA1 LAW COPPOAAIION August 22, 2008 RECENED BY VIA. FIRST CLASS MAIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ms. Janet Brown �G 2 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Notice of Incomplete Application: 1571 Pegasus Dear Ms. Brown: 8005 -003 As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Yellowstone" ). We are in receipt of the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Incomplete Application for the property located at 1571 Pegasus Street (the "Property "). In response to that notice, we provide herewith the following: 1. Application Form 100, Item 2, Property Owner Information: the requested information is enclosed herewith. 2. Item 3B: We have no information regarding other similar uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. 3. Item 4: We cross - reference and incorporate the other applications, which are being provided concurrently under separate cover. 4. Item 5: We have no information regarding other conditional uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. S. Item 6: A site plan is enclosed herewith. 6. Item 8B: Resident capacity is 16. Total capacity is 18. T Item 8C: A floor plan is enclosed herewith. 8. Item 8L: The acknowledgement re secondhand smoke is enclosed herewith. 9. Item l OD: Dr. Thames is the facility Director. 10. Form 200: A board resolution is enclosed herewith. 11. Form 850: Fire Marshall Clearance is enclosed herewith. 12. Request for reasonable accommodation: See the enclosed form. The one item that we have not included in this correspondence is the requested $2,200.00 fee. After reviewing the code, we have been unable to locate any discussion of such fee. We mention this not to question the City's authority to impose such a fee, but rather because we have not seen any statutory scheme that should provide for a hardship exception. We would respectfully request that the City furnish such authority, and also provide us with any exemption 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 - Fax: 949.376.3875 info @davisrayburnlaw.com www.davisrayburnlaw.com YS 00765 City of Newport Beach August 22, 2008 Page 2 application. Alternatively, we would request an extension of time to remit such fee so that we might be able to raise the funds necessary to accommodate the City's request. As a final note, it is worth mentioning that it is our understanding that the Property is still currently located in an unincorporated area of Orange County known as Santa Ana Heights, and that the Newport Beach.annex of the property is not yet complete. If this is true, then we would submit that the city of Newport Beach does not have jurisdiction over this property. Any response that the City can provide regarding this matter would be greatly appreciated. To the extent that our understanding is correct, we would ask that the City simply hold our application until such time as the annexation is complete, so that the parties are not required to reinitiate this process. Please accept our apologies for the delay in providing the enclosed information. As always, if you have any questions regarding these applications, please feel free to contact us. V tI y yours, ISAA R. ATY IRZ/jmk cc: Yellowstone (arm: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) YS 00766 RECORDING RBQUESIED BY: Financial Title Company ORDER NO.r 00115984 ESCROW NO.: 19042709 -EC AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Anna Made Thames 1571-Pegasus Drive Santa Ana, CA 92627 Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Tom Daly, Clerk- Recorder I1a1111 1111111MUM111116.00 20OM39235 03:46pm 08111106 108 200 002 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GRAFT DEED ( X ) The conveyance danges the manner In whkh title is held, grantor(s) and grantees) remain the same and r 1 ti ue to hold the sacra proportionate Interest. R & T § 11911. ( ) computed on full value of property conveyed, or ( ) computed on full value less hens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale (.J( _1.CIty_of5artta.Ana - __.._.. ._.. FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, recelpt of which is hereby acknowledged, Paul Etl itlgg a married man as his sole and separate property hereby GRANT(S) to , Paul Etheridge, a married man as his sole and separate property and Anna Marie Thames, an unmarried woman, as joint tenants the following described real property in the Crty of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of Califomla: Lot 8 of Tract No. 4307, in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book - 43- rpages 48 to- 20- ineluspre-ef- misameps in-01e- offfee -e"he Gousvty-Reeorder-efsak £ouMy- Dated: April 7, 2005 STATE OFCAUFQRNy._ -- -- COl1W1Y 0,04 on 6erore me Paul Ethedtlge PareenaAy appeared Pmsonally known to me pe yam, evidence) to be the person(s)-nhose name(ej sutwtnbe re altiMrri nt andBCfaSdWledged to ma-ttat e� "exNuted the same In er/uleU autihortmd a), and that by)Wher/th* s on Instrument or the entity upon beiwlf of wntess * Wd Of oMdal 5lynabrre o R T. T CLAUDE OWE� COMM. DE #lS22723 C� NOTARY PUBLIC- CAUFCRNIA "1 MAMIECOUNTY My Comm 61 oamm 20.2000 Grant Deed — Individual (290)10.04 MAIL TAX STATEMENIM AS DIRECTED ABOVE (ThuneefarammIndwaeri YS 00767 TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM: PAUL ETHEREDGE, OWNER RE: AUTHORIZATION THIS IS AN OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE APPLICATIONS FOR MY RESIDENCE AT 1571 PEGASUS , NEWPORT BEACH, CAL. IT IS CURRENTLY REGISTERED AS AN "OXFORD HOUSE" DATE AUTHORIZED: JUNE 30, 2008 YS 00768 st I -E P L A , YS 00769 Ij gip K�i�i �JN DtNING( w� G- r� i r ___ __ YS 00770 �.1 U B! R. RM. ►I i i YS 00771 6% om M 0 C) rn > YS 00772 CR 70 rVaM C. ?c MV " YS 00773 ❑ Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification (required) ❑ Orange County Sober Living Network (recommended) ❑ Other (please describe) L. SECONDHAND SMOKE LIMITATIONS NBMC §20.91A.050A directs that 'no staff, clients, guests, or any other uses of the facility may smoke h an area from which the secondhand smoke may be detected on any parcel otherthan the parcel upon which the facility is located. Check and sign here to acknowledge this requirement and your use's adherence to it iii I acknowledge that I will control secondhand smoke an my facility such that no secondhand smoke may be Id elected on any I other than the parcel upon which my facility is located. Signature: _J Date: / 9. APPLICANT091111t3ATIONS A. The 'owner of momd' of the properly or an auMorized agent must sign this Application. Signing the application under Sectlon -t0 means that the appkam certifies, under penally, of perjury, that the information provided within file A. ication and its attachments is titre and correct Per NBMC §20.90.030.C, false statements are grounds for denial or revocation. S. The Applicant acknowledges that he or she must comply with all other Federal. State, and local laws and regulations relating to this use. The Applicant understands that a violation of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations is grounds for revocation of the Permit The Applkrent understends and acknowledges that a is against CallIbmia law to provide hestrnent (as defined) in an unlicensed facility. C. If the City issues a Use Permit based on the Information provided in this Application, the Applicant's signature belowkertifies his or her agreement to comply, with the terms of the Use Permit. The Applicant understands and acknowledges that icon- cowfience with the terms of the Use Permit is grounds for revocation of the Permit Revocation of the Use Permit NBMC §20.98.040.E provides that the City can revoke a Use Permit if.. • The permit was issued under erroneous information or misrepresertatlon, or • The applicant made a false or misleading statement of materiel fact, or omitted a material fact; or • The oonditions of use or other regulations or laws have been violated: or • There has been a discontinuance of use for 180 days or more. 10. AUTHI2E•rt pT RBl f OF APPLICANT THE UNDERSIGNED ASSURES THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD HIS OR HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER ANY USE PERMIT ISSUED BASED ON THIS APPLICATION. A. If the apPlk wd is a sole proprietor, the application shall be signed by the proprietor. B. If the applicant is a partnership, the application shat be signed by each partner. C. if the applicant is a firm. associegon, oorporation, county. dly, public agency or other governmental entity. the application shall be signed by this chief ex imos Biker or the individual legally maponskle for representing the agency. 18 YS 00774 YELLOWSTONE BOARD RESOLUTION: THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT AGREEENT AND ENDORSEMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF YELLOWSTONE FOR THE FOLLOWING: DR. A.M. THAMES IS THE CEO OF THE BOARD AND AGREES TO REPRESENT YELLOWSTONE IN ALL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. SHE WILL SIGN ANY AND ALL FINAL AGREEMENTS. ATTORNEY ISAAC ZFATY, WILL PROVIDE LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN ALL MATTERS IN THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LEISHA MELLO, AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR YELLOWSTONE WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CPTY OF NEWPORT BEACH. THESE AGREEMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS ARE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS OF JULY 1, 2008- ARD LISA TUMAN YS 00775 Ic awrrl rc errlarcl.eevry ncL,lucsr 9161322491 ravom& aumkBwwnft NOT ASWWWYW IA - com 1.ORIGBUL A Fib CIEARANM a1'Abdnl D10g PLOgC80b AsE91CY - s RENSM 9. LMSAFM NAAW AM umams aid comficaum omch &CAFAMC VM AIA1Ass L ORNEROW CHANGE. I700ff 3tteat s.rawroe L CA. 95914 -4037 a enure aortae . - 7.OVER. TO NE COUP .WW BY ROWMIpls AUIIWRIff sN r 011jrmretar NAIW AND ADONSW S"�"T pvinC�t/ r,6 - -z- ion 2 FIRE CLEARANCE O@1® A Elms CONSTRUCUM C. FW MAR) O. 8PRIGQJ i8 E NOI F. 9PIEM rr11 AW Q OTMR YS 00776 AfW'�RT \e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r Supplemental Information for Reasonable Accommodation Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Califomia 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 To aid staff in determining that the necessary findings can be made in this particular case as set forth in Chapter 20.98 of the Municipal Code, please answer the following questions with regard to your request (Please attach on separate sheets, if necessary): Please see attached sheet Name of Applicant If provider of housing, name of facility, including legal name of corporation (Mailing Address of Applicant) (Telephone) (E -Mail address) (Subject Property Address) (City /State) (Fax number) (zip) Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 1. Is this application being submitted by a person with a disability, that person's representative, or, a developer or providgr of housing for individuals with a disability? 2. Does the applicant, or individual(s) on whose behalf the application is being made, have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? If so, please state the impairment(s) and provide documentation of such impairment(s). Paget or3 YS 00777 Application Number 3. From which specific Zoning Code provisions, policies or practices are you seeking an exception or modification? 4. Please explain why the specific exception or modification requested is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. S. Please explain why the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of the individual with a disability. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 6. Please explain how the individual with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation? Please provide documentation; if any, to support your explanation. 7. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary to make your facility economically viable in light of the relevant market and market participants. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 8. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary for your facility to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting taking into consideration the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. Page 2 of 3 YS 00778 Application Number 9. Please add any other information that may be helpful to the applicant to enable the City to determine whether the findings set forth in Chapter 20.98 can be made (Use additional pages if necessary.) Page 3 of 3 YS 00779 d e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Supplemental Information for Reasonable Accommodation Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 To aid staff in determining that the necessary findings can be made in this particular case as set forth in Chapter 20.98 of the Municipal Code, please answer the following questions with regard to your request (Please attach on separate sheets, if necessary): Please see attached sheet Name of Applicant If provider of housing, name of facility, including legal name of corporation (Mailing Address of Applicant) (City /State) (Zip) (Telephone) (Fax number) (E-Mail address) (Subject Property Address) Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 1. Is this application being submitted by a person with a disability, that person's representative, or. a developer or provider of housing for individuals vrith a disability? 2. Does the applicant, or individual(s) on whose behalf the application is being made, have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's maior life activities? If so, please state the impairment(s) and provide documentation of such impairment(s). Paget of3 YS 00780 Application Number 3. From which specific Zoning Code provisions, policies or practices are you seeking an exception or modification? 4. Please explain why the specific exception or modification requested is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. S. Please explain why the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of the individual with a disability. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 6. Please explain how the individual with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation? Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 7. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary to make your facility economically viable in light of the relevant market and market participants. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 8. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary for your facility to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting taking into consideration the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. Page z of YS 00781 Application Number 9. Please add any other information that may be helpful to the applicant to enable the City to determine whether the findings set forth in Chapter 20.98 can be made (Use additional pages if necessary.) Page 3 Gf YS 00782 1571 Pegasus Attachment Name of applicant: Yellowstone, Woman's First Step House, Inc., 1571 Pegasus St., Santa Ana Heights, CA 92701; Phone: 888.941.9048; Fax: 949.646,5296; APN: 119 -361- 14. 1. This application is provided by a provider of housing for individuals with a disability. 2. The individuals are alcoholics. 3. Single family residence to multi- family residence. 4. The applicant provides the residents of the Property with housing where same is otherwise unavailable to them. Most residents are long -term residents who are able to live with their disability, and in a sober environment, as a result of the provision of the facility by the applicant. The success of sober living homes in assisting these disabled individuals throughout the United States is well documented. Similar success has been realized at the Property addressed herein. A sample of the literature on sober living homes was attached to the original application. Without the home addressed in this application, the individuals who live at this home would not have access to sober living homes, and would not be able to afford to live in such a home in Orange County. Yellowstone provides this home to satisfy the otherwise unaddressed need by these disabled individuals for an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. There is no question that, with their current use, this property affirmatively enhances the lives of many individuals with disabilities. Importantly, the rent charged to these individuals simply covers Yellowstone's costs; no profit is realized. In fact, without charitable contributions, Yellowstone would operate at a loss. By no means is Yellowstone, or any individual involved with Yellowstone, a profiteer. Yellowstone simply makes available a sober living environment in an effort to help these disabled individuals, and with a view toward enhancing the community. To the extent that Yellowstone is forced to remove its operations from this property, it will suffer extreme economic hardship. Moreover, with any prospective closure of the property as a sober living home, the individuals with disabilities who live in the home will be without accommodation. Yellowstone is compliant with all of the requirements in the City of Newport Beach's Good Neighbor Principles, and is tenacious in ensuring that all residents at the Property strictly observe these requirements. Approval of this application would not alter the nature of the municipal code or impose any financial or administrative burden on the City. This property has been operating under these same general guidelines for years without imposing any burden upon the County or City. The residential character of the neighborhoods in which this property is located will not be altered in any way with the approval of this application. In fact, there is no non - residential use at the property. Moreover, there is no campus established through the grant of this application, Residents this property are not allowed at any of other property operated by Yellowston, and there are no functions that include all residents. Yellowstone has never been cited by any municipality at this property for any of the complaints set forth specifically in Ordinance 2008 -5, I YS 00783 Page 4, Paragraph 13. No health, safety or physical damage issues are presented with granting of these applications. 5. See response to No. 4. 6. See response to No. 4. 7. See response to No. 4. The applicant is not a developer. The applicant has operated at the Property for years and currently can afford this property. Due to the economic decline, and specifically as it pertains to residential housing, the forced sale of this property would cause an extreme economic hardship. 8. See responses to No. 4 and 7. 9. The applicant is a long- standing tenant in the community, and has had a presence in Santa Ana Heights for years. The applicant prides itself in acting as a good neighbor. As noted above, the applicant has an extremely high success rate in assisting disabled individuals live and integrate into Orange County. The applicant affirmatively enhances the lives of its residents. Any abatement of this facility would be harmful to the community. 2 YS 00784 Exhibit No. 8 Applicant's Supportive Documentation YS 00785 DAVIS•ZFATY . reeeessionu i.w cox.oewian January 29, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 I.. by ?l*irw, ',: i:l141EW FEB 0 2 309 } ..te 4' Re: Request for Reasonable Accommodation: 1571 Pegasus Dear Ms. Brown: Z175.1 As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ("Yellowstone,). I recently spoke with Cathy Walcott of the City Attorney's office. She informed me of a few ambiguities in our Request for Reasonable Accommodation Worksheet for the 1571 Pegasus property (the "Property ") The purpose of this letter is to clarify these ambiguities. clients have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one Activities: or more of such Person's major life activities? What are those impairments? The residents of the Property are recovering from alcohol addiction. They manifest physical and mental symptoms which have prevented them from engaging in at least one of their major life activities. Although the residents work, they are recovering from a physical dependence on alcohol. Mentally, the residents are recovering from the inability to make healthy choices like the average person in the general population regarding their consumption of alcohol. Their impairments affect their ability to think, concentrate, and interact with others as compared to the ability of the average person in the general population to do the same. Thus, their disability is substantially limiting. Enclosed with this letter is a Declaration under penalty of perjury from the applicant, Honey Thames, manager of the Property, that every resident in the Property has physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of the residents' major life activities. Cathy Walcott mentioned that this would be acceptable given that the privacy concerns of the residents limit our ability to provide medical records or signatures of the residents. 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 -949.376.2828 • Fax 949.376.3875 info@dzattorneys.com www.dzattorneys.com YS 00786 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Question 10) Parking: Describe the on -site parking resources and the staff and visitor parking plans. Parking on the Property is reserved for the manager and assistant manager, thus the maximum number of cars on the Property at any one time will be two. Residents are not permitted to park on the Property. Visitors are not permitted on the Property therefore there are no visitor parking issues. (Question 11 O eration of Vehicles: Describe client's availability to drive and operate a vehicle while residing at facility. The residents do not use cars. Instead, they rely on public transportation to and from the Property. (Question 12) Transportation: Does the facility provide transportation services? If yes, please describe the frequency, duration, and schedule of services and where the vehicles are stored Though the home generally does not provide transportation services, the home does provide some basic transportation to the nearby treatment facility and to St. John church. Both locations are within ten minutes of the home. There is a morning pickup at 8 a.m. and an evening drop off at 4 p.m. This is the only transportation provided. The vans that transport the residents are not parked on site. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. ( Ouestion 16) Interaction Within the Property How do the clients interact with each other within the unit? Is there joint use of common areas? Do clients share household activities and responsibilities? Will delivery trucks be provided at the facility? The Property provides the residents with a network of support to encourage recovery from the symptoms of alcoholism. The residents reside separately at the Property. There is a common area however each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, there are no delivery vehicles going to and from the Property. Finally, although Yellowstone owns four such homes in the Newport Beach area, there is no interaction between the homes. In other words, residents of the Property do not meet with the residents of other Yellowstone properties for dinners or other gatherings. Each home has its own residents and the residents of one home never interact with residents of a different home. YS 00787 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Ouestion 19) Necessity of the Requested Accommodation: Please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary. Yellowstone hereby requests that a Reasonable Accommodation be made to Ordinance 2008 -5 such that Yellowstone is treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Reasonable Accommodation is necessary because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility. Instead, the Property more accurately fits the definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030. Residents are the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit. Like a Single Housekeeping Unit, there is a common area and each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager. In conformity with our request for a Reasonable Accommodation, we would like to request that we get an exemption from Section 20.91A. 050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which states that there shall be no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. I hope that this clarifies any ambiguity with respect to our previous request for a Reasonable Accommodation. Please let me know if our responses need to be supplemented further and as always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation � G✓ti� NICOLE COHRS cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) YS 00788 JRN- za -zwa WU ub:JI rn DRYIS KRYM ape PRA Ml. a4a 3ro �Wb r. tea s oe L Dr. Anna Maric Thames, hereby declare as follows: 1. The matters staged beroin are larown to me perwm* end ifcall d upon to testify, I eaild and would emnpetently tadfy ttarreto as follows. 2. All individuals raiding in the property lo4ated at 1571 Pegasus in Newport 8eadt am reeovenug from alcohol addiction. I Although the residents no reeovesiug, they momfcat physical and m.w Sympttens of their eddictiam wbich substonfla y limit one or more of the residents mtpor Ufa activities I docket under penalty of perjury trader the laws of the State ofCalifaaie that the foregoing is tens and correct g•d Executed this 28th day of Jam my 2009, at Newport Beach, C&Ufomia. 96ZS9b96bS 0 0 MM Mil I auoISmoTtaA YS 00789 DAVIS•ZFATY + !fClE a::ONI.I ln.. ,J +f pe �fii\ January 29, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Ire � •4 Re: Afdavits for Fee Waiver Reasonable Accommodation Dear Janet: Enclosed are the signed Affidavits of Disability Related Financial Hardship. There is a separate Affidavit for each of the four Yellowstone properties. As we discussed, our responses to the questions relating to the income of the residents pre and post - disability are based on the average resident for each of the homes. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATTYY ^ ; 4� ' vr�" NICOLE COHRS Enclosure SRO 610adwav Street, Suite 301 - Lagui,a 13e:ac`Ii, CA 9?651 � 9A 9.376.2828 . Fax 949.376.3875 nordzasrorneys.coni dysaorne•as.c,,„ YS 00790 Pegasus, Newport Beach I, Anna Marie Thames, declare: I am an authorized representative of disabled individuals; 2. 1 am submitting information specific to the financial status of a group of disabled individuals who reside in a household; 3. I am submitting the financial information herein voluntarily because I have requested a reasonable accommodation from the City of Newport Beach, which I believe is necessary because of financial hardship to the disabled individuals I represent; 4. Severe financial constraints which arose as a direct result of the disabled individuals I represent prevent them from complying with one or more provision or provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures generally applicable to the type of dwelling in which disabled persons I represent reside or wish to reside; 5. Such provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures, if applied to the dwelling in which the disabled individuals I represent reside, will deprive disabled individuals of the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice; 6. In order to afford the disabled individuals the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice, the permanent or temporary waiver of a fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Council Policy or customary procedure is necessary; The requested waiving of such fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement is necessary because of financial limitations which are the direct result of the disability of the individuals that I represent; -I - AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 00791 8. If the disabled individual on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested was able to work prior to becoming disabled, please provide information on such individual's pre- and post disability income: A. On the following dates, the disability of the persons I represent, rendered such persons severely limited in their ability to work or entirely unable to work: The individuals residing in the home were all affected by their disability at different times. During addiction, residents are unable to work. In sober living, however, all residents must find a job. B. Prior to the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual household income from all sources was approximately $50,000 (on average). C. After the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual income from all sources was approximately $20,000 (on average). Typically, household income is cut approximately in half because of alcoholism. As a result of alcoholism, the residents of the home have been rendered financially disabled. In sober living, the residents must find a job, however, the jobs the residents seeks are near minimum wage ($8.00 per hour). 9. If the disabled individuals on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested were not employed prior to becoming disabled, please state why any financial limitations which render the disabled individuals unable to meet the financial requirements of complying with the Newport Beach Municipal Code are a direct result of such their disability. All residents were employed in some manner prior to their addiction. 10. Please provide any additional information you feel would enable City staff and/or hearing officers to determine whether disability- related financial hardship requires an exception form the application of the City's Municipal Code, Council Policies, or usual and customary procedures in order to afford the disabled individuals an opportunity to reside in a dwelling. The residents cannot afford their own places to live. Their income is based on near minimum wage hourly rates. Thus, if forced to live elsewhere they could not afford to pay rent, a security deposit for an apartment, food, or utilities. Yellowstone provides a fresh start for recovering alcoholics to begin their life with a clean slate. Our fees our low and donors in the community provide individual scholarships for residents who qualify. -2- AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 00792 ..r. ..w.. .r.n wrwr us r • rrgww.. �T. sa.n asw �r .rw ww .. .. Yeihtws6mcisaaaggaermtim.. Ydtas�mi�sd mscans:l�etar :oaea�eineanesfia ireddontstoco wits ems mad Ydbwsmw = ekes no p u t fiam dw teaidema 'its orgadmdon is nm. by a group of i*6lunfearm -4td are avi?i7?af tad to tYRtinft.the m4dejon back to the mmmuitity atm and sobet:a; tdc Fajiug.citizens w� Ca6 a1t�x alcoioUcs. As a re vA 'YeilowswWa smaii iudp tcaanot accommodate the X2.200 +alpiis�titm fea. Yellows�e'- rsgsctfii}l5' �geests that tle Ci:;' w'srs a ttas.,..arla ac-omm,..:-'-ueat� axe I declmatrt rpepalty ofpequry tinder the htws eftlffi Stale ofCavwlia dot tie foregoing is true acres ew ram Emoted an Us-29i° &Yuframy.23,iexvwpwBcec%Ca ma+s. YS 00793 COST ANALYSIS OF OUR HOMES IN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS IN GENERAL, OUR WEEKLY FEES ARE BASED ON A SLIDING SCALE FROM $50.00 TO $160 PER WEEK OUR MORTGAGES AVERAGE $4500 PER MONTH A MINIMUM OF 1S RESIDENTS IS NEEDED TO PAY ALL THE EXPENSES FOR EACH HOUSE, INCLUDING LIGHTS, GAS, WATER AND TRASH. RENTS: SLIDING SCALE: $50.00 TO $160.00 PER WEEK AVERAGE: RESIDENTS: 16 AVERAGE RENT $100 MONTHLY AVERAGE: $6400 EXPENSES: FOR EACH HOUSE AVERAGE UTILITIES FOOD: MORTGAGES: AVERAGE INCOME $ 800 LIGHTS, GAS, WATER, PHONE $ 900 REC:'tsr -� ay �?!:',j13�IING ;et'tU2'PIVtC�i,7 $4500 MONTHLY AVERAGE $6200 EXPENSES y'lr YS 00794 Drug Rehab Cost: Low cost subtance abuse treatment center: Yellowstone Recovery SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT CENTER Call Today (888) 941 -9048 - After Hours (949) 678 -9000 A 3dP6NLY SUCCESst'UL AND LOW COST DRUB .AND ALCOHOL RECCWERY I`ROCRAIii fGR WOMEN .AND RIEN Home InPalient Programs LEGAL PROBLEMS? WE CAN HELPI OutPahent Programs ---- -- 1/CENSED AND CER7YPMD a THE STATE Do CAIIFORMA Delos Services Pfograma Available Our Nome. W Our slax mission Statement sch•gws contsm Us O YSS ReCo Yellovvs:one Recovery Firanc -.al Requir, =, ants • 90 Daya: $7,500 Residential Treatment is Sober Liviny_57$0.$IS U=k . Outpatient: Sliding Scale 540 • $80 Some scholarships available after 30 days .I.; "j ..,s Iaviude Cnort,_Iatson I:' ,,,'p Recovmyr, rbjl:s:ainp Art "'herapy Life SI (raining • Jnb ioI,IcI ant Program :;e„r „f �rtay ii I -t.!, zlatl+ rrllt �, �t "r Soot �- ''D el'Camping Ilk 2112109 10:07 PM httP:Ilw .yelimstonerecoverY.comi cost- fees - drugrehab- alcoholtreatmentcenter- californla.htni Page 1 of I YS 00795 Exhibit No. 9 Applicant's E -mail dated January 28, 2009 YS 00796 Brown, Janet From: Nicole Cohrs (nc@dzattomeys.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 200912:11 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: Yellowstone — all hearings in one day Thank goodness! I was worried about it since the deadline was yesterday. And yes, it is amazing when these things suddenly pop into my head at night. Here are the answers to your questions: 1. The number of beds in each home is as follows: 1561 Indus =12 1621 Indus =18 Redlands =17 Pegasus =18 1 apologize for the discrepancy. 2. The number of beds in each home exceeds the number permitted by the Code: 1561 Indus (Code = I 1 max) Actual =12 1621 Indus (Code = 13 max) Actual = 18 Redlands (Code = 13 max) Actual =17 Pegasus (Code = 13 max) Actual — 18 As you can see, we plan to exceed the number specified by the Code in all four homes. The Code states that a Hearing Officer may set different occupancy limits based on structure characteristics, traffic and parking impacts, and the health, safety, and welfare of the persons residing In the facility and neighborhood. All four of the homes have fire clearance. Obtaining fire clearance takes into account the above- listed factors which are to be considered by the Hearing Officer in increasing the number of beds. According to the City Fire Dept., the homes all meet the standards for fire clearance. We think that this is more than sufficient. Let me know if you need more detail. 3. 1 spoke to Honey Thames and the architect this morning. I am waiting for a response from her as to when the revised plans will be sent to you. I know that she already contacted the architect about this last week. I will let you know as soon as I hear from her Thanks. Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS 2FATY APC Attomeys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: nc( dzattomeys.com Web: www.dzattome s.com YS 00797 This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and is protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, that you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached. °* DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828, Fax 949.376.3875 From: Brown, Janet [maitto:JBrown @clty,newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:06 AM To: Nicole Cohrs Subject: RE: Yellowstone -- all hearings in one day Importance: High It arrived in yesterday's mail. Thank you. (Amazing what we think of at night, hm.) 1 am meeting with the contract planners who are working on the staff reports this morning at 10:00 a.m., and I do have a few other questions for you. 1. In the January 21 It letter, we requested clarification as to number of resident beds in each dwelling, as there was a discrepancy on the floor plans vs. the written summary on the plans. When may we expect this information? 2. If the number of beds exceeds the number allowed by Code, as outlined in the 1121 letter, a justification statement must be submitted. Has that been prepared? 3. When might we expect revised site plans providing the additional information requested in the 1/21 letter? The information requested in the January 215r letter is necessary for us to fully analyze the applications, and prepare the staff report. Given that we are running up against the deadline for obtaining a use permit, we need this information as soon as possible. Thank you. Janet Johnson Brown Associate Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 jbrown@city.newport-beach.ca.us _..... From: Nicole Cohrs [madto nc @dzattorneys com] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8,46 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: Yellowstone -- all hearings in one day Hi Janet, I was thinking about this last night... I just wanted to make sure that you got my letter expressing that we want all 3 issues to be heard on February Q. YS 00798 Did you get that letter? I sent it last week. Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: ncOdzattomevs.com Web: www.dzattomeys.com This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and is protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, dissemination, distribubon or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, that you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached.'"` DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828, Fax 949.376.3875 YS 00799 Exhibit No. 10 Applicant's Additional Correspondence dated February 13, 2009 YS 00800 Wolcott, Cathy From: Nicole Cohrs [nc @daattorneys.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:55 PM To: Wolcott, Cathy Cc: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: Reasonable accommodation #2 - necessity clarification Yes Cathy, all of that is correct. Thank you. I am concerned by my conversation with you this afternoon. If you know of any other inconsistencies please let me know. I don't want to present an unclear report, i want to make sure that Yellowstone's answers are clear. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at all. 1 assure you that I will get the appropriate responses for you ASAP, I am in the office until 3 today, at which point I will be heading to the hearing scheduled at 4pm. If you need to talk to me at any other time my cell is Thanks again. Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: nc(ladzaftorneys.com Web: www.dzattorneys.com k, zom m m10ti m, 111.111 dill( any 'Iteximients, s con idon iaf :aim is pro ecte Ly lviv lege :1 �i;u n r kho a i, r ded facipont ,,ny ost -, ass' ^minaton . istrilxibon o: nop}Iny of his oominanication is strictly prchUted. If'y6u have reouAve r U1, _., xinrnnicaCicll in Horror plemsn ifrlr e datoly II(Afy III(', nemter by telephone or email, and peunancnt+y r3. icie Al r i -ICs, elect on or ufhr;r, prat you may have. The fuegoin, applies ever l If this noCico IS e:)lboddc{f in 8 fIIP,SSFI C that IS f'JrNat(1f :! DAVIS Zf ATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828, Fax 949.376.3875 From: Wolcott, Cathy [ matlto: CWolcott @clty.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:20 PM To: Nicole Cohrs Cc: Brown, Janet Subject: Reasonable accommodation #2 - necessity clarification Hi Nicole, As we discussed on the phone this afternoon, I am writing to obtain further clarification of Yellowstone Recovery's request for reasonable accommodation. Specifically, Yeltowstone has requested an exemption from the standards of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.91A.050, which states that there shall be no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident in residential care facilities granted a use permit under NBMC Section 20.91A.040. However, there has been no formal explanation of the necessity of this exemption. In order to complete staffs analysis, by phone I requested that Yellowstone furnish the City with their explanation of why this accommodation is necessary to afford a disabled individual or individuals the opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling of their choice. YS 00801 You supplied explanations for the necessity of this accommodation for current residents, and prospective residents 1) Current residents at Yellowstone facilities in excess of numbers allowed under NBMC 20.91A.050 — You stated that current residents in excess of numbers specified in the NBMC's operating standards would be displaced if a use permit were granted for a lesser amount of residents. Because of financial constraints related to the disability of the residents, you stated they would be unable to afford rent in another dwelling and would have nowhere to live, and therefore an exemption from the occupancy limits of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 is necessary. 2) Prospective residents at Yellowstone facilities in excess of numbers allowed under NBMC 20.91A.050 — You stated that prospective residents of Yellowstone facilities have financial constraints related to their disability, and would be unable to afford a dwelling if the Yellowstone facility is unavailable to them because of the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050. Therefore, an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 is necessary to provide housing to these prospective residents as well. In addition, you°clarified two inconsistencies among the various Yellowstone submissions. You stated that in May, 2008, when the original Yellowstone use permit and reasonable accommodation applications were submitted, four cars were permitted at 1561 Indus. There has been a change of policy at Yellowstone since that date, and at this time no resident is permitted use personal vehicles, to have personal vehicles onsite, or park personal vehicles in the neighborhood (with the exception of the two resident managers per site, who are allowed vehicles which are parked onsite.) You also stated, consistent with the applicant's previous submissions, that there are no meetings held onsite at any of the Yellowstone facilities in Newport Beach. All meetings are held at Yellowstone's Costa Mesa facility, and letters from Yellowstone alumnae that reference visiting Yellowstone are referring to the meetings at the Costa Mesa facility. Please confirm the above, and feel free to provide further clarification if needed Thank you, Catherine Wolcott Deputy City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 cwolcott cg_.newpori_be @ph c_a.us Phone(949)644 -3131 Facsimile (949)644 -3139 YS 00802 Brown, Janet From: Nicole Cohrs [nc@dzattorneys.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:40 AM To: Brown, Janet; Wolcott, Cathy Subject: Clarification Correspondence Attachments: D00001.PDF Hello Cathy and Janet, I was recently informed tha the City is concerned about a few inconsistencies between Yellowstone's early submittals to the City (back in May 2008) and our more recently submittals. The attached letter will hopefully clarify some of the City's concems. A hard copy is being sent in the mail today, however I wanted you to have a PDF version so that you could include this information in your reports. Regards, Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: nc(&dzattorneys.com Web: www.dzattorneys.com This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and is protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, that you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached. "' DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828, Fax 949.376.3875 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: xerox@dzattorneys.com [mailto:xerox @dzattorneys.com) Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:31 AM To: Nicole Cohrs Subject: Scan from a Xerox WorkCentre YS 00803 DAVIS•ZFATY ♦ rear[ssiee�i eww cocrouo:o. February 13, 2009 VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 PIANNIN 1 RfPAWMW FEB }; DT O[AGH Re: Yellowstone Use Permit Applications and Reasonable Accommodation Requests Dear Ms. Wolcott and Ms. Brown: It has recently come to my attention there may be discrepancies between materials Yellowstone submitted with respect to its use permit applications and requests for reasonable accommodation for each of the four Yellowstone properties. Although this firm and the representatives of Yellowstone have made our best efforts to be clear and consistent, the materials submitted to the City in May 2008 reflect some inaccurate information. The purpose of this correspondence is to clarify these inconsistencies. Group Meetings Neither group treatment meetings nor individual treatment meetings occur on any of the four Yellowstone properties. All treatment is performed off site in Costa Mesa. The only meetings that occur at each of the four homes are weekly house meetings with the residents to discuss potential new residents and other administrative matters. Visitors Visitation with family and friends Mesa facility located at 154 East Bay Street. occurs on Sundays at Yellowstone's Costa 580 Broadwav Street, Suite 301 Laguna Reach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 Fax 949.:376.3875 Y$ 00804 info @dzattorneys.com www,dzattorneys.com Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown February 13, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Contractual Arrangements with Residents and Resident Selection In May 2008, Yellowstone submitted a request for reasonable accommodation that each of the four homes be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. It was recently brought to my attention that Yellowstone's response to Question 16, regarding resident interaction, needs clarification. Yellowstone does not have a contractual relationship with the residents of its properties. With respect to the residents of the four Yellowstone homes in Santa Ana Heights, Yellowstone's position is correctly stated in a letter to the City dated January 29, 2009: "the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager." More specifically, Yellowstone's Board of Directors does not determine who resides in each of the four homes. New residents are introduced and approved by the current residents during house meetings or they are not accepted. Many of Yellowstone's residents transition to sober living directly from treatment. Other residents learn about Yellowstone from other recovery centers or by community referral. Parking In May 2008, when the original Yellowstone use permit and reasonable accommodation applications were submitted to the City, Yellowstone requested that four cars be permitted to park at the 1561 Indus property. There is adequate room for four cars to park at 1561 Indus, however only the two resident managers for the home park on site. With respect to the three other Yellowstone properties, it has consistently been Yellowstone's position that only the two resident managers of the homes are allowed to park vehicles on site. I hope that this clarifies the ambiguities in our previous submissions to the City. As always, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation NICOLE COHRS, ESQ. YS 00805 Exhibit No. 11 Additional Letters of Opposition Received After February 13, 2009 YS 00806 Brown, Janet From: Jeff Dangl [Jeff. Dangl@advisys.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 200910:23 AM To: DKiff@city- newport- beach.ca.us; JBrown @city- newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Yellowstone Homes (No more!) Greetings Janet Brown and Dave Kiff, I am a resident of the Santa Ana Heights area west of Irvine Ave, which was recently annexed into the city of Newport Beach. My wife and I (and 3 children) have lived in the area since 1995. We are active in the community and enjoy the bond and ,unity we have with other families who also live in this area. Aside from the noise we get from planes taking off out of John Wayne airport, I feel we have a great and safe environment for our family to live, grow and take part in. Becoming a part of Newport Beach has also affected us positively as we have received "here's what's up" newsletters from the city, additional police patrols, code enforcement, etc. My concern right now deals with the number of permits that have been issued for the use of halfway houses (and alcohol/ drug rehabilitation homes) by Yellowstone Homes. While I do not necessarily have anything against these residents and believe that they should be afforded the same rights to a comfortable life I enjoy, l feel that these residents do not necessarily have the same level concern for the welfare and wellbeing of the neighborhood as do families who are permanent residents. Overthe_past several years, as homes have been sold, it seems like more and more are being purchased by Yellowstone Homes rather than to families because Yellowstone Homes is able to offer more money than families knowing that they will receive funding and assistance from the state. I believe that the number of these halfway houses has now adversely affected our heighborhood as we have seen a decrease in house upkeep and an increase in parked cars along our streets. I am not sure how many Yellowstone Homes are in my neighborhood, but it seems like the ration of their homes to homes owned by families is out of skew. Please do not approve any more permits to Yellowstone Homes. Thanks for your attention to this matter /Jeff Dangl 20081 Kline Drive, Newport Beach Advisys, Inc. (formerly known as Ketttey) is a leading financial services technology company providing solutions to 65,000 Professional advisors nationwide. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Advisys, Inc. (formerly known as Ketttey) is a leading financial services technology company providing solutions to 65,000 professional advisors nationwide. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential andlor privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. YS 00807 Brown, Janet From: George Robertson (g robertsonCroadrunner.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:12 AM To: Brown,Janet Cc: patrbrtson@aol.com Subject: Public comments re: Yellowstone First Step House, Inc, Dear Ms. Brown, Please enter these comments to the public record regarding the application of Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. to operate four unlicensed adult residential care facilities within the West Santa Ana Heights neighborhood., My primary concern are the inaccuracies contained in the city staff reports that I reviewed. However, please note that due to the lateness of the city's posting of these reports (Tuesday, February 17, 2009 after 4:30 pm) and the fact that two of the links to the reports did not work until sometime late Wednesday, February 18, 2009,1 was only able to review two reports completely and one cursorily. Besides the inconsistencies contained in reports, that city staff has pointed out, I have a few comments regarding the accuracy of the reports. However, the scope of the comments below are not complete as my review of the staff reports was hurried and incomplete due to the reasons cited above. Initial comments are: (1) Parks a. The staff report on 1561 Indus Street (and by extension all other reports) states that there are no public parks located within the neighborhood. This is in fact a wrong statement. There is a neighborhood park located at the terminus of Orchard Drive, that was in place well before Yellowstone began operations in this neighborhood. This park is located within about 750 feet of the proposed facility at 20172 Redlands Drive. I would ask that the city review its decisions on all of the applications using this information. (2) House size and Number of bed rooms a. The staff reports states square footage of each house as one of the reasons to allow an exemption in the maximum number of residents allowed. However, the stated square footage, which I have to I assume was provided by the applicant, were considerably over exaggerated. I have the original builder's materials on the "Sherwood Estates" development and, as built, house sizes were either 2,650 sq. ft. or 2,585 sq. ft. The implications is that for the houses at 1621 Indus Street and 1571 Pegasus Street, the application is off by almost 25 %;1 have to assume that this percentage also applies to the proposed house at 1621 Indus.. For the house located at 20172 Redlands Drive the excess square footage is almost 15%. b. None of these houses, as built were larger than five bedrooms, yet two of the applications state that they have six bedrooms. I know that the house located at 20172 Redlands had some internal modifications done, at the time without a county building permit, but this house as built only had four bedrooms. c. The staff reports contain a stipulation on having the city's Fire Marshall review, which I support. In addition I would ask that the city also send a building inspector to verify (a) square footage; (b) number of bedrooms; and (c) whether any structural modifications, such as the addition of new bedrooms, are legal additions. (3) "Characteristics of Use /Treatment a. The report states that the applicant does not allow residents on any other Yellowstone property. However, this statement is negated by personal observations of residents from at least three of the four residences co- mingling at each other's residences. I have seen women from the Pegasus house walk up to Redlands, and on one occasion observed several women leave the Redlands house early in the morning before 7 a.m., ; implication is that they spent the night. I often see residences from the I YS 00808 Redlands house walk up to the house at 1621 Indus. Additionally on at least two occasions I have seen large groups walk up to the house on 1621 Indus mid -week, mid - morning. The assumption being made is that there are large group functions (treatments ?) being held onsite. (4) Transportation and Parking a. Despite all of the inconsistencies contained in the staff report table, my biggest concern are the assertions that (a) transportation is not provided; and (b) that residents to not allowed to have cars. My personnel observations are: (a) that Yellowstone operates two large capacity vans on a routine basis. Over the years I have seen these vans pick up and drop off residents at both the men's and women's residences, in particular 1561 Indus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive. These vans (one of which has NANPOOL" stenciled on the windows) have lately been parked each night in the neighborhood, typically alongside 20172 Redlands Drive near the intersection of Redlands Drive and Pegasus Street. Additionally I have observed private vehicles pick -up and drop off multiple residents at 201.72 Redlands. These facts on the ground seem to contradict statements made by the applicant b. Manger parking. 1 have never seen any cars parked inside the garage of any of the four residences. Two cars I commonly see parked in the driveway are at 1561. One of these leaves each day before 7 am. So I am not sure that this is a managers vehicle or a residents vehicle who is leaving for work. (5) Smoking a. The staff report states that no complaints have been made regarding second hand smoke and that smoking is limited to the backyard patios. Again I have personally observed individuals (residents or guests I can't say) smoke in the front yards. Additionally, a walk along these houses will show cigarette butts in the gutters and driveways of these houses; I recently observed this at 1621 Indus on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 and at 20172 Redlands on Thursday, February 19, 2009. b. I was completely unaware until I read the staff report that there was a restriction on second hand smoke until I read the staff report. I would suggest that the lack of complaints cited in the staff report is an artifact of the neighbors not knowing that this was a legitimate issue that could be raised to the city s attention. I have personally detected second hand smoke outside the property, so I believe that the findings made regarding Section 20.91A.060A is wrong. (6) Approval selection process a. After reading the three staff reports, I was not able to determine why one facility was selected for approval over another. A comparison table would have been informative. In fact, the house at 20172 Redlands, which city staff has recommended be approved, is probably one of the more problematic houses with the most issues, vanpools, private car use, smoking, noise, litter, excessive trash. How did this house get selected over another? Availability of street parking? In closing 1 request that the city deny all of these application due to the inconsistencies and contradictions contained in the applications, as reflected in the staff report. I lieu of that decision, I request that, prior to any approvals being granted by the city, that staff verify the issues contained in #2 above, be more transparent on the decision process ( #6), provide sufficient time for the public to review all relevant documents, and get more public input before any final decisions are made. Additionally, I suggest to city staff that if the applicant is unaware of the facts -on -the ground (e.g., vanpools, residents co- mingling, use of private cars) that contradict statements made by the applicant as reflected in the staff report, that there is a disconnect between the on -site residence managers and the applicant; another issue for the city to clarify and rectify prior to any approvals. Finally, for any approvals granted, I ask that the city add a condition that the applicant provide all of the neighbors with a common set of "house" rules that is updated as changes are made. Finally I ask that the city provide the neighbors a method of reporting violations of these rules and a description of the city's actions would be under such instances. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Regards, George and Patricia Robertson YS 00809 From: berry walker [bwarch.biz @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 1:51 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: Yellowstone Sue Permits Attachments: Yellowstone Use Permits.rtf Janet - Attached letter responding to the Use Permit Hearing notice They did not have a meeting at the Redlands house last week and have not for about 3 weeks, but when they do, the meetings seem to start about 6:00 and breakup in about 90 mins. Not real sure because we did not specifically watch for them, but they have held meetings there that seemed to draw about a dozen cars. Thanks Barry YS 00810 _...:_•BY City of Newport Beach PIANNIN(Z? 10FPARTMEM February 17, 2009 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA. FEB 17 2009 Attn: Janet Brown CITY OF ;. �.A'PORT BEACH This letter is in response to the Use Permit Hearing notification for the Group Residential Use Permits that have been applied for by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. for 1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive. My primary objection to these use permit requests is the substantial increase in density, that this represents for this neighborhood and the associated problems that come with a higher density usage than was originally planned for. The use permits request permission to raise the density from the original design of a probable max of 6 per household to 18 (plus supervision ?) per household. Although this request is for four houses, the neighborhood has an additional rehab house (and possibly two as a previous rehab house has recently changed hands and the new owner has not moved in yet), all within a 350' radius. This means that 6 houses out of 36 are involved with the rehab industry and that the possible population of the area increases from 216 to 282, a 30% increase in density. The reality is that this is an older neighborhood (most are empty nest at this point), and the average is probably more likely 2.5 — 3.0 people per household. That makes the number more like 108 residents and with the addition of the rehab houses, the population increases to 216, a 100% increase in the population density in this specific case. The increase in density has many environmental effects on the neighborhood. When these homes were planned, the target household was for a family unit of 5 -6 with 5 bedrooms and 3 baths (the typical floor plan, encompassing about 2400 square feet) and a two car garage. The water supply and sanitary sewer were probably sized for the number of uses that 6 people would generate. As you can imagine, the systems will be over -used with a household of 18 people and we can anticipate system problems with an over - stressed older infrastructure. Parking will become a worse problem with the addition of more cars since the houses only have 2 off - street parking spaces at most (the garages are filled with "stuff' and not used for parking). When the house at 20172 has meetings (previously every Tuesday at about 6:00 pm.) both sides of two streets were lined with cars, passage was more difficult. Waste generation per house is substantially increased with several of the houses putting out 4 overflowing 90 gal. trash cans each week — with 18 people, I can only imagine the trash generation and disposal situation —12 trash cans? Smoking, though not regulated as an outside activity, still creates its own problems as we are constantly picking up cigarette butts from our yards, driveways and gutters. Late night / early morning traffic as group home residents who do not drive are picked up and dropped off or just sitting in the car in the street as people talk — not a big deal with regular density, but with a doubling of the density, it just happens more often and becomes an irritant. Lastly, when Yellowstone moved in, they did nothing to start a dialogue, like "here is the phone number of our customer service if there is problem we should address" which did nothing to get Yellowstone off to a good start and so we have no reason to believe they will be a good neighbor if these use permits are approved. Sincerely, Barry Walker 1571 Indus Street YS 00811 February 16, 2009 'SWED 10 PlAWNGOggloto Newport Beach Planning Department FEB 1" INIA Newport Beach City Hall ��� ���� 3300 Newport Blvd. O Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 �� Ni► Regarding: Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. application lfor tGroup Home Use permits to operate commercial business in a residential neighborhood. Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. has been operating the above business for several years before West Santa Ana Heights was annexed into Newport Beach. To my knowledge these are unlicensed businesses and as such have changed the complexion and nature of our community. Yellowstone wishes to increase the number of clients and staff at these facilities. Based on the figures given by Yellowstone, 12 clients at 1561 Indus Street, 18 clients each at 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street, and 20172 Redlands Drive this is a total of 66 paying customers at any given time. The application does not include live -on site staff, which I assume would be required to maintain the enterprise. Assuming staff would not share a room with clients the dorm style rooms would have to sleep 4 and each of the 3 bathrooms per property would have to accommodate between 5 and 6 individuals. With the rapid turnover this represents several hundred clients per year. Basically, these are transient hotels without the controls placed on other similar businesses. These homes were not designed or intended for this requested use. If Yellowstone is granted the requested use permits and allowed to operate these businesses in this neighborhood, is the Planning Department willing to grant all other requests to operate business in our residential neighborhood? Newport Beach does not permit a homeowner to conduct weekly garage sale on their property because it is a business. Could another investment group purchase a home and set up a massage therapy parlor? I doubt it. Zoning is intended to maintain balance and community structure. Commercial, industrial, and residential neighborhoods are all important to maintain a strong city. Disregarding the zoning plans of a community and combining the different uses will impact property values, destroy the nature of family neighborhoods, and set a precedence that could negatively impact all concerned. For these reasons it is requested the applications related to these residences, to be operated as for profit businesses, be denied. Respectfully Submi+, Michael McDonough Connie McDonough 1562 Pegasus Street (Newport Beach) Santa Ana Heights, Ca. 92707 YS 00812 jl ry t 14 l I I ic6 1 �i 3S � 11 i a rAl N Wp% s t 14 l I I ic6 �i h i t 4h I h Vry B Vr YS 00814 ti i Co d .. .... .. .......................... YS 00814 I I % I I Wt 14 Air. al 44, tr 0 i 1. 0 YS 00817 0 „i TO: Janet Johnson Brown, Planner City of Newport Beach CA FROM: Judy Hoyer Walker 1571 Indus St Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 DATE: FEB. 17, 2009 Al. t�Fr a 11 817108 SUBJECT: Comments on the City's Consideration of Special Use Permits for the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. I am a property owner at the above listed address and have resided at this property for over 20 years. The potential of ever increasing population density to my neighborhood is most disturbing. In the posted application for Use Permits by Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. I was overwhelmed by the proposed occupancy levels of these 4 properties. Three of the properties were listed as requesting occupancy for 16 "clients" and the fourth was listed for 12 "clients ". Many flags went up when I read this. 1) No mention is made of what additional "non - client° or supervisor personnel will also be residing in these dwellings. Personally I would not want to have these "clients" unsupervised. In my experience with these facilities thus far even with supervision the "client" behavior and activity is not within what I think or as residential, good neighbor, behavior. I would ask that the city have the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. group provide specific staffing supervisory information as part of this permit review. And that residence is informed of what those staffing proposals are. 2) Even considering the occupancy density without knowing what additional headcount staff/supervisory personnel may add, I am very concerned. I will acknowledge that the dwellings in this neighborhood are large. Built in the early 60's they were intended for families (as stated in marketing materials from the original sale of the development). At five bedrooms one could see that a family unit of 6 would have been comfortable, and that the dwelling could potentially have had 10 individuals. But in reality the general large family unit in the 60's would have been in the 5 to 7 range. You can do some mathematical weighting and estimate that the original neighborhood occupancy was 5.2 persons per dwelling. So if we look at the requested occupancy density we're looking at dwellings have 2.3 to 3.1 times the occupancy of a family neighborhood! And this is without staff/supervisor numbers being included. Given the fact that 40 years later the average Orange YS 00820 County nuclear family is lower than 40 years ago any comparison we do to the weighted occupancy number from 1960's is even greater. 3) So now we're looking at a somewhat physically closed neighborhood (due to street layouts being closed to through traffic) we're looking at an effect of adding the equivalent of 8 additional houses! a. 4 dwellings contributing an excess of 40+ individuals: 60 requested clients in 4 dwellings, less the expected occupancy of 21, based on weighted occupancy rate. 40 excess divided by the weighted occupancy of 5.2 is — 8 additional dwellings. b. There just isn't physical room for 8 additional dwellings. And there is another factor that the proposed increased density to the neighborhood is not evenly distributed throughout the existing homes. There is a concentration to about half of the neighborhood. Is it reasonable that a burden such as this be so unevenly distributed? 4) Such very large increase on occupancy to individual properties gives me concern on many topics a. Infrastructure ......... specifically sewers and storm drains. The sewer and storm drain systems for this neighborhood were designed 40+ years ago. In my 20+ years of residency backups have been an issue. 1 suppose that I am overly sensitive due to the fact that my property is the lowest point for a portion of this development. We have experienced backups into our home due to the failure of the street system. Increasing occupancy density 3x is a frightening proposal. What has/will the city do to help mitigate the impact for an occupancy rate well over the imagined occupancy level at time of systems design? b. Traffic and parking ......... While the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. group may tell the city that "clients" are not allowed-to have vehicles during residency I would ask if they intend to make it a condition of employment for staff/supervisors to not have vehicles? Additionally I would ask if the city has reviewed what policies are in place now for "clients ". During the months that the facility next to my home has been in operation I have had "clients" park in front of my property rather than in the empty driveway of the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc.4acility. When I asked if the vehicle could be moved from in front of my property to somewhere within the parameters of the property of the facility, I was told "it isn't that simple". So what are the guidelines that this group is giving that dissuades its client's from using the facilities that it owns? Why is burden being shifted to the neighborhood? And parking is not the only concern. With so many residences the general level of vehicles coming and going is higher now than prior to the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. purchasing the properties. can specifically speak to the property next to me. There are vehicles coming and going, doing drop offs, or "visitor" standing or parking, and the YS 00821 duration of this activity goes from very early in the morning (5 am) to very late at night (past 11 pm and sometimes well past midnight). And then there are the weekly evening meetings that are held at some of these facilities. While occasionally residences of the neighborhood may have a gathering, party or club meeting, these are not routine. The parking impact to the surrounding street of the meeting house is significant c. Trash and refuse ........... I must question the city as to what would be considered reasonable for containment of refuse from one 3000 sq. ft dwelling that houses 16+ individuals? I haven't done the math as to how many trash receptacles will physically fit along the curb of these lots, but I invite the city to make such calculations. I would venture to say that the number would not be sufficient to manage the number of proposed "clients" and staff /supervisors. While the sheer number of receptacles is only a physical issue on trash collection day, my concern arises from the condition of the receptacles between collections. To date the receptacles placed at the curb at the addresses covered by this application have been in overflowing conditions. Items and plastic bags are readily exposed to the exterior of the container. It is important to keep in mind the physical location of this neighborhood. The boundaries of this area on two sides have large open unpopulated space (two golf courses), and part of the area is bounded by a drainage channel. All of these areas are habitats to wildlife. Having uncontained refuse is an invitation to unwanted wildlife which is known to be attracted by.rubbish, such as possums and raccoons. Even vector control directs full containment of refuse as a necessary deterrent to raccoon infestation. I ask that the city look hard at this component of allowing such dense occupancy of a dwelling, and ask that Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. provide detailed policies and procedures for dealing with this aspect of their facilities. have outlined those areas that can be spoken of in specific terms. My last area and one of the largest is how all of these factors compound together to change the character of what I purchased into... ...a residential neighborhood. I purchased in the area because of the size of the property. And I fully expected to have families that were larger in number than if the dwellings were smaller. What is concerning to me is the change in the feel of the area. The `clients" of Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. are not in the property expecting to become a part of this community. They are temporary. Their attitude and behavior reflects this on an ongoing basis. Since Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. opened business in the property next to mine I now have more general debris in my yard; cellophane wrappers, plastic cup lids, cigarette butts. This is a change since the change of ownership. And it isn't just the difference of having a homeowner next door vs. a business. The former owner rented rooms, but she held her renters to strict rules and those included being respectful of the property and neighborhood. The property on my other boundary likewise is a K3 YS 00822 rental with young adult children who have normal active lives. They too respect the neighborhood and treat it as if they were owners. I find it is the "small' things that give a good indication of how a neighbor respects the others they are sharing the space with. I am always amazed that the facility next to me feels it totally acceptable to place their trash cans, not in front of their property, but instead in front of the property next to them. While they may try and cover this. with some statement that it is less maneuvering the trash truck needs to make,1hey seem to overtook the fact that they are blocking a fire hydrant. This is a safety issue for the residences of the street. Parking and standing vehicles across a neighbors drive. It's not an inconvenience to them just for the people who consider this as their home. When asked to do what is polite or common sense the first response I generally get is something to the effect that the action I am asking to change isn't bothering me! These temporary residents are giving proclamations as to what is and isn't bothersome to me. If it didn't bother me I wouldn't mention it. An individual who has a vested interest in selecting a neighborhood as a place of residence generally understands that their personal actions have an impact on others. This attitude and understanding has never been exhibited in any of my encounters with these facilities and "clients ". The constant coming and going is tiresome. Ifs additional foot traffic as well as vehicular traffic. It has become extremely difficult to "know" what is normal for our area and what isn't. All the people and vehicles coming and going at all hours is un- nerving......... are they part of the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. group or are they individuals who are doing reconnaissance for potential crimes. The very secluded feel of the area is part of what is desirable, but it comes with a price of being more vigilant of what is normal or expected for the neighborhood. Likewise it is difficult to evaluate if the individual would be a potential "client' and expected to have access to the property. As example the facility next to me is reportedly a women's house, yet it isn't unusual for there to be several men wandering in and out of the facility. If I didn't have prior knowledge of the business being run in the building I would easily think that there was a potential brothel being run out of that address. I feel an added burden by sheer volume of all this activity to help insure that my family and property are safe. In closing l would comment that I feel a change in the atmosphere of the neighborhood since Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. has purchased properties in our development. The feel of a residential neighborhood is diminished. Today there is a much stronger feel of an apartment complex or even a hotel /motel complex. I understand that the disabilities act provides protection from discrimination for these individuals. However as a property owner whose home this area is, I expect that the city will not transfer burden to me. I believe that facilities could be run in a residential neighborhood, but careful attention to detail is paramount. The facilities must be closely supervised 24/7. 4 YS 00823 Policies and procedures to ensure the temporary residents exhibit a demeanor that is respectful of the permanent residence should be strongly considered. Density of inhabitants should not be substantially different from the surrounding non - facility dwellings. Impact to infrastructure of the neighborhood has to be carefully studied. While much of what I would like to see put in place falls to the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. as proprietors of the business, I also feel that it is the responsibility of the city to include provisions for review, monitoring, and reporting, on a routine basis, those conditions and stipulations established and defined by any use permit that might be granted. Thank you for the consideration of my concerns. YS 00824 February 14, 2009 Newport Beach Planning Department City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: UP2008 -034, RA2009 -004 UP 2008 -035, RA 2009 -005 UP 2008 -036, RA2009 -006 UP 2008 -037, RA2009 -007 1592 Pegasus Street Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 MONO t FEB 17 10 " C1, OF 0?0%BEACH Objections are hereby made to the above referenced requests for approval of use and continued use of certain residential properties as designated and requested in those same applications. I am a resident of the community identified as Santa Ana Heights and a neighbor living adjacent to and in close proximity to the four single family residences that, if I understand correctly, are being used for commercial purposes inconsistent with current zoning and permitted uses and, furthermore, incompatible with the character of the neighborhood. With respect to the assertion contained in the notice that the activities are categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities), objection is made on two grounds. Firstly, the activities are not existing at the time of the lead agency's determination of the applicability of the categorical exemption in that the proposed activities will not "involve negligible or no expansion of the use existing at the time the exemption is granted." In the discussion of the application of section 13501 (CCR Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 19), it cannot be that the legislature intended to sanction unpermitted and unapproved uses as those uses for which a categorical exemption would apply. The uses contemplated under the Act as being existing and for which the exemption would apply are those that are consistent with the existing zoning and other land use regulations in effect and applicable to the property. YS 00825 Newport Beach Planning Department February 14, 2009 Page 2 The homes in the community are single - family dwellings, zoned for noncommercial uses. Without discussing what would constitute a "single family," the proposed uses, including providing residences for up to 18 transient adults, is hardly consistent with any definition of single family residence. In that same vein, the use contemplated, without giving distinction to the nature of the occupancy, is plainly commercial and not residential. That is, the purpose of operating the facilities, from the perspective of the owner, is the accumulation of rental, whether from the individual residents or some other source or form. That makes the use commercial and not residential. By way of example, if any resident of the community chose to lift up their garage door and sell antiques on the premises on more occasions than would be considered incidental, this City would assuredly require a business license and would likely object to the use to the extent such commercial activities were deemed incompatible with existing residential zoning. The dwellings for which the exemptions and permits are being sought are not apartment complexes. They are not retail establishments. They are not hotels. Yet, what is proposed would create those very sorts of commercial establishments. Secondly, the Class 1 exemption is applicable only to the extent there is no possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment. (Section 15300) In claiming an exemption, what the applicants overlook is the fact that there has never been an evaluation of the burden on the environment created by the very conditions they now seek to have approved. To the extent the proposed use has not previously been evaluated under CEQA and approved, consideration has not been given to the burden on infrastructure and other aspects of the environment that would result from the dramatic increase in occupancy density proposed under the applications. Admittedly without any census data to support the underlying assertion, it would not be unreasonable to assume that a "typical" residence of the size contained within the community for which the applications have been submitted (4-5 bedrooms, 2 -3 baths) would be occupied by 3 -6 people. The applicants propose a density 4 to 6 times that number, ranging from 12 individuals (UP2008 -34) to as many as 18. YS 00826 Newport Beach Planning Department February 14, 2009 Page 3 Such an increase in density will assuredly have a substantial impact on traffic, parking, noise, and use of emergency services including police and fire. While it may, be suggested that the residents will not impact parking because of the prohibition against residents having cars, residents of the community can assuredly speak to a contrary condition. It is frequently observed that cars are parked on adjoining streets and the occupants then walk to the residences. Moreover, there are frequent occasions when cars line most ofhe streets, even spilling over into the surrounding areas on Santa Ana. Without any means of enforcing these self - described and self — imposed conditions, it is not proper for the City to rely on the assertion that there are no parking or traffic impacts in considering the application. Moreover, the City itself is in the best position to know of and, in consideration of County statistics applicable to the area pre - annexation, to evaluate the number of emergency service calls to the applicant residences as compared to the entirety of the remainder of the community. This factor is of considerable concern inasmuch as the community was only recently annexed to Newport Beach. As such, the City has likely not undertaken to fully evaluate the required level of emergency services necessary to support the community, without regard to the proposed density of activity proposed under the applications. Adding at least four residences with as many as 18 individuals in three and 12 individuals in the fourth dwelling will dramatically increase the burden placed upon the City to support the community. I wish to make clear, in submitting the foregoing objections, that I am not making a specific objection to any particular use or person. Rather, the objections are based on the fact, as acknowledged in the notice, that the proposed use is dramatically out of line with existing lawfully permitted and zoned uses for every other residence in the community. Suggesting that the proposed uses will have no impact on the environment ignores the very reasons behind passage of the Environmental Quality Act and does a disservice both to this community and the City to whom community residents look for support. Responsible land use planning takes into consideration the overall impacts of all development. Allowing uses that dramatically exceed zoned or otherwise permitted uses undermines the nature of planning. Claiming an exemption based on prior, unpermitted and unauthorized use merely encourages fiuther disregard YS 00827 Newport Beach Planning Department February 14, 2009 Page 4 for land use restrictions, all of which are intended not to preclude reasonable uses Of property but to harmonize conflicting interests and avoid unsustainable conditions. The proposed uses for the four residences invite the very sort of excessive uses and burdens for which CEQA review was designed. On the basis of the foregoing, I submit that the applications should be denied in their present form and the applicants required to submit the projects to a full CEQA review prior to the resubmission of any application for the proposed uses. Stephen Abraham YS 00828 +�ACtl14i!yr :^ G5'�q�ly'+1RFIVI' JAMES C. HARVEY DIANE E. HARVEY FM 18 �9 1651 Indus Street Newport Beach, CA 92707�4F( TSE Telephone (714) 979 -7031 1`•p�� Email: harvey5@roadrunner.corn February 18, 2009 Thomas W. Allen Hearing Officer CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Opposition to Applications of Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. for Use Permits (1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street, & 20172 Redlands Drive) We cannot be present for the public hearing on February 20, 2009 but intend this letter to register our opposition to the granting of a Use Permit for any of the four (4) facilities currently operated by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. in the former West Santa Ana Heights. We ask that you either: (1) deny all four applications, or (2) impose strict conditions on Yellowstone's operations to conform to the City's Municipal Code. We bought a home in this neighborhood in 1998 because it was family- oriented with many small children. In the years since then, we believe that the residential character of the neighborhood has been substantially altered by the presence of Yellowstone's facilities. Those facilities have grown from the original one (at 1571 Pegasus Street) to the present four (4), all concentrated within a very small geographic area. We are concerned about noise, trash, traffic, and transitory persons in our neighborhood, all caused by the over concentration of Yellowstone's facilities. With two children in elementary school, we are particularly concerned by Yellowstone's facility for men at 20172 Redlands Drive, as our children have been approached by some of the transitory men living in that facility. We have no idea if the men living there are parolees, probationers, or registered sex offenders, and along with other families in the neighborhood we fear allowing our children to walk past that facility unescorted. That facility is also right across the street from the neighborhood school bus stop, where children congregate every morning. YS 00829 We urge you to deny Yellowstone's applications because they cannot satisfy the requirements of NBMC §20.91A.060: Yellowstone's use does not conform to all applicable provisions of NBMC §20.91A.050. A. We believe that Yellowstone is violating NBMC §20.91A.050(C)(1) and State law by conducting unlicensed treatment services at 1621 Indus Street. On several occasions we have observed a line of men walk from the Yellowstone facility at 20172 Redlands Drive, enter the adjacent Yellowstone facility for women at 1621 Indus Street, and stay there for more than an hour. We believe that this indicates the facility is providing on -site services, for which a State license is required. B. We believe that Yellowstone has far more than two residents per bedroom, in violation of NBMC §20.91A.050(C)(2). These ate single - family homes with four or five bedrooms, and at least one of the bedrooms is quite small. Yellowstone may argue that each facility has more than five bedrooms, but if so that is based on conversion of living, family, or dining rooms into "bedrooms." 2. Yellowstone's use does not meet the standards of NBMC §20.91A.060. A. The properties are not physically suited to accommodate the proposed use. NBMC §20.91A.060(C). 18 adults living in one single-family home (as Yellowstone proposes) is ridiculous and cannot be justified by anything other than a desire to maximize profits. One need only drive through our neighborhood on trash day to see the impact: while each family home has one or two cans out front, each Yellowstone facility has four, five, or sometimes six cans, all filled to overflowing with trash. No doubt each facility's use of electricity, water, and gas is also out of proportion for a single - family home. B. The use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. NBMC §20.91 A.060(D). In particular, the residential character of the neighborhood has been changed by over concentration of such facilities. In generally limiting the use to one per block, NBMC §20.91A.060(D)(3) directs the Hearing Officer to apply average or median block lengths, which are listed as 711 feet and 617 feet, respectively. We submit that by those measures our neighborhood already has more than one use per block. Using GoogleEarth, we calculate that the distance between 1621 Indus Street and 1561 Indus Street is less than 350 feet (they are only four doors apart on the same street). The distance between 1621 Indus Street and 20172 Redlands Street is less than 400 feet. C. Contrary to Yellowstone's past assertion that its residents do not park cars in our neighborhood, we have observed that many of their residents actually do park cars on our streets, especially along Pegasus Street adjacent to the 1571 Pegasus Street facility and on Redlands Drive adjacent to the 20172 Redlands Drive facility. In addition, a large passenger van associated with Yellowstone is often parked at night across the street from the 20172 Redlands Drive facility. We also observe numerous cars entering and leaving our neighborhood containing visitors to facility residents. These activities generate traffic out of proportion to the number of facilities. NBMC §20.91A.060(E). YS 00830 3. If any use is tremmitted, strict conditions should be imposed If you determine, despite the opposition of the neighboring homeowners, that Yellowstone should be granted any form of approval, we urge you to impose Conditions of Approval similar to those imposed on other applicants such as Balboa Horizons and Ocean Recovery: A. Due to over concentration in our neighborhood, at most only two of Yellowstone's applications should be granted. The other two facilities should be abated. B. No more than two (2) clients should be allowed per bedroom, and "bedroom" should be limited to those rooms designed for that purpose, not converted living, dining, or family rooms. C. No probationers, parolees, or registered sex offenders should be allowed to occupy any of the facilities at any time. We suggest that you impose a condition requiring Yellowstone to obtain from a resident, prior to placement, a signed statement that he or she has never been convicted of a sex offense against a minor. D. No more than one automobile per facility may be parked on neighborhood streets, and no commercial vehicles or passenger vans may remain overnight. 4. Yell tone's r uests for asonable accommodation sho be denied. We presume that Yellowstone's request for reasonable accommodations involves the number of occupants allowed in its facilities, and we assume that Yellowstone claims that all its residents are persons with a "disability". But Yellowstone's request has nothing to do with "enhancing the quality of life" of any disabled person (NBMC §20.98.025(C)(1)) or granting disabled persons "equal opportunity" (NBMC §20.98.025(C)(2)). Yellowstone simply wants to pack as many people as possible into each facility to generate maximum profits. Yellowstone cannot satisfy the requirements of NBMC §20.98.025, and per subsection (B), all the requirements must be met. Granting Yellowstone's application would undermine the City's zoning program and would continue to detract from the residential character of our neighborhood. Thank you for considering our objections and those of our neighbors. Very Truly Yours, James C. Harvey Diane E. Harvey cc: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager YS 00831 20172 REDLANDS: STAFF REPORT (w/ Exhibits 1 -11) FOR FEBRUARY 20, 2009 HEARING - 1v.doc YS 00832 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT February 20, 2009 Agenda Item #4 TO: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer SUBJECT: Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive • Use Permit No. 2008 -037 • Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -07 APPLICANT: Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. Isaac R. Zfaty, Attorney CONTACT: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3236, 'ibrown0citv.newoort- beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY This is a use permit application to allow the continued operation of an existing unlicensed adult residential care facility providing a sober living environment with a total occupancy of 18 persons. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. A reasonable accommodation application has also been submitted requesting: The residents of the facility be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NMBC); 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which restricts occupancy to two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; and 3. An exemption from NBMC Section 20.90.030 that states applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, are accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. YS 00833 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer conduct a public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, the City of Newport Beach and its legal counsel, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends the Bearing Officer: 1. Approve the use permit application with a reduction in the number of beds within the facility based on the findings discussed in this report, and provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution of approval of Use Permit No. 2008 -037. 2. Deny the request for reasonable accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a single housekeeping unit subject to the findings discussed in this staff report. 3. If a use permit is granted for this facility, staff recommends that the requested accommodation for an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 be granted as to the current residents. As to future residents of this facility, staff recommends continuance to a date certain pending receipt of additional financial information. 4. Staff recommends a continuance to a date certain for the request for reasonable accommodation for an exemption of the application filing fee requirement pending receipt of additional financial information. YS 00834 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 3 YS 00835 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 4 Project Setting The subject property is located in Santa Ana Heights southeast of the intersection of Santa Ana Avenue and Bristol Street. The property is developed with a two -story single - family residential structure that was originally constructed in 1961, and is located on the northeast comer of Redlands Drive and Pegasus Street. The neighborhood consists of single - family tract homes that were constructed at approximately the same time as the subject dwelling. The subject property is one of four sober living houses in the immediate neighborhood operated by Yellowstone. Zoning and General Plan The General Plan land use designation for the project site is RS -D (Single -Unit Detached). Project site zoning on the Official Zoning Map is "SP -7" (Specific Plan District No. 7: Santa Ana Heights). The Santa Ana Heights Spec Plan is incorporated into the Zoning Code in its entirety (Ch. 20.44). Thus, in the zoning exhibit to the right Santa Ana Heights Speck Plan zoning designations are depicted as faded to denote zoning categories are not base Zoning Code categories, but instead are unique to the Specific Plan. ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS. WITHIN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (SUBJECT PROPERTY'13- "RSF ". RESIDENTIAL - $tNGL9.F 'k b ' RF tl ft_; yL2a W ;W�iv PF I i'far) R1Wb (1040) b (co SWU !aus) RMF The project site is zoned Residential - Single Family in the Specific Plan. The principal land use allowed in this district is single - family residential. The status of group homes as a permitted use under Ordinance 2008 -05 is addressed later in this report. Project Description The subject application is a request for approval of a Group Residential Use Permit to allow the continued operation of an existing adult residential sober living facility for up to 18 resident clients, males only. The facility is currently operated by Yellowstone as an YS 00836 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 5 "unlicensed 7 and more" facility. The applicant has also submitted an application for Reasonable Accommodation from the City's zoning and land use regulations, pursuant to the provisions of Section 20.98 of the NBMC. Specifically, the applicant requests that the residents of the facility be treated as a single housekeeping unit as that term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030; that the facility be allowed an occupancy per bedroom that is more than provided for in NBMC Section 20.91A.050; and that the application fees be waived due to disability- related financial hardship. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.98.015, if the project for which a request for reasonable accommodation is made required another discretionary permit, in this case a use permit, the applicant may request that the Hearing Officer hear the request for a reasonable accommodation at the same time as the other discretionary permit or approval. The applicant has made such a request, and the following report provides the analyses for a Group Residential Use Permit and Reasonable Accommodation. BACKGROUND Please see the staff report for 1561 Indus for additional background on this facility and the others operated by Yellowstone. This staff report for 20172 Redlands includes only those issues and aspects of the application that am materially different from the 1561 Indus application. DISCUSSION Description of Project Operations The Yellowstone facility located at 20172 Redlands Drive, is also known as "Newport House ", and has been in operation since 2005 prior to annexation to the City. The property is owned in fee by Dr. Anna Marie Thames, CEO of Yellowstone. This residential care facility is a sober living home for up to 18 men with past alcohol and drug dependence. This residential care facility operates in a two-story single - family dwelling containing six bedrooms, which are occupied as follows: Current Uses at 20172 Redlands Drive Bedrooms Beds/ Room Beds/ Unit First Floor 2 2/1 room 3/1 room 5 Second Floor 4 611 rooms 3/1 rooms 2/1 room 1/1 room 12 YS 00837 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 6 As indicated, staff has made numerous effor provide them an opportunity to correct inconsistent, and to process the applications in s to communicate with the applicant to he applications, which are internally order to deem them complete. The following matrix has been prepared to illustrate the project operations as represented in the applications initially submitted and in subsequent submittals: Project Operation Application and Description Total Bedrooms = 6 Total Beds = 17 (RA application states 18 clients, floor tans show 17 beds Total Parking Spaces = 4 2 -car garage & 2 driveway spaces) As indicated, staff has made numerous effor provide them an opportunity to correct inconsistent, and to process the applications in s to communicate with the applicant to he applications, which are internally order to deem them complete. The following matrix has been prepared to illustrate the project operations as represented in the applications initially submitted and in subsequent submittals: Project Operation Application and Description Date of Reasonable Use Permit Submittal Accommodation Facility Users and Staffing 5 -20-08 . 18 persons including 2 staff members • 18 persons including 2 staff members • Two staff members. No • House manager and other staff or caretakers that assistant manager visit on a daily or weekly basis 1128/09 E -mail from applicant's attorney provided clarification of 17 bed occupancy for this facility Exhibit 9). Duration of Stay 5 -20-08 6 months 1 180 days (Staff was informed verbally that typical stay is 6 months, but some clients have stayed fora year or more. Characteristics of Use/Treatment 5 -20 -08 • Sober living home; no medical services provided No alcohol and/or drug- recovery or treatment • No counseling treatment services provided on-site. provided • Residents at this property not allowed on any other properties & no function that includes all residents. 8 -22 -08 Residents at this property not allowed on any other Yellowstone properties & there are no functions that include all residents. 12 -23 08 Residents prohibited from YS 00838 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 7 Project Operation Application and Description Date of Reasonable Use Permit Submittal Accommodation being in house between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., and must return to house by 4 p.m. Transportation and 5 -20-08 • Transportation not • Residents residing on- Parking provided. site not allowed to use • 2 -car garage and personal vehicles, and/or driveway available for staff keep on -site or nearby and visitor parking. • Clients use bus, carpools, • Residents do not have bikes autos and rely on public • Staff vehicles parked in transportation or carpooling. driveway. • Tenants not allowed to have vehicles and are not allowed to be parked or utilized at the property 12 -23-08 Per correspondence from attorney: Room for 4 cars to park on site. Residents not permitted to park there; only house manager and assistant manager permitted to park on -site. • Basic transportation provided to treatment facility and St. John Church • Transport van kept in other city when not in use 1-29 -09 Per correspondence from attorney: • Parking on -site reserved for manager and assistant manager, thus max. number of cars at any time is two. • Residents not permitted to park on property. • Visitors not permitted on property; therefore, no visitor parking issues. • Residents do not use cars. Instead, they rely on public transportation to and from property. • Home does not generally provide transportation services; some basic transport to treatment facility and St. John Church. Morning pick up at 8 a.m. and evening drop off at 4 p.m. License/Permit 5 -20 -08 • No license. • No license. History (i.e. ADP, • Voluntary certification w/ • Orange County Sober DSS) and/or Orange County Sober Living Coalition Certification Livina Coalition 8 -22 -08 Authorization to make application w/ statement the property is currently licensed with State of California, Alcohol and Dru Pr rams submitted YS 00839 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 8 Project Operation Application and Description Date of Reasonable Use Permit Submittal Accommodation 12 -23 -08 Per correspondence from attorney: • No ADP license • Certified as a member of Orange County Sober Living Coalition Date use as residential care facility an: 2005 Curfew and Quiet Hours 5 -20 -08 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily Delivery Information 5 -20 -08 There are no delivery vehicles required as the Trash disposal 1 day/week, no other delivery services Drope provided. Smoking 5 -20-08 Acknowledged requirement 8-22-08 to control secondhand smoke. (Smoking not permitted in house; restricted to backyard) Fire Marshal Review The Group Residential Use Permit Application also requires the submittal of a fire clearance from the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. The applicant provided a copy of a Fire and Life Safety Inspection Notice signed by Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) May 25, 2005, prior to annexation to the City of Newport Beach with the May 20, 2008, supplemental submittal. The property is now under the authority of the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. On December 23, 2008, and again on January 29, 2009, the applicant submitted an analysis prepared by an architect that was submitted to the Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal has requested clarification on a number of items (Exhibit 5), but to date a fire clearance has not been issued. If this use permit is granted, condition of approval will be included stating that the use must comply with the requirements of the California Building Code and obtain a fire clearance from the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. Public Inout The same public input applies here as does the public input provided and described in the discussion for 1561 Indus. (Exhibits 6 and 11) YS 00840 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 9 ANALYSIS In addition to the statements in the 1561 Indus staff report, four critical areas are worthy of analysis here: Concentration of Uses About 73 group residential beds are in this neighborhood: As noted earlier in this report, Yellowstone operates three other sober living facilities in the neighborhood (distances below measured in a straight line from the nearest property line): • 1561 Indus Street (12 residents), about 312 feet away; YS 00841 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 10 1621 Indus Street (17 residents), about 353 feet away; • 1571 Pegasus Street (18 residents), about 233 feet away; and in addition 1501 Pegasus Street (8 female residents) is about 593 feet away and is operated by another provider (Lynn House). In adopting Ordinance No. 2008 -05 the City made a number of findings including Finding No. 16 which states that "community residences should be scattered throughout residential districts rather than being concentrated on any single block or in any single neighborhood." The ordinance defines a "block" as "an area of land that is bounded on all sides by streets ... or by streets and a cul-de -sac or by any other form of termination of the street" In the case. of the subject property, it is in a neighborhood that is not characterized by a typical grid street pattern; but instead has meandering streets and cut -de -sacs. The ordinance recognizes that there are instances when the lack of a straight -line grid pattern street will make it difficult to exactly define a block; and also recognizes that blocks through out the City are not always uniform in size. In those instances, Code Section 20.91A.060.D.3 provides that the Hearing Officer may apply the American Planning Association (APA) standard of 617 feet (median) or 711 feet (average) in determining the block size and configuration. Given the close proximity of this facility to the other similar uses located within the same neighborhood, it is critical to define "block" in this particular case. If the APA standard is used, and the median block length of 617 feet applied, the five houses would all fall within a single block area. Therefore, the subject property is located within a block and in close proximity to the other residential care facility uses with a combined total of 73 residents in the neighborhood. In staffs opinion, the presence of five residential care facilities in very close proximity to each other (100 to 400 feet) is an overconcentration; and two of the four Yellowstone homes should be abated. Parking The applicant has stated that currently all residents are not permitted to have vehicles, but it is the intent to allow the manager and assistant manger to have cars, which will be parked either on the driveway or in the garage. The NBMC requires off- street parking and loading spaces for a residential care facility at a ratio of one space for every three beds. The applicant is requesting that the facility be allowed 18 beds, resulting in a parking requirement of six off - street spaces. As noted above, the property has four spaces (two in an enclosed garage, and two in the driveway). If the property were restricted to the Code standard resulting in 13 beds, five parking spaces would be required. Also, if the facility were limited to 15 beds, five parking spaces would continue to be required due to the fact that under the NBMC parking provisions, the requirement is rounded up (13 +3 =4.33; 15 +3 =5). Therefore, the property, if operated either at the Code standard or with two additional residents over the Code standard, would be deficient by one off -street parking space. YS 00842 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 11 The property and the adjacent residential lots are approximately 70 feet in width, which allows parking of two to three cars on the street in front of each residence. In addition, the subject property is a comer lot, with a side street frontage of approximately 105 feet. The result is that there is room directly adjacent to the subject property to allow the parking of 8 to 9 cars on Redlands Drive in front of the house and on Pegasus Street on the side of the dwelling. Given the four off- street parking spaces, in staffs opinion, increasing the number of residents by two for a total of 15 residents, can be supported with respect to parking, provided that the following conditions apply: • All assembly uses are strictly prohibited; • Only the manager and assistant manager shall be permitted to have vehicles; • Visitors and guests be instructed to utilize the driveway for parking; • The garage shall be kept clear and available for the parking of two vehicles at all times; and • Van and /or other vehicles used for transporting residents to treatment and other off -site facilities, shall not be parked on -site nor within the neighborhood at any time, other than for normal passenger pick -up. Given the foregoing conditions, in staff's opinion the increase by two residents over the City standard, which results in a total of 15 residents, can be supported on the basis that the increase will not . significantly adversely impact the parking demand if conditioned as recommended above. Conversely, an increase by five residents (total of 18) as requested by the applicant would require significantly more off - street parking spaces and would impact the surrounding neighborhood. Assembly Uses and Parking Residential care facilities may conduct meetings on -site, such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, for the residents who live on -site only. However, the NBMC does not allow the hosting of AA or similar type meetings for individuals who to not reside in the facility. The facilities may be used for residential use by the residents only. Correspondence submitted by residents within the neighborhood states that there are meetings held at the subject facility that involves persons other than the residents and that there is an influx of vehicles using on -street parking during these times, leaving little or no parking for the residents of the neighborhood. The applicant has stated that no such meetings occur. Staff is concerned about allegations from the neighbors regarding visitors during evening hour meetings and on weekends, and the impact on parking and additional traffic generated from these visitors to the surrounding neighborhood. If the use is approved, staff recommends conditions of approval that prohibits meetings on -site, restricts the allowance of vehicles to two staff members only, and requires staff parking on -site in the garage, reserving the driveway for visitor parking. YS 00843 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 12 Traffic and Generated Trips The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling unit. Trip rates for residential care facilities (also classified as an "assisted living" use by ITE) are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Staff recognizes that the use pattern of an assisted living or residential care facility is similar, but not identical to a sober living facility. However, the trip generation rates established by ITE for residential care facilities is the closest land use classification to a sober living home. Based on the ITE standards, a single family dwelling would generate approximately 10 average daily trips (rounded up), whereas an 18 -bed residential care facility would generate approximately 50 average daily trips. Maximum Number of Residents NBMC Section 20.91A.060.C.2 states that a maximum number of residents for any group home shall not exceed a standard of two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. The subject property has six bedrooms, which results in the maximum number of residents allowed to be thirteen_ As indicated on the application, the applicant requests a total occupancy of 18 resident beds. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.91A.060.C.2, the Hearing Officer has discretion to set occupancy limits based upon the evidence provided by the applicant that additional occupancy is appropriate at the site. In determining whether to set a different occupancy limit, the Hearing Officer "shall consider the characteristics of the structure, whether there will be an impact on traffic and parking and whether the pubic health, safety, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing in the facility or adjacent to the facility will be impacted." In determining whether the findings an be made to allow an occupancy of 18 residents, staff considered evidence submitted by the applicant, as well as the size of the structure, parking, traffic generation, and impacts on adjacent and surrounding land uses. Based on the plans submitted, the total living area is 3,038 square feet, and there appears to be adequate room to allow more occupants than allowed per the code. Parking and traffic generation and the impacts those have on the surrounding neighborhood have been discussed under separate sections of this staff report above. In addition to the size of the dwelling, staff also considered the economic analysis submitted by the applicant, which is included as part of the applicant's supplemental submittal packet (Exhibit 8). The applicant states in that analysis that the break -even point given mortgage payments, utility and food costs, is 15 residents. The facility currently operates with 15 residents, even though there are 17 beds existing, and the YS 00844 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 13 applicant is requesting a use permit to allow a maximum of 18 residents. Given the applicants own financial analysis, the facility can still operate at an acceptable level if it were limited to a maximum of 15 beds. Another consideration with respect to the maximum residents per residential care facility is the intent to maintain a residential character of the facility and avoidance of a "institutional" character of the facility. The American Institute of Planners, and other experts generally concur that between 13 and 15 residents is the maximum number in order to achieve this goal_ The City standard would limit the subject facility to a maximum of 13 residents; however, under the NBMC, the Hearing Officer may consider additional residents over the standard. The applicant is requesting a total of 18 residents (five residents over the standard). However, given the applicants financial statement, in order to maintain the residential character of the facility, and the intent to avoid an institutionalization of the facility, in staff's opinion, the total residents should not exceed 15. Required Findings Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2008 -05, the Hearing Officer shall make all of the 11 required findings per NBMC Sections 20.91.035 (A) and 20.91A.060 (see Findings Chart, Exhibit 1). The required findings, and discussion of each finding are as follows: NBMC Section 20.91.035 (A) Findings 1 through 4: Finding: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and purposes of the district in which the site is located. As requested by the applicant, the use is only partially in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is location, unless modified as discussed below, the finding could not be made: The subject property is located within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7) area and is designated for Residential Single - Family (RSF) uses. The proposed use as a residential care facility is a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses in a residential district are subject to the provision of Chapter 20.91A of the NBMC. The proposed application for Use Permit 2008 -037 is in accord with the objectives and requirements of Chapter 20.91A with respect to the requirement for the submittal of an application for approval of a use permit to continue the use of the subject property as a residential care facility in the SP -7 /RSF District. The objectives of the code include provisions intended to reduce, through the use permit process, the potential for overconcentration of residential care facilities within a neighborhood and to protect public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the YS 00845 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 14 neighborhood of such use. The intensity of the use of 18 residents housed in six bedrooms with one person in one bedroom, two persons per bedroom in two bedrooms, 3 persons in two bedrooms and six persons in one bedroom (note: the plans indicate that there are currently 17 beds and the applicant is requesting 18 — staff assumes that the additional bed will be added to the bedroom currently with one bed), would not be consistent with a typical residential population in a single family dwelling unit in the SP -7/RSF District and the surrounding properties within the neighborhood. However, for the reasons cited above, if the facility were limited to 15 residents (a decrease of three persons from the applicant's requested 18 residents), the project could be found to be in compliance with the objectives of the code and the purposes of the SP -71RSF District. In addition, the subject property's proximity to four other residential care facilities, all located within close proximity to each other, would result in an overconcentration of residential care facilities within the neighborhood. If two of the four Yellowstone group homes were to be closed as recommended by staff, this finding can be made. 2. Finding; That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working or adjacent to the neighborhood of such; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. The location of the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and, if approved with conditions, will be consistent with the purpose of the district in which the site is located and this finding can be made for the following reasons: General Plan Policy LU 6.2.7 directs the City to regulate day care and residential care facilities to the maximum extent allowed by federal and state law so as to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include conditions of approval regulating the use and operational characteristics related to parking, traffic, curfew hours, and on -site meetings. As stated, the facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently four other residential care facilities in close proximity, which constitutes an overconcentration of residential care facilities in the immediate vicinity. However, as noted above, staff is recommending that two of the four Yellowstone homes be closed. Therefore, staff believes that the continued use of this property as a residential care facility, if approved as recommended by staff, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, and this finding can be made. YS 00846 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 15 3. Finding: That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. As noted in Finding No. 2 above, the proposed use would not be consistent with the provisions of NBMC Section 20.91A.060.D in that the facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently at least four other residential care homes, exceeds the standard for maximum number of residents, and is not consistent with the parking regulations of the NBMC. However, as discussed in previous sections, if two of the four Yellowstone homes in the neighborhood were eliminated, if maximum number of residents were limited to 15, and if conditions relating to operational characteristics were to be included, this finding can be made. 4. Finding: If the use is proposed within a Residential District or in an area where residential uses are provided for in Planned Community Districts or Specific Plan Districts, the use is consistent with the purposes specified in Chapter 20.91A and conforms to all requirements of that Chapter. As noted in Finding No. 2 above, the proposed use would not be consistent with the provisions of NBMC Section 20.91A.060.D in that the facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently at least four other residential care homes, exceeds the standard for maximum number of residents, and is not consistent with the parking regulations of the NBMC. However, as discussed in previous sections, if two of the four Yellowstone homes in the neighborhood were closed, if maximum number of residents were limited to 15, and if conditions relating to operational characteristics were to be included, this finding can be made. NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Findings A through G: A. Finding: The use conforms to all applicable provisions of Section 20.91A.050. These development and operational standards are summarized as follows: a. No secondhand smoke can be detectable outside the property. b. Facility must comply with state and local law, and the submitted management plan, including any modifications required by this use permit C. A contact name and number must be provided to the City d. No services requiring a license can be provided if the facility does not have a license for those services. YS 00847 Use Permit No. 2008-037 February 20, 2009 Page 16 e. There shall be no more than two persons per bedroom plus one additional resident, unless a greater occupancy is requested and granted. Occupancy must also comply with State licensing if applicable. E If certification from an entity other than ADP's licensing program is available, applicants must get that certification. g. All individuals and entities involved in the facility's operation and ownership must be disclosed. h. No owner or manager shall have any demonstrated pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of the law. The use, if approved subject to conditions included with the use permit, will conform to the standards set forth in Section 20.91A.050, and this finding can be made as follows: a. Smoking is permitted only in the rear yard and patio area. Given the size of the lot and the proximity of the surrounding residential uses, it is unlikely that secondhand smoke can be detected outside the property, and no complaints have been submitted by adjacent neighbors regarding secondhand smoke. b. The facility has been in operation since 2005, and the applicant has submitted documentation that the facility has never been cited by a state or local agency as violating any of those agencies laws or regulations. C. Contact names and telephone numbers have been provided within the application. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide the City with the appropriate "after hours" names and contact information numbers. d. The residential care facility is used for housing purposes only and is not licensed for on -site treatment. All treatment services are provided at a site that is located approximately two and a half miles from the site in Costa Mesa, and transportation to the site is provided by van three days a week. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include a condition of approval limiting attendance of any type of meeting on -site to residents who reside on -site only. e. The unlicensed residential care facility has six bedrooms and there is a total occupancy of 18 residents. Therefore, the facility exceeds the standard of two persons per bedroom plus one additional resident by five, YS 00848 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 17 and does not comply with this operational standard. Staff is recommending that the maximum number of residents be reduced to 15. While the staff recommended 15 residents is in excess of the Code standard, staff does not consider this to be excessive in terms of traffic and parking impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. f. The facility holds voluntary certification with the Orange County Sober Living Coalition, and the Orange County Sheriffs Department, and proof of that certification has been provided by the applicant. g. The applicant has provided all names of those involved in the facility's operation within the application. h. There are no known violations or code violations for the facility or the individual operators and managers. B. Finding: The project includes sufficient on -site parking for the use, and traffic and transportation impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. The NBMC requires off- street parking and loading spaces for a residential care facility at a ratio of one space for every three beds. The project site has an enclosed two -car garage and a driveway is that 26 feet deep, providing a total four off - street parking spaces. Therefore, the property does not meet the NBMC requirements for off -street parking. However, irrespective of whether the property would meet the resident standard of 13 or the sta ff recommended maximum number of residents of 15, the property would be one space deficient. However, as discussed above, in staffs opinion, given the large lots in the neighborhood, the fact that the subject property is a comer lot with room to park 8 to 9 cars on the street directly adjacent to the property, as well as the operational characteristics of the facility, the one parking space deficiency will not cause significant adverse parking and traffic impacts provided that the facility does not exceed 15 residents. Van transportation to an off -site treatment facility and to a church is provided approximately three to four times a week, and residents utilize public transit for commuting to work (an OCTA bus stop is located on Santa Ana Avenue within walking distance). The vans are parked off -site and are only at the residence for a short period of time to pick -up and drop -off residents. With respect to traffic generation, the facility itself does not present an adverse impact to the neighborhood. However, staff is concerned about the comments from the area residents regarding the traffic and parking impacts from family and other visitors to the site during evening hours and on weekends, which results in cars parked throughout the vicinity. Staff notes that five group homes, with a total YS 00849 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 18 of 73 residents exist in this neighborhood. As noted above, if two of those homes were eliminated in accordance with staffs recommendation, and if the subject property was restricted to a maximum of 15 residents, the on- street parking and traffic would be decreased significantly. In summary, the facility provides sufficient off - street parking for management and residents, as well as guests. Given staffs recommendation to limit maximum number of residents to 15, as well as recommended conditions noted in previous sections of this staff report, the traffic and parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated to an insignificant level. Therefore, this finding can be made. C. Finding: The property and existing structures are physically suited to accommodate the use. The subject property is approximately 7,500 square feet in area and the structure consists of approximately 3,038 square feet of living area with a total of six bedrooms. The size of the structure appears adequate to accommodate the use as a residential care facility with 15 beds. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department is the responsible agency for implementing fire protection of all group residential care facilities and residences. As discussed above, the property has not received a 'ire clearance" from the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. Therefore, if the Hearing Officer approves the application, staff recommends that a condition of approval be included that provides that the use is approved subject to the approval by the Fire Marshal. Given the conditions recommended by staff and the staff - recommendation to restrict the facility to a maximum of 15 residents, this finding can be made. D. Finding: The use will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and the addition or continued maintenance of the use will not contribute to changing the residential character of the neighborhood, such as creating an over concentration of residential care uses in the vicinity of the proposed use. In making his finding or sustaining such a finding, the Hearing Officer and/or City Council shall consider, as appropriate, the following factors: a. The proximity of the use location to schools, parks, other residential care facilities, outlets for alcoholic beverages and any other uses which could be affected by or affect the operation of the subject use; b. The existence of substandard physical characteristics of the area in which the use is located such as lot widths, setbacks, narrow streets, limited available parking, short blocks, and other substandard characteristics which are pervasive in certain areas of YS 00850 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 19 the City of Newport Beach, including portions of West Newport, Lido Isle, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Corona del Mar and Newport Heights, which portions were depicted on a map referred to as the Nonstandard Subdivision Area presented to the Newport Beach Planning Commission on September 20, 2007 and on file with the Director of Planning; and C. Whether, in light of the factors applied in subsections 20.91A.D.1 and D.2, it would be appropriate to apply the American Planning Association standard of permitting one or two such uses per block. Median block lengths in different areas of Newport Beach widely range from 300 feet in the Nonstandard Subdivision Areas to as much as 1,422 feet in standard subdivision areas. The average calculable block length in much of the standard subdivision areas is 711 feet and the calculable median block length is 817 feet The Hearing Officer shall apply the American Planning Association standard in all areas of Newport Beach in a manner that eliminates the differences in block lengths. In making this determination, the hearing officer shall be guided by average or median block lengths in standard subdivisions of the City. The Hearing Officer shall retain the discretion to apply any degree of separation of uses, which he or she deems appropriate in any given case. A copy of the American Planning Association standard is on file with the Director of Planning. The proposed use, as conditioned, will be compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood and will not contribute to creating an institutional character of the area, and this finding can be made for the following reasons: The project site is located within an established single - family residential neighborhood consisting of one and two story tract homes. There are no public or private schools, or public parks located within close proximity to the site. The closest elementary school is Kaiser Elementary School, which is located approximately two miles to the south, and Brentwood Park located approximately one and a half miles to the south. Facilities licensed to sell or serve alcohol located within three blocks of the project site include a 7 -11 Store and a Mexican restaurant on the southeast corner of Santa Ana Avenue, and an AM/PM Service Station and Market on the northeast comer of Santa Ana Avenue. Those facilities are located within the City of Costa Mesa, approximately 1,800 feet or more walking distance from the subject property. The subject property is located in a neighborhood that is not characterized by standard physical characteristics such as a typical street grid pattern; but instead has meandering streets and cul -de -sacs. The ordinance recognizes that there YS 00851 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 20 are instances when the lack of a straight -line grid pattern street will make it difficult to exactly define a block; and also recognizes that blocks through out the City are not always inform in size. In those instances, Code Section 20.91A.060.13.3 provides that the Hearing Officer may apply the American Planning Association (APA) standard of 617 feet (median) or 711 feet (average) in determining the block size and configuration. Given the close proximity of this facility to the other four houses located within the same neighborhood, it is critical to define "block" in this particular case. If the APA standard is used, and the median block length of 617 feet applied, the five houses would all fall within a single block area, because the maximum distance between the houses is 400 feet. Therefore, the subject property is located within a block and in close proximity to four other residential care facility uses with a combined total of 73 residents. In staffs opinion, the presence of five residential care facilities in very close proximity to each other is an overconcentration and three of the facilities are recommended for abatement. Only if two of the use permits are denied can staff recommend that the use of the subject property as a residential care facility will not result in an overall adverse impact on the neighborhood and will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Given stairs recommendation for denial of two of the use permits, this finding can be made. E. Finding: The operation of buses and vans to transport residents to and from off -site activities does not generate vehicular traffic substantially greater than that normally generated by residential activities in the surrounding area. Residents of the facility do not have automobiles, and utilize public transit from an OCTA bus stop located on Santa Ana Avenue. Vans are used to take residents to a treatment facility and to church approximately three to four times a week. It is staffs opinion that the traffic generated from these van trips, separate from the overall traffic generation discussed earlier in this report, is not excessive. Therefore, we believe that this finding can be made. F. Arrangements for delivery of goods are made within the hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. Deliveries to the residences are typical of the normal use of the property for residential purposes. Shopping is done by management staff and delivered to the house during daytime or early evening hours. Therefore, staff believes that this finding can be made. YS 00852 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 21 G. Arrangements for commercial trash collection in excess of usual residential collection are made within hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. The facility utilizes the regularly - scheduled Costa Mesa Sanitary District residential refuse collection services provided throughout the neighborhood. Neighborhood complaints about excessive trash need to be evaluated further — in the event that the once -a -week trash service does not adequately serve this facility, City staff suggests a condition allowing the City's Planning Director to require the facility to secure and maintain commercial bin service. With this condition, this finding can be made. Analysis Summary As indicated at the beginning of this report, staff recommends approval of this application for the following reasons: The ability to make all of the findings required by the NBMC Sections 20.91.035 (A) and 20.91A_060, provided that the facility is limited to a maximum of 15 residents and also provided that two of the group homes operated by Yellowstone in the vicinity are eliminated. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of NBMC Section 20.91A as set forth in Section 20.91A.010, and the requirements of Section 20.91.020 if limited to a maximum of 15 residents and conditioned as recommended. If, after reviewing this report, and hearing testimony from the applicant and the public, the Hearing Officer agrees with staffs recommendation for approval, staff requests the Hearing Officer's direction to prepare a Resolution for Approval for adoption at a time and date set by the Hearing Officer. APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION BACKGROUND On May 20, 2008, the applicant submitted an Application for Reasonable Accommodation (Exhibit 2) that discussed the need for accommodation, but did not seek exemption from any specific City rule, policy or practice. On August 22, 2008, the applicant submitted an Application for Reasonable Accommodation that requested an exemption "from single family to multi - family residence." (Exhibit 7) The applicant also indicated the need for an accommodation from the required use permit fee due to financial hardship. Upon request for clarification and additional information from staff, the applicant's attorney submitted a supplemental request for accommodation from specific provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal YS 00853 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 22 Code ( "NBMCI on January 29, 2009. (Exhibit 8) The three specific accommodations requested are: 1. That the 18 residents of the Yellowstone facility at 20172 Redlands Drive be treated as a single housekeeping unit, as the term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; 3. An exemption from the City's requirement that all use permit applicants pay a use permit application fee to permit cost recovery by the City. (NBMC Chapter 3.36 and NBMC Section 20.90.030) NBMC Section 20.98.015 provides that if the request for a Reasonable Accommodation requires another discretionary permit, the applicant may request a simultaneous hearing. In this case, the use of the property as a residential care facility does require a use permit, and the applicant has requested simultaneous hearing of both the use permit application and the various requests for reasonable accommodation. DISCUSSION The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), adopted in 1988, prohibit housing discrimination based on a resident's disability. Under the FHAA, it is discriminatory for government entities to refuse to make reasonable accommodations from rules, policies, and practices when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(13)). Cases interpreting the FHAA have held that a government agency has an affirmative duty to grant a requested reasonable accommodation if: (1) the request is made by or on behalf of a disabled individual or individuals, (2) the accommodation is necessary to afford the disabled applicant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and (3) the request is reasonable. Cities may find an accommodation request unreasonable if granting the request would: (1) result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program (often described as undermining "the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve "), or (2) would impose undue financial or administrative burdens on the city (See U.S. v. Village of Marshall, 787 F.Supp. 872, 878 (W. D. Wisc. 1991). Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary must be determined on a case -by -case basis. Because the applicant has requested three very different types of reasonable accommodation, staff will present a separate analysis of each specific accommodation request. YS 00854 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 23 In the January 29, 2009 letter clarifying applicants request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested its facility be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit, as that term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030. The applicant said the accommodation requested is necessary because the facility "is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility." The applicant stated: "[7]he Property more accurately fits the definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030. Residents are the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit Like a Single Housekeeping Unit, there is a common area and each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses and chores ... The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager." Ordinance No. 2008 -05 codified the procedures for requesting, reviewing and granting, conditionally granting, or denying all requests for reasonable accommodation in the City of Newport Beach. The Hearing Officer is designed to approve, conditionally approve, or deny all applications for a reasonable accommodation. The ordinance also established required findings and factors the Hearing Officer may consider when making those findings. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(B) of the NBMC, the written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. Finding. That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. This finding can be made. The applicant submitted a statement signed under penalty of perjury that every resident of the facility is in recovery from alcohol addiction. Federal regulations and case law have defined recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction as a disability, because it is a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs one or more major daily life activities. 2. Finding. That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. This finding cannot be made. Staff does not question the need for sober living homes, nor the fact that persons with a disability must have the opportunity to use and enjoy a YS 00855 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 24 dwelling. However, the exemption requested by the applicant is unnecessarily broad to achieve the goal of providing disabled housing. As staff informed the applicant's counsel, a request to be considered a Single Housekeeping Unit is essentially a request to be exempted from aff of the provisions of Ordinance 2008 -05 which place any sort of reasonable regulation on the operations of residential care facilities. This is not necessary, because there are many more narrowly tailored accommodations that could enable facility residents to enjoy the housing of their choice without depriving the surrounding neighborhood of reasonable conditions that mitigate the adverse secondary impacts that emanate from this facility. Applicant's counsel asserts in his January 29, 2009 letter that being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary "because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility. "' Even if the facility were not transient or institutional in nature, and did not clearly fit the definition of a sober living home, or unlicensed residential care facility, an exemption from the provisions of 2008 -05 is not necessary to afford its residents the opportunity to live in and enjoy a dwelling. However, the applicant raised the issue of how the facility should be characterized in its necessity argument, and asserted the facility more closely resembles a Single Housekeeping Unit than any other type of residential use. Staff has analyzed the facility's appropriate use classification based on the applicant's submitted materials. Staff has determined the nature of applicant's facility operations, as reported in the original application for reasonable accommodation submitted in May 2008, most closely resembles a boarding house use. But for the fact residents are recovering alcoholics, the facility would be classified as a prohibited Group Residential use, or a Boarding or Rooming House as that term is defined in NBMC 20.05.030. (Residential Use Classifications) ( "A residence or dwelling unit, or part thereof, wherein a room or rooms are rented under two or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof ... ") On the May 2008 application for reasonable accommodation, the applicant states, "The residents at the property reside separately at the property and interact within the property. There is individual use of common areas. The residents are responsible for their own meals, expenses and chores. Each individual resides at the property subject to a separate contractual arrangement with the applicant" (Italics added) ' The residents are recovering alcoholics living together in order to maintain their sobriety. Therefore, the facility closely fits the profile of a sober living home, or unlicensed recovery facility, contrary to applicant's counsel's assertions. Whether the facility is transient or institutional in nature does not enter that analysis, although staff believes there is a strong argument that the existence of the three additional facilities owned and operated as sober living homes by the applicant within 100 to 300 feet of each other does create a quasi - institutional environment. YS 00856 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 25 In a follow -up conversation with staff, applicant's CEO, Dr. Anna Thames stated that the facility has no written leases with any of the residents. Rental agreements with residents are verbal. Again, the description of operations is much closer to the NBMC's definition of a boarding house or group residential use than a single housekeeping unit, as the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit requires dwellings rented to bona fide Single Housekeeping Units to be occupied under a single written lease. The self- reported pattern of facility operations and resident interaction in no way resembles the NBMC definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit. NBMC Section 20.03.030 (Definitions) defines as Single Housekeeping Unit as: "The functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of and responsibility for common areas, and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, household maintenance, and expenses, and where, if the unit is rented, all adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy the entire premises of the dwelling unit, under a single wrtten lease with joint use and responsibility for the premises, and the makeup of the household occupying the unit is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the landlord or property manager." Applicant's resident clients may be an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit who share common areas, but the applicant's own submittals indicate there is no joint responsibility for meals or expenses, no single written lease (or any written leases at all), and the makeup of the household is determined by the applicant rather than the residents. Staff is troubled by the contradictory information submitted regarding whether the facility operator or the residents determine the household makeup. Given that both the May 20, 2008 reasonable accommodation application and the applicant's CEO stated that the applicant determines the household makeup, applicant's counsel's assertion in the January 29, 2009 letter that "the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property managers is difficult to accept. The remainder of the applicant's presentation regarding classification as a "Single Housekeeping Unit" suffers from the inconsistency in the information it submitted to the City. After the inconsistency was pointed out to applicant's counsel by staff, counsel submitted additional correspondence dated February 13, 2009 (Exhibit 10) addressing the discrepancy which staff believes still exists. NBMC Section 20.98.025(C) allows the City to consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: YS 00857 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 26 A. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disability. If the requested accommodation is granted, any number of the applicant's current and potential clients will be able to live in a home in a single - family zone with other recovering alcoholics. This is a situation that can affirmatively enhance the quality of life of a person in recovery from addiction, unless overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhood interferes with the residents' re- integration into society. The applicants sliding scale of rental rates offers a sober living environment to residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in a single- family home in this area. B. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation. As stated above, the exemption requested by the applicant is broader than necessary to achieve the goal of enabling disabled individuals an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice. City staff discussed more narrowly tailored exemptions that could enable disabled individuals to reside at the applicant's facility, but the applicant has chosen to retain this request. C. In the case of a residential care facility, whether 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. The applicant does not state why being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make its facilities viable in light of the current market for the type of services it provides. In relation to Reasonable Accommodation Request #2, the applicant states that each facility requires 15 residents in order to be financially viable, and provides a general summary of average income and expenses for all four facilities. In light of the analysis performed in full in Reasonable Accommodation Request #2, Finding 2, Section C below, the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make applicant's facilities financially viable. D. In the case of a residential care facility, 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. In 2007, City staff estimated that there were more than 315 sober living beds in the city (these are exclusive of the up to 213 ADP - licensed treatment beds). These numbers were compiled before applicant's facilities, with a total of 58 sober living and eight staff beds, were added to the city's supply. Operators of many sober living facilities within the city have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Yellowstone clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment YS 00858 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 27 without granting the accommodation. Further, a recent agreement with Sober Living by the Sea, Inc., authorized SLBTS to provide up to 204 beds citywide. However, many of these alternate sober living beds are probably not offered on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. The evidence does not support the applicant's contention that treating residents of its facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit will change the availability of the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature, or afford them a substantially greater access to an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. Even if the applicant provides housing for the disabled, and even if the requested accommodation is necessary, the City is not required to grant a request for accommodation that is not reasonable. Cities may find a requested accommodation unreasonable if it either (1) imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, or (2) results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program, often described as undermining "the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve." 3. Finding. That the requested accommodation wifl 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. This finding can be made. Treating the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit would not impose a currently identifiable undue financial or administrative burden on the City. However, staff makes this finding with caution, because the applicant is requesting similar accommodations at each of its facilities. If this reasonable accommodation request were granted for all four Yellowstone facilities, the applicant would be able to house a number of residents far in excess of the 66 individuals currently residing in the four homes. Currently unidentifiable financial or administrative burdens could arise as a result. 4. Finding. That the requested accommodation will not 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. This finding cannot be made. The purpose of the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit is to allow staff to determine whether groups of related or unrelated individuals are living together in a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. This definition is necessary because of the persistent attempts by landlords to establish illegal boarding houses in dwellings within the City. Groups living as a single housekeeping unit can live together in any residential zone in Newport Beach. Groups not living as a single housekeeping unit are prohibited from establishing residences in any of the City's residential zones. There is, however, an important exception to the total prohibition of groups not living as a single housekeeping unit — groups not living as a single housekeeping unit in residential care facilities of any size. YS 00859 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 28 Essentially, all residential care facilities in the City have already received a reasonable accommodation from the NBMC's restrictions on groups not living as a single housekeeping unit. The NBMC provides many opportunities for new facilities to establish, and has provisions for existing facilities to continue in their current locations with appropriate impact mitigation. Licensed facilities housing six or fewer residents can establish in any residential zone of the City. Although the residents of residential care facilities receive preferential treatment because of their disabled status, the NBMC's Zoning Code also applies regulations to unlicensed and larger (more than seven residents) licensed facilities. These regulations are in place to ensure that the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code can be achieved, and so the adverse secondary impacts higher density residential care facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated. If the facility is treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit, it is entirety exempt from any of the reasonable controls the City might place on it. The City would be unable to make any reasonable effort to reduce the adverse secondary impacts such as noise, overcrowding, and unruly behavior by residents of applicant's facility to the detriment of neighbors, in addition to finding solutions to the applicant's disproportionate consumption of available on- street parking, and the overconcentration of facilities within a single block to the point of creating a quasi - institutional environment in this neighborhood. It is highly likely that most other similar facilities within the City would request a similar exemption, thus nullifying the Ordinance's effect entirely. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(D) of the NBMC, the City may also consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program. A. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally after the character of the neighborhood. Staff acknowledges that a petition stating, "Yellowstone is a good neighbor" was presented to the City, signed by four residents of Pegasus Street (where one of the other facilities of applicant is located). However, these signatures of support were countered by letters, emails and phone calls from neighbors of the facilities that reported increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood as more of the applicant's facilities established there in recent years. The impacts reported include: • Litter in the neighborhood which complainants attribute to the applicant's facilities, including cigarette butts, soda cans, and beer cans and bottles; • Family and other visitors to the facilities; • Facility residents traveling in groups between one facility and the others; • Meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicant's facilities, with outside attendees; • Excessive use of on- street parking by facility residents and their guests; and YS 00860 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 29 • Decline in property values in the neighborhood. Due to a number of factors, including general fluctuations in the real estate market, staff is reluctant to speculate that any decline in property values is a direct result of the operation of applicant's facilities. Accordingly, this consideration was not factored into Staff's analysis. A number of the neighbors' allegations appear credible, and directly contradict applicant's representations to the City. Specifically, the applicant stated in its submittals that: • There are no outside visitors allowed at the facility; • Residents are not permitted to have cars while they reside at the facility and rely on public transportation, carpools with the resident managers to get to the full -time jobs which the applicant states all residents have, and facility vans to get to treatment facilities and church (although the May 20, 2008 use permit application stated that this facility then allowed up to four resident vehicles onsite); • No interaction between the four facilities operated in close proximity by the applicant is permitted. Based on the misstatements and inconsistencies of the information supplied by the applicant in its use permit and reasonable accommodation applications, Staff views these representations about restrictions on visitors, cars and facility interaction with skepticism. In particular, staff does not find the applicant's statement about its "no visitors" policy to be credible, because one of the letters of support (Exhibit 6) submitted by a former Yellowstone resident said, "1 come to Yellowstone every week and am still a part of this place still to this day ... 6 years later. I hope it is here for other girls to come back and work with the newcomers the way I have been given the chance too." Another former resident wrote, "Yellowstone is the place that I will continue to come back to and visit the new girls who are struggling the way I did." (Note: applicant's attorney states that these letters refer to meetings at another Yellowstone facility in Costa Mesa.) The applicant's possible misstatements of easily verifiable facts (such as policies about no meetings, no visitors, and no inter - facility interaction), and early written and oral representations that two of the facilities held ADP licenses (which they never had), causes staff concern about the overall responsibility of the operator, and its ability to successfully manage both its residents and the negative impacts its facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood. B. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking. YS 00861 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 30 Parking - The applicant stated in its original reasonable accommodation application for this property (May 20, 2008) that non -staff facility residents were not permitted to have personal vehicles at the property. The use permit application also stated that no residents except the two resident managers had personal vehicles, which they park onsite. The two enclosed garage spaces and two driveway parking spaces allow for the staff vehicles to be accommodated without impacting neighborhood parking. However, the weekly meetings and weekend visitors reported by neighbors and former residents of the facilities do appear to impact neighborhood parking to an excessive degree. The facility is located at the end of a cul -de -sac, and has a narrow street frontage with very little adjacent on- street parking. Three other facilities operated by the applicant are located in the same neighborhood at a distance that varies from 100 to 300 feet from each other. The cumulative impact of having more than one facility operating within a very restricted distance results in increased traffic and parking demands. Traffic and Generated Trips — The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. Trip rates for residential care facilities are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Based on these standards, an 18 -bed residential care facility is estimated to generate approximately 49.32 average daily trips. Applying this formula, it appears that the facility will generate average daily trips substantially in excess of surrounding single family dwellings. If the facility's bed count is reduced to the 13 beds permitted under the use permit operating standards of NBMC Chapter 20.91A.050, the facility could generate approximately 35.62 average daily trips. Applying this formula, it appears that treating this facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit would result in average daily trip generation substantially in excess of surrounding single family dwellings. 5. Finding. That 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. This findina can be made. A request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if granting it would pose "a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(%9). This is a very limited exception and can only be used when, based on the speck facts of a situation, a requested accommodation results in a significant and particularized threat. Federal cases interpreting this exception in the FHAA indicate that requested accommodations cannot be denied due to generalized fears of the risks posed by disabled persons. YS 00862 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 31 SUMMARY — REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST #1 In summary, with regard to the applicant's request to provide reasonable accommodation that treats the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit, Findings 2 and 4 cannot be made. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, all five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. Therefore, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny the Reasonable Accommodation request for the residents of the subject property to be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. In the January 29, 2009 letter from applicant's counsel's clarifying and supplementing applicant's request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested that the facility receive an exemption from the occupancy standards of NBMC Section 20.91A.050. NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2) requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. All of applicant's facilities currently have residents in excess of the number that would be permitted under the use permit standards. One facility (1561 Indus) has 12 residents in five bedrooms; the other three (1621 Indus, 20172 Redlands, and 1571 Pegasus) have 18 residents in six bedrooms. Under the operating standards of NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2), a use permit issued to 20172 Redlands Drive would be limited to no more than 13 residents (six bedrooms x two residents per bedroom plus one = 13). The applicant requests an exemption from this requirement that will allow each facility to continue at its current occupancy level of 18. The applicant's counsel did not indicate in the January 29, 2009 letter why the accommodation requested is necessary, but clarified the assertion of necessity via telephone and email to staff on February 12, 2009. Applicant's counsel asserts that, as to current residents of 20172 Redlands Drive, the accommodation is necessary because if a use permit were granted restricting occupancy to 13, current residents would be displaced. Because of financial constraints on the displaced resident's earning capability that result from the resident's disability, the applicant's counsel states that the displaced resident would have no other place to reside in a sober environment. As to prospective residents of 20172 Redlands Drive, the applicant's counsel states that the accommodation is necessary because the prospective residents of 20172 Redlands Drive also have financial constraints caused by their disability, and would be unable to YS 00863 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 32 afford to rent a dwelling if the additional bed(s) at 20172 Redlands Drive were unavailable to them because of the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2). Ordinance No. 2008 -05 codified the procedures for requesting, reviewing and granting, conditionally granting, or denying all requests for reasonable accommodation in the City of Newport Beach. The Hearing Officer is designed to approve, conditionally approve, or deny all applications for a reasonable accommodation. The ordinance also established required findings, and factors the Hearing Officer may consider when making those findings. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(6) of the NBMC, the written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. Finding. That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. This findino can be made. The applicant has submitted a statement signed under penalty of perjury that every resident of the facility is in recovery from alcohol addiction. Federal regulations and case law have defined recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction as a disability, because it is a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs one or more major daily life activities. 2. Finding: That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. As to current residents of 20172 Redlands: This findino can be made. If a use permit is issued for this facility without the requested accommodation, five current residents of 20172 Redlands Drive would have to be removed from the facility in order comply with the terms of the use permit. The applicant reported in its application that the average length of stay for residents of this facility is six months; the applicant later verbally informed staff that residents stay six months to one year, sometimes longer. Granting the requested accommodation would allow that individual to remain in the dwelling for the remainder of her temporary stay, providing that individual with the opportunity to continue to live in her current dwelling for the necessary limited period of time. As to current residents of 20172 Redlands: This findina cannot be made. Applicant states that it charges monthly fees on a sliding scale based on ability to pay, and that the applicant's recovery services are needed services for many persons in recovery from alcoholism. Applicant has submitted an Affidavit of Disability- Related Hardship, signed under penalty of perjury, on behalf of the facility's residents. The affidavit states that before becoming disabled, Yellowstone residents earned an average of $50,000 per year, and that in recovery the residents are earning an average of $20,000 per year. It is plausible that persons in early recovery from addiction tend to have lower incomes than they had before addiction temporarily reduced their employment opportunities. YS 00864 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 33 This will necessitate shared living arrangements in one form or another. Adding beds, in the case of 20172 Redlands, could afford an additional disabled individual the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The analysis does not stop at the financial needs of the potential residents, however. Were that the case, the City might be obligated to authorize an unlimited number of residents at the applicant's facilities at greatly reduced rents; the population of recovering alcoholics with financial limitations is vast. Even the Ninth Circuit has noted that mandating lower rents for disabled individuals would probably not be considered a reasonable request. (See Giebeler v. M &B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)) NBMC Section 20.98.025(C) permits the City to consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is necessa►y to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: A. Whether the requested accommodation wilt affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disability. Staff does not question the need for sober living homes, nor the fact that persons with a disability must have the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. If the requested accommodation is granted, a slightly higher number of the applicant's current and potential clients will be able to live in a home in a single - family neighborhood with other recovering alcoholics. This is a situation that can affirmatively enhance the quality of life of a person in recovery from addiction, unless overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhood interferes with the residents' re- integration into society. The applicant's sliding scale of rental rates offers a sober living environment to residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in a single- family home in this area. B. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation. As to current residents of 20172 Redlands: If the use permit is granted and the accommodation is denied, five residents will be displaced from their temporary home. As to prospective residents of 20172 Redlands: The applicant has not submitted information on whether the facility at 20172 Redlands is currently operating at full census, or whether it has a waiting list of potential residents. However, if all of the applicant's Yellowstone facilities are running at full census with a waiting list of potential residents who cannot afford to reside in a sober environment in any of the vacant beds in other facilities within the city, then denying the accommodation could deny prospective residents the opportunity to live in a sober living environment. YS 00865 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 34 C. In the case of a residential care facility, whether 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. The applicant states that each facility requires 15 residents in order to be financially viable, and provides a general summary of average income and expenses for all four facilities. In some federal cases in which a sober living or other group home made a similar statement in support of its request for an accommodation allowing additional residents, courts found that the accommodation should be granted. However, the courts generally consider more detailed, verified financial information to reach that conclusion. (See Oxford House - Evergreen v. City of Plainfield, 769 F.Supp. 1329 (1991)) The applicant has not submitted financial information specific to each facility, but it has supplied an average cost analysis for its four facilities overall. The analysis was not signed under penalty of perjury, and although staff requested it, the applicant did not submit specific evidence such as mortgage statements or utility bills by the date of this report. If a residential recovery home is adding residents for its own financial advantage rather than to accommodate the financial limitations of the residents, the City is not obligated to grant the requested accommodation. D. In the case of a residential care facility, 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. In 2007, City staff estimated that there were more than 315 sober living beds in the city (these are exclusive of the up to 213 ADP - licensed treatment beds). These numbers were compiled before applicant's facilities, with a total of 58 sober living and eight staff beds, were added to the city's supply. Operators of many sober living facilities within the city have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Yellowstone clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment without granting the accommodation. Further, a recent agreement with Sober Living by the Sea, Inc., authorized SLBTS to provide up to 204 beds citywide. However, many of these alternate sober living beds are probably not offered on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. The evidence does not support the applicant's contention that treating residents of its facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit will change the availability of the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature, or afford them a substantially greater access to an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. Even if the applicant provides housing for the disabled, and even if the requested accommodation is necessary, the City is not required to grant a request for accommodation that is not reasonable. Cities may find a requested accommodation unreasonable if it either (1) imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, or (2) results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program, often described as "undermining the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve." YS 00866 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 35 3. Finding. That 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. As to current residents of 20172 Redlands: This finding can be made. Allowing five additional beds on a temporary basis at the facility would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. Applicant states that the average length of stay for individual residents is 6 months. It creates little burden on the City to allow five of the current residents of 20172 Redlands to complete their stay at the facility. Upon their departure, the facility's bed count will be within the range contemplated by the operating standards of the NBMC. The primary administrative burden on the City would be ensuring compliance. As to prospective residents of 20172 Redlands: This finding can be made. Allowing five extra beds at this facility would not create a currently identifiable undue financial or administrative burden on the City. However, staff makes this finding with caution, because applicant is requesting similar accommodations at each of its facilities. If all use permits and reasonable accommodation requests are granted, this would create a total of 16 residents in excess of the highest number permitted for the four facilities by the operating standards of the NBMC. 4. Finding: That the requested accommodation will not 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. As to current residents: This finding can be made. Allowing five additional beds on a temporary basis at the facility would not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program. Applicant states that the average length of stay for individual residents is 6 months to one year. It does not fundamentally undermine the nature of the City's zoning program to allow five of the current residents of 20172 Redlands to complete their stay at the facility. Upon their departure, the facility's bed count will be within the range contemplated by the zoning program. As to prospective residents. This finding cannot be made. Permanently allowing five additional beds in excess of the highest number allowed under the operational standards of the NBMC could undermine the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve. The basic purpose of the bed count limits is to draw a line at a reasonable density for a business providing residential recovery services within a residential neighborhood. Five additional beds can undermine the fundamental purpose of the zoning program, unless Yellowstone's program impacts are eliminated or substantially reduced at other facilities. Appellant may argue that five extra beds does not undermine the basic purpose the bed count restriction seeks to achieve, but the line must be drawn somewhere. The City YS 00867 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 36 Council found that that line was two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. These regulations are in place to ensure that the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code can be achieved, and so that secondary impacts of the higher density residential care facilities on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated. Staff is also concerned that if use permits are granted at each facility, and each facility receives the reasonable accommodation requested here, the extra 16 individuals could trigger an overconcentration that contributes even further to the change in the character of the neighborhood. The residents living in five recovery facilities located between 100 and 400 feet from each other are likely to create a quasi - institutional environment within the neighborhood. This will not benefit either the surrounding neighborhood or the recovering individuals attempting to reintegrate into the lifestyle found in a residential neighborhood. In a joint statement on the Fair Housing Act, the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have recognized it would adversely affect persons with disabilities and would be inconsistent with the object of integrating persons with disabilities into the community if a neighborhood came to be composed largely of group homes. They agree that it is appropriate to be concerned about the setting for a residential care facility, and that a consideration of overconcentration may be considered in this context. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(D) of the NBMC, the City may also consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program: A. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. Staff acknowledges a petition stating "Yellowstone is a good neighbor" was presented to the City, signed by four residents of Pegasus Street (where one of the other facilities of applicant is located). However, the petition was countered by letters, emails and phone calls from the facilities' neighbors reporting increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood as the applicant established more facilities in recent years. 'The letters of support, the letters of complaint, and the applicant's submissions do not indicate which Yellowstone facility the impacts are reported (or denied) for. Therefore, staff will analyze the reported impacts as if they apply to each facility equally. The impacts reported include: • Litter in the neighborhood which complainants attribute to the applicant's facilities, including cigarette butts, soda cans, and beer cans and bottles; • Family and other visitors to the facilities; Facility residents traveling in groups between one facility and the others; • Meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicant's facilities, with outside attendees; Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 37 • Excessive use of on- street parking by facility residents and their guests; and • Decline in property values in the neighborhood. Due to a number of factors, including general fluctuations in the real estate market, staff is reluctant to speculate whether any decline in property values is a direct result of the operation of applicant's facilities. This consideration was not included in staffs analysis. However, a number of the neighbors' allegations appear credible, and directly contradict representations made to the City by the applicants. Specifically, the applicant has stated in its reasonable accommodation applications and supplemental communications that: • There are no outside visitors allowed at the facility; • Residents are not permitted to have cars while they reside at the facility and rely on public transportation, carpools with the resident managers to get to the full -time jobs which the applicant states all residents have, and facility vans to get to treatment facilities and church (although the May 20, 2008 use permit application stated that this facility then allowed up to four resident vehicles onsite); and • No interaction between the four facilities operated in close proximity by the applicant is permitted. Based on the other misstatements and inconsistencies in the information supplied by the applicant in its use permit and reasonable accommodation applications, staff is inclined to view the applicant's representations about restrictions on visitors, cars and facility interaction with skepticism. In particular, staff is not sure the applicant's statement about its "no visitors" policy is credible, because neighbors report visitors are common, and because one of the letters of support submitted by a former Yellowstone resident said, "I come to Yellowstone every week and am still a part of this place still to this day ... 6 years later. 1 hope it is here for other girls to come back and work with the newcomers the way I have been given the chance too." Another former resident wrote, "Yellowstone is the place that I will continue to come back to and visit the new girls who are struggling the way I did.° (Exhibit 6) (Note: applicant's attorney states that these letters refer to meetings at another Yellowstone facility in Costa Mesa.) The applicant's possible misstatements of easily verifiable facts (such as policies about no meetings, no visitors, and no inter - facility interaction), and early written and oral representations that two of the facilities held ADP licenses (which they never had), causes staff concern about the overall responsibility of the operator, and its ability to successfully manage both its residents and the negative impacts its facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood. Allowing facilities that are not well run to operate with a high concentration of residents can lead to a further alteration in the character of the neighborhood. If a use permit in YS 00869 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 38 this location is granted, it may be necessary to scale back rather than expand the population of the facility, and increase supervision and enforcement of existing house rule to mitigate the impact of the facility on the surrounding neighborhood. Applicant's counsel has been informed of the inconsistencies in the applicant's submitted materials, and will submit additional information addressing the inconsistencies. On February 12, 2009, applicant's counsel informed staff by telephone that: Meetings referenced in Yellowstone alumni letters of support occur only at Yellowstone's Costa Mesa facility, and there are no meetings held at the Newport Beach facilities. There has been a change in policy since the original application for reasonable accommodation was submitted in May 2008. Personal vehicles are no longer allowed at 20172 Redlands. Only the two resident managers may have vehicles in the neighborhood, which must be parked onsite. Letters from facility neighbors indicate this may not be the case. Public testimony at the hearing will allow the hearing officer and staff a clearer picture of the actual situation. B. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking. Parking - The applicant stated in its original reasonable accommodation application for this property (May 20, 2008) that facility residents were permitted to have four personal vehicles at the property. The use permit application stated that no residents except the two resident managers have personal vehicles which they park onsite. Later correspondence and conversations with the applicant's attorneys indicated that facility policy has changed, and that now no resident vehicles are permitted onsite at any facility, and that only the two resident staff members would be permitted vehicles. If residents are not allowed personal vehicles in the neighborhood, then there should not be a substantial increase in insufficient parking as a result. However, the weekly meetings and weekend visitors reported by neighbors and former residents of the facilities do appear to impact neighborhood parking to an excessive degree. (Letters from the public say that meetings occur, but do not indicate which of the facilities hold meetings.) Three other facilities operated by the applicant are located in the same neighborhood at a distance that varies from 100 to 300 feet from each other. If requested reasonable accommodations are granted for all four of applicant's facilities, 16 facility residents in excess of the operating standards would be allowed. The operating standards already limit the overall population at the four facilities to 50. The cumulative impact of having 16 extra residents in more than one facility operating within a very restricted distance could result in increased traffic and parking demands. YS 00870 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 39 Traffic and Generated Trips — The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. Trip rates for residential care facilities are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Based on these standards, an 18 -bed residential care facility would generate approximately 49.32 average daily trips. A 13 -bed facility would generate 35.62 average daily trips, arguably an appreciable difference in traffic generation. 5. Finding. That 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. This finding can be made. A request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if granting it would pose "a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). This is a very limited exception and can only be used when, based on the specific facts of a situation, a requested accommodation results in a significant and particularized threat. Federal cases interpreting this exception in the FHAA indicate that requested accommodations cannot be denied due to generalized fears of the risks posed by disabled persons. SUMMARY — REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST #2 The applicant has requested that the facility at 20172 Redlands continue to have five beds in excess of that allowed by the operating standards specified in the NBMC operating standards for the duration of the stay of the five extra residents. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, all five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. Current Residents: All five findings were made as to the current residents of 20172 Redlands. Staff recommends that if a use permit is granted for this facility, the Hearing Officer also grant the requested accommodation as to the current residents only. Prospective Residents: Findings 1, 3 and 5 can be made with respect to the additional prospective residents at this facility. However, Findings 2 and 4 cannot be made. All five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to grant the use permit. If a use permit is granted for this facility, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny this accommodation request. YS 00871 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 40 The applicant has stated that, as a non -profit organization that relies on contributions from the community to keep it from operating at a loss, paying the use permit application fee deposit presents a financial hardship. Staff offered a payment plan to enable the applicant to pay the application fee within a reasonable period of time. In lieu of the payment plan, the applicant has requested an exemption from the $2,200 use permit application deposit required to process the use permit application submitted for this facility. NBMC Chapter 3.36 sets forth the fee schedule for municipal services, and mandates 100% cost recovery for services when the fee schedule does not set forth a lower rate of recovery. Use permits processing is not one of the services that are generally provided at a rate below 100% cost recovery NBMC Section 20.90.030 states that applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. Federal courts have periodically reviewed whether the financial limitations of disabled individuals must be considered when analyzing reasonable accommodation requests, with inconsistent results. The Ninth Circuit has indicated that some disability - related financial constraints must be considered when the request is reasonable. As with all reasonable accommodations, the analysis of whether a requested accommodation from financial policies is reasonable must be determined on a case -by -case basis. The applicant has submitted a signed Affidavit of Disability- Related Financial Hardship that gives general information on the pre- and post - disability average income range of typical facility residents. The applicant has also submitted an unverified statement of the average income and expenses related to the four facility properties, discussed above in Reasonable Accommodation Request #2, Finding Two (C). SUMMARY — REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST #3 Although staff requested further verifiable financial information from the applicant, this information had not been received at the time this report was prepared. Therefore, staff is unable to perform an accurate analysis of the actual financial needs of the applicant at this time. Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer continue this portion of the applicant's reasonable accommodation requests to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to submit and staff to analyze verifiable financial information. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer conduct a public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, the City of Newport Beach and its legal counsel, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends the Hearing Officer: 1. Approve the use permit application with a reduction in the number of beds (from 18 to 15) within the facility based on the findings discussed in this report, and YS 00872 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 41 provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution of approval of Use Permit No. 2008 -037. 2. Deny the request for reasonable accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a single housekeeping unit subject to the findings discussed in this staff report. 3. If a use permit is granted for this facility, staff recommends that the requested accommodation for an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 be granted as to the current residents. As to future residents of this facility, staff recommends continuance to a date certain pending receipt of additional financial information. 4. Staff recommends a continuance to a date certain for the request for reasonable accommodation for an exemption of the application filing fee requirement pending receipt of additional financial information. Environmental Review This activity has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and therefore it is not subject to CEQA. Public Notice Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site and posted at the project site a minimum ten (10) days in advance of this Public Hearing consistent with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In addition, the item appeared on the agenda for this Public Hearing, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: ��r�, Consulting Planner 1 Submitted by: YS 00873 Use Permit No. 2008 -037 February 20, 2009 Page 42 EXHIBITS 1. Findings Chart 2. Initial Application Submittal dated May 20, 2008 3. Notices of Incomplete Application dated June 19, 2008, November 7, 2008, and January 14, 2009, including subsequent submittals 4. Site Plan /Floor Plans 5. Fire Marshal Correspondence and Code Analysis Submittal 6. Letters in Support (submitted by Applicant) and Letters in Opposition 7. Application for Reasonable Accommodation dated August 22, 2008 8. Applicant's Supportive Documentation submitted for Reasonable Accommodation 9. Applicant's E -mail dated January 28, 2009 10. Applicant's Additional Correspondence dated February 13, 2009 11. Additional Letters of Opposition Received After February 13, 2009 YS 00874 YS 00875 YS EXHIBIT 2 INITIAL APPLICATION SUBMITTAL YS 00879 Mark S. Adams Scott R. Albrecht Ryan N. Bums Loren A. Deters Howard Goldstein* Matthew A. Goldstein** Beatriz M.G. Gordon Philip W. Green Megan G. Mayer Herbert N. Samuels * ** Hugh A. Sanders Wrillt=L Steel Martin J. Stein Isaac R. Uhty FAZUUO -IUO Nut VrL�`20172 REDLANDS DRIVE Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. *Also admired in Nevada * *Also admitted in Arizona ** *Also admitted in New York and Florida May 20, 2008 SukLcowuld Jeffrey S. Crider RECEIVFn MAY 2 0 2008 0111ce of the City Manager 8005 -003 HAND DELIVERED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Ordinance 2008 -5 (the "Ordinance ") Usle Permit Application; Reasonable Accommodation; Federal Exemption Permit; Non - Conforming Use Application i To Whom It May Concern: This firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Yellowstone"), Please direct all future correspondences regarding this matter to this office. Enclosed herewith are the following items: 1. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application fox the property located at 1571 Pegasus, Newport Beach, CA 92707; i 2. Reasonable Accommodation Application for ;the property located at 1571 Pegasus, Newport Beach, CA 92707; 3. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application for !the property located at 1621 Indus St., Newport Beach, CA 92707; 4. Reasonable Accommodation Application for the property located at I621 Indus St., Newport Beach, CA 92707; 5. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application for the property located at 20172 Redlands Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92707; 19800 MacArthur Boulevard - Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 -2433 Telephone: (949) 263 -0004 - Facsimile: (949) 263 -0005 YS 00880 City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 2 I 6. Reasonable Accommodation Application for the property located at 20172 Redlands Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92707; j i 7. Ordinance 2008 -5 Use Permit Application i r the property located at 1561 Indus, Newport Beach, CA 92707; and 8. Reasonable Accommodation Application foil the property located at 1561 Indus, Newport Beach, CA 92707. Additionally, by and through the materials included trein (including this correspondence), Yellowstone seeks a Federal Exemption Permit and a rant of Non - Conforming Use for the continued use of the above referenced four properties (thq "Properties ") as sober living homes. Yellowstone operates the Properties as not for profit homes where individuals with drug and alcohol addictions can live in a sober and supportive environment. As you know, these individuals are protected under, inter alia, the Americans With Disabilities Act (the "ADA ") and the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments (the "FH? A'J. This application is brought by Yellowstone (the "Applicant ") on the behalf of all of that disabled individuals who reside at the Properties, both currently and prospectively. It is worth noting that Yellowstone is less than confident that the instant applications are necessary. Yellowstone hereby submits these applications out of an abundance of caution and in a continued effort to remain compliant with all applicable i ewport Beach ordinances. With respect to each of the Properties, the following facts apply: The Properties were originally purchased in the imincorporated area of Orange County known as Santa Ana Heights. Recently, the Properties Were annexed by the City of Newport Beach. Further, Ordinance 2008 -5 was signed into law. As a result, Yellowstone has decided to submit the referenced applications under Ordinance J008 -5 and Municipal Code sections 20.62,010, et seq., 20.91.010, et seq., 20.91A.010, et seq.,iand 20.98.010, et seq. The Ordinance requires that a number of questions be addressed in the permit application, and also in connection with the request for reasonable ¢ccommodation. In response to those requirements, Yellowstone provides the following specific information: Yellowstone does not provide medical services, or any other type of health care, at any of the Properties. Rather, the Properties are available as separate and distinct sober l #ving homes of residence for disabled individuals who seek to live in a house with other similarl� disabled individuals (who have made a commitment to sobriety), in community, and with the purpose of maintaining that sobriety and addressing their respective disabilities. YS 00881 City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 3 The success of sober living homes in assisting tl United States is well documented. Similar success has 1 herein. A sample of the literature on sober living homes the sober living homes addressed in these applications, live at these homes would not have access to sober livinE to live in such a home in Orange County. Yellowsto otherwise unaddressed need by these disabled individui enjoy a dwelling. There is no question that, with their ci enhance the lives of many individuals with disabilities. Importantly, the rent charged to these individua profit is realized. In fact, without charitable contributi By no means is Yellowstone, or any individual ii Yellowstone simply makes available a sober living disabled individuals, and with a view toward enhanc Yellowstone is forced to remove its operations from economic hardship. Moreover, with any prospective i living homes, the individuals with disabilities who accommodations. Yellowstone is compliant with all of the require Good Neighbor Principles, and is tenacious in ensuring tl observe these requirements. Approval of these applica municipal code or impose any financial or administrativ have been operating under these same general guideli (depending upon the property) without imposing any t residential character of the neighborhoods in which th altered in any way with the approval of these applications at any of the Properties. Moreover, there is no campus applications. Residents from any one Yellowstone prop. Properties, and there are no functions that include all r cited by any municipality — at any of the Properties specifically in Ordinance 2008 -5, Page 4, Paragraph 13. issues are presented with granting of these applications. :se disabled individuals throughout the ;en realized at the Properties addressed is attached to the applications. Without .e., the Properties, the individuals who homes, and would not be able to afford e provides these homes to satisfy the Is for an equal opportunity to use and rrent use, these Properties affirmatively simply covers Yellowstone's costs; no :, Yellowstone would operate at a loss. )lved with Yellowstone, a profiteer. vironment in an effort to help these the community. To the extent that iese Properties, it will suffer extreme sure of any of the Properties as sober ive in these homes will be without nents in the City of Newport Beach's at all residents at the Properties strictly Ions would not alter the nature of the burden on the City. These Properties ies for between two and seven years irden upon the County or City. The se Properties are located will not be In fact, there is no non - residential use established through the grant of these rty are not allowed at any of the other sidents. Yellowstone has never been for any of the complaints set forth No health, safety or physical damage On a separate but related matter, Yellowstonq would like to apply for a Federal Exemption Permit ( "FEP ") to continue its operations,] pursuant to Municipal Code section 20.91.035, et seq. We have been unable to locate ajy FEP forms on the City's website. Yesterday, Ms. Leisha Mello of Yellowstone personally appeared at City Hall to attempt to obtain such forms. She was informed by an individual identified as Mr. Alford, a senior planner, that the FEP was no longer available, and that the municipal code as well as Ordinance 2008 -5, had been amended to exclude the FEP. After re- reviewing the municipal code, as well as the YS 00882 City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 4 Ordinance, this does not appear to be the case. Acc FEP application be sent to us at your convenience. application requirements are satisfied with the infor that these applications be deemed FEP requests. Lastly, we would note that Yellowstone woul continued use permit under the non - conforming use star et seq.). As with the FEP, Ms. Mello was informed that under this code section. That section provides that " become nonconforming due to reclassification, ordim continued subject to the provisions of this Chapter." As addressed in this application will fit this definition in th In that case, Yellowstone will have become nonconfc enactment of Ordinance 2008 -5. In reviewing the facl similar in nature to those required for the Use Permi application. Accordingly, Yellowstone incorporates the to this instant request for a non - conforming use permit that "sufficient documentation" be provided to esta established. Given that: 1. The City annexation of t documented; 2. The public record duly reflects that the F annexation; and 3. Ordinance 2005 -8 may have rendere noncompliant; Yellowstone sees no need to submit any there are any documents that are required by the City which are not already in the City's possession, please ai supply any such documentation. In sum, Yellowstone submits that it provides a Beach at the Properties while, at the same time, avoidin, its residents. Yellowstone brings these applications in a of Newport Beach is fully apprised of all of its operatior about Yellowstone or its character. As discussed abov application some published materials that support the c We are further committed to provide the City with connection with these applications (subject to any privac is incorporated by this reference into each individual abo, y, we would hereby request that an Latively, to the extent that the FEP provided herein, we would request like to simultaneously apply for a es (Municipal Code section 20.62.010 o forms currently exist for application ses, buildings, structures or lots that ce changes, or annexations may be iscussed above, each of the Properties event that a use permit is not granted. ming due to reclassification and the rs that are to be considered, they are and the Reasonable Accommodation ►aterials provided herein as they relate Of note, section 20.62.030D requires ish that the structure was lawfully s Santa Ana Heights region is well - )perties at issue here are a part of such Yellowstone's use of these Properties Iditional documentation to the City. If n undertaking this analysis, however, ,ise us of same, and we will diligently ,ital service for the City of Newport any burden whatsoever to the City or ontinued effort to ensure that the City and that there are no misconceptions we have attached to each individual mentions made in these applications. iy documentation that it requires in considerations). This correspondence referenced application. YS 00883 City of Newport Beach May 20, 2008 Page 5 As always, if you have any questions regarding these applications, please feel free to contact us. Ve t ly ?ours, IS AC . &ATY IREJn cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) V&1 11IZ! a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Request for Reasonable Accommodation . Request Worksbeet Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 The purpose of a request for "Reasonable Accommodation" is to ensure compliance with City zoning regulations in the context of State and Federal Fair Housing law, Reasonable Accommodation is used here just as the term is used in the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments (FHAA) and the case law implementing the FHAA. Reasonable Accommodation shall be approved so long as there is substantial evidence in the administrative record that establishes that all of the following findings for approval have been made: 1. The exception sought is necessary to mitigate a handicap - related barrier to housing; and 2. The living group is not residing in the Dwelling or Dwellings as a Single Housekeeping Unit. 3. Reasonable Accommodation, if approved, would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a municipal program nor impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. To the extent authorized by law, the factors that a Hearing Officer or the City Council on review or appeal may consider in deciding whether to grant Reasonable Accommodation include, but are not necessarily limited to: (i) Whether the nature and/or extent of vehicular traffic, such as the frequency or duration of trips by commercial vehicles, would be altered to such an extent that it would be contrary to, or violate, any relevant provision of the Newport Beach General Plan, Specific Plan, Planned Community Text or Municipal Code if reasonable accommodation was approved. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the approval of Reasonable Accommodation does not tend to change the residential character of the neighborhood; or (ii) Whether development or use standards established in the Newport Beach Municipal Code applicable to other residential uses in the neighborhood would be violated. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the use of the property is not being substantially changed, for instance, by adding unpermitted, non - residential uses to a residential use in a residential zone; or (iii)Whether a Campus would be established in a residential zone if the Reasonable Accommodation request was granted. Page 1 of YS 00885 Application Number To aid staff in determining that the necessary findings can be made in this particular case, please answer the following questions with regard to your request (Please attach on separate sheets, if necessary): 1. How many dwelling units exist on the property and how many bedrooms are within each unit? There is one dwelling unit with six bedrooms 2. How many persons will reside at the location for which you are seeking this permit? 3. How many clients reside within each dwelling unit and how many reside in the total facility? 4. What is the anticipated average length of stay for residents? Six months 5. Do the clients have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? What are those impairments? Yes. The individuals who reside at the property are all disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 6. Are any of the clients below the age of 18 years old, if so, how many? No. 7. Are any of the clients provided any type of medical care, non - medical services or supervision on site? If so, please describe. No medical care or non - medical services are provided. S. How many caretakers or other staff will reside at the location? How many additional caretakers or staff will visit the facility on a daily basis? Weekly basis? Two staff members reside at the property There are no other "caretakers" or "staff' that will visit the facility on a daily or weekly basis. 9. What is the operational nature of the facility (i.e. group home, sober living environment, recovery facility, varying types of non - medical care for persons in need of certain services essential for sustaining the activities of daily living)? The properte is a sober living home There are no medical services provided at this property This sober living 10. Describe available on -site parking resources and the staff and visitor parking plans. The property has a two -car garage and a driveway This parking is ample for all of the yrooertv's needs. The residents at the property do not have automobiles and rely_ upon public transportation and/or carpooling 11. Describe client's ability to drive and operate a vehicle while residing at the facility. Page 2 of 5 Application Number 12.Does the facility provide transportation services (i.e. transportation to school, jobs, medical treatment, or other activities)? If yes, please describe the frequency, duration and schedule of services and where the vehicles are stored? No. 13.Are any physical alterations or changes proposed to the property or needed to accommodate the use? No. 14.Is counseling provided to clients? If so, is it counseling only include clients that reside individuals? If counseling is provided off -site, provided on -site or off -site? If on -site, does within the unit or does it include other where is it provided? . No. 15.Please list location and describe operational characteristics of other facilities operated by same applicant (or owner or business or non - profit entity) within the City. Will this facility . provide office functions to serve other facilities owned or operated by the same entity? Newport Beach CA 92707 1561 Indus Newport Beach CA 92707 Each facility is stand- alone and no office functions are provided by any one facility for the benefit of another, 16.Sow do the clients/residents interact with each other within the unit? Is there joint use of common areas? Do clients share household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, and expenses? Will goods or services that require the use of delivery vehicles be provided to the facility? The residents at the property reside se arately at the property and responsible for their own meals expenses and chores Each individual resides at the 17.If the facility is operated within multiple dwelling units. on a single property, does each unit operate independent of each other or do any units serve a function for the residents of other units (i.e. one unit serving the function of food preparation, office, laundry, group meeting space, counseling space, etc.). There are not multiple dwelling units s at the property._ 18. What types of licenses are required to be obtained from other agencies to operate this use (i.e. Department of Social Services, Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, etc.)? If any, describe agency, type, and capacity of licenses. None. The property does. however. 19.Please explain why the.requested accommodation is necessary. to whether the instant request for accommodation is necessary, but the applicant is aoolyina for a reasonable accommodation out of an abundance of caution. The property was Page 3 of 5 YS 00887 Application Number care at the property Rather, the property is available as a sober living home for individuals who seek to live in a house with other sober individuals (who have a similar disabilityl. in documented Similar success has been realized at the proorty. Without sober living @ omes, the individuals who live' at the property would not have access to sober living homes, and would not be able to afford to live in a sober living home in Orange County. The rent Neighbor Principles, and is tenacious in ensuring that all residents at the properly follow property utilized by the applicant are not allowed on any of the other properties, and there are no functions that include all residents In sum the applicant provides a vital service for the City of Newport Beach at the property while at the same time avoiding any burden to the ,:—. __J .I_ IL- L -- t.-- n:AsA 1... nmr �r,nnnmutikv _ 8L LLIlZi J21WLIMLY V1 MIY VIIIOL — IUL MIV Vl LUG GVIII 0. IL 2008 -5 Page 4 Paragraph 13 Page of tt: Application Number 20. Please attach any house rules or "good neighbor" policies applicable to the proposed facility. . All residents at the property follow the City of Newport Beach Good Neighbor Principles as published on the City's website 21. What uses will occur on the property that are ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling? None. 22. Will the facility operator, manager or applicant live on the property? Yes The manager and 23. Will any alterations to the internal or external structural form of the residence be made? No. 24. Will any evidence of uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling be visible from off the lot where the facility is located? NIA. 25. Will any equipment or materials needed for uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a dwelling be stored or used on the property outside the residence? N /A. 26. Will any equipment or process be used that will emit radiation or create noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the property for uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling? 27. Will the number of parking spaces available to each dwelling unit used by the facility be reduced to less than that required by NBMC Chapter 20.66 (Off - street Parking and Loading) and Section 20.62.060 (Nonconforming parking)? No. 28. Will the facility create amount in the area? vehicle or truck traffic significantly in excess of the normal 29. Will any vehicle associated with uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling be stored or repaired on the facility property? No. 30. Will the facility be open to visitors and clients without prior appointments for uses ancillary, accessory or secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling? No. Page 5 of 5 Homes. Vices Q Organizine Trainine Communi _ Conta Sponsors Find Sober Housing In Your So. Cal. Community I Search By Area Zj Go The Sober Living Network A SOBER HOUSING VISION Someday there will be recovery supportive housing and community centers throughout the United States. These clusters will be developed with a variety that will include individual houses, apartments, and congregate living accommodations. There will be a mixture of housing with normal -cost apartments for recovery veterans and low -cost, supervised shared housing for those in early recovery, In many accommodations there will be specially designed housing sections for women and/or men with children that have play areas and childcare. Sober housing clusters will be designed to accommodate persons who are physically and mentally challenged. Sober housing clusters will be recovery- promoting incubators. The clusters will include meeting spaces to host self -help and educational meetings, recreational, and social events. They will be operated within a democratic culture and a high level of recovery enthusiasm. These clusters will become islands of sobriety in our alcohol and drug using society. Sober housing and community centers will become continuously available as a recovery assistance resource for alcoholics, addicts, and family members. They will be available and noticeable not only to those who are fully into their addiction, but those who are in their earlier or experimental stages. Communities of stable recovering persons can easily absorb newly recovering persons into their community. Currently many sober living homes are trying to meet the needs of newly recovering persons without the benefit of having a core of stable recovering residents or the management resources to meet their recovery service needs. The rationale for cluster housing is that the self -help learning process comes in bits and pieces. The greater the exposure to a comprehensive recovery environment with.many recovery activities and a predominance of recovering people, the greater chance a person has to learn recovery. The need for a balance of recovery experiences became evident when twelve -step meetings dominated by newcomers were not as effective in assisting Home Or anizing rainin Community Contact Sponsors Site MaR ® Copyright 2004 Sober Living Network All Rights Reserved privacv- Hosting provided by Heller NetWorks and The Sober Musicians Project http:// www .soberhousing.net/vision.htmi 5/15/2008 YS 00890 Hour e V i s i o nOrgan izin gTrai n i ngCotn m un 1tyContactSp on tors Find Sober Housing In Your SoCal Community I Search By Area The Sober Living Network COMMUNITY RECOVERY SUPPORT RESOURCES Community recovery resources offer a practical and cost- efficient way to assist alcoholics, addicts and family members to enter and maintain long -term recovery. The current alcohol and drug treatment system does not have the capacity to meet the long -tetra recovery assistance needs required to meet the needs of the many. The treatment system is too heavily invested in short-term treatment and too little invested in the development of safe and healthy community recovery promoting environments and activities that are constantly available to support recovery and life style enhancements. Alcohol and drug treatment programs have been formatted by government and academic institutions into quality "people processing" treatment stations that are now too costly per person assisted to significantly reduce addiction problems. Community recovery is based on the postulate that safe and sober places filled with healthy recovery activities provide the environments, motivation and recovery tools for alcoholics, addicts and family members to assist ( process) themselves. Operators mammin healthy and safe onvimmm uds and promote individual recovery responsibility. Community recovery resources include self -help meetings, Alarm clubs -which host self-help activity, community recovery centers, sober living housing, and sober recreational and social events. Community recovery centers are self -service spaces that offer education sessions, host self -help groom, hold sociallreraeational events and have counseling and therapy available by self- seiection. Community recovery centers, activities and housing are easily adaptable to meet the broad ethnic, cultural and physically challenged needs. Community recovery resources are assisting millions of alcoholics, addicts and family members in recovery from alcoholism and other drug addictions with little or no support fioin.government and health insurance funding sources. Sober living homes, Alano clubs and community recovery centers ate primarily created and supported by recovering persons motivated by a call to be of service to others. The Soberl.ivimg Network P.O. Bo: 5235, Santa Mooks, CA 90409 (310) 396 -5270 Hont eOrganizingTrainingC _gmmuaityContactSite Map ®Copyright 2004 Sober Housing All Rights Reserved pliyucy.policy Hosting provided by Mellor Networks and The Sober_ M} sicians, Project http:// www. soberhousing.net/conununity.htmi 5/15/2008 YS 00891 w� The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence fights the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions. Facts and Information The cost and consequences of alcoholism and drug dependence place an enormous burden on American society. As the nation's number one health problem, addiction strains the health care system, the economy, harms family life and threatens public safety. Substance abuse crosses all societal boundaries, affects both genders, every ethnic group, and people in every tax bracket. Scientific documentation defines alcoholism and drug dependence as a disease that has roots in both genetic susceptibility and personal behavior. THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM • There are more deaths and disabilities each year in the U.S. from substance abuse than from any other cause. • About 18 million Americans have alcohol problems, about 5 to 6 million Americans have drug problems. 2 • More than half of all adults have a family history of alcoholism or problem drinking. 3 • More than nine million children live with a parent dependent on alcohol and/or illicit drugs. 4 THE CONSEQUENCES One - quarter of all emergency room admissions, one - third of all suicides, and more than half of all homicides and incidents of domestic violence are alcohol - related. http:// www. neadd .org /far,ts/numberoneprob.htmi 5/15/2008 YS 00892 . Heavy drinking contributes to illness in each of the top three causes of death: heart disease, cancer and stroke. s . Almost half of all traffic fatalities are alcohol - related. 7 . Between 48% and 64% of people who die in fires have blood alcohol levels indicating intoxication. 8 . Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation. 9 THE COST . Alcohol and drug abuse costs the American economy an estimated $276 billion per year in lost productivity, health care expenditures, crime, motor vehicle crashes and other conditions. 10 . Untreated addiction is more expensive than heart disease, diabetes and cancer combined. 11 Every American adult pays nearly $1, 000 per year for the damages of addiction. 12 SO, WHAT CAN BE DONE? Like other diseases, addiction can be overcome with proper treatment, prevention and more research. By increasing access to care, the costly toll on society and the burden it places on families can be reduced. Research shows conclusively that successful prevention and treatment leads to reductions in traffic fatalities, crime, unwanted pregnancy, child abuse, HIV, cancer and heart disease. Treatment reduces drug use, improves health, improves job performance, reduces involvement with the criminal justice system, reduces family dysfunction and improves quality of life. The Comprehensive Assessment Treatment Outcomes Registry Data in Ohio have documented dramatic results in decreasing occupational problems, including the following reductions after treatment: . Absenteeism decreased by 89% http:// www. ncadd .org/facts/numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00893 • Tardiness decreased by 92% • Problems with supervisors decreased by 56% • Mistakes in work decreased by 70% Incomplete work decreased-by 81% 13 Additionally, a California Study found significant decreased health care costs from before to after treatment in: • Hospitalizations for physical health problems ( -3696) • Drug overdose hospitalizations ( -5896) • Mental health hospitalizations (44 %) • The number of emergency room visits ( -36 %) The total number of hospital days (- 25 %) 14 Americans increasingly recognize that alcoholism and drug dependence is a disease with consequences that affect both physical and behavioral health. Diagnostic and treatment services have changed in recent years and modem treatment, when adequately provided, enables a great many people to recover and rebuild productive lives. It is important that the public be aware of evidence generated by scientific inquiry, clinical evaluation and clinical experience. The evidence demonstrates that treatment for alcohol and other drug abuse works. Treatment not only saves lives, it also saves dollars that would otherwise be spent in other areas of medical care and social services. For every dollar spent on . addiction treatment, seven dollars is saved in reduced health care costs.1-5 The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence is dedicated to fighting the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions by providing education, information, help and hope to the public. NCADD advocates prevention, intervention, and treatment through a network of 97 affiliates across the United States. For more information, visit: www.ncadd.oM. Alcoholism and drug dependence are treatable and millions of people achieve recovery. SOURCES 1. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem,' Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1993. http:// www. ncadd .org/facts/numberoneprob.html _ 5115/2008 YS 00894 2. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis Unhrersity, 2001. 3. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 4. Ibid. 5. "Sobering Facts on the Dangers of Alcohol," NY Newsday, April 24, 2002. 6. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Annual Report, 1992. 8. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1993. 9. E. Abel, "incidence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Economic Impact of FAS- Related Anomalies," Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1987. 10. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 2001. 11. Ibid. 12. The National Drug Control Strategy, The White House, 19S7. 13. Ohio Dept. of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, New Standards, Inc., St. Paul, MN, 1994. 14. Gerstein, at al, "Evaluating Recovery Services: the California Drug and Alcohol Assessment," Sacramento, 1994. 15. Ibid. Compiled 6102 MIM NCADD National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. 244 East 58th Street, 4th Floor. New York, NY 10022 phone: 212/269 -7797 fax: 212/269 -7510 email: na bnal@ncadd oro hftp: /twww.ncadd.org HOPE LINE: 800INCA -CALL (24 -hour Affiliate referral) http:// www. ncadd .org /facts/numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00895 G4netal POPOlation According to data from the 2005 Nafiomi HouaNald Survey on Drug (to and Health (NSDUH) — • 112 millim Americana age 12M Older J48% of the population) reported Oct! drtg use at least Wm in thew lifetime • 14 %reported um a a drugwhNn the pea year • 8% reported used a drug within the peal momh. Data from the 2005 survey staved that m nijuar a and cocaine use is the most prevalent among persons ape 18 to 25. The Pray Abuse Weming Netwwrk (DAWN) menhors drug- rdefed emergmay department IED) Aslis for the nation and for selected rMmpoWan areas. DAWN atm collede dale on drug-rdaed deaths investigated by medical a enjoy rs and caonars in selected maropo6lan stem end Slates. in 2005. DAV`AV esi n som that maty 1.4 million emergency depemnad units natiomdde were associated with drug misum or abuse. An estimated $16,698 drug- related ernargeraydepartment Nip involved a major substance of abuse. OWN ea5maes than: • confine wm Iro alwad in 448,481 ED Nets. • Maddusm wesinvofwd in 242,20D ED Haile. • Heroin was Involved in 164.672 ED Nap. • Stimulw s, included amphetamines and methsmphapmine, were Involved In 138,950 ED Nehe. • Other Mesa drupe, such as PCP, Ecstasy. and GHB, ware much less hequwt than any of me some. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. SAMHSA, Office of Applied Sties, Ono Acme Wemkg Nelwark, 2096: Ne6orrd Estlmafea ofONWReluadEmergeneyDeparknent Visks. DAWN Series 0.29, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 074268. Rododle, MO. 2007. In 2003, 122 Jurisdictions In 36 metropolitan arms and 6 States submitted modd'dy data to DAWN. The States, which are al maw to DAWN, we M81110, Maryland. New Hampshire, Now Mecca, U1ldh, and Venom. DAWN cormet Pravda national eahreles of dr g-rehaed deaths. In the metropolitan arses, ressy hall of drug rmwse deaths, an everoge. irwdved a major substance of abase (coming, herdn, =*arm Sumtdwte, drub drugs, hdhxinogem, or m Phanmacmticd Inhaerlta)• Across the 8 States, mayor substances were reported In about a Wad d misum deaths. SU, raider substances were reported In 40% to 46% of drug misum deaths In Maryland, NM McWw, and Utah. Descriptions of drop abuse deaths in the Participating loseopolmn erase ere aw "in the MDnt qbl Deb alma the DAbt% 2003 repro. Acme" 10 data hem the 2008 Wrie lly Date from DAWN— Cocaine was the most Imcp eery reported igdt drug. In the drug misuve deaths, comlm wm wMV the by 5 drugs in 28 of the 32 mmo"ten grew, and all of the 6 States. On average, coming atom a in comoinatlm wait other drugs was reported in 39% of dnhp miaum death, (rmge 8% to 70%). Ahandwaa omof the 5 moat comnwnt drugs in 30 of the 32...b dlpn ,rem and 6 of the 6 Stales, in 29 of the 32 metropcien arms, mom, drug misuse deaths urrolved an opielefoplold than arty otter 0109. Somme: U. S. Department of Health and Human Sankes, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Sturges, Drag Abuse Welling Norwell; 2003: Area ProMm of Dmg4qW@W Atonality DAWN Series D-27, DHHS publication No. (SMA) 05dD23, RoolMOe, MD, 2005. Previous owwhw •f4uswessaandn w -- OP- WuJ -vwbw Swd wma•ntr r• .1dapill kI.aw Contents 13JS home page I Top of this page o4PFmd=dMr• 9Im Adpap L'Apolite wDhetnhmen Pw Wt mslxd w Ma 11,7PQ http : / /www.ojp.gov/bjs /dcf/du.htm 511 412 00 8 YS 00896 Age of respondaM, 2004 Drug use 12-07 18-26 28 or older UMmonth 8,8% 18.8% 4.1% Led you 13.3 28.0 6.9 Coming last month 0.8% 2.11% 0.8% Lost year 11 8.9 1.6 Solace: SAMHSA, Office Of AppBed Studies, 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Nedwal FlmfMos, September 2008. The Pray Abuse Weming Netwwrk (DAWN) menhors drug- rdefed emergmay department IED) Aslis for the nation and for selected rMmpoWan areas. DAWN atm collede dale on drug-rdaed deaths investigated by medical a enjoy rs and caonars in selected maropo6lan stem end Slates. in 2005. DAV`AV esi n som that maty 1.4 million emergency depemnad units natiomdde were associated with drug misum or abuse. An estimated $16,698 drug- related ernargeraydepartment Nip involved a major substance of abuse. OWN ea5maes than: • confine wm Iro alwad in 448,481 ED Nets. • Maddusm wesinvofwd in 242,20D ED Haile. • Heroin was Involved in 164.672 ED Nap. • Stimulw s, included amphetamines and methsmphapmine, were Involved In 138,950 ED Nehe. • Other Mesa drupe, such as PCP, Ecstasy. and GHB, ware much less hequwt than any of me some. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. SAMHSA, Office of Applied Sties, Ono Acme Wemkg Nelwark, 2096: Ne6orrd Estlmafea ofONWReluadEmergeneyDeparknent Visks. DAWN Series 0.29, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 074268. Rododle, MO. 2007. In 2003, 122 Jurisdictions In 36 metropolitan arms and 6 States submitted modd'dy data to DAWN. The States, which are al maw to DAWN, we M81110, Maryland. New Hampshire, Now Mecca, U1ldh, and Venom. DAWN cormet Pravda national eahreles of dr g-rehaed deaths. In the metropolitan arses, ressy hall of drug rmwse deaths, an everoge. irwdved a major substance of abase (coming, herdn, =*arm Sumtdwte, drub drugs, hdhxinogem, or m Phanmacmticd Inhaerlta)• Across the 8 States, mayor substances were reported In about a Wad d misum deaths. SU, raider substances were reported In 40% to 46% of drug misum deaths In Maryland, NM McWw, and Utah. Descriptions of drop abuse deaths in the Participating loseopolmn erase ere aw "in the MDnt qbl Deb alma the DAbt% 2003 repro. Acme" 10 data hem the 2008 Wrie lly Date from DAWN— Cocaine was the most Imcp eery reported igdt drug. In the drug misuve deaths, comlm wm wMV the by 5 drugs in 28 of the 32 mmo"ten grew, and all of the 6 States. On average, coming atom a in comoinatlm wait other drugs was reported in 39% of dnhp miaum death, (rmge 8% to 70%). Ahandwaa omof the 5 moat comnwnt drugs in 30 of the 32...b dlpn ,rem and 6 of the 6 Stales, in 29 of the 32 metropcien arms, mom, drug misuse deaths urrolved an opielefoplold than arty otter 0109. Somme: U. S. Department of Health and Human Sankes, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Sturges, Drag Abuse Welling Norwell; 2003: Area ProMm of Dmg4qW@W Atonality DAWN Series D-27, DHHS publication No. (SMA) 05dD23, RoolMOe, MD, 2005. Previous owwhw •f4uswessaandn w -- OP- WuJ -vwbw Swd wma•ntr r• .1dapill kI.aw Contents 13JS home page I Top of this page o4PFmd=dMr• 9Im Adpap L'Apolite wDhetnhmen Pw Wt mslxd w Ma 11,7PQ http : / /www.ojp.gov/bjs /dcf/du.htm 511 412 00 8 YS 00896 n�'[ !9'�{)a.P m 1,5ntnn in,ic';9n�atic� �(a1,6)o'Ll, n(S 1letitlrc I'Ir(1h1.fGnvi r�'ev 93�tHat,.►,a1 -ct 1)a3t i1. la RStICs i � �n�,XP Ea coewehs Drugs and Crime Facia Proyhus aura 1• the Big Drug use nom• peg• Vaunt I General population Youth • Liss • Perceived risk -. • Student reports of av8110bd6y of drugs Use The Monitoring the Future Study asked NO sdrod sentom,'On how many occasions, if airy, have you used drugs or alcohol doing the fast 12 months or morah7 Reported drug and alcohol use by high school serdors, 2006 Used within the last Drugs 12 maPOW 30 days Alcohol 6615% 45.3% Marijuana 31.5 18.3 Other opiates 9.0 3.8 Stfmutsnts 8.1 3.7 Sedatives 6.6 3.0 TranOUulzars 6.6 27 Coming 5.7 20 Halluckmose s 4.9 1.5 Inhalants 4.5 1.5 Stwwa 1.8 1.1 Heroin - 0.8 0,4 `Including the last moms. Sauce: Press rates= Teen drug use continues dawn In 2006, particularlyanwng older teens; but Me of prescript m."e drugs ramahm nigh. University of Michigan Haws mi information Services, Decongto 21. 2008. (Aerobot Me 076.81103) Self -repots of drug use among high school sedors may under represent drug use among youth Of that age becauss high aMhod dropouts and truants are net included. and tlxeegroups may have mare IrwoNmnamwith drugs thenth0ee who ctay to school. Percent of all college students, 1996.2606 Grua OSe 1995 1999 1997 logo 1999 2006 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 Marquena Deity within hestnordh 3.7% 2.8% 3.7% 4.e% 4.0% 4,6% 4.594 4.1% 4.7% 4.5% 41%. Lest month 18.6 17.5 17.7 18.8 20.7 20.0 20.2 19.7 19.3 18.9 17.1 Lastyear 31.2 33.1 31.6 35.9 35.2 34.0 35.8 34.7 33.7 33,3 33.3 Cocaine Daly vdthln lastmordle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 010% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.0% 0.1% Lestmonth 0.7 0.6 1.6 1.9 1.2 1.4 1.9 1.9 1.9 24 1.8 Last year 3.6 2.9 3.4 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.0 5.4 6.6 5.7 Less than 0.05% Rates of past year cocaine use by college dtKjeMS have varied over Ina Peat 10 yams from a tow of 2.9 %m 19as to a high of 5,7% in 2005. Past year madjuana use has ranged from a tmv of 31.2% In 1995 to a high of 35.9% le 1998. Source: University of Michigan, sionlioring the future National Survey Results on Drug W% 1975.2006, Volume U.- College Students and Adults Ages 1945, 2005, October 2006. (Acrobat its 231 MS) Of nigh school sort= in 2005 - . 44.8% reported having ever used merijuenafhasllidt . 6.U% Mooned having ever used orcsiAa . 1.6% reported having ever used heroin. http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/def/du.htm 5/14/2008 YS 00897 Source: University of WNW. simbortng the Future Rational Results an Adolescent Mug Use Overview of Key Findinga 2005, April 2006. (Acrobat fie 442.775(8) The Increase in the we of marijuene has been especially pronounced. Between 1992 and 2005 pashmordh use Of madimm increased from: • 12% to 20% among high school eersors. . B %to 15 %among 101h grwW8, • 4% to 7% among 5th graders. Reported use of madjuerra by high sons of senors during the peel meet peeked in 1078 a13794 and declined to be lowest IOW in 1982 at 12%. The use of he surveys Incene�nthl�ne se dxgewd to a love Of s.3% in 1902 end 7 93�In 2005. 2 3% of high �urd "More reported pas{ -month cocaine use. Source: University of Michigan, Ifoneo ing the Fufum Ratianai Resuble on Adolescent Mug Use: Overview of Key Fadlons 2005, Apo! 2008. (Acrobat fie 442771(Sj. corare use arnorg high schod tenders peeled in 1985. Percent of high school seniors who used cocaine within the last: 11181 1se9 ISM 108!1 20M 2004 9¢cWaing the last 30 days. IM Cfiak on the chart to vim the data. Source: Frogs refeaeV Teen dicey me coadnues down In 2004 psAioWedy among alder teens: but a" of 2008. (Acrubatpa 57 1031. ins high. UNver* of MEMW News end Information Services. racemes 21. Perceived risk From 1987 to 2DDS the perce depe of high adrod serum that were asksd.'Haw much do you think people risk ha "In8 tlwmselmr remaaed virtually stable. Those sadenfs anawedng -green dole in regular use accovrded for tie following — Click on the chart to view the data [D) Source: preae release: Teat dung use continues down In 2006, Particularly among older eana; but new of 2608. (Acrobat Oa drrups nit) sins high. university of Michigan News and Infameaon SsnAcee. Oecernber21. Student reports of avaitabisy of drugs Percent of high school seniors reporting they could obtain dress fairly easily, or very easily. 2006 http : / /www,ojp.gov /bjs /dcf/du.htm 5/14/2008 YS 00898 MaUuana 84.8% Amphelerldnes 52.9 Cocaine 48.5 Barbiturates 43.8 Crack 38.6 LSD 29.0 Heroin 27.4 Crystal methemphelanine 28.7 Tranquilizers 24.4 PCP 23.1 Amyllbutyl Minter 18.4 Source: Press release: Teen drug use continues down In 2008, peeticdody, among older arena; but use of preaulp0on -type drugs remains high. University of Min igan Neva mid intimation Services, December 21, 2006. (Acrobel file 576.81KB) In 2005,25 %d as students In grades 9 through 12 reported mM eons had offered, sold, or given them an Ylegai hug on saMd property. Thee was no meearrabie change wnh the percentage of students who reported that rings were otiaed. add, or given to than at schad behown 2003 and 2005. Malin warn more Math, than females to report that drugs were offered, add, or given io them on ached property in each survey year bstween 1693 and 2005. In 2005, 29% Of males and 22%d temalen reported availability d drugs. Source: B.IS Jaldty with the U.S. Department at Education. Wkated of School Crime and Safely, 2006, NCJ 214262, December 2006. 1 To the top General population According to data from the 2005 National Housebold Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUM - • 112 nAtlon Americans age 12 or older (46 %d the PopWatim) reported dal drug use at least once in their BleBme • 14% reported use of a drug within the pad year • 8% reported we of a drug within the past month. Dale Rom the 2805 survey, showed Met matUusna and cocaine use is the most prevalent among persons age 18 to 25. Age of 1e5pund"It, 2004 Drug use 12 -17 18-28 25 or older MarUuane Lest mash 6.8% 16.6% 4.1% Laelyear 13.3 28.0 6.9 Cocaine Lost month 0.8% 2.6% 0.8% lastyaw 1.7 819 1.5 Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, 2005 National Surrey on Owe Use and Hostel: National Findings, September 2008. The Drug Abuse ayaming Network (DAWN) moisture drug- relaled emergency depamram (ED) 431M few OW nation and for selected metropolitan saes DAWN else collects dds on dngtalwad deaths investigated by medical exorrirere and coronae In selected metropolitan areas mnd States. In 2005, DAWN estimates that needy 1.4 rrriffen emergency deportment vials nallenwMe were associated vMh drug misuae w abuse. An estimated 816,696 drug -related emergency department vista involved a major substaMe of atone. DAWN estimates that • Cocaine was inolved In 448,481 ED visits. • Madjuana was Involved in 242,208 ED Halts. • Hwdn was involved In 164,572 ED visits. • Stimulants, included amphetamines and methanphatadrm, were involved in 138,950 ED visits, • Olhe I%* drugs, such as PCP. Ecstasy, and GHB, ware much less imquad than any Of the above. Source: U. S. Department d Health and Hunan Services, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse yarning Network, 2008: Neeonel Estimates of Drug -jrhda W Emergency Department Vista. DAWN Series D- 29. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 07 -4256, Rockville, MO, 2007. In 2003, 122 Jurisdictions in 35 metropolitan areas and 6 Simas subnvtled monNity data to DAWN. The States, which are a6 new to DAWN, ore Maine, Maryland, thew Hempshhe, New Macke, Utah, and Vermont. DAWN cams provide national estimaie6 of drug - related deaths. In the metropolitan areas, needy half of drug misuse deaths, on average. involved a maim submerse or abuse (cocaine, herdn, http : / /www.ojp.gov/bjs /dcf /du.htrn 5/1412008 YS 00899 marijuana stimulants. dub doge, hetucinogens, or norh.pharmacauficet inhateme). Aorossihe 8 Steles, maim "1480cm were reported in about a third of misuse deaths. SBA, majar substances were reported In 40% to 46% of drug nrawas deaths In Maryland, New Mexico, and Utah. Desmipilom of drug abum deaths In the peNcipatlreg metropolitan areas ere available in the Modality Date from the DAWN, 2003 report According to data from the 2003 Mortafify Dare Irom DAWN— Cocalne was the most frequently reported Igicit drug. In the drug misuse deaths, cocaine was arnoN the top 5 drugs in 28 of the 32 metropdhan areas and all of the 6 States. On average, cocaine done or M oombinsllon with otter drugs was reported in 39% of dnM misuse deaths (range 8% to 70 %). Alcohol was ore et the 5 most comment drugs in 30 of the 32 mMropoBten areas and 5 of the 6 States. In 26 of the 32 metropolitan area, more dng m)eues deaths involved an oplaleloptaid than any other dnlg. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Human SaMom, SAMHSA. Office of Applied Studies. Drug Abuse Wareing Nerwurk, 2OW: Ares Prodbe of Drug-Related KoraslRY.. DAWN Sates D -27, OHMS PubO[atlan No. (SMA) 06-4023, Rockville, MD. 2005. previous Bdlnnsf Jerrb BmlWin t. &.ad ...b 1. mx6jeddledolim Contents eJS home page 1 Top of this page Next 611' Fmsdansf lahnaaaen Ad P.R. leant P.W. Md Oirdaimm Pas.IW eeWfd u ApF 11. IM YS 00900 http : / /www.ojp.gov /bjs /def/du.htm 5/14/2008 . Westside Santa Ana Heights Homeowner, s Guide bb d ICE Profwtioaal Issue 16 May 2007 Con menu ofTed.$osley, 1aarNeag arcs waterpointe to start . )erreioiarnent tan 0 cilard in a recent response 10 my Inquiry about the timeline for this WeslSfde SAH protect, I received the following statement: We are still processing-oua- with the County of Orange. Once recnia- lion of the map occurs we aro planning on staling tlto project ... Once again l thanic you for your assistance in getting this project approved." Garrett Celacct, Waterpokde Development Principal Edward "Ted" Bosley (949) 294 -2126 TedBos{- e1@Vahoo.com Same • trrr uy a corm iltneut Ted Bosley Appointed to SAl i project Advisory Cof irnittee i started attending the SAN PAC meetings 5 years ago, mostly so that I could Mom ae much as possible about events atledirgf our community. You, the readers of my periodic newsletters, have been the banefadors since I have shared with you much of what was learned In that forum as well as Supervisor, City Council and LAFCO meetings. Many of you have also been in attendance at those same meetings. I appreciate being appointed to serve on the SAH Project Advisory Committee. This gives me the opportunity to'serve on critical subcommittees that make recommendations to the Bd of Supervisors and ft NB City Council on matters that have Significant impact on our community. WWw.TEDBOSLEY.COM Great sottroe for RE irlfomlatiori, tools plus BI- morithly OC Honrenlyner's Guide �Vestside _AhnAnnexation Update Administration, l2 Civic Carter Plaza, Santa Ana, in the Plarmatg CommissHron Hearing Room - The City of Newport Beach's appGcstion for a sphere of intluence change and concurrent annexation of Wast Santa Ana Heights and the City of Coale Mesa's_ appGcetlon for a sphere of influence change for the Banning Ranch ProPeriY will be ccnsidared by LAFCO on Misdate. Staff reports for bosh proposals vn11 be available for review on Wednesday afternoon, May 2, 2007, on the Orange County LAFCO webstte: ` gr oranoe LAFCO ca acv. pick on the'Aganda end Minutes' fink, theh cfldc on agenda item. a to came to a flnal . This is the meblirtg we all have bean waiting for- LAFCO is sup C wlit be there to support Annexation on the West Side Annexation w Newport r3e1 fth meeting. � is ww, sAHPACcom Annexation as ahxays. if you would like more information relating to the history of this effort please visit Sober Living Homes Make Their Commuri ty Chr istmas %n,e,o „n„ we x„mrisad as t by the amazing ENE#= . Coxlitribution Golf Course or Parking Lot? Daily Pilot Article on April 18th discusses this subject if you do not take the Pilot you can go to www dailypilotcoml ariiclesl2007/ 04/ 18 /po{iticsidpt-oolfcourse18.trt to view k. "cenuib"dw to wootsido SAH sh Saba Living Home fadue Cut -d"Re Women's Home What I cannot understand is why anyone on the Airport . Committee would suggest that a Car Rental Auto Storage facility should replace the Newport Beach Golf Course Back 9, that brings so much pleasure to so many, when their lease is up at the end of July, 2007. (Covanued anpage 2) Semi �:n ease:. ! to John .M A ND T =dBoslovra vahoo.com with yota opinion of thf: f,ass4'attlty of Sp�extenm�L -tae ;ue „c• ?;:r ttm. re6 C�aif L:ou�svtE ..: AND to le: me know, of your interest in ,actic[P.T. -isig sa :his s:,aes�n's 51nc_ rrxlifu' -; YS 00901 P .. rj.UV11• o...... . - - -- - 20172 REDLANDS DRIVE Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION STANDARD GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION (Form 100 — Revised March 2008) APPLICANTIFACILITY PROGRAM INFORMATION STEP 1: Completely fill out Form 150 (attached). STEP 2: Fill out the following: TYPE OF ORGANIZATION: ❑ For Profit ® Nonprofit ❑ Other, please explain: PROPERTY OWNERSHIP: ❑ Own ❑ Rent 0 Lease ❑ Other (specify): IS THE OPERATORIMANAGER ALSO THE LESSEE OF THIS PROPERTY? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ If no, please explain: IS THE APPLICANT OR PROGRAM OPERATOR PART OF A PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, FIRM, OR ASSOCIATION? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, please fill out and attach either Form 200C (if 2000, applicants must fill out Form 200D) or Form 200P, whichever is applicable. 2. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name of Property Owner where facility is proposed (if Corporation, legal name of Corporation) 3568 Meder Rd Shinole Sorinas CA 96662 _ (Mailing Address of Property Owner) (City /state) Rip) (530) 672 -6908 (5301672 -6909 (Telephone) (Fax number) (E -Mail address) Address) 0 Parcel YS 00902 3. SIMILAR USES A. Your Firm's Current Uses. Do you or your firm (or any entity or person affiliated with you or your firm) currently operate, manage, or own other group residential uses in Newport Beach? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, cite address(es) of faciiity(ies) (attach more pages if necessary): EXAMPLE: 1234 Main Street Newport Beach Unlicensed "Sober Living' 7 Site Address Type of Use - Bed Capacity 1571 Pegasus Newport Beach Cart Sober Livino 18 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity 1621 Indus Newport Beach Cert. Sober Livino 18 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity 1561 Indus Newport Beach Oxford Sober Livino 12 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity 10 YS 00903 B. Other Similar Uses. What uses, not operated by or affiliated with You or your firm, are of a similar type as your proposed use here in Newport Beach? Please cite address(es) of faciiity(ies) (attach more pages if necessary): EXAMPLE: 1234 Main Street Newport Beach Unlicensed "Sober Living" 7 Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity Site Address Type of Use Bed Capacity C. Evidence of Need for this Extent of Use. Per NBMC §20.91A.030 (E), please attach Evidence of Capacity and Need by residents of Newport Beach for this capacity based on published sources. 4. YOUR FIRM'S HISTORIC USES Per the requirements of NBMC §20.91A.030.G & H, in the oast five (5) years, have you or your firm or any entity or person affiliated with you or your firm operated, managed, or owned other group residential uses in California? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, show the site address(es) of each facility(tes) and show whether the facility(ies) have ever been in violation of Federal, State or local law (attach additional pages if necessary): EXAMPLE: 1234 Main Street Santa Barbara ADP - Licensed Facility 8 11 YS 00904 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? E3 Yes ® No If Yes, please Facility #f Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please explain: Facility #2 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please explain: Facility #3 Street Address, City Type of Use . Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes [I No If Yes, please explain: Facility #4 Street Address, City Type of Use Bed Capacity Has this facility or your operations at this facility, ever been in violation of State or local law? ❑ Yes ❑ No 12 YS 00905 If Yes, please explain: 5. LOCATION MAP AND SIMILAR USES Provide a Location Map showing the location of the proposed use plus all known conditional uses within a three - block radius. Include the property addresses of the proposed use and known conditional uses. Please consult the Newport Beach Planning Department (949 -644 -3225) for nearby conditional uses. 6. SITE PLAN Provide a Site Plan that shows the facility's building footprint and property lines. Include property lines and building footprints on immediately adjacent parcels. Note the uses (i.e. single family use, group residential use, or other) on adjacent parcels. LICENSE AND PERMIT HISTORY OF APPLICANT A. Per NBMC g20.91A.030(H), please summarize the license and permit history of each facility applicant or operator has managed, owned, or operated in the State of California within the last five (5) years which require either a license or a permit by the State or by a locality (attach additional sheets 9 necessary): Name of Facility (Facility Address) (City) (Zip) Please describe the nature of the license or use permit, the issuing agency, its reference number (if applicable), and any enforcement actions by any agency against the license or use permit: B. Has the applicant ever voluntarily surrendered, had a denial, suspension, or revocation of a residential license for an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility or a facility licensed by the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) or the California Department of Social Services - Community Care Licensing? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, the date license was surrendered, denied, suspended, or revoked: Reason for revocation, surrender, denial, or suspension: C. Has the applicant ever voluntarily surrendered, had a denial, suspension, or revocation of a Use Permit or similar permit for a group residential use in this community or another community? ❑ Yes ® No 13 YS 00906 If yes, the date Use Permit (or similar) was surrendered, denied, suspended, or revoked: Reason for revocation, surrender, denial, or suspension: D. Has the applicant ever voluntarily surrendered, had a denial, suspension or revocation of a certification by any public or private agency other than ADP or the California Department of Social Services- Community Care Licensing for a group residential use in this community or another community? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, the date Use Permit (or similar) was surrendered, denied, suspended, or revoked: Reason for revocation, surrender, denial, or suspension: S. NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED USE Per NBMC §20.91A.030(A -D), please provide the following information about each proposed facility (attach additional sheets if necessary). The components of this Section 8 (and other sections) comprise the Operations and Management Plan and Rules of Conduct envisioned by NBMC §20.91A.050.B: A. TYPE OF ALCOHOL ANDIOR OTHER DRUG RECOVERY OR TREATMENT SERVICES PROVIDED (for ADP - licensed facilities only -- check all that apply): ❑ Non - Medical Detoxification ❑ Group Sessions ❑ One -on -One Sessions ❑ Educational Sessions ❑ Recovery or Treatment Planning ® Other. None B. NUMBERS AND TYPES OF FACILITY USERS & STAFF: TOTAL OCCUPANCY OF FACILITY (This is the maximum number of individuals who live at the facility and are approved by the fire safety inspector.) These individuals include the residents receiving recovery, treatment or detoxification services, children of the residents, and staff. Staff includes individuals who work for the applicant in exchange for either monetary or in -kind compensation (e.g., room and board). Total occupancy cannot be exceeded for any reason. 18 MAXIMUM REQUESTED ADULT RESIDENT CAPACITY OF THE FACILITY (The number of adult residents , that receive recovery ; treatment or detoxification services at any one time, which cannot be greater than the total occupancy shown above): 0 MAXIMUM NUMBER AND AGE RANGE OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN WHO ARE SUPERVISED BY THEIR PARENT(S) IN THE FACILITY. This includes temporary residing (i.e., overnight, weekend visits) of dependent children. (Since there must always be at least one adult being served, the maximum number of dependent children housed must be at least one less than the total occupancy, determined by the fire inspector, as shown above): 0 Are all clients who reside on -site disabled, persons? Yes 14 YS 00907 Number of staff who will reside on -site: 2 Maximum number of staff who will provide services during any one week to clients at the facility: 2 Provide the Facility Staffing Form shown as Form 400 to this Application. Total number of employees of provider: Please characterize the nature of staff services to the facility (i.e., nutritionists, massage therapists, counselors, maids, cooks, etc): House Manaoer Assist Manager Maximum number of clients who will use the facility on any one day but reside elsewhere: 0 Maximum number of client visitors who will visit the facility during any one week: 0 Maximum number of others who will visit the facility during any one week: 0 . Please explain: C. BUILDING DIAGRAWFLOOR PLAN Include a Building Diagram showing all building(s) to be occupied, including a floor plan of all rooms intended for residents' use. Include the grounds showing buildings, setbacks, driveways, fences, storage areas, pools, gardens, recreational area and other spaces. All sketches shall show dimensions but need not be to scale. Identify the number of residents per bedroom and the location and the number of beds for all residents, including the location of beds for infants and other non - ambulatory persons. The Building Diagram supplied with this application must be accurate as to existing conditions in the building and must be consistent with the building plans currently on file with the Newport Beach Building Department for permitted construction. D. DURATION OF TYPICAL CLIENT STAY IN FACILITY (in days): 180 If you wish, please explain: E. IS THE FACILITY ACCESSIBLE TO INDIVIDUALS IN WHEELCHAIRS OR OTHER NONAMBULATORY CONDITIONS? ❑ Yes ® No NOTE: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is a comprehensive federal anti -discrimination law for people with disabilities. The City reminds all providers of residential recovery facilities that discrimination against persons with disabilities is prohibited. Please contact Newport Beach's Building Department (949- 644 -3275) for specific ADA requirements that may apply to your facility. F. ACTIVITY INFORMATION Hours which facility will be in use: 15 YS 00908 L 0 ® 24/7 ❑ Other (please describe) Will there be a curfew? If so, please note quiet hours: ® 10 p.m. — 8 a.m. ❑ Other (please describe) Besides household activities, what types of care - related activities will occur on -site, and how many residents and non - residents (including staff and clients from other facilities) will attend? ❑ "AX-type meetings ❑ ADP - Treatment (see 5A) _ ❑ Meal preparation /delivery _ ❑ Physical Fitness (gym, yoga, etc) ❑ Other wellness (massage, etc) _____ ❑ Other: Provide the Weekly Schedule of Services shown as Form 500 to this Application. DELIVERY INFORMATION: What types of deliveries will occur at the facility and how often (per day or per week — circle whichever is applicable) will they occur? ❑ Laundry Sevices: /day or week ❑ Meals: May or week ® Trash disposal or recycling: 1 /day -or week ❑ Business, products: May or week ❑ Correspondence, packages (other than USPS): /day or week ❑ Medical Products/Medical Waste Pickup: /day or week ❑ Other: TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING: /day or week Will clients residing on -site be allowed to use personal vehicles and/or keep them on -site or nearby? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, describe where clients will park personal vehicles (garage, carport, on- street location, other— if on- street, be specific about which streets) If No, describe other modes of transportation that clients will use (bus, other transit, bicycle, other). Bus - Carpools, bikes Please provide a Route Map showing transit and travel routes that will be used to transport clients off -site, showing destinations of travel and approximate times of departure and return. Will staff serving the facility be allowed to drive personal vehicles to the site? 16 YS 00909 ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, describe where staff will park personal vehicles (garage, carport, on- street location, other— if on- street, be specific about which streets) In driveway NOTE: The City may not authorize on- street parking for clients or staff depending upon how impacted the facility's streets are. T PF1IL0T \slsT.i7I11111 AIV NBMC §6.04.120 (Health and Sanitation: Prohibited Materials) prohibits the disposal of certain medical waste or bio -waste into the City's refuse disposal system. Syringes, needles, urinalysis cups, and other waste must. be disposed of in accordance with the NBMC and other applicable laws. If you are uncertain as to what wastes can be disposed of in the City's disposal system, contact the City's General Services Department at 949-644 -3066. Applicants who will be disposing medical waste or other bio -waste must provide a Disposal Plan for Medical and Blo -Waste showing how and where these wastes are disposed of (required by NBMC §20.91A.030.1). Please attach the Disposal. Plan if applicable J. RULES OF CONDUCT — GOOD NEIGHBOR PRINCIPLES If you have them, please include any documents that describe rules of client conduct and/or Good Neighbor Principles that your facility's staff and clients will adhere to if the City issues a Use Permit for this facility. The City of Newport Beach has developed Good Neighbor Principles for these uses (see the City's webslte under Group Residential Uses). Please state whether you agree voluntarily to comply with the City's Good Neighbor Principles: ® Yes ❑ No K. OTHER AVAILABLE CERTIFICATIONS NBMC §20.91A.050,C.4 directs that applicants shall attain certification (or similar validation), where available, from a governmental agency or qualified non - profit organization. This includes: • The Orange County Sheriff's Department's Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification Program (see www.ocsd.orc for more information or contact Certificate Coordinator Lt. Jeff Bardzik at 714- 773 -4523 or lbardzikAocsd.org or Margo Grise at 714 - 773 -4521 at mariseCcitocsd.oro. This certification is required. 9 The Orange County Sober Living Network (see http://www,soberhousing.net/orancle county html or contact Grant McNiff at 714- 875 -2954. This certification is recommended. You do not have to attain the OCSD certification to apply for a Use Permit, but we suggest that you attain the certification within a reasonable amount of time. (twelve (12) months) following your application submittal. Should a Use Permit be issued, it may include a condition that certification be obtained within a stated time period. If you have attained this certification prior to applying for the Use Permit, verify here that you have attained this certification, and attach the verifying document from the certifying entity: 17 YS 00910 ❑ Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification (required) ® Orange County Sober Living Network (recommended) ❑ Other (please describe) L. SECONDHAND SMOKE LIMITATIONS NBMC §20.91A.050.A directs that "no staff, clients, guests, or any other uses of the facility may smoke in an area from which the secondhand smoke may be detected on any parcel other than the parcel upon which the facility is located. Check and sign here to acknowledge this requirement and your use's adherence to it: ® 1 acknowledg that I will control secondhand smoke on my facility such that no secondhand smoke may be detected on any arce other than th rcel upon which my facility is located. �1 Signatur Date: v 9. APPLICANT OBLIGATIONS A. The °owner of record" of the property or an authorized agent must sign this Application. Signing the application under Section 10 means that the applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that the information provided within the Application and its attachments is true and correct. Per NBMC §20.90.030.C, false statements are grounds for denial or revocation. B. The Applicant acknowledges that he or she must comply with all other Federal, State, and local laws and regulations relating to this use. The Applicant understands that a violation of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations is grounds for revocation of the Permit. The Applicant understands and acknowledges that it is against California law to provide treatment (as defined) in an unlicensed facility. C. If the City issues a Use Permit based on the information provided in this Application, the Applicant's signature below certifies his or her agreement to comply with the terms of the Use Permit. The Applicant understands and acknowledges that non - compliance with the terms of the Use Permit is grounds for revocation of the Permit. Revocation of the Use Permit. NBMC §20.96.040.E provides that the City can revoke a Use Permit if: • The permit was issued under erroneous information or misrepresentation; or • The applicant made a false or misleading statement of material fact, or omitted a material fact; or • The conditions of use or other regulations or laws have been violated; or • There has been a discontinuance of use for 180 days or more. 10. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE(S) OF APPLICANT THE UNDERSIGNED ASSURES THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD HIS OR HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER ANY USE PERMIT ISSUED BASED ON THIS APPLICATION, A. if the applicant is a sole proprietor, the application shall be signed by the proprietor. B. If the applicant is a partnership, the application shall be signed by each partner. C. If the applicant is a firm, association, corporation, county, city, public agency or other governmental entity, the application shall be signed by the chief executive officer or the individual legally responsible for representing the agency. 18 YS 00911 D. The applicant(s) affirms that the facts contained in this application and supporting documents are true and NFA �So (Title) (Date) (Title) (Date) (Signature) (Title) (Date) 19 YS 00912 Vision Qr anizin Trainin CAm--m—u—nlV Contact Sponsors Find Sober Hoaxing In Your So Cal Commnaity Search B Y Area: The Sober Living Network A SOBER HOUSING VISION Someday there will be recovery supportive bonging and community centers throughout the United States. These clusters will be developed with a variety that will include individual houses, apartments, and congregate living accommodations. There will be a mixture of housing with normal -rust apartments for recovery veterans and low -cost, supervised shared housing for those in early recovery. In many accommodations then will be specially designed housing sections for women and/or men with children that have play areas and childcare. Sober housing clusters will be designed to accommodate persons who am physically and mentally challenged. Sober housing clusters will be recovery- promothrg incubators. The clusters will include mating spaces to host self - help and educational meetir*k tecreatiomt, and social evader. They will be operated within a democratic culture and a high level ofrecovery enthusiasm. These clusters will become islands of sobriety in our alcohol and drug using society. Sober housing and community centers will become continuously available as a recovery assistance resource for alcoholics, addicts, and family members. They will be available ad noticeable not only to those who am fully into their addiction, but those who are in their earlier or experimental stages. Communities of stable recovering persona can easily absorb newly recovering persons into their community. Currently many sober living homes are trying to meet the needs of newly recovering persona without the benefit of having a core of stable recovering residents or the management resources to meet their recovery service heeds. The rationale for cluster housing is that the sel&belp learning process comes in bits and pieces. The greater the exposure to a comprehensive recovery environment with merry recovery activities and a predominance of recovering people, the greater chance a person has to learn recovery. The need for a balance of recovery experiences became evident when twelve -stop meetings dominated by newcomers were not as e9ective in assisting ® Copyright 2004 Sober Living Network All Rights Reserved uP v-M Hosting provided by Heller NetWorks and The Sober Musicians Pmjgct rage i ui t http:// www.soberhousing.net/vision.html 5/15/2008 YS 00913 Wooer ttousing Lommunity xecovery rage A vA A HomevtsionorganizingTrai n ingCQmmuniV�ntactSpomors Find Sober Rousing In Your SoCal Community I Search By Area 1'" The Sober Living Network COMMUNITY RECOVERY SUPPORT RESOURCES Community recovery resources offer a practical and cost- efficiert way to assist alcoholics, addicts and family members to ewer and maintain long -term recovery. The current alcohol and drug treatment system does not ban the capacity to mod the long -tame . recovery assistance needs required to meet the needs of the many. The treatment system is too heavily invested in short -term treatmrnt and too little invested in the development of safe and healthy _ community recovery promoting onvbonments and activities that are constantly available to support recovery and life styleeohencements. . Alcohol and drug heatment progmus; have been formatted by government and academia institutions into quality "people processing, treatment stations that are now too mostly perperemm assisted to significantly reduce addiction problem, Community recovery is based on the postulate that ads and sober places filled with heahby recovery activities provide the environments, motivation and recovery tools for alcoholics, addicts and family members to swine (prooess) themselves. Operates maintaimhealthy and safe envmom noU and promote individual recovery responsibility_ Community recovery resource include self -help meetings, Alone clubs -which host self- help activity, community recovery oanms, sober living housing and sober recreational and social events. Community recovery centers are self-service spaces that offer education sessions, host self -help groups, hold social /recreational events and have cowmseling and therapy available by self-selection. Community, recovdy ocmara, activities and housing are easily adaptable m meet the broad ethnic, witcoal and physically challenged needs. - Community recovery resources are assisting millions of alcoholics, addicts and family members in recovery Sam alcoholism and other drug addictions with little or no support flan government and health insurance funding sources. Sober living homes, Alarm clubs and community recovery centers we primarily created and supported by recovering persona motivated by a call to be of advice to others. The SoberIivhrg Network P.O. Box 5233, Saints Monica, CA 90409 (310) 396-5270 HomeOrganizingTrainingCommun ContactSiteMap ®Copyright 2004 Sober Housing All Rights Reserved privacy policy Hosting provided by Heller NetWorks and The Sober Musicians Project http:// www. soberhousing.net/commurAity.httnl 5/15/2008 YS 00914 r UL;L.7. ["11110111" J 11au11✓✓a V11Y A1V ul 11V✓LYLLL - 1 VV-- VL L "L1VVL1VAaJYa -- IJa L M6V � V� The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence fights the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions. Facts and Information Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Are America's Number One Health Problem THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM . There are more deaths and disabilities each year in the U.S. from substance abuse than from any other cause. . About 98 million Americans have alcohol problems, about 5 to 6 million Americans have drug problems. ? . More than half of a# adults have a family history of alcoholism or problem drinking, 3 . More than nine million children live with a parent dependent on alcohol andlor illicit drugs. 4 THE CONSEQUENCES . One - quarter of all emergency room admissions, one- third of all suicides, and more than half of all homicides and incidents of domestic violence are alcohol- related. http:// www. ncadd .org /facts/numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00915 y'pyW. l IILLVILVY V a. w••v.a v ra•• a a•.�a • .w...•� �� .••. • a.�� »........ •• p . Heavy drinking contributes to illness in each of the top three causes of death: heart disease, cancer and stroke. B . Almost half of all traffic fatalities are alcohol- related. 7 • Between 48% and 64% of people who die in fires have blood alcohol levels indicating intoxication. 8 . Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardatron. 9 THE COST . Alcohol and drug abuse costs the American economy an estimated $276 billion per year in lost productivity; health care expenditures, crime, motor vehicle crashes and other conditions. 1 Untreated addiction is more expensive than heart disease, diabetes and cancer combined. 7 . Every American adult pays nearly $1,000 per year for the damages of addiction. SO, WHAT CAN BE DONE? Like other diseases, addiction can be overcome with proper treatment, prevention and more research. By increasing access to care, the costly toll on society and the burden it places on families can be reduced. Research shows conclusively that successful prevention and treatment leads to reductions in traffic fatalities, crime, unwanted pregnancy, child abuse, HIV, cancer and heart disease. Treatment reduces drug use, improves health, improves job performance, reduces involvement with the criminal justice system, reduces family dysfunction and improves quality of life. The Comprehensive Assessment Treatment Outcomes Registry Data in Ohio have documented dramatic results in decreasing occupational problems, including the following reductions after treatment: . Absenteeism decreased by 89% http:// www. neadd .org/facts /numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00916 • Tardiness decreased by 92% • Problems with supervisors decreased by 56% • Mistakes in work decreased by 70% • Incomplete work decreased by 81% 1.3 Additionally, a California Study found significant decreased health care costs from before to after treatment in: . Hospitalizations for physical health problems (36 %) Drug overdose hospitalizations ( -58 %) • Mental health hospitalizations (44 %) • The number of emergency room visits ( -36 %) The total number of hospital days (- 25%) 14 Americans increasingly recognize that alcoholism and drug dependence is a disease with consequences that affect both physical and behavioral health. Diagnostic and treatment services have changed in recent years and modern treatment, when adequately provided, enables a great many people to recover and rebuild productive lives. It is important that the public be aware of evidence generated by scientific inquiry, clinical evaluation and clinical experience. The evidence demonstrates that treatment for alcohol and other drug abuse works. Treatment not only saves lives, it also saves dollars that would otherwise be spent in other areas of medical care and social services. For every. dollar spent on addiction treatment, seven dollars is saved in reduced health care costs. 16 The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence is dedicated to fighting the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions by providing education, information, help and hope to the public. NCADD advocates prevention, intervention, and treatment through a network of 97 affiliates across the United States. For more information, visit: %A .ncadd_ orc. Alcoholism and drag dependence are treatable and millions of people achieve recovery. SOURCES 1. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1993. http:// www. ncadd .org/facts/numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00917 2. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 2001. 3. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 4. Ibid. 5. "Sobering Facts on the Dangers of Alcohol," NY Newsday, April 24, "02. 5. Position Paper on Drug Policy, Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, 2000. 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Annual Report, 1992. 8. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 1993. 9. E. Abel, "Incidence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Economic Impact of FAS- Related Anomalies," Drug and Alcohol Dependence; 1987. 10. "Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem," Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, 2001. 11. Ibid. 12. The National Drug Control Strategy, The White House, 1997. 13. Ohio Dept of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, New Standards, Inc., SL Paul, MN, 1994. 14. Gerstein, at al, "Evaluating Recovery Services: the California Drug and Alcohol Assessment," Sacramento, 1994.. U. Ibid. Compiled 6102 0 EEL MCADD National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. 244 East 58th Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022 phone: 2121269 -7797 fax:212/269 -7510 email: nationaiQngadd:org http: / /www.ncedd.org HOPE LINE: 8001NCA -CALL (24 -hour Affiliate referral) http:// www. neadd .org /facts/numberoneprob.html 5/15/2008 YS 00918 13UrCaU 02 JUSUCC AULLUSUW .J1UJ'A Ms t.aLax•. a rxa.w. A,--5 +• 6 ..v» y y- - - - -- Gwwml population According to dale fran the 2885 Hafforlal HouwhoN Survey an Dug Use andHaabjI4SDUH)- • 112 mithw Americas age 12 er dda (40 %d(he popufotm) reported INcit drug uas M least nice In Ihe"fedma • 14 %repornal use d a drug wthln the peat year • a% mooned use of a drug x1111111 the past month. Data from the 2005 survey showed that marljudrs and cocaine ese Is the MOM pravekm ammo persons ego 18 to 25. The Drug Abuse Wamrng Network (DAVw41 mtwtoredng-mlded amegenq depanmem (ED) Wes Who nedon and for selected nstropo*m cases, DAWN also collects data on dig- related usage inwMipeted by medical em nnem and accurate in selected metropolitan arias and SM"- In 2005. DAWN win mtes Ott nearly 1A milli= anmgerW depedmem vlMls nationwide were essodded w11b drug misuse of abuse. An ea8matad 818,880 dmg -rdded mnegeney depsdment viMle bwdvad a meW substance d ebim.OAWN astmmtn*A: • Corabm was Involved in 448,481 ED date. • Martuane was Involved In 242.200 ED Vlste • Herein Was Involved In 164,572 ED vists. • Stlmdaite, inducted amphda it ee and mothamplettentlee, was Involved in 13%BSO ED Aab. • Oiher Nutt dtegs, such as PCP, Eatery, ant GHS, worm much loss fmtuem than ary of the above. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Htamn SeluMaa. SAMHSA. OSroe of "ad Studies, OM Abuse Nbrrrkg Naavott 2008: Nadond Esbmams of Drag.Rdeted ffnmMmcYDo"rftmt VWM DAM Sense D-29, DHHS Publication No (SMA) 674258, RadMOe, MD. 2607. In 2003,122judedllfons In 35 matropc8ta, awn and Slates mtbni0ad 11101s8ly data to DAWN. Ts Striae, which am dl crew a DAWN, era Mab1% hand, New Itempehke, New Madoo. Utah, and Vented. DAWN cannel provide natural estimates of drugidMad deaths. In the metropolitan sresa, nasty hMr of drug misuse dealt an average, involved a motor substance of abuse (cocaine, burden, marijuana. Mtraulad6, dub dugs, Isdluck"ens, or rmn- pharmcwticel We**. Acton the 8 States. major suhMawea were reported in about third of muse daft. SM. awfor substances were repoMd In 40% to 45 %d dog mimes deaths in Maryland, New Mexico, and Utah Dmoripoma of drug abuse deaths in go Pa0dpatIng muropdltar aees areave bibs in lot ModeAry Dee kom ft DAM, 2009 roper. Accocdna(a data from the 2003 MPRBNyData mom DAWN- Cocaine Was the m0M0aluedly mported Mot ring. In The drug assume deaths. 00061110 was among the tap 5 drugs in 26 of the 32 mehopull an mess and all of the 6 Slates. On average, cecaloe gene a in comtenalian wb after drugs was reported in 39% of drug muuse deaths (range 8% to 70%). Alcohol was one d the 5 nick commeM dogs In 30 d the 32 m0o0pd8a1 am and 5 d tls 6 States. In 29 dthe 32 astropdgan eras% more drug misuse dads Involved an cphdafoptdd than my allow dog. Solace: U.S. Department of Flub and Human Services, SAMHSA, Oltce dApplled Shrdea, Drag Asuae Wamtae Networt, 2p89: Arne Pmf w ofDorg lfelated8ftesso . DAWN Sales D-27, DHHS PuMleklon No. (SMA) 054023, Rcdtv8le. MD. 2005. prevlcus - Ccmama Next BJS home page.( Top ofthi. Pape 8urw ur]nlhr3lntiNb tur Vrecom •11afarm•aes Act pp aew.•lP.a09d40chbf Lead Pdldr, mod bNdabara Bred-wad. to wlJla(]udej.gm Pn, WtrMM ce APW11, 1007 YS 00919 Age of respondanf, 2004 Drug use 12.17 1828 26 or older Ne tnt Last month SB% 18.8% 4.1% Leatyear 13.3 28.0 8.8 Cocaine, Last mouth • os% 2D% 0.8% Last year 1.7 6.9 1.5 Sauce: SAMHSA. Of e, of Apoad Studies. JIM Na0oad Smayon Meg use and HWM: Material Flridngs, September 2000. The Drug Abuse Wamrng Network (DAVw41 mtwtoredng-mlded amegenq depanmem (ED) Wes Who nedon and for selected nstropo*m cases, DAWN also collects data on dig- related usage inwMipeted by medical em nnem and accurate in selected metropolitan arias and SM"- In 2005. DAWN win mtes Ott nearly 1A milli= anmgerW depedmem vlMls nationwide were essodded w11b drug misuse of abuse. An ea8matad 818,880 dmg -rdded mnegeney depsdment viMle bwdvad a meW substance d ebim.OAWN astmmtn*A: • Corabm was Involved in 448,481 ED date. • Martuane was Involved In 242.200 ED Vlste • Herein Was Involved In 164,572 ED vists. • Stlmdaite, inducted amphda it ee and mothamplettentlee, was Involved in 13%BSO ED Aab. • Oiher Nutt dtegs, such as PCP, Eatery, ant GHS, worm much loss fmtuem than ary of the above. Source: U. S. Department of Health and Htamn SeluMaa. SAMHSA. OSroe of "ad Studies, OM Abuse Nbrrrkg Naavott 2008: Nadond Esbmams of Drag.Rdeted ffnmMmcYDo"rftmt VWM DAM Sense D-29, DHHS Publication No (SMA) 674258, RadMOe, MD. 2607. In 2003,122judedllfons In 35 matropc8ta, awn and Slates mtbni0ad 11101s8ly data to DAWN. Ts Striae, which am dl crew a DAWN, era Mab1% hand, New Itempehke, New Madoo. Utah, and Vented. DAWN cannel provide natural estimates of drugidMad deaths. In the metropolitan sresa, nasty hMr of drug misuse dealt an average, involved a motor substance of abuse (cocaine, burden, marijuana. Mtraulad6, dub dugs, Isdluck"ens, or rmn- pharmcwticel We**. Acton the 8 States. major suhMawea were reported in about third of muse daft. SM. awfor substances were repoMd In 40% to 45 %d dog mimes deaths in Maryland, New Mexico, and Utah Dmoripoma of drug abuse deaths in go Pa0dpatIng muropdltar aees areave bibs in lot ModeAry Dee kom ft DAM, 2009 roper. Accocdna(a data from the 2003 MPRBNyData mom DAWN- Cocaine Was the m0M0aluedly mported Mot ring. In The drug assume deaths. 00061110 was among the tap 5 drugs in 26 of the 32 mehopull an mess and all of the 6 Slates. On average, cecaloe gene a in comtenalian wb after drugs was reported in 39% of drug muuse deaths (range 8% to 70%). Alcohol was one d the 5 nick commeM dogs In 30 d the 32 m0o0pd8a1 am and 5 d tls 6 States. In 29 dthe 32 astropdgan eras% more drug misuse dads Involved an cphdafoptdd than my allow dog. Solace: U.S. Department of Flub and Human Services, SAMHSA, Oltce dApplled Shrdea, Drag Asuae Wamtae Networt, 2p89: Arne Pmf w ofDorg lfelated8ftesso . DAWN Sales D-27, DHHS PuMleklon No. (SMA) 054023, Rcdtv8le. MD. 2005. prevlcus - Ccmama Next BJS home page.( Top ofthi. Pape 8urw ur]nlhr3lntiNb tur Vrecom •11afarm•aes Act pp aew.•lP.a09d40chbf Lead Pdldr, mod bNdabara Bred-wad. to wlJla(]udej.gm Pn, WtrMM ce APW11, 1007 YS 00919 UlR V4M vi uYJMV� ✓wuuuv� r.� xb.. w�� ✓.r.. .. ����. _ _ _ CJ v a t �TA4� f�+l� S, 113�pr(ISt4nan"�ti��ttlu�trs � �(t)ddnCC���I�^Ifutit�le� l�o�,l_i�l�` sense Orugs and Crime Facts Previous rum To rSeal9 Drug use Same Pea• Youth I General pofwlatlon Youth • Use • Perceived risk • Student reports of availability of drugs use The Monitoring the Fuure Study asked high school sent=, 'On how merry occasions. Marry, have you used drugs or alcohol dudng the lash 12 mar" or month? Reported drug and alcohol use by high wheat seniors, 2008 Used within the eat Drugs 12 modhs' 30 days Alcohol 08.8% 45.3% Marguano 31.6 18.3 Other opiates 9.0 3.8 98motanb 8.1 3.7 Sedatives 6.8 3.0 TranQUlBzma 6.6 27 Cocaine 5.7 2.5 Halluckergens 4.9 1.5 Inhaerrb 4.5 115 steroids 1.8 1.1 Heroin 0.8 OA 'Including the lari month. 19.7 Sauna: Press resew Teen drug no eed9nues down In 2009, PadfOUedyameng oldarMWIF, but use Of P -npft* Pedrugs remekehyh, University of MichiganNewa and hdomrellon Services. December 21, MS. (Acrobat Me 578.81 KS) 35.8 Sit- reports of drug use on" high school seniors may under represent drug use among youth of0mt age because high ached dropouts and troords are not Included. and Vase group$ may have more Involvement with drugs 0= those who aft in ached. Percent of a0 collage students, 19964009 Drug use 1996 1996 1997 1998 1989 2000 2001 2002 2903 2004 2008 MVAMna De0y within last month V% 28% 3.7% 4.0% 4.0% 4.6% 4.5% 4.1% 4.7% 4.5% 4.0% Lastmonth 18.8 17.5 173 18.8 20,7 20.0 20.2 19.7 19.3 18.9 17.1 Lastyear 311 33.1 31.8 35.9 352 34.0 35.8 34.7 333 33.3 33.3 Cocaine Daly within last month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ' 0.0% 0.1% Last month 0.7 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.9 1,8 1.9 24 1.8 Last year 3.8 29 3A 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.8 5.4 6.5 5.7 Less than 0.05% Races of past year cocaine use by college sludama have varied over 0a past 10 years tram a low, 012.9% in 1996 to a high of 5.7% in 2005. Past year medjumur use has ranged frwu a low 001.2% in 11105 to a Ngh of 36.9% In 1998. Source: Univereity, d Michigan. 9bniforing the Future National Survey Reside on Drug U906 1976-2006, Volume lf. College Students andAdulis Agee 19.4$ 2806, October 2088. (Ar(06at 618 2.31 MR) Of high school eenicra In 2005 - • 44.8% reported having eve used m9djusna0ashish • 8.0% reported having ever used cocaine • 1.5% reported having ever used heroln. YS 00920 DUI Gntx 111 Souna: Udvmdty of MichiM Moolmdng fW Fatun NationM Rmune on Adolescent Dug I7sa: Overvlsw o (Kay F11OW 2085, Apt 2009. (Acrobat file 442.77KB) The increase in the use of maauene has been especially Pronounced. Between 1992 and 2005 padtnGhth use of msdKraa Increased from: • 12 %in 2l1%arrwrg � 9d10d sar4ora. . t %10 16 %mmng ldh 9radara . 4% to 7% smorg 8th graders. Reported use of tmrtuaa by high sdwd sersom during the past motdh peaked in 1978 at 37% and declined to t4 toward wool In 19ffi M 12%. The use of cocaine wttdn the past month of the survey by high acFiod unions peeked in 1985 at 9.7%, up learn 1.9% In 1975 at the surveys hlcepliot. Coealne use deemed to a low of 1.3% In 1882 and 1983. In 2055. 2.3% of Mh school sedum reported paolinom coealne ass SOUrce: Uhivamky of Mi9tlgan, Monnoring our Fvmn National ResAm on Adolescent Dug Use: Overview of Key Findings, 2805, April 2009. (Acrobat its 442.77KB). . Comore use among h%h school saalors peaked In 1885. Lot ClIck on the ehento view the data Source: Press renew: Turn drug use continues down In 20M paNcaledy among older areas: but use of p a�fllg drug �remaba high, University of Mchigan News and Information SeMma, December 21, Percehred Mk From 1987 to 20M tha pemenkge of high school worku tiat wane aeked,'Hau much doyou think people rWchatlNn9 themselvear rarmlmd vinually ew41e. Those ahrdads amwedng'greal Win regular use ecoorarted hie therC id"— CBck on the chart to view the des. 101 Source: Press reaeee: Teen drug use continues down In Mae, particularly among older mans; but use of presmipdon4ype drugs remepns high. University of Michigan Newa are laramalicn Services. December 21, 2009. (Acrobat Ile 57GAIKS) Student re ports of avauabmty, of drugs Percent of high school sealers reporting they could obtain drugs Leidy easily or very easily, 2008 YS 00921 . - C 1 ar�nnO LYl VYY vat ww ✓wry v�� � � �Q �, ,,,. Methuen 84.9% Amphetamines 62.9 Comilla 45.6 Barbiturates 43.8 Crack 38.6 LSD 29.0 Heroin 27.4 Crystal mathamphMembe 26.7 Tranquilizers 24.4 PCP 233 AmyBbdyl What 18.4 Source: Prep releeea: rean drug aeocombiuse down in 2098, parftuh*turnrw older kwe; but use of prandp0on4ype drugs remake high, University of Michigan News and Inks vallon SwAoas. December 21, 2008. (Acrobat fife 578.81KB) In 2(105, 26 %d all students In grades 9 though 12 repeated mmmre had offered. add, or gven them an Illegal drug On edMal pmpedy. There was no measurable charge with the percentage of students Who reported that drugls were Offered. Said, OF be them is schod between 2003 and 2006. Males ware me NMY than females to report that drugs wens offered, add. or ghee to than on School Prop" in each mrvey year between 1993 and 2DW. In 2005, 20%of mow and 22%dfamdm repeated avaltability of drugs. Source: BJS loldly with the U.S. Department of Education, ladkef ear of 3011001 Crime andSaW,, 2006, NCJ 214282, December 2006. 4 To the top General populaWn According to data from the 2005 National Household Survey an Ong Use ad HeaN+(NSDUfQ - • 112 maim Americans age 12 or older (46 %d ale popdallon) reported Mall drug use at least crce in their gedme • 14 %repaled um eta dngiwBNn Bp past yam . 8% reported too of a drug within me past month. Dace from the 2005 survey allowed that meripmna and cocaine we Is the mod prevalent among peramm age 18 to 26. Ape of reapondatd, 2004 Ong use 12.17 16.25 .28 ar alder Margumms Last month 8.8% 16.6% 4.1% Last year 13.3 28.0 6.9 Cocaine Last mmtb 0.6% 2.8% 0.8% Lastyear 1.7 6.8 1.5 Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Shades, 2005 National Survey on Drag Use and Hoeft. Hadand Fmdhge, September2o06. The Drug abuse Wernhrp Network (DAWN) rnonlfere dr,"ded emergency department (ED] V&S for the nation and for selected metropolitan area. DAWN dm collects data on drug- rddefed deaths inveatlgated by msdirel esardnare and cororwrs In sensed malropd8en areas and Stalea. In 2005, DAWN estimates that ready 1.4 million emergency der admard visits nationwide were associated with drug mlmee err abuse. An estimated 616,896 drug - related emergency department vials Involved a makcr substance of same. DAWN estimates that: • Carina was Invohed In 448,461 ED visits. . Medlusawas invahred m 242,200 ED Walla, • Haydn was kwaNed in 104,872 ED Write. • Stimulants, Included anphdamhws and m rthmrphalemke, were krvolved In 138,950 ED viWa. • Oliver Illicit diuge, each ere PCP. Eat", and GHB, were much tessmaquent then any of the abOVa. Seurca: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Was of Applied Scdee, Ong Abuse Wmnkp Network 2006: NeOOrd Ea6matea of Drug4taleted EnusrgencyDepartment Wells. DAWN Sodas D- 29. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 07 -4256, Rockville, MD, 2007. in 2003,122 jurisdictlorrs in 35 metropolhan areas and 6 States submitted modaNy date to DAWN. The States, which are all new to DAWN, am Maine, Marylerd, Neff Hampshire, New Make, Utah, and Vermont. DAWN cannot provide national aeematee of drug -related deems. In the metropolitan areas, needy halt of drug misuse deaths, an average, involved a malor substance of abuse (Cocaine, hardn, YS 00922 m -A,.^n n malduens, ailmulerds, dub drugs, heducinagera, or no"harrnaceuliral inhalants). Acroacthe 6 States, major substances were reported In about a 6drd of mim m deaths. $04. major aubelerM.ee wore reported in 40% to 45% of drug rnfitum deaths In Maryland. .No � ,Dannd ascription of Mug abuse deaths in the pwkh) bq mahopaNan acme era evellade in the mortality According to data from the 2003 Mwta6fy Date from DAWN— Cocaine was the mom frequently reported R" Mug. in the drug rheum deaths, corelm win amarg the top 5 drugs N 26 of the 32 mmmpditan arem 04 sl date a stem. On avarega, cocaine alone w In comNnellon with oNer drugs was rapmted in 39% of drug mhuee deaths (range 8% to 70 %)- Alcohol was one tithe 6 mml comment drupe N 90 of the 32 matmpoltlm arms and 6 of the 6 Slates. In 29 of lhei32 metropolitan areas, more drug rtdmm deaths Imialwd an oplaWbi laid than any o0m Mug, Source: U. S. Depednlml of HW M and Human Services, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies. DmV Abase Wareing Nsmrork, 2603: Arm Proffiea ofthmeAefaled leortalffy. DAVM Soda D•27, DHHS Publication No. (ShfA) 064023: ROCIMIle. MD, 2666. previous 0ergxofJuNYe6m /bas auu.j. U7 Bu..RU 06 M Bud ..RUM le hajxlvutej.=ov Contents Next BJS home page ) Top of thk pope OR aredm of Womxibn Mf MV Legal panda and ebdrtabn Pqe YN rorYM u Ape L, J0a7 YS 00923 C 11 J Il Ano .� We ide Santa Ana Heights Homeowner. s ' Guide and ID lone 16 May 2007 Edward "'Ted" Bosley (949) 294 -2126 TedBosle ahoo.COm somas • 1, -.0 ft a tbmmttmem Campkments of Ted bosky, YawNetgbbor hNNUW. FEDBOSIEY.COM Great source for RE 1 af0=0n, tools plus Bi- monthly 'fed Bosley Appointed to SAH Project Advisory Committee I started attending the SAH PAC meetings 5 yam ago, mostiy, so that I could team as much as possible abort events affeeting our dbmmuniry. You, the readers of MY periodic navrslettns, have been the benefactors since I have shared wlfh you much of what was teamed In that forum as wall as Supervisor, City Couny and LAFCO meetings. Many of you have also been in attendance at those some meetings. I appreciate being sppointwt to wore on the SAH Project Advisory Committee. This gives me the opportunity to-serve on critical sub�aanrrdttees that make recominetrdations'to the Bid of supervisions and the NB City Council on rJatters that have signtifcant impart on our community. Waterpointe to Start i eeveloprnent on Orchard In a recent response to my Inquiry about Me timeline for this Westaide SAH project, I receivad Die following statement: 9Ne are stilt procesaingvm'flnehmaP with the County of Orange. Once records - gon of Me map occurs we are planning on starting the project.... Once again t thank you for your assistance in getting. tills project epprm ed.' t3amsit Galata. . Watetpointe Development Pdnclpel Westsnde SAH Annexation Update ,.,R..on Adminlsha0mr,12 Civic Center Plaza: Ssnte Aria, in the Planning Commission Hearing oom. The City of Newport B�dh s appitcetipn for a sphere of irdiuenca change and comment annexation of West Sarrta Are Heights and the City of Costm Mesa's aption tar's sphere of influence change fur tlhe Bannbhg Rarrcih property wlti be oonaldNed bll L.AFCO at'Uxs dtus. Statf reports for both proposals will be available for review an Wednesday afternoon, MaY 2, 2007. on the Orange Corady LAFCO webaite: www ors LAFCO.ce.00y. CBdr on the "Agenda and Minutes` link, then cflcc on agenda item. This is the meeting we 8fl have been waiting f�. LAFCO.� arrppose to twos m a float . resolution on ins Wort Side Anrceaaition to Newport at this meeting. PAC veifl be there to support Annexation always sourceioF0ds fntorrnaBan is www SAHPAC.corn tf you would rke more hdbrmagon rataUng to the history of 6* effort please vial Sober Living Homes Mike Their Colmrririniiy Christmas. Golf Course or ftt Ung Lot? Daily Pilot Article on April 18th discusses this subject if you do not take the Pilot you can go to vdvvW daiivoiiof.cornl a `i Icsl'�OG7 /U�f'I s /oolitic ICIDt- CiOIiCOUt'SEIF.txi tOVIeW IL -- c0Vkrrbeii8rr" W Wast5im SAW Sb SobWt.Wb3 rust 18110300"bs3e Women's Home Pagasue street Women's Home What I cannot understand is why anyone on the Airport Committee would suggest that a Car Rental Auto Storage facility should replace the Newport Beach Golf Course Back 9, that brings. so much pleasure to so many, when their lease is up at the end of July, .2007. tcw,urrnutar pa8s al t ,lotto hloorlach(c:2ocaov tom FlND (lil dr100 COill V61) y - � t i � f. ,}� ,.✓ {f {,! YS 00924 ZV 116 reWanUN neW pUl l LYUMll �Q 7c 1 v - vvvgav .....,... Address 20172 Redlands Dr GertGooyleMapsonyourphone G;o Santa Ana, CA 92707 Texnhetwtd" ►rto466453 Maps http : / /maps.googic.comlmaps ?f —q &hl= en&geocode = &q= 20172 +redlands+newport+beach... 5/14/2008 NW111tF'➢�-1 3. 9 Attachment 7A 1571 Pegasus, Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 1621 Indus St., Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 20172 Redlands Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 1561 Indus, Newport Beach, CA 92707 a. Certified Sober Living Home b. Original Certification: April, 2005 YS 00927 tq m co YS 00928 ° a M4 C N r .Q„ 04m�Z Q � m � zZA m QmC) �o m worms °=am o m m ir T 3 C m 'm o z o 0 � 3 z 3 o � f6 a C -4 co p� a p� � so K a -0 X3AMA Wig CL 0 c,o a� ~- 00 v to s tq m co YS 00928 ° a M4 C N r .Q„ 04m�Z -- ° T -4 N0 a c"nma. zZA m QmC) �o m worms °=am o m m ir T C m 'm o z o 0 tq m co YS 00928 I Lo U- I - lb aZ - ------------ -- YS 00929_ I a d i r <. n> _ rL. > ,-4 O O ...._ S. YS 00,930 City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES - USE PERMIT APPLICATION ADMINISTRATOR/DIRECTOR INFORMATION Form 150 - Februa 2008 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION EDUCATION - - -- - -- 1234567891Un rz CONFLETED NAME AND LOCATION OF SEMESTER OUARTER .. ___ _ - ��r COIdRSE Of STUDY UNITS UNITS ARANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE M )OYOU HAVtArnvreOWVIN u� . -• • - - - - -- -- perlod Held issuing Agency Type t k IMP— e is i ti 1 V c e O t o orr ' WORK EXPERIENCE. BEGIN WITH YOUR 1B08T RECENT WORK EXPERIENCE. LIST ALL EXPERIENCE RELEVANT TO THIS TYPE OF IIBE PERMT' Reason for Leaving Dallas Namee�and Address of Employer Duties F / U C6a 5-+i�� �o� Opra pan 'Q, 8 W Y1 I TO ` 4 4kt G 0. b\ i �a 00 FROM 'e-, ��r d��S4Y t9� f��1r2 r�www P- TO CDW vl�e r�tn YS 00931 City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION S DELEGATION INFORMATION - CORPORATIONS (Form 200 — February 2008) INSTRUCTIONS: This form must be updated and submitted to the City each time there is a change in officers or T1ON PrindPelofficeofbusinesfs.:�l Cfiy S'TG !'� VSO ZpCode !mot A Tema 7 IQ''G'tleGr`t't-gV Address I ,5N 6 '&l w�Ft Conrad Person r ; .A- _ rv,� 1I n AA W. i rL- (.Oo rU . Names and addresses of as persona who own ten per cent (10 %) or more of slot* M corporation. Governing Board ORAGADM ` a. Number of Board Members / b. Term of Otfioe o. Frequency of Meetings j�i m0 n�`��t, -{ d. Method of Selection w[we¢c Board am uucnxr/ iESHc irvnn....I,..+...w.�- .....- Office Name Business Address 6 City & Zip Code Telephone Number Term Expiration President n r. �JtyG L� S4, Co sAl c,- l0 i j (J , 1tDJ�° N�� -+�Jav 44$' Vice - President - Secretary GJ10 Treasurer L{7lP Tra vS,e . P. 9a L �—/ 67 66 a p1 D A /D Other YS 00932 City of Newport Beach GROUP, RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION DELEGATION FORM - CORPORATIONS (Form 200D — February 2008) STATEMENT OF CORPORATE DELEGATION Applicants who are corporations shall attach board resolutions authorizing a delegation to the Program Director ardor Administrator or other appropriate staff. 1. Applicant Name: 2. Program Name: _ 3. Program Address: 4. City: tI �}' I 5. Telephone: (Q� �) L ` ltq 6. (Name of person(s) authorized by applicant) County: Zip Code: 176--7 ... is hereby designated as administrator, program manager, or agent of the above -named program and is authorized to receive st the above named program on my behalf, any documents including reports of inspections and consultations, acdusations, and civil and administrative processes. I WILL NOTIFY THE CITY WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF ANY CHANGE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FACILITY. Signature of applicant(s) a. Title: L C� 6 b 9. Address: �. a 7T,L U rv10. 0 A 10. City: , U w r •1 cik County: Fa Zip Code: YS 00933 City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION ADItirNlSTRATIVE ORGANIZATION - PARTNERSHIPS, SOLE PROPRIETOR, AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS (Form 200P — February 2008) t. Attach a copy of the partnership agreement 2. Partners PARTNERSHIPS Type of Partnership Name Business Address, City and Zip Code 1 at Partner s Q Limited General 2nd Partner IJ Limited 3rd Partner [] Limited) Limited 41h Partner Q General Limited Contact Person Title Telephone # SOLE PROPRIETORIOTHER ASSOCIATIONS Sole Propdelorsk0her associations roust also provide a lint of all person(s) legally responsible for the organization, the contact person, and appraplate "at documents (fictlllous name statement, business Rconse) vfiktr set forth legal responslbady of the organization and accountability for opaNng the program. the tae following space or attach a separate sheet. YS 00934 City of Newport Beach Gkdr1P RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION WEEKLY ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE (Form 500 — February 2008) WEEKLY SCHEDULE OF SERVICES Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 6 -7 a.m. 7-8 a.m. B -9 a.m. ` 9 -10 a.m. 10 -11 a.m. 11 a.m.-12 12 -1 p.m. 1 -2 P.M. 23 p.m. 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. 5-6 p.m. 6 -7 p.m. 7-B p.m. TOTAL HOURS PER WEEK OF INDIVIDUALIGROUP/EDUCATION SESIONS, RECOVERY OR TREATMENT PLANNING, AND DETOXIFICATION SERVICES (IF PROVIDED): Comments: City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — USE PERMIT APPLICATION YS 00935 EXHIBIT 3 CORRESPONDENCE AND SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION SUBMITTALS YS 00936 June 19, 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92858 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 844.3229 YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. % Isaac R. Zfaty SGSA Lawyers 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 Dear Mr. Zfaty: Subject: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Use Permit No, 2008 -037 Property located at 20172 Redlands Drive This letter serves as notification that the Planning Department is in receipt of your application submittal regarding the proposed Use Permit for property located at the above referenced address. Upon review of your submitted application, documents and exhibits, the application has been deemed incomplete. Please provide the following clarifications and /or additional information: 1 • Application Form 100 Item 2 Property Owner Information: Please provide a copy of a Preliminary Title Report or property profile that is less than 60 days old that verifies the legal owner of the property, and written authorization from the legal owner authorizing filing of this application. 2. Application Form 100 Item 313 Other Similar Uses: Information on other Similar Use permits within the City is not provided, but will be provided by City staff from City records. However, the application is not complete until this information is included in application package. 3. Application Form 100 Item 4, Firm's Historic Uses: Other managed group residential uses are checked yes but are not subsequently listed. Please list these uses. 4• Application Form 100 Item 5 Conditional Uses Within 3 Block Radius: Information on other Use permits within the 3 block radius area is not provided, but Will be provided by City staff from City records. However, the application is not complete until this information is included in application package. 5. Application Form 100 Item 6 Site Plan: Please provide a site plan which shows the building footprint and property fines and the building footprints and properly lines for immediately adjacent properties. Show dimensions and setbacks. YS 00937 M Notice of Incomplete Application Use Permit No. 2008 -039 Page 2 6. Application Form 100, Item 8B Facility Users and Staff- The maximum resident capacity is stated as zero (0) but the total occupancy is stated as 18. As two staff residents are indicated does that mean the resident capacity is 16? Please clarify. 7. Application Form 100, Item 8C Floor Plan: The floor plan needs to identify the number of residents per bedroom. The diagram must also show setbacks, driveways, and usable outdoor spaces. 8. Application Form 100, Item 8L Secondhand Smoke: As Dr. Anna Marie Thames is indicated as facility Administrator /Director, please have her sign the acknowledgement to control secondhand smoke. It is not clear what role Leisha Mello plays at the facility. 9. Application Form 200 Corporate Delegation: Please provide corporate board resolution(s) authorizing delegation of corporate representation to the person indicated on line 6 of the form, and provide the persons name on that line. 10. Application Form 850 Fire Marshall Clearance: Please provide evidence (Form 850) of recent Fire Marshall clearance. 11. Filing Fee: Please remit the Use permit filing fee of $2,200.00. 12. Request For Reasonable Accommodation: Please provide additional information regarding the Request for Reasonable Accommodation using the enclosed forms. Should you have any questions regarding the requested clarifications or additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 266 -7548. Sincerely, M cc: Janet Brown, Associate Planner Dr. Anna Marie Thames, Yellowstone Women's First Step Mouse Ys 00938 DAVIS•RAYBURN A fi Of CSSEONAL LAW CORPORATION July 25, 2008 RECEIVED BY p ANNING DEPARMIEM VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL JUL ?. "' M8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IYEW� Du1CN Planning Department To of 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Be: Use Permit Applications; 2008 -034; 2008 -035; 2008 -036; and 2008 -037 To Whom It May Concern: This firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. This correspondence is in response to your notices of incomplete application concerning the above - referenced Use Permit Applications for the following properties: 1561 Indus, 1621 Indus, 1571 Pegasus, and 20172 Redlands. Our office is currently gathering the required information referenced in your notices in order to complete our applications. We should have the information forwarded to you within the next twenty -one (21) days. Thank you for your courtesy and if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact us. Very truly yours, DAVIS & RAYBURN a professional corporation ISAAC R. ZFATY IRZ:jdb 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 - Laguna Beach; CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 - Fax: 949376.3875 nfoOdavisrayburnlaw.com www.davisrayburnlaw.com YS 00939 DAVIS•RAYBURN A >YOMSSIONM LAW :O,IOIIATI.N August 22, 2008 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AUG 2 G 2008 CHY of NEWPORT BEACH 8005 -003 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Notice of Incomplete Application: 20172 Redlands Dr. Dear Ms. Brown: As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ("Yellowstone "). We are in receipt of the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Incomplete Application for the property located at 20172 Redlands Dr. (the "Property "). In response to that notice, we provide herewith the following: 1. Application Form 100, Item 2, Property Owner Information: the requested information is enclosed herewith. 2. Item 3B: We have no information regarding other similar uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. 3. Item 4: We cross - reference and incorporate the other applications, which are being provided concurrently under separate cover. 4. Item 5: We have no information regarding other conditional uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. 5. Item 6: A site plan is enclosed herewith. 6. Item 813: Resident capacity is 16. Total capacity is 18. 7. Item 8C: A floor plan is enclosed herewith. 8. Item 8L: The acknowledgement re secondhand smoke is enclosed herewith. 9. Item I OD: Dr. Thames is the facility Director. 10. Form 200: A board resolution is enclosed herewith. 11. Form 850: Fire Marshall Clearance is enclosed herewith. 12. Request for reasonable accommodation: See the enclosed form. The one item that we have not included in this correspondence is the requested $2,200.00 fee. After reviewing the code, we have been unable to locate any discussion of such fee. We mention this not to question the City's authority to impose such a fee, but rather because we have not seen any statutory scheme that should provide for a hardship exception. We would respectfully request that the City furnish such authority, and also provide us with any exemption 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 - Fax: 949.376.3875 info ®davisrayburnlaw.com • www.davisrayburnlaw.com YS 00940 City of Newport Beach August 22, 2008 Page 2 application. Alternatively, we would request an extension of time to remit such fee so that we might be able to raise the funds necessary to accommodate the City's request. As a final note, it is worth mentioning that it is our understanding that the Property is still currently located in an unincorporated area of Orange County known as Santa Ana Heights, and that the Newport Beach annex of the property is not yet complete. If this is true, then we would submit that the city of Newport Beach does not have jurisdiction over this property. Any response that the City can provide regarding this matter would be greatly appreciated. To the extent that our understanding is correct, we would ask that the City simply hold our application until such time as the annexation is complete, so that the parties are not required to reinitiate this process. Please accept our apologies for the delay in providing the enclosed information. As always, if you have any questions regarding these applications, please feel free to contact us. Ve y yours, IS C R, ZFATY IRZ/jmk cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) YS 00941 RECORDING REQUESTED BY- Anne Thames AM WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Anna Thames 8 -77^ F? ,GO A RfOordsd In ORiNaI Reeords, Orange County Tan Duty, Clark,Reoorder 2000000539234 03:45RM 08111/06 106 200 002 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A.P.N. 119-362-07 (ePACE ABOVE THIS LINE Is FOR I ECOROE&a Use) GRANT DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) OECLARE(S) THAT DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS $.Do ( X) —FUNd on NO "We or prepedr Wmeyed, ar ( )WmCit Aa aA lase Wm er en�vbrances rameWna at wns ASab (X) City of f Santa Ana FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, RECEIPT OF 4NOCH I$ HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, Stephen Thames, an unmarried man hereby GRANT(S) to Anna Thames, an unmarried woman and Stephen Thames, an UnmaMed man as joint tenants the following described real property in The City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, Slate of California: See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a pad hereof DATED: October, 212005 S ephan TR ames ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF . on Personally knowntome or e subscribed to the within Ins m eI aulhonzed es) and that I Which the "'Fal"ted executed WITH 9 haotf and o I seal Gaulle T. Rowe MAIL TAX STAVEMVMyo RiiTUM MM" e notary public in and for sold County and Slate, On the instrument t �...-' "r'p ""lOR'a htr,�R(s) or entlty upon behalf of ORANGE,CA Document: DD 2006.539234 Printed on 8/22/2008 3:46 :40 PM Provided by Data Trace System CLAUDE T. ROWS� KR ei nowroAmA we,aw awu onmrre, tone 6\ 2P Page 1 of 2 YS 00942 OXHIRIT "q" AN that certain real property situated In the County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: Lot 36 of Trad No. 4307, in the County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 153, Pages 16 through 20, inclusive, of Miscellaneous .Maps, In the Office of the County Recorder of said County. Assessor's Parcel Number: 138 - 363-07 ORANGE,CA Document: DD 2006.539234 Printed on 8/22/2008 3:46;41 PM Provided by Data Trace System Page 2 of 2 YS 00943 00/22/2000 16:04 TO: FROM: RE: 9496465296 YELLOWSTONE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STEPHEN THAMES AUTHORIZATION THIS IS AN OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE APPLICATIONS FOR MY RESIDENCE AT 20172 REDLANDS SANTA ANA HEIGHTS, CAL IT IS CURRENTLY LICENSED WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ALOCOHOL AND DRUG PROGRAMS DATE AUTHORIZED: APRIL 30, 2008 PAGE 02 YS 00944 L • L , 1Y • .i SCALE• YS 00946 MAW Wk RM ... RM t 5 , 1Y • .i SCALE• YS 00946 BATH L7 I ` I YS 00947 on°0 I . BATH L7 I ` I YS 00947 on°0 r �Q i 3 (mow} r WF yA r. na, .�. >.v.. S. 4. .... : _.. -. n ...v... ... ",YT.r,. ,�^K ."tie •�'� ro... YS 00948 i WF yA r. na, .�. >.v.. S. 4. .... : _.. -. n ...v... ... ",YT.r,. ,�^K ."tie •�'� ro... YS 00948 -- - .. .. - ., i ��&r�,� ❑ Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification (required) ❑- Orange County Sober Living Network (recommended) ❑ Other (please describe) L. SECONDHAND SMOKE LIMITATIONS NBMC §20.91A.050A directs that'no staff. Clients, guests, or any other uses of the facility may smoke in an area from which the secondhand smoke may be detected on any parcel other than the parcel upon which the facility is located. Check and sign here to acknowledge this requirement and your use's adherence to is Iat l acknowledge that I will control secondhand smoke on my facility, such that no secondhand smoke may be Id5ected on any pa other than the parcel upon which my faciliy, Is located, / p Signature Dabs: _� fir /000 A. _ The'owner of recorcr of the property or an authorized agent must sign this Application. Signing the application under Sectioni0 means that the applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that the information provided within the AWcation and its attachments is true and Correct: Per NBMC' §20.90.030.C, false statements are grounds for denial or revocaton. B. The Applicant acknowledges that he or she must comply with oil other Federal, State, and local lams and regulations relating to this use, The Applicant understands that a violation of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations is grounds for revocation of the Permit. The Applicant understands and acknowledges that it Is against Calitomia law to provide heahrrerrt (as defined) in an unlicensed facility. C. If the City issues a Use PenTdt based on the erfonnaljon provided In this Application, the Applicants signature below certifies his or her agneernant to Comply with the terns of the Use Permit. The Applicant understands and acknowledges that non-compliance with the terms of the Use Permit is grounds for revocation of the PermtL Revocation of the Use Pera ft. NBMC §20.96.040.E provides theit the City can revoke a Use Permit if. • The permit was issued under erroneous infonnotion or misrepresentation; or • The appikant made a false or mWeeding statement of mate" fact, or omitted a material factor • The conditions of use or other regulations or laws have been violeted; or • There has been a discontinuance at use for 180 days or more. THE UNDERSIGNED ASSURES THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS APPLICATION 18 TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD HIS OR HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER ANY USE PERMT ISSUED BASED ON THIS APPUCATION. A. If the applicant is a sole proprietor, the application shag be signed by the proprietor S. If the app ht is a partnership, the application shall be signor by each parh>e►. C. N the applicant is a firm, association, coporatlon, county. ft pubAC agency or other governmental entity, the application shall be signed by the chief exam" officer or the individual legally responsible for representing the agency. 18 YS 00950 YELLOWSTONE BOARD RESOLUTION: THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT AGREEENT AND ENDORSEMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF YELLOWSTONE FOR THE FOLLOWING: DR. A.M. THAMES IS THE CEO OF TIM BOARD AND AGREES TO REPRESENT YELLOWSTONE IN ALL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. SHE WILL SIGN ANY AND ALL FINAL AGREEMENTS. ATTORNEY ISAAC ZFATY, WILL PROVIDE LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN ALL MATTERS IN THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LEISHA MELLO, AS ADM MSTRATOR FOR YELLOWSTONE WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. THESE AGREEMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS ARE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS OF JULY 1, 2008. LISA TUMAN YS 00951 08/22/2008 16:17 9496465296 YELLM70NE I " , , FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPE 0 r, k I4j CTION NOTICE SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET pop of ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHOR ' Ilry 190 & Wbhlf 9L, Ofmg*. CA 920M f?14) 71 Dow F".)p 1V OCCAGR FECEIVIM c -A 70 it cr*--` a I F CA� r- blle-" PABNSWrIONDAM- KfZ-tr"- REINSPEOWN A- 40 - - -- --.- --- - -- CMA 00 POWACTOW WIF -YoU ARE U#aE TO OOFFecr vKxATKM INDrATE IWAIDWELY AVOID ANY MMlIONAL FIEK FINES OR 9XIIIIIEN YS 00952 00122/2008 16:17 94964.6_5296 YELLOWlSTDE „ .. -ZrwW W1Y A�MWIO Courdy af tam" Plalmme owoobpnwd SgiviOaa ohm permit lnspsdion Request Conud YSUVWMOW WWW, 949 879.078) Corronmhs b"Peobn NOM 91%TBWORARY ELECTRICAL FOR TESi1tIC3 Your cwSmwUm number Is 1SZW Please print aft page for your refaranoe. bttp:// apps. oc.cagoWAcfioniiandler /complcte1rr <;pecdonRegnest PAGE 03 P*1O 1 YS 00953 ZONING APPROVAL Local Address 7/z/ Telephone Number �E5 /D�/UTfAC xLCG/e)L of oroaram) G.�rT,T7 6174 -PDS ,twa 2%y4 �irrr ff?a 6his document indicates local approval for building use C S 7OSl:bS� is not required to obtain a use permit operate 1 residential or ❑ an outpatient alcohol and /or other drug treatment )gram a ress of program AMlwoq and tebphone number of individual confirming ignature of local plann- g department re rtative) 17 Wiy4*&- K,5 signed) FAk vl <) 834477. DAMaL r. Man�vvcao ur�ES=TN CFmm 30p N WtIq SC ,m MNUNG SJWC, CA 4P7� Ft,ppp b4RESS SANTA ANA. �70,,4nae I,,:.. v&YIZ118-1-f,I (6) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Supplemental Information for Reasonable Accommodation Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Califomia 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 To aid staff in determining that the necessary findings can be made in this particular case as set forth in Chapter 20.98 of the Municipal Code, please answer the following questions with regard to your request (Please attach on separate sheets, if necessary): Please see attached sheet Name of Applicant If provider of housing, name of facility, including legal name of corporation (Mailing Address of Applicant) (City/State) (Zip) (Telephone) (Fax number) (E -Mail address) (Subject Property Address) Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 1. Is this application being submitted by a person with a disability, that person's representative, or, a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability? 2. Does the applicant, or individual(s) on whose behalf the application is being made, have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? If so, please state the impairment(s) and provide documentation of such Page 1 of YS 00955 Application Number 3. From which specific Zoning Code provisions, policies or practices are you seeking an exception or modification? 4. Please explain why the specific exception or modification requested is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 5. Please explain why the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of the individual with a disability. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 6. Please explain how the individual with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation? Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 7. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary to make your facility economically viable in light of the relevant market and market participants. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. S. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary for your facility to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting taking into consideration the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. Page 2 of 3 YS 00956 Application Number 9. Please add any other information that may be helpful to the applicant to enable the City to determine whether the findings set forth in Chapter 20.98 can be made (Use additional pages if necessary Page 3 of 3 YS 00957 20172 Redlands Attachment Name of applicant: Yellowstone, Woman's First Step House, Inc., 20172 Redlands, Santa Ana Heights, CA 92701; Phone: 888.941.9048; Fax: 949.646.5296; APN: 119- 362 -07. 1. This application is provided by a provider of housing for individuals with a disability. 2. The individuals are alcoholics. 3. Single family residence to multi - family residence. 4. The applicant provides the residents of the Property with housing where same is otherwise unavailable to them. Most residents are long -term residents who are able to live with their disability, and in a sober environment, as a result of the provision of the facility by the applicant. The success of sober living homes in assisting these disabled individuals throughout the United States is well documented. Similar success has been realized at the Property addressed herein. A sample of the literature on sober living homes was attached to the original application. Without the home addressed in this application, the individuals who live at this home would not have access to sober living homes, and would not be able to afford to live in such a home in Orange County. Yellowstone provides this home to satisfy the otherwise unaddressed need by these disabled individuals for an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. There is no question that, with their current use, this property affirmatively enhances the lives of ninny individuals with disabilities. Importantly, the rent charged to these individuals simply covers Yellowstone's costs; no profit is realized. In fact, without charitable contributions, Yellowstone would operate at a loss. By no means is Yellowstone, or any individual involved with Yellowstone, a profiteer. Yellowstone simply makes available a sober living environment in an effort to help these disabled individuals, and with a view toward enhancing the community. To the extent that Yellowstone is forced to remove its operations from this property, it will suffer extreme economic hardship. Moreover, with any prospective closure of the property as a sober living home, the individuals with disabilities who live in the home will be without accommodation. Yellowstone is compliant with all of the requirements in the City of Newport Beach's Good Neighbor Principles, and is tenacious in ensuring that all residents at the Property strictly observe these requirements. Approval of this application would not alter the nature of the municipal code or impose any financial or administrative burden on the City. This property has been operating under these same general guidelines for years without imposing any burden upon the County or City. The residential character of the neighborhoods in which this property is located will not be altered in any way with the approval of this application. In fact, there is no non - residential use at the property. Moreover, there is no campus established through the grant of this application. Residents this property are not allowed at any of other property operated by Yellowston, and there are no functions that include all residents. Yellowstone has never been cited by any municipality at this property for any of the complaints set forth specifically in Ordinance 2008 -5, I YS 00958 Page 4, Paragraph 13. No health, safety or physical damage issues are presented with granting of these applications. S. See response to No. 4. 6. See response to No. 4. 7. See response to No. 4. The applicant is not a developer. The applicant has operated at the Property for years and currently can afford this property. Due to the economic decline, and specifically as it pertains to residential housing, the forced sale of this property would cause an extreme economic hardship. 8. See responses to No. 4 and 7. 9. The applicant is a long - standing tenant in the community, and has had a presence in Santa Ana Heights for years. The applicant prides itself in acting as a good neighbor. As noted above, the applicant has an extremely high success rate in assisting disabled individuals live and integrate into Orange County. The applicant affirmatively enhances the lives of its residents. Any abatement of this facility would be harmful to the community. Z YS 00959 November 7, 2008 PLANNIN G DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Fax: (949) 644 -3229 website: www.citv.newoort- beach.ca.us YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. Go Isaac R. Zfaty Davis & Rayburn, Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Dear Mr. Zfaty: Subject: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Use Permit No. 2008 -037 Property located at 20172 Redlands Drive I am writing as the City of Newport Beach's consulting case planner for this use permit application. This letter is a response to your letter dated August 22, 2008, in which you responded to the City's Notice of Incomplete Application dated June 19, 2008, and is also a follow -up to our October 8, 2008, meeting at the City. The City appreciates your responses and the opportunity to meet with you. However, at this time your application for Use Permit No. 2008 -037 for property located at 20172 Redlands Drive remains incomplete. As we discussed at our October 8th meeting, the area of West Santa Ana Heights was formally annexed to the City of Newport Beach, effective January 1, 2008, and the property located at 20172 Redlands Drive is therefore subject to the City's land use regulations, including the Residential Care provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). With respect to the items that continue to be deficient or missing from the use permit application submittal, please provide the following: A Preliminary Title Report that is less than 60 days old. This requirement is necessary to not only verify the ownership of record, but also will verify any deed restrictions (or lack thereof) such as CC &Rs that may place restrictions on the use of the property. YS 00960 2. The site plan submitted does not appear to be accurately drawn when reviewing it against aerial photographs, and the site plan and floor plans are not drawn to scale. The site plan must show the property line dimensions, distance or setback from property lines to the building, usable outdoor spaces, and the location of driveways. The site plan must also include the property lines and building footprints on immediately adjacent parcels. The floor plans must provide an accurate count of bedrooms and number of beds/residents within each bedroom, as well as all rooms intended for residents' use, and the location and dimension of the garage. 3. As noted at the meeting of October 8t' you are required to provide the City of Newport Beach Fire Marshal with a comprehensive code analysis prepared by a licensed architect. Requirements for the code analysis were provided to you at the meeting. However, should you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact Steve Bunting, Fire Marshal, at (949) 6443106. In addition, please provide the Fire Marshal with the year the home began to be used for sober living purposes. The plans that are required to be prepared for the code analysis may also be used to satisfy the requirement for a site plan and floor plans as noted above. 4. Please provide an explanation of the number of parking spaces provided on site and information regarding the maximum number of employees or others on site at any one time that will have autos. Include an explanation of the use of vans to transport residents to treatment facilities and other activities and provide a transportation route diagram. 5. You have discussed the unlicensed status of the Yellowstone facility at this address with our City Attorney's Office. Please review the Disclosure Statement and revise the licensing statement made in the application if necessary. 6. If certification specific to the type of facility is available from a governmental agency or qualified nonprofit organization, the facility shall receive such certification including without limitation, certification by Orange County under its Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification Program. Please provide evidence of any certifications held for this address. You also have requested information regarding the City's authority to impose an Application Fee of $2,200 and have asked for evidence of such City authority. Please note Section 20.90.030(D) (Application Filing) of Title 20 of the NBMC states that "Applications for discretionary approvals shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council." In addition, Chapter 3.36 of the NBMC provides the basis for recovering actual costs for application processing. On the basis of the foregoing requirements, you may wish to reevaluate and amend the Reasonable Accommodation application you have submitted with the use permit application. In addition, Item 2 on the Reasonable Accommodation supplemental form YS 00961 requests documentation of the disability for which the request for a reasonable accommodation is being made. That documentation has not been provided. Please provide documentation that the individuals on whose behalf the application is made are disabled under the governing law. The City leaves to the discretion of Yellowstone Women's First Step House and /or the individuals the nature of the documentation to be submitted. Understanding the concerns about privacy, the City will accept documentation disclosing only the person's first name or initials (with all other identifying information redacted). Please be advised that failure to obtain a use permit for the residential care facility use of the subject property shall render the use of property nonconforming. Nonconforming uses of property are subject to abatement, per Section 20.62.090 of the NBMC, and if the required use permit is not obtained by February 9, 2009, the use will be subject to abatement in accordance with the Code. City staff appreciates your continuing cooperation. However, we are unable to process your Use Permit application and Reasonable Accommodation application and schedule a public hearing until we receive the pending submittal items outlined above. Should you have questions regarding the aforementioned, please contact me at 949.466.0038 or by email at AGARMIJO@aol.com. Sincerely, Alliert _ ( goi Armijo Consulting Planner Cc: Janet Brown, Associate Planner Dr. Anna Marie Thames, Yellowstone Women's First Step House YS 00962 DAVIS•ZFATY A V[Oif [SIONAI LAW C00.f ORATION December 23, 2008 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GEC 3 0 2008 XY OF NEWPORT BEACH Z175.1 Re: Notice of Incomplete Application: Yellowstone — 20172 Redlands Dear. Ms. Brown: This firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. C Yellowstone'). We are in receipt of the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Incomplete Application dated November 7, 2008 in which the City asked Yellowstone to address six deficiencies in its Use Permit Application for 20172 Redlands. Enclosed herewith is the documentation you requested. Below is a brief description of the enclosed materials. Preliminary Title Reports A preliminary title report for 20172 Redlands is included. As requested, the preliminary title report is less than 60 days old. Site Plans The site plans for 20172 Redlands show the property dimensions, setback from the property line to the buildings, useable outdoor space, and the location of driveways. The site plans also include the property lines and building footprints on immediately adjacent parcels. Finally, the site plans include an accurate count of bedrooms in the home, the number of residents within each bedroom, the rooms intended to be used by residents, and the location and dimension of the garage. 580 Broadway Street. Suite 301 - Laguna Beach, CA 9265.1 - 949.376.2828 • Fax 949.376.3875 info @dzattorneyscom . wwwAzattorneys.curn YS 00963 Ms. Janet Brown December 23, 2008 Code Analysis A code analysis is provided herewith. The code analysis discusses the property, which is compliance with the R4 Building and Fire Code Requirements. Also, your November 7, 2008 letter requested that we provide the Fire Marshal with the year each of the homes began to be used for sober living purposes. Those dates are as follows: 1561 Indus — 2007 1621 Indus — 2003 20172 Redlands — 2005 1571 Pegasus -- 2005 Parking and Transportation The documentation enclosed provides the number of available parking spaces at 20172 Redlands and the number of employees who park on site. Route maps from the home to treatment and from the home to St. John church are also provided. With respect to transportation to and from 20172 Redlands, we would like to address variations in previous submittals that have since been resolved. Paragraph 12 of the Request for Reasonable Accommodation for 20172 Redlands states that Yellowstone does not provide transportation. Though this is generally true, upon further review, we feel that it is important to note that the home provides some basic transportation to other non - Newport Beach facilities and to St. John church. Both locations are within ten minutes of the home and, as stated above, we have included route maps for your convenience. Finally, the vans that transport the residents are not parked on site. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. Licensing Status As we have discussed, none of the four homes is ADP licensed. To the extent that any prior representations regarding ADP licensing were made, we have learned that same were incorrect. If you have any questions regarding this item, or need any further explanation as to the reasons for our error, we are more than happy to provide same. As we have never provided treatment in these facilities (nor represented that in any prior communication with the City), this does not represent a material change to our application. Certifications Enclosed is a copy of the certification for 20172 Redlands. The home is certified a member of the Orange County Sober Living Coalition. YS 00964 Ms. Janet Brown December 23, 2008 I hope that the enclosed materials complete Yellowstone's Application and clarify any ambiguities in our previous submissions to the city regarding 20172 Redlands. As always, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY, a professional corporation NICOLE COHRS YS 00965 YELLOWSTONE — 20172 REDLANDS 1. Preliminary Title Report 2. Code Analysis 3. Parking and Route flaps 4. Certification RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEC 3 0 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH YS 00966 0 CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY Regarding: 20172 REDLANDS DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA In We se to the application for a policy of t r shed N is prepared to Issue, or cam deecbin atnhye land and the estate or Interest tt mason pursuara to the printati Sol edules C�ondalttIons a PRELIMINARY REPORT Dated ea d: November 18. 2408 at 7:30 AM Ouder No.: 810=123-SO4 1 � te y or of arance oss which or not exc=be fro This report (and any supper or amendments hereto) Is Issued for the of %d the issuance of a policy of tlUe insurance and no IlebtNy Is auwtrned hereby. N R Is dadred (IAt yty assumed prior to the Issuance of a peelicy of thie Insurance, a Blnder or Commlb,m dKx W be reque sted. The policy(s) of We Insurance to be Issued hereunder will be pud s) of ChbW Tolle Insurance Company. PNsse read the viceptione Wrown or referred to frerebu and the aECaptlOfle and soudutlons on font In Attedanent One dtroirbed urnder the temre dtfre t Ine policy and s�horid betoOB niatice ot msttwa which are not It to Ntkpp to note that tide lin Is not a written rsprwardedon as to the cardidon of � and may not Iht all Bens .ddefects and anaMn�rc a ng title to the Herd. The form of Policy or Pdidee of tide Insurance contemplated by this Wait Ns: MnXCAN LAND TITLE A090MATION LOSE POLICT (6- 17 -06) V&# Lis OS<► The Nbd: Cfdc>Wlftcom Title Departmerm CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY 16969 VON RARION IRVINE, CA 92606 (949)263 -6800 Pax: (969)263 -0972 • 0 1W, Cii PMFPB- d6MMTIN YS 00967 SCHEDULE A drderNo: 880523123 SO4 Your Ref: 1. The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or relerredto covered by this report is: A FEE 2. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: ANNA THAt4ES, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN AND STEPHEN THAMES, AN MDIARRIRD LOIN AS 10IAT TENANTS 3. The land referred to in this report is situated in the State of California, County of ORANGE and is described as follows: LOT 36 OF TRACT NO. 4307, AS PER NAP RECORDED IN BOOR 153, PAGES 18 THROUGH 20, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY YS 00968 SCHEDULE B Page 1 Order Na 880523123 SO4 Your Red At the date hereof exceptiems to Coverage is addition to the printed Euxptiams and Exclusi me in the policy foam des*aatcd on the face page of this Report would he as f Alaws a e c D 1. PROPERTY TAXES, INCLUDING ANY ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED WITH TAXES, TO BE LEVIED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2009 -2010 THAT ARE A LIEN NOT YET DUE. 2. PROPERTY TAM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR SHOWN BELOW ARE PAID. FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES THE AMOUNTS AREt FISCAL YEAR: 1ST INSTALLMENT: 2ND INSTALI146NT: EXEMPTION: CODE AREA: ASSESSMENT NO: 2008 -2009 $4,110.51 $4,110.51 $NOT SHOWN 07212 119 - 362 -07 3. SUPPLEMENTAL OR ESCAPED TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2005 -2006 ASSESSED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 3.5 (COMMENCING WITH SBCTIOM 75) OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 1ST INSTALLM EW: PENALTY: DELINQUENT: 2ND INSTALLMENT: PENALTY: DELINQUENT: CODE ARRA: ASSESSM ENT NO.: $371.00 (NOT PAID- DELINOUEMtT) $37.10 DECEMBER 10, 2005 $371.00 (NOT PAID- DELINQUENT) $47.10 APRIL 10, 2006 07212 119 - 362 -07 4. SAID PROPERTY HAS BEEN DECLARED TAX- DEFAULTHD FOR NON- PAYMBiT OF DELINQUENT TAXES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -2007 (AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS, IF ANY) AMOUNT TO REDREM: IF PAID BY: AMOUNT TO REDEEM: IF PAID BY: $20,588.32 NOVEMBER 30, 2008 $20,832.04 DECEMBER 31, 2008 s S. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL, OR ESCAPED ASSESSMENTS OF PROPERTY TAXES, IF ANY, MADE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 0.5, CHAPTER 3.5 OR PART 2, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLES 3 AND 4 RESPECTIVELY (COMNSNCING WITH SECTION 75) OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION OWN OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF TITLE TO THE VESTRE NAMED IN SCHEDULE A: OR AS A RESULT OF CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP OR NEW CONSTRUCTION OCCURRING PRIOR TO DATE OF POLICY. YS 00969 Page 2 M'1" Order No: 860523123 SO4 your pd r 6. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AM RESTRICTIONS BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SFMML ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COV=W OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW AS SET FORTH IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED: NOVEMBER 27, 1961 IN BOOR 5923 PAGE 378 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS c SAID COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS PROVIDE THAT A VIOLATION THEREOF SHALL NOT DEFEAT THE LIEN OF ANY MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE. a SAID INSTRUMENT ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS, THE LIEN OF WHICH IS STATED TO BE SUBORDINATE TO THE LIEN OF CERTAIN MORTGAGES OR DEEDS OF TRUST MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE. r 7. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY PURPOSE: PUBLIC UTILITIES RECORDED: FEBRUARY 14, 1962 IN BOOR 6009 PAGE 242 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: SOUTHEASTERLY 6 FEET .r S. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN HELM AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY PURPOSE. PUBLIC UTILITIES RECORDED: FEBRUARY 28, 1962 IN BOOK 6023 PAGE Z OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: NORTHEASTERLY 5 PH ET OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY 5 FEET a 9. A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION, WEST SANTA ANA HEIGHTS REORGANIZATION TO THE CITY OF NBMRT BEACH (RO 06 -25)•, DATED JANUARY 1, 2008 EXECUTED BY ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, SOFAFSCT TO ALL THE TERMS, PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS THRRZZN CONTAINED, RECORDED SEPTEbMER 17, 2007 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2007000566527 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. t 10. A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INDEBTEDNESS IN THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT SHOWN BELOW AMOUNT: $650,000.00 DATRD= AUGUST 18, 2006 YS 00970 Page 3 Order No: 880523123 SO4 N SCHMME B (continued) Your Ref: TRUSTOR: STEPHEN TRAMS A UNMARRIED MAN AND ANNA MARIE TRAMS, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN, AS JOINT TENANTS TRUSTEE: RON MORRISON, GENERAL COUNSEL BENEFICIARY: IMPAC FUNDING CORPORATION DBA IMPAC LENDING GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION RECORDED: AUGUST 30, 2006 AS INSTRUMENT MAO. 2006000563234 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS ORIGINAL IRAN NUMBER: 2503176319 11. A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INURHT ®NESS IN THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT SHOWN BELOW AMOUNT: DATED: TRDBTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: RECORDED: ORIGINAL IRAN NUMBER: x 12. RIGHTS OF OTHERS LAND. o END OF SCHEDULE B $96,400.00 AUGUST 18, 2006 STEPHEN TRAMS A UNMARRIED MAN AND ANNA MARIE THAMES, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN, AS JOINT TENANTS RON MORRISON, GENERAL COUNSEL IMPACT FUNDING CORPORATION DBA IMPAC LENDING GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AUGUST 30, 2006 AS IMTRUMBNT NO. 2006000583235 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 2503177442 NOT SHOWN IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS, IN POSSESSION OF SAID p NOTE NO. 1: THERE ARE NO CONVEYANCES AFFECTING SAID LAND, RECORDED WITHIN TWENTYPOUR (24) MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THIS REPORT. 0 NOTE NO. 2: WE WILL REQUIRE A STATEMENT OF INFORMATION PROM THE PARTIES NAMED BELOW IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THIS REPORT, BASED ON THE EFFECT OF DOCUMENTS, PROCEEDINGS, LIENS, DECREES, OR OTHER MATTERS WHICH DO NOT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE SAID LAND, BUT WHICH, IF ANY DO EXIST, MAY AFFECT THE TITLE OR IMPOSE LIEMS OR ENCUMBRANCES THEREON. PARTIES: ALL PARTIES (NOTE: THE STATEMENT OF INFORMATION IS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE SEARCH AND EYAMINATION OF TITLE UNDER THIS ORDER. ANY TITLE SEARCH INCLUDES MATTERS THAT ARE INDEXED BY NAME ONLY, AND HAVING A COMPLETED STATEMENT OP INFORMATION ASSISTS THE COMPANY IN THE ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN MATTERS WHICH APPEAR TO INVOLVE THE PARTIES BUT IN PACT AFFECT ANOTHER PARTY WITH THE SAME OR SIMILAR NAME. BE ASSURED THAT THE STATEMENT OF INFORMATION IS YS 00971 Page 4 SCHEDULE B (continued) Order No: 880523123 SO4 Your Ref: ESSENTIAL AND WILL BE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL TO THIS FILE.) a NOTE NO. 3: IF THIS CC14PMY IS REQUESTED TO DISBURSE FUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS TRANSACTION, CHAPTER 598, STATUTES OF 1989 MANDATES HOLD PERIODS FOR CHECKS DEPOSITED TO ESCROW OR SUS - ESCROW ACCOUNT'S. THE MANDATORY HOLD PERIOD FOR CASHIER'S CHECKS, CERTIFIED CHBCKS AND TELLER'S CHECK$ IS ONE BUSINESS DAY AFTER THE DAY DEPOSITED. OTHER CHECKS REQUIRE A HOLD PERIOD OF FROM TWO TO FIVE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE DAY DEPOSITED. IN THE EVENT THAT THE PARTIES TO THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTION WISH TO RECORD PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR DISBURSEMENT (AND SUBJECT TO COMPANY APPROVAL), THE COMPANY WILL REQUIRE THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE PARTIES. UPON REQUEST, A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMPANY AUTHDRIZING SAID EARLY RECORDING MAY BE PROVIDED TO ESCROW FOR EXECUTION. WIRE TRANSFERS THREE IS NO MANDATED HOLD PERIOD FOR FUNDS DEPOSITED BY CONFIRMED WIRE TRANSFER. THE COMPANY MAY DISBURSE SUCH FUNDS THE SAME DAY. WIRE -IE INBTRUCTIONSt: SANK: COUNTRYWIDE BANK FEE 1199 W. FAIRFAX ST., SUITE 500 .ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 BANK ABA: 056009110 ACCOUNT NAME: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY ORANGE MARKET CENTER ACCOUNT NO.: 412684 FOR CREDIT TO: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY 16969 VON KARMAN IRVINE, CA 92606 FURTHER CREDIT TO: ORDER NO.: 880523123 FEDERAL RESERVE WIRE SHORT HAMS: COUNTRYWIDE BKFSS ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA s NOTE NO. 4: ON THE DATH YOU FUND THE LOAN AND WIRE FUNDS TO CHICAGO TITLE AND REFERENCE THE ABOVE ORDER NUMBER, YOU MUST SEND WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE TITLE OFFICER'S UNIT BY MESSENGER OR E -MAIL THAT YOU SENT THE FUNDS. CHICAGO TITLE WILL SEND AN EMAIL ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE FUNDS AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE. CHICAGO TITLE WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBILE FOR ANY DELAY IN CLOSIM AND YS 00972 r 5 SCHEDULE B (continued) OrdwNo: 880523123 304 Your Ref RECORDING THE TRANSACTION, NOR WILL CHICAGO TITLE BE la IN FOR ANY MA331 OF LAST INTEREST UNLESS SUCH WRITTEN NOTICE IS SENT THE DAY OF FUNDING AND CHICAGO TITLE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF FUNDS. r NUTS NO. 5: NONE OF THE ITEMS SHOWN IN THIS REPORT WILL CAUSE THE COMPANY TO DECLINE TO ATTACH CLTA ENDORSEMENT FORM 100 TO AN ALTA LOAN POLICY, WHEN ISSUED. U NOTE NO. 6: THERE IS LOCATED ON SAX') LAND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE KNOWN AS: 20172 REDL.ANDS DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH AREA, SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA v NOTE NO. 7: IF A COUNTY RECORDER, TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, ESCROW COMPANY, REAL ESTATE BROKER, REAL ESTATE AGENT OR ASSOCIATION PROVIDES A COPY OF A DECLARATION, GOVERNING DOC914MT OR DRED TO ANY PERSON, CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THAT THE DOCUMENT PROVIDED SHALL INCLUDE A STATEMENT REGARDING ANY UNLAWFUL RESTRICTIONS. SAID STATEMENT IS TO BE IN AT LEAST 14 -POINT BOLD FACE TYPE AND MAY BE STAMPED ON THE FIRST PAGE OF ANY DNM,RH+ W PROVIDED OR INCLUDED AS A COVER PAGE ATTACHED TO THE REQUESTED DOCUMENT. SHOULD A PARTY TO THIS TRANSACTION REQUEST A COPY OF ANY DOCUMENT REPORTED HEREIN THAT FITS THIS CATEGORY, THE STATEMENT IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED. a NOTE NO. S: NO EXAMINATION OF THR COMPANY'S RECORDS HAS 8$EN MADE FOR, NOR IS REPORT MADE IN THIS PRELIMINARY REPORT OF, MONETARY LIENS, OR ENCUMBRANCES, IF ANY, WHICH MAY AFFECT TITLE TO AN ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND DESCRIBED HEREIN ACQUIRED BY A PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS. x NOTE NO. 9: THE CURRENT OWNER DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR THE $20.00 DISCOUNT PURSUANT TO THE COORDINATED STIPULATED JUDGMENTS ENTERED IN ACTIONS FILED BY BOTH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND PRIVATE CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS FOR THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY. r NOTE NO. 10: THE CHARGE FOR A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, WHEN ISSUED THROUGH THIS TITLE ORDER, WILL BE BASED ON THE SHORT -TERM RATS. a TR -T /R YS 00973 ,1 M You may be entitled to receive a $20.00 discount on escrow services if you purchased, sold or refinanced residential property in California between May 19, 1995 and November 1, 2002. If you had more than one qualifying transaction, you may be entitled to multiple discounts. If your previous transaction involved the same property that is the subject of your current transaction, you do not have to do anything; the Company will provide the discount, provided you are paying for escrow or title services in this transaction. If your previous transaction involved property different from the property that is subject of your current transaction, you must - prior to the dose of the current transaction - inform the Company of the earlier transaction, provide the address of the property involved in the Previous transaction, and the date or appradmate date that the escrow dosed to be eligible for the discount. Unless you inform the Company of the prior transaction on property that is not the subject of this transaction, the Company has no obligation to conduct an investigation to determine if you qualify for a discount. If you provide the Company information concerning a prior transaction, the Company is required to determine if you qualify for a discount which is subject to other terms and conditions. ION- aammfm YS 00974 UD rin I• I v i O N r I 1 - AMW YyQyyY L I 'a [�L%1' t� I ` bZ•e¢r o, Haig �4iq YS 00975 l3Motiva Date: s/,/zooe Flddhy Ntttfottd Fkwlc d, Irto. P?NMBNBMN,t fidolky National FhgshoW, W- snd ft wbetduAw Mn reprsq the and sec rhy of your nonitt a perscral Information Cftm IrdonnWon' pnd�mPamoalhkrmWlonborndfourtoppx�ThisRhaoyfitderrnerntmxplakrFi6 'sf�pytracfiees kakrdwe how wa ere t ha Pmaonal v b rsNM tram you are from oar apeoified sowaea, end te wham h may bm d dozed. FIB folOm dw Pfi'ssY Prwdoea dssarlhWd in thin PdVVW S*Wfwd and. deperift an the business psAon. FhF oomiumin may alwe Mloartaft as do*~ heroin. Persoad Ynlorrnatton Collected • VfS may oo" Personal krfama*m about you firm fiwfoeavkig somw • kdomnation we rsodw from you on apPlbstissW Of other lamp, such as you name, address, social socuiW number, tax him IflcWmn number, asst IMormnetial and i cor Manudion • MtMMM n we maM fiorn YOU thmughh err If III wsbdlee, atah a your name, addrest, 0 dan Prolow address, the wahala Wit you used to pet to axwebslra, wW your asivlywhhe wing or rsMewkq ourW abdtea • informed" about yar t suss ap with Of savtm performed by us, our dfl lda, or oawm such as informstbn aaeamkig Your Imo, pmmkana. P%"Wd hatey, Mfamwbn about your harm of from rod propwry, kd .. Oftn ram bndem and odwfidro pwbN W&Vbmd in such trarnaeodaw, SOM nt bdumse, and orodhosW Information, uW • kdamatlar we rooeivafiom commoner a otflx ^y�ortlng appncbe and pubtdyrectedI& DadowmsafP neweldbra Itatlal • V& may Provide your Parceled kdonnatlon( suakIdifthdormdbnwe NOW from off aonswrworothworo .owtkgmgerlolsa)toverfous khhfividusls and companies, all permitted by law, vACaut obtaiMrpya+r Ixla ahNwd>adm. lhhch Mss rte nos aMNr coraumaa m noWrfd these dbolosures, dmdoomrayInciucl %WMMA III Mafbm,alpiosovrkh� • ToMwrarwaagsse, broker minggwhtetlwm,■hplhatarganiil; of %)WovldsVowwithearv1- VMIWA qusWed,aAfoono M U3 to l of prevent Criminal act ft, baud. mdwMl ndaregassMSdorh a rwndtedoeae a ahxawofiorpwhh an kwraae trarhmtlons • To Mird{wy contractors or SWAN provwm la the purpam d drtenmlMM your 6110101111ty for an kpumnom ' 1111 a paymem and/or Providing you a4dh ewioNYsu have • To en i adds -1 other tl0M - We al authority, In a civil awbrh, M connection with a subpoena a a • To�comperdes� 1111111 11111 ssMNS on err b* W or to arse financial Imdituitaw with which we have tied Joint mwkMft • T Anders. Iten'oWMe kl ' ud Bmnw d a ad M oo wr parft dabyft ur eam&wm a an inMmd M g%wlxfN tlWn a Intemd mwt b• deberminod, settled. Paa raleaad pdorto s ttiM a Weaar cia.Mg Vine mayaleo disoc"yorn Perssnd MMtmafbn a ogwswhen sus b$NM, in goodialth, that such dMdosura Is reasonably neaeaeeryte con" with the awor toproemtits gaiety of our coebrnwa, employsa, ulXOWVand /ateocmplyvfthaJudbWproNSit oaromterark9el fooeaL I l N.lffi_BRImJ Com vw AN Peahted by law to stare Vow name, eddrae and Ada about your tnahaotlah vfgn aVm FNF °anpani•e. Shah a InwenN oomPuft gWft and other real atete Servbe providers to provide you with serMNe you have requested, fix madrstt"9 a product dewlopmwn march, a lo nfu products a ewNaa te Voss yin do not, hoasVW, dbcba kdwcmdm sus oalMot iron otherwise bylaw. apcoeNe with our atnlMM aodwmw WoAym reenssnt M ooMamsywit h Wpft" law, oMaa such disdoaaa le dealoeurs to Nonsfi111tdsd]Ihit� Paola - Vya do hot dacha llamond lMormado t about our ogpmnem atomw pwMmerstc nwnefNNated third PWM,"04Aao MamhemMaaothMhMaPal It bylaw. it wW l ,s of aTonn atlon W solo' scomtoMW oml about You to #K Wmp o M* ft n c,and wd abgndUaomywhh Mdn reguWlon to guard Paewai kilolrlatlan. Access to Poreond bow ration/ PAqussw for 0onsaft . AnwnYoern, or Omhoon of PNmof information As raph d by aPPkBtte lew, ws Will afford you fie ftid te aoNa your pwsawl aloe atlah under oenadn d�amwdwa to Avid cut M whom your Persahal krforrraNat bee been deolosed. AMr• m,• o •e••.wrn......r....�....r...... n...`_..-.__� - - -- - -_ __ -. - Chief P1Naoy 0lfioer Fidelity National Financial. Inc. 801 Ffivstaldm Drive Jssksomolk R 3ZM4 C112141108 to hat•m•nt ThieStatement maybe amen ded wgbaiW fro, m omm to time wwNi ��pdwnoy , lava ften we I 0" Privacy Sartem sed. we wet Pod a notice, of such �TMgMadwtleeotU rgMleamaedtore ,kWbdagwlattrraMMYWq StetemamwamvisedOr allyyhanpad vrevaovr- asAaraeaA YS 00976 AMHRICAWL MTY=ASSOCIAMW RHSIDHNTlAL JLIL H VWMANMPOLICY (614rl) H%CU)S M md3lmbMe Bioptiwi emeaaee4�ftRm ipunOYNiW mm,maaglem, detPewemamamor: 1• ISOMMOMMd 1 � b d �adl0noe a vInOU® d atd Iw a pyypey m....wft brtfte bait adiemw d Wm Ln d pMcu 7btr m I mM m 4311 m denim a Me enlaameu d am tab" �ppv i Me pWbamNtrptegdin Im Rill", m[tlmktY arlgnrRp atuiee mltam 1td13 dl�ztd Tae t4 ab m addtioa ro tb ®nntiiae, Aa R m Warta epm Zeta, tiny mmw Rq wd rte eopaoitsetit Gam L AaJ el/ay&gfeelA wtib�dpelW iptrerieatbe hma mamm b)• tb Plb& t•wtes 2 A•9wmafwiermmaaabIti ft, cneam.TwdmmiYtpatlm wrntRrlotmedcwad3ii Rrt, a 3R&Rtie • 1m Raatd,elbwgafrlroa bbwpa thiRLamnlaRN mss ®the db3q OiammMtptArreditb pWbteo • the aeaR lm imhtrbpa • grMNa e t 70RUibrmtletieYmeedRSY bRrtshmadr, r17M RW R.eewropttleerebf3m tWe. taddathb • AevimlooOYbtheRa •paieel�dat0!•dM wfwmdbrRU9aem•diW a 'tile erirm t1m m tlrl�ios mtepRt i Rs a aCmm'{Rle R W x AQmsl orlielbateh�aaunCmrwytntldmpmucim Waotebaslq MepWbtamt- Iiidmmthmtbenad rmowlaem�iHS Ilddi•rd IVORhea a. �wReldafwmlitatain .aReramawWlia,tM&NwmepabpMe CALMRNIA LAND TnUABBMATMSrAMARD COVHRAMPOLWY -IM MOMUMOMMOM COVRRAOR for a traoatl is tb pease a e Ma boatift atmd. aelen mdse a tb atnoe Mena N bm tanNm i Ma ; rmd WW iaeimnewNa DM Or Poll9. N m aaddit 6or taomi r4 tddt rtttl N mgaaelmpeert@Pmdlmat tdee. rwwvhm modd be memq m the flat&a pt a aeerw if 2 Atry dttb, rhiimwmdHe hrrd tpdr pttig atb imro d Me apmllesdhahNhaiaap SCHEDUI.H $ PART I WU3WIIONSFROM COVERME Ore GfFa q,bW - oAmd6 im Which 3tbpaigdmerm imreaplen irwd.weap(d tb COmyopvip m p4wm, rmroep+'a&.aatp® ■).elaapelgmnoat PARTI 1. a w' aeamorAf v m emam w milt Mm q Me temt0 d tap IaaW A Btaem t'6bww PrPetb b) to ervmmR,w WtR ebter(m boom tWpM pmeveWV byepWAo v-W whkh raft a a a� moes e. uWM-1% aNm i Emdry Nm. Mahn i m, raategeNt� � tebw poamiP.wbewwmmo . elsasaeaadmb.{mq am&mdmw em.meamta now ,nmamm,maamlamad imabywpWbemmaa i Aaa ISM INN4 bar a WN which R m Mean tp the P e s to S (0) �a dais aeloc N) fdmwm.e a ensllaa u piYb w i Am pemmmatbmaof. gtlirpermdeb bn wahteb agbraarod iypnbmb y� «elves *uw�nwm ft wwmtha Pget S=VR61 •• OSIMM AA YS 00977 ATTACHED ONE (C"th pd) AMERICANLANDT[PLRAWOC A17ONLOIN[OIICYC1a17A2) W17lIA.LT.A ENDORSEMO11- AOINCOVBRAO6 OXCLUSZONS VPMM COVRRAas ym me m1mpa am me the Capq dapare.mr manamaraamRPt�bmasi two Ormil pa aadpaemvdaysdsiineemat 1 royal" {a)taalymiob addqrrvdaymmdm hembmarrWm des Woad dsisimr C.) FEE ( Do m em m b imldyy WO.d �f dtat.�C Na abadead mettle _ • a 00 d ". a tN Wtlffy w Um of +► sanipat a.tty a the m to to ME* (M atapmmim rtmnmaipa• bd&M esm ampy.am qVIca" ddgWlam tm arch sift r rmaae Was m mdwooppaatnrbmmthe Naraw•Pool; demist dbd anWvrNrnd dtmra.adram or 1 lboalftw a.beatlybrd the an dths Wm- somsi►cdYmdard.wYdt fm of awgicbrown, all" yam a vltrtlN or a &�0 vbNre 1 no" demaamt Amer U6111111 load" d tN emmae 41 m bm moead In me ptlr eeemde a a" of Potlp. bad all ad. ft ttm mmva M Nomt taia N. aec.ned pram m om dpmq�ala vaW N bmop m tN rttyts a. paoaesa b Ime a Ml ) K. IN wall. how or silo tW br=*M bba Raoerr ~aft blprortnmm of ttaR room b tN as World etm/am a. mot d me .ppolm I'm rbaePub* brbnew allow mWOadN4StmarACaae�aBdadedCarem ,.I.. dalmbmedeweB ¢Atftatlamtbwt�e,WHoap6mymWmmto e dMand t]ragr pntq•W ablmbm t6 bttPmep HaaePmm yva wormy. :1_b �_ a ... •t t: 7ibpmgdbam Wmwudlmvd ..�peemeae.�.q.�dlmpymm.amwgr amR�.ra)wy+amvgtmaad: 1. lam a...moar ads m m Oe.o m eWbt daft by M tssra d ml Oft .a. ,I tbsi ode tam all aammr as red pmPmeI a or as allow taada prmmdsmt®.p bwsp w." mgmm 1. mall or ow"E edy anoom of wide 3 Paamp.etmoamtN.e gtrmmRamb�,yvgmepaaeamft Aqe aw. d+er, ydmmr a asim wham m dmn 41Npdale nma m veM p m- tbaraLd al l WpaNm d tlm aW mull atq N eatmme q pdmas r 7. ®seemr.Ymaa ft go �.vdammena.ad11196 WEOwamt a �a �mmder asa.�mmm.�otse.n�Rraawmts' 1 p71)epmmrm apa/g Arms A) mrttaoml R omaptbm in Paler R is Am a.am�.pmso.aa titaeott (e].mniaW,diftRtllrbvaa,.�ysiW am eN lam aompre �S$RJa(d mtomblae ptbateoml. 20MAMMUC AN LAND TMEASSOMWON LOAN POLICY (064746) > UMMSIOIW PROM COVERAOS �aaepa0 a)xam4pulpaoa QAemibry.laadCialmtlo aYaybpROam[OambQaal mura Nig(bRra.m►ApamI➢OOIbaINY taierdb drmmgpRbmmpaOsinadatiafl , la,aH):w (.7 warp s roadmapt tbtvmsidm tma btso t.tram rmrammcml btlPmwl.ebme l.el.rdaled�. _ rLmm ♦ d a deYdOmV♦ read me Ye 1drrah !mod Is m.ftd 1 I(b) dm m soft a ma ae mill' a my me cared¢ PlalY 3 Oeaga.litymNrmdlWr . amaeaatm U) mm W r rdm.4 mmeq a Mm m Ig' me mrmd ptls.ali (b) m ttawsm mr ampgy m nmeed is aw rmee waea r ore apauq.tall Kmn bas lased t]tlmal admdilmdrv.m.abarcmpupgme IoemN CrNaaPtmbmdftae Iemmt7tlbW loa�am101mad ®OV Iarpldlq.' 7Nlym.polgmmmgNbrdlopblda Comrptweata.dedowal p.) a. adtkMWtbtbam>. 9atlftmremmesp .eN®letptr.elaaComgptr �MPmgeltlaW rdrdetN blbdePiapeb.eaaaCampC M&Pmgdmm imm.yim mradbspe( oft IN ebap.q.0 mp4eteq araeapo baalgLea.' )ar.tregmmna 1• (.)7traameaaem tasimm Mv.: ex" am by tow mmmd or amrtelt7. that Now tow yr aramem m and a by tic r" RrMft* l6) Pmtmeier by a Pone gtbq MU may r.dl If tm a siftmala, Amiga or ash pmmedi µMraaamdO tCaemconkm mgmgabbrrtapompA d. 2 AspW4dgetlyu, amiftdft WOMwsgtNhtllbypm inmroorb .ttb/a mgraraatir ra.eaWtmyN armragprmr bptsapp E UM1312- Rfft(RAA 7. 4. Amy avamasamm ,aarrtanm,meb.ngaepahlkRemmt. Aegeetlmtleel.memodby mom,a dampl mmadmmlra L4 W d all lftla datasutlNdiememhpmmmrad aaplft WdmmJdaelstd adm deP.agarpamp�s S. (a) llapsiatsd -on ddmq (s) "oaths a =�s r perm a in Am .ftaaegae, mwao(0rdp.ddmaarmadar.tsrbaema. mamamprlmdnUbN 7.R(o)mm.egrme►awatamda Pop 2 YS 00978 ATrwcZMABNroxs MOMMEEM AMERICAN LAND'fIISA=OaATWN OWNERS POLICY M17-M BXCLtXMMFBOMCOVBMOB 1• <a M�..na..am « taad)laa (iemy is :a once i « tmd a.vo mmr pnmmn., v the aim a aq vibi. a Uew iaa, anaaaa. « paaamaW IglYltlm„ amp ama adm tbd •avuadaN uam®a[ Iblee(R nail d • (blM)l a lb l nd b Yto b da .R.am[d b irlp e pdfmaa � b®m • A .balddlRm l ia q . AfW, - I� pem —low q 0) A —p w avbep � ma m ab aWa .ap dda vesi lr . bma vkwm R am'am dadim AM"lM mod by bm amdd m lb pdft tmii at RWO 2 pWO of I al i3md rbd.�uttb.mmadmadbwbM tmtvd i tb. ammm a Qa a �, ba as aoamly bow w W aq alma mad m w.emmmritlma.bd3Y 1"dWvMft woaN be Mama r de tldY d a gamma am A m (Yapm�itlaeibffiear�ma �i�itaa�tt4 p °�0�e+r ir.d.ii..r L Mekkkv"WMw a(M trmnafm WAM in Me bloom lbemavmlmK mawegmtpm*tymr dOaapmNimdmdmlbamlpteq.dml v a abmtra 11�b mR qlI m bamO na (Q Ibr baatatam tatalW Ob eam v b&M boom q d e pow bea am m a M thO W tOdWh vi tim taal0orR (a) Ib baaaatlia amdly tle wade R bola.! btma by as paiq fitly a.mm a 7bda.pmgbwtaybk.Ra w 4md "ba modal cmewp aamema OOm.p.iafatlmatbadw. BOOM nmeb.maW 9a8naelem Lem CtweyeIn .sww dtb .mappetlg.afdwladle.tlwibP.laa norCwm pc 7bl. p.bydw mtlamapmt mad®«( andlb( bopgwNeapgagat� •marptpaws)�obegnmmoC I. 'fm a .twwsem dtld am as dme a ealalep fia by tin aeotd d aay tafy aamw7 6d Ian taa R aa.moai d nW ptepedy « q We pmlk atead- Ptemdipga Plot gpwm i ba.gwd in m Raamd m, Ritimd sm 1 pa® atrp, aMeer«. otNOasgmee ®sdadapagagtbpdbemomdt, Arid. -W"bWt adtlrwbkhamm.h..a gdwpdb.tmb ba .aka a.damammal q r fapedb- d ON bM a.Nd aap be adamd by i mwew mood. .lam bR waeryempeaumma "Cwetap dlbopm9.>m 0. Cnap.q pq dYaye,ama,datatd'riw,«ap upbe.niteb mdim to 1. (9 b. aNOam. P?aa. a pmmaemt �Ytim (ad.aia maw Nds a A taamao, bvavre�a .�aemiottaM,rtyamgg.Wbbeamaa �. aeeim 66oadaq ra.Oalye is Im%wm.tabomar,a or atir (a) U4 semmn ft dM WOO melotaad�twmtdoaog3a , tab A A fa ugrr.d tnhtly atlsb R) amain « aopliR i pram « i wm w.mAymebaaata: iNaaC(g aamt(Wa,dttsatlU . awraldmbm«aa tb maew ampd may (a, (b) R (e) aw..ma q dr pabbcmarr �RIP76imdmbo t(a)smamanagaaatmsmt ¢ aae (b) Aq Pfd polR pm - Thb H dwka 1(b) dot w moft a 3em me 2 CORTpPmid. Cawed Rabb y �Odolam�Wdaomai. pfd ®aakaaa, m mSdy R atilt irammp ptalNd A (W- wlis,aNm«aton,tlmuemaaaama moan (a)mam0.a %0 C..P F, ibJIbmp Cla®m� [s mltae..wtb �b.p..p.mwmd.a 1. n. Pdlk AemrRdom «roa4.we . t. 7fe.borapaigama aapb muma.dWd dte:r3l.m.p CaRapa Omaaea Catayaiaaaoesbde daalbd - b. ft cmvyatb@twpiel&MCewe p a AftwadC.mmppuaw.baI.dam mbrm'4®rPtmbadCaamp: 1.bptalgdeamtiaaaapia mRaaaap(amlb�mq.af as pgaatlb.arOEyvwam) Md t�ariegmaa..t 1. fA7bm« eba.m e.t.Yme r al.a3 Hm by m.mmda a.tsaafy mbdl an ida man «aaaatmm m tat ptapry a q Oa pd@ Math lb) ptataalip q. pame.pnq da my teal m tam a ameety R nmkR d tad paaaanm, beam dmagmeaadatmdyaq «qua pdtleMm.► i Midi Mffi,iai.'m; «tlaimm maa d.rp i tb PQbbt Rww& bd Wt apNa of the L ddeedblmiegaaiabd)3a fabdvtMt laphemdmb)RmaamPmsioo of the teed EXOMMW- m /29/0?AA a liwmei. a® aacaiaows,acmrmeaoaaNWmagtmpomm M. A A4mamebaea.aamtaay..mlalabwrueq aaaa :dtmayaaliaup ma lbbam aaddbabtl.am bpraaNmda.apkm ama.vmayd W lam am for mwdaeglb pmiMam �roi A (a) tgraNa NNW R fl) 3NNNfloap Of alma In Pb or In dad mrebad..iei�(OZa(� da.egWpdbeMmda�.WYmRwm. Pop YS 00979 ATrACHNSWONe I:t ♦ 1.' b.dmdmbtM meepdmbStldala$ Ymanm rm,<aapea bm.t.at, atbbagdba,atl aaaaiap6m 1. ~ai d dILt IWq, m! '�faeltlaadlnm..4o. n{aLiamnwtd� l am a.btdtdr{ &domatra4.b..d, a mwm mbYa4 -bow=m dwgq at. de pdab tsmMn� Ramolk e [air 0.bam Ibwam Yma the Paft Dawba NamLk. w"dwy ww Jim m. Pdit 6mpafmla m lad Remlaam. PobgDaa; t "W dbbdm ebtmARbmlmm7aaa 9CaRnn[sA.abOiMea1 1W 8mdm dosdm aR.pl�baeWOratb wforaemldliw mlm.M■lbdme Rl071141, aUdonmIRY t7oYYa a amamat.ppin IR WA P.bde bm110IM MW OmaTW MWm del 1 IilmmpgwYbrYaee'Pat. m Itowtbawm.fe.�pdas/edbmfm.ARm141$1477a31. 6 Wtd.fyii 2 TMrb.malYolallAft area, aa4pMdtbm,mbe aeWR.W b.maa.le a b a4 Ld Dumb the atl gwomw aNdw WA mbmN to in paapfpb 3 ur . alm.ppLaH.bdmla` aas7WM1dWMda.m."mtbbtloM W im, tsaft 4aWWA;nd RtWiotoil bYlbbgylmldl lLleAdetbllM?",abg0em, Gimitm,m44arwaa.ap datfwbdllffi A The dWM1bldiladb)a1mwmft% ba ' IW�dolmdou .ol3tdltMmte�boMdrMrtdRlRllali a aodmdaeam9l{ tMAQ6glpwtaitbaMBePam1Aa11MtoRgOtOra mien" jMppmW abmme Taiq DL�db010/ijm YeDNYSInq(dtlbLM LEMM770M ON COVIMM FJW Yoa bfmaeefbabe lobd.bpCaetad Rdi.b ti®mdmtb.O.mf.Onmp�tmiii.e l>i Calad Rim la, u mam m, YOm DaluetlbleAaamt am0 13dWmm0aRa11adLdidid'monbaMmb A. 7be tld.alle a.mb.ed m.dlaa dmb+msM.b..a m 3mlmb A as a dtbac CaemaRmlk IJ dPab7Aammt sign= S� a (r�imblm) t7.mad Rik l3: UMdPdY7AftWM faimm a blew Ow"Rftle j. pdhbgAaaa SMAMW a v b.q lbmnd1iala Und"A.wal (rbWefari ba) ALTA WANDED COVEMO6 REMERPIALLOAN POLICY (10-13-01) EXCLURONS PMU COVELWE wrm3e•w�1rm. am apmb�mdmm aa1 ms afagad un peliq aW roc COeptlp p•7 drs.m+t, ntme9p baayvdd.dveb.rbebd + elmoe 1. WAq b..adim:apwt®WteDtabR (lalmbpbamlimLdm otdb.am, a +vpY4a) +aditab6 tgvdi{. P a mbtbb m ( The 000tpmq.a lcom,w edlbemd (R) Lau.aa. d)am ®arlovtbday anpofe>xeq RR. a bena0aeaand m the lad; (il) a atpmba b m'•m34 a dfabe b d1 db1Mm. aaer d m. Iad er m. m.ea d..itl. urn f.. s.r.. da bom a salter d.le.(a mm m11 d me aamlm mend ba Mm f..onld r mr ad• a Dw of ftuw. ba m aduam km asap a4 dW/ amt W .bf m Dar d►mg Vbi.b.mm M mdtq m to VON of pldaa ae d Pddq (ma paaPpe dad m Ilmb the b, 1% A E1.$2L X25 and36);a MCM1114 - mralo7M (i#)rdmdditiimeiwW y� aetbaabemaR.rMRWIaaM Q.Mlat a. UaarmaRm¢dm.Rmdlr laaedlbbwledbebablllpabdaedtM ImRM a Dm d Rd4. a dr i s iba. d at4 wi0mgwd puree d W aioad 19.1. la .t� mm•@yvlb gpfoW aWe(ib.tlam•ddderrer�►Ilm.tW r 1 bwaWgooadammR7ada Fbbdbe lmadbmlq.pWdlm0fmf,Mtb aba as of be bautmm aldbmd by b. Eumd kfurvp ad b bead apm wW. mdptr plaNaed Y Cwom Bdt17, a gaan®r aadR pfamaiR m bot f o b W by 6 Rod pfnpeft7tm aalaaW.darplfa®rlaabd7.bd<b®, a bmm IM(ad..h.egase mDr Qtpmq.1WmdudmderntR1tm. awtp. pam mu C m M RYM7,R(a)md2L 7. Aap tii d d NOft, sgI I IN a bt d i mdp d dr am d W bmMd Idaf. 1 to aa.am a 1oW1Rmt atbb MW ba boom bm ImdalOb ba ft tlamb lam bem O IM =M=Im. TW mrdm 6b1 m 61b be eeMap 1 1- rCO.WWOtb A TM b3.m d b. na11 1 tbWaey a a r pMlm tbtleof m bw bm mW UMM LetalG m or d3S Do of pabw a um mm SA f ok" bdit mda M& etalWondw map0ymta.alM. dbtlbRllbabb Rmb.dffia.iolatlm.ppyfe b PWa YS 00980 December 15, 2008 Mr. Steve Bunting Fire Marshall CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FIRE AND MARINE DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca 92658 -8915 RE: Yellowstone Recovery ("Newport House" Residence) Coda Analysis For The Existing Building Dear Mr. Bunting, Alfred J. Boder, Architect has been contracted by Yellowstone Recovery to review details of their existing building, tided "Newport House", located at 20172 Redlands, Santa Ana, Ca 92707. Yellowstone Recovery intends to change the use of the building from a single - family residence to a Residential Facility for the non - medical rebabilitation of drug abuse and alcoholism. We have surveyed the existing building and the summary of our findings and conclusions are as follows: A. The existing building was constructed in 1961, and was built as a single- family residence, occupancy type R -3. The building is a two -story structure with an attached garage. B. The building is set back from the front property line 26' -011. The side yard set back is 5' -V clear on both sides of the structure. C. As the attached plans indicate, the residence is entered through the front door that faces the addressed street. The fast floor consists of a living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, and two bedrooms. The second floor consists of four bedrooms, and two bathrooms. Based on this research, the following code issues are in compliance with the current code requirements of the California Building Code, CBC 2007. 01. Location On The Prooerty: As indicated on the attached plans, the building setbacks for the side yards is five (5) feet from the property line. This distance includes the attached garage. Per CBC section 6, Table 602, the minimum fire separation distance is five feet. This setback is achieved to the property line and from the property line; the YS 00981 adjacent R -3 residence is also setback five (5) feet from the property line for a total of a ten (10) foot separation from the two buildings. Conclusion: The wall of the garage at the side yard is not required to be of fire rated construction and there are no penetrations or openings in the attached garage wall. 02. Section 419, Group I -1. R -1, R -2, R -3, R -3.1, R4: 1 419.2, Separation walls. Section does not apply. Note that the common wall between the attached garage is of one -hour fire rated construction to the bottom of the roof diaphragm and there are no penetrations in this wall. 03. Seetion 4193. Horizontal Separation: This section does not apply per section 711.1. :1.1 racrttties in Group R -1. R -31 or R-4 Occupancy (SFM)• Per section 425.3.5, Limitations — Seven or More Clients; The second floor area is less than three thousand (3,000) square feet and therefore a one -hour fire rated construction is not required. 05. Section 425.7. Fire Protection System Provisions: Section 425.7.1, Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems. Per section 903.2.7, Group % an automatic fire sprinkler system is not required per exceptions 1 and 3. Section 425-7.2. Fire Alarm Systems; Per section 907.2.8 an approved, hard -wired fire alarm system is installed as required per section 907.2.8.2. Section 427.7.3. Smoke Alarms; Per section 907.2.8.3, battery powered smoke detectors /alarms are installed in the required areas per section 907.2.10. U, Portable Fire Extineuishers; Portable fire are installed and located per the California Fire Code. 06. Chapter 10 Means Of EsM - Section 1006, means of egress illumination. There is illumination at the top, middle, and bottom of the staircase. Section 1009, Stairways; Per section 1009.1, exception 1, the staircase complies with the code requirement. YS 00982 I believe that this is a complete analysis of the code related items which apply to this building during the change of occupancy. Please call Anthony (hillo, my representative, at (949) 678 -3214 if you have any questions, Sincerely, Alfred Bodor — Architect Attachments; Scale as -built plans YS 00983 CODE ANALYSIS: DECEMBER 1, 2008 PROPERTY: 20172 REDLANDS, SANTA HEIGHTS, CAL. 92707 ARCHITECT: ALFRED BODOR, LICENSE #16190 EXPIRATION: JANUARY 2009 After review of applicable codes for an existing structure, the following analysis is provided: GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR GROUP R4 OCCUPANCIES: 419.1 GENERAL Occupancies In Group R-4 shall comply with the provisions of this section._. 419.2 SEPARATION WALLS: RESPONSE: DOES NOT APPLY 419.3 HORIZONTAL SEPARATION: RESPONSE: IT DOES COMPLY (see section 711.1) DEFINITION: R 4 RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCIES shall meet the requirements for construction as defined for Group R 3 except as otherwise provided for In this code HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 13133: APPLIES ONLY TO ELDERLY CARE (ATTACHED) EXTERIOR WALLS: 704.5 Fire- resistance ratings For Group R occupancies and other applications listed in Section 111... Exterior wails shall be fire - resistance rated In accordance with Tables 601 and 602.... RESPONSE: IT DOES COMPLY (see table 602, occupancy group R °f 425.7.1, TO 425.8.6 RESPONSE: THESE DID NOT APPLY) (see section 903) AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IN GROUP 1- 1,R -3.1 AND R4 OCCUPANCIES 'An Automatic sprinkler shall be installed where required in section 903.° 903: GENERAL Automatic sprinkler systems shall comply with this section 903.2 WHERE REQUIRED: 'Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structwes° YS 00984 FIRE WALLS 705.1 General Each portion of a building separated by one or more fire walls that comply with the provisions of this section shall be considered a separate building.... RESPONSE: IT IS IN COMPLIANCE 717.3.2 R-4 DRAFTSTOPPING RESPONSE: THIS DOES NOT APPLY 907.2.8 Group R 4. Fire alarm systems shall be installed In Group R 4 occupancies as required In Sections 907.2.8.1 through 907.2.8.4. 907.2.8.1. MANUAL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM is not required in buildings not more than two stories in height... RESPONSE: MANUAL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM INSTALLED AND OPERATIONAL 907.2.8.3 SMOKE ALARMS shall be installed as required by Section 907.2.10. RESPONSE: SMOKE ALARMS INSTALLED AND OPERATIONAL MEANS OF EGRESS 1205.4 Stairway illumination. Stairways within dwelling units and exterior stairways serving a dwelling unit shall have an illumination level on tread nuns of not less than 1 foot- candle (11 lux).... RESPONSE: STAIRWAY ILLUMINATION WILL BE ADDRESSED AT TIME OF INSPECTION FIRE CODE 404. Fire safety and Evacuation plans RESPONSE: THESE ARE COMPLETED(INSTALLED) AND PART OF THIS APPLICATION 408.10.2 STAFF TRAINING 408.10.3. RESIDENT TRAINING 408.10.4 DRILL FREQUENCY 408.10.5 RESIDENT PARTICIPATION Exception: Actual exiting from windows shall not be required. 806.1.1 NATURAL CUT HOLIDAY TREES 906.1. PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS YS 00985 RESPONSE: ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE IN COMPLIANCE AS INDICATED BY THE SECTIONS ABOVE. NOTE: EACH FLOOR IS LESS THAN 3000 FEET. (IBC CODES) PREPARED BY: ROY WARD. NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL BUILDING INSPECTOR LICENSE: ICC #1030730 YS 00986 poses and accessible to tea public. Maonttle oocupaneiane shall inehrde, but not be limited an, the fdbwiW Department slues Drug awn Marines ReW or wholesale atoms Sales Looms 369.2 Qas nft dltaxardous makdals. Mm aggmgate gaao- tity of nonflammable solid and nonflammable or amble liquid han rdoos mUmnu stated ar displayed. in a single t oMtrol area of a (3map M occupancy shall not e -ceed the quertBties in 7bble 41425(1)- 310.1 Residential Group R- Residential Group R includes, among ooars, the me of a building or structure, or pa rthm tbarsf far sleepi %PmPoseswheanotcfsaaliedasan I an.. bonal Group L Residential occepanew sball ixlude Use fol- R-1 Residential occupancies canudnrog sleeping units the Ocm4xmts am pdmerity in some. Boarding horses (trurcdpn) Hotels (transient) Metals (trandem) [HCD 11 Wdency dwelUng mws ("mum) R-2 Residential oncapeoeim comisitig sleeping vase or more tbsm two dwelling units whme do occWM me Ply past in nerve, i Aparmtent houses Boardisil houses (not transient) Convents Desmit des and scroddes Hotels (nou4ausient) Monasteries Motets (nontmnsient) Vacation timea6me properties (HCD l] Effleie ncy dweUbng rn as (tomarskar) ConBate living facr7'rdesvim 16afawnaxa- pORIS we permitted to comply with the caoanacbm requitements for t runp R-3. R-3 Residential occupancies where &a aocapaate am pri- marilypernmuentin nuns and act classified as Gtcap R -1, R Z R -3.1. R-4 or L including: Buildings odjer than tawnhmaes that do act ouatdu am than lbw nhoassnot �g duce stories above grade in height with a separate means ofegruL [SFM] Adalt care facd[bm *d pravxle amom moda- doen fur cUana of MY s$e lior Ross than 24 hours. Lkemhv caargotles dratmmry are date daea#.ndon ischrdt� but ate not Umkedto. AduUDaycare raciU- ties. Adult Day - support Cmw. 1007 CAUFOWM K4LD qi CODE [SFMI Child cwsji wiWas thaprovWe acnorumodo- am for drugs of any age for lets don 24 hours. Lkeasing categaria dint vW use this dass#kadae hnckuk. but are not limited to: Family Day-cam Mowgss, Day -cam Center for Althlty IU MOM [Obw Cm Center and School Age Child Day-c" Caner. Cougnotelivin hoWdeswitb16urfewerpetsans. R3.L I SFA q"dsomWmuygnWnwymchadsfaciHdw Ucmwd by a governmental agency for a restdar- tlaUy band 244k as, cat s facWry proW&V axam. madat iontforshorJewerdtentsofpayW Clients may be ckw#W as ambatatorx naemnbuAwory or bed dddm. AGvvWR -3.l ocespmxy AW mendw requbumentshr construction as ddiued for Group R-3. exceptasalturwisepmvWedfor in Section 42X Sped d provisions For Lkensed 24 -Hoar Cars Fa- ciMesinaGroW1 -1, R -3.1 orR-4Qacopmc3tThis grow may hnckrde. Adak RezWSN at dies Congregate Living Heokh Falb *s Poster Fmily Homes Group Homes Intannedhas Hab�J� - haerm eAk ae Cara McgWesfordwDevelopmen- m1lyDbdiledhurting Naraeriea for the f dl -time cars of ddhbm antler the 48m of sir, but ad mdadbrg "agimts" as dsfund in Section 310 Rem Cars FaeUNnfordu Elderly SMUFamUyRamaa dRa ntCars1a dk- desfar tine Chmnically M Rseepiloa: Group Homes licensed by the Depwwmw of Social Service which prawdde nomnedkot boars; room and arum for six or fewer ambulatory children or chi drsrn two years of age aryou rger, and which do nmhirm any ummftbuia wy cMems shall not be subject to regub dow fM d in Sed4m 423. Pursuant to Heakh and Safety Code Secpat 13143 with respect to dose eaaauptedfadU+ex no ch- AOmm %orpubkcdlstridshaU adopt orwfi m any mp*axsent, for the prevention ofjke orfw die PtatectIon qfWe andpropertya iratdpmnc salsas the iveWremeat wadd be applicable to a Mn wave nww;IlesasrfdnespecW oocsgraec7c 1Vodn- mg shag resm'Lct due Wncadai of stale or local housing stmtdardstasuch feslfdse standards am not based an the ass asafadlkpfor anbulamuy ddhkvL For dwjunpose of this eseep. dar, "ambulatory dnildma"does not hwhWe Lela. uses ofshe Ucemsa or she Ueuuee s spouse. 1R4FA=kmtiel oowpandm shall include buildings ar- raogad for occupancy as residential cmelaesixtad living Millie; including am than cis ambulatory clang at YS 00987 amp R-4 o0cw0cm dann meet Uses tegtne- meats fir commmcum as 4ofimd for Group R-3, awept as otWwisa.provided for in this CO& 77m onxsrpancy ckiss0edlion may bwb& a maxi - mam ax aonanzisdarory or bedridden cu us (see Sea dan423 SpecialPmvisiwisForLkemvd24 -Hoar Cam Facttes in a Group 14, R -11: or R-4 Occspawyl Grwp R4 occrganiesshall niter * thefollowbV.- AsATW livbtg foci sw* or Residential care faefltte4 ResidasW Care FaciNtiu for the Elderly (RCFE'sl Adult Raddeadd FacilUtex Conormate Lfv- rag Health faadWu and Group homes. Social rehabitloton facilities such as: Haljnaay hoases, Cou+mundy Correctional Cau m Conownl + CorraetionReentry Center, Conanua by Dhea n Pm- grupm Work Fiatough Pmgmn4 and Ataohaftm or drug abuse recovery orrreamuarfacli tim 310.2 Ddbddwa. Tim following words heal teams sM11. far the pmyoses of this section and as used elsewhere in rids coft have the unnobrge shown herein. AGED HOME OR IHS2WT077ON ISFM1 is a facR ty mud 1ar the houjinB oftervans 68 years iew or older be need of care and sapervidan (See ddbddon of "Cam and sapervi don. "1 BEDRIDDEN PERSON ISFMI mane a pers^ mogb hg aularwace in tumbas wid rqnswonEv InbeA arbeft enable o haWe daalp ameor to and from bed cxqg bhfactillass with qWropdae and xsedeiu cam staff mechaniaaldadarsV necesenr3s&,adsgletyp twwasdownabredbeTate22reg- uladwrs bydw Di artorof$ockdServtees orkismhordeaig- noted rsprtesarauim The DhrcoorofSocidServtcesorhisorherdatnwed mp- resennUbw shall make the deteradoadon of the bedridden sw- an ofpmom withdeuelopmanml dtsabtlbes, bs oansdtation with As DirectorofDevelouaahml Sarvices or his or her des- tgnated rep►enaaative: 77u DirsewelSociat Set vim or his or herdeaigaaMl rep - munamim shall male drederemdnadm oft a bedr iddetst- tad of all other ersons with disabilities who are not Maudenum waftrsapenuiaso cUMcvlitesvnnwor pmperoL Mannar* qffbW books or special diets. Pmvtdtng basic arvtces requited by W&-abs haw and rega"mh m be providad by the license in ordero abtabs and mabimin a communky-carefacft Hoarse r1 CAUS7A0PffiGLLYINJURM%ISFMIaat =sAnwaws a person whoa origin of Ambility was acgabrd dM10 traona or rromkgenerarivs nsarvlo%fc itbua� for when it has been dmrmd hed by d wDgw mmwofAeaM ServLeesCsr W cation and licensing that actioe >r/wbill oodan world be bau- 1LeW CHIfD•CARECBNTBRF,,FWtsanyf lqfaxy cqwc- hy otur dam a large or smarttamely de%cme hams as d tbwd in these regalasioas in which Less then 244marperday nmu dteafsar mvkimbspmvidedfordW &*,eninagmapset ors L'HIIDORCfiUAR N(SNMIisapersonorpersonamada' the age of 18 years. CMWMCAUYILL.IBUSPIMSee "TermbtalbAL CONGREGATE LlVM HEALTH FACU= (CLAFI, ISM at tenrud is a residaWd horns wilt a capacity of no morn A" six bed; which p,arvides in oMM emus bah dog the ff caving bade services: medhad supervises, 24-hoar dditd nw*g and strppwnw cwa plmnnavA dietwx social /1 rsavadan4 ardatleatlpavvidessendmlbrperwarwltoa re diagrmsed with a mrwbwi Onesr or who are calwomphkally and avembdisaMeA CONGBEGATSLIVINGFACHZIM S.Ahuffiftapext thread dNd emtaias elm mite wheae mAdmis ehwe hat6- rumt and/or k teiw facilifles. C0NGR GAMRE.4IDENCEISFMfisanybdfdbhgorpar- tunthaaaftwteatow facili Wforilvfn& sleepingaadsmh- Ratmtasregrhttadbydweadhs ,andmaytndudef anUidesfor eabtg sad mobW, for ooenpmxy by other threaa fund A ca gregae mirMe ice way be a suer, eMA04 xwxd eye dorworyt fraoaamry or sommy Mum Mitt does not beck de talk ha*aotr, nosing homes. kotebr or to PW hoam p AnWkPMMkFUy disabied. D"CAREtSPWdogfordmpurpomafdwwregukldm. B0Arcompo astim tlicrwiogwrangodaaeadfalo&d pe^ma �amowtpmvk dd ig fa onion, w� a without mmis, sad one ohxvpied as a siogbtamoy unit. CARE AND Sl1PERWSI0N[SFM1 means any au or more c f to following a0ivikea provided by a perms or fihcfffty to meet the needs of the clients: Astixaa er to dressbt& Smanwig . ba doW and other per mad hygiam. Assistance with ftUng medlcmum Central storage and brdutribudon of modicaumL Armngmnent at and arAwmace with medical std dead cone. Maintenance of houm ndes for the protection of die ws. Supervision of died scheduW and aefinnes. 0 Nato: "Day cam 0shall aorbecotartraad to p udude am use ofeWornonforr 8/w+pow4pnaddedaRemploy- em aumdameandatOperavmdamawtkeatdondmyin tw was where rapping occum � DKY- GlRCHOAM LARGE FAbfUMPM1 isapravider's mmhm wwhiahiaUcewMtopmvfdedayeareforparfadsless toms 24 haws per day for nine so 14 persmm bwhkft ctit- dnm wder the age of 10 year who reside at the boas DAY -CARE HOME, $MAU FAAWY ISFMJ to a lone which provides fanrdty day cam to eight or fewer ciildrwt, �. bubdbw ddldrm haderdw age of 10 yean who mutts dt the home, in the provider's own home, for periods of that 24 hmusperAot SnwR4ardlydaycanehmneaam0wnV dfhwn state fie and We safety regnbtians char than tense sots wad M CALUM lA OULDM COOS. NW111ri✓ki.3 n Ctrs (Sea MMM � W e Scction 113143 (b) DORWI10 Y. A space in a bmle ft whose Btcup dooM aocononodations are wed in one roam, or in a saes of d0WY asaociW9dn00>ffi, forpeacoateatmeanbossof Stesame as in college donnhowles or FUIL27MBCARR181ISFM1 AW nu = du as adislarneat wwft and musue cam of per== an on /JeOaft yaar'fy orpmman�basdx wi g dayorleadandwhmmsl vbwaaoarmwdadowsampr»vfaiad lAVANXtBUSPMArdwpwpmofdets nVuladw& meal mamsasYdAdwiwbaaaaarofftsoalit faaaablsmwaikand mom the ofd ofanotherPmam m evaodast ilk bxwfi , in no cam shadf die &rare `blow" measa child bgwW mooyeara o'W AOMALLYREURDE0PJ BONS, PXDFOUNDLYOR SSYBBBLY( BI[ SFAetlshatlmeanaeryreoadsdpmmmtwhota wtoble to e►rntaae a kWdbrg ww aiwd dwbW em gswcy conditibm. No*. "m detemalanden as to arch beoapado Sinn be anode by the Dbucter of dne State Dgwmkw of pWk Health or his or her desipwased npmawaggim pwnmw to Health and Sep'ety Code Smdoa 13131.3. NO UOULATURY P1 LWM !BI [SFMI are persanns- aaabfe m leave a bafldag wmulsamd saderemagemcy cm&- dwnx h bechdea, bad & not unsimedit pawws who dgwad on medea kat aids .arch as crate aa, was and whee Chaim and any person who is mnbk m phy:ke* and Mentally respondtoasmmyafgrml%T wedbytA &WvFaelfaraiwt arm orol biunrdfan rung mJhm dmegen 7bede wWaa wofm &aamryorrma auWgpyamoreof persona u trh denmioptow" dtrabf8tea shelf be wwde by the DirMorofSodalSen*worhfs orherdaaignaad mprrmawta_ the% in ca nnd"m with the &Yft*r qf Dgwkpwauaf Sw- vices or his or her designated representative. 27ee deermbraiat of anabatatwy or nonambulatary staff q f aft other dlfoRadpetmoaspfacedsdtwAsawary1 .1984, whoam neatdsnefoPmeadoffy disabled .WyaRbeMadebytheD of Sa chd Seniees or his or her designated +dam XCMEH2L4L CARE PACVJ77 PDX T= C OROM CAI" ILL (RCPAM ISPAQ as remwA msaw a hoio igg arnawgewaf wkh a mw *um capacity of 25 ne dden s ilia provides We ibneaantebr8 dbWSML m rmstdarta who have daonde, RESIDENTIAL CARS FACZUIT FOX I= BIDMUY (",R)tSFMI as Awwd in ReaM and Sift Code Sredon 15692. shal lmewsofaithy with ahousiagarrw dm. tai vobowrily by psrmwna 60 yews of Age or oyes; or dw& awhorIwd nW mmaamtty% ahemvwy ft levekandi"A of core and m ervAiorr, pmteedve $Wee"= or passed emeamprovided, bsmedbwteirvwyAnBftrAasdawaspW in order to be admitted and to ran=& in Mw jaarye pemew wrder60yearn6fagewMc wwadblereedy,ardaanaabmdby 1607 CAL/aOMM BUM MM LOB UW MBl OMWAMY CiA901111CATIM the DrwAwend of Social Sendeet in rgtdaim4 way be allowed mbeadai &Wormaudsedinarmaida Lldcamfacility for de dde* PwnwdmHealhaedS #Wy Code Sadow13133, moufa- does0 thesmaefhamar "Psrlabshgto GMWJt,Divldon2� ocapamies daes�ted aS ReAdoWd PacUfdea (RF) andRest- den" Cara FaciftfimforAs 8Idedy (RCFE) ahaa oA* wef- fawdydaeg8hwudieshneedsociryt wwdg atya ndc owo Includirg a chatter dry or davaer coswA or fie pmkc*n df vkv shall adopt or er farce any orfiawaae or local rate or rmgedatartmladgg MOM gxdPadosofrrywh ifftcorn:i re — %fahthewmsuAnfa sAdrAcown%drywadaoantAbeindiag a treater city or chwow coway may pwaroed m Hga t and Safety Code Seedmt13143.5,or&Jbmpmftc* ndiurfctmay pww mh m Health and Suety Code Section 138697, adapt SAmedaRk mono shbagat Am dross adopted by *a stale Jive nwrshd dwfam reasonably aascamay m aooawwrodate load dbaat% gwtoghaoK or taposrophical cwa*dows rmlatng to mef 8alorReAdaala4CweFinaidwjbrdweUr* RSSIDMMAL'1 JTp(W(SMasdginedhaSecdwt 1502 of dw Health and Suety Cod% AM seas wry fm* AMM 8 MWeaMJitafBryiorsbnd1orfadhoydammhnedbythe dimctor of Sodal Servkm for 2I -hpar someadrod care if persons in need of personal smrvioma srpearmido% or anis- taaceMawaffor Actuating the aWW Un efda}ly living wjbr the proteedoa cf de bedivfdaal. Swat Jftditgw btcbrde small ,jandf homes adaacialnmha dowdonfaoFhAM PWNN=t toHeaM and Solwy Code Section 13133, nsgula- am ofte State Fire Mmsbalpersalaft mGmap Rocaepae- des dawdled at Residandal PadWes (AP) and ReeklaWal Caro Faab"for die Elderly (RCFE),if" apply m on* daarrghma the seas and no dry{ oomhx dry and toaatp, bmhadbrg a dearer cfty or crater aountA or fhm pmtecdow diaaiu shall adopt or eo&w any ordAranca or load nde or 8 to, fimtadpanksafetywhichisbwanxinaw wA*dww regalatim mAdI% county. criyaadcamfAPwAWIaS a dearer dry or dearer wanly awry parmiant m lla M and Safety Code Ssefiaw 131434 or a jimprotection dfwkt may pmaamaw to Hashfi ad Sefaty Code Seraon 13M 7, adopt sraadads mwm srrbtgmd than thaw adapted by to state Jim mwahad AN are nos y rmuemy to aaonanodae toed cUnmt% gaologioat or wpogvnpldaai carrd►dont muting to mafeom*wshiR lCamFad hfafordneElda* 2ALLY ILL (SEMI as turned far an b maraca the brdtvidaal has a We ewpectoecy c f sh maadra or lest as seated In wrftq by his or bur auardleg physfdat and set- 910011. TRANUMM Occupancy of a dwelling unit a sleeping oak for eat mare thaw 30doys. 3103 Lw9efoOlb day cam homes. ISM 31OLM For pmpnw of cw#kudm Red& and Soo Cade Secdan 1597.46 is rmimaed (a) A dryt co=M or dry and wanly ahaQ not pmhfbit huVe -fvnHy day-cam homes an hoer eanad for sta- on YS 00989 I n wuos knW:1 J 1 VV- J -11 J:)) Page 28 of 2' replacement of nonfire retardant wood roof covering material, as complying with the requirement in Section 2695.9 of Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations relative to matching replacement items in quality, color, and size. (1) No common interest.development, as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code, may require a homeowner to install or repair a roof in a manner that is in violation of this section. The governing documents, as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code, of a common interest development within a very high fire severity zone shall allow for at least one type of fire retardant roof covering material that meets the requirements of this section. 13133: (a) The State Fire Marshal shall develop and adopt regulations establishing new occupancy classifications and specific fire safety standards appropriate for residential facilities, as defined in Section 1502, and residential care facilities for the elderly, as defined in Section 1569.2. Notwithstanding.Sections 13143.2, 13143.5, and 13869.7, building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to this section and published in the State Building Standards Code relating to fire and panic safety, and other regulations adopted by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to this section, shall apply uniformly throughout the state, and no city, county, city and county, including a charter city or charter county, or fire protection district shall adopt or enforce any ordinance or local rule or regulation relating to fire and panic safety in buildings or structures subject to this section that is inconsistent with building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to this section and published in the State Building Standards Code relating to fire and panic safety, or other regulations adopted by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to this section. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a city, county, city and county, including a charter city or charter county may pursuant to Section 13143.5, or a fire protection district may pursuant to Section 13869.7, adopt standards more stringent than those contained in subdivision (a) that are reasonably necessary to accommodate local climate, geological, or topographical conditions relating to roof coverings for residential care facilities for the elderly. 13135. The State Fire Marshal shall adopt regulations for alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities, as defined in Section 11834.11, based on whether the residents or patients of the facilities are nonambulatory, as defined in Section 13131, and not based on the age of residents or patients of the facilities. hltp: //www.leginfo.ca.govlcgi- bin /displaycode ?Mxdou=bwAgroup =13001- 14000&file=1310O-13135 1211/2008 YS 00990 TYM of CONSTRUCTION 1:11 IMMENSE LL it c•,: taleNWARAMMOOTuNCE.x b.ao 2irauMgt,u�i�rtn7��rao$ accupmov Do^kWh dMa 7YPBOPCONSTRUCIlm know x, L 6Y1011PP4, M.SA OOCUPMW e11oUP •.4 56 M L A .846 W x <5• All 3 2 1 101/2 6 8 5 $1/4 55x <10 1A 3 2 1 6 Odm 2 1 1 lOSx <30 LA.M 118,. VB 2 1 1 0 is 0 Ode 1 1 1d Ra30 All 0 0 0 +. Iaadbaeios acODdor rNb a4dl afro om�plt wId ds &sap W aam �'� at �6b 601. a9Smsm 76s pwWudk 7ooWpseletme9ocdm4ftu d. OPM PS>oa®pltiq rvbi8actim406 a4fnaat ba tagimaalma a dome�aem nuleg a. 1Lsl�esmiproeatlos�aammeeiorea08 LaoedapmAefaeagirtlpodMmmotmegm I.GMWR- .mdGimPUwbmurdmacaamrye (,tea- $Aagmtbem *Wmh, apm4uLm T>� � rr� ra�niuuorluaoioanwllsole b.ao 2irauMgt,u�i�rtn7��rao$ Do^kWh wan tmn aPM k" wan.>aab 8 g 6'14 $114 6 to 5 101/2 6 8 5 $1/4 6 6 5 6 4 6 3 ell t60 2007 CALWORFBA SULDUKI CODE YS 00991 PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION There is room for four cars to park on the property; however, residents are not permitted to park there. Only the house manager and assistant manager are permitted to park onsite. Thus, the maximum number of cars parked onsite at any time will be two. Most residents ride the bus and there is a bus stop located near the home. The home does not provide general transportation throughout Newport Beach and other neighboring cities. The home provides transportation to only two locations: the treatment facility and St. John church. Both are within ten minutes of the home. St. John is located at 193 East Bay Street in Costa Mesa. The treatment facility is located at 154 East Bay Street in Costa Mesa. Route maps from the home to the treatment facility and from the home to St. John church are attached. In the morning, residents are transported to either church or treatment. All residents are prohibited from being in the house between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Additionally, all residents must return to the house by 4:00 p.m. Finally, the vans that transport the residents are not parked onsite. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. YS 00992 20172 Redlands Dr, Santa Ana, CA 92707 to 154 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 - Goo... Page 1 of 2 Directions to 154 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Mays 2.4 mi — about tt mina From HOME to TREATMENT YS 00993 http: / /maps.google.com /maps ?f— d&saddr- 20172+ Redlands +Drive, +Newport+Beach,+C... 12/11/2008 20172 Redlands Dr, Santa Ana, CA 92707 to 154 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 - Goo... Page 2 of 2 20172 Redlands Dr, Santa Ana, CA 92707 ...... .... .........._...__ _....__._.__- __.___.�.._______� 1. Head southwest on Redlands Dr toward Pegasus St go 75 ft total 75 k 10 1 Turn: ni st gad a> >si ! I Turn left at Santa Ana Ave go 1.8 mi About 6 mins total 1.9 mi 4. Turn right at E'$is qpA" mi About 1 min total 2.2 mi 5. Turn left at Orange Ave 154 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 go 0.1 mi total 2.3 mi Q:1 These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction projects, traffic. weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map results, and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or notices regarding your route. Map data 02008 , Tele Atlas YS 00994 http: / /maps. google.com/maps ?f= d &saddr--20172 +Redlands +Drive, +Newport +Beach, +C... 12/11/2008 20172 Redlands Dr, Santa Ana, CA 92707 to 183 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 - Goo... Page 1 of 2 YS 00995 http:// maps.google.com/maps ?f= d &saddx= 20172 +Redlands, +Santa +Ana, +CA +92707 &d... 12/23/2008 20172 Redlands Dr, Santa Ana, CA 92707 to 183 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 - Goo... Page 2 of 2 t20172 Redlands Dr, Santa Ana, CA 92707 1. Head southwest on Redlands Dr toward Pegasus St go 75 ft total 'r5 ft 2. Turn right at Pegasus St go 0.1 rni total 0.1 Mi 3. Turn left at Santa Ana Ave go 1.8 Mi About 6 minx 4. Turn rW at E 21st St go 0.2 mi About I min total 2,2 Mi 5. Turn left a.# Orange Ave go 0.1 Mi total 2.3 rn! 6. Turn right at E Say St go 223 ft Destination will be on the left total 2.4 irt 183 E Bay St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ........ . ...... . .. . ...... . ......... . . .... ... These difect,or's are for Planning Purposes only. You may find that construction projects, traffic, weather, or ether events, i-nay cause conditions to differ from the map results, and you should plan your route accordingly. You must oney ail signs or notices regarding your route. Map data V2008 , Tale Atlas YS 00996 http://rnaps.google.com/maps?f=d&saddr--20172+Redlands,+Santa+Ana,+CA+92707&d... 12/23/2008 0 3 H O a 3 w z W x H W i A I N t3 IN r� 'J i O Ei 9 vca O Ri y FI +• -j f� T! v 0 v r� y d a Fes... k. rS 4 sv-ljt* %r O w z IL IL V Z Q O IL YS 00997 January 21, 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Fax, (949) 644 -3229 website: wwwAlk.newoort- beach.ca.us Davis & Rayburn, Attorneys at Law Attention: Isaac R. Zfaty 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Dear Mr. Zfaty: Subject: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Property Located at 20172 Redlands Street Use Permit No. 2008 -037 (PA2008 -108) Thank you for your follow -up submittal dated December 23, 2008, received by the City on December 29, 2008. After reviewing the resubmittal material, the following items are incorrect or otherwise incomplete: 1. Please revise the Site Plan (Sheet A -1) to depict building footprints on adjacent parcels, including the distances of those improvements from the property lines. Please note that your original submittal included a site plan showing portions of adjacent structures, but those plans were not accurately drawn, not drawn to scale, and the dimensions indicated were incorrect. 2. Please add the driveway, street curb line (as distinguished from the property line), and adjacent street names to the Site Plan (Sheet A -1). 3. Municipal Code Section 20.91A.050 (C.2) states that the maximum number of residents is restricted to a total of two per bedroom plus one additional resident, resulting in a total of 13 residents for this six- bedroom house. Your plans indicate a total seventeen (17) beds are within the dwelling for an equal number of residents. Therefore, a justification for the additional beds /residents must be submitted, or the number of beds reduced to the amount allowed by the Code. Please refer to page 3 of the application for those items to be considered in determining if a different occupancy limit is to be considered. 4. The architect's letter dated December 15, 2008, is not stamped and is not signed by the architect. Please correct this. YS 00998 Yellowstone Women's First Step House Page 2 In addition to the above items, the application filing fee of $2,200 remains unpaid. However, per e-mail correspondence with both the City Attorney's Office and the Planning Department, it is our understanding you will be applying for a reasonable accommodation for a fee waiver based on disability- related financial hardship. This is in addition to the separate request for a reasonable accommodation to be treated as a single housekeeping unit. Pursuant to Chapter 20.98 of the Zoning Code, if the project for which the request for a reasonable accommodation is made requires another discretionary permit or approval (in this case, a use permit), the applicant may request that the Hearing Officer hear the request for a reasonable accommodation at the same time as the use permit. If you do not request a simultaneous hearing, the request for reasonable accommodation will not be heard until after a final decision has been made regarding the use permit. Please inform us of whether or not you wish to schedule the requests for reasonable accommodation to be treated as a single housekeeping unit and/or for a fee waiver at the same hearing as the use permit or at a later date. We will need this information by January 27, 2009, so that we may proceed appropriately with preparation of the staff report. Please be advised that the City of Newport Beach will proceed with the use permit application hearing for the above referenced property on Thursday, February 12, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. This will be a public hearing and will take place before a third -party hearing officer. The City has scheduled this hearing despite the fact that your use permit application remains incomplete. Please be advised that by scheduling your application for a public hearing, the City is not deeming your application complete. We will send a copy of the staff report which addresses your application to you and the hearing officer for review four to seven days in advance of the hearing date. If you have any questions regarding the process, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949466 -0038, AGARMIJO @aol.com, or Janet Brown, Associate Planner, at 949- 644 -3236, lbrown0citv.newnort-beach ca us. Sincerely, \Ale tra Ara ijo C n lanner cc: Dr. Anna Marie Thames, Yellowstone Recovery Programs YS 00999 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARIMEM JAN 2 I= DAVIS•ZFATY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 23, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Hearing for Use Permit Application and Reasonable Accommodations Dear Janet: I received your letters regarding the February 12, 2009 hearing date for the Use Permit Application for the Yellowstone properties. We would like to have both our fee - waiver and our Single Housekeeping Unit Requests for Reasonable Accommodation heard on February 12, 2009 for all of the Yellowstone properties as well. As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY // 4 -Op a NICOLE COHRS 580 Broadway Shect, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, OA 92651 - 949.376.2828 Fax 949.376.337:1 infnndzalvaney:.com wwwAzattorneys.com YS 01000 DAVIS•ZFATY A IROiE551VN.Rl II.W CORROR4510N January 29, 2009 1RhA1In, - ;IpMEM FEB 0 2 2009 Z175.1 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Request for Reasonable Accommodation: 20172 Redlands Dear Ms. Brown: As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Yellowstone "). I recently spoke with Cathy Walcott of the City Attorney's office. She informed me of a few ambiguities in our Request for Reasonable Accommodation Worksheet for the 20172 Redlands property (the "Property'). The purpose of this letter is to clarify these ambiguities. tvuesnon 31 imnatrments aubstantialty Limiting Maior Life Activities: Do the clients have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? What are those impairments? The residents of the Property are recovering from alcohol addiction. They manifest physical and mental symptoms which have prevented them from engaging in at least one of their major life activities. Although the residents work, they are recovering from a physical dependence on alcohol. Mentally, the residents are recovering from the inability to make healthy choices like the average person in the general population regarding their consumption of alcohol. Their impairments affect their ability to think, concentrate, and interact with others as compared to the ability of the average person in the general population to do the same. Thus, their disability is substantially limiting. Enclosed with this letter is a Declaration under penalty of perjury from the applicant, Honey Thames, manager of the Property, that every resident in the Property has physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of the residents' major life activities. Cathy Walcott mentioned that this would be acceptable given that the privacy concerns of the residents limit our ability to provide medical records or signatures of the residents. 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • 949.376.2828 Fax 949.376.3875 info @dzatiovneys.com - www.dzattornevs.com YS 01001 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Ouestion 10) Parkina: Describe the on -site parking resources and the staff and visitor parking plans. Parking on the Properly is reserved for the manager and assistant manager, thus the maximum number of cars on the Property at any one time will be two. Residents are not permitted to park on the Property. Visitors are not permitted on the Property therefore there arc no visitor parking issues. (Ouestion 11) Operation of Vehicles: Describe client's availability to drive and operate a vehicle while residing at facility. The residents do not use cars. Instead, they rely on public transportation to and from the Property. (Ouestion 12) Transportation: Does the facility provide transportation services? If yes, please describe the frequency, duration, and schedule of services and where the vehicles are stored Though the home generally does not provide transportation services, the home does provide some basic transportation to the nearby treatment facility and to St. John church. Both locations are within ten minutes of the home. There is a morning pickup at 8 a.m. and an evening drop off at 4 p.m. This is the only transportation provided. The vans that transport the residents are not parked on site. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. (Ouestion 16) Interaction Within the Property How do the clients interact with each other within the unit? Is there joint use of common areas? Do clients share household activities and responsibilities? Will delivery trucks be provided at the facility? The Property provides the residents with a network of support to encourage recovery from the symptoms of alcoholism. The residents reside separately at the Property. There is a common area however each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, there are no delivery vehicles going to and from the Property. Finally, although Yellowstone owns four such homes in the Newport Beach area, there is no interaction between the homes. In other words, residents of the Property do not meet with the residents of other Yellowstone properties for dinners or other gatherings. Each home has its own residents and the residents of one home never interact with residents of a different home. YS 01002 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Ouestion 19) Necessity of the Reaaested Accommodation: Please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary. Yellowstone hereby requests that a Reasonable Accommodation be made to Ordinance 2008 -5 such that Yellowstone is treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Reasonable Accommodation is necessary because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility. Instead, the Property more accurately fits the definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030. Residents are the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit. Like a Single Housekeeping Unit, there is a common area and each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager. In conformity with our request for a Reasonable Accommodation, we would like to request that we get an exemption from Section 20.91A. 050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which states that there shall be no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. I hope that this clarifies any ambiguity with respect to our previous request for a Reasonable Accommodation. Please let me know if our responses need to be supplemented further and as always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation NICOLE COHRS cc: Yellowstone (attu: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) YS 01003 BATiONOFA 11L�- >�nt —�� i�r�'As I,1h. Aaaa Meee aba�..i�y decbae � follows: - 1. Uempt= stftdhaoinambo,milDnepmmon*amdifcWbd Vmu.io cesafjy Tcaeild and w�uold ceoy iLm� ffi gpflo�. 2 All iodividueb mMxlS is Am Paapaty looMd at20172.Rediaads in Newport Beaeh woe ieoovamq fiemaicoltoi addicties 3 menowAmS *qym=ffmphy=d mdmamt sympta�al'�heiraddrotiunwlticfir lemtone ormoteal3hareUideatsrsajoe lifaacdvides I daclete andarpeoehy Oifpetjury tinder ffie laws odtfie Since of Caliioa�t 0srt� finegobg is uneandCOMM EmcWW gds 2Mh dg'-ef 7 200% at Nmwpm ilewk Cawomia. v•d ac�co�.oc�c YS 01004 DAVIS •ZFATY January 29, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 FEB 0 2 ZC09 Re: .Affidavits for Fee Waiver Reasonable Accommodation Dear Janet: Enclosed are the signed Affidavits of Disability Related Financial Hardship. There is a separate Affidavit for each of the four Yellowstone properties. As we discussed, our responses to the questions relating to the income of the residents pre and post - disability are based on the average resident for each of the homes. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY ; A 4AF-� NICOLE COHRS Enclosure :i80 N0,16way Street, Suite 3U1 . Laguna Beach, CA 926:51 • 949.3.76.282£1 Fax 949.:1 %6.3ti75 enfo 'dzatanncys.com . o. ,; .r.d.:attornr ,.cem YS 01005 AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP 20172 Redlands, Newport Beach I, Anna Marie Thames, declare: I am an authorized representative of disabled individuals; 2. I am submitting information specific to the financial status of a group of disabled individuals who reside in a household; 3. I am submitting the financial information herein voluntarily because I have requested a reasonable accommodation from the City of Newport Beach, which I believe is necessary because of financial hardship to the disabled individuals I represent; 4. Severe financial constraints which arose as a direct result of the disabled individuals I represent prevent them from complying with one or more provision or provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures generally applicable to the type of dwelling in which disabled persons I represent reside or wish to reside; Such provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures, if applied to the dwelling in which the disabled individuals I represent reside, will deprive disabled individuals of the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice; 6. In order to afford the disabled individuals the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice, the permanent or temporary waiver of a fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Council Policy or customary procedure is necessary; The requested waiving of such fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement is necessary because of financial limitations which are the direct result of the disability of the individuals that I represent; -1- AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 01006 8. If the disabled individual on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested was able to work prior to becoming disabled, please provide information on such individual's pre- and post disability income: A. On the following dates, the disability of the persons I represent, rendered such persons severely limited in their ability to work or entirely unable to work: The individuals residing in the home were all affected by their disability at different times. During addiction, residents are unable to work. In sober living, however, all residents must find a job. B. Prior to the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual household income from all sources was approximately $50,000 (on average). C. . After the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual income from all sources was approximately $20,000 (on average). Typically, household income is cut approximately in half because of alcoholism. As a result of alcoholism, the residents of the home have been rendered financially disabled. In sober living, the residents must find a job, however, the jobs the residents seeks are near minimum wage ($8.00 per hour). 9. If the disabled individuals on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested were not employed prior to becoming disabled, please state why any financial limitations which render the disabled individuals unable to meet the financial requirements of complying with the Newport Beach Municipal Code are a direct result of such their disability. All residents were employed in some manner prior to their addiction. 10. Please provide any additional information you feel would enable City staff and/or hearing officers to determine whether disability- related financial hardship requires an exception form the application of the City's Municipal Code, Council Policies, or usual and customary procedures in order to afford the disabled individuals an opportunity to reside in a dwelling. The residents cannot afford their own places to live. Their income is based on near minimum wage hourly rates. Thus, if forced to live elsewhere they could not afford to pay rent, a security deposit for an apartment, food, or utilities. Yellowstone provides a fresh start for recovering alcoholics to begin their life with a clean slate. Our fees our low and donors in the community provide individual scholarships for residents who qualify. -2 AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 01007 JW28-2009 UED 06:39 Pit DAVIS RAYM ape FAX NO. 949 116 381b P. YCHOWStone is a 6061;x08t organingolL Yalowsum W investors and no lo=. The organintion am dw income from resideza to cover its costs and Yellowstone makes no profit from the re-sidenis. T: e J I de-clare. mderrenanv of e-41— it =darelz fte s`—m-1 • foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this Vh day of Januar•, 7009, in Newport Rrgeh, Califemiq. ANNA hCAM THANES -3- AFFMAVrT OF DEMBUM-RELATED SUOaSMOTTOI YS 01008 COST ANALYSIS OF OUR HOMES IN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS IN GENERAL, OUR WEEKLY FEES ARE BASED ON A SLIDING SCALE FROM $50.00 TO $160 PER WEEK OUR MORTGAGES AVERAGE $4500 PER MONTH A MINIMUM OF 15 RESIDENTS IS NEEDED TO PAY ALL THE EXPENSES FOR EACH HOUSE, INCLUDING LIGHTS, GAS, WATER AND TRASH. RENTS: SLIDING SCALE: $50.00 TO $160.00 PER WEEK AVERAGE: RESIDENTS: 16 AVERAGE RENT MONTHLY AVERAGE: EXPENSES: FOR EACH HOUSE AVERAGE UTILITIES FOOD: MORTGAGES: AVERAGE $100 $6400 INCOME $ 800 LIGHTS, GAS, WATER, PHONE $ 900 $4500 MONTHLYAVERAGE $6200 EXPENSES RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT `EB 05 201iM CITY OF OPORi 8FACHS 01009 DAV1S•ZFATY February 13, 2009 VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLA S MAIL Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 FEB 13 7009 Re: Yellowstone Use Permit Applications and Reasonable Accommodation Requests Dear Ms. Wolcott and Ms. Brown: It has recently come to my attention there may be discrepancies between materials Yellowstone submitted with respect to its use permit applications and requests for reasonable accommodation for each of the four Yellowstone properties. Although this firm and the representatives of Yellowstone have made our best efforts to be clear and consistent, the materials submitted to the City in May 2008 reflect some inaccurate information- The purpose of this correspondence is to clarify these inconsistencies. Giro p Meetin,a Neither group treatment meetings nor individual treatment meetings occur on any of the four Yellowstone properties. All treatment is performed off site in Costa Mesa. The only meetings that occur at each of the four homes are weekly house meetings with the residents to discuss potential new residents and other administrative matters. Visitors Visitation with family and friends occurs on Sundays at Yellowstone's Costa Mesa facility located at 154 East Bay Street. 580 fit uadwav Strttl, Suife Sol , Laguna fieoct,, CA 9:!651 . 944076, 2828 Fax 949.376.3875 info @dztrttorneys.com - www.dzattorneps.corn YS 01010 Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown February 13, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Contractual Arran gments with Residents and Resident Selection In May 2008, Yellowstone submitted a request for reasonable accommodation that each of the four homes be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. It was recently brought to my attention that Yellowstone's response to Question 16, regarding resident interaction, needs clarification. Yellowstone does not have a contractual relationship with the residents of its Properties. With respect to the residents of the four Yellowstone homes in Santa Ana Heights, Yellowstone's position is correctly stated in a letter to the City dated January 29, 2009: "the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager." More specifically, Yellowstone's Board of Directors does not determine who resides in each of the four homes. New residents are introduced and approved by the current residents during house meetings or they are not accepted. Many of Yellowstone's residents transition to sober living directly from treatment. Other residents learn about Yellowstone from other recovery centers or by community referral. Parking In May 2008, when the original Yellowstone use permit and reasonable accommodation applications were submitted to the City, Yellowstone requested that four cars be permitted to park at the 1561 Indus property. There is adequate room for four cars to park at 1561 Indus, however only the two resident managers for the home park on site. With respect to the three other Yellowstone properties, it has consistently been Yellowstone's position that only the two resident managers of the homes are allowed to park vehicles on site. I hope that this clarifies the ambiguities in our previous submissions to the City. As always, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation /; e NICOLE COHRS, ESQ. YS 01011 EXHIBIT 4 SITE PLAN AND FLOOR PLANS YS 01012 $ j I i a r I I � I I t ass � � a �WPORr fig15E ��� 1C(C RedlveKa trig SF 5anl0 Apa Ibi�la,Go 7[101 YS 01013 s >r -r � -r �•�r b N V J `1i v 1 O O .�r Flu Z M-0' �Syjj II 11 1! All � h NEWPORT 11005E N g Redlands Ana 5anla Ana tteihts, Ga 92707 1 $ YS 01014 N Q oo� N oo� Z Ffl L6.p u; NEWPORT HO1)6E edlands \J" Santa Ana H Fleihts. Go 92101 i 1 S 01015 � . i �| ■ | .| ■ ' $� | | ■ % .■ — � '. . ■ � � � � � e � lei � 71 NEWPORT � Rte | I r. w |� c _ A§ r 01016 ILI d -TI I� NEWPORT hCYE bl UM M Redlaada S N Santa Ma lh%t C. %Vl YS 01017 EXHIBIT 5 FIRE MARSHAL CORRESPONDENCE AND FIRE CODE ANALYSIS SUBMITTAL YS 01018 STEVE LEWIN, FIRC Cmar January 29, 2009 Dr. Honey Thames 154 East Bay Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 a'tl 71n Re: Code Analysis for Yelowstone Recovery: 1561 Indus Street; 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus; 20172 Rediands, Newport Beach Dear D'r. Thames: Thank you for submitting the code analysis a nd floor plans for the above referenced properties. After reviewing the analysis, we have Identified the following areas which Will require further clarification: 1561 Indus Street I. Item # 5: Exception 1 to California Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes °unless... classified as Group 114". Recovery or treatment facilities for more than b clients are classified as Group R4 by Section 310 of the CBC. 2. Item # 6: Stairwel) and other components of the means.of egress must be illuminated at all times. A switched circuit is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress, The back -up illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90 minutes. Please indicate how the Illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be In accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please indicate the net dear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. SAFETY SERVICE �. - FARO FESSIO14ALISM. YS 01019 egasus, 20%7 1te81ands 'Newpo.. � aclt, 1621 Indus Street 1. Item # 5: Exception 1 to California Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes "unless... classified as Group R4." 2. Item # 6: Stairwell and other components of the means of egress must be illuminated at all times. A switched circuit is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. The back -up Illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90 minutes. Please indicate how the illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be in accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please indicate the net clear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. 1571 Peaasus Street 1.. Item # 5: Exception 1 to California Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes "unless—classified as Group A4." 2. Item # 6: Stairwell and other components of the means of egress must be Illuminated at all times. A switched circuit Is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. The back -up Illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90 minutes. Please indicate how the illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be in accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please Indicate the net clear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. u 571`pd�asds, 2Ui7 `itetliafiiis, Newport 9each. 20172 Redlands Drive 1. Item q 5: Exception 1 to California Building Code (CBC) Section 903.2.7 excludes single family homes "unless... classified as Group R4." 2. Item # 6: Stairwell and other components of the means of egress must be Illuminated at all times. A switched circuit is not permitted. CBC Section 1006.3 requires back -up emergency lighting for the means of egress. The back-up illumination shall operate automatically and shall last for a minimum of 90 minutes. Please indicate how the illumination will be accomplished. 3. Bedroom egress windows shall be In accordance with CBC Section 1026. Please indicate the net dear opening dimensions as well as the height above the floor for each bedroom window opening. If you have any questions regarding these issues, please call me at 949 - 644 -3106. Sincerely, C4 Steve Bunting Fire Marshal ,x January 29, 2009 Mr. Steve Bunting Fire Marshall CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FIRE AND MARINE DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca 92658 -8915 RE: Yellowstone Recovery ( "Newport House" Residence) Coda Analysis For The Existing Building Dear Mr. Bunting, v,r�, r Ur �r ��QN Alfred J. Boder, Architect has been contracted by Yellowstone Recovery to review details of their existing building, titled "Newport House ", located at 20172 Redlands, Santa Ana, Ca 92707. Yellowstone Recovery intends to change the use of the building from a single -family residence to a Residential Facility for the non - medical rehabilitation of drug abuse and alcoholism. We have surveyed the existing building and the summary of our findings and conclusions are as follows: A. The existing building was constructed in 1961, and was built as a single- family residence, occupancy type R -3. The building is a two -story structure with an attached garage. B. The building is setback from the front property line 26' -0 ". The side yard set back is 5'4" clear on both sides of the structure. C. As the attached plans indicate, the residence is entered through the front door that faces the addressed street. The first floor consists of a living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, and two bedrooms. The second floor consists of four bedrooms, and two bathrooms. Based on this research, the following code issues are in compliance with the current code requirements of the California Building Code, CBC 2007. 01. Location On The Prooertr As indicated on the attached plans, the building setbacks for the side yards is five (5) feet from the property line. This distance includes the attached garage. Per CBC section 6, Table 602, the minimum fire separation distance is five feet. This setback is achieved to the property line and from the property line; the YS 01022 adjacent R -3 residence is also setback five (5) feet from the property line for a total of a ten (10) foot separation from the two buildings. Conclusion: The wall of the garage at the side yard is not required to be of fire rated construction and there are no penetrations or openings in the attached garage wall 02. Section 419, Group W. R -1 R -2 R -3 R -31 R4•_ 419.2, Separation walls. Section does not apply. Note that the common wall between the attached = garage is of one -hour fire rated construction to the bottom of the roof diaphragm and there are no penetrations in this wall. 03. Section 419.3, Horizontal Separation: This section does not apply per section 711.1. M rxuwues in Group x -1 K -31 or K-4 QCCppancV (SFMI• Per section 425.3.5, Limitations — Seven or More Clients; The second floor area is less than three thousand (3,000) square feet and therefore a one -hour fire rated construction is not required. 05. Section 425.7. Fire Protection System Provisions: Section 425.7.1, Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems. Per section 903.2.7, Group R, an automatic fire sprinkler system is not required per exceptions 1 and 3. Section 425.7.2. Fire Alarm Systems; Per section 907.2.8 an approved, hard -wired fire alarm system is installed as required per section 907.2.8.2. Section 427.7.3. Smoke Alarms; Per section 907.2.8.3, battery Powered smoke detectors /alarms are installed in the required areas per section 907.2.10. Section 906.1. Portable Fire Extinguishers; Portable fire extinguishers are installed and located per the California Fire Code. 06. Chapter 10 Means Of Egress Section 1006, means of egress illumination. There is illumination at the top, middle, and bottom of the staircase. Section 1009 Stairways; Per section 1009. 1, exception 1, the staircase complies with the code requirement. YS 01023 I believe that this is a complete analysis of the code related items which apply to this building during the change of occupancy. Please call Anthony Grillo, my representative, at (949) 678 -3214 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Alfred Bodor — Architect Attachments; Scale as -built plans YS 01024 EXHIBIT 6 LETTERS IN SUPPORT (Submitted by Applicant) AND LETTERS IN OPPOSITION YS 01025 DATE: 01/24/09 i 0 MM OM IT'41AY CONCERN FROM THE CPOSSIIVG CHURCH, JA.CKIE, DAVIS THE CROSSING CM RCM IS JUST A MILE X?+ AY FRO N1 X Yra ll'OW 71 ONE. IME ALL NOTICE aeVraMEN CG M. ING TO OUIT M F- r5?WGS AND Cr-7 TIM S 11! VOLVEC. 'HEY HELP WITH MANDLING OLIT THE tHURCY! RULLE" IMS, FOR ED(AIVII'LE. LAST YEAR THEY HELPED US SERVE FOOD TO THE MOrMELESS. VEL LOWS7ONE't110M, EM AN 0 AMEN1 a A Y" 4"A.10 5111 0 U 7 C"r-u F, ` -mr WE ARE V RY PROUD TH AT ` ELLOWS TONE IS 7;IF e OF OU7R, CO MM,UM77. WE DO WHAT WE CAN Tt MELP OUR NEIGHBOR YE4.LMSTONME IMST AS THEY HELP US, PLF,A E CALL IF I`VE CAN .ANSWER ANY 0,I)EST ONS: JACKIE DAVIS, THE CROSSING C= URCH, 949 SFh > T7— RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT sma YS 01026 DAVIS•ZFATY � raoressiou�r urr <oa >oewon January 29,2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Yellowstone - Letters of Support Dear Janet: F..� Ff NEW 2 I noticed that the Exhibits to previous Use Permit Applications included letters from neighbors surrounding the homes. Enclosed are copies of letters from alumni of the Yellowstone homes showing their support. I thought you may like to include these as exhibits to our Use Permit Application. As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATYY/' - - / /• Ar/� NICOLE COHRS Enclosures cc: Cathy Walcott, City of Newport Beach 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - 949.376.2828 Fax 949.376.3875 info ®dzattorneys.com • www.dzattorneys.com YS 01027 Mb wavwe is A"Ee avt.d I ohe IU01 Lwto YEU.owstowe Lw 2002. MU using and de tWw.0 had reaLLd spun nt.o LLfe out of oowtroL, I was covKp" Lost av6d felt Uiu I was be%wg eaten allve front the Lws�de out, t was so evkptlj and broken, doww'U46the f waL dabs of vub disease. I oouldw.'t LvwagLwe mcd LLfe awd otherwad. Ydtowstowe Lwtroduced me to A.A. and Rteaverd and to a higher power. Mb Uft has sureLd been. turned around Lm, a wad t could have never thought possLbLe. I *L free todad and vt.ot a sLave to a U fe that had wo promLse what so ever vwr a purpose. I wUL forever be grate fuL to have the dads and dears that YeLLowstoKe taught Ks e how to Uve sober .......... I bkUt, nt.b fouKdatiow at ycUowstowe, I Learned how to be a frLevA again, how to be honest agaLw, how to be depevAabLe agaLw, how to be a good sLster, auwtie, and daughter. ........... I have made TR.I•tE and IZEAL FRIENDS through YeUowstowe ........... I trade W. and oLd friends for these new sober owes. Md Uft has a reaL purpose todad and Yd.Lowstawe helped vue fwd ntiII wao to Lt. I eouLd go ow anal ow about aLL the wovtderful things that raeoverd and yeLLowstowe has given m4z but I doubt awl words couLd evertru o express what Ive beew gLvew brj Wwg freed front vud disease. I come to YeU.owstawe evert weete and ant. star. apart of this place stUL to this dad .... 6 Dears Later. I hope Lt Ls here for other gtrls to come bade and wort¢ with the new comers the wad I have beew given the chavue too. It saves ewe W6 tLYweS whew I weed it vuost. Trull Blessed, �kwgela M. Sobrieto Date I1 -t6 -02 YS 01028 My name is Gina andl have been so6erforW day& I carne to Tel1owstone because my fife was going nowhere andl coufdn't get sober on my own. Yellowstone has helped me in so many ways. I'm fearning the program ofAfcohoCtcsAnonymous and how to live as a sober woman. I'm (earning how to 6e responsi6fe. I've met wonderfuf people here that care a6out me and support me. arty relationship with my family and my son is being restored and I'm wort ing again. I am forevergrateful to Teffowstone for teaching me a new way of fife 09VE QATATA gTWE Sincerefy, Gina G Sobriety (Date 1012 0108 YS 01029 Hit my name is Gloria I have been sod er for two and a ha f years. I went trough yellawstone and truly believe that had this home not provided me with the foundation that I needed in AA I would not have a life today, nor would my daughter Have her mother or my husband her w fe. 'When I decided to get help I couldn't think of going anywhere else. This is where I had seen women come back from the gates of heliand learn to become women of dignity with a joy for Cife that was unimaginable to me. Hadl not, found yeffowstone I would have never known that there was a way out o. f f the misery and despair my life had become. yours ?ruly J1 2-1 - 2 E'© Gj YS 01030 My name is Erika and I have been sober for 2 years. If it wasn't for a place like Yellowstone, I would probably be dead today. I lived at Yellowstone for over a year where I was able to build a foundation upon how to live life on life's terms. Because of the opportunity that I got at Yellowstone I no longer have that hopelessness that I lived with for so long. I am able to be present in the lives of my children who I now have joint custody of Yellowstone is the place that I will continue to come ,back to and visit the new girls who are struggling the same way I once did. Thank God for Yellowstone. Sincerely Yours, Erika l� 7/15/06 -e- 50hr%e*V6 dam. YS 01031 MY NAME IS MFORAN DOYLE AND 17PAVE BEEN SOBER FOR FOUR YEARS. I CAM£ TO YELLOWSTONE AFTER BEING LOCKED OUT OF MY MOM'S MOUSE. I STAYED Ar YELLOWSTONE 13 36 MONTWS. I LEARNED ffOW TO WORX, LIVE SOBER LIFE, SUIT UP AND SHOW UP EVERY DAY TO MYJOB, AND HANDLE LIFE SITUTIONS FOR 7WE FIRST TIME I AM VERY GRATEFUL TO YELLOWSTONE AND 7W£ PROGRAM OFALCHOLICS ANONYMOUS. I AM SELF SUPPORTING NOW AND MAX£ AMENDS. I CAN BE OF SERVICE TO O7WERS TODAY. SINCERELY M£GHAN VOW �A4v;-� SOBRIETY DA7T. 04118105 YS 01032 MEMO TO: JANET BROWN, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM: HONEY THAMES, YELLOWSTONE SUBJECT: LETTERS OF SUPPORT COULD YOU PLEASE ADD THESE LETTERS OF SUPPORT TO OUR APPLICATION. ONE IS FROM ST. JOHN THE DIVINE CHURCH AND THE OTHER IS FROM A MOTHER WHOSE SON COMPLETED OUR PROGRAM TWO YEARS AGO. FINALLY, WE HAVE A PETITION FROM OUR NEAREST NEIGHBORS (WITHIN 300 FEET) SUPPORTING US AS A GOOD NEIGHBOR. THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR HELP DATE: 2/03/09 RECEIVED BY PIANNING DEPARTMENT .*.::, -oa FER 05 hu,; CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH YS 01033 ER09V VAL ASK Of Ximbedy BCack Dear Yellowstone Staff, February 3, 2004 I wanted to take a few minutes to thank you all for the wonderful care my son received while at Yellowstone, as well as the continued support during his time in your sober living program. Today, I am proud to say my son is clean and sober! It's been almost three years since I called you on the telephone, desperate for help. Not only did you open your doors to us, but your hearts as well. I delivered to your doorstep a young man addicted to heroin (among other things) and suicidal. A few short months later I had my son back. You gave him the tools he needed to succeed. He worked very hard and today he is healthy and happy. I know his continued success will be in part to the support he still receives. He in turn gives back by helping others in their sobriety. I don't know where we would have turned had you not been there for us. I wish for families like ours that your doors will always be open and those arms that so warmly embraced us will never turn away a parent whose child is in danger. Thanks agatrfej�all your help and support. Kimberly Black RECEIVED BY PWINING DEPARTMEAIT FB 05 bjl1;;! CITY OF NEWPO 6FACN YS 01034 St. John the Divine A parish of the Diocese of Los Angeles A congregation of the Episcopal Church in the United States A part of the work! -wide Anglican Communion The Rev. Dr. Barbara R. Stewart, Rector 183 E. Bay Street phone 949 -548 -2237 Costa Mesa, CA 92827 -2145 fax 949.548.2238 www.sgohncm.org bstewart@sfohncm.org January 31, 2009 To Whom It May Concern: I write in support of Yellowstone. The services offered by Yellowstone, helping people live sober and clean lives, are necessary in our society and important to the establishment and ongoing welfare not only of the individuals involved, but our community as well. To begin the process of reclaiming lives lost to alcohol and drugs is something to be valued and appreciated. St. John's is pleased to be able to support the work done by Yellowstone by offering our facility for some of their work. Sincerely, � r IMM The Rev. Dr. Barbara Stewart PL4N1ING DEPARTMENT `' FY 05 20j ."'I 'oily IMFNEWPOkrACF1 YS 01035 YELLOWSTONE IS A GOOD NEIGHBOR NAME 414Yefi f��g,,�� ADDRESS S: /•y rs led 7ect �ra� 9' 1 NAME ADDRESS /5S.,q 4s�s NAME ADDRESS NAME \ ADDRESS ) S 1 L Pe .4 ga.j P'�'^�� � pr�rir I rF :H i) t 1ti:;:7 CIl'OF *iNpokjr 1( YS 01036 DATE: 2/5/09 TO: Dave Kiff, Asst. City Manager FROM: Rita Bosley, Resident in Pegasus Tract, NB RE" Yellow stone Women's First Step House Public Hearing on group residential use permits 1561 Indus, 1621 Indus, 1571 Pegasus, 20172 Redlands, NB We have four sober living homes within a few hundred feet of each other in the Pegasus Tract, and I am fed up with my rights being subordinated to theirs. I am not a special interest group, so I have to rely on those who represent me to make sure the right thing happens. Can I rely on the City of NB? I oppose each of the four applications for permits and exempt status. The laws were put into effect for the purpose of keeping residential neighborhoods for families. These homes are not families, nor do the owners and residents of them care about the people who live here. Their only interest is making money as indicated by the request for three residents/ bedroom instead of 2. This is a single family neighborhood and even rentals are not officially lawful. To justify my strong feelings, just look what their presence is doing to aggravate the precarious situation the local residents are suffering. We have lived with the noise of the airport and have fallen into the problems of the slacking economy about which we can do very little. But to add insult to injury, we are forced to accept our rights being trampled with the current situation with the sober living homes. This places undue hardship on our properties. First, their presence in such great numbers for a very small area have changed the family nature of our neighborhood. Families are reluctant to let their children ride around the block on their bikes because of encounters their children may have with "recovering" people. Secondly, selling a property in this tract requires disclosing the presence of these homes so close to each other and other properties. Therefore, property values and sales have been affected. Getting refinancing is impossible because the last homes sold were sober living homes which went for forced sale prices. Third, we have cigarette butts and beer cans in front of our homes, even though the homes are supposed to be alcohol /drug free. Not only are the SL residents using, but so are their families who visit. SL residents also travel around the neighborhood in "gangs" as they go from home to home. YS 01037 Fourth, cars line the street on nights and weekends, leaving no parking for regular residents' cars and their guests. It is an invasion of our neighborhood. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! If these requests are granted and the homes become such cash cows, why wouldn't every home in the neighborhood be a potential SL residence. Our large homes are even more attractive in this economy. Maybe the State should reimburse each local resident for undue hardship on us if these exceptions are enacted. The decision is yours! I hope the City uses its power wisely. And I am aware of the City's efforts to find a workable solution. Thank you, Dave, for your efforts towards our community in the past. YS 01038 Brown, Janet From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Friday, February 06, 200911 :24 AM To: Brown, Janet; Wolcott, Cathy Subject: FW. Re: Hearing February 12, 2009 - Group Residential Permits - Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. For the record. We appear to be having assembly uses out there, too, among other things. From: Chet Groskreutz [mailtD:Chet @IvankoBarbell.com] Sent: Friday, February 06, :200911:23 AM To: Kiff, Dave Cc: Victoria Groskreutz; Rita Bosley; Prodancerl@aol. com Subject: FW: Re: Hearing February 12, 2009 - Group Residential Permits - Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ­-Original Message---- - From: Chet Groskreutz [mailto:Chet @IvankoBarbell.com] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 11:13 AM To: Dave Kiff Cc: Prodancerl @aol. corn; Victoria Groskreutz; Rita Bosley Subject: Re: Hearing February 12, 2009 - Group Residential Permits - Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Re: 1561 INDUS STREET 1621 INDUS STREET 1571 PEGASUS STREET 20172 REDLANDS DRIVE Applications for the above use permits Dear Dave: 1 met you sometime ago at one of the annexation hearings when Santa Ana Heights annexation was being discussed. I wanted to e-mail and voice my opposition to all (4) of the applications Yellowstone has applied for based on the following complaints: 1. Vehicles that are not being used: I oppose all (4) applications. Although we have been told by Yellowstone officials at their own meetings that none of their residents are allowed to drive, we have evidence that the exact opposite is true, there are residents who are driving cars or trucks and parking them on our streets, many times loaded with personal possessions for extended periods of time. They just move the vehicles from street to street to avoid being ticketed or towed. 2. Parking problems: I oppose all (4) applications. On their meeting nites and during the day and on weekends, we cannot use any parking in front of our own homes because the spaces are full of attendees for these meetings I have posted notes on vehicles on several occasions during their meetings in the past years, telling the owners that the next time they park illegally I am going to have their car towed because it was blocking my driveway. Additionally, I have picked up soda cans, cigarette butts, even beer bottles YS 01039 interesting since these are supposed to be sober living homes) and other trash all over the street and on the sidewalk after these "meeting nites ".The meetings break up around 9:00 pm but often the attendees stand around in the street until 10:00 p.m. or later talking loudly and disturbing my granddaughters who are asleep. 3. Residential requirements exemption request for more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident I oppose all (4) applications. I oppose any variance from the existing NBMC. As it is, there is no control over the massive influx of visitors to the residents of these homes, day and nde, visitors are constantly going back and forth from vehicles to these houses ... This means that in one of these 4 -5 bedroom homes, they could have as many as they want per bedroom....all it says is that they are asking for more than two residents per bedroom, it could be 3, 4, or even 5 or more residents per bedroom and that would mean in one 5 bedroom home, they could stick up to 25 people or more in the housel If 1 or 2 visitors come daily per resident, there's another potentially 100 people per day coming into our neighborhood, plus the 100 or so Irving in the houses, that's a potential of 200 more people in our neighborhood ... and the potential public health and safety impact should be obvious and in my view is a blatant disregard for the rights of taxpaying residents by Yellowstone Inc., its nothing personal to them, its just businessl 4. Unlicensed adult alcohol and/or drug abuse facilities: I oppose all (4) applications. I oppose any applications for the approval of the above use permits for operation of unlicensed adult alcohol and /or drug abuse facilities. Right now—these homes are unlicensed and therefore are not under any licensing regulations. They are exempt.They should not be exempt. They should apply for the proper licenses that all other facilities of this kind is required by law to have. Their impact as a business on our residential community is and has been devastating. 5. Public safety I oppose all (4) applications Last week, I think it was January 28th, when I came home, at about 9:50 pm. out complete tract was blocked off and could not get into Pegasus Street because the police officer told me that there "was a man with a gun" in our neighborhood. It took a half an hour before I was finally let into my own neighborhood to go to bed, due to some wacko who allegedly had a gun. We never had in the 30 years I have lived in my house, ever anything like this happen. I do not think that this was coincidental and I believe that sooner or later, there will be one of these residents From an unlicensed adult facility or a relative or acquaintance of one of them, who will successfully commit some serious crime against someone. Statistically, to have this many (4) homes in such a small concentrated area, its no surprise that there has only been (1) situation like what happened on Wednesday. Fortunately, no one was hurt .... but I fear the next time and there most assuredly will be a next time, if these unlicensed homes are allowed to go unchecked, we may not be so lucky. 6. 100% cost recovery approval I oppose all (4) applications oppose this request on the grounds that this is a residential neighborhood and not zoned for business. 100% cost recovery translates to pay for services rendered at these homes ... and thus Yellowstone is running (4) run for profit businesses out of our residential neighborhood. 7. Decline in property values: I oppose all (4) applications Recently, we attempted to refinance our home and we were told that the appraised value of our home was affected by neighborhood properties. These values had fallen drastically. We believe the decline is values has been caused in great measure, by the operation of these (4) homes in our neighborhood. We believe that these home have had a negative impact on our property values and that we have suffered financial damages up to and including the inability to receive a YS 01040 fair appraisal of the value of our home due to the impact caused by the operation of the (4) Yellowstone properties as per above mentioned. In summary, I oppose all (4) applications for the YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. Sincerely, Chet P. Groskreutz 1551 Pegasus Street Newport Beach, Ca. Ph.(714) 545 -1832 Bus.:(310) 514 -1155 YS 01041 Brown, Janet From: Kilt, Dave Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:21 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: FW Yellowstone Group Homes, West Santa Ana Heights From: mike mcDonough [ mairw:mmcdonough0l @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:12 PM To: Kfff, Dave Subject: Yellowstone Group Homes, West Santa Ana Heights Mr. Kiff, I own 1562 Pegasus Street, Newport Beach. My wife and I are opposed to the granting of use permits for the Group homes in our neighborhood. We have resided at this location for 36 years, my four children grew up on this street, playing with the children of other long time residents. We have always felt safe in the past but now don't allow our grandchildren play in the front yard. On a daily basis we observe individuals wandering the neighborhood, often in groups of 3 or 4, with no apparent business or destination. Trash, bottles, and cigarette butts on the street and parkways has Increased, parking of vehicles for several days at a time is common, and groups from meetings mill about talking Ioudly.All these issues cause a negative impact on the neighborhood. In the last 2 years my vehicle has be entered at least twice and property stolen. Are the thefts related? No way to know for sure. Four sober living homes are within 100 yards of my front door. I have been advised by a real estate agent that I must disclose, to prospective buyers, the location of Sober Living Group homes close to my property. This has a negative Impact on property values and if these properties are allowed to house, expand or increase the number of clients property values will continue to fall. Another consideration is the cost of city services to these locations. The NBFD has responded several times on medical aid calls to sober living homes in the neighborhood. These drug and alcohol related medical calls are time consuming, costly in relation to personnel and equipment, and disruptive to the community. I urge the City to deny the use permits for these property and return our neighborhood to a family oriented community. Thank you, Mike McDonough 1562 Pegasus Street Newport Beach, Ca YS 01042 Brown, Janet From: Brian Wecklich [bweckiich@hotmail.comj Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:04 AM To: Brian Wecklich; Brown, Janet Subject: Public hearing for use permits Hello I'm writing about the public hearing regarding the 4 rehab houses In the area of Pegasus St. Newport Beach. My house is located at 1552 Pegasus st. Newport Beach. I have not had any Issues with the houses you are trying to address at this time. At the same time I do not want to see any issues in the future. The issue that comes to attention is parking in our neighborhood. Where these houses do not contribute to the problem at present I want to make sure they do not In the future. There is a rehab house at the corner of Pegasus and Santa Ana Ave that is run by another group. I do not know what the name of that group is. They are a major problem as far as parking goes. There are so many vehicles from that house that they park in front of four or five houses up the street. They have Inadequate parking for their operation. If these type houses are going to operate In our neighborhood I want to make sure they do not infringe on the others in the neighborhood. So I gues I am saying that some sort of parking regulation or enforcement should go along with the Use Permits they are requesting. Thank You Brian Wecklich 1552 Pegasus St Newport Beach, California 714 609 1441 BWecklich(caLive .com YS 01043 Brown, Janet r rwrw. From: Michelle Rosenthal [shoppingfenatic143®yahoo.coml Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:45 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: PUBLIC HEARING 2/20: USE PERMITS FOR REHAB HOUSES To City of Newport Beach: My name is Michelle Rosenthal. I am a homeowner living at 1661 Indus Street. My husband and I just moved to this neighborhood in November 2007. It was not until after we moved into our neighborhood and began asking questions that we learned, of these "rehab businesses" in our area. It was rather disappointing to find this out and it wasn't something that was disclosed at the time we purchased our home. The scenario is quite simple. These are not homes ... they are businesses:. -Cars and people are constantly coming and going -These addicts wander from home to home without any regard for traffic -Their shuttle vans are parked all over the neighborhood -They host weekly meetings inviting more people like themselves into the neighborhood, parking all over the streets, smoking, and hanging in the streets -They take no pride in their homes and do not maintain them to the standards as a homeowner normally would -People congregate and smoke in their front yards -They generate massive amounts of trash with more people than a normal family living under one roof Bottom line, they depreciate the value of our neighborhood, I am not an addict, I am not in rehab, and do not wish to have these people living a few doors down from me. I paid FULL PRICE for my home, am a decent citizen and homeowner.... why do I have 4 homes being ran as businesses in my neighborhood, making a profit off people who are "recovering" from drug /alcohol abuse? "Halfway house" is what they call it and half way is how they maintain it and portray the neighborhood. My husband and I want to live in a family environment. If we stepped up the prestige of our community and became part of the city of Newport Beach, clean house and get the riff-raff out. PULL THEIR PERMITS AND GET THEM OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLEASE. Thank you for your time and attention to my strong feelings on this issue. YS 01044 Exhibit No. 7 Reasonable Accommodation Application dated August 22, 2008 YS 01045 DAVIS•RAYBURN A ?f OFES51(INAI Al I COIIUEAIION August 22, 2008 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY PIANNING DEPARTMENT AUG 2 6 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Re: Notice of Incomplete Application: 20172 Redlands Dr. Dear Ms. Brown: 8005 -003 As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Yellowstone "). We are in receipt of the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Incomplete Application for the property located at 20172 Redlands Dr. (the "Property "). In response to that notice, we provide herewith the following: 1. Application Form 100, Item 2, Property Owner Information: the requested information is enclosed herewith. 2. Item 313: We have no information regarding other similar uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. 3. Item 4: We cross - reference and incorporate the other applications, which are being provided concurrently under separate cover. 4. Item 5: We have no information regarding other conditional uses and we appreciate the City's offer to provide this information. S. Item 6: A site plan is enclosed herewith. 6. Item 8B: Resident capacity is 16. Total capacity is 18. 7. Item 8C: A floor plan is enclosed herewith. 8. Item 8L: The acknowledgement re secondhand smoke is enclosed herewith. 9. Item I OD: Dr. Thames is the facility Director. 10. Form 200: A board resolution is enclosed herewith. 11. Form 850: Fire Marshall Clearance is enclosed herewith. 12. Request for reasonable accommodation: See the enclosed form. The one item that we have not included in this correspondence is the requested $2,200.00 fee. After reviewing the code, we have been unable to locate any discussion of such fee. We mention this not to question the City's authority to impose such a fee, but rather because we have not seen any statutory scheme that should provide for a hardship exception. We would respectfully request that the City furnish such authority, and also provide us with any exemption 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 . Laguna Beach, CA 92651 . 949.376.2828 - Fax: 949.376.3875 YS 01046 info@davistayburnlaw.corn • www.davisrayburnlaw.com City of Newport Beach August 22, 2008 Page 2 application. Alternatively, we would request an extension of time to remit such fee so that we might be able to raise the funds necessary to accommodate the City's request. As a final note, it is worth mentioning that it is our understanding that the Property is still currently located in an unincorporated area of Orange County known as Santa Ana Heights, and that the Newport Beach annex of the property is not yet complete. If this is true, then we would submit that the city of Newport Beach does not have jurisdiction over this property. Any response that the City can provide regarding this matter would be greatly appreciated. To the extent that our understanding is correct, we would ask that the City simply hold our application until such time as the annexation is complete, so that the parties are not required to reinitiate this process. Please accept our apologies for the delay in providing the enclosed information. As always, if you have any questions regarding these applications, please feel free to contact us. Ve ly yours, IS C R. ZFATY IRZljmk cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) YS 01047 RECORDING REQUESTED BY• Anne Thames AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL To: Anna Thames lye, .JOP oe-7 A"..x =2. CrA- C—C' 5'2 6G3 A.P.N. 119- 362 -07 Recorded In Of chit Records, Orange Ceumy Torn ggl1la1�ay ,��Cggl1l�tt1HgrgylRrygecc�ol1�rd�gger �UEI ®IIO�AIlMIAIIWMOM��W1�00 9. W 20W0539234 03:4! pM 00 jjM 106 200 002 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 -00 5,00 0,00 0,00 000 MACE AADVE THIS LINE IS FOR RECORDER'$ USE) GRANT DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S) THAT DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX 15 $.00 ( X) computed on NN velua Of PmPeMcmveyed, or ( )computed an aA valor lea liem or ermmbrences femenMg e1 Arno of an (X coy or same Ana FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, RECEIPT OF WHICH IS HERESY ACKNOWLEDGED, Stephen Thames, an unmarried man hereby GRANT(S) to Anna Thames, an unmarried woman and Stephen Thames, an unmerited man As Joint tenants the following described real property in the City of Santa Ma, County of OranOe, Stele of Callfomla: See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof DATED: October, 212005 We hen Tt Ames STATE OF C COUNTY OF rersonally known to me ar e subscribed to the within nstru er authori zed�ea) and that I which the n acted, executed WITH 91 h antl o I seal i Claude T. Rowe %1IAllTAX9TATEMENTST0 MMAI1 SMDV& ORANOE,CA Document: DD 2006.539234 a notary public In And for sold County and State, unit neranan rey executed the same . .---- /m Ie r18 f`g on the instrument th0201Mn(s) or entity upon behaff of Printed on 8/22/2008 3:46:40 PM Provided by Data Trace System CLAUDE T. ROWS WT C0hu msaa7E$ wjc� asoau.aaw ,.0 1\ 2P Page l of YS 01048 EXHIBIT "A" All that certain real property situated In the County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: Lot 36 of Tract No. 4307, In the County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded In Book 153, Pages 19 through 20, Inclusive,, of Miscellaneous .Maps, In the Office of the County Recorder of said County. Assessor's Parcel Number: 319 - 362-07 ORANGUA Document: DD 2006.539234 Printed on 8/22!2008 3:46:41 PM Provided by Data Trace System Page 2 of 2 YS 01049 0 1. 08/22/2008 16:04 9496465296 YELLOWSTONE pg6E 02 TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM: STEPHEN THAMES RE: AUTHORIZATION THIS IS AN OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE APPLICATIONS FOR MY RESIDENCE AT 20172 REDLANDS SANTA ANA HEIGHTS, CAL IT IS CURRENTLY LICENSED WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AL000HOL' AND DRUG PROGRAMS DATE AUTHORIZED: APRIL 30, 2008 YS 01050 I M= ft - � I it SCALE- YS 01052 J , • f • • BATH RAT4 f f RM. RM. RM. ' QM. t ' IWIll Ill.*] YS 01054 r �' z F,- _ � R i. �:: -. ❑ Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Ceriiflcation (required) 0-orange County Sober Living Network (recommended) © Other (please describe) L. SECONDHAND SMOKE UMRATIONS NBMC §20.91A.050.A directs that'no staff, clients, guests, or any other use of the facility may smoke in an area from which the secondhand smoke may be detected on any parcel other than the parcel upon which the facility is located. Check and sign here to acknowledge this requirement and your use's adherence to it: dl on ttaatckknowledge that I wig control secondhand smoke on my facility such that no secondhand smoke may be y pa l of other than the parcel upon which my tastily is krcated. Signature: _411�V-:2-� Dabs: A_, _The owner of record' of the property or an authorized agent must sign this Apprication. Signing the application under Seclion`10 paeans that the applicant certifies, under penally of perjury, that the information provided within the ApPk:ation and ita alldvmnts is true and coned. Per NBMC'§20.90.030.C, false statements are grounds for denial or revocation. B. The Appficant acknowledges that he or she must comply with ait other Federal. Std, and bcel laws and regulations relating to this use. The Applicant understands that a violation of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations Is grounds for revocation of the Permit. The Applicant Understands and acknowledges that it is against Calitomia taw to provide treatment (as dammed) in an unlicensed facility. C. If the City issues a Use Permit based on the informaton provided In this Applkation, the Applicant's signature below certifies his or her agree. ant to comply with the tams of the Use Permit The Applicant uerderalands end adknowbdges noncompliance with the terrors of the Use Permit Is grounds for revocation of the Permit. Revocation of the Use PeromIL NBMC §20.96. 040.E provides that the City can revoke a Use Permit it • The permit was issued under erroneous information or misrepresentation; or • The applicant made a false or misleading statement of material tack or omitted a material fact or • The conditions d use or other regulations or taws have been violated; or • There has been a discontinuance of use for 160 days or more. THE UNDERSIGNED ASSURES THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD HIS OR HER OBL)GATIONS UNDER ANY USE PERMIT ISSUED SA$gD ON THIS APPLICATKK A. If the applicant is a sole proprietor. the application shall be signed by the proprietor. S. If the applicant is a partnership, the application stall be Signed by each partner. C. If the applicant is a firm, aseccletion, corporation, county, city. public agency or other governmental entity, the application shag be signed by the chief mmutive officer or the Individual legally respo over for representing Me agency. 18 YS 01056 YELLOWSTONE BOARD RESOLUTION: THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT AGREEENT AND ENDORSEMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF YELLOWSTONE FOR THE FOLLOWING: DR. A.M. THAMES IS THE CEO OF THE BOARD AND AGREES TO REPRESENT YELLOWSTONE IN ALL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. SHE WILL SIGN ANY AND ALL FINAL AGREEMENTS. ATTORNEY ISAAC ZFATY, WILL PROVIDE LEGAL REPRESEN'T'ATION IN AL • MATTERS IN THE AGREEMENTS WITH TIRE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LEISHA MELLO, AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR YELLOWSTONE WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO THE AGREEMENTS WTPH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. THESE AGREEMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS ARE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS OF JULY 1, 2008- OFA A LISA TUMAN YS 01057 06/22/2008 16.17 9496465296 YELLMTCHE PAGE 02 0 rt A FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION N� OTICE W SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET PaP— I d ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHOR ' rry Wqmdon No.� 180 8- WGWf SL, Orange, CA 920% (.Fl r Dow. ADDFMS! OCCAOt RBCBVSD BY -Z ble7c• �i --m-1 44%T�, 1,--4 �- b GC, %j I % (,- lal ARE L%AEjLE 7.0 Tm.psc Nom,�CONTACTOWUAW VIOLAnONS INDCATED —Wv t? (I--; , 's--r " f 'If cl IT IMAMDIAIW I BY THE YS 01058 09/22/2000 16:17 9496465296 YELLOWSTONE PAGE 03 Pa{c l of X Coungr of Omngs Png Dovebmwm gerviNS p contact Yekwatana www, 949 678-0781 Commwft won Mom 918. TEMPORARY ELECTRICAL FOR TEMNO weer YOU iwnflmmgon nwnbar is 102446 P MO Pf" 96 page fwYour mMrmwg. s ,1 b4. -/ /ate oc. eLgov/ Actio xiH andler /comPletelnI"CdonRequ%I YS 01059 ZONING APPROVAL Local PlarAing partmenv Name � N FtaW &2 . ow4- I+W 6,?9 gZZ�Z Address 7/l/ - Telephone Number 1�E�IA�yIJTfAc i%LCGjLb ��JEj /,r~C3Ti 7i('ac, KName of program) this document indicates local approval for building use Is not required to obtain a use permit operate a residential or El an outpatient alcohol and /or other drug treatmen rogram a j�ress of program)) J) ame, title, and telephone number of individual confirming compliance [typed or mil) ignature of 410cal plann' g department r eritative) 171VOW &4- 2� 7 ( ate sigr►ed) i FAX (714)M�. ( le3q -977 +ulMiet r. asMppA ornWM out hem 4 ��tiE'IOPMEM� �� •RKC'� CkNTER L S4Ni q FIST. F1)0R MkINGAOpReSS: CA 9ft YS 01060 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH o = ,r Supplemental Information C�4CpRH for Reasonable Accommodation Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 To aid staff in determining that the necessary findings can be made in this particular case as set forth in Chapter 20.98 of the Municipal Code, please answer the following questions. with regard to your request (Please attach on separate sheets, if necessary): Please see attached sheet Name of Applicant If provider of housing, name of facility, including legal name of corporation (Mailing Address of Applicant) (City /State) (Zip) (Telephone) (Pax number) (E -Mail address) (Subject Property Address) Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 1. Is this application being submitted by a person with a disability, that person's representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability? 2. Does the applicant, or individual(s) on whose behalf the application is being made, have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? If so, please state the impainnent(s) and provide documentation of such impairment(s)- Page 1 of 3 YS 01061 Application Number 3. From which specific Zoning Code provisions, policies or practices are you seeking an exception or modification? 4. Please explain why the specific exception or modification requested is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 5. Please explain why the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of the individual with a disability. Please provide documentation, if any,, to support your explanation. 6. Please explain how the individual with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation? Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 7. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary to make your facility economically viable in light of the relevant market and market participants. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. 8. If the applicant is a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability, please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary for your facility to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting taking into consideration the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community. Please provide documentation, if any, to support your explanation. YS 01062 Page 2 of 3 Application Number 9. Please add any other information that may be helpful to the applicant to enable the City to determine whether the findings set forth in Chapter 20,98 can be made (Use additional pages if M111GYRl Page 3 of 3 20172 Redlands Attachment Name of applicant: Yellowstone, Woman's First Step House, Inc., 20172 Redlands, Santa Ana Heights, CA 92701; Phone: 888.941.9048; Fax: 949.646.5296; APN: 119 - 362 -07. I. This application is provided by a provider of housing for individuals with a disability. 2. The individuals are alcoholics. 3. Single family residence to multi - family residence. 4. The applicant provides the residents of the Property with housing where same is otherwise unavailable to them. Most residents are long -term residents who are able to live with their disability, and in a sober environment, as a result of the provision of the facility by the applicant. The success of sober living homes in assisting these disabled individuals throughout the United States is well documented. Similar success has been realized at the Property addressed herein. A sample of the literature on sober living homes was attached to the original application. Without the home addressed in this application, the individuals who live at this home would not have access to sober living homes, and would not be able to afford to live in such a home in Orange County. Yellowstone provides this home to satisfy the otherwise unaddressed need by these disabled individuals for an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. There is no question that, with their current use, this property affirmatively enhances the lives of many individuals with disabilities. Importantly, the rent charged to these individuals simply covers Yellowstone's costs; no profit is realized. In fact, without charitable contributions, Yellowstone would operate at a loss. By no means is Yellowstone, or any individual involved with Yellowstone, a profiteer. Yellowstone simply makes available a sober living environment in an effort to help these disabled individuals, and with a view toward enhancing the community. To the extent that Yellowstone is forced to remove its operations from this property, it will suffer extreme economic hardship. Moreover, with any prospective closure of the property as a sober living home, the individuals with disabilities who live in the home will be without accommodation. Yellowstone is compliant with all of the requirements in the City of Newport Beach's Good Neighbor Principles, and is tenacious in ensuring that all residents at the Property strictly observe these requirements. Approval of this application would not alter the nature of the municipal code or impose any financial or administrative burden on the City. This property has been operating under these same general guidelines for years without imposing any burden upon the County or City. The residential character of the neighborhoods in which this property is located will not be altered in any way with the approval of this application. In fact, there is no non - residential use at the property. Moreover, there is no campus established through the grant of this application. Residents this property are not allowed at any of other property operated by Yellowston, and there are no functions that include all residents. Yellowstone has never been cited by any municipality at this property for any of the complaints set forth specifically in Ordinance 2008 -5, I YS 01064 Page 4, Paragraph 13. No health, safety or physical damage issues are presented with granting of these applications. 5. See response to No. 4. 6. See response to No. 4. 7. See response to No. 4. The applicant is not a developer. The applicant has operated at the Property for years and currently can afford this property. Due to the economic decline, and specifically as it pertains to residential housing, the forced sale of this property would cause an extreme economic hardship. 8. See responses to No. 4 and 7. 9. The applicant is a long - standing tenant in the community, and has had a presence in Santa Ana Heights for years. The applicant prides itself in acting as a good neighbor. As noted above, the applicant has an extremely high success rate in assisting disabled individuals live and integrate into Orange County. The applicant affirmatively enhances the lives of its residents. Any abatement of this facility would be harmful to the community. 2 YS 01065 Exhibit No. 8 Applicant's Supportive Documentation YS 01066 DAVIS•ZFATY ♦ EPOiE551CNA{tAW [OiiOEAl10N January 29, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 AANNf- <: s,,T -. kiMENi FEB 0 2 2009 F:Er; ; r . Re: Request for Reasonable Accommodation: 20172 Redlands Dear Ms. Brown: 2175.1 As you know, this firm is general counsel for Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Yellowstone "). I recently spoke with Cathy Walcott of the City Attorney's office. She informed me of a few ambiguities in our Request for Reasonable Accommodation Worksheet for the 20172 Redlands property (the "Property "). The purpose of this letter is to clarify these ambiguities. LLcnalOL ><m arrmenrs QuuatantiaL Limitin Ma'or Life Aetivitiea: Do the clients have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities? What are those impairments? The residents of the Property are recovering from alcohol addiction. They manifest physical and mental symptoms which have prevented them from engaging in at least one of their major life activities. Although the residents work, they are recovering from a physical dependence on alcohol. Mentally, the residents are recovering from the inability to make healthy choices like the average person in the general population regarding their consumption of alcohol. Their impairments affect their ability to think, concentrate, and interact with others as compared to the ability of the average person in the general population to do the same. Thus, their disability is substantially limiting. Enclosed with this letter is a Declaration under penalty of perjury from the applicant, Honey Thames, manager of the Property, that every resident in the Property has physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of the residents' major life activities. Cathy Walcott mentioned that this would be acceptable given that the privacy concerns of the residents limit our ability to provide medical records or signatures of the residents. 560 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach; CA 92651 � 949.376.2828 Fax 949.376.3875 info@dzattorneys.com - wwwAzattorneys.cum YS 01067 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Question 10) Parkine: Describe the on -site parking resources and the staff and visitor parking plans. Parking on the Property is reserved for the manager and assistant manager, thus the maximum number of cars on the Property at any one time will be two. Residents are not permitted to park on the Property. Visitors are not permitted on the Property therefore there are no visitor parking issues. uestion 11) Operation of Vehicl es: Describe client's availability to drive and operate a vehicle while residing at facility. The residents do not use cars. Instead, they rely on public transportation to and from the Property. ( Ouestion 12) Transportation: Does the facility provide transportation services? If yes, please describe the frequency, duration, and schedule of services and where the vehicles are stored Though the home generally does not provide transportation services, the home does provide some basic transportation to the nearby treatment facility and to St. John church. Both locations are within ten minutes of the home. There is a morning pickup at 8 a.m. and an evening drop off at 4 p.m. This is the only transportation provided. The vans that transport the residents are not parked on site. When not in use, the vans are kept in another city. (Question 16) Interaction Within the Property How do the clients interact with each other within the unit? Is there joint use of common areas? Do clients share household activities and responsibilities? Will delivery trucks be provided at the facility? The Property provides the residents with a network of support to encourage recovery from the symptoms of alcoholism. The residents reside separately at the Property. There is a common area however each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, there are no delivery vehicles going to and from the Property. Finally, although Yellowstone owns four such homes in the Newport Beach area, there is no interaction between the homes. In other words, residents of the Property do not meet with the residents of other Yellowstone properties for dinners or other gatherings. Each home has its own residents and the residents of one home never interact with residents of a different home. YS 01068 Ms. Janet Brown January 29, 2009 (Ouestion 19) Necessity of the Requested Accommodation: Please explain why the requested accommodation is necessary, Yellowstone hereby requests that a Reasonable Accommodation be made to Ordinance 2008 -5 such that Yellowstone is treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Reasonable Accommodation is necessary because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility. Instead, the Property more accurately fits the definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit as the term is defined in Section 20.03.030. Residents are the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit. Like a Single Housekeeping Unit, there is a common area and each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, and chores. There is no individual treatment, group treatment, or group therapy sessions that occur on the Property. The sole purpose of each resident living on the Property is to live in a house with other sober individuals with similar disabilities. Also, the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager. In conformity with our request for a Reasonable Accommodation, we would like to request that we get an exemption from Section 20.91A. 050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which states that there shall be no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. I hope that this clarifies any ambiguity with respect to our previous request for a Reasonable Accommodation. Please let me know if our responses need to be supplemented further and as always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZPATY a professional corporation �l cs�a NICOLE COHRS cc: Yellowstone (attn: Dr. Anna Marie Thames) YS 01069 Q�FFIIIIINY 040 i'�j;TXJU 1. The metlersBtatedba notml wmWmcpm m$UymdifrWledq=W tcs*, Toouldaad would yteatil�+tbecato as foUovs 2. All iudividttala rceidiog iu dwproparty loceted at 20172 Ruila tds in Newport Beech 9M raoovamg from almW addicbm 3- A1lhoughthe teadceeeacenwverum &thay=mmfmphyaicalead syorptoUM of&=adfi%an which sabsmndslly limit am or more of *c reddeam megor life ac" as I dwJuc.mderpmWW OfpwJmy trader the lairs o£the 3me of Cgifoa k Ibe the ffiregaing is U= andom=t. EK=U d Chia 28th &Waf.Icmmry 2009, at Nawpott Heath. Cakf ma.. . YS 01070 DAVIS•ZFATY l a40rFetr:rv:.l :AN• w.. rtiOV111 i`.� January 29, 2009 VIA FIRST CLASS MAI Ms. Janet Brown CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 FEB O 2 2009 Re: .4fdavits for Fee Waiver Reasonable Accommodation Dear Janet: Enclosed are the signed Affidavits of Disability Related Financial Hardship. There is a separate Affidavit for each of the four Yellowstone properties. As we discussed, our responses to the questions relating to the income of the residents pre and post - disability are based on the average resident for each of the homes. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY NICOLE COHRS Enclosure 580 13roddway S11, Oct, Suite 301 U19011d Bench, CA 92651 94(1.376.281-8 - fa 1)4`).'174. iS7j nfoC'dzatto,revs . com . n.al•,;;.dzattorne�s.rnr.i YS 01071 AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP 20172 Redlands, Newport Beach I, Anna Marie Thames, declare: I am an authorized representative of disabled individuals; 2. I am submitting information specific to the financial status of a group of disabled individuals who reside in a household; 3. I am submitting the financial information herein voluntarily because I have requested a reasonable accommodation from the City of Newport Beach, which I believe is necessary because of financial hardship to the disabled individuals I represent; 4. Severe financial constraints which arose as a direct result of the disabled individuals I represent prevent them from complying with one or more provision or provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures generally applicable to the type of dwelling in which disabled persons I represent reside or wish to reside; 5. Such provisions of the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, Council Policies or usual and customary procedures, if applied to the dwelling in which the disabled individuals I represent reside, will deprive disabled individuals of the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice; 6. In order to afford the disabled individuals the opportunity to reside in the dwelling of his or her choice, the permanent or temporary waiver of a fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Council Policy or customary procedure is necessary; 7. The requested waiving of such fee, tax, nuisance abatement, code enforcement action, repair, zoning, building construction or other requirement is necessary because of financial limitations which are the direct result of the disability of the individuals that I represent; -1- AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 01072 8. If the disabled individual on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested was able to work prior to becoming disabled, please provide information on such individual's pre- and post disability income: A. On the following dates, the disability of the persons I represent, rendered such persons severely limited in their ability to work or entirely unable to work: The individuals residing in the home were all affected by their disability at different times. During addiction, residents are unable to work. In sober living, however, all residents must find a job. B. Prior to the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual household income from all sources was approximately $50,000 (on average). C. After the dates on which such disability rendered the disabled individuals I represent unable or severely limited in their ability to work, their annual income from all sources was approximately $20,000 (on average). Typically, household income is cut approximately in half because of alcoholism. As a result of alcoholism, the residents of the home have been rendered financially disabled. In sober living, the residents must find a job, however, the jobs the residents seeks are near minimum wage ($8.00 per hour). 9. If the disabled individuals on whose behalf a financial reasonable accommodation is requested were not employed prior to becoming disabled, please state why any financial limitations which render the disabled individuals unable to meet the financial requirements of complying with the Newport Beach Municipal Code are a direct result of such their disability. All residents were employed in some manner prior to their addiction. 10. Please provide any additional information you feel would enable City staff and/or hearing officers to determine whether disability- related financial hardship requires an exception form the application of the City's Municipal Code, Council Policies, or usual and customary procedures in order to afford the disabled individuals an opportunity to reside in a dwelling. The residents cannot afford their own places to live. Their income is based on near minimum wage hourly rates. Thus, if forced to live elsewhere they could not afford to pay rent, a security deposit for an apartment, food, or utilities. Yellowstone provides a fresh start for recovering alcoholics to begin their life with a clean slate. Our fees our low and donors in the community provide individual scholarships for residents who qualify. 2 AFFIDAVIT OF DISABILITY - RELATED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YS 01073 JAN-28-2009 00 06',39 PH DAVIS RAYBIM ape FAX ND. 949 316 3811 P. it Yelknvstune is a non pooh orpui=fiou. Yellowstone �w no investom and no laims. The organization uses the income fiam residains to cover its costs 1-o- - 1- — sident . and YcUowstonc makes no profit *orn the rr, ts T�.. gunl=aon, 1 w1 de-c" de .7 penall., r fore-going is uut and corrcorrect --- P-3 W Executed an this 20 day of Januar•, 2009, inNewpor Beak California. -3- AFFIDAVIT OF DISABUZrY RELATED YS 01074 COST ANALYSIS OF OUR HOMES IN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS IN GENERAL, OUR WEEKLY FEES ARE BASED ON A SLIDING SCALE FROM $50.00 TO $160 PER WEEK OUR MORTGAGES AVERAGE $4500 PER MONTH A MINIMUM OF 15 RESIDENTS IS NEEDED TO PAY ALL THE EXPENSES FOR EACH HOUSE, INCLUDING LIGHTS, GAS, WATER AND TRASH. RENTS: SLIDING SCALE: $50.00 TO $160.00 PER WEEK AVERAGE: RESIDENTS: 16 AVERAGE RENT MONTHLY AVERAGE: EXPENSES: FOR EACH HOUSE AVERAGE UTILITIES FOOD: MORTGAGES: AVERAGE MONTHLY AVERAGE $100 $6400 INCOME $ 800 LIGHTS, GAS, WATER, PHONE $ 900 $4500 $6200 EXPENSES RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 05 2005 YS 01075 CITY OF NEWPORT REACH Drug Rehab Cost: Low cost subtance abuse treatment center: Yellowstone Recovery SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT CENTER Call Today (888) 941 -9048 - After Hours (949) 678 -9000 It'rtr.f ...i. i... _':Icy ., 27•:a F -'CO:. nF,Y t pv"i woim'i: d. w, m,,-N Nome InPatiam Programs LEGAL PROBLEMS? WE CAN HELP! outpatient P,ag,ems -- UCENSED AND MIMED BY TNESTATEDFCAUFORNDI Defog Services Programs Avg table Our NPTEa our start YTT. YIl:ne'5;aae Reeevery Fin;;orri? t?e, "- re!iE:nts Mission Slslemem is 80 Days: $7,500 Residential Treatment Schedule a Sober Living; 8100 • $180 Per weak contact Us a outpatient: Sliding Scale $AO - $80 Some scholarships available after 30 days " "I - _v lnOdagalameawehan.cam ® a Re ina Age. m 2112109 10:07 PM (20oc. Liaiso'i • I.. ?. Stop Recovery - Counseling Arc "'harapy Ciro: Skills Traininl: , jqn Piammorrl P,ogram Spki!*nts Ieylnw, 101, t 1.. so li :. i{ TI1y' iYJ yQ Rf �• r�1t tl l - ''t'Im7'� YS 01076 http : / /www.yellmstonereCoVery.com/ cost - fees - drugrehab- alcohoIrmatmentc enter- calif,rnia.litm Page 1 of 1 Exhibit No. 9 Applicant's E -mail dated January 28, 2009 YS 01077 Brown, Janet From: Nicole Cohn; [nc@dzattorneys.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:11 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: Yellowstone -- all hearings in one day Thank goodness! I was worried about it since the deadline was yesterday. And yes, it is amazing when these things suddenly pop into my head at night. Here are the answers to your questions: 1. The number of beds in each home is as follows: 1561 Indus =12 1621 Indus = 18 Redlands =17 Pegasus =18 1 apologize for the discrepancy. 2. The number of beds in each home exceeds the number permitted by the Code: 1561 Indus (Code = 11 max) Actual = 12 1621 Indus (Code = 13 max) Actual =18 Redlands (Code = 13 max) Actual =17 Pegasus (Code = 13 max) Actual =18 As you can see, we plan to exceed the number specified by the Code in all four homes. The Code states that a Hearing Officer may set different occupancy limits based on structure characteristics, traffic and parking impacts, and the health, safety, and welfare of the persons residing in the facility and neighborhood. All four of the homes have fire clearance. Obtaining fire clearance takes into account the above - listed factors which are to be considered by the Hearing Officer in increasing the number of beds. According to the City Fire Dept., the homes all meet the standards for fire clearance. We think that this is more than sufficient. Let me know if you need more detail. 3. 1 spoke to Honey Thames and the architect this morning. I am waiting for a response from her as to when the revised plans will be sent to you. I know that she already contacted the architect about this last week. I will let you know as soon as 1 hear from her. Thanks. Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: ncgbdzattornevs.com Web: www.dzafterneys.com YS 01078 This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and is protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, that you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached."' DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828, Fax 949.376.3875 From: Brown, Janet [ mailto: JBrown @city.newport- beach.ca,us] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:06 AM To: Nicole Cohrs Subject: RE: Yellowstone -- all hearings in one day Importance: High It arrived in yesterday's mail. Thank you. (Amazing what we think of at night, hm.) I am meeting with the contract planners who are working on the staff reports this morning at 10:00 a.m -, and I do have a few other questions for you. 1. In the January 21 st letter, we requested clarification as to number of resident beds in each dwelling, as there was a discrepancy on the floor plans vs. the written summary on the plans. When may we expect this information? 2. If the number of beds exceeds the number allowed by Code, as outlined in the 1/21 letter, a justification statement must be submitted. Has that been prepared? 3. When might we expect revised site plans providing the additional information requested in the 1/21 letter? The information requested in the January 21st letter is necessary for us to fully analyze the applications, and prepare the staff report. Given that we are running up against the deadline for obtaining a use permit, we need this information as soon as possible. Thank you. Janet Johnson Brown Associate Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 jbrown @city. newport- beach. ca. us From: Nicole Cohrs [mailto:nc @dzattomeys.com) Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:46 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: Yellowstone -- all hearings in one day Hi Janet, I was thinking about this last night... I just wanted to make sure that you got my letter expressing that we want all 3 issues to be heard on February 12. YS 01079 Did you get that letter? I sent it last week. Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: ncandzattomeys.com Web: www.dzattomeys.com This communication. including any attachments, is confidential and is protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, that you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached."` DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828, Fax 949.376.3875 YS 01080 Exhibit No. 10 Applicant's Additional Correspondence dated February 13, 2009 YS 01081 Wolcott, Cathy From: Nicole Cohrs [nc @dzattorneys.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:55 PM To: Wolcott, Cathy Cc: Brown, Janet Subject: RE. Reasonable accommodation #2 - necessity clarification Yes Cathy, all of that is correct. Thank you. I am concerned by my conversation with you this afternoon. If you know of any other inconsistencies please let me know. I don't want to present an unclear report. I want to make sure that Yellowstone's answers are clear. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at all. I assure you that I will get the appropriate responses for you ASAP. I am in the office until 3 today, at which point I will be heading to the hearing scheduled at 4pm. If you need to talk to me at any other time my cell is Thanks again. Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: nc(a.dzattomeys.com Web: www.dzattorneys.com irduding :ally al{Elchnlenis s co!ui:#;nlita am! is l'ro eoted by p iv ale. If w.;u roe not lbe. !1 t.__ 1 „d -es ip k nt -n, 1;>e. (. >s #;1111! rltr n; distrihutioll of copyilt) of this CL`rIHnull I$ sinOly prollibiled If you hMll lne.' =Pv ; =i in : n', pleas, nmeuiatety notify iho sender by telepholie or e- voail, and lvernlanently d.alAe all cx pics, rlei:rron : or other, that yoke nlay have. The fofi nydnrf epplies mien if this nonce is embedded ul rl rnossane tflat is for:har,lad cr atta(jlud:=` UAVIS ZFATY a protessional corponation 580 Broadway Av+emle, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.28213, Fax 949.3713.38'15 From: Wolcott, Cathy [ mailto: CWolcott @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:20 PM To: Nicole Cohrs Cc: Brown, Janet Subject: Reasonable accommodation #2 - necessity clarification Hi Nicole, As we discussed on the phone this afternoon, I am writing to obtain further clarification of Yellowstone Recovery's request for reasonable accommodation. Specifically, Yellowstone has requested an exemption from the standards of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NSMC) Section 20.91A.050, which states that there shall be no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident in residential care facilities granted a use permit under NBMC Section 20.91A.040. However, there has been no formal explanation of the necessity of this exemption. In order to complete staffs analysis, by phone 1 requested that Yellowstone furnish the City with their explanation of why this accommodation is necessary to afford a disabled individual or individuals the opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling of their choice. 1 YS 01082 You supplied explanations for the necessity of this accommodation for current residents, and prospective residents. 1) Current residents at Yellowstone facilities in excess of numbers allowed under NBMC 20.91A.050 —You stated that current residents in excess of numbers specified in the NBMC's operating standards would be displaced if a use permit were granted for a lesser amount of residents. Because of financial constraints related to the disability of the residents, you stated they would be unable to afford rent in another dwelling and would have nowhere to live, and therefore an exemption from the occupancy limits of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 is necessary. 2) Prospective residents at Yellowstone facilities in excess of numbers allowed under NBMC 20.91A.050 — You stated that prospective residents of Yellowstone facilities have financial constraints related to their disability, and would be unable to afford a dwelling if the Yellowstone facility is unavailable to them because of the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050. Therefore, an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 is necessary to provide housing to these prospective residents as well. In addition, you4,clarified two inconsistencies among the various Yellowstone submissions. You stated that in May, 2008, when the original Yellowstone use permit and reasonable accommodation applications were submitted, four cars were permitted at 1561 Indus. There has been a change of policy at Yellowstone since that dale, and at this time no resident is permitted use personal vehicles, to have personal vehicles onsite, or park personal vehicles in the neighborhood (with the exception of the two resident managers per site; who are allowed vehicles which are parked onsite.) You also stated, consistent with the applicant's previous submissions, that there are no meetings held onsite at any of the Yellowstone facilities in Newport Beach. All meetings are held at Yellowstone's Costa Mesa facility, and letters from Yellowstone alumnae that reference visiting Yellowstone are referring to the meetings at the Costa Mesa facility. Please confirm the above, and feel free to provide further clarification if needed Thank you, Catherine Wolcott Deputy City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 cwplcott city .new oorr-b_each_ca.us Phone(949)644 -3131 Facsimile(949)644 -3139 YS 01083 Brown, Janet From: Nicole Cohrs [nc@dzattomeys.comj Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:40 AM To: Brown, Janet; Wolcott, Cathy Subject: Clarification Correspondence Attachments: D0C001.PDF Hello Cathy and Janet, I was recently informed that the City is concerned about a few inconsistencies between Yellowstone's early submittals to the City (back in May 2008) and our more recently submittals. The attached letter will hopefully clarify some of the City's concerns. A hard copy is being sent in the mail today, however I wanted you to have a PDF version so that you could include this information in your reports. Regards, Nicole Cohrs, Esq. DAVIS ZFATY APC Attorneys at Law 580 Broadway, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 Email: nc(&dzattornevs.com Web: www.dzattorneys.com This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and is protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, that you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached. * ** DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation 580 Broadway Avenue, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828, Fax 949.376.3875 - - - -- Original Message-- - From: xerox @dzattorneys.com [mailto:xerox @dzattorneys.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:31 AM To: Nicole Cohrs Subject: Scan from a Xerox WorkCentre YS 01084 DAVIS•ZFATY ♦ RROI (SSIONA�tIW (p RpORAIION February 13, 2009 VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 BY PIANNIN'-� nFPA WW ♦.�1rt FEB (11Tr 01 Re: Yellowstone Use Permit Applications and Reasonable Accommodation Requests Dear Ms. Wolcott and Ms. Brown: It has recently come to my attention there may be discrepancies between materials Yellowstone submitted with respect to its use permit applications and requests for reasonable accommodation for each of the four Yellowstone properties. Although this firm and the representatives of Yellowstone have made our best efforts to be clear and consistent, the materials submitted to the City in May 2008 reflect some inaccurate information. The purpose of this correspondence is to clarify these inconsistencies. Group Meetings Neither group treatment meetings nor individual treatment meetings occur on any of the four Yellowstone properties. All treatment is performed off site in Costa Mesa. The only meetings that occur at each of the four homes are weekly house meetings with the residents to discuss potential new residents and other administrative matters. Visitors Visitation with family and friends occurs on Sundays at Yellowstone's Costa Mesa facility located at 154 East Bay Street. 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.376.2828 • Fax 949.376.3875 infoCdzattorneys.com • wwwAzattorneys.com YS 01085 Ms. Cathy Wolcott Ms. Janet Brown February I3, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Contractual Arrangements with Residents and Resident Selection In May 2008, Yellowstone submitted a request for reasonable accommodation that each of the four homes be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. It was recently brought to my attention that Yellowstone's response to Question 16, regarding resident interaction, needs clarification. Yellowstone does not have a contractual relationship with the residents of its properties. With respect to the residents of the four Yellowstone homes in Santa Ana Heights, Yellowstone's position is correctly stated in a letter to the City dated January 29, 2009: "the makeup of the Property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager." More specifically, Yellowstone's Board of Directors does not determine who resides in each of the four homes. New residents are introduced and approved by the current residents during house meetings or they are not accepted. Many of Yellowstone's residents transition to sober living directly from treatment. Other residents learn about Yellowstone from other recovery centers or by community referral. Parking In May 2008, when the original Yellowstone use permit and reasonable accommodation applications were submitted to the City, Yellowstone requested that four cars be permitted to park at the 1561 Indus property. There is adequate room for four cars to park at 1561 Indus, however only the two resident managers for the home park on site. With respect to the three other Yellowstone properties, it has consistently been Yellowstone's position that only the two resident managers of the homes are allowed to park vehicles on site. I hope that this clarifies the ambiguities in our previous submissions to the City. As always, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, DAVIS ZFATY a professional corporation / / L %i� NICOLE COHRS, ESQ. YS 01086 Exhibit No. 11 Additional Letters of Opposition Received After February 13, 2009 YS 01087 Brown, Janet From: Jeff Dangl (Jeff. Dangl@advisys.com) Sent: Thursday, February 19, 200910:23 AM To: DKiff@city- newport- beach.ca.us; JSrown@city- newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Yellowstone Homes (No morel) Greetings Janet Brown and Dave Kiff, I am a resident of the Santa Ana Heights area west of Irvine Ave, which was recently annexed into the city of Newport Beach. My wife and I (and 3 children) have lived in the area since 1995. We are active in the community and enjoy the bond and unity we have with other families who also live in this area. Aside from the noise we get from planes taking off out of John Wayne airport, I feel we have a great and safe environment for our family to live, grow and take part in. Becoming a part of Newport Beach has also affected us positively as we have received "here's what's up" newsletters from the city, additional police patrols, code enforcement, etc. My concern right now deals with the number of permits that have been issued for the use of halfway houses (and alcohol/ drug rehabilitation homes) by Yellowstone Homes. While I do not necessarily have anything against these residents and believe that they should be afforded the same rights to a comfortable life I enjoy, I feel that these residents do not necessarily have the same level concern for the welfare and wellbeing of the neighborhood as do families who are permanent residents. Overlhg.past several years, as homes have been sold, it seems like more and more are being purchased by Yellowstone Homes rather than to families because Yellowstone Homes is able to offer more money than families knowing that they will receive`furtding and assistance from the state. I believe that the number of these halfway houses has now adversely affected our neighborhood as we have seen a decrease in house upkeep and an increase in parked cars along our streets. I am not sure how many Yellowstone Homes are in my neighborhood, but it seems like the ration of their homes to homes owned by families is out of skew. Please do not approve any more permits to Yellowstone Homes. Thanks for your attention to this matter, /Jeff Dangl 20081 Kline Drive, Newport Beach Advisys, Inc. (formerly known as Kettley) is a leading financial services technology company providing solutions to 65,000 professional advisors nationwide. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Advisys, Inc. (formerly known as Kettley) is a leading financial services technology company providing solutions to 65,000 professional advisors nationwide. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and /or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. YS 01088 Brown, Janet From: George Robertson [g_robertson @roadrunner.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:12 AM To: Brown, Janet Cc: patrbrtson @aol.com Subject: Public comments re: Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. Dear Ms. Brown, Please enter these comments to the public record regarding the application of Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. to operate four unlicensed adult residential care facilities within the West Santa Ana Heights neighborhood.. My primary concern are the inaccuracies contained in the city staff reports that I reviewed. However, please note that due to the lateness of the city's posting of these reports (Tuesday, February 17, 2009 after 4:30 pm) and the fact that two of the links to the reports did not work until sometime late Wednesday, February 18, 2009,1 was only able to review two reports completely and one cursorily. Besides the inconsistencies contained in reports, that city staff has pointed out, I have a few comments regarding the accuracy of the reports. However, the scope of the comments below are not complete as my review of the staff reports was hurried and incomplete due to the reasons cited above. Initial comments are: (1) Parks a. The staff report on 1561 Indus Street (and by extension all other reports) states that there are no public parks located within the neighborhood. This is in fact a wrong statement. There is a neighborhood park located at the terminus of Orchard Drive, that was in place well before Yellowstone began operations in this neighborhood. This park is located within about 750 feet of the proposed facility at 20172 Redlands Drive. I would ask that the city review its decisions on all of the applications using this information. (2) House size and Number of bed rooms a. The staff reports states square footage of each house as one of the reasons to allow an exemption in the maximum number of residents allowed. However, the stated square footage, which I have to I assume was provided by the applicant, were considerably over exaggerated. I have the original builder's materials on the "Sherwood Estates" development and, as built, house sizes were either 2,650 sq. ft. or 2,585 sq. ft. The implications is that for the houses at 1621 Indus Street and 1571 Pegasus Street, the application is off by almost 25 %; 1 have to assume that this percentage also applies to the proposed house at 1621 Indus.. For the house located at 20172 Redlands Drive the excess square footage is almost 15 %. b. None of these houses, as built were larger than five bedrooms, yet two of the applications state that they have six bedrooms. I know that the house located at 20172 Redlands had some internal modifications done, at the time without a county building permit, but this house as built only had four bedrooms. C. The staff reports contain a stipulation on having the city's Fire Marshall review, which 1 support. In addition I would ask that the city also send a building inspector to verify (a) square footage; (b) number of bedrooms; and (c) whether any structural modifications, such as the addition of new bedrooms, are legal additions. (3) "Characteristics of use/Treatment The report states that the applicant does not allow residents on any other Yellowstone property. However, this statement is negated by personal observations of residents from at least three of the four residences co- mingling at each other's residences. I have seen women from the Pegasus house walk up to Redlands, and on one occasion observed several women leave the Redlands house early in the morning before 7 a.m., ; implication is that they spent the night. I often see residences from the YS 01089 Redlands house walk up to the house at 1621 Indus. Additionally on at least two occasions 1 have seen large groups walk up to the house on 1621 Indus mid -week, mid - morning. The assumption being made is that there are large group functions (treatments?) being held onsite. (4) Transportation and Parking a. Despite all of the inconsistencies contained in the staff report table, my biggest concern are the assertions that (a) transportation is not provided; and (b) that residents to not allowed to have cars. My personnel observations are: (a) that Yellowstone operates two large capacity vans on a routine basis. Over the years I have seen these vans pick up and drop off residents at both the men's and women's residences, in particular 1561 Indus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive. These vans (one of which has "VANPOOL" stenciled on the windows) have lately been parked each night in the neighborhood, typically alongside 20172 Redlands Drive near the intersection of Redlands Drive and Pegasus Street. Additionally I have observed private vehicles pick -up and drop off multiple residents at 20172 Redlands. These facts on the ground seem to contradict statements made by the applicant b. Manger parking. I have never seen any cars parked inside the garage of any of the four residences. Two cars I commonly see parked in the driveway are at 1561. One of these leaves each day before 7 am. So I am not sure that this is a managers vehicle or a residents vehicle who is leaving for work. (5) Smoking a. The staff report states that no complaints have been made regarding second hand smoke and that smoking is limited to the backyard patios. Again I have personally observed individuals (residents or guests I can't say) smoke in the front yards. Additionally, a walk along these houses will show cigarette butts in the gutters and driveways of these houses; I recently observed this at 1621 Indus on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 and at 20172 Redlands on Thursday, February 19, 2009. b. I was completely unaware until I read the staff report that there was a restriction on second hand smoke until I read the staff report. I would suggest that the lack of complaints cited in the staff report is an artifact of the neighbors not knowing that this was a legitimate issue that could be raised to the citys attention. I have personally detected second hand smoke outside the property, so I believe that the findings made regarding Section 20.91A.060A is wrong. (6) Approval selection process After reading the three staff reports, I was not able to determine why one facility was selected for approval over another. A comparison table would have been informative. In fact, the house at 20172 Redlands, which city staff has recommended be approved, is probably one of the more problematic houses with the most issues, vanpools, private car use, smoking, noise, litter, excessive trash. How did this house get selected over another? Availability of street parking? In closing I request that the city deny all of these application due to the inconsistencies and contradictions contained in the applications, as reflected in the staff report. I lieu of that decision, I request that, prior to any approvals being granted by the city, that staff verify the issues contained in #2 above, be more transparent on the decision process (ft6), provide sufficient time for the public to review all relevant documents, and get more public input before any final decisions are made. Additionally, I suggest to city staff that if the applicant is unaware of the facts -on -the ground (e.g., vanpools, residents co- mingling, use of private cars) that contradict statements made by the applicant as reflected in the staff report, that there is a disconnect between the on -site residence managers and the applicant; another issue for the city to clarify and rectify prior to any approvals. Finally, for any approvals granted, I ask that the city add a condition that the applicant provide all of the neighbors with a common set of "house" rules that is updated as changes are made. Finally I ask that the city provide the neighbors a method of reporting violations of these rules and a description of the city's actions would be under such instances. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Regards, George and Patricia Robertson YS 01090 Brown, Janet From: berry walker [bwarch.biz@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 20091:51 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: Yellowstone Sue Permits Attachments: Yellowstone Use Perrnits.rtf Janet - Attached letter responding to the Use Permit Hearing notice They did not have a meeting at the Redlands house last week and have not for about 3 weeks, but when they do, the meetings seem to start about 6:00 and breakup in about 90 mins. Not real sure because we did not specifically watch for them, but they have held meetings there that seemed to draw about a dozen cars. Thanks Barry YS 01091 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA. Attn: Janet Brown Sy RMNIN- OFOORTNIENT FEB 17 2009 CITY OF 0,0PT BEACH February 17, 2009 This letter is in response to the Use Permit Hearing notification for the Group Residential Use Permits that have been applied for by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. for 1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive. My primary objection to these use permit requests is the substantial increase in density that this represents for this neighborhood and the associated problems that come with a higher density usage than was originally planned for. The use permits request permission to raise the density from the original design of a probable max of 6 per household to 18 (plus supervision ?) per household. Although this request is for four houses, the neighborhood has an additional rehab house (and possibly two as a previous rehab house has recently changed hands and the new owner has not moved in yet), all within a 350' radius. This means that 6 houses out of 36 are involved with the rehab industry and that the possible population of the area increases from 216 to 282, a 30% increase in density. The reality is that this is an older neighborhood (most are empty nest at this point), and the average is probably more likely 2.5 — 3.0 people per household. That makes the number more like 108 residents and with the addition of the rehab houses, the population increases to 216, a 100% increase in the population density in this specific case. The increase in density has many environmental effects on the neighborhood. When these homes were planned, the target household was for a family unit of 5 -6 with 5 bedrooms and 3 baths (the typical floor plan, encompassing about 2400 square feet) and a two car garage. The water supply and sanitary sewer were probably sized for the number of uses that 6 people would generate. As you can imagine, the systems will be over -used with a household of 18 people and. we can anticipate system problems with an over - stressed older infrastructure. Parking will become a worse problem with the addition of more cars since the houses only have 2 off - street parking spaces at most (the garages are filled with "stuff' and not used for parking). When the house at 20172 has meetings (previously every Tuesday at about 6:00 pm.) both sides of two streets were lined with cars, passage was more difficult. Waste generation per house is substantially increased with several of the houses putting out 4 overflowing 90 gal. trash cans each week — with 18 people, I can only imagine the trash generation and disposal situation — 12 trash cans? Smoking, though not regulated as an outside activity, still creates its own problems as we are constantly picking up cigarette butts from our yards, driveways and gutters. Late night / early morning traffic as group home residents who do not drive are picked up and dropped off or just sitting in the car in the street as people talk — not a big deal with regular density, but with a doubling of the density, it just happens more often and becomes an irritant. Lastly, when Yellowstone moved in, they did nothing to start a dialogue, like "here is the phone number of our customer service if there is problem we should address" which did nothing to get Yellowstone off to a good start and so we have no reason to believe they will be a good neighbor if these use permits are approved. Sincerely, Barry Walker 1571 Indus Street YS 01092 February 16, 2009 RECE VV 1A Newport Beach Planning Department } IWO Newport Beach City Hall �y 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 T Regarding; Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc application for Group Home Use permits to operate commercial business in a residential neighborhood. Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. has been operating the above business for several years before West Santa Ana Heights was annexed into Newport Beach. To my knowledge these are unlicensed businesses and as such have changed the complexion and nature of our community. Yellowstone wishes to increase the number of clients and staff at these facilities. Based on the figures given by Yellowstone, 12 clients at 1561 Indus Street, 18 clients each at 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street, and 20172 Redlands Drive this is a total of 66 paying customers at any given time. The application does not include live -on site staff, which I assume would be required to maintain the enterprise. Assuming staff would not share a room with clients the dorm style rooms would have to sleep 4 and each of the 3 bathrooms per property would have to accommodate between 5 and 6 individuals. With the rapid turnover this represents several hundred clients per year. Basically, these are transient hotels without the controls placed on other similar businesses. These homes were not designed or intended for this requested use. If Yellowstone is granted the requested use permits and allowed to operate these businesses in this neighborhood, is the Planning Department willing to grant all other requests to operate business in our residential neighborhood? Newport Beach does not permit a homeowner to conduct weekly garage sale on their property because it is a business. Could another investment group purchase a home and set up a massage therapy parlor? I doubt it. Zoning is intended to maintain balance and community structure. Commercial, industrial, and residential neighborhoods are all important to maintain a strong city. Disregarding the zoning plans of a community and combining the different uses will impact property values, destroy the nature of family neighborhoods, and set a precedence that could negatively impact all concerned. For these reasons it is requested the applications related to these residences, to be operated as for profit businesses, be denied. Respectfully Submits Michael McDonough Connie McDonough 1562 Pegasus Street (Newport Beach) Santa Ana Heights, Ca. 92707 YS 01093 1 YS 01094 4 �. ♦t i 4 0.. �,. �,,.. .. s "�. 0 io ol L, m Q be l I-:� 53 a> a v++ ' 7W I iU" � a 3 c t '-iI p . Uri � T i 7 zy'v ss . .v 1i ��y���F���!iy i :,r �. d Y ...a -, ryi �F�.•... H a 3 0 R YS 01098 CODE) ■ f7 rl A }\ 3 i. �:' ;3 �t, µ ): ` t, -,� - f -� p � !: � - - a , �, � "T� ���k� �e �( ✓� J � ! � `�"� $� � v c i�- y-r a � y2 t "i �..: ry E x � } . � A� @�c'�tSr� � �� ib � � � � � ; ~ 1 � S lR` ��y N -� � i � � { i -Y TO: Janet Johnson Brown, Planner City of Newport Beach CA FROM: Judy Hoyer Walker 1571 Indus St Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 DATE: FEB. 17, 2009 M+IVIN^ OFpu gy FEB 17 2ft SUBJECT: Comments on the City's Consideration of Special Use Permits for the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. I am a property owner at the above listed address and have resided at this property for over 20 years. The potential of ever increasing population density to my neighborhood is most disturbing. In the posted application for Use Permits by Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. I was overwhelmed by the proposed occupancy levels of these 4 properties. Three of the properties were listed as requesting occupancy for 16 "clients' and the fourth was listed for 12 "clients ". Many flags went up when I read this. 1) No mention is made of what additional "non - client" or supervisor personnel will also be residing in these dwellings. Personally I would not want to have these "clients° unsupervised. In my experience with these facilities thus far even with supervision the "client" behavior and activity is not within what I think or as residential, good neighbor, behavior. I would ask that the city have the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. group provide specific staffing / supervisory information as part of this permit review. And that residence is informed of what those staffing proposals are. 2) Even considering the occupancy density without knowing what additional headcount staff/supervisory personnel may add, I am very concerned. I will acknowledge that the dwellings in this neighborhood are large. Built in the early 60's they were intended for families (as stated in marketing materials from the original sale of the development). At five bedrooms one could see that a family unit of 6 would have been comfortable, and that the dwelling could potentially have had 10 individuals. But in reality the general large family unit in the 60's would have been in the 5 to 7 range. You can do some mathematical weighting and estimate that the original neighborhood occupancy was 5.2 persons per dwelling. So if we look at the requested occupancy density we're looking at dwellings have 2.3 to 3.1 times the occupancy of a family neighborhood! And this is without staff /supervisor numbers being included. Given the fact that 40 years later the average Orange YS 01101 County nuclear family is lower than 40 years ago any comparison we do to the weighted occupancy number from 1960's is even greater. 3) So now we're looking at a somewhat physically dosed neighborhood (due to street layouts being closed to through traffic) we're looking at an effect of adding the equivalent of 8 additional housesl a. 4 dwellings contributing an excess of 40+ individuals: 60 requested clients in 4 dwellings, less the expected occupancy of 21, based on weighted occupancy rate. 40 excess divided by the weighted occupancy of 5.2 is 8 additional dwellings. b. There just isn't physical room for 8 additional dwellings. And there is another factor that the proposed increased density to the neighborhood is not evenly distributed throughout the existing homes. There is a concentration to about half of the neighborhood. Is it reasonable that a burden such as this be so unevenly distributed? 4) Such very large increase on occupancy to individual properties gives me concern on many topics a. Infrastructure ......... specifically sewers and storm drains. The sewer and storm drain systems for this neighborhood were designed 40+ years ago. In my 20+ years of residency backups have been an issue. I suppose that I am overly sensitive due to the fact that my property is the lowest point for a portion of this development We have experienced backups into our home due to the failure of the street system. Increasing occupancy density 3x is a frightening proposal. What has/will the city do to help mitigate the impact for an occupancy rate well over the imagined occupancy level at time of systems design? b. Traffic and parking......... While the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. group may tell the city that "clients" are not allowed to have vehicles during residency I would ask if they intend to make it a condition of employment for staff /supervisors to not have vehicles? Additionally I would ask if the city has reviewed what policies are in place now for "clients°. During the months that the facility next to my home has been in operation I have had "clients" park in front of my property rather than in the empty driveway of the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc.> facility. When I asked if the vehicle could be moved from in front of my property to somewhere within the parameters of the property of the facility, I was told "It isn't that simple". So what are the guidelines that this group is giving that dissuades its client's from using the facilities that it owns? Why is burden being shifted to the neighborhood? And parking is not the only concern. With so many residences the general level of vehicles coming and going is higher now than prior to the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. purchasing the properties. I can specifically speak to the property next to me. There are vehicles coming and going, doing drop offs, or "visitor" standing or parking, and the YS 01102 duration of this activity goes from very early in the morning (5 am) to very late at night (past 11 pm and sometimes well past midnight). And then there are the weekly evening meetings that are held at some of these facilities. While occasionally residences of the neighborhood may have a gathering, party or club meeting, these are not routine. The parking impact to the surrounding street of the meeting house is significant. c. Trash and refuse ........... I must question the city as to what would be considered reasonable for containment of refuse from one -3000 sq. ft. dwelling that houses 16+ individuals? I haven't done the math as to how many trash receptacles will physically fit along the curb of these lots, but I invite the city to make such calculations. 1 would venture to say that the number would not be sufficient to manage the number of proposed "clients° and staff /supervisors. While the sheer number of receptacles is only a physical issue on trash collection day, my concern arises from the condition of the receptacles between collections. To date the receptacles placed at the curb at the addresses covered by this application have been in overflowing conditions. Items and plastic bags are readily exposed to the exterior of the container. It is important to keep in mind the physical location of this neighborhood. The boundaries of this area on two sides have large open unpopulated space (two golf courses), and part of the area is bounded by a drainage channel. All of these areas are habitats to wildlife. Having uncontained refuse is an invitation to unwanted wildlife which is known to be attracted by rubbish, such as possums and raccoons. Even vector control directs full containment of refuse as a necessary deterrent to raccoon infestation. I ask that the city look hard at this component of allowing such dense occupancy of a dwelling, and ask that Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. provide detailed policies and procedures for dealing with this aspect of their facilities. I have outlined those areas that can be spoken of in specific terms. My last area and one of the largest is how all of these factors compound together to change the character of what I purchased into...... a residential neighborhood. purchased in the area because of the size of the property. And l fully expected to have families that were larger in number than if the dwellings were smaller. What is concerning to me is the change in the feel of the area. The "clients" of Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. are not in the property expecting to become a part of this community. They are temporary. Their attitude and behavior reflects this on an ongoing basis. Since Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. opened business in the property next to mine I now have more general debris in my yard; cellophane wrappers, plastic cup lids, cigarette butts. This is a change since the change of ownership. And it isn't just the difference of having a homeowner next door vs. a business. The former owner rented rooms, but she held her renters to strict rules and those included being respectful of the property and neighborhood. The property on my other boundary likewise is a 3 YS 01103 Policies and procedures to ensure the temporary residents exhibit a demeanor that is respectful of the permanent residence should be strongly considered. Density of inhabitants should not be substantially different from the surrounding non - facility dwellings. Impact to infrastructure of the neighborhood has to be carefully studied. While much of what I would like to see put in place falls to the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. as proprietors of the business, I also feel that it is the responsibility of the city to include provisions for review, monitoring, and reporting, on a routine basis, those conditions and stipulations established and defined by any use permit that might be granted. Thank you for the consideration of my concerns. 5 YS 01104 rental with young adult children who have normal active lives. They too respect the neighborhood and treat it as if they were owners. I find it is the "small" things that give a good indication of how a neighbor respects the others they are sharing the space with. I am always amazed that the facility next to me feels it totally acceptable to place their trash cans, not in front of their property, but instead in front of the property next to them. While they may try and cover this with some statement that it is less maneuvering the trash truck needs to make, they seem to overlook the fact that they are blocking a fire hydrant. This is a safety issue for the residences of the street. Parking and standing vehicles across a neighbors drive. It's not an inconvenience to them just for the people who consider this as their home. When asked to do what is polite or common sense the first response I generally get is something to the effect that the action I am asking to change isn't bothering me! These temporary residents are giving proclamations as to what is and isn't bothersome to me. If it didn't bother me I wouldn't mention it. An individual who has a vested interest in selecting a neighborhood as a place of residence generally understands that their personal actions have an impact on others. This attitude and understanding has never been exhibited in any of my encounters with these facilities and "clients "_ The constant coming and going is tiresome. It's additional foot traffic as well as vehicular traffic. It has become extremely difficult to "know" what is normal for our area and what isn't. All the people and vehicles coming and going at all hours is un- nerving......... are they part of the Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. group or are they individuals who are doing reconnaissance for potential crimes. The very secluded feel of the area is part of what is desirable, but it comes with a price of being more vigilant of what is normal or expected for the neighborhood. Likewise it is difficult to evaluate if the individual would be a potential "client" and expected to have access to the property. As example the facility next to me is reportedly a women's house, yet it isn't unusual for there to be several men wandering in and out of the facility. If I didn't have prior knowledge of the business being run in the building 1 would easily think that there was a potential brothel being run out of that address. I feel an added burden by sheer volume of all this activity to help insure that my family and property are safe. In closing I would comment that I feel a change in the atmosphere of the neighborhood since Yellowstone Women's First Step House Inc. has purchased properties in our development. The feel of a residential neighborhood is diminished. Today there is a much stronger feel of an apartment complex or even a hotel /motel complex. I understand that the disabilities act provides protection from discrimination for these individuals. However as a property owner whose home this area is, I expect that the city will not transfer burden to me. I believe that facilities could be run in a residential neighborhood, but careful attention to detail is paramount. The facilities must be closely supervised 24/7. .l YS 01105 February 14, 2009 Newport Beach Planning Department City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: UP2008 -034, RA2009 -004 UP 2008 -035, RA 2009 -005 UP 2008 -036, RA2009 -006 UP 2008 -037, RA2009 -007 1592 Pegasus Street Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 R> et3( P1A1'1� FEB 1gX6 cz OF gpoz vc Objections are hereby made to the above referenced requests for approval of use and continued use of certain residential properties as designated and requested in those same applications. I am a resident of the community identified as Santa Ana Heights and a neighbor living adjacent to and in close proximity to the four single family residences that, if I understand correctly, are being used for commercial purposes inconsistent with current zoning and permitted uses and, furthermore, incompatible with the character of the neighborhood. With respect to the assertion contained in the notice that the activities are categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class I (Existing Facilities), objection is made on two grounds. Firstly, the activities are not existing at the time of the lead agency's determination of the applicability of the categorical exemption in that the proposed activities will not "involve negligible or no expansion of the use existing at the time the exemption is granted." In the discussion of the application of section 13501 (CCR Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 19), it cannot be that the legislature intended to sanction unpermitted and unapproved uses as those uses for which a categorical exemption would apply. The uses contemplated under the Act as being existing and for which the exemption would apply are those that are consistent with the existing zoning and other land use regulations in effect and applicable to the property. YS 01106 Newport Beach Planning Department February 14, 2009 Page 2 The homes in the community are single - family dwellings, zoned for noncommercial uses. Without discussing what would constitute a "single family," the proposed uses, including providing residences for up to 18 transient adults, is hardly consistent with any definition of single family residence. In that same vein, the use contemplated, without giving distinction to the nature of the occupancy, is plainly commercial and not residential. That is, the purpose of operating the facilities, from the perspective of the owner, is the accumulation of rental, whether from the individual residents or some other source or form. That makes the use commercial and not residential. By way of example, if any resident of the community chose to lift up their garage door and sell antiques on the premises on more occasions than would be considered incidental, this City would assuredly require a business license and would likely object to the use to the extent such commercial activities were deemed incompatible with existing residential zoning. The dwellings for which the exemptions and permits are being sought are not apartment complexes. They are not retail establishments. They are not hotels. Yet, what is proposed would create those very sorts of commercial establishments. Secondly, the Class 1 exemption is applicable only to the extent there is no possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment. (Section 15300) In claiming an exemption, what the applicants overlook is the fact that there has never been an evaluation of the burden on the environment created by the very conditions they now seek to have approved. To the extent the proposed use has not previously been evaluated under CEQA and approved, consideration has not been given to the burden on infrastructure and other aspects of the environment that would result from the dramatic increase in occupancy density proposed under the applications. Admittedly without any census data to support the underlying assertion, it would not be unreasonable to assume that a "typical" residence of the size contained within the community for which the applications have been submitted (4 -5 bedrooms, 2 -3 baths) would be occupied by 3 -6 people. The applicants propose a density 4 to 6 times that number, ranging from 12 individuals (UP2008 -34) to as many as 18. YS 01107 Newport Beach Planning Department February 14, 2009 Page 3 Such an increase in density will assuredly have a substantial impact on traffic, parking, noise, and use of emergency services including police and fire. While it may be suggested that the residents will not impact parking because of the prohibition against residents having cars, residents of the community can assuredly speak to a contrary condition. It is frequently observed that cars are parked on adjoining streets and the occupants then walk to the residences. Moreover, there are frequent occasions when cars line most of'the streets, even spilling over into the surrounding areas on Santa Ana. Without any means of enforcing these self- described and self — imposed conditions, it is not proper for the City to rely on the assertion that there are no parking or traffic impacts in considering the application. Moreover, the City itself is in the best position to know of and, in consideration of County statistics applicable to the area pre- annexation, to evaluate the number of emergency service calls to the applicant residences as compared to the entirety of the remainder of the community. This factor is of considerable concern inasmuch as the community was only recently annexed to Newport Beach. As such, the City has likely not undertaken to fully evaluate the required level of emergency services necessary to support the community, without regard to the proposed density of activity proposed under the applications. Adding at least four residences with as many as 18 individuals in three and 12 individuals in the fourth dwelling will dramatically increase the burden placed upon the City to support the community. I wish to make clear, in submitting the foregoing objections, that I am not making a specific objection to any particular use or person. Rather, the objections are based on the fact, as acknowledged in the notice, that the proposed use is dramatically out of line with existing lawfully permitted and zoned uses for every other residence in the community. Suggesting that the proposed uses will have no impact on the environment ignores the very reasons behind passage of the Environmental Quality Act and does a disservice both to this community and the City to whom community residents look for support. Responsible land use planning takes into consideration the overall impacts of all development. Allowing uses that dramatically exceed zoned or otherwise permitted uses undermines the nature of planning. Claiming an exemption based on prior, unpermitted and unauthorized use merely encourages further disregard YS 01108 Newport Beach Planning Department February 14, 2009 Page 4 for land use restrictions, all of which are intended not to preclude reasonable uses of property but to harmonize conflicting interests and avoid unsustainable conditions. The proposed uses for the four residences invite the very sort of excessive uses and burdens for which CEQA review was designed. On the basis of the foregoing, I submit that the applications should be denied in their present form and the applicants required to submit the projects to a full CEQA review prior to the resubmission of any application for the proposed uses. Stephen Abraham YS 01109 JAMES C. HARVEY DIANE E. HARVEY 1651 Indus Street Newport Beach, CA 92707 Telephone (714) 979 -7031 Email: harvey5@roadrunner.com February 18, 2009 Thomas W. Allen Hearing Officer CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92658 FEB 18 20 1, ; ;pis A H Re: Opposition to Applications of Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. for Use Permits (1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street, & 20172 Redlands Drive) We cannot be present for the public hearing on February 20, 2009 but intend this letter to register our opposition to the granting of a Use Permit for any of the four (4) facilities currently operated by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. in the former West Santa Ana Heights. We ask that you either: (1) deny all four applications, or (2) impose strict conditions on Yellowstone's operations to conform to the City's Municipal Code. We bought a home in this neighborhood in 1998 because it was family- oriented with many small children. In the years since then, we believe that the residential character of the neighborhood has been substantially altered by the presence of Yellowstone's facilities. Those facilities have grown from the original one (at 1571 Pegasus Street) to the present four (4), all concentrated within a very small geographic area. We are concerned about noise, trash, traffic, and transitory persons in our neighborhood, all caused by the over concentration of Yellowstone's facilities. With two children in elementary school, we are particularly concerned by Yellowstone's facility for men at 20172 Redlands Drive, as our children have been approached by some of the transitory men living in that facility. We have no idea if the men living there are parolees, probationers, or registered sex offenders, and along with other families in the neighborhood we fear allowing our children to walk past that facility unescorted. That facility is also right across the street from the neighborhood school bus stop, where children congregate every morning. YS 01110 We urge you to deny Yellowstone's applications because they cannot satisfy the requirements of NBMC §20.91A.060: Yellowstone's use does not conform to all applicable provisions of NBMC &20.91A.05 . A. We believe that Yellowstone is violating NBMC §20.91A.050(C)(1) and State law by conducting unlicensed treatment services at 1621 Indus Street. On several occasions we have observed a line of men walk from the Yellowstone facility at 20172 Redlands Drive, enter the adjacent Yellowstone facility for women at 1621 Indus Street, and stay there for more than an hour. We believe that this indicates the facility is providing on -site services, for which a State license is required. B. We believe that Yellowstone has far more than two residents per bedroom, in violation of NBMC §20.91A.050(C)(2). These are single - family homes with four or five bedrooms, and at least one of the bedrooms is quite small. Yellowstone may argue that each facility has more than five bedrooms, but if so that is based on conversion of living, family, or dining rooms into "bedrooms:' 2. Yellowstone's use does not meet the standards of NBMC §20.91A.060. A. The properties are not physically suited to accommodate the proposed use. NBMC §20.91A.060(C). 18 adults living in one single - family home (as Yellowstone proposes) is ridiculous and cannot be justified by anything other than a desire to maximize profits. One need only drive through our neighborhood on trash day to see the impact: while each family home has one or two cans out front, each Yellowstone facility has four, five, or sometimes six cans, all filled to overflowing with trash. No doubt each facility's use of electricity, water, and gas is also out of proportion for a single- family home. B. The use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. NBMC §20.91A.060(D). In particular, the residential character of the neighborhood has been changed by over concentration of such facilities. In generally limiting the use to one per block, NBMC §20.91A.060(Dx3) directs the Hearing Officer to apply average or median block lengths, which are listed as 711 feet and 617 feet, respectively. We submit that by those measures our neighborhood already has more than one use per block. Using GoogleEarth, we calculate that the distance between 1621 Indus Street and 1561 Indus Street is less than 350 feet (they are only four doors apart on the same street). The distance between 1621 Indus Street and 20172 Redlands Street is less than 400 feet. C. Contrary to Yellowstone's past assertion that its residents do not park cars in our neighborhood, we have observed that many of their residents actually do park cars on our streets, especially along Pegasus Street adjacent to the 1571 Pegasus Street facility and on Redlands Drive adjacent to the 20172 Redlands Drive facility. In addition, a large passenger van associated with Yellowstone is often parked at night across the street from the 20172 Redlands Drive facility. We also observe numerous cars entering and leaving our neighborhood containing visitors to facility residents. These activities generate traffic out of proportion to the number of facilities. NBMC §20.91A.060(E). YS 01111 3. If any use is permitted strict conditions should be imposed If you determine, despite the opposition of the neighboring homeowners, that Yellowstone should be granted any form of approval, we urge you to impose Conditions of Approval similar to those imposed on other applicants such as Balboa Horizons and Ocean Recovery: A. Due to over concentration in our neighborhood, at most only two of Yellowstone's applications should be granted. The other two facilities should be abated. B. No more than two (2) clients should be allowed per bedroom, and "bedroom" should be limited to those rooms designed for that purpose, not converted living, dining, or family rooms. C. No probationers, parolees, or registered sex offenders should be allowed to occupy any of the facilities at any time. We suggest that you impose a condition requiring Yellowstone to obtain from a resident, prior to placement, a signed statement that he or she has never been convicted of a sex offense against a minor. D. No more than one automobile per facility may be parked on neighborhood streets, and no commercial vehicles or passenger vans may remain overnight. 4. Yellowstone's requests for reasonable accommodation should be denied. We presume that Yellowstone's request for reasonable accommodations involves the number of occupants allowed in its facilities, and we assume that Yellowstone claims that all its residents are persons with a "disability ". But Yellowstone's request has nothing to do with "enhancing the quality of life" of any disabled person (NBMC §20.98.025(0)(1)) or granting disabled persons "equal opportunity" (NBMC §20.98.025(C)(2)). Yellowstone simply wants to pack as many people as possible into each facility to generate maximum profits. Yellowstone cannot satisfy the requirements of NBMC §20.98.025, and per subsection (B), all the requirements must be met. Granting Yellowstone's application would undermine the City's zoning program and would continue to detract from the residential character of our neighborhood. Thank you for considering our objections and those of our neighbors. Very Truly Yours, James C. Harvey Diane E. Harvey cc: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager YS 01112 ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 20, 2009 HEARING - \v.aoc YS 01113 Brown, Janet From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 11:40 AM To: Brown, Janet; 'Tom Allen' Subject: FW: Public Hearing on Rehabilitation Houses 2120/09 From: Jeffrey Watt [mailto:wattl3 @roadrunner.com] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 11:38 AM To: Henn, Michael; Webb, Don (City Council); Rosansky, Steven; Nancy Cc: Brown, Leilani; Bludau, Homer, Kiff, Dave Subject: Public Hearing on Rehabilitation Houses 2/20109 Dear City Council Members and Staff, Daigle, Leslie; Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith; Gardner, Please place this in the Public Records for the Public Hearing Today on Rehabilitation Houses 2/20/09. We live in a Single Family Residential Neighborhood. It is and always was zoned "single family residence. "Our address is: 20261 Spruce Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660. When anyone, be it business, a person acting as their own contractor, or a family wants to violate the zoning laws of the neighborhood a simple "NO" by the Zoning, Building & Ordinance, Code and Enforcement, and Planning Commissions of the City would solve and resolve past, present and future attempts at such violations. On its face "single family residence" means just that. You would save so much time and taxpayer dollars if you would just adhere to that simple fact Our neighborhood is now faced with several homes that have been converted to single apartments because of the failure of City Departments to enforce the zoning laws. This requires those that play by the rules to retain attorneys to defend us from those that violate the SFR laws. This places an enormous burden in terms of time and money on those of us who expect compliance with SFR laws. The drug and rehab homes are no different than the SRF homes being converted to individual apartment units. They place an unnecessary burden on the homeowners who have played by the rules and expect others to abide by them as well. The burdens are: inadequate parking, transient population, overburdened waste disposal and water usage. All these burdens are borne especially by the residents of the neighborhoods where these units exist, and then to the taxpayers at large. As Nancy Reagan, wife of President Ronald Reagan famously said "Just Say NO!" We expect the City Council and All the aforementioned Departments of the City as well as the State of California to "Just Say NOI" If someone wants to build or lease rehab homes or apartments either for social welfare or added income, do so in an area already zoned "Commercial." End of discussion. Don't make it harder on yourselves and the neighborhoods than simply abiding by the rules. Sincerely, Ann Watt, Homeowner 20261 Spruce Avenue YS 01114 Brown, Janet From: Judy DeVine pudy @devinecopy.00mj Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 1:23 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: Public comments regarding Yellowstone First Step House Dear Ms. Brown, Please enter these comments to the public record regarding the application of Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. to operate four unlicensed adult residential care facilities within the West Santa Ana Heights Neighborhood. The City of Newport Beach has stated that it would like to see each of our residential neighborhoods retain residential character. When we purchased our home, underneath the airport, we did so because it was a family neighborhood. In this little five- street neighborhood, there were dozens of kids and about 10 stay -at -home moms, which is quite unusual. It has been a very close -knit neighborhood, the kind that has neighborhood cookouts on Memorial weekend. I am worried about losing that character due to the overconcentration of sober living facilities. It is difficult to measure the character of a neighborhood, but I think some numbers will help shed light. Three of the five streets in our neighborhood are Pegasus, Redlands and Indus. Yellowstone is currently operating a sober living facility on each of those streets, with plans to add another. They have asked for an exemption from Section 20.91 A.050, in order to house 18 resident clients each in three homes, and 12 clients in a fourth home. I have gathered the number of residents on each of the streets for comparison. • On Pegasus Street, where there are 28 homes, 26.8% of the population on those two blocks would be recovering alcoholics and addicts if the exception was permitted. • On Indus Street, where there are 14 homes total, 47% of the population on that street would be recovering alcoholics and addicts. On Redlands street, 75% of the population would be recovering addicts and alcoholics if the application was approved, and the exemption permitted. Considering those are three of the five streets in our neighborhood, that is a huge change in the demographics of our neighborhood. Can you really say it's a NIMBY issue if over half of our population is short -term recovering addicts and alcoholics? Finally, I would like to remind everyone that the normal stay indicated on the Yellowstone Recovery website is 90 days. If each of these applications is granted, and the exemptions allowed, between these four homes that would mean 264 people coming into our neighborhood each year who are not long -term residents. On those same streets, there are 104 people who are permanent residents. How can you retain the residential character of a neighborhood if 71% of the people coming and going in the year are NOT residents for more than 90 days? YS 01115 Janet From: Russell Niewiarowski Irussdesign @roadrunner.comi Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 9:44 AM To: Kiff, Dave; Brown, Janet Subject: Public Hearing on Rehabilitation Houses 2/20/09 Dear Council Members and City staff, My name is Russell Niewiarowski and I would like to voice my concerns regarding the drug and alcohol rehabilitation houses on discussion in today's Public Hearing. I have been a resident at 20102 Kline Drive in Santa Ana Heights since 1995. When my family moved into the then unincorporated community governed by the County of Orange we soon realized that the County was extremely lax and that we as a community had very little representation, especially in regards to strict code enforcement and issues regarding the negative impacts of the airport. Prior to being annexed into Newport Beach, our tract of 84 homes originally named Sherwood Estates, has seen a flood of homes being converted to rehab houses, a couple hotels and even frat houses. To my knowledge, our community is and always has been zoned RSF (residential single family), and according to our original CC &R's on file with the County and Title company when we bought our house stated that no business can be operated from a home that causes an offense to the neighborhood. While I do not feel that any of the 4 -5 known rehab homes in my community are a direct offense, I do not agree or support the State of California's ruling that allows rehab commercial businesses, funded by tax dollars in a RSF zone. Nor do I support or agree with the County of Orange's Planning Department's last waver that allowed a resident in my tract to remodel his residence into a 3 -story hotel for bachelors with 5 separate entry doors. RSF clearly implies a single owner- occupied resident and immediate family members. A commercial business which overcrowds residents with dependencies into a 5 bedroom house converted into a hotel is clearly a contradiction and offense to RSF zoning. Such a for profit business belongs in a RMF zone. For the reasons mentioned above, I clearly do not support any rehabilitation businesses being granted permits to operate in a RSF zone. Furthermore, I feel the city needs to take a more pro - active role in defending RSF zoning at the state -level to ratify the current law to stop and prevent any other rehab homes from being established in RSF zoning. Russ Niewiarowski 20102 Kline Drive YS 01116 2/11/09 To: Janet Johnson Brown — Planner 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 From: Eric Rosenthal 1661 Indus Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 p1A�lt+Nhu; meq FEB 181009 e F, �yC1R;;r7 I am a recent resident to the city ofNewport Beach. I worked the hardest I could to full- fill my dream of living in the famous Newport Beach. The prestige, the safety, the family life, the residents and the culture are so alluring. There is no place like it on earth. I have been employed at Fletcher Jones for almost 9 years now. I have a constant pulse on the city and some of its elite residents. This whole issue of Rehab housing in our city Ieaves such a sour taste in everyon's mouth. These rehab homes are filled with society's problem rejects, coming in and out in herds. These people don't need to be in the most prestigious city in the world to attempt their rehab. It's unnecessary, unwanted, undeserved and unwelcome. I simply do not understand why Newport Beach would want to allow herds of these people in its city. The saddest part is I know people with Inds who happen to be a couple doors down from one of these "rehab" Homes. They have 3 children who never never get to play outside or in their front yard because their parents do not feel safe with the herds of people coming in and out all the times and hanging out it fixM yard smoking 24 hours a day, its simply ghetto. I have taken great pride in my home as a Newport Beach homeowner_ The owners and these rehab patients are business operators and clients, with little regard to the maintenance and appearance of their homes. Curb appeal is an important aspect of property values. Worst of all the pure mention of one of these rehab homes, especially in ones neighborhood, makes outsiders and residents cringe. I am so 100% against these homes in our city and speaking for the other 6500 Fletcher Jones Clients I have worked with over the past 9 years, they all feel the same way. Please call me with any questions. Eric Rosenthal 949- 718 -3163 erosenthal@f mereedes.com YS 01117 Dave Kill ?r.; :a BY Planning Department, City of Newport Beach PLANNING P.gppMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Calif 92663 FEB 19 LtuI Ref. PA2008 -105, PA- 2008 -106, PA2009 -107 PA2008 -108 4 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. �'`�/ ' ; rai¢�F Dear Sir, I formally protest about the applications for an increase of inmates in 1621 Indus, in particular. They congregate right under my bedroom and bathroom windows; to smoke and cackle on a patio which is 10 feet by 10. The smoking is so strong it starts my chronic cough when I go in my passage way between the 2 houses. This goes on at all times 8 in the morning, 11 at night, '21 in the morning. When the county sold that house they "fixed" the fence so poorly that it has now collapsed. I have given my phone number to the women who manages the place, asking that -the owner contact me to do a proper fencing. No one has called me They have piled cardboard, palm leaves, to keep the dog of the manager from wandering into my backyard. What will keep Mentally disturbed people who are alcoholics and drug addicts from coming into my backyard and maybe drown themselves in the 2 feet of water of my pond when I am not at home? This owner is totally irresponsible and now you want to allow her to stick 3 people in an the rooms of the house ?. This house is a 5 bedroom house, that means the den will be converted into a bedroom too. Furthermore They gather into the back room for parties and conferences, or simply to wait for the bus, so 1 get all the other inmates, male and female from the neighborhood around 8 in the morning. Our street alone has 2 of these business locations and there are 2 more on Pegasus and Kline. Has our neighborhood been elected to be the dumping ground of an the drunks ans addicts of Newport Beach? And please don't pretend they are sober, or they would not be here in the first place. What is proposed is by no means a reasonable accomodalion for a single family residential neighborhood . It is just a way for the owner to make more money to turn our area into a ghetto for Newport Beach rejects. The fence is riddled with termites is collapsing and I cannot close my gate. I have been quote 7500 dollars to build a simple wan. I believe it is the responsability of the city to require from people who do not live in the neighborhood but got to have a business in a residential area, that they take some measures to minimize the impact on their neighbours, instead of continuously get exmptions from the basic rules and taxpayer money to toot Your class of project is havin a_significant effect on me. This should be treated as a business and be removed from reside' n8al areas. Michele Weismann 1631 Indus 949 - 6464064 0 i CA-1 ?k)"D'I YS 01118 Brown, Janet From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Friday, February 20, 200912:40 PM To: Brown, Janet; Wolcott, Cathy Cc: 'Tom Allen' Subject: FW: group homes in Newport Beach Found this one. From: prodancerl @aol.com [mailto:prodancerl @ aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:49 PM To: Kiff, Dave Subject: group homes in Newport Beach We received your letter dated August 18,2008. I noticed that it mostly addressed Sober Living by the Sea, and not the group homes in our neighborhood. I would like to inform you of the situation in our neighborhood in the event the city is not fully aware. The pictures below were taken in front of one of the five sober living homes in the Pegasus tract (at the comer of Pegasus and Santa Ana Ave. The home directly across the street on the opposite corner (entry to our tract) is also a sober living facility. Note the toilet seat in the middle of the street along with the other trash overflow and van seats. We have heard that another recent sale in the tract will be yet another sober living facility. Bi- weekly meetings for other recovering addicts are held in the homes, rather than at churches or other community locations with adequate parking. This seriously impacts the parking on our street. Often cars are parked blocking our driveways or left for days in front of our homes. Our tract has become a parking lot for the sober living homes. Often when our friends or family come over to our homes there's nowhere for them to park. Some neighbors are parking their own cars in front of their homes, rather than in their driveways or garages to leave space for their children and visitors to park. It puzzles me why the sober living residents mostly walk down the middle of the street instead of using the sidewalks. They throw their cigarette butts on our property and leave a foul cigarette smell that hangs in the air. We have voiced our concerns to the homes but nothing has changed. Mostly, we're met with a lot of denial. Over the years there have always been one or two group homes in our tract. I remember, with fondness, when mentally challenged adults lived here and how much I enjoyed their presence and greetings as they walked to and from the bus stop each day. We welcomed them with open arms. But the situation is currently out of hand with sober living and we feel overrun and without recourse. Realtors tell us that they have to inform prospective buyers that there are sober living homes in the tract. This affects our property values and character of the neighborhood. The home on the corner of Pegasus and Santa Ana Ave. at the entrance to our tract has been visited at least 6 times by the Fire Department for "detox" incidents which to our knowledge, they are not licensed to perform. We have been informed, however, that the county has to "catch" them in the act when they visit the home. I don't understand why the fire department's rescue logs don't suffice. This presence has affected the young children who, unfortunately, have witnessed the rescues from their front yards or balconies of their homes. Please forward my letter to those who are involved in the settlement and future ordinance that will address this pressing issue. Chet and Victoria Groskreutz 1551 Pegasus St. YS 01119 Santa Ana Hgts, CA 92707 (annexed to Newport Beach, but no change in address as yet) View full size View full size View full size YS 01120 Check out AOL Video to see whats making news today! View full size YS 01121 POWERPOINT PRESENTATION FROM FEBRUARY 20, 2009 HEARING Av.doc YS 01122 Ln CL ) _ 1 . LL • • • 41 -ij 1 T, • tn • • R u 1 0 4J 4J • 4,J YS 01123 0) < . . ) \ $ / � 2 0 � E § � � � J 0 � 0 = E 2 E a o �k /� \ 0 0 �Z� o� §E 7� .. §§ z u 7 / k \ Ln 0 ƒ E 2 YS 01124 � § 7 . rq e \ \ ƒ \ 2 r % >1 ' m t ? / ro R E 0 tA E f E /� E\ 0 o % ® u � w > 0 0 �� § E C 0 � _ - 4a) 5 % S � » @ 0 2 / 7 $ D m ƒ 4>-- 2 m c 7: 02 = ® �7 2 � % (4 E \ I \ / e ° \0 00/ oc�§\ £ « J � •§ 7 0 = $ § \ � c m 0 m[ c 0 2\@ 3 2/ 17 �2 / {�2 /22� G ƒ$� � (U 0 cn \ c � E "W vi \0L " /f / �0 n" Q) (U 0UM40 cn D / E ( / 2 § 2 / \ �f22 §7E2U2.��§ m a (L< a.< o I co m (U 3: Z: . . . . . . . . 0) < . . ) \ $ / � 2 0 � E § � � � J 0 � 0 = E 2 E a o �k /� \ 0 0 �Z� o� §E 7� .. §§ z u 7 / k \ Ln 0 ƒ E 2 YS 01124 Ll to O 4-j Ln ra O Ln aJ� Ln E � ar v-� V 3 L ^ � N in O ci O L ^ � O N ro O v N kn E +� M c ZA O in v r00 N m +j ° 01 V as i v C o a �, Q) Q. O E Q w V n Q to ro O a-•+ O ri N C1 � � m t/1 M O C V c c v O O_ Ln O 01 ro N rl 4-J O `^ � C O o ar > ar ar �'' E GJ Q 0-0 +' c c N t � L ' V O l0 +•+ aJ M 'O � O V O0 ^�� p 0) +_•+ Q to 0 y.� ro ^kn0±�V -w tn C S ra a-1 O r O 0 v V`t- +- 0) O a, v �C O V o N O LA C L- y -P s L >� j CO t 0 E 0) ro O ate, arm aa= •� .� 0 . •T) �_� QJ Q■ Ll YS 01125 V O N +J L ro O E +.+ to r00 N V C Q) Q. Vf E Q w ro > O ar •-' � L O w L � C 00.2 +' +' c c L O to 0 C L n kn p +_•+ +L•+ to ro E tn n S ra O 0 v V`t- +- O a, v v rra O cn o y -P s L >� j 0 0 Q 0) 0 aa= . . YS 01125 n �O �1 4..i L Q v O rn QO d o cra0 u O wu cn 4-0 4-1 D �_ �n > u 41) 0 Q 4-J Ol V �oV_00 >1 °fin z .-: � N �O Q Q� Q i a1� ate+ 'O C Q Q Q (1) c ro -O Z: c i t E WOE aj aj c ± O v1 L C 0� O N 'a v 0 U v 4J L (B LL -76 N V1t V 'O > N O N O1 JC Ln 4-1 r3 L C: _ i% _ O O v L V V1. v O _ i N C= i _ M 00 0).0 V ` 0-0 C, � C3)o . --C Ol � o + al � N a- o Ln Ln Q Q Ol i V O +�+ pl 0 u �( O. L E rp N N i Q .- Olt_ n3 L O a u O V �� Q'i V.� 41 O cc = vii t u t o QJ = L LL -C }+O a- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ YS 01126 ro N �J ro N S Ift d1 t!7 En N ■ Ln tn N Q O �1 ■ ■ YS 01127 N C N V O Q cli Ln O t�O O 3:-a 4-J C: Ln ro tn ro O r ro Ch rl O`0' Q O Ln ro = O r i1 ro +-j Ln V) l.L ro L. 4-J L O Ln 0.— O 4J 2 O +� — Ln — O �'u fu ■ ■ YS 01127 YS 01128 04 V V v CL V) N 4. ro S w ra E Ln c O .- ro p1 41 i v _ O a O o v o o O 0 (' o 0 Lit OO 06 M O M N M N 4. = V v � � > Q = � d � Sao a� V c t E 4° H o L Ln f0 � O v 4 = O L = O Q O _ aj 4b :) Ln = O 7 V M O (U c L > > V to O 4`°_ v �o v _ GJ _ ro v N t 4+ V 4T GJ t 4- v CL x N 75 O a, _ O s o 4+ v iJ i! O = O � _ Ln o = On _ 0- s o �4� O O lJ1 rho v L m v 7 A N th L �o V t v ro N 4- O _ ai V v N D 0 > _ O _ O C O }r = v Q � c Ln v V GJ c v tA V CL °a _ N O L v C 0 __0 7 O L +J u ;F± C O 0 Q _ v E fo v H t Ol 4+ t0 41 �a v 'o _ tA r� N Ln Lnro ai O _ GJ N a� v x L O _ t0 _ O CL ra .a v v E O CL N r0 G/ i > O th t E rn C v 4a _ v T L a� C L c 0 v Q v L O o vi t N v v LA O O V tA Q th i 'O ai = Vl (6 = L O O_ ._ o � L O_ r0 � c .c u a4�i i 0 V GJ i O O Q� O CL L rLa v C ti 'o _ v tn o v V x GJ tn in in v 4- O v L v Y V v s tA V L O L 7 0 a- 4- O Y v J C O v CL D N C O 4- O Q v N L ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ YS 01129 YS 01130 2 2 »3 % �� �u +a §/ § U ¥ / ° m S � c ° 2 £ E E c m •- 0) L > 2 2 E E S f o S K § \ m ® 2 / ©2 0 $ 2 E § f > o s 2 2 � ��� a ®AA �tn = 0\ c± %? a 8 0 2 2 2 o M o CL o J ± / � C / +j :E k >% § e cu E / '? n 0 w\ R % u 41 2 6� Wƒ } k 0: � ƒ f 0 M 4A § 0 O $ 0% c o% o 0-0 to ƒE� 365 ^� /�� § § \ 0 � � § � 5, k o-0 Q e o§ >- + CL m Q® c= CL 3 k ƒ.0 2 / Ln E'- a)& # m m: o Z m\� 4 2$ 2 3 g.± ■ 0 2 ƒ 0 @ % Ln \ _ / % Q @ > / ± • _ � & 7 w � W c -0 6 2 E§ -C � cu 0 rl ego o$ m u.0 R 3 z¥ e� �( 0 5 q % 2 r �_ E D\ LA > s Ln� » S£ o g t 0 o� w °° 2 m f E § 7 > 0 0 § > £ � •X b + o « _ f- f/« � m 7 C° 7 M$ r 2 f 3 m q�£/ƒ \± E m � §£ 2 § / 2 S R f + §� +j o75�R (u Q «. �\ 2 m 0 3 u g o o -0 o = @® w t ®©@ u 2= °# cE > 2 2 E ° u 2 3 3ƒ YS 01130 YS 01132 a-J ro tn tn D S � a-J t O O cli O u u D D > C 0 rl N Q Q■ ■ .-�% Ln Ln 00 N Ln ri +-+ .� a-+ — �- �u u' 4 D � tn N +.i O tn (D E -0 v, O fo � Ln -0 > j m Ln Q C cn N� �- r-�. rl ri O Ln LL N QJ ri ci YS 01133 dJ O E 70 E ro O ?� .Q O N 0 C CU D O cu 2 U O �l i `4 i N + D O �•I N tn Ln ro u v � > N W N O cr Q cr C: C). N N ■ DC � Q ■ N L � E 14- T v `^ O C� V C ro X We Z • tn O c `• 41 un c N > � ra L u rl O Q f6 Z o ro O 4-J L- ro M C o (13 4- tn C 4J N ■ c O ru E E .+j E� a a > c 0 .� ■ YS 01134 TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 20, 2009 HEARING Av.doc YS 01135 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 09 -18838 PUBLIC HEARING ON YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. BEFORE THOMAS W. ALLEN, ESQ., HEARING OFFICER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2009 Reported by: LAURA A. MILLSAP, RPR CSR No. 9266 Job NO. 090220LAM Page 1 YS 01136 C 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 09 -18838 Public hearing was taken on behalf of the City of Newport Beach at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, beginning at 2:00 p.m., and ending at 4:53 p.m., on Friday, February 20, 2009, before LAURA A. MILLSAP, RPR, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 9266. APPEARANCES: For The City of Newport Beach: RICHARDS, WATSON, GERSHON BY: PATRICK K. BOBKO, ESQ. Page 2 2 YS 01137 L 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 09 -18838 355 S. Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 -3101 (213) 626 -8484 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BY: DAVE KIFF, Assistant City Manager JANET JOHNSON BROWN, Associate Planner SHIRLEY OBORNY, Administrative Assistant 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3002 For Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc.: DAVIS, ZFATY BY: ISAAC R. ZFATY, ESQ. 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 3 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2009 2:00 P.M. - 4:53 P.M. MR. ALLEN: All right. so we're going to start Page 3 YS 01138 17 09 -18838 5 the hearings on the Yellowstone matters today. My name 6 is Thomas W. Allen, and I've been designated as a hearing 7 examiner by the city to hear these group home matters, 8 and have been assigned to this one as well. 9 I'm a former City attorney. I'm semi - retired 10 now. I have no relationship with the City of Newport 11 Beach, except as a hearing examiner. And I don't have 12 any physician relationships or involvements with group 13 recovery homes or any of those types of businesses. 14 we have four separate residential care 15 facilities to be consider today, all of them located 16 within close proximity to each other, 1561 and 1621 17 Indus, and 2172 Redlands and 1571 Pegasus. 18 Yellowstone Recovery is the applicant on all 19 four of these, and each of them seeks a use permit, which 20 is a land use approval. And they also seek reasonable 21 accommodation from the standards of the ordinances of a 22 regulatory nature that would otherwise be applicable to 23 these uses. of course, the reasonable accommodations are 24 based upon the premise that alcohol and drug addicted 25 individuals are legally defined as disabled. GI 1 So with that preface, we'll get underway. so 2 would everyone please turn off their cell phones, if you 3 do happen to have them on? Thank you. 4 And with that, would Mr. Kiff wish to commence? 5 MR. KIFF: Thank you, Mr. Allen. Page 4 YS 01139 7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 09 -18838 Today, as Mr. Allen noted, Yellowstone women's First step House is applying for four use permits for four facilities, as well as reasonable accommodation. The Yellowstone women's First Step House has asked to at least consolidate its presentation for -- to allow them to present information on all four homes at once. Assuming that's amenable to you, Mr. Allen, we would move forward on that basis, and then I'll describe how it goes from there. First would be the hearing on the use permit applications. I'll give a very brief background on our Ordinance regulating group residential uses, and then Janet Brown, from our Planning Department, will present Yellowstone's applications and some information about the area. Then the Applicant is invited to come up and make a presentation. The applicant's time is not limited, as is a tradition with use permit hearings. After the Applicant is finished, the public hearing can be opened, and the comments are limited to three minutes, 9 unless the Hearing officer determines otherwise. The public hearing is then closed. The Applicant can then rebut or clarify comments. And then there 'could be a dialog between the Hearing officer and the Applicant, or the city staff and the Applicant. Then the Hearing officer has the opportunity to make a Page 5 YS 01140 [,1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 09 -18838 determination potentially to approve with conditions, to deny or continue the hearing to a date certain. At that point, then, we would open a hearing on reasonable accommodation requests, and I'll go through that briefly. Assuming these were to be consolidated, Kathy wolcutt, of our City Attorney's office, will give a brief background about our reasonable accommodation chapter within our Newport Beach Municipal code, and then present their requests, Yellowstone's requests. The Applicant would have another opportunity to stand up and make a presentation. They may defer to that or stipulate to the presentation that they made previously. open the public hearing. Three- minute comments from the public. close the public hearing. Applicant can again return. questions. And then the Hearing officer can approve their request, deny their request or continue the hearing to a date certain. so with that, I'm going start my bit of just [: background on the ordinance. This is a use permit hearing held under the Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.91A, use Permits in Residential Districts. And as noted, following the hearing, we'll open a public hearing on three requests for reasonable accommodations. This is a separate public hearing. But ordinance 2008 -05 was effective about a Page 6 YS 01141 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 09 -18838 year ago, and it calls out this process. It says that "Existing group residential uses had to apply for a use permit to stay in operations," and they had to apply by May 22nd. Yellowstone women's First Step House did apply for those permits for four facilities. Then a Hearing officer makes a determination to approve or deny the use permit. That's what today's hearing is about. The Hearing officer's decision can be appealed to the City Council. The City Council's decision may not be appealed, but there is another opportunity for reasonable accommodation requested at that point. As you'll see today, the reasonable accommodation request go before the Hearing officer at a public hearing, and can also be appealed to the City Council. So with that, I'm going defer to Janet to talk about Yellowstone'd facilities. MS. BROWN: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Allen. The four properties that we are discussing today are located in the west Santa Ana Heights area of the City of Newport Beach. This area was annexed into the City in January -- on January 1, 2008. The neighborhood in which the properties are located allows for single - family residential development, and the neighborhood is developed with a mix of single -story and Page 7 7 YS 01142 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 09 -18838 two -story dwellings. As we've mentioned, there are four locations at 1561 Indus, 1621 Indus, 1571 Pegasus, and 20172 Redlands. These four properties were established over a number of years. The first property, at 1621, in 2003. The two other properties were established -- the use of the residential care facilities, I mean, was established in 2005. And then the last property, at 1561, was established in 2007. Three of the buildings are sober living homes for women only. one facility contains beds for 12 women. That's at 1561 Indus. 1621 is also a women's facility with 18 beds. Pegasus street is a facility for women with 18 beds. And then the Redlands property is a facility, sober living environment, for men with 17 beds, although they did apply for 18 beds under the use permit application. J Just one other thing I wanted to point out in this particular neighborhood. In addition to the four Yellowstone properties, there is one other house that we're aware of located at 1501 Pegasus that is a transitional housing for women. I believe right now it has eight beds, and that property is subject to abatement under the ordinance. The applications that the operator has submitted are for a use permit -- a group residential use Page 8 YS 01143 !1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 09 -18838 permit for the four facilities, which they submitted consistent with the requirements of the Ordinance number 2008 -05. They were submitted on May 20th. In addition to the use permit applications, they also submitted applications for reasonable accommodation. And just briefly, I wanted to state that the ordinance also included a provision for reasonable accommodation, which allows for disabled individuals or providers of housing for disabled persons to apply for reasonable accommodation from the city zoning and land use regulations, the policies and practices, when needed, to provide an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The Applicant requests approval of the use permits to allow the continued operations at the facilities with the existing occupancy that I noted earlier. Staff is recommending approval of the use permits with operational conditions for just two of the properties. Those would be 1621 Indus, a women's house. We're recommending a maximum occupancy of 15 beds. And also, we're recommending approval with operational conditions for 20172 Redlands, the men's house, with a maximum of 15 beds. staff recommends denial of the 1561 Indus house and the Pegasus house. The information in the reports and our Page 9 V] YS 01144 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 09 -18838 recommendations are based on documentation that's been provided to us by the Applicant and information that was available to us at the time that the reports were written. our recommendation is based primarily on the overconcentration in this neighborhood. we tried to apply the APA standards of what a block consists of. And in this case, the neighborhood is characterized by meandering streets and cul -de -sacs. so we felt that all four facilities would be located in what we would characterize as a block. And they are all within 100 to 3- or 400 feet from each other. That was part of the reason or our basis for denial of two of the facilities. There may be new information introduced at the hearing today that may require further evaluation by the 10 staff and by the bearing officer in order to help us determine if our recommendations are appropriate. However, if the bearing Officer, after hearing testimony, agrees with our recommendations, staff does request your direction to prepare a Resolution of Approval with operational conditions of approval for 1621 Indus and the Redlands property, and we also request direction to prepare a Resolution of Denial with Prejudice for 1561 Indus and the Pegasus property. That concludes my presentation. MR. KIFF: I have a couple of additional Page 10 YS 01145 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 09 -18838 comments, Mr. Allen. In advance of the public's testimony, and also in advance of the Applicant's, this relates more to what we've seen in past hearings. This is both a caution and an invitation for comment. But the ordinance allows us to address concerns that are specific to these properties. And some of these concerns include an overconcentration in the area. As Janet noted, we believe that at least two of these facilities should close in order meet the APA standard of "one or two group residential uses per block," as set forth in the Ordinance. secondhand smoke is something that can be addressed and considered. Meetings on -site that do not involve just the clients of each facility. Assembly uses 11 are not permitted here without a separate use for assembly uses. certainly, discussion about treatment provided on -site that should only be provided in ADP licensed facility -- I'm sorry -- Alcohol and Drug Programs, California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Profanity and /or excessive noise, as well as noise late at night. Inappropriate responses from clients when neighbors attempt to remedy that interaction. Trash problems. Lack of quiet hours or curfews. And then quality capability of on -site supervision. Page 11 YS 01146 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 09 -18838 Now, the caution and concerns that we do not or will not consider that have come up in the past, declining home values. There is no data to show that the presence of recovery facilities more are impactful on property values than changes in the housing market or the presence of long -term rentals, vacation rentals, et cetera. Allegations that recovery homes are a cost burden to the City. There's no evidence to suggest that recovery homes cost the City any more in services than a typical multi - family building housing the same amount of people or, in these cases of Yellowstone, a typical single - family house. 12 Allegations that this specific use is too close to Orchard Drive Park. This use is roughly a 1,013 feet way from the park. And remember that the ordinance itself allows the Hearing officer to consider the proximity of the use locations to schools, parks and other residential care facilities, outlets for alcoholic beverages, and any other use which could be affected by or affect the operation of the subject use. There's no evidence on the record that this park effects or is affected by this specific use. And then, it's not appropriate, per se, to offer general comments about recovery homes City -wide without directing your specific comments to these Page 12 YS 01147 I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 09 -18838 operations on Indus, Pegasus and Redlands. And I note the proximity to orchard Drive Park there. with that, Mr. Allen, I turn it back to you. MR. ALLEN: Could one of you just note, once again, which ones you're recommending for denial and which ones for approval on the map there, so that everyone knows? MR. KIFF: Yes. I have a pointer there, Kathy. This is one that is proposed to stay at 15 beds. This would be proposed to stay at 15 beds. This would be proposed to close. This would be proposed to close. This one, they did not apply for a use permit, 13 and they are subject to abatement, arguably. That's not to say they couldn't ask for reasonable accommodation. we haven't heard from Lynn House. MR. ALLEN: Okay. Thanks. so with that brief introduction, let's open it to the Applicant, so that they can make a presentation. Excuse me, Mr. Bobko is taking the floor. MR. BOBKO: I'm sorry, Mr. Allen. I just want to make a quick comment. Counsel for the Applicant and I and the City have discussed some stipulations that we wanted to present before this thing got fully under steam. The first one is that we would -- the Applicant now -- and I'll let him address it more fully when he Page 13 YS 01148 W 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 09 -18838 comes up to speak. But he would like to make general comments, legal comments, about all four, on all of the addresses. And then we will allow people to comment, and we will deal with, at a staff level, each one individually. But he would like a make a general statement, which is fine. secondly, when the public comments, if there are general comments, we invite the public to make those generally. But if they have specific comments, we would ask that they make those specific comments about specific addresses. so -- and the reason for this is we would 14 like to keep our record clear of which comments -- which comments apply to which address. And Counsel for the Applicant and the city are willing to stipulate to that. I'll let him say so when he comes up to speak. MR. ALLEN: So let me understand again. MR. BOBKO: Okay. MR. ALLEN: what I heard you say -- and by the way, Mr. Bobko is an attorney representing the city here advising the City on matters. In any event, you're suggesting that, inasmuch as we have four units independently to be considered and we have four permits to be considered, that we need to actually conduct separate hearings on the use permits for each one of those? Page 14 YS 01149 J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 09 -18838 MR. BOBKO: well, Mr. Allen, we leave the actual nuts and bolts of how the hearing is conducted to you, obviously. our suggestion, though, in order to keep a clean record, is to understand which comments are directed to which address; that if people have comments about a specific address, that they wait until we discuss that specific address to give those comments and not give them generally. If they have -- someone has general comments about the neighborhood or something more indirect, then they can present those at the beginning. So yes, we would -- I think that the city or staff will address all of the different addresses together to some degree. But I think that we also need to look at them each individually. I'm not sure. MR. ALLEN: Yes, yes. Okay. MR. BOBKO: okay. But the staff report suggests that there are 73 homes, and that if -- and we recommended that two of them be abated. staff, at least, feel free to jump in here at any time. But I don't know if we can just do them each individually, completely individually. But in order to keep a clean record, we'd like to, if people have comments about individual homes, have them address them when we talk about the individual address. Page 15 15 YS 01150 7 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 09 -18838 MR. ALLEN: Possibly, mechanically, then, we could open the public hearings for all four of them at once after the Applicant makes his presentation and after Staff may do any rebuttal to that. And then people could come up and make comments generally or specifically on -- one at a time, I suppose, so that we keep that testimony orderly. MR. zFATY: Good afternoon, Mr. Allen. Isaac zfaty, counsel for Yellowstone. L7 As to the comments, I would propose that we have specific comments separated by house, so, in other words, there would be four different segments to the discussion this afternoon. As to my portion, I've put together a presentation that will apply to each of the four homes. we'll address all of the issues that are raised in Ms. Brown's report. Additionally, we have a legal discussion that we think specifically applies to these homes, which are located in the Santa Ana Heights region, which was annexed in the city in January of 2008. MR. ALLEN: Right. So I think that it makes sense, then, that we'll open the hearings for all four, but we'll conduct individual hearings as we go through with each one and have people -- if they want to make general comments, they can make general comments, and then get specific with regard to that one and come back Page 16 YS 01151 N 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 09 -18838 up with specific comments on each one. That way, there is a separate record for each one. MR. ZFATY: Okay. That's fine with the City, I assume? MR. BOBKO: That's fine. MR. ALLEN: so with that preface -- and I hope the public understands, you'll get plenty of opportunity to speak, so that's one of the primary functions, 17 obviously, of these public hearings is that the public gets to say their peace with regard to these individual units. All right. so the Applicant will get under way now with his presentation, and we'll proceed as outlined. MR. ZFATY: Thank you, Mr. Allen. Again, Isaac zfaty, I am counsel for Yellowstone. we're here today to discuss these four homes. And as I mentioned earlier, we have some specific legal concerns that we think relate to the Santa Ana Heights region that we'd like to address at the front end of this entire proceeding today. As you know, the Santa Ana Heights area was annexed into the City on January 1st of 2008, and the ordinance came into effect on February 22, 2008. And that has particular legal relevance in terms of how the California supreme court has looked at both zoning and Page 17 YS 01152 F1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 09 -18838 ordinances. we have -- to begin with, the law regarding established use -- the law pertaining to ordinances that effect existing use is well established. The California Supreme Court held, in Beverly oil Company versus the City of Los Angeles, that "if the law affects an unreasonable, oppressive or unwarranted interference with 18 an existing use or planned use for which a substantial investment in development costs has been made, the ordinance may be held invalid as applied to that property unless compensation is paid." Particular point of emphasis here is, I think, it's been established, as discussed in the prologue by Ms. Brown, that all four of these properties were being run as sober living homes prior to both the annexation and the ordinance going into effect. Supreme Court also noted in the Hanson Brothers enterprises, Inc., versus Board of supervisors case, that "in performing the constitutional analysis as to any type of social ordinance, we have zoning ordinances and other land use regulations customarily exempt existing uses to avoid questions as to the constitutionality of their application to those uses." And for the record, the citation on that is 12 Cal. 4th, 533. Backing up, so the record is clear, the Beverly Oil Company case is located at 40 Cal. 2nd, 552, Page 18 YS 01153 IC 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 09 -18838 with an opinion cite at 559. supreme court's held in Edmonds versus County of Los Angeles, which is a 1953 case, located at 40 Cal. 2nd., 642, that "the rights of users of property as those rights existed at the time of the adoption of a zoning ordinance are well recognized and have always been 19 protected." The wilkins versus city of San Bernardino case, which is yet another California supreme Court case, says that "cases in which zoning ordinances have been held invalid and unreasonable as applied to particular properties fall roughly into four categories." And there's really only one that applies here. It is the first, "where the zoning ordinance attempts to exclude and prohibit existing established uses or businesses that are not nuisances." The California supreme court noted in the Bower case, which is 75 cal. App., 4th, 1281 -- I'm sorry. That was a Cal. App. case. It was citing to the Hanson case. They say there that "generally, governmental agencies do not apply newly enacted zoning ordinances to close businesses lawfully operating at the time that those ordinances became effective." Now, the Jones versus City of Los Angeles case is a California supreme court case, which we would submit to you, Mr. Allen, is on all fours. This is a case that Page 19 YS 01154 J 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 09 -18838 was one of the seminal Supreme Co zoning ordinances and restricting California. The case citation is The facts in Jones are, the court was reviewing an action art cases regarding use in the State of 211 cal., 304. the case -- excuse me, to enjoin enforcement DI of a particular Los Angeles ordinance. There, as here, the City annexed an unincorporated area of Los Angeles called Mar vista. subsequently, the city enacted the offending zoning ordinance. The ordinance made it specifically unlawful to erect, establish, operate, maintain, or conduct any hospital, asylum, sanitarium, home, retreat, or other place for the care or treatment of insane persons, persons of unsound mind, or persons affected by or suffering from mental or nervous diseases. As you can imagine, the plaintiffs ran for sanitariums. At the time of the enactment, there were already in operation these four sanitariums in Mar vista, which were run by Jones. There was a constitutional challenge to the ordinance as applied to the sanitariums as it existed with the annexed territory prior to the annexation and prior to the adoption of the ordinance. Just so we're clear, the constitutional challenge happened after that, after both those events occurred. The wording there is a little bit misleading. in all events, the courts found that "the Page 20 YS 01155 F1 09 -18838 22 ordinance did withstand constitutional 23 scrutiny. And in doing so, the Court found the 24 police power as evidenced in zoning ordinances 25 has a much wider scope than the mere 21 1 suppression of offensive uses of property. It 2 acts not only connectively, but constructively 3 and affirmatively for the promotion of the 4 public welfare." 5 Court noted that "the evidence showed in that 6 case, and the lower court found, that the 7 restricted districts were mainly residential in 8 character, as here. This is sufficient to 9 justify the exclusion of the businesses, the 10 court said, such as that carried on by the 11 plaintiffs. 12 "The decisions uphold the validity of 13 ordinances excluding from residential district 14 property uses much less incongruous than these, 15 as, for example, flats, stores, and business 16 buildings. 17 And again, the "these" that the court's 18 referring to here are sanitariums. 19 Mr. Allen, the plaintiffs in that case argued 20 that zoning laws could not be applied in any event based 21 upon discrimination. The Court there found that a high 22 level of deference had to be given to zoning laws. Page 21 YS 01156 C 09 -18838 23 The argument -- the Court said the argument of 24 plaintiffs, carried to its logical conclusion, would 25 destroy the usefulness of zoning ordinances as an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 effective means of city planning, or it would require examination in the regulation solely on the basis of present conditions. But zoning legislation looks to the future, and that's important. It is a constructive movement in principle legislation. And as such, it's received the approval of our courts. The Court goes on to hold that "we have thus arrived at this conclusion. The ordinance in question, insofar as it prohibits the establishment of hospitals for the treatment of nervous diseases in certain districts in the City of Los Angeles and permits their establishment in other specified districts, is valid. "The business is so restricted or proper subjects of such regulation, and, hence, the ordinance does not result in a denial of due process. The classification of districts is reasonable and not arbitrary, and, therefore, there is no denial of equal protection of the laws. "This one is clear, we feel, with respect to Page 22 YS 01157 0 09 -18838 24 the establishment of new businesses of this 25 character in the prohibited districts. But 23 1 does the same result necessarily follow with 2 regard to existing buildings within this 3 district -- excuse me -- existing businesses in 4 these districts ?" 5 The Court goes on, Mr. Allen, to frame the 6 issue. The court said, "Does this broad view of the 7 police power, which justifies the taking away of the 8 right to engage in such businesses in certain territory, 9 also justify the destruction of existing businesses? we 10 do not think that it does." 11 in the ]ones case, Mr. Allen, the Court 12 examined prior precedents and found the following: 13 "First, that the right to engage in a lawful 14 and not dangerous business in a certain area may be taken is away in pursuit of a reasonable zoning scheme." But they 16 do not decide that an established and not dangerous 17 business operating in a lawful manner in a certain 18 territory may be eradicated in pursuit of an reasonable 19 zoning scheme. 20 The Court held that, "as a matter of practice 21 also, those who had drafted ordinances have 22 usually proceeded with due regard for valuable 23 vested property interests and have permitted 24 existing non - conforming uses to remain. Page 23 YS 01158 C 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09 -18838 "They are very generally agreed that the 24 destruction of a existing non - conforming use would be a dangerous innovation of doubtful constitutionality, and that a retroactive provision might jeopardize the entire ordinance." Court went on to hold that the problem, which is the important problem of this case, has, so far as we are aware, only been squarely presented to Appellate courts in a few instances. The reason for the paucity of decision is illuminating. zoning laws have almost always invariably been prospective in nature. Court went on to examine other state laws and found that the establishing statutes which give the zoning power to municipalities expressly provide that no retroactive ordinances shall be passed. Court continued on. "Zoning holds that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that it is fairer to all concerned to prevent the establishment in residence districts of objectionable businesses than to drive them out once they were established. zoning looks to the future, not the past. And it's customary to allow buildings and businesses already in the district to remain, although of a class which cannot be Page 24 YS 01159 0 09 -18838 25 1 established." 2 Court also held that retroactive operation of 3 the provisions of the ordinance is generally avoided. 4 Retroactive zoning is not to be recommended. Moreover, 5 the purposes of zoning, which is said to be the 6 crystallization of present conditions and the 7 constructive control of the future development, does not 8 require that existing uses be changed. 9 Bence, it has been generally assumed that any 10 attempt to make zoning ordinances retroactive would meet 11 with the opposition of the courts and might result in 12 their declaring the ordinance as a whole 13 unconstitutional. 14 Non - conforming uses may be required to be 15 removed, but the majority of the cases seem to indicate 16 that if this procedure is attempted, the ordinance will 17 be declared unconstitutional because unreasonable." 18 Court continued on. "Building zone ordinance 19 permits lawful uses of buildings at the time of 20 the passage of the ordinance, although not in 21 conformity with its provisions to continue 22 thereafter. This exception is made so that the 23 ordinance shall not have a retroactive 24 operation. it would be manifestly unjust to 25 deprive the owner of property of the use of Page 25 YS 01160 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09 -18838 RU which it was lawfully devoted when the ordinance became effective." Therefore, it appears that the instant case involves a situation materially different from that presented in the usual zoning case. As here, Mr. Allen, the exercise of power in this instance is, on the whole, far more drastic than in those in which a mere right to engage in a particular business is restricted. Court went on to say that "we are asked to uphold a municipal ordinance which destroys valuable businesses built up over a period of years. If we do so on the ground that this is a proper exercise of the police power in the enactment of zoning legislation, it follows that the same thing may be done to apartment houses, flats, or stores. "The establishment of many lawful and not dangerous businesses in a city would then become an extremely hazardous undertaking. At any time, in pursuance of a reasonable plan for its future development, the city could prohibit the continuance of the businesses, and make property valueless, which was previously constructed and devoted to a useful purpose. "It may will be that in the course of years, Page 26 27 YS 01161 0 u 09 -18838 1 one of the outlying permitted districts in the 2 present scheme will become residential in 3 character," the Court said, "and will, by 4 another ordinance, be placed in the prohibited 5 area. If the plaintiffs, at great expense, 6 reestablish themselves in that district, they 7 might be pursued again, and again eradicated. 8 "all of this to be justified under the police 9 power as a proper taking of private property 10 for public use without compensation. The 11 approval of such a doctrine would be a blow to 12 the rights in private property such as this 13 Court has never been witnessed." Excuse me, 14 "never before witnessed. Only a paramount and 15 compelling public necessity could sanction so 16 extraordinary an interference with useful 17 business." 18 Court goes onto question, "what is the public 19 necessity here? we've considered the ordinance 20 solely as modern zoning legislation, for such 21 is, undoubtedly, its character. There is, it 22 is true, testimony in the record to show that 23 the district was, in some respects, a less 24 agreeable residential section than it would be 25 if the businesses of plaintiffs were removed. Page 27 28 YS 01162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ell 09 -18838 "Neighbors complained that the presence of the sanitarium depreciated the value of their own property. There's similar testimony as to occasional noises made by unruly patients, and several patients having escaped. although, in this connection, the trial court found that none of the inmates of any of the four sanitariums was ever injured in any manner whatsoever, any of the inhabits of said Del Mar -- excuse me -- Mar vista district, or elsewhere, nor has any of said inmates ever attack or attempted to do bodily injury into any of said inhabitants." Court went on to look at a nuisance analysis, and it held that a nuisance could be regulated against. It found specifically that "a properly conducted sanitarium for the care and treatment of persons affected with mental or nervous diseases cannot, we feel, be held to constitute a nuisance." Court said that "a well- conducted modern hospital, even one for the treatment of contagious and infectious diseases, is not such a menace, but on the contrary, one of the most beneficent of institutions and needs no argument." The Court continued on to say "Must we say that Page 28 W YS 01163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C 09 -18838 the property of some of the residents of a district can be taken from them without compensation in order to make more attractive and pleasant the lives of other residents? The added benefit to the majority of the residents of the restricted district should not be received at the expense of others." And then in the words of Justice Holmes, Mr. Allen, in the Pennsylvania coal company case, which is 260 U.S., 393, the general rule is: "At least that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking. In general, it is not plain that a man's misfortunes or necessities will justify his shifting the damages to his neighbor's shoulders. "we are in a danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change." And lastly, the holding: "court held that it follows that the present ordinance is valid insofar as it prohibits the Page 29 30 YS 01164 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 09 -18838 further establishment of businesses of this type in the redistricted -- excuse me -- in the restricted districts and is invalid in its application to these plaintiffs who were there before the annexation occurred and before the ordinance was implemented." we would submit to you, Mr. Allen, that -- MR. ALLEN: Are you done with that legal analysis or that portion of that presentation? MR. ZFATY: I am. MR. ALLEN: Because I'm interested in how that ]ones case that focuses on annexation is any different or how it would apply -- how non - conforming use ordinance would apply any different to you just because you were recently annexed than it does to anyone else in the city who's been conducting a -- I don't see the difference, and I'm curious as to why you think that's significant. MR. ZFATY: I think it's significant, because this is a supreme court case that's been on the books for 78 years that specifically addresses that situation. And I would agree with you that there's been case law that's come down that probably makes it even broader in scope than that, and talks about prospective zoning and the utilization of reasonable accommodation for those businesses that are already in place. But this case calls into particular doubt the Page 30 31 YS 01165 M 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09 -18838 situation where you have an area of a city that was added on. The language of the Court speaks to the issue of, do we chase this business from place to place? we can enact an ordinance in this area once we an annex it. You'll recall, Mr. Allen, that the Court specifically said that, Are we going to -- if we are to annex another area where that business has since moved, then are they again out of compliance with our ordinances, and do they have to again come to us and either move or ask for a permit? so I think the Jones case, as I mentioned, is particularly applicable to our situation. Now, specifically as to our homes, within the factual findings in the staff report, there were some issues that I think probably needed to be addressed. The first is, for the record, at 1561 Indus. It is a five - bedroom home. currently there are 12 beds there. The second home we're talking about here today is 1621 Indus. It's a six - bedroom home. That has 18 beds. The next is 20172 Redlands, six bedrooms, 17 beds. And 1571 Pegasus, six bedrooms, 18 -- excuse me, 18 beds. All of these homes, as I mentioned earlier, are in the Santa Ana Heights area. All have been established. All are run as sober living homes. without 1 argument, much less dangerous to any public issue, public 2 concern than any sanitarium would present. Page 31 YS 01166 HI 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09 -18838 Now, there was a list of inconsistencies that we found in the reports. Parking, our visitors, or the issue of our visitors, meetings, the licensing issue, the average stay of the individuals who are at these homes, and the bed count. And we noticed that overconcentration was, at least appeared on the staff report, to be one of the key concerns. we would note, though, that none of these properties are in close proximity to any schools, day cares, parks or alcohol serving facilities. This portion of the staff report noted that the project is located within the established single - family residential neighborhood consisting of one- or two -story tracked homes. And consistent with that, the report notes that there are no public or private schools or public parks located with any proximity of the site. This slide, Mr. Allen, illustrates just one example of what happens when Yellowstone comes into a property. You can see on the left side there, there's a photograph of the way the property looked before we came in. The right side is after. we have improved the homes in which we are located. Yellowstone bought old dilapidated homes in an 1 area of town which was near dog kennels and under the 2 orange county flight path. The homes were in an 3 incorporated area of Santa Ana. Page 32 33 YS 01167 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 09 -18838 The 1621 Indus property was abandoned. we purchased it at an auction. The 20172 Redlands property was run by drug dealers. one went to jail. At 1621 -- excuse me. At 1561 Indus, there was a woman there who was renting out homes, one of them for years. And at 1571 Pegasus, the property, when we took it over, was in such disrepair that we had to put significant assets and resources into it. From the staff report, there was an indication that there were numerous efforts to communicate with the Applicant to provide them with an opportunity to correct certain situations. And the note was that they were internally inconsistent and -- and to process the applications in order to deem them complete. Yellowstone has made itself available to clarify any of these issues. As the staff report duly notes, there's been a number of correspondence exchanged between my office and the city. we have -- I hope, provided the city with everything that it needs in hopefully a timely fashion. The common concerns are listed here as to, I think, all four homes. we'll address each one of these in turn. 34 First off, as to the parking, the slides here, Mr. Allen, depict areas where there is parking on each of the four properties. In the December 23, 2008, and the January 29, 2009, correspondences, we noted that ample Page 33 YS 01168 7 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 09 -18838 parking was present for four cars to park. However, only the house manager and the assistant manager are permitted to park on -site. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible response.) MR. ALLEN: Everybody gets their turn. It's not appropriate to make comments during the time when his presentation is being made. And then I won't let him interrupt you either, okay? MR. ZFATY: Thank you. on the issue of the curfew, our residents aren't allowed to actually be in the home from 8 a.m. to 3 P.M. Residents have to be back at 4 P.M. At 8 p.m., there's quiet time. And the lights are out uniformly at 10 P.M. There is a transportation route that is now utilized. There's a van that takes our residents to treatment and also to church. There's pick up at 8 a.m. There's drop off at 4 p.m. To the issue of visitors, there is visitation allowed at the costa Mesa facility. There was a question about this on the staff report. The question I think 35 came from a letter that was provided in support of the Yellowstone homes. And the question was, well, if this person talked about in their letter of support how they visited, why are you saying in your application that there is no Page 34 YS 01169 C.... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 09 -18838 visitation? Answer is that it occurs in at the Costa Mesa facility. As to meetings, there are no treatment meetings in any of the four homes. There are -- there are administrative house meetings, and those happen one time a week and for one hour. And there are no interactions between the homes. so the record is clear, the average stay is six months, and that varies from time to time. I think our initial note, when this process first began about a year ago, was our average stay was about 12 months. And due to economic issues, it's decreased to six months. I think we noted that in our most recent correspondence. There is no licensing at any of the properties. And I think we've made the record clear that we mistakenly included in our original application that one or perhaps two of them were, in fact, licensed. There was some confusion on our end, but we attempted to address that as quickly as possible. As to the issue of trash, we have the same 36 type, size and number of trash cans as any of our neighbors. The complaints about trash and beer, especially, I think are unfounded. There's certainly no beer coming out of any of our houses. The picture here on the screen depicts a construction zone in the neighborhood, and, though we're Page 35 YS 01170 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 09 -18838 not here to provide evidence that beer came from that construction zone, it's certainly something that could be reasonably adduced. Now, as to the city's concern of overconcentration, we don't think that the measurements that the city are utilizing are accurate to reflect the distance between the homes. They are sort of the as- the - crow -flies measurements, which probably aren't properly utilized here. Also, as to the location of the homes, we're located on much larger lots than, for example, down on the Peninsula. This is relevant to the distance between the homes and also parking issues as well. As to the concentration, as the map here shows, there were, last month, 89 beds in this area. with the closure of 1501 Pegasus, 12 beds are gone. 1502 Pegasus, as well, includes, by our estimate, another 12 bed reduction. so already, within this area, there's been a 27 percent reduction, not including a single bed from 37 Yellowstone. The next slide, mr. Allen, depicts concentration of sober living homes. just we've taken one example on River Avenue. The distance between 5009 River and 5101 River is approximately 154 feet, which is a smaller measurement than any of our homes. This slide depicts a number of the sober living Page 36 YS 01171 0 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 09 -18838 homes within the City and shows the concentration throughout. As to the issue of parking, this slide shows the 1601 west Balboa property, which was approved by city on February 12th. As we all know, parking down there is quite an issue as compared with, for example, the Indus street parking, which is much less of an issue. And as noted earlier, we have two cars parking at any property, and we have ample parking for each of those cars on our properties. This slide here shows another parking comparison. The Pegasus side, on the left, versus west Balboa, 1115, ocean Recovery. This is a picture of the parking at 1132 west Balboa. Again, much more congested than anything you will find in our neighborhoods. As to the particular concerns regarding inconsistencies, at 1561 Indus, the bed count, there as I 90 mentioned earlier, Mr. Allen, is 12. It has been consistently reported in our use permit application as 12. As to the parking, the parking discrepancy as to whether there were two or four cars parked on this site, I think we may have noted in one of our submissions that there is ample room for four cars, but, in fact, there really are just two cars parked on this site. Page 37 YS 01172 t 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 09 -18838 As to the bed count, this has been consistently reported as 12 since the May 20, 2008, application. As to the parking, our May 20, 2008, application noted that four residents have personal vehicles, which are parked in the garage with the driveway. This is no longer the case. The December 23, 2008, and January 29, 2009, correspondences from my office clarified this. we noted in that correspondence that there was ample room for four cars to park on the site; however, only the house manager and the assistant manager, two cars, are permitted to park on the site. As to 1571 Pegasus, the bed count there is 18. And the staff report erroneously provides that we included in our 1 -28 -09 e-mail a clarification of a 12 -bed occupancy for this facility. But as you can see, Mr. Allen, excerpted in the lower left -hand corner is our e -mail, which I believe was also attached to the staff 39 report as an exhibit. And that shows very clearly that in that e-mail, we submitted that Pegasus was an 18 -bed count. A request here today is that we provide -- we be provided with continued unabated operation. Yellowstone is a good neighbor. It's not located near schools or day cares. we've improved the properties and increased the property values around us. Yellowstone sober living homes are on large Page 38 YS 01173 u 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 09 -18838 lots. Yellowstone has been providing sober living since 2003, and we're a member of the sober Living coalition in good standing. of note, two of the Yellowstone homes, the two that have been recommended for closure, are both oxford charter homes. That concludes my presentation Mr. Allen. As we noted, we are asking for a CUP. I think that it goes without saying that to the extent that any such permit be denied, we're asking for reasonable accommodations. And as I understand it, that may be handled in a separate hearing, though I don't know that my comments need to be repeated. Thank you. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. Does staff want to give any responses to those comments? or prior to that, does anyone else from Yellowstone wish to make a presentation at this time? so that concludes the Applicant's initial presentation? MR. ZFATY: Yes. MR. ALLEN: Mr. Bobko, did you have something to say? MR. BOBKO: I wanted to address a couple of legal issues. Four quick points. Number one, we don't believe that under the Ordinance, respectfully, Page 39 40 YS 01174 J 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 09 -18838 Mr. Allen, that you have the authority to overturn the Ordinance or decide whether or not it applies here. we think that the duly elected legislative body has already made that determination. MR. ALLEN: I agree with that. MR. sOBKO: okay. And to give you some comfort, a federal judge has also agreed that this is a facially valid Ordinance, so we don't think you are proceeding in peril. secondly, I wanted to be sure to point out that the Applicant -- and although we haven't had a chance to read Jones, although he gave an excellent resuscitation, the Applicant was pointing out that in the Jones case, there was a business. And I was trying to keep track of how many times we were -- the case described it as a 41 business. And I think that that's a very salient point that needs to reverberate in this proceeding is that Applicant is conceding that this is, in fact, a business. And a business is treated a little differently. more importantly, however, is that we're not eradicating businesses. In fact, this proceeding is a proceeding where the Applicant can avoid being completely put out of business. Moreover, the Ordinance makes explicit -- gives explicit opportunity for the Applicant to advertise their Page 40 YS 01175 J 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 09 -18838 business over time and, as in many non - conforming situations, that's simply the way it's done. I know that you, as a former city attorney, are probably aware that that's very common in First Amendment cases, where you have billboards or adult uses or such that have become non - conforming. There's always a period of time in which they are allowed to gently go away. so as a matter of law -- and I'll let staff deal with the particulars of the case, but as a matter of law, we don't believe there's any problem applying this ordinance to this Applicant. And if, by some chance, you need further briefing, we'd be happy to provide briefing. And I'm sure the Applicant's counsel would as well, so -- MR. ALLEN: No. As you said, I don't see my 42 a role in these proceedings as challenging the validity of the city's legislation. I think there's left to the city and a separate proceeding. so I asked the question merely because I was personally curious about the distinction between the recently annexed property versus the non - conforming uses that are created whenever an ordinance is adopted that affects them. Anyway, thanks. MR. BOBKO: Thank you. MR. ZFATY: May I respond briefly? MR. ALLEN: Sure. Page 41 YS 01176 t 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 09 -18838 MR. ZFATY: I think the response to that is that it's not that we are necessarily saying that you, Mr. Allen, are supposed to comment on the constitutionality of the ordinance, rather that the application of the ordinance in our particular circumstance might be a little bit different and might be viewed in a different light. MR. ALLEN: Understand. Thank you. All right. Does staff have any other comments at this point? MR. KIFF: I'm going to save them for the end. I'd like to hear the public comment as well. But to your point about annexation, I thought 43 it was well placed. I don't know if folks in the audience knows that Newport Beach has grown with 94 separate annexations to this date. so I don't know where one annexation's timing starts and the other does not, but -- MR. ALLEN: All right. so with that, with those comments, then, we will open the public hearing. My thinking is that we'll go through the individual properties one by one, so that those of you who wish to comment on a particular one can do so. And frankly, I think at the same time, you can make your comments, if you have more general comments, about the effect of these uses in the City. That's fine, Page 42 YS 01177 0 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 09 -18838 too. But, of course, the primary focus here is on the individual properties. so how about if we start with 1621 Indus and work our way around Indus and then down Pegasus, I think it is? And please state your name for the record, and common name spelling. MR. HANLEY: Robert Hanley, H- a- n- l -e -y. I live at 1601 Indus. I am the western neighbor to 1621. I have been in my home there 27 years. I moved into that home in '62 -- '63 -- I'm sorry. '72, '73 -- from the Bay Area. Came out of the electron tube industry, because it was fading away. And I went to work for 44 Hughes as a process engineer. I finished raising my six children in that home, four girls and two boys. And obviously having lived in that home that long, they are up and gone, with the exception of my youngest lad is staying with us. one reason I bought there was because of the community, the size of the home, the facilities close to that home, the schools, my work. I worked for Hughes. And basically, we have enjoyed that home. we have invested in that home about 840,000. Now, the comment was made about the investment in the home next to me. one of the problems we have, we have a redevelopment agency. And due to that situation, the county owned about ten homes in that area. And if Page 43 YS 01178 71 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 09 -18838 any of them degraded, it was due to that. The home next to me was rented, which wasn't supposed to be, for almost ten years. Then it sat empty for a good year. And I never saw this, but it was reported that transients were bedding down there. when the home went on the market, I interfaced with the Thames about what was to become of the home. And I immediately wasn't happy, and they knew it. But, I mean, I faced up to it. And I've been a good neighbor to those people. And that's what it's about. Neighbor. And our efforts, for instance, to become part 45 of Newport Beach started in '99. And there were five of us -- MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry. I failed to note that each person gets three minutes. And as you can see, the red light is blinking, which means your time is up. so if you can just summarize, that would be great. MR. HANLEY: All right. I have two objections. And one of the objections is they are not neighbors. If we have a problem, tough. The place is inundated with young people. I've seen 30 to 40 walk the streets from one facility to another, or they arrive in their vans. Early on, they had parties, and the whole street was parked up. I had to go out and protect the fire plug. Make sure they didn't park in front of the fire plug. Page 44 YS 01179 F 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 09 -18838 And to protect my driveway, I had to have -- I had a handicapped child, which we had a van for, that I needed the egress and access. And I actually had to run some people away, and, of course, they got of niffed at me. I saw people -- MR. ALLEN: You need to wrap it up, please. MR. HANLEY: okay. I saw people come in from out of the neighborhood and say, "Oh, there's a party going on." 46 MR. ALLEN: Thank you. MR. HANLEY: There's monkey business going on. MR. ALLEN: Someone else like to speak? Just please come forward at the conclusion of the last one. MR. WALKER: I'm Barry walker, 1571 Indus. I'm next to 1561 and only a few feet away from the 1621. Probably start out with, unfortunately, Mr. zfaty apparently has been misled by his clients, because there are cars parked on our street from the people living in that house. He says nobody's supposed to be in the house from eight until three. when I came to this meeting and left at 1:30, one of the residents had returned home, and was -- her car was parked in the driveway. Being there, we know which cars apparently belong to the supervisor. And this woman, you know, Page 45 YS 01180 A 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 09 -18838 yesterday came and parked in the drive, did some business, and went and parked up the street, walked back to the house. And then as t was leaving, she had come back to the house for something. so saying that people are meeting the time tables that they have put up there, everybody's there by 4 o'clock, it doesn't happen. This house, 16 -- excuse me -- 1561 is the only one of the four that has a swimming pool. And during the 47 summer, the men come from the men's house, people come from the other houses, come over and have swimming parties. You know, middle of the afternoon. It doesn't carry on to the middle of the night, but we were led to believe that only these people would be using that property, and that's just not the truth. The other one is, as Bob mentioned, at the 1621 house, for years, there have been what appeared to be orientation sessions, middle of the day, middle of the day, 10 o'clock in the morning, that have 20, 30, 40, people have been brought. And then about 10:30 or 11 o'clock in the morning, they're all walking out, walking the sidewalks, walking, you know, occasionally across everybody's plants in the parkway, you know, taking a tour of the neighborhood, you know. unfortunately, when house next to us was sold Page 46 YS 01181 L 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 09 -18838 and taken over by Yellowstone, nobody made an effort to say, you know, we're going in there. Here's how you get a hold of us if there's a problem. You know, understanding they didn't want to be dealt with every little complaint, but when there's a problem, we have no idea who to contact. You know, we've had to go over and pound on the door ourselves to say, you know, "Get your sinking car 48 out of our driveway." 5o, you know, I don't know want to be a NIMBY, but there is a problem with the amount of concentration of the vehicles that we have associated with the various houses. Concentration is probably the big issue. The pictures they showed of the street and no trash, I would say yesterday, everybody had four or five trash cans out. And that's, you know, that's too much. Thank you. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. MR. WALKER: Thank you. MR. ALLEN: We're still on 1621. MR. GROSKREUTZ: Chuck Groskreutz. I live at 1551 Pegasus Street. THE REPORTER: Spell the last name. MR. GROSKREUTZ: G- r- o- s- k- r- e- u -t -z. I just might -- would like to just make my comments in the three minutes that I have that real apply to the whole group, since I've made some surveys, and so Page 47 YS 01182 i 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 09 -18838 I want to take the time to do that. I live on 1551 Pegasus, which is the thoroughfare by which all these people come in and out on foot through that tract. Now, based on Counsel's bed count, that means that there would be or could be 65 additional people who will be traipsing in and out of our neighborhood. 49 And let me just mention to you that currently, the amount of people that come by my home and what they do during those trips have specific impact on my property. And as an example, just in the last week, we came out -- I came out this morning in the morning to go to work, and I found about eight 7 -11 coffee chocolate cups all over my front lawn. Interestingly enough, this happened after I had sent my comments in to staff about my concerns about these homes. I don't feel that the homes that we have -- and Counsel has mentioned that the parking was adequate. well, when you take a picture of the parking at 2 o'clock in the afternoon when everybody's out at work, it's a lot different than when you look at what the situation is after five in the evening. It must be known that there are no parking on the opposite side of Santa Ana Avenue. It's all red. There's no parking facilities on that thoroughfare. There's no space. Page 48 YS 01183 u 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 09 -18838 so everyone who parks in the apartments, everyone who lives there, everyone who lives in all the new condominiums up on Santa Ana Avenue, and on the new homes on Riverside, they all have to park someplace. And where they park is generally anywhere they can find. so any extra parking that we used to have is J complicated now by the fact that we have extra people in our neighborhood who are using those facilities and attending those facilities. The second thing I wanted to point out is I do a walk every other evening in my exercise program, and I walk by these homes. oftentimes, and I will say oftentimes, more often than not, i would say at least on the average twice per week, there are several groups if in these homes in the back -- on the one that's right on the corner of, I believe, Redlands there, number 18, you can hear the men in the back with their group. There's a wave the cigarette smoke that comes by, and you can hear them having a meeting. They are meeting. And there's been some statements here tonight that they don't occur, well, that's not true. It's just flat not true. The other point I'd like to make is that there is an issue with the quality of life that's been changed. counsel mentioned that they have improved the value of the homes, which I understood wasn't something we're Page 49 YS 01184 F 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 09 -18838 supposed to talk about. But sense he brought it up, I don't know how you can possibly say that that use in this neighborhood has improved the value of the homes. There's no way. If you look at the value of the homes in that neighborhood, 51 there's absolutely no way, and, the sales will point that out. so that's not true. And then the final thing that I like to point out is the kennels were zoned long ago. They are not even in that neighborhood. They are around the corner down the side. so, you know, I really think that when you look at our specific community -- I've been there for 25 years. This is a community that has larger homes, large lots. The ability to put, you know, 65 beds in four homes -- and let's put a little number to this. Let's say that there's a thousand dollars a month -- THE COURT: You have got to put a wrap on it. MR. GROSKREUTZ: -- $65,000 per month for these people to live there, and it's a huge cash cow. Even cut in half, that's $32.5. This is a business. This is not a residential use. It's a business. And they are running a business. The dog kennels are running a business, too, but I think they keep more of their business in accordance with the rules and the zoning regulations. Page 50 YS 01185 0 09 -18838 22 And so I oppose all of these for any exception 23 whatsoever. They need to be standing and adhere to the 24 zoning regulations that everybody else does for that use. 25 Thank you. 1 MR. ALLEN: Thank you. 2 Folks, we're really running over these three 3 minutes, and that's the way we try to run things here, 4 and we've got off to a bad start. Let's stop it. 5 MR. ABRAHAM: Sorry. I apologize. My daughter 6 is here, and I want to get her home. So if I could, I 7 wanted to talk just a very few comments in general, but 8 then about 1571 Pegasus. 9 MR. KIFF: Your name, please? 10 MR. ABRAHAM: My name is Steven Abraham. I 11 live at 1592 Pegasus. 12 I am a newcomer there. I'll only been there 13 since 2000. People have lived in that community for 30 14 years. But what I heard today was that the home went 15 there in 2003, 2005, and 2007. And as the city attorney 16 pointed out, as counsel pointed out, these are 17 businesses. 18 If the 7 -11 were forced to close on the corner, 19 there would be no question that the 7 -11 could no longer 20 operate its business. These are single - family 21 residences. They have been and they will continue to be, 22 I hope, for a very long time. Page 51 YS 01186 I 09 -18838 23 You'll hear from people who their grandparents 24 and their children were there, and their grandchildren 25 were there. And I hope that my daughter will live in 53 1 that home for many years to come and, God willing, her 2 children. 3 But it's not a business zone. It's not an 4 economic opportunity zone. It's a neighborhood. It's 5 the neighborhood like I was raised in in Gainesville, 6 Florida. And this is my home, this is my community, and 7 I'd love to see it that way. 8 But let's talk specifics. I live at 1592 9 Pegasus. I live right across from one of the homes on 10 Pegasus. six bedrooms? I can tell you quite frankly I 11 was surprised to hear six bedrooms. Because there are 12 generally two styles of construction in that 13 neighborhood. There's a single -- there's a single -story 14 with a second -story over the roof that goes to the back 15 over the garage. And then there's a more traditional 16 type. That's the majority of the homes. 17 And I think all of the other homes fit into the 18 category. The inside of the houses are exactly the same. 19 It's four bedrooms upstairs, a den downstairs, might be a 20 bedroom, you know. You start to change every single room 21 into a bedroom, it starts to become a hotel. Again, it 22 looks more like a business than a residence. 23 I was amazed at the pictures, the four homes, Page 52 YS 01187 I 09 -18838 24 and not a single car parked in front of them. well, sir, 25 I would invite you to come to that neighborhood any 54 1 evening, and what you saw in those pictures is not what 2 you'll see. And finally, I noticed in those pictures, 3 every one of the garage doors was closed, and they talked 4 about ample parking. 5 By the way, I'm a land use attorney, and every 6 now and again, I play Bet Your Bar card. I'm willing to 7 bet my bar card that if you go to 1571 Pegasus and open 8 that garage door, you won't find any room for a car. 9 Pictures can be a little deceiving, but I think what 10 you'll hear from most of the residents isn't. This is 11 not a compatible use. 12 Thank you, sir. 13 MR. ALLEN: Thank you. 14 MR. ROBERTSON: Good afternoon. Thank you for 15 allowing me to present my information today. My name is 16 George Robertson. I'm trying to get all the information 17 in in three minutes. 18 I have been a resident in the area since 1963. 19 I grew up in that area and purchased my house there in 20 1988. I bought it there despite some discouraging 21 comments about the airport and the kennels because it's a 22 good place to raise kids. It's a quiet area. There's no 23 traffic going through, which comes to some of my comments 24 here about the characteristics of the neighborhood. Page 53 YS 01188 N 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09 -18838 Mr. Kiff did make a comment about the park at 55 the end of orchard. By my calculation, it's a little less than a thousand feet. I'm not go to quibble, but there's a community park there. Now, I wasn't going to do any deductions, but that has seen impacts from drinking. You go down there on a Saturday morning, and you'll find alcohol beverages on the grass and in the gutter. I wasn't going to make any deductions, but those impacts happened. It did not coincide with the time of the construction, though, as the attorney here has demonstrated before. There's some inconsistencies and, perhaps, misrepresentations about the mischaracterization of the use of the treatment of these places. Go back to my notes here. And I did provide written comments to the city. The house size and number of rooms has been mentioned before. None of those houses as built had over 2,650 square feet, and the majority of them have 2,585 square feet. so the square footage provided in the documentation, which, I'm assume, is being provided by Yellowstone, is overestimated by -- in the neighborhood of 25 percent. so I'd be interested to see where that extra square footage is coming. They also talked about the bedrooms. None of these houses were -- had more than five bedrooms as Page 54 YS 01189 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09 -18838 56 built. Many of them have four. so I'd be interested to see where those additional bedrooms come from. only one house that I know of, one on River, excuse me, on Redlands Drive had any modifications done to it. Transportation, parking. within the staff reports, there's comments about no transportation being commonly provided. That, again, is a falsehood. They talk about the vans being parked in a different city. They are parked right on Pegasus Drive right by the Redlands facility. There's two vans there with the vanpools, and they are used on a daily basis. And I will concede to the attorney that there is no interaction between these houses. However, there is considerable interaction between the residents of the houses. 5o with that, I'm going to leave my comments there. I think that other people will probably comment. I'd just like to say in closing, in regards to the decisions today -- and I'm trying to do it quickly -- request that the city deny all the applications due to the inconsistencies and contradictions contained in the application as reflected in the city staff report. And in lieu of that decision, I request that, prior to any approvals being granted by the city, the staff verify the issues contained in number two of my Page 55 YS 01190 F11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09 -18838 57 report, which is, essentially, the square footage, number of bedrooms. And be more transparent about the decision of which house to approve or not approve. within the staff reports, two were approved, two were not approved. Me, as the public trying to review them, i couldn't figure out why they approved one and didn't approve the other. Additionally, i suggest to the City that if the Applicant is unaware of the facts on the ground, either the vanpools, residents co- mingling, use of private cars, that contradict statements made by the Applicant as reflected in the staff report, that there's a disconnect with the on -site residence managers and the Applicant. so that's another issue for the City to clarify. Finally, before any granted -- are approved or granted, i ask the city add a condition that the Applicant provide all of the neighbors with a common set of house rules that is updated as changes are made. Because i have no idea some of these house rules were in place and that i could even complain about them. And finally, 1 ask that the City provide the neighbors with a method of reporting violations of these rules and a description of the City's action that would be taken under such instances. Thank you very much. Page 56 YS 01191 L11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09 -18838 58 MR. ALLEN: Thank you. And by the way, just for the audience's sake, staff has received those written comments from a number of different source, a -mails and so forth. And they are all getting distributed around to everybody. so you can be assured that I see them, as well as the other stakeholders in the game here. okay. who's next? MR. MC DONOUGH: Mike McDonough, M- C- D- 0- N- 0- U -G -H. 1562 Pegasus. I've been there since '73. I raised my four children there. From my front door, I can see three of the group homes. Four of them are within 100 yards of my house. The other one is just 150, maybe. The complexion of the neighborhood has completely changed since I've been there. it was all families, lot of kids. Rarely see kids out on the street now playing as you used to. I won't allowed my grandkids out front where my kids used to play. It's -- the interaction between the homes, the Redlands home, are often down to the Pegasus house. The vehicles that transport them in the morning, there's one car after another picking people up. in the afternoons, there's cars coming one after another. They say there's no parking problem. I've had Page 57 59 YS 01192 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 09 -18838 cars parked blocking my driveway. Several of the residents that have cars have blocked the driveway. They are running businesses. It's a transient hotel. The only difference is we don't have registration cards, so the police can come in to see who is in them. If I wanted to run a business out of my house and start a hotel, I wouldn't be able to. Just because they call it a treatment center, you shouldn't allow them to run businesses in a residential area. Thank you. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. MR. MATHENA: I'm Larry Mathena. I think you know how to spell it. Forgive me for not submitting written comments. Principally the reason I didn't is because, unlike the commitment of posting everything 72 hours before, these were not -- the staff reports weren't posted until very recently. And even with what's out there, we don't have the exhibits. So I really don't have any basis to know how the staff came up with its findings. And I have great concern, for example, when I look at the summary report that says, "20.91(A).050 would cause persons in recovery to be denied low cost housing, and that the persons denied the housing are of limited income whose needs can only be met by Yellowstone." Page 58 C'i1. YS 01193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C 09 -18838 while generally agreeing with their assertion, staff made a slight distinction here between current residents, et cetera. I would have to ask, has the City done a study as to what is available and where it's available? If it's not, why is it making admissions like this? Period. similarly, the staff goes on to note, and I'm just reading this in its summary, "If use permits are denied for one or more of the other Yellowstone facilities, and if expenses at each home are shown to be reported, then all five required reasonable accommodation findings can be made and staff can recommend approval of the request." so when I read that, all that I know and all that's been agreed to is that, evidently, if you prove the expenses are low enough, their direction to you is to approve. I don't get that either when you start to look at the whole report, and I don't understand the logic of it in any case. Moving right along, and just to cover a couple specific things, the Cal ADP, in its summary of post -rehab folks, self - reporting say 25 percent use while they are in the facility. So to kind of blindly say, "Our people would never do that" is silly. The other thing I would observe -- because Page 59 GN YS 01194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 09 -18838 these folks out here don't understand the rules -- I have no clue if these are illegal assemblies. And if they are, it's okay, because the city, when it finds out, doesn't enforce things like anyway is what was said at the last hearing like this. A final comment that I really didn't see dealt with -- and, again, I'm blind in Reasonable ACcommodationland -- is the Municipal Code under 20.98.025(C) and (D). Clearly, there are reasons not to grant reasonable accommodations in this context. And again, because I don't know what's on file, I'm done. And I actually did it in three minutes. M5. DEVINE: Hi. My name is Judy Define, and I live at 1662 Pegasus. Thank you for letting me talk to you today. when we purchased our home, it is underneath the airport, as some people have said. And no one goes looking for a home under the airport. The reason we bought it is because of the family characteristic of the neighborhood. when I started raising my children there -- I have two grade - school children -- there were ten stay -at -home moms in the neighborhood. There were children running everywhere. And there are still are a lot of children in the neighborhood. It's a great Page 60 62 YS 01195 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 09 -18838 neighborhood. And on its web site, Newport Beach said that they wanted to protect the character of our neighborhood, and that's all I want, too, is to protect that character. Three of the main streets in our neighborhood are Pegasus, the street I live on, Redlands and Indus. Yellowstone is currently operating a facility on each of these streets. They asked for an exemption from Section 20.91A.050 in order to house 18 resident clients in each of the three homes and 12 clients in a fourth home. My first question would be, those are the resident clients. In addition, are there managers who live there, too? so are you talking about not just 18 people but possibly 20 people in a five - bedroom house? so that's something I'd like to look into. Because I know the neighborhood and the neighbors know each other so well, we're able to go around and say how many people are in each house. so I went around, and I thought, okay, how do we tell the character of a neighborhood? Let's look at how many people there are. You know, we can use numbers at least. so I gathered the number of residents on each street for comparison. Now, if you were to pass the applications and the exemptions for the number of people on Pegasus Page 61 63 YS 01196 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 09 -18838 street, where there are 28 homes, there would be 26.8 percent of the population would be recovering alcoholics and addicts, okay? That's two blocks, okay? On Indus street, where there are 14 homes, 47 percent of the people who live on that street would be recovering alcoholics and addicts. And then the third street that we're talking about is Redlands street. And on that street, because it's a shorter street and not a lot of homes, 75 percent of the population on that street would be recovering alcoholics and addicts. And if you figure that those are three streets out of our five streets -- maybe, we only have five little streets in our neighborhood. we're very -- we're not a pass- through, we're an enclave. And that's a huge chunk of our population. Now, how can you say it's a NIMBY if over half of the population is changed? I don't think that's an NIMBY issue. That's an overconcentration issue. Finally, I'd like to remind everyone that the normal stay indicated on the Yellowstone Recovery web site on the home page says 90 days. That's what it says when you go there. so that means four times a year, all the population of those homes would be allowed to change. 64 It would be allowed to. If you take that number of homes and the number rage 62 YS 01197 0 09 -18838 3 of people who cycle through there altogether, that would 4 be 264 people coming in our neighborhood. in those same 5 streets, there are 104 people who live there permanently. 6 So if 71 percent of the people who are coming and going 7 on those streets are not residents for four -- or more 8 than 90 days, does that not change the complexion of my 9 neighborhood? Yes, it does. 10 Thank you. 11 Oh, I respectfully ask that you deny the 12 applications and exemptions. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. ALLEN: What was your last name, please? is MS. DEVINE: Devine, D- e- v- i -n -e. 16 MR. ALLEN: Thank you. 17 MS. DEVINE: Thanks. 18 MS. WALKER: Hi. I'm Judy Walker, 1571 Indus. 19 And in general comment, like our last speaker, 20 the city has indicated that they want to keep the 21 complexion of a residential neighborhood. As we've very 22 nicely demonstrated with numbers -- and I did a similar 23 exercise with just not even the turnover but with the 24 beds that have been requested -- it would be the 25 equivalent of adding eight additional homes to a very 65 1 small component of our neighborhood. 2 And my concern is infrastructure. I don't 3 believe that -- and I would ask the city, have you looked Page 63 YS 01198 I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09 -18838 at what is the impact of having that kind of increase? It's like three times the concentration of population in a dwelling. Are our sewers ready to hand that? Are the rest of the people in the neighborhood going to fall prey to problems because these are residences developed for families, not for businesses? And I have to say with everyone else parking is an issue. Driveway gets blocked. Trash is an issue. while, yes, we have trash cans like everyone else, I would say if you're having three to four times the population in one building, is there enough curb space for the residents to put that number of cans out front. They are overflowing currently. They are being placed in front of fire hydrants, which means there's no neighborly feeling of we have concern for the people we're living with. in those instances where I've had to approach people to try to get cars moved from my driveway, I've been met with, "You're not blocked in." It's not a neighborly -- it's exchange. I can speak now directly to 1561. when they've overflowed their swimming pool into my yard, and I .. 1 approached their manager, she looked me straight in the 2 face and said, "Are you sure ?" I had 3 extra inches of 3 water in my yard, and she had a foot in her backyard. 4 There's not a feeling that they are willing to work with Page 64 YS 01199 7 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 09 -18838 us. It is very confrontational at all times. And in general, the feel of the neighborhood, through all the traffic, we can no longer have what we feel is an effective neighborhood watch. we all know neighbors. But now we can't tell, does this car belong here or not? with our economic situations, we know crime can be an issue. How can we effectively look out for our neighbors when we don't know what belongs in your neighborhood and what doesn't. Thank you. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. MS. LEE: I name is Louise Lee. I live at 1671 orchard. I'm the only one that doesn't live directly next to these homes, but I've lived in the neighborhood since 1983 when I bought my home. I have two dogs that I walk through the neighborhood on a regular basis. And I see a lot of the things that everyone else is saying about the traffic, with the going back and forth between one home and another home, with the excessive number of cars, the lack of parking, the trash. 67 And the one house that's -- I think it's 18 on the corner, where the attorney pointed out the picture of the home that looked very tall, and he's intimated, well, that must be the workman from that house, well, it's a one man that's been doing all the construction on that Page 65 YS 01200 9 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 09 -18838 house. I've never once seen him drinking. And generally, he worked in the nighttime, because he works during the daytime. And it's been are a very long process, but hopefully it's almost done. I question -- in the house, the number 18, happens to be in the same model as mine, and I question how they can have six bedrooms, because that's a four - bedroom house. some of the other houses that have -- were either four or five bedrooms and now have six bedrooms in them, how did they -- did they get the permits to redo these houses, which they obviously must have? I really question whether they legally can converted these homes to six bedrooms. And to have the number of people living in these homes definitely impacts our neighborhood and actually has caused many problems with the neighborhood that we have. And I don't think I have too much else to say. Thank you. oh, I do have one question. what is oxford charter homes? The attorney referred to that like that was some great wonderful thing. MR. ALLEN: we'll have them respond to that when they wrap. Thank you. M5. LEE: Thank you. MR. ALLEN: Anyone else? Page 66 M YS 01201 m 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 09 -18838 MS. GROSKREUTZ: Good afternoon. My name is Victoria Groskreutz, G- r- o- s- k- r- e- u -t -z, and I live at 1551 Pegasus. I would have to say ditto to the other comments that have been made. I've submitted quite a few pictures that I've taken myself to the city, and I've submitted those through nave Kiff. And they clearly show, and I have some here, that the trash is overflowing. And there's toilet seats sitting in the street and old furniture that sits for days before being picked up. MR. KIFF: Ma'am, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I looked at those pictures, too, and it was my understanding that those were 1501 or 1502 Pegasus; is that right? MS. GROSKREUTZ: That's correct. MR. KIFF: Okay. Because that's not the subject of the hearing today, but -- so in other words, I can't submit them as evidence, because they are not the subject properties. Those are the Lynn House properties. MS. GROSKREUTZ: They are now. But in the past, they were Yellowstone. MR. KIFF: Okay. MS. GROSKREUTZ: And the property directly -- I live across the street from Mike McDonough, and he said he could see three homes. And there are actually the two homes that were occupied at 1501 and 1502, but the house Page 67 YS 01202 I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 09 -18838 two doors down from me. I'm in the middle of the block. And then, of course, the other one on Redlands, I believe it is. That are all very close in proximity. we, too, have had these issues with the parking. we've had cars parked in front of our driveway. we haven't even been able to put out our trash cans because your cars have been parked there. si- weekly meetings for the residents but other people come in with lots of cars have occurred. And I've always questioned why they don't have their meetings at churches or other community locations where there's adequate parking, but this may be on deaf ears. This seriously impacts the parking on the street. we've also had cars that have been left on our streets for days full of trash and junk that just sit there. I've had to call on those also. I also have had to -- I've actually gone out to follow -- when I see people getting out of cars, I have 70 something else reported. I've watched to see where they go, and they go down to the houses and enter them. and they do park sometimes a block away. I don't know if they don't want their cars noticed, but they park far away, and they are walking to the home. so I feel like our tract is becoming a parking lot for sober living homes. when our own family and friends come over, we, too, have had to park a car out Page 68 YS 01203 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 09 -18838 front to save a space for them to park when they come home from work or when they come to visit. when the attorney suggested that they actually have -- or stated in the past that was sold on public auction, there were other families members bidding on that property, but they are outbid by Yellowstone. One of the families was a young man and his wife and child that wanted to buy that house, and he was actually raised in that neighborhood. So it was very disheartening to us to see that happen. we recently applied for refinancing for our home that would have considerably reduced our monthly mortgage, but we were told that the last comparable sale, which I believe was the 1502 house, which was a sober living facility, impacted that -- the value of the home, and so it wouldn't go through as a comparable sale that was high enough. 71 Realtors have told us that they have to inform prospective buyers that there's sober living homes in the tract. This also affects our property values and the character of our neighborhood. And I, too, am concerned about the recent explosions of trash that have been left on our property. I can't figure out why, but there's also been a plant that's been knocked over. Another concern was when there were -- Page 69 YS 01204 A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 09 -18838 MR. ALLEN: Can you please put a wrap on it? You're past your three minutes. MS. GROSKREUTZ: Okay. This is the last thing 2 wanted to say. The two homes at 1501 and 1502, often had women in their pajamas crossing back and forth across the street all hours of the night and day. when you make a right turn into the neighborhood, you have to be very cautious, because you can actually hit somebody crossing the street, because there's this constant flow. we also had at least six times that the fire department had to respond to 1501 because of detox that was going on, which we understood was not licensed. And I would like to know if there's any records from the fire department that support that. Thank you. I respectfully ask you to deny the request of the application. 72 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I don't see anybody else coming forward, and we aren't going to close the public hearing yet. And I'm suggesting -- and if staff wants to comment, please do -- that we open the hearing and initially attempted to focus on 1621 Indus, but then we transitioned, and everybody just started talking. And I think that's just fine, because you all got to say your peace. Here's my thinking, unless I hear vehement objection from staff or even the Applicant, that if any Page 70 YS 01205 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 09 -18838 of you have something specific, site specific, to one of these particular properties that you didn't get to say that you feel compelled and you need to say in order to complete your presentation, I'd suggest you come back, and I'll give you a minute, minute and a half, to focus in on a compelling issue that you don't think has been presented. Now, obviously, all of the neighborhood issues and the concerns that are neighborhood -wide have been expressed articulately and repeatedly. But please do. If you feel you need to focus on one of these particular properties, go ahead and do it. MR. HANLEY: 1621? THE REPORTER: Name again? MR. HANLEY: Robert Hanley. 73 THE REPORTER: Thank you. MR. HANLEY: what I'm about to say about that house is about all of them. There's no car parked in the garages. The garages are full of beds and such. so the statement that they accommodate their own parking is false. I was told by one of the participants that she could not park in the driveway because it was reserved for whoever. she had to park at the curb. I made certain statements about the amount of parking, hydrant, and what have you. I videoed all this. And if I knew Page 71 YS 01206 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 09 -18838 that would be something that would be credited, I would have brought it. I have an argument with the whole concept in them being called medically a disability. There are people with disabilities that are alcoholics. But I'll be damned if an alcoholic is a disabled person. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. Mr. Robertson needs to focus -- and again, we don't need general comments. That's not what the purpose of revisiting. This is a focus on an individual one, where you see something good or bad about it that you feel has not been said. MR. GROSKREUTZ: Chuck Groskreutz, 1551 Pegasus Street. 74 lust wanted to ask about the 1571 Pegasus, 20172 Pegasus (sic), 1621 and the other address, which I didn't write down. Each one of these show bedrooms -- six bedrooms, six bedrooms, six bedrooms, five bedrooms now. And I want to know or would like to know whether they were -- when they were purchased, whether they were added, whether the bedrooms were added, and if so, if the permits were pulled, because I'm not sure. I don't know. It's my only comment. THE COURT: There's been a question that's been raised by several people, and I expect staff can address it, and then we'll deal with it from there. Thanks. Page 72 YS 01207 L11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 09 -18838 MR. GROSKREUTZ: Thank you very much for the second opportunity. MR. ROBERTSON: George Robertson, 20112 Redlands Drive. My one point is in regards to 20172 Redlands Drive, and by extension, 1621 Indus. one of the findings under the Section 20.91A.060(A) through (G) was that no secondhand smoke can be detected outside the property. staff has found that this is the case. I feel that finding cannot be made for two reasons. we've already heard one person today talk about being able to smell secondhand smoke from the Redlands facility. Plus, I've personally have seen people smoke 75 in the front yards of those two residences, both on Redlands and then on also on Pegasus. In addition, if you're to go by those residences, you would find cigarette butts in the gutters in front of those. And whether those were residents or guests, I can't say. But my assumption is that guests should also be following the guidelines as residents. Thank you very much. M5. LEE: I'm Louise Lee. And in his original presentation, he made a comment about how Yellowstone had come in and upgraded all of the homes. And I personally have watched from the time they came in and bought them. And, yes, they put Page 73 YS 01208 I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 09 -18838 paint, and they did a bunch of fixing up, et cetera. But now you walk around -- and in particular, let's see, which one is it? It's 1621, 1 believe, Indus. The one that's in the middle of that, at the end of the curve, the driveway is breaking down. There's paint peeling off of the houses. The one that's on 1571 on Pegasus, the same situation. so the homes, in fact, all of them, have been allowed to deteriorate, which also directly effects the way our neighborhood looks and the values of our neighborhood and the general feeling of the neighborhood. so they have not done a good job on keeping the 76 facilities looking nice. They have really allowed them to deteriorate. MS. BOSLEY: I'm Rita Bosley. 1632 Indus Street. I live right across the street from 1621. And my neighbor across the street and the neighbor to this property is not here represented, and I feel I need to represent her. She has asked the property people to go in on a fence with her, and they refuse to do so. The fence is falling down, and she needs cooperation. I'm not sure if she knows who to ask, whether she just asked the people at the house, but she has not gotten any cooperation with them. I also see very big groups of people coming in for meetings on Friday mornings at 10 o'clock. And we Page 74 YS 01209 7 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 09 -18838 were told that that was not going to happen. They come in, and they get into their vans, and people are walking down the street. There are many, many people that walk down the street not only in the van being delivered but they walk from other buildings, and so it's like a gang. we have just lots and lots of people walking through there, not really paying any attention to anyone else, or being inconsiderate, just walking as a big group. Also, on 1571 Pegasus, I just took a walk around this morning, and between 1571 and Santa Ana 77 Avenue, there were over 25 cigarette butts just sitting in the street. That's trash, and that effects our neighborhood. Thank you. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. Anyone else want to focus on a particular issue? MS. WALKER: Judy Walker, and I'll speak to 1516 specifically. Two things. one, that has been requested for a occupancy of 12. I would like Yellowstone to directly address issues that were brought up earlier. Is that 12 residents plus staff? Because we could be looking at densities much higher than are on the paperwork at this point. Page 75 YS 01210 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 09 -18838 Secondly, it was intimated that the property prior to Yellowstone's purchase was a rental, as if that was something bad. I live at 1571. Not only was the house at 1561 a rental, the house to the other side of me is also a rental property. I knew the residents in those houses. I know them. They were part of the neighborhood. we exchanged conversation, we helped each other. it was not a bad situation of a rental, not as we have now, where it's a transient situation. It was much more of a neighborhood. 78 Thank you. MR. ALLEN: Okay. I don't see anybody else. Thank you very much. we have the testimony in. I think we've adequately gotten a picture of what this neighborhood is like and how the recovery facilities effect it. From here, we want to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond to some of these issues that have been raised. MR. ZFATY: okay. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Again, Isaac zfaty on behalf the Yellowstone. And just so we're clear, am I to respond to the issues addressed to all four of the properties? MR. ALLEN: Are we going to be able to keep the record straight? That's the only concern I have from start to finish here. And as long as we can, we will. MR. BOBKO: Mr. Allen, I propose that staff go Page 76 YS 01211 IC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 09 -18838 through, and we go through each one one by one. If staff -- MR. KIFF: Yeah. I think we have a couple of categories of questions we might like some assistance with some follow -up. There's more general questions, and then there may be a few house specific questions. so if that's amenable to the Hearing officer and to the applicant -- MR. ALLEN: Okay. 79 MR. KIFF: -- maybe I can direct the questions to Mr. zfaty, and if he needs to make a preliminary comment, that's fine, too. MR. zFATY: sure. well, I'd like to be able to address some of the comments that were made. And then I have another point as to the legal discussion in response to some of this. First off, as to Mr. Hanley's comments, he talked about the fact that we are not neighbors. I don't think that that's any part of a criteria or criterion that we're looking at here. He talked about protecting a fire plug and his driveway and also parking in front of a hydrant. There wasn't any specific evidence provided of that. The only response that we can give, in the absence of any specific evidence, is that there are remedies for that. And those remedies don't include the loss of the ability to use a Page 77 YS 01212 W 09 -18838 18 property. 19 If there's a specific automobile that blocks a 20 driveway or a hydrant, again, without having any specific 21 evidence that that -- of even who that car belonged to or 22 whether the person was affiliated with Yellowstone or 23 how, the only remedy that I think Mr. Hanley has is to 24 call the authorities and have them come out and cite the 25 offending vehicle. M 1 He spoke of parties and monkey business. 2 Again, on that issue, though, we don't have any specific 3 evidence of it. what we do have is a public record of 4 citations. And we have received no citations for that 5 purpose by the Newport Beach Police Department. so 6 that's probably evidence enough. 7 To the concern of young people being present, I 8 don't know -- again, I think that's not any kind of 9 indicia that we're looking at here today, the age of the 10 people who are associated with Yellowstone. And 11 moreover, I think that's probably a discriminatory 12 category that can't be utilized here. 13 As to the cars in the garages, Mr. Hanley 14 raised that issue, as well as a number of his neighbors 15 as to a number of the properties. As you know, the city 16 has gone through and inspected each one of the 17 properties. so the City has direct evidence of that, as 18 to whether our garages are empty or full. Page 78 YS 01213 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 09 -18838 I think Mr. Abraham -- I think his bar card is in serious jeopardy here. The city, again, has come through and looked. And according to Mr. Abraham, there is a bunch of junk mattresses, et cetera. And he put his bar card on it. The city has seen firsthand what's located in our garages. As to Mr. Hanley's concern about the - 81 characterization of alcoholics and drug addicts as disabled, unfortunately, or fortunately, depending upon who you are talking to, that's an issue that Mr. Hanley will have to take up it the united States Congress, who has seemed it necessary to find that alcoholics and recovering drug addicts are, per se, disabled. Mr. walker spoke of cars parked in the street from people from our homes. Again, we have no identification of those cars. without being able to know who those cars are, license plates, et cetera, it's impossible for us to even speak to it. I will say this. As I mentioned in our presentation, we don't allow the residents to park their cars anywhere near the facilities. so I don't know, frankly, where that comes from. As to people coming and going, I think it's important here to note that the record is devoid of any timing. As we mentioned, the properties, in their current state and certainly since they became a part of Page 79 YS 01214 M 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 09 -18838 the city of Newport Beach, does not allow visitors, people coming and going. The residents certainly can come and go, but or policy is not one that includes visitors. and again, we have no identification here of who these individuals are. Mr. Groskreutz -- and I apologize if I've 82 mispronounced his name, as someone who is sensitive to that issue -- spoke of 65 additional people in the neighborhood. I think that actually mischaracterizes what's happening here. we've'applied to allow the continued use of our four properties for 65 beds. so there's no new people coming in. And as discussed in our original presentation, there has been the abatement of at least two properties in our neighborhood that we know of, which goes to another point, which is, in term of the analysis of overconcentration, there are currently no permitted group facilities in our neighborhood. AS to the coffee cups on his lawn, again, we attempt to do our best to make sure that, as to our residents, something like this doesn't occur. As to his comment that this happened just after he submitted something to the staff, as the city well knows, we have no access to that. so there's certainly no nexus there. To his point of kennels, the issue there that Page 80 YS 01215 0 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 09 -18838 he said quite awhile ago there were kennels, that was the point, that there were kennels. we are not -- we're not claiming that -- we're certainly not kennels -- we replaced any kennels, and we're not commenting on the presence of kennels currently. 83 As to his comment that we take in $65,000 a month, or even half of that, $32,500, that's absolutely not the case. we are a non - profit organization. we are not profiteers. You can call us -- 2 don't know that you can call us a business. I'm not sure what the significance of it is, but legally we are a non - profit organization. As to the issue of permits at the homes for the numbers of rooms, again, I don't think that's at issue at all here. The city has been able to come through the homes, examining exactly how many bedrooms are located in each of these homes. And we have not been cited for any construction - related permit problems. I spoke about Mr. Abraham's concerns already. As to Mr. Robertson's concerns, he spoke of drinking in the park. one thing we know for sure is that none of our residents are drinking at the park. we actually test the residents of the facility for drugs and alcohol use. And so that's something that we're quite certain of. There's absolutely no drinking in the park that includes any residents at any of the Yellowstone Page 81 YS 01216 L 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 09 -18838 facilities. Same issue as to Mr. Robertson's concerns about square footage. The City has records of square footage at the property -- at the properties, at all four of the 84 properties. And to our knowledge, there's no issues regarding square footage. There is no interaction between the houses. This was a concern that, again, Mr. Robertson raised. Another one of our residents came and confirmed, at least in her mind, that that wasn't the case. Although, I think the comment was there might have been women walking in pajamas. we certainly have no information of that. That's not something that we would encourage. Certainly it's something we would discourage if we learned of it. As to the -- again, Mr. Robertson raised the question of square footage and bedrooms specifically at 20172. The City has records of that. on the issue of secondhand smoke and excessive smoking, the issue, so we're clear, is under the ordinance is excessive smoke, not just mere smoking. And the City has found -- made a finding that smoking or the presence of smoke is not an issue at our properties. Mr. McDonough commented on the fact that he wouldn't allow his grandkids outside of his house any longer. And on that point, i would say the following: That's a form of, I think, demagoguery that Page 82 YS 01217 N 09 -18838 23 doesn't have any place here. There has been no reports 24 of any sort of child abuse from any person who lives at 25 Yellowstone. we have no resident sex offenders at any of 85 1 our properties. so we take particular exception to any 2 kind of connotation that we might be dangerous to 3 children. 4 same as to registration cards and as to the 5 issue of treatment. There is no treatment that goes on 6 in any of these four properties. 7 I wasn't quite certain as to whether 8 Mr. Mathena was arguing for us or against us until he 9 talked about the reasons not to grant reasonable 10 accommodation. 11 on that point, which I'll address again at the 12 end of my discussion as to the individual concerns, there 13 is, as we pointed out earlier, a legal -- specific legal 14 issue why, as applied to our homes, reasonable 15 accommodation should be granted if the cups are not. 16 Ms. Devine spoke of the family characteristics 17 and the character of the neighborhood. Just so we're 18 clear, the record shows that the neighborhood, once it 19 became a City of Newport Beach neighborhood, already 20 included all of these properties. 21 so to the extent that the City of Newport Beach 22 is performing any analysis as to whether the character of 23 the neighborhood would be changing with the grant of any Page 83 YS 01218 0 09 -18838 24 of these use permits, the record is replete with facts 25 that the neighborhood had its characteristics when it Al 1 became the City of Newport Beach. And those 2 characteristics included all four Yellowstone homes. 3 a couple of the neighbors raised the issue of 4 managers, and whether those managers are in addition to 5 the numbers of individuals at these properties. The 6 answer to that question is they are not. 7 as to Ms. Devine's concern about the 8 percentages of recovering alcoholics and addicts, again, 9 we would emphasize that recovering alcoholics and addicts 10 are a member of a protected class. so it's not 11 appropriate to characterize in this proceeding, or any 12 other in this country, as an indicia for evicting any 13 individuals from any particular neighborhood the fact 14 that they are recovering alcoholics or addicts. 15 as to the parking and trash issues that were 16 raised by Ms. walker and a couple of her other neighbors, 17 I think that Mr. Kiff amply raised the fact that there 18 may have been some additional trash in the neighborhood 19 due to other properties. we don't have any trash -- any 20 additional trash concerns. our trash runs in the same as 21 everyone else's in our neighborhood. we have the same 22 number of trash bins. we don't have any special runs. 23 waste management doesn't come by any more for our 24 properties than it does for anyone else's. Page 84 YS 01219 0 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09 -18838 And Ms. walker raised the issue regarding 87 staff. I addressed that. Ms. Lee talked about the construction issue. so the records clear on that, I think I did make it clear in my initial presentation, but we were merely pointing out that there was construction in the neighborhood. And to the extent in any additional trash might have been present in the neighborhood, it may have been due to that or also the beer cans or bottles, or whatever it was that was discussed. Again, there is no alcohol in any of these homes. Ms. Lee raised the permit issue in terms of building permits. Again, there's no evidence before you, Mr. Allen, that we are out of compliance with any building permits. And Ms. Lee also asked that we address the issue of an oxford charter. An oxford charter -- an oxford House is a concept of recovery from alcohol addiction. In its simplest form, an oxford House describes a democratically run, self- supporting, drug -free home. And it's typically a non- profit 501(c)(3) corporation. It's a Federal charter. And just a brief history of it is, in 1988, Congress established the requirements that every state in the country establish a revolving fund to help start houses based on the oxford House model. since that time, Page 85 YS 01220 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09 -18838 MI. Oxford House, Inc., has organized a national headquarters to help individuals throughout the United States open these oxford homes. Ms. Groskreutz -- and again, I apologize if I mispronounce her name -- spoke of trash issues, which I've already discussed, house meetings, which I've already addressed, and cars. she also talked about property values. There's sort of -- as a trial lawyer, that's sort of a common mistake that happens in trials, and it's that if you open the door to something that's not relevant, that someone can come back and respond to things that are not relevant. And as an evidentiary matter, that's simply not true. But I will take a mea culpa on that one. I understand that's not an issue, so we won't talk about that any longer. Realtor disclosures regarding sober living homes are not an issue that we look at. It's part and parcel, I think, to the previous. she spoke of her plant being knocked over or a plant being knocked over. Again, without any specifics, I don't even know how to address that. Ms. Bosley spoke of her friend who had a problem with us agreeing to share the cost of a new Page 86 YS 01221 R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09 -18838 M fence. Again, i don't think that's an issue that we are looking at here today. And Ms. Bosley also commented on -- I think her words were, "we are like a gang." Again, we take exception to that type of demagoguery in this proceeding. More importantly, there's absolutely no evidence of gang activity related or associated with Yellowstone. Now, as to the legal discussion, the reason that r spent so much time on Jones -- and r hope it isn't lost on you, Mr. Allen -- is that when we talk about constitutionality of ordinances such as this one, though you are not called to judge the constitutionality, and though the constitutionality of this -- the facial constitutionality of this statute has been, at least, partially passed on by Judge Selna, what's critical in any sort of ordinance is the application of the ordinance. when we're talking about the issues that we're discussing here, application absolutely bears on constitutionality. There are plenty of instances where in otherwise un- -- excuse me, otherwise constitutional statute can become unconstitutional based on the way that it's applied. The current facial validity of this ordinance could become a future substantive invalidity in light of Page 87 Me YS 01222 A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A 09 -18838 this application. And it's not just in relation to these properties or any particular applicant. It's in relation to, as we spent quite a considerable amount of time on, the entire ordinance as set forth in Jones. Thank you. MR. ALLEN: I think let's take a five - minute break here, and we'll resume. Let's resume at 3- or 4:25 by the clock on the wall. (Pause in proceeding.) MR. ALLEN: All right. so let's go back on the record, please. I believe that the Applicant just finished presenting some rebuttal to the public comments that were made, and it appears that Mr. Kiff may be ready to also do some explanations. MR. KIFF: Actually, I had a number of questions that may be to put a finer point on some of the things that Mr. zfaty, as well as the residents, raised. I was hoping maybe you could return to the podium and help me answer some questions. MR. ZFATY: Sure. MR. KIFF: So forgive me if some of these are a little bit redundant, but -- so do folks who are complaints of Yellowstone, are they allowed to have personal cars with them during their stay at Yellowstone? Page 88 91 YS 01223 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 09 -18838 MR. ZFATY: No, I don't believe so. No. MR. KIFF: No, they are not? - MR. ZFATY: No. MR. KIFF: so for the record, they are not allowed. so when the neighbors that have alleged folks are either parking near by or walking in, so is that not a truthful statement, or it's a recent change? MR. ZFATY: well, I don't know if it's truthful or untruthful. It's hard to comment, as I mentioned, without any kind of specific identification as to -- MR. KIFF: Understood. But I guess was there a recent change in policy that clients during their stay at Yellowstone could not have cars? so, a couple of months ago where they allowed for cars and now they are not? MR. ZFATY: No, certainly not within the timing of the enactment of the Ordinance in February. MR. KIFF: Okay. Let's talk then a little bit a finer point on the meetings. so what meetings do take place at an individual house? MR. ZFATY: There are -- there's one meeting per week. MR. KIFF: That's the so- called house meeting? MR. ZFATY: It's a house meeting. MR. KIFF: who's doing chores, and that kind of Page 89 92 YS 01224 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 09 -18838 thing? MR. ZFATY: Essentially. MR. KIFF: okay, so do AA meetings take place inside the house or in the yard? MR. ZFATY: No. No. MR. KIFF: okay. MR. ZFATY: There's some information that I don't have, so -- MR. KIFF: I don't have, understood. MR. ALLEN: And you should, by all means, have the client talk also here. If you don't know the rule, please. MR. ZFATY: I will look to them if I don't know the answer or the rule. MR. KIFF: Okay. MR. ZFATY: I think the client's a little too nervous to get up here to speak. MR. ALLEN: we still need to know what the rules are. I think it's very important to -- ,MR. ZFATY: No, understood. MR. ALLEN: -- overall. MR. ZFATY: Understood. MR. KIFF: Yeah. But oftentimes, the reason I'm asking these questions is to develop a condition -- MR. ALLEN: Right. Page 90 93 YS 01225 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 09 -18838 MR. KIFF: -- whether or not it's -- there's a couple of homes that we recommend the denial of and the ones we recommend approval of, I'm trying to help craft those conditions. MR. ZFATY: Certainly. MR. KIFF: Even if this were a non - recovery home use, there wouldn't be an assembly use allowed at that home, whatever home it was, without a separate use permit. And then the assembly use and the meeting uses certainly drive our consideration over parking. Because even if folks walk to it, arguably, they are parking out on Santa Ana or some other location. so again, I think I understand now that no meetings would take place at a home except for a house meeting. Am I correct in saying that those house meetings would only involve the clients at that home who reside there at that home and maybe the on -site manager and assistant manager? MR. ZFATY: Correct. MR. KIFF: okay. And regarding the on -site manager and assistant manager, so do they reside at the home as well? In other words, is that where they live and use a bed there? MR. ZFATY: Well, you know, I don't know the answer to that, and I can confer with my client. But I Page 91 94 YS 01226 W1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 09 -18838 guess my question would be, is that relevant to the analysis? MR. KIFF: It's certainly relevant to the bed analysis, yes. MR. ZFATY: AS to the number of beds, as I mentioned, the number of beds that we've applied for are the number of beds that we intend to have sleep there. I'm a little concerned -- without even asking my client the answer to that question, I'm a little concerned about privacy issues. so that's why I'm asking Mr. Kiff if there's any relevancy. If the question is to the number of beds, the answer is the number of beds that we've applied for represent the number of people who will actually be sleeping and residing there. MR. KIFF: okay. so -- because it involves another issue, too, in that other conditions that we've required on other homes have 24/7 on -site supervision. so it would be my expectation that we would apply that to the condition with this facility as well. And the occupancy of the home should accommodate those one or two individuals -- I imagine it's one individual -- within the approved bed count? MR. ZFATY: That's correct. 1 MR. KIFF: Okay. 2 MR. ZFATY: As to everything you said except Page 92 &I YS 01227 F1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 09 -18838 for the one. You assume it's one individual. In some instances, it's two. It may be two in all four cases. MR. KIFF: understood. MR. ZFATY: I'm not as facile with the numbers, but our application does reveal those numbers. MR. KIFF: okay. And then, the issue of the garages. we enforce cluttered garages all the time everywhere. we usually do it because someone calls us and says, "Hey, that neighbor over there has a garage that's full, and as a result, parking is constrained in that neighborhood." so we will go and enforce that. There's always a concern whenever we do that anywhere at any home that we have to give advanced notice of the inspection, and there's a lot of clearing before we get there, and then a lot of replacing after we leave. The condition we would apply to the Yellowstone homes, just like the other homes, is that all parking at all times -- sorry -- all garages at all times is available for parking, so -- per the Code. That's how it applies to every home in town. MR. ZFATY: Certainly. MR. KIFF: Granted, we don't all get all of them. sometimes it takes a complaint to get us to follow Fl up on that. MR. BOBKO: Can we have two minutes to confer? MR. ALLEN: we need to take short break off the Page 93 YS 01228 I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 09 -18838 record. Two minutes or so? MR. KIFF: Two minutes is fine. (Pause in proceeding.) MR. KIFF: I'm ready again. Let's proceed on the record. Mr. Zfaty, I was hoping to go back to the issue of staff and beds and clients. And as was pointed out to me, it's critical to another analysis we'll do as a part of the reasonable accommodation findings that involve financial data that we know who is a paid client or potentially a sponsored client. Because I imagine some of your clients are, indeed, on a scholarship, for instance, or sponsored. who is a paid client residing there, taking up a bed, versus who is an assistant manager or manager residing there taking up a bed? so I was hoping maybe we'd have a little bit greater discussion about that. Maybe with the instance of, say, 20172, if you're requesting -- and I believe my numbers may be wrong -- 17 beds at that facility, of those 17 beds, will 15 be clients and two be a manager or assistant manager? And I don't see how this would violate privacy rights, because we're obviously not asking about individual's names or we're -- just asking for titles and roles. MR. ZFATY: That's fine. The number is 18, Page 94 97 YS 01229 L 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 09 -18838 Mr. Kiff, and two of those are managers. MR. KIFF: so of the -- let me just restate it and you'd agree, I assume. of the 18 beds, for instance, asked for at 20172, 16 people are clients and two are staff? MR. ZFATY: Correct. MR. KIFF: Okay. Thanks. All right. Just a quick question about the curfew. That isn't -- your previous question helps me answer that. That's enforced by the manager and assistant manager? MR. ZFATY: Correct. MR. KIFF: Okay. And when you talk about quiet hours versus lights out, quiet hours in our previous approvals has indicated that you can't hear a sound above the typical sound that folks in the house would make. In other words, no blarring music or no loud TV's at the property line. so that's a condition we would apply, just informational there. You answered the question about what oxford House Charter means. I was hoping maybe you could speak a little bit &.1 about how that discrepancy been the -- may be a discrepancy on the web site that the person raised about having a 90 -day stay versus a six -month stay. what is a typical stay at Yellowstone House? MR. ZFATY: Currently the typical stay -- the Page 95 YS 01230 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 09 -18838 average stay is six months. MR. KIFF: Average stay is six months, so -- MR. ZFATY: There are some that stay longer; there are some that -- MR. KIFF: Maybe I wanted a mean rather than max. MR. ZFATY: I think the mean is six. MR. KIFF: Okay. MR. ZFATY: That's the normal stay. MR. KIFF: Okay. I had a question, then -- we talked about beds and the sizes of the buildings, and the bedrooms and the size of the buildings. MR. ZFATY: Excuse me. can I clarify that? I don't think it's six months for each of the four properties, if I recall correctly. MR. KIFF: Okay. MR. ZFATY: Am I wrong about that? I'm sorry. I'm wrong. it is six for each, okay. I apologize. MR. KIFF: Okay. Just for the record, about bedrooms and permits, when the city annexes territory m like west Santa Ana Heights, we don't go in and do a building records inspection for each home. That would be unreasonable. so we don't know whether a conversion occurred prior to annexation, and the folks at Yellowstone, for instance, bought the house with the conversion, versus Page 96 YS 01231 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 09 -18838 the folks at Yellowstone House making the conversion later that may have been contrary to a plan. It's not something we typically investigate, unless a neighbor is calling in saying, "I think those folks are doing illegal construction," and then we'd send the Building Department by. And further, our own analysis of these homes for the use permit process did not involve a building inspector going out. These were contract planning staff. so the folks there were not looking at whether or not one room or another was permitted. indeed, we don't have the old county plans on each home. Question involving the county. Is it your understanding or your client's understanding that there was or was not a use permit requirement for this type of facility prior to annexation? MR. ZFATY: My understanding is there was not. I don't believe that we were required to have any use permit when we were an unincorporated area. And I don't 100 believe that we had one. MR. KIFF: Okay. That's my second question. we may go back and look at that. I'm not -- sometimes what the county does doesn't entirely surprise me. But I'd be quite surprised if they didn't have any use permit requirement for a group residential use above six people. MR. ZFATY: we'll also take a look and see Page 97 YS 01232 I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 09 -18838 if -- I will take a look and see if we did have one. To my knowledge, we did not. MR. KIFF: okay. Let me try to make a finer point on one thing. You said a couple times, Mr. zfaty, that there's no interaction between houses. Is that, indeed -- are we interpreting that to mean that there's no interaction between the people in the houses? And that kind of gets back to the meeting issue. For instance, one of the conditions would be that -- well, sorry. Let me back up a little bit. Generally, we follow the State Alcohol and Drug Program mandates about privacy issues in recovery facilities. And what ADP says is that you're not allowed to have clients go from -- visit one house and -- live in one house and visit another without everyone in each house signing a disclosure agreement saying that they waive their right to privacy, because they are entitled to some privacy within an individual home as persons in recovery. So, therefore, we have applied that as a condition, that folks are not allowed to intermingle between houses until or unless those waivers are executed. But it sounds like to me you're saying they don't have any reason necessarily to go from one house for another. MR. zFATY: No. we don't have interaction Page 98 101 YS 01233 N 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 09 -18838 between the homes. MR. KIFF: Okay. That is my list of questions, actually. I would note one thing just for the record. what we've followed, typically, when folks say a realtor's obligated to disclose the presence of a recovery facility nearby, it's been our advice through the realtors is that they are not, and they shouldn't. Again, you're disclosing the identity of a protected class. I know a lot of realtors don't always understand that, and that's not something I can solve in any short time. Again, I think that is the conclusion of my questions, Mr. Allen, unless Janet, if you had any that I missed? M5. BROWN: No. MR. KIFF: okay. In conclusion, then, 102 Mr. Allen, we would still recommend the actions that we put in our staff report in terms of the use permit, and that is a reduction in beds to 15 for two facilities and the abatement of two. with the ones that would remain, we would have a list of conditions that we'd come back to you with, that basically are quite similar to conditions we've approved in the past and, as I stated on the record today, are the kinds of things involving parking and Page 99 YS 01234 11 09 -18838 10 meetings and staffing, et cetera. 11 MR. ALLEN: could we discuss the 12 overconcentration issue a little further? Because it 13 seems to me that that is the overriding feature here that 14 brings about your recommendation for approving two and 15 denying two. It's clear that there is a cluster of uses 16 in this one particular location. 17 And that in applying the ordinance criteria 18 that has been adopted by the council, if we do go forward 19 with that and apply the American Planning Institute's -- 20 MR. KIFF: Association. 21 MR. ALLEN: -- Association's criteria, which 22 were incorporated into the ordinance, how does the block 23 definition appear to you from the standpoint of being 24 consistent with what we've done on the Peninsula already 25 and as it would apply to this? 103 1 MR. KIFF: well, as Janet noted, arguably, a 2 couple of these blocks are fairly easy to go into the 3 block test, which generally we've thought of blocks as 4 being rectangular in nature. But we also have, in this 5 instance, cul -de -sac blocks, which are not as easy to 6 analyze. 7 However, just looking at distancing from one 8 property to another, and, in effect, straight lining some 9 things, to us, it made the most sense to consider -- that 10 the neighborhood of the Yellowstone homes as a single Page 100 YS 01235 I 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 09 -18838 block. And we thought we were being on the generous side in going with the two uses per block versus one use per block and considering that the home at 1621 and 20172 to be the facilities that should stay and would not result in an overconcentration. Partially, too, it's because of the clients served that -- in taking into consideration that Yellowstone obviously has a male clientele and a female clientele, obviously, they could change houses around and move those clients. But to us, it made the most sense to maintain those homes, in part because the home on Pegasus, the one in the middle there, that 18 one, it is in relative -- MR. ALLEN: Go down the other side. okay. 104 MR. KIFF: And I moved up the other way to the 18. My pointer always -- there we go. It's going to do that. But this house does have somewhat of a proximity of the two Lynn Houses. And it's questionable as to our abatement success there. And these are all little bits of things that play into our discussion. The major discussion is that it's more appropriate to maintain this home and this home with that significant distance, which I think is over 300 feet, than maintain, say, this and this. This one and this one Page 101 YS 01236 0 09 -18838 12 could be a possibility, but that brings into context the 13 closeness of the Lynn House facility._ 14 These are also facilities that are -- they are 15 large facilities, so in the interest of the argument that 16 they made about their financial liability, that -- I may 17 be have to be corrected -- but it's my understanding that 18 they believe that 15 beds was the amount that they needed 19 to remain financially viable. 20 These are also two homes that allow those 15 21 beds to be accommodated versus, for instance, keeping 22 16 -- I'm sorry -- 1561, which only would allow for 12 23 beds because of the size of the house. 24 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, because 1561 is a 12 -bed. I 25 see. 105 1 well, I'm inclined to follow the staff's 2 recommendation here, based upon what we have heard today 3 and the contents of the reports. we don't have a 4 conditions of approval to be considered for today. But 5 you would bring them back. 6 And if we can continue this hearing to a date 7 certain, I would make the determination that 1561 and 8 1571 -- I'm sorry -- 1561 Indus and 1571 Pegasus be 9 terminated. And that 1621 Indus and 20712 Redlands be 10 continued, and that appropriate resolutions be brought 11 back on all of them, and that there be the analysis on 12 the overconcentration that we've discussed so far as the Page 102 r] YS 01237 7 )LOW:I: #I'? 13 block issues are concerned. And at that time, at a 14 continued date, then we would also go forward with the 15 reasonable accommodation hearings that have to be done. 16 MR. KIFF: I think that's reasonable. And that 17 would also allow folks who follow the issue, including 18 the Applicant, to get a better understanding for our 19 recommendations. 20 Because one gentleman, I believe it was 21 Mr. Mathena, appropriately, brought up the fact that a 22 lot of these materials were not -- especially the 23 reasonable accommodation materials were not made 24 available in the manner in which we like to do. 25 we -- legally, it was appropriate what we did, but the 106 1 manner in which we like to provide it was -- should have 2 been earlier. But I think that's a fair suggestion, 3 Mr. Allen. 4 MR. ALLEN: I'm going to disappear temporarily 5 because my computer was unplugged. 6 All right. so then let's proceed to talk about 7 dates when we can return here and conclude these matters 8 or at least get through the reasonable accommodation 9 timing. 10 MR. KIFF: well, I guess I would look to Kathy 11 and Janet a little bit, with the caveat that hints the 12 Applicant certainly, I would propose maybe the 12th or 13 the 13th of March. Probably the 12th, because -- and Page 103 YS 01238 M 09 -18838 14 then maybe go back to 4 o'clock time period to allow more 15 folks to attend. 16 My reticence in looking at next week is because 17 I'll be gone, not that it has to happen with me, but for 18 the Thursday and Friday. And I think that also is a 19 little bit of a short time to really give the public 20 their right amount of time to review this. 21 so if that works with various calendars, 22 including the Applicant's, maybe I'd proposed Thursday 23 the 12th at 4 o'clock. 24 MR. ALLEN: Thursday the what date? I'm 25 sorry. 107 1 MR. KIFF: Sorry. Thursday, March 12th. we're 2 always looking back here, because that's where the 3 calendars are. 4 MR. ZFATY: That's a Friday? 5 MR. KIFF: That's a Thursday. 6 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that's a Thursday. 7 MR. KIFF: I think it's more reasonable to hold 8 these on Thursdays. This was an exception for us. 9 MR. ALLEN: That's acceptable to me. 10 MR. KIFF: How about the Applicant? 11 MR. ZFATY: I didn't bring my calendar with me, 12 unfortunately. That sounds fine. 13 MR. KIFF: Okay. 14 MR. ZFATY: we'll hold that day. If there's a Page 104 YS 01239 I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 problem, we'll let you. MR. KIFF: Thank you. MR. ALLEN: All right. so again, Hearing officer will follow the recommendation of the staff with respect to the use permit determinations. And we'll continue the preparation and adoption of resolutions for those actions to March the 12th, at 4 p.m., and then also we'll continue the public hearings to that date to hear the reasonable accommodation considerations. MR. KIFF: Just to be clear, then, Mr. Allen, 108 your intention is that the public hearing on the use permits are closed, but the public hearing on the reasonable accommodation would be continued to that date? MR. ALLEN: Yes. MR. KIFF: Okay. MR. ALLEN: It's my understanding we're required to do that. MR. KIFF: I believe so, yes. MR. ALLEN: All right. so that concludes the proceeding for today. And we'll return on March the 12th. (Ending time: 4:53 p.m.) Page 105 YS 01240 0 09 -18838 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 I, the undersigned, a certified shorthand 5 Reporter for the state of California, do hereby certify: 6 That prior foregoing proceedings were taken 7 before me at the time and place herein set forth; that 8 any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior to 9 testifying, were placed under oath; that a verbatim 10 record of the proceedings was made by me using machine 11 shorthand which was thereafter transcribed under my 12 direction; further, that the foregoing is an accurate 13 transcription thereof. 14 I further certify that I am neither financially 15 interested in the action nor a relative or employee of 16 any attorney of any of the parties. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribed 18 my name. 19 20 Dated: 21 Page 106 YS 01241 22 23 24 25 09 -18838 Laura A. M1115ap, RPR- -. CSR No. 9266 Page 107 YS 01242 NOTICE PUBLISHED PRIOR TO MARCH 12, 2009 HEARING ay.doc YS 01243 Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public a Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I arn, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on . the following dates: FILE COPY January 31, 2009 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 3, 2009 at Costa Mesa, California. / < BY INGUEPARIMENT FEB 0 G 2000 OF. iii ItE1+f1 this a�,wr,rea inutr� . ,577 P YS 01244 NOTICE MAILED PRIOR TO MARCH 12, 2009 HEARING - \v.doc YS 01245 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING `. GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE PERMITS YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. 1561 INDUS STREET, 1621 INDUS STREET, 1571 PEGASUS STREET, & 20172 REDLANDS DRIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Hearing Officer designated by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will conduct a public hearing on February 12, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. In the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Hearing Officer will consider the applications of Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., for four separate Use Permits and requests for Reasonable Accommodation at four locations. These are as follows: 1561 Indus Street (UP2008 -034 and RA2009 -004). An application requesting approval of a use permit to allow the continued operation an unlicensed adult alcohol and /or drug abuse sober living facility for 12 resident clients, females only. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008-05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. As a Reasonable Accommodation, the applicant is requesting to be exempted from the Residential Use Classification "Residential Care Facilities, General," as defined by Section 20.05.030 (H) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), and to be treated as a "Single Housekeeping Unit," as defined by NBMC Section 20.03.030. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval of a Reasonable Accommodation for exemption from Chapter 3.36 of the NBMC and Section 3.36.030 which requires 100 percent cost recovery for permits related to user services. Exemption is also requested ;rom Section 20.91A.050 (C.2) of the NBMC to allow more than two residents per bedroom with one additional resident. 2. 1621 Indus Street (UP 2008 -035 and RA2009 -005). An application requesting approval of a use permit to allow the continued operation an unlicensed adult alcohol and/or drug abuse sober living facility for 18 resident clients, females only. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. As a Reasonable Accommodation, the applicant is requesting to be exempted from the Residential Use Classification "Residential Care Facilities, General, ". as defined by Section 20.05.030 (H) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), and to be treated as a 'Single Housekeeping Unit," as defined by NBMC Section 20.03.030. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval of a Reasonable Accommodation for exemption from Chapter 3.36 of the NBMC and Section 3.36.030 which requires 100 percent cost recovery for permits related to user services. Exemption is also requested from Section 20.91A.050 (C.2) of the NBMC to allow more than two residents per bedroom with one additional resident. 3. 1571 Pegasus Street (UP 2008-036 and RA2009-006). An application requesting approval of a use permit to allow the continued operation an unlicensed adult alcohol and /or drug abuse sober living facility for 18 resident clients, females only. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008-05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. As a Reasonable Accommodation, the applicant Is requesting to be exempted from the Residential Use Classification "Residential Care Facilities, General," as defined by Section 20.05.030 (H) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), and to be treated as a "Single Housekeeping Unit," as defined by NBMC Section 20.03.030. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval of a Reasonable Accommodation for exemption from Chapter 3.36 of the NBMC and Section 3.36.030 which requires 100 percent cost recovery for permits related to user services. Exemption is also requested from Section 20.91A.050 (C.2) of the NBMC to allow more than two residents per bedroom with one additional resident. 4. 20172 Redlands Drive (UP 2008-037 and RA2009 -007). An application requesting approval Of a use permit to allow the continued operation an unlicensed adult alcohol and /or drug abuse sober living facility for 18 resident clients, males only. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. As a Reasonable Accommodation, the applicant is requesting to be exempted from the Residential Use Classification "Residential Care Facilities, General," as defined by Section 20.05.030 (H) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), and to be treated as a "Single Housekeeping Unit," as defined by NBMC Section 20.03.030. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval of a Reasonable Accommodation for exemption from Chapter 3.36 of the NBMC and Section 3.36.030 which requires 100 percent cost recovery for permits related to user services. Exemption Is also requested from Section 20.91A.050 (C.2) of the NBMC to allow more than two residents per bedroom with one additional resident. This activity hac-.been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not subject to CEQA. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to these applications. If you challenge these projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. The staff report may be reviewed at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach webste at www.chy.newnort- beach.cams beginning on the Monday prior to the hearing. For more Information, call (949) 6443232 or (949) 644 -3002. To be added to a permanent notification list of these hearings, e-mail dkiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us and ask to receive these notices. Project File No.: PA2008 -105, PA2008.106, PA2008- 107 and PA2008 -108 Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager, City of Newport Beach Activity No.: UP2008 -034/RA2009 -004, UP2008- 0351RA2009 -005, UP2008 -0371RA2009-006 and UP2008- 038/RA2009 -007 YS 01246 Owner Listing within 300' of: 20172 Redlands Drive PA2008 -108 for UP2008 -037 1571 Pegasus Street PA2008 -307 for UP2008 -036 1561 Indus Street PA2008 -105 for UP2008 -034 1621 Indus Street PA2008 -106 for UP2D08 -035 APN RESIDENT /OWNER ADDRESS STREET /SUITE CITY STATE ZIP 11935101 ERIC ROSENTHAL 1661 INDUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11935102 KATHLEEN A LOOMAN 1671 INDUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11935103 WILSON REED ROBINSON 20091 KLINE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 35117 VINCENT D COOK 1692 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11935118 HENRY D O'SHEA 1672 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11935119 GARY DEVINE 1662 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 35120 WILUAM H BOSSERT 1661 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 11935121 ILOUISE CLEE 1671 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 352 01 1GRAZIAN6 & DEN PESTARINO 2809 LA SALLE AVE COSTA MESA CA 92626 11935202 JKLINE TRUST NA PO BOX 6465 IRVINE CA 92616 11935203 MATTHEW LBIESER 20141 KLINE OR SANTA ANA CA 92707 11935204 MICHAEL S CHRISTY 20151 KLINEDR SANTA ANA CA 92707 11935205 R08ERT LEO DUBE' 20161 KLINE OR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 352 06 ROSA BALOGH 20181 lKLINE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 11935207 BEATRICE BOCSI 1681 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11935208 KATHLEEN M ANDREWS 1671 PEGASUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 3S2 09 FRANK H MASTERSON 20152 RIVERSIDE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 11935210 EDLER PAUL M FAMILY TRUST 20142 RIVERSIDE DR SANTA ANA - CA 92707 11935211 JANGUS E RICHARDSON 20122 RIVERSIDE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 35212 1GEORGE L ROBERTSON 20112 RIVERSIDE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936101 JAMES C HARVEY 1651 INDUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36102 YURETTA LORMAN NA PO BOX 2421 COSTA MESA CA 92628 11936103 PETER WEISMANN 1631 INDUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936104 THAMES TRUST 28 IMA LOA CT NEWPORTBEACH CA 92663 11936105 ROBERT B HANLEY 1601 INDUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36106 CHARLOTTE C Z; HOGAN 507 ALTA VISTA DR SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 11936107 WILLIAM D WALKER 1571 INDUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36108 ANNA THAMES 154 E BAY ST COSTA MESA CA 92627 11936109 TRAVIS& JENNIFER HAINING 1572 INDUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936110 BRIAN PATRICK SULLIVAN 1592 INDUSST SANTA ANA 92707 11936111 THOMPSON MALCOLM F TRUST 1602 INDUSST -SANTA ANA 92707 119 361 12 JONATHAN & JANICE DAVIS 1601 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA 92707 11936113 DANIELLE SEARS 1591 PEGASUS ST SANTA ANA 92707 11936114 ANNA MARIE THAMES 1571 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA [CA 92707 11936115 WAYNE E ROGALLA 1561 PEGASUSST SANTAANA 92707 11936116 CHESTER P GROSKREUTZ 1551 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA 92707 11936117 PETER ALLEN KEM MERLY 1531 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA 92707 119 36118 JOSEPH & L R SANOOR &CYNTHIA 1521 PEGASUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36119 JACK MOTLEY 1501 PEGASUS S7 SANTA ANA CA 42707 111936125 JFV SANTA ANA LLC 21 ROADRUNNER CT - COTO DE CAZA CA 92679 Page 1 of 2 01/29/09 YS 01247 Owner Listing within 300' of: 20172 Redlands Drive PA2008 -108 for UP2008 -037 1571 Pegasus Street PA2008 -107 for UP2008 -036 1561 Indus Street PA2008 -105 for UP2008 -034 1621 Indus Street PA2008 -106 for UP2008 -035 APN RESIDENT /OWNER ADDRESS STREET /SUITE CITY STATE ZIP 119 362 01 PATRICIA RUTH SANDERS 20111 RIVERSIDE DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936202 DAVID M PLISCO 20121 RIVERSIDE OR SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936203 RIVERSIDE TRUST 20141 17853 SANTIAGO BLVD VILLA PARK CA 92861 119 36204 WELLS FARGO BK NA 3476 STATEVIEW BLVD FORT MILL SC 29715 11936205 DUFFY FAMILY TRUST 1651 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 362 06 MICHAEL & BARBARA GOOD 1631 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936207 STEPHEN THAMES 28 IMA LOA CT NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 11936208 ANNIE N PIERMONT 20162 REDLANDS DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36209 MICHAEL G FEDORCHEK 20152 REDLANDS DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936230 PETER P ANDREWS 20132 REDLANDS DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 362 11 BOSLEY TRUST 1632 INDUS ST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936301 EDWARD PATRICK KEHOE - 1642 - PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936302 SOHRAB HASHEM 1632 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936303 JACK GRUBISICH 411 SHARBOR BLVD SANTA ANA CA 92704 119 363 04 THOMAS JOHN QUEBBEMANN 1621 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936305 RWESLEY BEAVERS 1631 ORCHARD OR SANTA ANA ICA 92707 11936306 YI HAN WEI 1641 ORCHARD OR SANTAANA CA 92707 11936401 WARREN FAMILY TRUST NA PO BOX 5474 NEWPORTBEACH CA 92662 11936402 STEPHEN EABRAHAM 1592 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936403 LUZ APELES 1572 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936404 MCDONOUGH 2005 TRUST 1562 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936405 1 BRIAN WECKLICH NA PO BOX 1803 COSTA MESA CA 92628 11936406 1COU 1532 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707. 119 364 07 IC SEPARATE PROP CHIARENZA 1522 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36408 US BANK NA SERIES 2007 -1 1502 PEGASUSST SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 364 SO JAMES J & JULIA L ISAACS III 1541 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36411 DAVID KERREK 1551 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36412 JOHN C ENGLISH 1561 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 119 36413 LILLIAN V MARTIN 1571 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936414 KANI ER TRUST 1591 ORCHARD DR SANTA ANA CA 92707 11936415 CHURCHIULTRUST 1801 1 PARK COURT PL BB SANTA ANA CA 92701 119 364 19 PAUL PERRY 1511 JORCHARD DR SANTA ANA - CA 92707 Page 2 of 2 01/29/09 YS 01248 Resident listing within 300' of: 20172 Redlands Drive PA2OO8.108 for UP2OO8 -037 1571 Pegasus Street PA20O8 -107 for UP2OO8 -036 1561 Indus Street PA2O08 -1O5 forUP20O8 -034 16211ndus Street PA2OO8 -1O6 for UP20O8.035 APN RESIDENT /OWNER ADDRESS STREET /SUITE CITY STATE ZIP 11935119 RESIDENT 1662 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936419 RESIDENT 1511 ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936118 RESIDENT 1521 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 36116 RESIDENT 1551 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936402 RESIDENT 1592 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936110 RESIDENT 1592 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA- 92707 11935117 RESIDENT 1692 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 352 04 IRESIDENT 20151KUNE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936203 RESIDENT 20141RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936211 RESIDENT 16321 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936408 RESIDENT 15D2 PEGASUS ST NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11936113 RESIDENT 1591 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936112 RESIDENT 16D3 PEGASUS ST NEWPORTSEACH CA 92707 11936106 RESIDENT 1591 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 927D7 11935207 RESIDENT - 1681 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936301 RESIDENT 1642 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 927D7 11935121 RESIDENT 1671 ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935118 RESIDENT 1672 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936411 RESIDENT 1551 ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936114 RESIDENT 1571 PEGASUSST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936111 RESIDENT 16021NDUSST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936209 RESIDENT 20152 REDLANDS DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 31935205 RESIDENT 20161 KLINE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935202 RESIDENT 20121 KLINE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936102 RESIDENT 1641INDUSST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936415 RESIDENT 16O3ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936119 RESIDENT 1501 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936405 RESIDENT 1552 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936107 RESIDENT 1571 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936205 RESIDENT 1651 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936101 RESIDENT 1651 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935101 IRESIDENT 1661 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936304 RESIDENT 1621 ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936303 RESIDENT 1622 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936407 RESIDENT 1522 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936412 RESIDENT 1561 ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936117 RESIDENT 1531 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936115 RESIDENT 1561 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 36125 RESIDENT 20162 SANTA ANA AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936104 RESIDENT 1621 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 Fa,e =. of YS 01249 Resident listing within 300' of: 20172 Redlands Drive PA2OO8 -108 for UP2OO8 -037 1571 Pegasus Street PA2OO8 -107 for UP2OO8 -036 1561 Indus Street PA2OO8 -105 for UP2OO8 -034 1621 Indus Street PA2OO8 -106 for UP2OO8 -035 11936202 RESIDENT 20121 RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936201 RESIDENT 20111 RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935201 RESIDENT 20111 KLINE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935102 RESIDENT 1671 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936306 RESIDENT 1641 ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936206 RESIDENT 1631 PEGASUSST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936401 RESIDENT 1602 PEGASUSST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936207 RESIDENT 20172 REDLANDS DR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92707 11935206 RESIDENT 201811 KLINE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935203 RESIDENT 2DI411 KLINE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936210 RESIDENT 201321 REDLANDS DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935212 RESIDENT 20112 RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936305 RESIDENT 1631 ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 119 363 02 RESIDENT - 1632 PEGASUSST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935120 RESIDENT 1661 ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936413 RESIDENT 1571 ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936404 RESIDENT 1562 PEGASUSST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936403 RESIDENT 1572 PEGASUSST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936208 RESIDENT 20162 REDLANDS DR NEWPORTBEACH CA - 92707 11935208 RESIDENT 1671 PEGASUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936204 RESIDENT NO 51 DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 927D7 11935209 RESIDENT 20152 RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11935210 IRESIDENT 20142RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936414 RESIDENT - 159f ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936410 RESIDENT 1541 ORCHARD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936406 RESIDENT 1532 PEGASUSST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936109 RESIDENT 1572 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936108 RESIDENT 1561 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 11936105 RESIDENT 1601 INDUS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 927D7 11936103 RESIDENT 16311NDUSST NEWPORT BEACH CA - 92707 11935211 RESIDENT 20122 RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA- 92707 11935103 RESIDENT 20091 KLINE OR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92707 Pa°e i rA 1:. YS 01250 �AFW�kr PLANNING DEPARTMENT D 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 PHONE: 949/644 -3200 FAX: 9491644 -3229 C9CiFORN�¢ Please see the attached radius map and mailing labels created for properties within a 300 -foot radius, excluding roads and waterways for non - residentially zoned properties, of the subject parcel located at 1561 Indus Street in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange. The property information was acquired through the Newport Beach GIS Web Mapping system. Further, the information is based upon the most up -to -date records of the county tax assessor and is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. /- 28 -o Signature of Prepa r Date Prepared F:\UserMPLN \Shared\PA's \PAs - 2008\PA2008- 105\Radius Map and Mailing Labels\UP2008 -034 Preparers Statement.dxx YS 01251 YS 01252 AGENDA FOR MARCH 12, 2009 HEARING - \v.doc YS 01253 City of Newport Beach GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT HEARING AGENDA This hearing is held in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.91A (Use Permits in Residential Districts). DATE: Thursday, March 12, 2009 TIME: 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. (Hearing must be concluded or continued by 6 p.m.) LOCATION: Council Chambers, Newport Beach City Hall @ 3300 Newport Boulevard HEARING OFRCER: Thomas W. Allen AGENDA ITEM #1 USE PERMIT No.: 2008-031(PA2009-102) APPLICANT: Ocean Recovery SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1601 West Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach PROJECT SUMMARY: An application requesting approval of a Use Permit to allow a residential care Witty to operate a licensed adult alcohol and /or drug abuse recovery treatment facility for females only. This application has been filed In accordance with Ordinance No. 2008.05, which was adopted by the City Council In January 2008. This agenda item allows the Hearing Officer to execute a Resolution of Approval for this facility for 14 bedL This is not a public hearing item. AGENDA ITEM g2 USE PERMIT No.: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION No. APPLICANT: SUBJECT PROPERTY: 200&034 (PA2008 -105) 2009-04 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc 1561 Indus Street PROJECT SUMMARY: An application requesting approval of a Use Permit to allow a residential care facility to operate an unlicensed "sober living" fac lty for 12 women. This application has been filed M accordance with Ordinance No. 2008-05, which was adopted by the City Council In January 2008. This is a public hearing item. AGENDA ITEM g3 USE PERMIT No.: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION No. APPLICANT: SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2008-035 (PA2008 -106) 2009-05 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc 1621 Indus Street PROJECT SUMMARY: An application requesting approval of a Use Permit to allow a residential care facility to operate an unlicensed `sober living" facft for 17 women. This application has been feed In accordance with Ordinance No. 2008.05, which was adopted by the City Council In January 2008. This Is a public hearing item. YS 01254 AGENDA ITEM 44 USE PERMIT No.: 2008 -036 (PA2008 -107) REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION No. 2009 -06 APPLICANT: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1571 Pegasus Street PROJECT SUMMARY: An application requesting approval of a Use Permit to allow a residential rare facility to operate an unlicensed "sober living° facility for 18 women. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. This is a public hearing hem. AGENDA REM A5 USE PERMIT No.: 2008437 (PA2008 -108) REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION No. 2009-07 APPLICANT: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc SUBJECT PROPERTY: 20172 Redlands Drive PROJECT SUMMARY: An application requesting approval of a Use Permit to allow a residential care facility to operate an unlicensed "sober living" facility for 18 men. This application has been filed In accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council In January 2008. This Is a public hearing hem. AGENDA ACTION 1. Meeting Convened (Heaving Officer) 2. Agenda Item 81— Resolution of Approval, Ocean Recovery —1601 West Balboa (not a public hearing) 3. Agenda Item #2 — Reopened Public Hearing — Yellowstone Women's First Step House, IS61Indus a) Presentation of the application (Newport Beach city staff) b) Applicant comments, if any c) Public hearing opened (Hearing Officer). L Comments are limited to comments about the subject propertys application and operations; and ii. Comments limited to three minutes, unless otherwise ordered by the Hearing Officer. d) Public hearing closed (Hearing Officer). e) Applicant may offer rebutting or clarifying comments (Applicant). Q Hearing officers questions of City staff or applicant. g) Hearing Officer determination. Options include continuance, approval of a use permit with conditions or denial of a use permit. In the latter two cases, the Hearing Officer may instruct staff to prepare the Resolution for his signature. 4. Agenda Item q3 —Reopened Public Hearing — Yellowstone Women's First Step House, 1621 Indus YS 01255 a) Presentation of the application (Newport Beach city staff) b) Applicant comments, if any c) Public hearing opened (Hearing Officer). I. Comments are limited to comments about the subject property's application and operations; and ii. Comments limited to three minutes, unless otherwise ordered by the Hearing Officer. d) Public hearing closed (Hearing Officer). e) Applicant may offer rebutting or clarifying comments (Applicant). Q Hearing officer's questions of City staff or applicant. g) Hearing Officer determination. Options include continuance, approval of a use permit with conditions or denial of a use permit. In the latter two cases, the Hearing Officer may instruct staff to prepare the Resolution for his signature. S. Agenda Item M4— Reopened Public Hearing — Yellowstone Women's First Step House, 1571 Pegasus a) Presentation of the application (Newport Beach city staff) b) Applicant comments, if any c) Public hearing opened (Hearing Officer). i. Comments are limited to comments about the subject property's application and operations; and ii. Comments limited to three minutes, unless otherwise ordered by the Hearing Officer. d) Public hearing closed (Hearing Officer). e) Applicant may offer rebutting or clarifying comments (Applicant). Q Hearing officer's questions of City staff or applicant. g) Hearing Officer determination. Options include continuance, approval of a use permit with conditions or denial of a use permit. In the latter two cases, the Hearing Officer may instruct staff to prepare the Resolution for his signature. 6. Agenda Item #5 —Reopened Public Hearing— Yellowstone Women's First Step House, 20172 Redlands a) Presentation of the application (Newport Beach city staff) b) Applicant comments, if any c) Public hearing opened (Hearing Officer). i. Comments are limited to comments about the subject property's application and operations; and ii. Comments limited to three minutes, unless otherwise ordered by the Hearing Officer. d) Public hearing closed (Hearing Officer). YS 01256 e) Applicant may offer rebutting or clarifying comments (Applicant). Q Hearing officers questions of City staff or applicant. g) Hearing Officer determination. Options include continuance, approval of a use permit with conditions or denial of a use permit. In the latter two cases, the Hearing Officer may instruct staff to prepare the Resolution for his signature. 7. Adjournment (Hearing Officer). CEQA: This activity has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1(Existing Facilities). This loss of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from CE(Ws provisions. APPEAL PERIOD: Use Permits do not become effective until 14 days after the date of approval, during which time the decision of the Hearing Officer may be appealed to the City Coundl. # # # YS 01257 THIS SHEET IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK YS 01258 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT — MEETINGIHEARING SUMMARY March 12, 2009 Agenda Items #1 -5 SUMMARY SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution of Approval Ocean Recovery 1601 West Balboa (14 beds, women) • Use Permit No. 2008 -031 (PA2008 -102) Public Hearings Yellowstone Women's First Step House 1561 Indus Street (12 beds, women) • Use Permit No. 2008-034 • Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -04 1621 Indus Street (18 beds, women) • Use Permit No. 2008 -035 • Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -05 1571 Pegasus Street (18 beds, women) • Use Permit No. 2008-036 • Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -06 20172 Redlands Drive (17 beds, men) • Use Permit No. 2008-037 • Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009-07 APPIJCANTS: Ocean Recovery Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., Isaac R. Zfaty, Attorney CONTACT: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3236, ibrawn ftnewaort- beach.ca.us MEETINGIHEARING SUMMARY Today's meetings involve the Hearing Officer's consideration of a Resolution of Approval for a previously- considered (see February 12, 2009 hearing Information) Use Permit application for Ocean Recovery at 1601 West Balboa (this is not a public hearing Item, but the action will be done in public) along with: Use Permit applications for four properties operated by Yellowstone First Step House ('Yellowstone'). All are in West Santa Ana Heights. This is a re- opened public hearing. Yellowstone also asked for the Hearing Officer's consideration of "Reasonable Accommodation' from the City's regulations for each of the four homes, specificalty relating to: 1. The residents of the facility being treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in NBMC §20.03.030; YS 01259 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC §20.91A050, which restricts occupancy to two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; and 3. An exemption from NBMC §20.90.030 that states applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, are accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. The Reasonable Accommodation consideration is a continued public hearing. Yellowstone's four homes (and the location of Lynn House in the same community), along with the City stafrs recommendation about each Yellowstone home, are as shown in Map #1 and as shown on Table #1 (Yellowstone's homes are In yellow): Map #1 West Santa Ana Heights Group Residential Uses YS 01260 Table #1 Group Residential Uses In the West Santa Ana Heights Nelghborhood This document attempts to summarize the City's recommendations about Yellowstone. For more detailed analyses of the situation, please see the individual staff reports. USE PERMIT RECOMMENDATIONS. The City generally recommends denying each of the applicant's use permit applications. This is a change from the City's earlier recommendation (approving two and denying two), because the City found that contrary to the applicant's attorney's assertions, the applicant had not received Use Permits from the County of Orange that would have enabled ANY of the four homes to exist as legal uses prior to the City's annexation of the West Santa Ana Heights area in January, 2008. As a result, the City cannot make at least one (NBMC §20.91A.060, Finding A) of the 11 required findings the City must make if the City is to issue a Use Permit to any of Yellowstone's facilities. The Finding requires that the use conform of all applicable provisions of NBMC §20.91A050, including items b and h, as follows: b. Facility must comply with state and local law, and the submitted management plan, Including any modifications required by this use permit. h. No owner or manager shall have any demonstrated pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of the law. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION RECOMMENDATIONS. The City generally recommends: Request #1: That the residents of each facility be treated as part of a single housekeeping unit as defined in §20.03.030 the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NMBC). Recommendation & Justification: Denial. It Is dear to the City that the manner in which residents reside in Yellowstone's homes is not like a typical single housekeeping unit. We believe that the nature of applicant's facility operations, as reported in the original application for reasonable accommodation submitted in May 2008, most closely resembles a boarding house use. But for the fact residents are recovering alcoholics, the facility would be classified as a prohibited Group Residential use, or a Boarding or Rooming House as that term is defined in NBMC §20.05.030. (Residential Use Classifications) ( "A residence or dwelling unit, or part thereof, wherein a room or rooms are rented under two or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof...') YS 01261 On the May 2008 application for reasonable accommodation, the applicant states, "The residents at the property reside separately at the property and interact within the property. There is individual use of common areas. The residents are responsible for their own meals, expenses and chores. Each individual resides at the property subject to a separate contractual arrangement with the applicant." (Italics added) Request #2: An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC §20.91A.050, which restricts occupancy to two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; Recommendation and Justification: Approval as to current residents only (and in those cases where a Use Permit is approved). Denial as to prospective residents. Generally, the applicant has asserted that the City's enforcement of the occupancy restrictions in NBMC §20.91A.050 would cause persons in recovery to be denied low -cost housing, and that the persons denied the housing are of limited income whose needs can only be met by Yellowstone. While generally agreeing with that assertion as it relates to current residents, staff made a distinction between current residents of Yellowstone's homes and prospective residents. Request #3: An exemption from NBMC §20.90.030 that states applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, are accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. Recommendation and Justification: Denial. Staff believes that the applicant is able to pay the Use Permit application fee, and has offered the applicant a payment schedule to do so. YS 01262 POWERPOINT PRESENTATION FROM MARCH 129 2009 HEARING (1 OF 2) - \v.aoc YS 01263 fa QIP U c M AS \� � � � Ads' 14.- A A tr - � � �� S � � \ a .z t it \���� D °11 N114 ■ - � A ■ AW w'L \\ e � � { ^� } � � » 9 1: t� I J 1 f1 ll 1 y i J 2. i 1 12` �... { 1 � a In y ,1 5' iAi�t �41 yL�Ci tt n At 5 u `a'i f �OIIDI r \eein i \f ��a5a POWERPOINT PRESENTATION FROM MARCH 129 2009 HEARING (2 OF 2) - \v.doc 1'S 01277 N C N O T L v CL v D rn N aJ C O V c O ro O E E O v Q W O Ln ro v m O O N N ei t V L 5� f O 4� 4a 4J 3a� iA m Ln rl VE j YS 01278 N c 0 a O L Q CL a 2 a v m �o -a •o v, c 0 V O a a E m N vi rp +n Ln GJ a 0! c O ++ t O u E v E O a � m Q 0 G1 c � �L c v O L Ln Q/ 41 L Cl c O c O rn Q 0 c i t6 . i OI C �0 v L U1 d v N N N v u 0 d v E Ln YS 01279 v N Q: C L F+ Vi O j O :+ c U v E 0 cu CL v rho O kn w (U a E ++ N C E u v U O O Ol E c— a ro O +J t c O N I � L c °' c oO c v +J E oU QJ � 0 y 4 v N O 2 2:- O N 4+ C N v- m 0 O o E c V I a Ln ?> C O O `� O y� y c L c c1 c O >} N i' N O Ln "D n, o O 4� y v O I c_ O a c N v c = ++ Q._ c� 1 v 0 E G1 av a Ln o L N -� Qfo Lw EO Ev v`� Ln Q v *k v o o cn cm E v to `- 4A V c U N c c O V ,C L L �F C O Y 4) y a) to ±� a 0) ea o a, -p o +- -a m a�" 7 a v m Zvi a ¢ a' • a ¢ d i rn rn Q Q . N c 0 a O L Q CL a 2 a v m �o -a •o v, c 0 V O a a E m N vi rp +n Ln GJ a 0! c O ++ t O u E v E O a � m Q 0 G1 c � �L c v O L Ln Q/ 41 L Cl c O c O rn Q 0 c i t6 . i OI C �0 v L U1 d v N N N v u 0 d v E Ln YS 01279 O N E Ln LA ro tA N an Ecu 4J O s a- L O C .o v fB C _OO0 C Ln E o O W Q cu ri O �\ *k W aj Ln 4-J ru E O .O :Lj Q1 to f0 C C i O � � u T(U m O v O s +J 00 0) O N L fD s c C O L 01 V M� W N m Ln in C 4-J ro L (U -� a'm O N O O O N f0 N O Ln E M 01 O n- V � u Q L a, C� O N M N 41 Ln Ln ri I V C —0 rl O �-o Ln GJ `-f O 4-JO C O _ \C0 o / C N ffu /L 1 fli L W t O Ln v c E L v v -o L (U V v 4-0 vn O `^ C CG1 � C GJ v C_ O -O E ru C M 0 a) - _O Q vii0 ,V i w 'L 4-J C aj f0= E_ V _V E .V Q�U� Q � ■ a -J Ln V N O fo O E +j + u C - a1 Q E E w ro v s kit, O •� L Qi V V O O c O 2 i N C O r0 V � C fp O u Q j CL d v fD v c aJ 1 IO C O � C a t0 fa v o +J 4' � rn L c Ln n V1 Q L L GJ Ln v " W s V_ L v O L v v Qi 0 L- C C a (L) o Q D V ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ YS 01280 O v' E a.., t Q v O Ln' v N ro ' V rn :E c C � U 00 }' v -� o cro0 O Cl. o +-j a V o N V i N C ro 60 vOi 4-J �o 'O LA > V Q. acO'L - ro 0 v i� aj S o E M u Q I j 0 C V O u_ 0 ?� 0 �O -0��O u ' o fl- +.+ v a -0 O ro D N zaJ a-N O '� N QN C:L CL L ply � -0 C fl.. m Q Q 0 a- L a1 CO w -0 N a! LM 0 'O u N u 4-1 0- m L L N O r0 O 'a OlO .Ln •� N N Y F w ro L � V, U "a N O (1 0) ++ C v,N 0�� n afro CL '�s v E -a Ll ro O 0 ) N m pp p).0 u .0 0-0 a�L,L-�0 v'� 0 D o� � L 4-J 01 0 ai v1 � +-+ iJ N k Q 0) V o+j �'E al00N� �C ( pro 0a, 0m v a�u• kn CL N O rroo u0 knn Q I— I— m O s (n 0 N '- YS 01281 N Ln M N +.i ro N r0 LJ N S a--+ wft N ro Q N 0 A �i ro .N N Q. O ■ ■ YS 01282 N Ln C dJ V 0 Ln _0 O Q -0 O O �O 3 4-J vi ro r _0 N .0 CL O Ln vii ci 0 in ro = ra o O �V1LL ro 4-J L D V1 O cn U- c V c C: kn 0 Ln o w � -r- O ' Ln Q O �: u r-o ■ ■ YS 01282 T 0 x c c J N d E O x x IA LL 3 d c 0 .. N 3 0 d a YS 01283 fp V N CL V) v f0 ra s -1J GJ (0 E Ln C O m a1 QJ El s 0) c m m m p O c m v m ai .p c Cn G/ V X v L O 'O c m c O CL f v (J O 4• Q G/ m N L > O 4! s E rn v c s a� s 4> kA 4- O V L E O 0 Ln W L in v N V kA C O OV 0_ Gl Ln L C m �^ •c c O_ O O Ma L m c c v v L O V > i O O 1 Ln N O O_ s rLo c m di Ln 0 c C1 LA LM G! v X N Ln Ln Ln v L w O v L v s +J Y V C1 s vi V L O Ln L O s N .j 0' O Y v m J c O a GJ 4+ c O O m Q m V m Lo u ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ YS 01284 v L Ln C 6 N +J 0 C Ln �: O 2 4T O 0 N p C N '^ >- m kn c 0 O O � — O _ v Q Ln '� 4- O O m ry > 4- O C v � L O_ `" c 0- v > v s w d W v a�Q0 -0 v c > '� O + AJ +s+ j U t O GJ N N s E 4- C > Ln p ~ o a N c O L V1 s O 4L L v m ++ V +, N q) 4, LA O 0 O c 4O C in O E O C 4, - ++ O O c - 4! kn L G1 C 4" m "0 C O O Y t O C 4 -0 �^ O m o i ^ O }� ZA 'O N o - L C O 0 c Q c W a- m It.- O +' 4+ in m v C "0 01 E N O C ~ -0 O O N O- y > u V1 N E N O v O m c H s 0) c m m m p O c m v m ai .p c Cn G/ V X v L O 'O c m c O CL f v (J O 4• Q G/ m N L > O 4! s E rn v c s a� s 4> kA 4- O V L E O 0 Ln W L in v N V kA C O OV 0_ Gl Ln L C m �^ •c c O_ O O Ma L m c c v v L O V > i O O 1 Ln N O O_ s rLo c m di Ln 0 c C1 LA LM G! v X N Ln Ln Ln v L w O v L v s +J Y V C1 s vi V L O Ln L O s N .j 0' O Y v m J c O a GJ 4+ c O O m Q m V m Lo u ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ YS 01284 YS 01285 n 'E c \ § ° E / /E ./0 Ui u [ E kn 7� 0 /% E 2 J \ m ° � 2 % f » 7 c.Ln � *> § / W " 2 f / \ " § o c .c 2 7 2 2 � % 2 m u 2 ¥ ® > 6 g •- \ > -le §.§ c ° ou m E 2 � in d ƒ % u 3 # 2 O� m 3 � e 7 c $ o o- � + .§ ° / 3 C ° Q. q ° § 2 �� e 2 (U \ § o /$ok u ƒ=ok -0 Ln ƒE� £a5 »M /�/ e ® � ^ 0 � LA � % f o >-4— = Ln � I m= 0> o Ln G I t g - \ 4- 2 o % J E\ r, m m 0 m 5 w 0 20 2 u o m w 2- % m 4 @ 41 W / ± .mgr � 22 � w�Wwc � G § K ® 9 � � � \ Q 2 22 °° / ,2q%e ® m o /1 %± P 0 2 • > Ln CL M » £ o § t t o f\ _S o§ 2 7 0 §> 4£ / •X o c t� rl o /o o E k c Ln E ƒ / §• § �� / 0 4�M04+ –4 � E ® o e ° m@>- o° o c .2 cn �/ 7\ / ƒ 3 ƒ k 4 9 m m %% e d ol M\ ƒ/ e CL u± o= w 2 -/ °® oE 9¢ 2 E S k 3 o YS 01285 d N 0 x c e T J N d O x VI LL 3 d c 0 N 3 0 d T YS 01287 Ln Ln L (IJ aJ N s-I a_+ �-+ . 4-j . i kn aJ C E 4-1 .. N O Ln O WV1 V1 %..., Ln Ln .c +j a- aj �i �i Ln LU) aJ ri H in ■ ■ ■ Ln 000�% -a k 0 rl � ro :n Ln N E Ln C/1 D N N rl I� N rl tz O rl N ■ ■ YS 01288 D ■ YS 01289 +j a--+ D �1 E O 0 41 � C: a"' p V1 N a--+ D Q N = v1 E N p v rp rI C: 4J + 5 O Ul a. o a, z t p 0 L Q M *k *k a) v > to to p cn C N C j D N 0 Nrc) Q D D ■ YS 01289 YS 01290 uulo 4-J ro V O O � O O O -W C: oft Q cn O Q Ul ' — 4 �. Ol 75 tin Ln O O 01 2 cn C: ra C: Ln + D4-s O QJ _0 W C: 0. (D ^ O U U N •� ro ■ YS 01291 o c ro o kn v o > '+� -0 41 E o 7i -0 U E C: m .- 0 ro .- 0 j C C: D ai o m m tA o E �'.L^ o Q o l7 040MOW4, N � ■ ■ ■ YS 01292 4— m r. O m a L L .c O V N i V1 L s a� D O Ln 4J S 4-J �1 c ro L a1 N ro V'1 E L O u ai D D N Ln CL I" mom of V s a--+ c O N L D a-J ro i a-J ro V fu N E ro D 4- ro a--+ W- fu c1 O L V fu 4_ O YS 01293 0 ro N V L•- V � Q Ln O O . Q — C. a; ro .N C: v O ro +� ,v cn O M ro +, Ln ro N ro Ln dJ C: 4J E E ro C: - D C: LL : N L ■ YS 01294 � o U c (1) aj ro '0 +� o � :> o M o 4-1 -o M. s •- o ro '- o .� a �,, E E o E •� °- fu ai •� ro Q 0u YS 01295 O � M � o � O Q) O �C N Lnn O_ O +-+ I al V m ro Z (.n C: ro +� C: r 4-J-0 ro �-- E ■ 4- O O u +j N L Q V O E 0 0 C. E X LU N ■ L cr N L O Un D Q E O L O ? ; Ln Ln tn c�LE Ln L +j .Ln = Q Ln O r O ^ ■ YS 01296 r� N c ro u .E D 0) 4J � N D O ra aj •- (1) t.l1 L ■ N O u O N L N c D Ln O u �L Vl ru CL D u O O Z ■ 0 O u L .r • 0) m ra .E L O m u 7 i Cl. CL V m D v O YS 01297 w Ln O 0 a-+ O cn +j ro c: ttn L i i1 O O ,Ln O O 2 Ln Ln O +5 cn 41 m w N 0 Q L Ln �••� 4mJ O O Ln •— O O � i Ul 01 ra D j �o CL 0- N >.. OV X V u m ■ ■ Cl. O ui L � Ol — 4•- ' O O Ln Q. V 0O Q. E c1 i .O ro 0 � O '@ N W O i kn > to ro ro ro aj N +� E YS 01298 fp .O ro O E E O V r0 Q� D L O ■ L/1 w cm 0 C: N EH 7 N ro -0 =) +j to 016 Ln 0 a Ln ai Q � (_% O ■ r0 O L 4- rp U Ln N Ln L/1 ,T +j O O Zi 2 ro O E aj E atej O ra O Q E X N L O E ro .0 01 Ul Ln D L rp L EO ■ 0 Ul O i dJ dJ � O L Q L!1 � O� •� C w L Ln O .� O O V YS 01299 YS 01300 s a-J O +-j O .0 4 a� a� . _ .0 Ln ro u v v ro Q c: > CL Ul m *� 4-1 ro � � O u, o OJ O - N O j ro Q Q al (J ■ ■ YS 01300 aJ 111 D O s U c aJ -0 Q O X O aJ 4- c O E �1 ro aJ ro t O aJ ■ aJ �1 �1 t O 8 O O N 104 r� cp aJ <n O N 0 aJ aj U. ■ O ri io O E O O N O ci 4;R Ul N L H s a_+ ■ O +j m r� Ln O <n aJ 01 ra Q. rl ■ O O w N t�R O E O 00 mot' 4A V OD Z L YS 01301 kn E N a--+ O O O E C L � �-+ > .L_^ •� ro O Ln O Ln O Q a ± Cr 4J � � L O c: rO ra T E N O cu O O ■ O cu Q N .E L N Q D O N N ro L fo tn Ul +j c O V �V Q� E Ln D V s 01 ■ ._ N L m E Fes+ E O cn.0 •L O E v E ai O L V YS 01302 O O O N O Q N O vii D O O In In E O v ro E O Ul W 01 N Q • • • ate-+ N .kn 4J i cm . C: ro 4= cl. O O Q rl I kn rl to H ■ O E O • • i 4-0 l/1 i Ol . ra O c l0 � r s I � O E _C O ci 00 N �O k.0 iA ci .i ■ +1-+ Qj L 0) .r C O r-I CL I � Ln 4-J D tn O ro 0) cu 0 00 rq �O r ■ i l/1 N cu O1 .>1 ro Q. rq ro rl O N ■ O L. Q 4- 0 O E O O O N ftft O rl ii4 YS 01303 L O L 4- c O E N CL O L Q N ru E Ln N ro O 0 O1 .C: l/1 D V D v O D V 75 N O ai 0 In O O aj In O Q Q O f6 E L O Q X N O O n N N N .Ln n 64r J c O E O klo ro YS 01304 1561 INDUS: STAFF REPORT (w/ Attachments 1 -7) FOR MARCH 12, 2009 HEARING Av.aoc YS 01305 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEARING OFFICER'S STAFF REPORT March 12, 2009 Agenda Item 2 TO: Thomas W. Alien, Hearing Officer SUBJECT; Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -105) 1561 Indus Street • Use Permit No. 2008 -034 • Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -04 APPLICANT: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Isaac R. Zfaty, Attorney CONTACT: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3236, ibrown(&citv.newoort- beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY This is a use permit application to allow the continued operation of an existing unlicensed adult residential care facility at 1561 Indus Street providing a sober living environment with a total occupancy of 12 persons. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05 which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. A reasonable accommodation application has also been submitted requesting: 1. The residents of the facility be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NMBC); 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which restricts occupancy to two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; and 3. An exemption from NBMC Section 20.90.030 that states applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, are accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer reopen the public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, the City of Newport Beach and its legal counsel, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends the Hearing Officer: Deny the use permit application based on the findings discussed in the February 20, 2009, staff report (Attachment 7), and based on new information provided in YS 01306 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -105) 1561 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 2 this report, and to adopt the attached draft resolution of denial with prejudice of Use Permit No. 2008 -034 (Attachment 1) 2. Deny the request for reasonable accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a single housekeeping unit based on the information discussed in this staff report. 3. Deny the requested accommodation for an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 as to the current and future residents based on the information discussed in this staff report. 4. Deny the request for reasonable accommodation for an exemption of the application filing fee requirement based on the information discussed in this staff report. On February 20, 2009, the Hearing Officer conducted the public hearing for Use Permit No. 2008 -034, taking testimony from staff, the applicant and members of the public. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Officer concurred with staffs recommendation to deny the use permit subject to the findings in the staff report (Attachment 7), and directed staff to prepare a resolution for denial with prejudice of Use Permit No. 2008 -034. The hearing was continued to March 12, 2009, to take action on the application for Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -04. Following testimony by the applicant at the February 20 hearing which characterized the existing sober living use as an established nonconforming use of the property, staff conducted further investigation into the circumstances and laws applicable at the time the facility was established while under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. Based on new information provided by the County, staff believes one of the findings previously made in the February 20 staff report cannot be made. Therefore, staff recommends the Hearing Officer reopen the hearing in order to consider the additional information contained in this report, and adopt the attached draft resolution to deny with prejudice Use Permit No. 2008 -034. BACKGROUND The subject property is located in an area referred to as West Santa Ana Heights, which was annexed into the City of Newport Beach effective January 1, 2008. Prior to annexation, West Santa Ana Heights was an unincorporated area under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. The subject property was located in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area and zoned Residential- Single Family (RSF). According to information submitted to the City by the applicant, the use of the single family dwelling located at 1561 Indus Street as a sober living facility use was YS 01307 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -105) 1561 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 3 established in 2007. When the use changed from that of a single family dwelling to a sober living facility, it was subject to any land use regulations the County of Orange placed on such uses at that time.' County of Orange Planning Department and Code Enforcement staff informed the City that a sober living use would have been classified as either a community care facility or a congregate care facility. Applicable Land Use Regulations: The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan was adopted by the County in October 1986 and was last revised by the County in 2001. Portions of the Specific Plan are attached as Attachment 2. The property located at 1561 Indus Street was zoned RSF. Principal uses permitted in the RSF district under the Speck Plan are as follows: 1. Single family detached dwellings or single family mobile homes 2. Community care facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons and large family day care homes. 3. Parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields. 4. Riding and hiking trails. A number of additional principal uses not relevant to this analysis, such as communication transmitting facilities, fire and police stations, and churches, were permitted with a use permit or site development permit. Temporary uses and accessory uses were also allowed, some of which required a use permit. All other uses were prohibited. In addition, the Specific Plan provided, "The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per Zoning Code section 7- 9-150: Any other use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district." At the time property located at 1561 Indus Street was established as a sober living facility, the County of Orange's Zoning Code definition of community care facility was "Any facility which may or may not require a State license to provide nonmedical residential care or day care for children, adults, or both, including physically handicapped and mentally incompetent persons. This includes child day care facilities/day care nurseries and family day care homes." A congregate care facility was defined as: "A facility, including a Congregate Living Health Facility as defined in State law, providing care on a monthly basis or longer and which is the primary residence of the people it serves. It provides services to the residents such as the following: dining, housekeeping, security, medical, transportation 1 A change of occupancy for purposes of the California Building Code (CBC) also occurred when the use changed, and to operate legally the structure was required to conform with any CBC requirements for the occupancy type created. YS 01308 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -105) 1561 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 4 and recreation. Any commercial services provided are for the exclusive use of the occupants of the facility. Such a facility may be located in more than one building and on contiguous parcels within the building site. It includes facilities offering occupancy on a monthly basis and longer such as hotels, resorts, etc. which have characteristics similar to the above." Definitions from the May 2002 version of the County of Orange Zoning Code (in effect in 2007) are attached as Attachment 3. Section 7 -9 -141 of the County's 2002 comprehensive Zoning Code further discussed requirements for community care facilities. That section provided: Community care facilities serving six (6) or less persons and large family day care homes shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single family dwelling or purposes of zoning and land use regulations. Community care facilities serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons, except for large family day care homes, shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. The closest classification provided in County regulations for the unlicensed facility located at 1561 Indus Street appears to be a community care facility. Therefore, if the operators established and maintained the facility with a bed count of six or fewer, it was a permitted use and thus legally established at that occupancy level at that location. If the operator obtained a use permit from the County Planning Commission for seven to 12 residents under the provision of the Specific Plan "other uses which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district," it would also have been a lawfully established use. The applicant has never indicated to the City that the facility was a community care facility housing six or fewer clients at any time. There are no County records of a use permit being issued for.this address, although County Planning employees conducted a thorough search of their records at the request of City staff. On February 26, 2009, County Planning staff informed the City that the only permit they had on record for this address is a permit for re- roofing. There is documentation from the County (Attachments 4 and 5) that indicates that two other Yellowstone facilities located at 20172 Redlands Drive and 1571 Pegasus Street were likely operating as community care facilities for more than 12 residents (see separate staff reports) without the approval of a use permit granted by the County of Orange Planning Commission. Therefore, Finding A of NBMC Section 20.91A.060 cannot be made with regard to the development and operational standard that "no YS 01309 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -105) 1561 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 5 owner or manager shall have any demonstrated pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of the law," based on the following finding: All four Yellowstone facilities located in Newport Beach were established when the properties were within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. County zoning regulations provided that community care facilities housing more than six residents and less than 12 residents were permitted subject to the approval of a use permit granted by the Planning Commission. Per documentation provided by the applicant, the Yellowstone facilities located at 20172 Redlands Drive and 1571 Pegasus Street were established in 2005 (although County records indicate that the Pegasus facility may have been established in 2003), and appeared to be operating community care facilities for more than 12 residents. There is no record of any use permit issued by the County for a community care facility operated by the applicant at any of the four facility locations. This demonstrates a pattern and practice by the applicant of operating community care facilities in violation of local laws in effect at the time the Yellowstone facilities were established. Therefore, this development and operational standard cannot be met and NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding A cannot be made. In addition, staff believes there is some doubt whether the Yellowstone facilities are even qualified to apply for and receive a use permit under NBMC Section 20.62.030 (Determination of Nonconformity). Subsection B of NBMC Section 20.62.030 provides that a use that was lawfully established under the laws in place at the time, but that no longer conforms to the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which is was located because of annexation to the City, shall be deemed to be a nonconforming use. However, "a use shall not be considered to have been "lawfully established and maintained" and is an illegal use if it was established or operated without required permits and licenses, including to not limited to permits and licenses required by any federal, state, or local government agency" (italics added). Pursuant to NMBC Section 20.91A.020, persons whose use of their property in a residential district was rendered nonconforming by the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 are qualified to seek a use permit to continue the use in its current location. There is no similar provision for illegal uses. Staff believes the facility located at 1561 Indus Street could be more accurately characterized as an illegal use than a nonconforming use as described by NBMC Section 20.62.030 (B). Use Permit No. 2008 -034 Analysis Summary In conclusion, staff recommends denial of Use Permit No. 2008 -034 for the following reasons: The inability to make all of the findings required by the NBMC Section 20.91.035 (A), and 20.91A.060. 2. The proposed use is not consistent with the purposes of NBMC Section 20.91A as set forth in Section 20.91A.010, and the requirements of Section 20.91.020. YS 01310 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -105) 1561 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 6 3. There are inconsistencies and /or factual misrepresentations in the application documentation. This recommendation is based on analysis of the proposed project's submitted documentation, review of the property setting, applicant testimony, apparent documentation contradictions and /or misrepresentations, and staffs conclusion that the required findings from NBMC Section 20.91.035 (A) Findings Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 cannot be made, that the required findings from NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Findings A, B and D cannot be made. If, after reviewing this report, and hearing any further testimony from the applicant, the Hearing Officer agrees with staffs recommendation for denial, staff requests the Hearing Officer adopt the draft resolution for denial with prejudice of Use Permit No. 2008 -034. APPLICATIONS FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION BACKGROUND The background of the applicant's requests for reasonable accommodation is summarized in the February 20, 2009, staff report, attached to.this report for reference (Attachment 7). The specific accommodations requested by the applicant are: That the residents of the Yellowstone facility at 1571 Pegasus Street be treated as a single housekeeping unit, as the term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; and 3. An exemption from the City's requirement that all use permit applicants pay a use permit application deposit fee to permit cost recovery by the City. (NBMC Chapter 3.36 and NBMC Section 20.90.030) The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), adopted in 1988, prohibits housing discrimination based on a resident's disability. Under the FHAA, it is discriminatory for government entities to refuse to make reasonable accommodations from rules, policies, and practices when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)). YS 01311 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -105) 1561 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 7 Cases interpreting the FHAA have held that a government agency has an affirmative duty to grant a requested reasonable accommodation if: (1) the request is made by or on behalf of a disabled individual or individuals, (2) the accommodation is necessary to afford the disabled applicant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and (3) the request is reasonable. Cities may find an accommodation request unreasonable if granting the request would: (1) result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program (often described as "undermining the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve "), or (2) would impose undue financial or administrative burdens on the city (See U.S. v. Village of Marshall, 787 F.Supp, 872,878 (W.D. Wisc. 1991). Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary must be determined on a case -by -case basis. Because the applicant has requested three very different types of reasonable accommodation, staff provided a separate analysis of each specific accommodation request in the February 20 staff report, and will continue to follow that format. In the January 29, 2009 letter clarifying applicant's request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested that its facility be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit, as that term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030. Staff fully analyzed this request in the February 20 staff report and recommended denial of the request. The denial recommendation was based on the grounds that the accommodation requested was broader than necessary to afford disabled individuals an opportunity to reside in the housing of their choice, and that the request was not reasonable because it would fundamentally after the nature of this portion of the zoning program, and undermine its basic purpose. For a more in -depth analysis and findings, please see the February 20, 2009, staff report. SUMMARY With regard to the applicant's request to provide reasonable accommodation that treats the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit, two of the five required findings cannot be made. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, all five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. Therefore, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny the Reasonable Accommodation request for the residents of the subject property to be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. YS 01312 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -105) 1561 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 8 In the January 29, 2009, letter from applicant's counsel's clarifying and supplementing applicant's request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested that the facility receive an exemption from the occupancy standards of NBMC Section 20.91A.050. NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2) requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. At the February 20 hearing, staff recommended that a use permit be denied for this facility. Because of new information gathered as a result of testimony by the applicant at the February 20 hearing, staff has recommended that the use permit portion of the hearing be reopened, and that the Hearing Officer deny a use permit for other Yellowstone addresses as well as this facility. If there is no use permit granted for this facility, an exemption from the occupancy restrictions the use permit would have imposed does not need to be analyzed. In the event the Hearing Officer decides to grant a use permit to this facility after the hearing is reopened, please apply the staff recommendations and findings in the March 12, 2009, staff report for 20172 Redlands Drive to this request. The applicant has stated that, as a non - profit organization that relies on contributions from the community to keep it from operating at a loss, paying the use permit application fee deposit presents a financial hardship. Staff offered a payment plan to enable the applicant to pay the application fee within a reasonable period of time. In lieu of the payment plan, the applicant has requested an exemption from the $2,200 use permit application deposit required to process the use permit application submitted for this facility. NBMC Chapter 3.36 sets forth the fee schedule for municipal services, and mandates 100% cost recovery for services when the fee schedule does not set forth a lower rate of recovery. Use permit processing is not one of the services that are generally provided at a rate below 100% cost recovery NBMC Section 20.90.030 states that applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. Federal courts have periodically reviewed whether the financial limitations of disabled individuals must be considered when analyzing reasonable accommodation requests, with inconsistent results. The Ninth Circuit has indicated that some disability- related financial constraints must be considered when the request is reasonable. As with all reasonable accommodations, the analysis of whether a requested accommodation from financial policies is reasonable must be determined on a case -by -case basis. YS 01313 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -105) 1561 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 9 The applicant has submitted a signed Affidavit of Disability - Related Financial Hardship that gives general information on the pre- and post - disability average income range of typical facility residents. The applicant has also submitted an unverified statement of the average income and expenses related to the four facility properties, discussed above in Reasonable Accommodation Request No. 2, Finding 2 (C). Although staff requested further verifiable financial information from the applicant, this information had not been received at the time this report was prepared. Therefore, staff is unable to perform an accurate analysis of the actual financial needs of the applicant at this time. However, based on the general summary of average expenses for each facility submitted by the applicant for the February 20 hearing, and the weekly client fee range which the applicant posts on its website, staffs analysis indicates that the applicant should have been able to meet the use permit fee obligation. The average monthly expense for each house is reported by the applicant to be around $6,200, with an average mortgage of $4,500 /month, $800 1month for utilities (elect(city, gas, trash service, water and phone) and $900 /month for food (the May 20, 2008 reasonable accommodation application states that residents are responsible for their own meals; the $900 may represent basic supplies.) Applicant reports an average monthly expense of $6,200, leaving only a $200 monthly profit. Applicant has stated that it relies on contributions from the community to keep it from operating at a loss. The applicant states that in general, its weekly fees are based on a sliding scale from $50 to $160 per week, with an average rent of $100 per resident per week. With 16 residents (the number of resident clients; facility managers do not appear to pay rent) the applicant reports the average monthly income from each house is $6,400. The applicant's statement was not supported by requested documentation (bills, etc. requested by staff), and was not signed under penalty of perjury. Yellowstone's own website indicates that income and expense calculations may be inaccurate. The website's "Our Fees" page (dated 2008) states that fees for sober living are $160 - $180 per week. Using the applicant's own reporting formula, this represents an average of $170 per resident per week. With 16 paying residents (resident staff may not be paying rent), this would result in an average monthly income per house of $10,880. If the reported average expense of $6,200 is accurate, each facility housing 16 residents generates a monthly profit of $4,680. ($56,160 per year for each house of the three with 16 residents; or an estimated $168,480 total for the three facilities at 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive.) RECOMMENDATION: For the foregoing reasons, staff recommends that Reasonable Accommodation Request No. 3 be denied. YS 01314 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -105) 1561 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 10 Environmental Review This activity has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and therefore it is not subject to CEQA. Public Notice Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site and posted at the project site a minimum ten (10) days in advance of this Public Hearing consistent with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In addition, the item appeared on the agenda for this Public Hearing, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: Attachments: Dave Klff Assistant City Manager 1. Draft Resolution of Denial 2. County of Orange Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan 3. County of Orange Zoning Code Definitions 4. County of Orange Records regarding 20172 Redlands Drive 5. County of Orange Records regarding 1571 Pegasus Street 6. February 20, 2009 Staff Report 7. Correspondence Received After February 20, 2009 YS 01315 Attachment No. 1 Draft Resolution for Denial YS 01316 RESOLUTION No. A RESOLUTION OF A HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING WITH PREJUDICE USE PERMIT NO. 2008 -034 TO ALLOW AN EXISTING GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE TO CONTINUE AT 1561 INDUS STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA (PA2008 -105) WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council on January 22, 2008, following noticed public hearings; and WHEREAS, the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 amended the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code (NBMC) relating to Group Residential Uses; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 added Chapter 20.91A to the NBMC. Chapter 20.91A sets forth a process by which existing group residential care facilities, except for state - licensed drug or alcohol treatment homes serving six or fewer clients and not operating integrally with other uses, must apply for use permits to remain in operation beyond February 2009; and WHEREAS, in order to allow an existing group residential care facility to remain in operation, a Hearing Officer must find, following a noticed public hearing, that all four of the findings identified in NBMC §20.91.035 (A) and all seven of the findings identified in §20.91A.060 can be met; and WHEREAS, Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., located at 1561 Indus Street ("Use Location ") in Newport Beach, California is an existing group residential care facility operating an unlicensed "sober living" facility for 12 women in an" existing single - family dwelling; and WHEREAS, an application was filed by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Use ") pursuant to Ordinance No. 2008-05 within the applicable time period with respect to property located at 1561 Indus Street, and legally described as Lot 14, Tract 4307 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California (APN 119- 361-08), as per map recorded in Book 153, Pages 18 -20 of Miscellaneous Map, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, requesting approval of Use Permit No. 2008 -034 to allow a residential care facility to continue its operations as a 12 bed adult sober living facility for females only; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2009, a Hearing Officer held a noticed hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California at which time the project application was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to, and considered by, the Hearing Officer at the hearing; and YS 01317 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1561 Indus Street Paoe 2 of 10 WHEREAS, the hearing was presided over by Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the existing residential care facility is located in a neighborhood that is not characterized by standard physical characteristics such as typical straight -line grid patterns and instead is comprised of meandering streets and cul-de -sacs, making it difficult to determine block size and configuration; and WHEREAS, utilizing the calculable median block length of 617 feet, an overconcentration of similar uses are located in the vicinity of the Use Location. Proximate to the Use Location are three other residential care facilities operated by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., and a fourth facility operated by another provider: 1. 20172 Redlands Drive (17 residents), approximately 312 feet away; 2. 1621 Indus Street (18 residents), approximately 253 feet away; 3. 1571 Pegasus Street (18 residents), approximately 143 feet away; and in addition 4. 1501 Pegasus (8 female residents operated by Lynn House), approximately 380 feet away. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. That Findings C, and Findings E through G of NBMC §20.91A.060 can be made for the following reasons: NBMC 20.91A.060 Finding C: The property and existing structures are physically suited to accommodate the use. The subject property is approximately 7,500 square feet in area and the structure consists of approximately 3,197 square feet of living area with a total of five bedrooms. The size of the structure appears adequate to accommodate the use as a residential care facility with 12 beds. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department is the responsible agency for implementing fire protection of all group residential care facilities and residences. The existing sober living facility has not received a "fire clearance" from the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. Approval of a use permit would include a condition of approval that provides that the use is approved subject to a "fire clearance" issued by the Newport Beach Fire Marshal within six months of the date of conditional approval. NBMC 20.91A.060 Finding E: The operation of buses and vans to transport YS 01318 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1561 Indus Street Page 3 of 10 residents to and from off -site activities does not generate vehicular traffic substantially greater than that normally generated by residential activities in the surrounding area. Only the resident manager and assistant manager have automobiles. Residents of the facility are not permitted to have automobiles, and utilize public transit from an OCTA bus stop located on Santa Ana Avenue. Vans are used to transport residents to a treatment facility and to a church approximately three to four times a week. The traffic generated from these van trips is not substantially greater than that generated by residential activities in the neighborhood. NBMC 20.91A.060 Finding F: Arrangements for delivery of goods are made within the hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. Deliveries to the residences are typical of the normal use of the property for residential purposes. Shopping is done by management staff and delivered to the house during normal daytime or early evening hours. NBMC 20.91A.060 Finding G: Arrangements for commercial trash collection in excess of usual residential collection are made within hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. The facility utilizes the regularly- scheduled Costa Mesa Sanitary District residential refuse collection services provided throughout the neighborhood. If a use permit were granted for the use, and in the event that the once -a -week trash service does not adequately serve this facility, a condition of approval allowing the Planning Director to require the facility to secure and maintain commercial bin service would be included. Section 2. That Findings Nos.1, 2, 3, and 4 of NBMC §20.91.035 (A) cannot be made for the following reasons: NBMC §20.91.035 (A) Finding No. 1: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The subject property is located within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7) area and is designated for Residential Single - Family (RSF) uses. The purpose of the specific plan is to provide for the orderly and balanced development of the community consistent with the stated goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The RSF District is established to provide for the YS 01319 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1561 Indus Street Page 4 of 10 development and maintenance of medium density single family detached residential neighborhoods, and permit uses that are complementary to and can exist in harmony with such a residential neighborhood. General Plan Policy LU 6.2.7 directs the City to regulate day care and residential care facilities to the maximum extent allowed by federal and state law so as to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods. The objectives of the code include provisions intended to reduce, through the use permit process, the potential for overconcentration of residential care facilities within a neighborhood and to protect public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use. However, the subject property's close proximity to other residential care facilities, all located within approximately 140 feet to 380 feet from each other, would result in an overconcentration of residential care facilities within the neighborhood. NBMC §20.91.035 (A) Finding No. 2: That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in :the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. General Plan Policy LU 6.2.7 directs the City to regulate day care and residential care facilities to the maximum extent allowed by federal and state law so as to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include conditions of approval regulating the use and operational characteristics related to parking, traffic, curfew hours, and on -site meetings. The facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently four other residential care facilities in close proximity, which constitutes an overconcentration of residential care facilities in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the continued use of this property as a residential care facility, if approved, would be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, and is contrary to the intention of Ordinance No. 2008 -05. NBMC §20.91.035 (A) Finding No. 3: That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. YS 01320 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1561 Indus Street Page 5 of 10 As noted in Finding No. 2 above, the proposed use would not be consistent with the provisions of NBMC Section 20.91A.060.D in that the facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently four other residential care facilities. NBMC §20.91.035 (A) Finding No. 4: If the use is proposed within a Residential District or in an area where residential uses are provided for in Planned Community Districts or Specific Plan Districts, the use is consistent with the purposes specified in Chapter 20.91A and conforms to all requirements of that Chapter. One of the stated purposes of NBMC Section 20.91A.010.6 is: "To protect and implement the recovery and residential integration of the disabled, including those receiving treatment and counseling in connection with dependency recovery. in doing so, the City seeks to avoid the ovemoncentrafion of residential care facilities so that such facilities are reasonably dispersed throughout the community and are not congregated or overconcentrated in any particular area so as to institutionalize that area." The proposed use would not be consistent with this purpose in that the facility is located in a neighborhood in which there are currently four other residential care facilities. Section 3. That Findings A, B and D of NBMC §20.91A.060 cannot be made for the following reasons: NBMC §20.91A.060 Finding A: The use conforms to all applicable provisions of Section 20.91A.050. These development and operational standards are summarized as follows: a. No secondhand smoke can be detectable outside the property. Smoking is permitted only in the rear yard and patio area. Given the size of the lot and the proximity of the surrounding residential uses, it is unlikely that secondhand smoke can be detected outside the property. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include a condition of approval restricting smoking to an enclosed area, or patio enclosed on all sides and open to above. b. Facility must comply with state and local law, and the submitted management plan, including any modifications required by this use permit. The facility has been in operation since 2007, and the applicant has stated that the facility has never been cited by a state or local agency as violating any of those agencies' laws or regulations. YS 01321 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1561 Indus Street Page 6 of 10 C. A contact name and number must be provided to the City. Contact names and telephone numbers have been provided within the application. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide the City with the appropriate "after hours" names and contact information numbers. d. No services requiring a license can be provided if the facility does not have a license for those services. The residential care facility is used for housing purposes only and is not licensed for on -site treatment. All treatment services are provided at a site that is located approximately two and a half miles from the site in Costa Mesa. Approval of a use permit for the facility would include a condition of approval limiting attendance of any type of meeting on -site to residents who reside on -site only. e. There shall be no more than two persons per bedroom plus one additional resident, unless a greater occupancy is requested and granted. Occupancy must also comply with State licensing if applicable. The unlicensed residential care facility has fire bedrooms and there is a total occupancy of 12 residents. Therefore, the facility exceeds the standard of two persons per bedroom plus one additional resident by one, and does not comply with this operational standard. While this is in excess of the Code standard, the 12 person occupancy is not excessive and can be accommodated by the structure. f. If certification from an entity other than ADP's licensing program is available, applicants must get that certification. The facility holds an Oxford House charter, and the applicant has provided proof of that certification. g. All individuals and entities involved in the facility's operation and ownership must be disclosed. The applicant has provided all names of those involved in the facility's operation within the application. h. No owner or manager shall have any demonstrated pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of the law. YS 01322 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1561 Indus Street Page 7 of 10 All four Yellowstone facilities located in Newport Beach were established when the properties were within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. County zoning regulations provided that community care facilities housing more than six residents and less than 12 residents were permitted subject to the approval of a use permit granted by the Planning Commission. Per documentation provided by the applicant, the Yellowstone facilities were established in 2003, 2005 and 2007, and there is no record of any use permit issued by the County for a community care facility operated by the applicant at any of the four facility locations. This demonstrates a pattern and practice by the applicant of operating community care facilities in violation of local laws in effect at the time the Yellowstone facilities were established. Therefore, this development and operational standard cannot be met and NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding A cannot be made. NBMC §20.91A.060 Finding B: The project includes sufficient on -site parking for the use, and traffic and transportation impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. The NBMC requires off - street parking and loading spaces for a residential care facility at a ratio of one space for every three beds. The project site has an enclosed two -car garage,and a driveway is that 26 feet deep, providing a total four off- street parking spaces, and therefore meets the NBMC requirements for off- street parking (1:3 or one space per three recovery beds). Van transportation to an off -site treatment facility and to a church is provided approximately three to four times a week, and residents utilize public transit for commuting to work (an OCTA bus stop is located on Santa Ana Avenue within walking distance). With respect to traffic generation, the facility itself does not present an adverse impact to the neighborhood. However, there are currently five group residential uses in the neighborhood with a total of 73 residents. Area residents have commented about the traffic and parking impacts from family and other visitors to the site during evening hours and on weekends, which results in cars parked throughout the vicinity. The project site is located at the end of a cul-de -sac, and the lots are pie- shaped, with smaller street frontages than other lots within the tract. Further complicating the on- street parking issue for the cul-de -sac lots is the fact that the driveway cuts /aprons do not leave ample space for the parking of vehicles directly in front of the houses. Other lots located in the tract have room to park two to three cars directly in front of the houses. In summary, while the facility does provide the code - required number of off - street parking, the traffic and parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood cannot be mitigated to an insignificant level, particularly given the limited parking due to YS 01323 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1561 Indus Street Paoe 8 of 10 the location of the site on a cul-de -sac, and due to the presence of other group care homes in close proximity to the subject property. NBMC §20.91A.060 Finding D: The use will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and the addition or continued maintenance of the use will not contribute to changing the residential character of the neighborhood, such as creating an overconcentration of residential care uses in the vicinity of the proposed use. In making this finding or sustaining such a finding, the Hearing Officer shall consider, as appropriate, the following factors: a. The proximity of the use location to schools, parks, other residential care facilities, outlets for alcoholic beverages and any other uses which could be affected by or affect the operation of the subject use; b. The existence of substandard physical characteristics of the area in which the use is located such as lot widths, setbacks, narrow streets, limited available parking, short blocks, and other substandard characteristics which are pervasive in certain areas of the City of Newport Beach, including portions of West Newport, Lido Isle, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Corona del Mar and Newport Heights, which portions were depicted on a map referred to as the Nonstandard Subdivision Area presented to the Newport Beach Planning Commission on September 20, 2007 and on file with the Director of Planning; and C. Whether, in light of the factors applied in subsections 20.91A.D.1 and D.2, it would be appropriate to apply the American Planning Association standard of permitting one or two such uses per block. Median block lengths in different areas of Newport Beach widely range from 300 feet in the Nonstandard Subdivision Areas to as much as 1,422 feet in standard subdivision areas. The average calculable block length in much of the standard subdivision areas is 711 feet and the calculable median block length is 617 feet The Hearing Officer shall apply the American Planning Association standard in all areas of Newport Beach in a manner that eliminates the differences in block lengths. In making this determination, the hearing officer shall be guided by average or median block lengths in standard subdivisions of the City. The Hearing Officer shall retain the discretion to apply any degree of separation of uses, which he or she deems appropriate in any given case. A copy of the American Planning Association standard is on file with the Director of Planning. YS 01324 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1561 Indus Street Page 9 of 10 The project site is located within an established single - family residential neighborhood consisting of one and two story tract homes. There are no public or private schools, or public parks located within close proximity to the site. The closest elementary school is Kaiser Elementary School, which is located approximately two miles to the south, and Brentwood Park located approximately one and a half miles to the south. Facilities licensed to sell or serve alcohol located within three blocks of the project site include a 7 -11 Store, and a restaurant on the southeast corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Bristol Street, and an AM/PM Service Station and Market on the northeast corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Bristol Street. Those facilities are located within the City of Costa Mesa, approximately 2,000 feet or more walking distance from the subject property. The subject property is located in a neighborhood that is not characterized by standard physical characteristics such as a typical street grid pattern; but instead has meandering streets and cul -de -sacs. The ordinance recognizes that there are instances when the lack of straight -line grid pattern streets make it difficult to exactly define a block; and also recognizes that blocks throughout the City are not always uniform in size. In -those instances, Code Section 20.91A.060.D.3 provides that the Hearing Officer may apply the American Planning Association (APA) of permitting one or two such uses per block and utilize the standard of 617 feet (median) or 711 feet (average) block lengths in Newport Beach in determining the block size and configuration. Utilizing the median block length of 617 feet places all five existing group residential uses within a single block area, because the maximum distance between each of the facilities is less than 600 feet. Therefore, the Hearing Officer finds that the subject property is located within a block currently containing five group homes and a total of 73 residents residing in residential care facilities. The presence of this many residential care facilities in very close proximity to each other creates an overconoentrabon residential care facilities. The use of the subject property as a residential care facility results in an overall adverse impact on the neighborhood and is not compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Section 4. The Hearing Officer hereby denies with prejudice Use Permit No. 2008 -034. Section 5. The action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. YS 01325 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1561 Indus Street Paoe 10 of 10 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of March, 2009. ATTEST CITY CLERK By: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer YS 01326 Attachment No. 2 County of Orange Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan YS 01327 C Z L1. a O o'Q.. a c .Q H Q .j N G a •s G LY �C d ©y oa4 u � •L i o ya w � d d Q a o U �£ d H 0 4 0) (A 4 a0 c000 rp�i�Q O � T .. ro � E E � T-9 N rA 516 YS 01328 s, V� W � xt �7Q t 4 ` z li N C� O N •C N d 0 0 l CL €do co �roi( VI •�'�Njj 'T' y � � �• G J ¢ J L9 C C c.- �s� �a 9 6'be3 d 0, .h Hill oq d _ a LL LL Morro A J x c 'S E m a C_ F Z 0 V zm � c x a R C V • `o c d c 2 u c98LN ti o a € a c `l ' j s` a c vu c� R om� y'S •C a 8 sNo ro 'fl . K M r m� m m m w m m m m w r m m m YS 01329 o 2ti d m B LO N s� M v a 3 ��y � •E 00 L H •C QC .r o a € a c `l ' j s` a c vu c� R om� y'S •C a 8 sNo ro 'fl . K M r m� m m m w m m m m w r m m m YS 01329 v W Z zg QU H� .< a M N mN'C V >'.A CEO 7j A 7Y aq_ Ho m9 c maci3 E•ma l- c vi Q cd, d a 3 c a s . v.� NO = CC d P 95 �a m »a c F`ca � a a m MgCu.{llm � :4-ks a ffi 3i d E>. ,�]scc cam` _�� °� �;° =g c o �STy N OV NSA. ` c,g _ �a of �� N e�� 3 E ���E� a3�b� o sle 0ITS $• a E Ee�c �``oi3 om9o�E °� m-m p� o p c P_c5� 4 vmi in8 2 ZS��nO�«4 ZEp�..4�.CLLR$ ^A°V v "a O c J YS 01330 \� z� «� � k a � Ik\ / $ \ - I ! •8% _ (- $ )2 ■ I %� f }k 7 $ t f .f 101 :1 ■ ■2 2 � ƒ m } }. } Ln § . . v 01331 Attachment No. 3 County of Orange Zoning Code Definitions YS 01333 RECEIVED BY PU,1gc11r:G DEPAP7NTN CITY Of: 1�' i UAC H ' IIAR 1 1 2003 r1r� Phi •,� 7i0�9ii0�11i12iii2i3fS;�9i6 COUNTY OF ORANGE ZONING CODE Planning and Development Services Department May, 2002 Edition YS 01334 Community care facility: Any facility which may or may not require a State license to provide nonmedical residential care or day care for children, adults, or both, including physically handicapped and mentally incompetent persons. This includes child day care facilities /day care nurseries and family day care homes. Community facility: A noncommercial use established primarily for the benefit or enjoyment of the population of the community in which it is located. Condominium: An estate consisting of an undivided interest in common in a parcel of real property together with a separate interest in space in a residential, industrial or commercial building on such real property, such as an office or store or multifamily dwelling. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of such real property. Congregate care facility, A facility, including a Congregate Living Health Facility as defined in State law, providing care on a monthly basis or longer and which is the primary residence of the people it serves.. It provides services to the residents such as the following: dining, housekeeping, security, medical, transportation and recreation. Any commercial services provided are for the exclusive use of the occupants of the facility. Such a facility may.be located in more than one building and on contiguous parcels within the building site. It includes facilities offering occupancy on a monthly basis and longer such as hotels, resorts, etc. which have characteristics similar to the above. Convalescent home: A facility licensed by the State Department of Health Services which provides bed and ambulatory care for more than six (6) patients with postoperative convalescent, chronically ill or dietary problems and persons unable to care for themselves; including persons undergoing psychiatric care and treatment both as inpatients and outpatients but not including persons with contagious diseases or afflictions. Also known as nursing home, convalescent hospital, rest home, or home for the aged. Conversion oroiect: An apartment house, multiple or group dwelling existing, under construction or for which building permits have been issued, which is proposed for conversion to a residential condominium, community apartment, residential stock cooperative or planned development; or an existing mobilehome park which is proposed to be converted to a mobilehome condominium project, a mobilehome stock cooperative project, a mobilehome planned development or a conventional mobilehome subdivision. Sec. 7-9-25. Definitions. (D) Day (care) nursery: A.k.a. child day care facility and day care center. Any facility operated by a person, corporation or association used primarily for the provision of nonmedical daytime care, training, or education of more than six (6) children under eighteen (18) years of age at any location other than their normal place of residence, excluding any children normally residing on the premises. Detached buildings and structures: Two (2) or more buildings or structures that are each structurally independent and freestanding and not connected by walls, roofs, floors, decks, supports, trellises, architectural features or any other structure, fixture or device that exceeds thirty (30) inches in height above the finished grade. -11- YS 01335 Sec. 7.9 -141. Community Care Facilities. Community care facilities serving six (6) or less persons and large family day care homes shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. Community care facilities serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons, except,for large family day care homes, shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. See. 7-9-141.1. Reserved. Sec. 7- 9- 141.2. Child care facilities /day care nurseries. Child day care facilitles /day care nurseries serving more than fourteen (14) persons may be permitted in any district, planned community or specific plan area (except in designated airport accident potential zones) where this use Is not otherwise identified as a permitted use, subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. Sec. 7-9-141.3. Reserved. COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES Sec. 7.9 -141 - 141.2 FOR INWO AYION ON /Y 6 or less �_ NO PERMIT* people Large Family Day Care (i tol4chifdren) 7 to 12 people USE PERMIT BY except LFDC PLANNING' COAIM15SION Child Day Care Facilities with over 14 children -177- YS 01336 Sec. 7 -9 -142. Congregate Care Facilities. (a) A congregate care facility serving six (6) or fewer persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single - family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. (b) A congregate care facility servipg seven (7) to twelve (12) persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to section 7- 9 -150. A congregate care facility shall; (1) Demonstrate compatibility with adjacent development; (2) Provide adequate on site parking for residents and staff; (3) Provide adequate screening of the facility by landscaping and /or fencing; and, (4) Limit signage and lighting. (c) A congregate care facility serving more than twelve (12) persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for either multifamily residential or hotels subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to section 7 -9 -150. (d) Equivalent dwelling unit counts for congregate care facilities shall be determined by the following table. The consequent unit counts are to be subtracted from the total number of allowed dwelling units for a planned community or specific plan area, and will also determine consistency with area per dwelling unit zoning limitations. Configuration 2 or more bedrooms in the unit 1 bedroom in the unit 0 bedroom in the unit Medical care rooms Dwelling Unit Counts 1 dwelling .5 dwelling .25 dwelling 0 dwelling Density bonuses may be granted to congregate care facilities in residentially -zoned areas in the same manner that they may be granted to standard residential projects per the Housing Element -178- YS 01337 Attachment No. 4 County of Orange Records Regarding 20172 Redlands Drive YS 01338 Account Activity Report Page 1 of 1 Post Type Work Date Activity Report for Permit Number $1050059 ACCOUNT APPLICANTIMP SITE Created: 09 /1312005 Yellowstone Women's Recovery of California Tract. 4307 36 TR Logs); null Status: CLOSED Status Updated: 06106/2006 1571 Pegasus Santa Ana, CA 92627 20172 REDLANDS DR NEWPORT Status Updated By: Ramon I(Impo Phone: 9498464404 BEACH Permit Description: SI for sober Ming certification, refer to CE050237, certification to be annual basis on an Post Type Work Date Work Name Hours Title Amount Balance Description Date (Hourly Rate) BAIancei $0.00 - 09/13/2005 Deposit .Inaial Deposit - Yellowstone $450.00 $450.0 Women's Recovery of 08/13/2005 Charge Permit issuance Charge COONS Ead $16.00 $435.00 00/20/2005 Charge 2M Supervisor admin 09/20/2005 Mike Powell 0.0952 Building Inspector $13.54 $421.86 Wnecharge IV ($143.26) 0920/2005 Charge 4L ANNUAL FIRE 09/20/2006 Don Parker 1.000 Building Inspector $149.25 $278.11 INSPECTION APPROVED. IV ($14326) HOUSE SETUP FOR 15 BEDS. 091=005 Charge M Travel 8mecharge. 09202005 Don Parker 0.1333 Building Inspector $19.10 $259.01 ANNUAL FIRE INSPECTION IV ($14326) APPROVED. HOUSE SET UP FOR 15 BEDS 09/202005 Charge ML Admin timecharge. - 09202005 Don Parker 0.1500 Building Inspector $21.49 $237.52 ANNUAL FIRE INSPECTION IV ($14325) APPROVED. HOUSE SET UP FOR 15 BEDS. - 111142006 Charge Innate SI 09/132005 John Powers 0.4687 Staff $49.45 $188.07 Specialist ($105.96) 0 Admin 6mecharga. 04292008 Don Parker 0.2500 8uildlrg InapBdor $38.67 $149.40 of open parmd. This N ($164.88n was completed and d an 920106. Please finalandclose. tge. Dose p .Sob 04/292008 Allan Metz 0.7333 Adminisaa6ve � $147.56 $1.82 r Livia out SI Sober Living Permit Manager 11($201.26) AutomaticRefundTransfer. Yellowstone $1.82 $0.00 tRe(u'nd Request flit Bradt forwardad to .A/C Women's on 06/ ns Recovery of California . Total Hours 2.8285 Balance $0.00 Deposits $450,00 Charges $440,10. Rbf4nds . $1.82 Adjustments $0.00 BAIancei $0.00 offs O.T. - Overtime E.O.T. - Extraordinary Ovedme E.O.T' - ExbaoMInaiy Overtime (Fiat Fee Permh) littba /aotisliome/view/ YS 01339 Cif' adineACCOUntPouun. ign? apl -Aiinf7imr At.-. ;*WTn- eTncnnio gMZr ,)Ann.- Attachment No. 5 County of Orange Records Regarding 1571 Pegasus Street YS 01340 February 1, 2006 •)WHIH.1.H74rJCkJ O'CR U 1 , 111 bh 111 :'I I 'Q. N}' .' ,I I I Mr. Malin Angel County of Orange Planning & Development Re: Si 060004 -1571 Pegasus, Santa Ana heights, Ca. Mr. Angel, -Per Laurie's west t am requesting an St Permit for a 18 bed sober living home located at 1571 Pegwus, Santa Ana Heights, this is a renewal of S1 1040097. 1 have enclosed a copy information application. Please advice at your earliest cotMenee when.1 can pickup permit and schedule inspection. Thank : i�V. Leisha Mello Administrative Coordinator (949)678.0761 15A East fiery Streel a Cesfo Maw, CA 92627 TeL (9a9j 64frdA94 W Fax 1949) 6A6,5296 . ■ : (at101941: -9048. . . Z.d : ddv40.90. ZL qe-J YS 01341 Situs Permit Update Page 1 of 1 4307- 8 -4 -TR (TRACT) , ATTACHED PERMITS Legal Description: 4307.8.4 -TR (Traci) Location : APN : 119. 381.14 (Release) Address : 1571 Pegasus St, Santa Ana (Permanent Bldg Address) Effec0ve: Jun 09, 2001 Check All CI_ ear All _ Permit No .Primary Flag $ Status Owner Description Address CE050277 * Closed Sober living home, operating without a permit 1571 Pegasus (overe people). St, Santa Ana © i0S 30031 * Closed- Yellowstone First Step Special lnves8gatlon to aver cost of sober 1577 Pegasus Complete Roman's living home St Santa Ana SI040097 * Closed- $Compete Yellowstone omen's Recovery Special lmresvga0on to cover cost of sober 1571 Pegasus Yellowstone Women's Recovery W of Calhom efor Sane Ana SI000044 * � $ Filed Yellowstone Women's First Step Special investigation to aver costa of sober 1571 Pegasus living home for Yellowstone Women's Reavery H Center St Saute Ana Attachment No. 6 February 20, 2009 Staff Report YS 01343 Attachment No. 7 Correspondence Received after February 20, 2009 YS 01344 Brown, Janet From: Jenn Haining Uinnee4 @hotmail.com) Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 9:26 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: 1561 Indus Street - Sober Home Dear Janet, The sober living home next door to our house habitually leaves their garbage cans out after trash day. Yesterday was our trash pick up and this morning, as of ten to nine when I left for work, their cans were still in front of their house. This is not unusual, as it is common for them to leave them out until fate Thursday, or even into Friday. They used to place their cans in front of our house, but as one of our neighbors brought It up at the last city meeting, and after we talked to one of Yellowstone's representatives on 3 different occasions, they are finally placing them in front of their own property. Can something be done about this? Thank you for your time, Jennifer Haining YS 01345 Brown, Janet From: Jenn Haining Uinnee4 @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 1:52 PM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Contino, Brian; Kiff, Dave; Wolcott, Cathy; Kappeler, John Subject: RE: Sober Living Homes Dear Ms. Brown, Thank you for your quick reply. I know my husband plans on attending the meeting this Thursday. I also wanted to mention that yes, were aware that 1561 Indus was a sober living home.when we purchased our house (although we did not know the other sober living house we share a fence with on Pegasus was, nor were we made aware of the other house on Indus). However, when we found our house and purchased it, 1561 Indus was on the market as well. We anticipated that it would be sold to a family and there would no longer be a business operating next to us. We have nothing against the sober living houses or their occupants, but it L a business operating next to us (though I understand this may be a matter of opinion) and therefore has issues we would rather not have to deal with in a single family residential neighborhood. Sincerely, Jennifer Haining 1572 Indus Street Subject: RE: Sober Living Homes Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:25:07 -0700 From: 3Brown0city. new oort- beach.ca us To: jinnee4(dlhotmail.com CC: BContino(acity.newport-beach ca us; DKiffccacity newport -beach ca us; CWolcott(chcity.newport- beach.ca.us; JKappeler(6city.newoort -beach ca us Dear Ms. Haining. Thank you for your e-mail. This information will be made a part of the record for the Yellowstone public hearings. In addition, I have requested the Code Enforcement Officer assigned to this area to look into code violations that may be occurring. The public hearing for the applications submitted by Yellowstone was continued to this Thursday, March 12, at 4:00 p.m. The meeting will take place in the City Council Chambers (same location as the February 201" meeting). Janet Johnson Brown Associate Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 ibrown(d).city newoort -beach ca us From: Jenn Haining [mailto:jinnee4 @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 1:09 PM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Contino, Brian Subject: Sober Living Homes Dear Janet, My husband attended the last city meeting addressing the potential closures of the Yellowstone sober YS 01346 houses. I am writing to you now because my husband and I became aware at this meeting, of certain policies the occupants of the sober living homes are supposed to be abiding by. We bought our house last April and just moved in December 20, 2008. In the short time we have lived here, It seems that they have been in constant violation of a lot of the policies set forth by the city. As we were unaware of these policies until recently, we have not complained or kept track of their activities. In the past week or so however, we have been more vigilant about noticing things they may be in violation of. The following are some of these things: 1. I believe it was the weekend before last, I was letting my dog out and could hear someone on the phone at the Pegasus house which backs up to our property. They appeared to be angry and used foul language. 2. Both of these properties frequently have their trash cans out after trash day for up to one to two days. 3. People are frequently coming or going after hours, easily past 11pm. We have heard loud cars racing from the house and one night /early morning someone honking their horn. 4. People appear to be in the house during hours when this is prohibited. I come home for lunch at 2pm and often see people being dropped off and /or picked up. 5. There are often different cars in the driveway that do not appear to be the house mothers. 6. Yesterday, while out tending to my roses in the front yard, I could smell cigarette smoke coming from the 1561 Indus property. These are just a few of the things we have noted. Not only that, but in reading some of the information they put forth in their applications, it appears as though the attorney was misinformed or not being truthful. The men's house on Redlands, up until recently, was having weekly Tuesday meetings in which it was obvious that a large number of men, that were not occupants, were attending. It brought in quite a bit of car and foot traffic. Also, remembering back to when we were working on our house last summer, girls from the other houses were walking to and from 1561 Indus with towels and bathing suits to use the pool. I hope this information is helpful to your decision making process. We love our new home and want to have a safe, clean and positive environment to live in. Sincerely, Jennifer Haining 1572 Indus Street YS 01347 1621 INDUS: STAFF REPORT (w/ Attachments 1 -6) FOR MARCH 12, 2009 HEARING -m.doc YS 01348 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEARING OFFICER'S STAFF REPORT March 12, 2009 Agenda Item 3 TO: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer SUBJECT: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street • Use Permit No. 2008 -035 • Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -05 APPLICANT: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. Isaac R. Zfaty, Attorney CONTACT: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3236, jbrown(a-city.newoort- beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY A use permit application to allow the continued operation_ of an existing unlicensed adult residential care facility providing a sober living environment with a total occupancy of 17 persons. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. A reasonable accommodation application has also been submitted requesting: 1. The residents of the facility be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NMBC); 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which restricts occupancy to two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; and 3. An exemption from NBMC Section 20.90.030 that states applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, are accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer reopen the public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, the City of Newport Beach and its legal counsel, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends the Hearing Officer: YS 01349 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 2 Deny the use. permit application based on the findings discussed in the February 20, 2009, staff report (Attachment 5), and based on new information provided in this report, and provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution of denial with prejudice of Use Permit No. 2008 -035. 2. Deny the request for reasonable accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a single housekeeping unit based on the information discussed in this staff report. 3. If the Hearing. Officer decides to grant a use permit for this facility, staff recommends that the requested accommodation for an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 be granted as to the current residents. As to future residents of this facility, staff recommends denial of the requested accommodation based on the information discussed in this staff report. 4. Deny the request for 'reasonable accommodation for an exemption of the application filing fee requirement based on the information discussed in this staff report. On February 20, 2009, the Hearing Officer conducted the public hearing for Use Permit No. 2008 -035, taking testimony from staff, the applicant and members of the public. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Officer concurred with staffs recommendation to approve the use permit with a reduced occupancy subject to the findings in the staff report (Attachment 5), and directed staff to prepare a resolution for approval of Use Permit No. 2008 -035. The hearing was continued to March 12, 2009, to take action on the application for Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -05. Following testimony by the applicant at the February 20 hearing which characterized the existing sober living use as an established nonconforming use of the property, staff conducted further investigation into the circumstances and laws applicable at the time the facility was established while under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. Based on information provided by the County, staff believes not all of the findings required to approve the use permit can be made. Therefore, staff recommends the Hearing Officer reopen the hearing as to whether a use permit at this location should be granted, reconsider the decision to approve the use permit, and deny Use Permit No. 2008 -035 for the reasons stated below. BACKGROUND The subject property is located in an area referred to as West Santa Ana Heights, which was annexed into the City of Newport Beach effective January 1, 2008. Prior to annexation, West Santa Ana Heights was an unincorporated area under the jurisdiction YS 01350 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 3 of the County of Orange. The subject property was located in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area and zoned Residential- Single Family (RSF). According to information submitted to the City by the applicant, the use of the single family dwelling located at 1621 Indus Street as a sober living facility use was established in 2003. When the use changed from that of a single family dwelling to a sober living facility, it was subject to any land use regulations the County of Orange placed on such uses at that time.' County of Orange Planning Department and Code Enforcement staff informed the City that a sober living use would have been classified as either a community care facility or a congregate care facility. Applicable Land Use Regulations: The Santa Ana Heights Speck Plan was adopted by the County in October 1986 and was last revised by the County in 2001. Portions of the Speck Plan are attached as Attachment 1. The property located at 1621 Indus Street was zoned RSF. Principal uses permitted in the RSF district under the Specific Plan are as follows: 1. Single family detached dwellings or single family mobile homes 2. Community can: facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons and large family day care homes. 3. Parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields. 4. Riding and hiking trails. A number of additional principal uses not relevant to this analysis, such as communication transmitting facilities, fire and police stations, and churches, were permitted with a use permit or site development permit. Temporary uses and accessory uses were also allowed, some of which required a use permit. All other uses were prohibited. In addition, the Specific Plan provided, "The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per Zoning Code section 7 -9 -150: Any other use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district." At the time property located 1621 Indus Street was established as a sober living facility, the County of Orange's Zoning Code definition of community care facility was "Any facility which may or may not require a State license to provide nonmedical residential care or day care for children, adults, or both, including physically handicapped and mentally incompetent persons. This includes child day care facilities/day care nurseries and family day care homes." 1 A change of occupancy for purposes of the California Building Code (CBC) also occurred when the use changed, and to operate legally the structure was required to conform with any CBC requirements for the occupancy type created. YS 01351 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 4 A congregate care facility was defined as: "A facility, including a Congregate Living Health Facility as defined in State law, providing care on a monthly basis or longer and which is the primary residence of the people it serves. It provides services to the residents such as the following: dining, housekeeping, security, medical, transportation and recreation. Any commercial services provided are for the exclusive use of the occupants of the facility. Such a facility may be located in more than one building and on contiguous parcels within the building site. It includes facilities offering occupancy on a monthly basis and longer such as hotels, resorts, etc. which have characteristics similar to the above." Definitions from the May 2002 version of the County of Orange Zoning Code (in effect in 2003) are attached as Attachment 2. Section 7 -9 -141 of the County's 2002 comprehensive Zoning Code further discussed requirements for community care facilities. That section provided: Community care facilities serving six (6) or less persons and large family day care homes shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single family dwelling or purposes of zoning and land use regulations. Community care facilities serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons, except for large family day care homes, shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. The closest classification provided in County regulations for the unlicensed facility located at 1621 Indus Street appears to be a community care facility. Therefore, if the operators established and maintained the facility with a bed count of six or fewer, it was a permitted use and thus legally established at that occupancy level at that location. If the operator obtained a use permit from the County Planning Commission for seven to 12 residents under the provision of the Specific Plan "other uses which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district," it would also have been a lawfully established use. The applicant has never indicated to the City that the facility was a community care facility housing six or fewer clients at any time. There is no evidence in records provided by the County on the number of people residing at the facility. There are also no County records of a use permit being issued for this address, although County Planning employees conducted a thorough search of their records at the request of City staff. Even if a use permit had been applied for, it is unlikely the County would have granted a use permit for the 18 beds as currently requested by the applicant because the County Zoning Code granted the Planning Commission the authority to approve use permits for up to 12 beds for community care facilities. The County of Orange Planning YS 01352 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 5 Commission did not have the authority to a grant use permits for a community care facility housing more than 12 beds. County records do show that on March 29, 2005, a temporary use permit was issued to 1621 Indus Street for Yellowstone Women's Recovery of California to hold meetings at the site. The temporary use permit was "issued for a period of time not to exceed 10 consecutive days and not to happen more that 4 times within the calendar year. This will allow for a total of 40 meetings." [sic] The "present use" on the permit was classified as a single family dwelling with garage. There is, however, documentation from the County (Attachments 3 and 4) that indicates that two other Yellowstone facilities located 20172 Redlands Drive and 1571 Pegasus Street were likely operating as community care facilities for more than 12 residents (see separate staff reports) without the approval of a use permit granted by the County of Orange Planning Commission. Therefore, Finding A of NBMC Section 20.91A.060 cannot be made with regard to the development and operational standard that "no owner or manager shall have any demonstrated pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of the law," based on the following finding: All four Yellowstone facilities located in Newport Beach were established when the properties were within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. County zoning regulations provided that community care facilities housing more than six residents and less than 12 residents were permitted subject to the approval of a use permit granted by the Planning Commission. Per documentation provided by the applicant, the Yellowstone facilities located at 20172 Redlands Drive and 1571 Pegasus Street were established -in 2005 (although County records indicate that the Pegasus facility may have been established in 2003), and appeared to be operating as community care facilities for more than 12 residents. There is no record of any use permit issued by the County for a community care facility operated by the applicant at any of the four facility locations. This demonstrates a pattern and practice by the applicant of operating community care facilities in violation of local laws in effect at the time the Yellowstone facilities were established. Therefore, this development and operational standard cannot be met and NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding A cannot be made. In addition, staff believes there is some doubt whether the Yellowstone facilities are even qualified to apply for and receive a use permit under NBMC Section 20.62.030 (Determination of Nonconformity). Subsection B of NBMC Section 20.62.030 provides that a use that was lawfully established under the laws in place at the time, but that no longer conforms to the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which is was located because of annexation to the City, shall be deemed to be a nonconforming use. However, "a use shall not be considered to have been "lawfully established and maintained" and is an illegal use if it was established or operated without required permits and licenses, including to not limited to permits and licenses required by any federal, state, or local government agency" (italics added). Pursuant to NMBC Section 20.91A.020, persons whose use of their property in a residential district was rendered YS 01353 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 6 nonconforming by the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 are qualified to seek a use permit to continue the use in its current location. There is no similar provision for illegal uses. Staff believes the facility located at 1621 Indus Street could be more accurately characterized as an illegal use than a nonconforming use as described by NBMC Section 20.62.030 (B). Use Permit No. 2008 -035 Analysis Summary In conclusion, staff recommends denial of Use Permit No. 2008 -035 for the following reasons: The inability to make all of the findings required by the NBMC Section 20.91.035 (A), and 20.91A.060. 2. The proposed use is not consistent with the purposes of NBMC Section 20.91A as set forth in Section 20.91A.010, and the requirements of Section 20.91.020. 3. There are inconsistencies and /or factual misrepresentations in the application documentation. This recommendation is based on analysis of the proposed project's submitted documentation, review of the property setting, applicant testimony, apparent documentation contradictions and /or misrepresentations, new information regarding the establishment of two of the Yellowstone facilities, and staffs conclusion that not all of the required findings from NBMC Section 20.91.035 (A) and NBMC Section 20.91A.060 can be made. If, after reviewing this report, and hearing any further testimony from the applicant, the Hearing Officer agrees with staffs recommendation for denial, staff requests the Hearing Officer's direction to prepare resolution for denial with prejudice of Use Permit No. 2008 -035. APPLICATIONS FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION BACKGROUND The background of the applicant's requests for reasonable accommodation is summarized in the February 20, 2009 staff report, attached to this report for reference (Attachment 5). The specific accommodations requested by the applicant are: That the residents of the Yellowstone facility at 1621 Indus Street be treated as a single housekeeping unit, as the term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; YS 01354 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 7 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; and 3. An exemption from the City's requirement that all use permit applicants pay a use permit application deposit fee to permit cost recovery by the City. (NBMC Chapter 3.36 and NBMC Section 20.90.030) The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), adopted in 1988, prohibits housing discrimination based on a resident's disability. Under the FHAA, it is discriminatory for government entities to refuse to make reasonable accommodations from rules, policies, and practices when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)). Cases interpreting the FHAA have held that a govemment agency has an affirmative duty to grant a requested reasonable accommodation if: (1) the request is made by or on behalf of a disabled individual or individuals, (2) the accommodation is necessary to afford the disabled applicant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and (3) the request is reasonable_ Cities may find an accommodation request unreasonable if granting the request would: (1) result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program (often described as "undermining the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve "), or (2) would impose undue financial or administrative burdens on the city (See U.S. v. Village of Marshall, 787 F.Supp. 872,878 (W.D. Wisc. 1991). Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary must be determined on a case -by -case basis. Because the applicant has requested three very different types of reasonable accommodation, staff provided a separate analysis of each specific accommodation request in the February 20 staff report, and will continue to follow that format. In the January 29, 2009 letter clarifying applicant's request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested that its facility be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit, as that term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030. Staff fully analyzed this request in the February 20 staff report and recommended denial of the request. The denial recommendation was based on the grounds that the accommodation requested was broader than necessary to afford disabled individuals an opportunity to reside in the housing of their choice, and that the request was not reasonable because it would YS 01355 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 8 fundamentally alter the nature of this portion of the zoning program, and undermine its basic purpose. For a more in -depth analysis and findings, please see the February 20, 2009, staff report. SUMMARY With regard to the applicant's request to provide reasonable accommodation that treats the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit, two of the five required findings cannot be made. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, all five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. Therefore, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny the Reasonable Accommodation request for the residents of the subject property to be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. In the January 29, 2009, letter from applicant's counsel's clarifying and supplementing applicant's request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested that the facility receive an exemption from the occupancy standards of NBMC Section 20.91A.050. NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2) requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. At the February 20 hearing, staff had recommended that a use permit be granted for this facility. Because of new information gathered as a result of testimony by the applicant at the February 20 hearing, staff now recommends that the use permit for this facility be denied. If there is no use permit granted for this facility, an exemption from the occupancy restrictions the use permit would have imposed does not need to be analyzed. In the event the Hearing Officer decides to grant a use permit to this facility, however, staff makes the following analysis and findings. All of applicant's facilities currently have residents in excess of the number that would be permitted under the use permit standards. One facility (1561 Indus S treet) has 12 residents in five bedrooms; another facility has 17 beds in six bedrooms (20172 Redlands Drive), and the other two (1621 Indus Street, and 1571 Pegasus Street) have 18 residents in six bedrooms. Under the operating standards of NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2), a use permit issued for this facility would be limited to no more than 13 residents. The applicant requests an exemption from this requirement that will allow the facility to continue at its current occupancy level. Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 9 The applicant's counsel did not indicate in the January 29, 2009, letter why the accommodation requested is necessary, but clamed the assertion of necessity via telephone and email to staff on February 12, 2009. Applicants counsel asserts that, as to current residents of this facility, the accommodation is necessary because if a use permit were granted restricting occupancy to 13, five current residents would be displaced. Because of financial constraints on the displaced residents' earning capability that result from the residents' disability, the applicant's counsel states that the displaced residents would have no other place to reside in a sober environment. As to prospective residents of the facility, the applicants counsel states that the accommodation is necessary because the prospective residents of this facility also have financial constraints caused by their disability, and would be unable to afford to rent a dwelling if the additional beds at this facility were unavailable to them because of the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2). Ordinance No. 2008 -05 codified the procedures for requesting, reviewing and granting, conditionally granting, or denying all requests for reasonable accommodation in the City of Newport Beach. The Hearing Officer is designated to approve, conditionally approve, or deny all applications for a reasonable accommodation. The ordinance also established required findings, and factors the Hearing Officer may consider when making those findings. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(B) of the NBMC, the written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. Finding: That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. This finding can be made. The applicant has submitted a statement signed under penalty of perjury that every resident of the facility is in recovery from alcohol addiction. Federal regulations and case law have defined recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction as a disability, because it is a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs one or more major daily life activities. 2 Finding: That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. As to current residents: This finding can be made. If a use permit is issued for this facility without the requested accommodation, five current residents of this facility would have to be removed from the facility in order comply with the terms of the use permit. The applicant reported in its application that the average length of stay for residents of this facility is six months; the applicant later verbally informed staff that residents stay six months to one year, ---------------------------------- YS 01357 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 10 sometimes longer. Granting the requested accommodation would allow those individuals to remain in the dwelling for the remainder of their temporary stay, providing them with the opportunity to continue to live in their current dwelling for the necessary limited period of time. As to prospective residents: This finding cannot be made. Applicant states that it charges monthly fees on a sliding scale based on ability to pay, and that this is a needed service for many persons in recovery from alcoholism. Applicant has submitted an Affidavit of Disability- Related Hardship, signed under penalty of perjury, on behalf of the facility's residents. The affidavit states that before becoming disabled, Yellowstone residents earned an average of $50,000 per year, and that in recovery the residents are earning an average of $20,000 per year. It is plausible that persons in early recovery from addiction tend to have lower incomes than they had before addiction temporarily reduced their employment opportunities. This will necessitate shared living arrangements in one form or another. Adding five beds to this facility could afford five additional disabled individuals the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The analysis does not stop at the financial needs of the potential residents, however. Were that the case, the City might be obligated to authorize an unlimited number of residents at the applicant's facilities at greatly reduced rents; the population of recovering alcoholics with financial limitations is vast. Even the Ninth Circuit has noted that mandating lower rents for disabled individuals would probably not be considered a reasonable request. (See Giebeler v. M&B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)) NBMC Section 20.98.025(C) permits the City to consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: A. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disability. Staff does not question the need for sober living homes, nor the fact that persons with a disability must have the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. If the requested accommodation is granted, a higher number of the applicant's current and potential clients will be able to live in a home in a single family neighborhood with other recovering alcoholics. This is a situation that can affirmatively enhance the quality of life of a person in recovery from addiction, unless overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhood interferes with the residents' re- integration into society. The applicant's sliding scale of rental rates offers a sober living environment to residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in a single family home in this area. YS 01358 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inca (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 11 B. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation. As to current residents: If the use permit is granted and the accommodation is denied, five residents will be displaced from their temporary home. As to prospective residents. The applicant has not submitted information on whether this facility is currently occupied at full capacity, or whether there is a waiting list of potential residents. C. In the case of a residential care facility, whether 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. The applicant states that each facility requires 15 residents in order to be financially viable, and provides a general summary of average income and expenses for all four facilities. In some federal cases in which a sober living or other group home made a similar statement in support of its request for an accommodation allowing additional residents, courts found that the accommodation should be granted. However, the courts generally consider more detailed, verified financial information to reach that conclusion. (See Oxford House - Evergreen v. City of Plainfield, 769 F.Supp. 1329 (1991)) The applicant has not submitted financial information specific to each facility, but it has supplied an average cost analysis for its four facilities overall. The analysis was not signed under penalty of perjury, and although staff requested it repeatedly, the applicant did not submit specific evidence such as mortgage statements or utility bill by the date this report was prepared. Therefore, staff has performed a financial needs analysis based on the information supplied by the applicant, and other information publicly available on the applicant's website. The applicant states that in general, its weekly fees are based on a sliding scale from $50 to $160 per week, with an average rent of $100 per resident per week. With 16 residents (the number of resident clients; facility managers do not appear to pay rent) the applicant reports the average monthly income from each house is $6,400. The average monthly expense for each house is reported by the applicant to be around $6,200, with an average mortgage of $4,500 /month, $800 /month for utilities (electricity, gas, trash service, water and phone) and $900 /month for food (the May 20, 2008 reasonable accommodation application states that residents are responsible for their own meals; the $900 may represent basic supplies.) Applicant reports an average monthly expense of $6,200, leaving only a $200 YS 01359 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 12 monthly profit. Applicant has stated that it relies on contributions from the community to keep it from operating at a loss. The applicants statement was not supported by requested documentation (bills, etc. requested by staff), and was not signed under penalty of perjury. Yellowstone's own website indicates that income and expense calculations may be inaccurate. The website's "Our Fees" page (dated 2008) states that fees for sober living are $160 - $180 per week. Using the applicants own reporting formula, this represents an average of $170 per resident per week. With 16 paying residents (resident staff may not be paying rent), this would result in an average monthly income per house of $10,880. If the reported average expense of $6,200 is accurate, each facility housing 16 residents generates a monthly profit of $4,680. ($56,160 per year for each house of the three with 16 residents; or an estimated $168,480 total for the three facilities located at 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street, and 20172 Redlands Drive.) For the facilities currently housing 16 paying residents, if the resident count were reduced to 11 paying residents (of the maximum 13 occupants permitted under the operating standards, two are Yellowstone staff), the monthly income would be $7,480. Without knowledge of the actual mortgage and utility costs, staff cannot say whether this facility would actually operate at a monthly profit of approximately $1,280, or approximately $15,360 per year ($46,080 total for three facilities currently housing 16 residents each), but this profit range seems sufficient for a non -profit that raises funds from the community to keep from operating at a loss. Therefore, staff does not agree with the applicant's contention that it needs 15 residents at each facility to be financially viable. The facilities do not appear to need residents in excess of the number allowed under the operational standards to be financially viable under the business model the applicant has described. Several of the homes are owned by the applicant's CEO and /or her husband and leased to the applicant. The average monthly mortgage for each house that the CEO has reported appears to be more than covered by the fees which residents pay to the applicant. Additionally, extended operation of the homes with 15 or 16 residents at the rental rate reported on Yellowstone's website appears to result in the CEO's eventual full ownership of several homes and a significant annual profit for the applicant. If a residential recovery home is adding residents for its own financial advantage rather than to accommodate the financial limitations of the residents, the City is not obligated to grant the requested accommodation. YS 01360 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 13 D. In the case of a residential care facility, 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. In 2007, City staff estimated that there were approximately 315 sober living beds in the city. (This estimate does not include the up to 213 ADP - licensed residential beds in the City.) These numbers were compiled before applicant's facilities, with a total of 58 sober living and eight staff beds, were added to the City's supply by annexation. Operators of many sober living facilities within the City have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Yellowstone clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment without granting the accommodation. However, many of these alternate sober living beds are probably not offered on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. Even if the applicant provides housing for the disabled, and even if the requested accommodation is necessary, the City is not required to grant a request for accommodation that is not reasonable. Cities may find a requested accommodation unreasonable if it either (1) imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the City, or (2) results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program, often described as "undermining the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve." 3. Finding: That 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. As to current residents: This finding can be made. Allowing five additional beds on a temporary basis at the facility would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. Applicant states that the average length of stay for individual residents is 6 months. It creates little burden on the City to allow five of the current residents of this facility to complete their stay at the facility. Upon their departure, the facility's bed count will be within the range contemplated by the operating standards of the NBMC. The primary administrative burden on the City would be ensuring compliance. As to prospective residents. This finding can be made. Allowing five extra beds at this facility would not create a currently identifiable undue financial or administrative burden on the City. However, staff makes this finding with caution, because the applicant is requesting similar accommodations at additional facilities. 4. Finding: That the requested accommodation will not 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. YS 01361 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 14 As to current residents. This finding can be made. Allowing five additional beds on a temporary basis at the facility would not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program. Applicant states that the average length of stay for individual residents is six months to one year. It does not fundamentally undermine the nature of the City's zoning program to allow five of the current residents of this facility to complete their stay. Upon their departure, the facility's bed count would be within the range contemplated by the zoning program. As to prospective residents: This finding cannot be made. Permanently allowing five additional beds in excess of the highest number allowed under the operational standards of the NBMC could undermine the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve. The basic purpose of the bed count limits is to draw a line at a reasonable density for a business providing residential recovery services within a residential neighborhood. The City Council adopted these regulations to ensure that the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code can be achieved, and so that secondary impacts of the higher density residential care facilities on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated. Staff is also concerned that if use permits are granted at each facility for which staff recommended approval at the February 20 hearing, and each facility receives the reasonable accommodation requested here, the extra 10 individuals could trigger an overconcentration that contributes even further to the change in the character of the neighborhood. This could create a quasi - institutional environment within the neighborhood that will not benefit either the surrounding neighborhood, or the recovering individuals attempting to reintegrate into the lifestyle found in a residential neighborhood. In a joint statement on the Fair Housing Act, the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have recognized that it would adversely affect persons with disabilities and be inconsistent with the object of integrating persons with disabilities into the community if a neighborhood came to be composed largely of group homes. They agree it is appropriate to be concerned about the setting for a residential care facility, and that a consideration of overconcentration may be considered in this context. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(D) of the NBMC, the City may also consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program: A_ Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. Staff acknowledges that a petition stating "Yellowstone is a good neighbor" was presented to the City, signed by four residents of Pegasus Street (where one of YS 01362 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 15 the other facilities of the applicant is located) However, the petition was countered by letters, emails and phone calls from neighbors that reported increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood as the applicant established more facilities there in recent years. The letters of support, the letters of complaint, and the applicant's submissions do not indicate which Yellowstone facility the impacts are reported (or denied) for. Therefore, staff will analyze the reported impacts as if they apply to each facility equally. The impacts reported include: • Litter in the neighborhood which complainants attribute to the applicant's facilities, including cigarette butts, soda cans, and beer cans and bottles Family and other visitors to the facilities • Facility residents traveling in groups between one facility and the others • Meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicant's facilities, with outside attendees Excessive use of on- street parking by facility residents and their guests • Decline in property values in the neighborhood Due to a number of factors, including general fluctuations in the real estate market, staff is reluctant to speculate whether any decline in property values is a direct result of the operation of applicant's facilities. This consideration was not included in staff's analysis. However, a number of the neighbors' allegations appear credible, and directly contradict representations made to the City by the applicants. Specifically, the applicant has stated in its reasonable accommodation applications and supplemental communications that: • There are no outside visitors allowed at the facility Residents are not permitted to have cars while they reside at the facility and rely on public transportation, carpools with the resident managers to get to the full -time jobs which the applicant states all residents have, and facility vans to get to treatment facilities and a church (although the May 20, 2008, use permit application stated that this facility then allowed up to four resident vehicles onsite.) • No interaction between the four facilities operated in close proximity by the applicant is permitted YS 01363 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1629 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 16 Based on the other misstatements and inconsistencies in the information supplied by the applicant in its use permit and reasonable accommodation applications, staff is inclined to view the applicant's representations about restrictions on visitors and facility interaction with skepticism. In particular, staff is not sure the applicant's statement about its "no visitors" policy is credible, because neighbors report visitors are common, and because one of the letters of support submitted by a former Yellowstone resident said, "l come to Yellowstone every week and am still a part of this place still to this day, .. 6 years later. I hope it is here for other girls to come back and work with the newcomers the way I have been given the chance too." Another former resident wrote, "Yellowstone is the place that I will continue to come back to and visit the new girls who are struggling the way I did." (Note: applicant's attorney states that these letters refer to meetings at another Yellowstone facility in Costa Mesa.) The applicant's possible misstatements of easily verifiable facts (such as policies about no meetings, no visitors, and no inter - facility interaction), and early written and oral representations that two of the facilities held ADP licenses (which they never had), causes staff concern about the overall responsibility of the operator, and its ability to successfully manage both its residents and their impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Allowing facilities that are not well run to operate with a high concentration of residents can lead to a further alteration in the character of the neighborhood. If a use permit in this location is granted, it may be necessary to scale back rather than expand the population of the facility, and increase su pervision and enforcement of existing house rule to mitigate the negative impacts its facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood. Applicant's counsel has been informed of the inconsistencies in the applicant's submitted materials, and will submit additional information addressing the inconsistencies. On February 12, 2009, applicant's counsel informed staff by telephone that: • Meetings referenced in Yellowstone alumnae letters of support occur only at Yellowstone's Costa Mesa facility, and there are no meetings held at the Newport Beach facilities. There has been a change in policy since the original application for reasonable accommodation was submitted in May 2008. Personal vehicles are no longer allowed at 1561 Indus Street. Only the two resident managers may have vehicles in the neighborhood, which must be parked on -site. Letters and public testimony from facility neighbors indicate this may not be the case. YS 01364 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 17 B. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking. Parking - The applicant stated in its original reasonable accommodation application for this property (May 20, 2008) that non -staff facility residents were not permitted to have personal vehicles at the property. The use permit application also stated that no residents except the two resident managers have personal vehicles which they park onsite. If residents are not allowed personal vehicles in the neighborhood, then there should not be a substantial increase in insufficient parking as a result. However, the weekly meetings and weekend visitors reported by neighbors and former residents of the facilities do appear to impact neighborhood parking to an excessive degree. Letters and testimony from the public say that meetings occur and that parking is impacted, but do not indicate which of the facilities hold meetings. Traffic and Generated Trips — The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. Trip rates for residential care facilities are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Based on these standards, an 18 -bed residential care facility would generate approximately 49.32 average daily trips. A 13 -bed facility would generate 35.62 average daily trips, arguably an appreciable difference in traffic generation. 5. Finding: That 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. This finding can be made. A request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if granting it would pose "a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). This is a very limited exception and can only be used when, based on the specific facts of a situation, a requested accommodation results in a significant and particularized threat. Federal cases interpreting this exception in the FHAA indicate that requested accommodations cannot be denied due to generalized fears of the risks posed by disabled persons. YS 01365 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 18 RECOMMENDATION The applicant has requested that this facility continue to have five beds in excess of that allowed by the operating standards specified in the NBMC operating standards for the duration of the stay of the five extra residents. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, all five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. Current Residents: All five findings can be made as to the current residents of this facility. Staff recommends that if a use permit is granted for this facility, the Hearing Officer also grant the requested accommodation as to the current residents only. Prospective Residents: Findings 1, 3 and 5 can be made with respect to the additional prospective residents at this facility. However, Findings 2 and 4 cannot be made. All five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to grant the use permit. If a use permit is granted for this facility, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny this accommodation request as to prospective residents. If the Hearing Officer denies the use permit at this facility, staff recommends that this reasonable accommodation request be denied as unnecessary; the occupancy restrictions are tied to the use permit operating conditions. If the Hearing Officer decides to grant the use permit which staff recommended at the February 20 hearing, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer conduct a public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, the City of Newport Beach, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the hearing, if the Hearing Officer plans to approve a use permit with conditions of approval, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer grant the reasonable accommodation request as to current residents only, and deny the reasonable accommodation request as to prospective residents. The applicant has stated that, as a non - profit organization that relies on contributions from the community to keep it from operating at a loss, paying the use permit application fee deposit presents a financial hardship. Staff offered a payment plan to enable the applicant to pay the application fee within a reasonable period of time. In lieu of the payment plan, the applicant has requested an exemption from the $2,200 use permit application deposit required to process the use permit application submitted for this facility. NBMC Chapter 3.36 sets forth the fee schedule for municipal services, and mandates 100% cost recovery for services when the fee schedule does not set forth a lower rate of recovery. Use permit processi ng is not one of the services that are generally provided at a rate below 100% cost recovery NBMC Section 20.90.030 states that YS 01366 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 19 applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. Federal courts have periodically reviewed whether the financial limitations of disabled individuals must be considered when analyzing reasonable accommodation requests, with inconsistent results. The Ninth Circuit has indicated that some disability- related financial constraints must be considered when the request is reasonable. As with all reasonable accommodations, the analysis of whether a requested accommodation from financial policies is reasonable must be determined on a case -by -case basis. The applicant has submitted a signed Affidavit of Disability- Related Financial Hardship that gives general information on the pre- and post - disability average income range of typical facility residents. The applicant has also submitted an unverified statement of the average income and expenses related to the four facility properties, discussed above in Reasonable Accommodation Request No. 2, Finding 2 (C). Although staff requested further verifiable financial information from the applicant, this information had not been received at the time this report was prepared. Therefore, staff is unable to perform an accurate analysis of the actual financial needs of the applicant at this time. However, based on the general summary of average expenses for each facility submitted by the applicant for the February 20 hearing, and the weekly client fee range which the applicant posts on its website, staffs analysis indicates that the applicant should have been able to meet the use permit fee obligation. The average monthly expense for each house is reported by the applicant to be around $6,200, with an average mortgage of $4,500 /month, $800 /month for utilities (electricity, gas, trash service, water and phone) and $900 /month for food (the May 20, 2008 reasonable accommodation application states that residents are responsible for their own meals; the $900 may represent basic supplies.) Applicant reports an average monthly expense of $6,200, leaving only a $200 monthly profit. Applicant has stated that it relies on contributions from the community to keep it from operating at a loss. The applicant states that in general, its weekly fees are based on a sliding scale from $50 to $160 per week, with an average rent of $100 per resident per week. With 16 residents (the number of resident clients; facility managers do not appear to pay rent) the applicant reports the average monthly income from each house is $6,400. The applicant's statement was not supported by requested documentation (bills, etc. requested by staff), and was not signed under penalty of perjury. Yellowstone's own website indicates that income and expense calculations may be inaccurate. The website's "Our Fees" page (dated 2008) states that fees for sober living are $160 - $180 per week. Using the applicant's own reporting formula, this represents an average of $170 per resident per week. With 16 paying residents (resident staff may not be paying YS 01367 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -106) 1621 Indus Street March 12, 2009 Page 20 rent), this would result in an average monthly income per house of $10,880. If the reported average expense of $6,200 is accurate, each facility housing 16 residents generates a monthly profit of $4,680. ($56,160 per year for each house of the three with 16 residents; or an estimated $168,480 total for the three facilities at 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive.) For the foregoing reasons, staff recommends that Reasonable Accommodation Request No. 3 be denied. Environmental Review This activity has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and therefore it is not subject to CEQA. Public Notice Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site and posted at the project site a minimum ten (10) days in advance of this Public Hearing consistent with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In addition, the item appeared on the agenda for this Public Hearing, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: r 111� Ir anner Attachments: 1. County of Orange Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan 2. County of Orange Zoning Code Definitions 3. County of Orange Records regarding 20172 Redlands Drive 4. County of Orange Records regarding 1571 Pegasus Street 5. February 20, 2009 Staff Report 6. Correspondence Received After February 20, 2009 YS 01368 ......... =, Attachment No. I County of Orange Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan YS 01369 Fy- Vsv LLJ O. Z � R p a P I A �f h C 0. G Q c� M a0• -6fM �N0 Z i O1 � toQ o m I I 1.7 O E ��p >i QZ pn U o �« C c ro 'a YS 01370 F- x W S EY H N vii C T O CL d�•G w m1w � N �Ga¢ Id to �oN a_ m d� M`9c° U 02 $ s8� € `1 � z T n J R d C 7 OO C p 00 1Z.5 N w 'C V N el 78 8 8 E'q 0 S`3" �,YZ3 nC aaNS « div�S3 Am va p! s 3 o ° � a grE � 1•C o N R d C 7 OO C p 00 1Z.5 N w 'C it a '9 M r YS 01371 V N c �,YZ3 nC c Am va 06 o ° � 1•C o N it a '9 M r YS 01371 H V LU Z Zs QV FQ- CL N Ina = W� L y55O . p,• €a Its y C o• E' d` 5,25 o c O a in E M M w a E _ 8 00 N o� O a 'b b y N 0 4 0 N Y Sd ri 1.2 t� 2 ."3 J 0 a R 3 •' � R $A V CL Q Ei `o 8s m' 0 a Q EE RE b gs0 cs j'? nir c ����� o v M M M M M camry � $£m5r $a01OO eaEi IL S-g i�� O `d �`.^. E o� Z ECS 4P13�ms m•x lz v Le O c M r M M M i M YS 01372 q UJ . . �2 ■ \IL . k z �CL 2�7 I ■i )�} ! d■% 4U� t � ! ■ ! e P § k2 \} }}) $2f! !! a§ $ « 2!> § k22 E e ± ) \� a a7 aE ■ $$ } m2 ! � $ « E ƒ = ". w .m = m m m M m m m m = = I » YS 01373 Attachment No. 2 County of Orange Zoning Code Definitions YS 01375 I_ RECEIVED BY PU,WNIP:G DEPARTNTNT CIT1' Of' I\lEl.VP.jP,'T CEACH r►r� II.AR 1 1 2003 PAS COUNTY OF ORANGE ZONING CODE YS 01376 Community care facility: Any facility which may or may not require a State license to provide nonmedical residential care or day care for children, adults, or both, including physically handicapped and mentally incompetent persons. This includes child day care facilitiestday care nurseries and family day care homes. Community facility: A noncommercial use established primarily for the benefit or enjoyment of the population of the community in which it is located. Condominium: An estate consisting of an undivided interest In common in a parcel of real property together with a separate interest in space in a residential, industrial or commercial building on such real property, such as an office or store or multifamily dwelling. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of such real property. Conaregate care facility: A facility, including a Congregate Living Health Facility as defined in State law, providing care on a monthly basis or longer and which is the primary residence of the people it serves.. It provides services to the residents such as the following: dining, housekeeping, security, medical, transportation and recreation. Any commercial services provided are for the exclusive use of the occupants of the facility. Such a facility maybe located in more than one building and on contiguous parcels within the building site. It includes facilities offering occupancy on a monthly basis and longer such as hotels, resorts, etc, which have characteristics similar to the above. Convalescent home: A facility licensed by the State Department of Health Services which provides bed and ambulatory care for more than six (6) patients with postoperative convalescent, chronically ill or dietary problems and persons unable to care for themselves; including persons undergoing psychiatric care and treatment both as inpatients and outpatients but not including persons with contagious diseases or afflictions. Also known as nursing home, convalescent hospital, rest home, or home for the aged. Conversion oroiect: An apartment house; multiple or group dwelling existing, under construction or for which building permits have been issued, which is proposed for conversion to a residential condominium, community apartment, residential stock cooperative or planned development; or an existing mobilehome park which is proposed to be converted to a mobilehome condominium project, a mobilehome stock cooperative project; a mobilehome planned development or a conventional mobilehome subdivision. Sec. 7-9-25. Definitions. (D) Day (care) nursery: A.k.a. child day care facility and day care center. Any facility operated by A person, corporation or association used primarily for the provision of nonmedical daytime care, training, or education of more than six (6) children under eighteen (18) years of age at any location other than their normal place of residence, excluding any children normally residing on the premises. Detached buildings and-structure : Two (2) or more buildings or structures that are each structurally independent and freestanding and not connected by walls, roofs, floors, decks, supports, trellises, architectural features or any other structure, fixture or device that exceeds thirty (30) inches in height above the finished grade. -11- YS 01377 Sec. 7 -9 -141. Community Care Facilities. Community care facilities serving six (6) or less persons and large family day care homes shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. Community care facilities serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons, except for large family day care homes, shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. Sec, 7 -9- 141.1. Reserved. Sec. 7- 9- 141.2. Child care facilitiesiday care nurseries. Child day care facilities/day care nurseries serving more than fourteen (14) persons may be permitted in any district, planned community or specific plan area (except in designated airport accident potential zones) where this use is not otherwise identified as a permitted use, subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. Sec. 7-9-141.3. Reserved. COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES Sec.7 -9 -141 - 141.2 or less <-- NO PERMIT• \ eople Large Family Day Care ( 7 to 14 children) 7 to 12 people E--.— USE PERMIT BY except LFDC PLANNING' COMMISSION Child Day Care Facilities with over 14 children / Sec. 7 -9 -142. Congregate Care Facilities. (a) A congregate care facility serving six (6) or fewer persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single - family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. (b) A congregate care facility serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to section 7- 9 -150. A congregate care facility shall; (1) Demonstrate compatibility with adjacent development; (2) Provide adequate on site parking for residents and staff; (3) Provide adequate screening of the facility by landscaping and /or fencing; and, (4) Limit signage and lighting. (c) A congregate care facility serving more than twelve (12) persons shall be permitted In any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for either multifamily residential or hotels subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to section 7 -9 -150. (d) Equivalent dwelling unit counts for congregate care facilities shall be determined by the following table. The consequent unit counts are to be subtracted from the total number of allowed dwelling units for a planned community or specific plan area, and will also determine consistency with area per dwelling unit zoning limitations. Configuration 2 or more bedrooms in the unit 1 bedroom in the unit 0 bedroom in the unit Medical care rooms Dwelling Unit Counts 1 dwelling .5 dwelling .25 dwelling 0 dwelling Density bonuses may be granted to congregate care facilities in residentially -zoned areas in the same manner that they may be granted to standard residential projects per the Housing Element. _ -178= _...._ . _ _ _ _ __ YS 01379 Attachment No. 3 County of Orange Records Regarding 20172 Redlands Drive YS 01380 Account Activity Report Activity Report for Permit Number S1050059 Page 1 of 1 ACCOUNT APPLICANT/FRP SITE Created: 09fl32005 Yellowstone Women's Recovery of California Tract 4307 36 TR Loge): null Status: CLOSED Status Updated: 05106!2008 1571 Pegasus Santa Ana, CA 92627 20172 REDLANDS DR NEWPORT Statue Updated By: Ramon IOmpo Plana: 949$46 -4494 BEACH Permit Description: SI for sober living certification, refer to CE050237, certification to be on an $460.00 annual basis Women's Post Type Work Date I I Work Name Hours Title Amount Balance Description Date (Hourly Rate) Belarycti $0.00 09/1312005 Deposit Initial Deposit Yellowstone $460.00 $480.00 Women's Recovery of 0911S/2006 Charge Permit Issuance Charge CookleFad $16 -0 $435.00 09/2012005 I Charge is&L Supervisoradmin 09/2012005 Mike Powell 0,0952 Building Inspector $19.64 $421.36 timedrarge N ($149.25) 09/2012005 Charge 015 ANNUAL FIRE 09/2012005 Don Parker 1.0000 Building Inspector $14325 $278,11 INSPECTION APPROVED. IV ($14326) HOUSE SET UP FOR 15 BEDS. 0920/2005 Charge RM Tmvet Qmecharge. 09120/2005 Don Parker 0.1339 Building Inspector $19.10 $269.01 ANNUAL FIRE INSPECTION IV ($14526) APPROVED. HOUSE SET UP FOR 15 BEDS. . 09/202005 Charge 2W Admin timecharge. 0920/2005 Don Parker 0.1500 Building Inspector $21A9 $2nM ANNUAL FIRE INSPECTION IV ($14325) APPROVED. HOUSE SET up FOR 16 BED& 11/142005 Charge inIm SI 09/13/2005 John Powers 0.4667 Stag $49A5 $la&07 specialist ($105.96) 04292008 Charge AD—MIN Armin thnecharge. 0429/1008 Don Parker 0.250D BuBding Inspector $38.67 $149.40 Reviews oropen Permit. This N ($154.6by Inspection was completed and approved on 920105. Please final and dose. 047292008 Charge PE Admin timecharge. Close 104M=81 Affan Metz 0.7333 Adminisbative $147.58 $1.82 out SI Solar Living Permit Manager 11($20126) 06706/2008 Rekind Automatic RafundTransfer. Yellowstone $1.82. $000 Request for chec k forwarded to Womens A/C on 05/06108 Recovery of California TotalFfours 2.8285 Balance 50.00 6eposits $450.00 'Charges $448.18. Refunds , $1.82 Adjustments %.00 Belarycti $0.00 t] oy O.T. - Overtime E.O.T. - Fxlaordlnary Overtime E.O.T.• - Exbaadinaiy Overtime (Flat Fee Pem IQ Attachment No. 4 County of Orange Records Regarding 1571 Pegasus Street YS 01382 %00 f-m UI: ice• 91,411,1H.1.14 -31 111cif'NJ(QI - 111 14 H: :'.11 •11-01 t' :I1 i February 1, 2006 Mr. Matin Angel County of [range Planning & Develolanad Re., St 060004 -1571 Pegasus, Santa Ana. Heights, Ca. Mr. Angel, Per Laurie's request t am mgaesting an SL Permit for a l8 bad sober living home located at 1571 Pejlasu% Santa Ana Heights, this is a renewal of SI IOM097. I have enclosed' a copy informasion application. Situs Permit Update Page I of I 4307- 8.4 -TR (TRACT) : ATTACHED PERMITS Legal Description: 43D74- 4- TR(Trecl) Location: APN : 119-381 -14 (Release) i& Address : 1571 Pegasus St, Santa Ana (Permanent Bldg Address) Effective: Jun 09, 2001 Check All ClearAll Permit No, Primary Flag $ Status - Owner Description Address CE050277 * Closed Sober living home, operating without a permit 1571 Pegasus (over 8 people). SL Santa Ana * Closed- Yellowstone omen`s First Step Spacial investigation to cover cost of sober 1571 Pegasus Complete H living home St Santa Ana Q $1040097 * Closed- $ Complete Yellowstone O omen's Recovery Special investigation to cover cost of sober 1571 Pegasus home for Yellowstone Women's Recovery Ana_ St Santa of ng ❑ S1060004 * $ Filed Yellowstone Women's First Step Special investigation to cover costs of sober 1571 Pegasus living for Yellowstone Women's Recovery I Ana YS 01384 Attachment No. 5 Staff Report dated February 20, 2009 YS 01385 Attachment No. 6 Correspondence Received After February 20, 2009 ......... YS 01386 Brown, Janet From: Jenn Haining Dinnee4 @hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 9:26 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: 1561 Indus Street - Sober Home Dear Janet, The sober living home next door to our house habitually leaves their garbage cans out after trash day. Yesterday was our trash pick up and this morning, as of ten to nine when I left for work,. their cans were still in front of their house. This is not unusual, as it is common for them to leave them out until late Thursday, or even into Friday. They used to place their cans in front of our house, but as one of our neighbors brought it up at the last city meeting, and after we talked to one of Yellowstone's representatives on 3 different occasions, they are finally placing them in front of their own property. Can something be done about this? Thank you for your time, Jennifer Haining t YS 01387 Brown, Janet From: Jenn Haining binnee4 @hotmail.com) Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 1:52 PM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Contino, Brian; Kiff, Dave; Wolcott, Cathy; Kappeler, John Subject: RE: Sober Living Homes Dear Ms. Brown, Thank you.for your quick reply. I know my husband plans on attending the meeting this Thursday. I also wanted to mention that yes, were aware that 1561 Indus was a sober living home when we purchased our house (although we did not know the other sober living house we share a fence with on Pegasus was, nor were we made aware of the other house on Indus). However, when we found our house and purchased it, 1561 Indus was on the market as well. We anticipated that it would be sold to a family and there would no longer be a business operating next to us. We have nothing against the sober living houses or their occupants, but it La a business operating next to us (though I understand this may be a matter of opinion) and therefore has issues we would rather not have to deal with in a single family residential neighborhood. Sincerely, Jennifer Haining 1572 Indus Street Subject: RE: Sober Living Homes Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:25:07 -0700 From: I Brown Ocitv.newgort- beach. ca. us To: jinnee40hotmail.com CC: BContino 0city. new port- beach. Ca. us; DKiff5clty.newoort- beach,ca.us; CWolcott0city.newport- beach. ca. us; 3Kappeler0city .newport- beach. ca. us Dear Ms. Haining. Thank you for your e-mail. This information will be made a part of the record for the Yellowstone public hearings. In addition, 1 have requested the Code Enforcement Officer assigned to this area to look into code violations that may be occurring. The public hearing for the applications submitted by Yellowstone was continued to this Thursday. March 12, at 4:00 p.m. The meeting will take place in the City Council Chambers (same location as the February 20th meeting). Janet Johnson Brown Associate Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 jbrown aacitv.newoort-beach ca.us From: Jenn Haining [mailto.jinnee4 @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 1:09 PM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Contino, Brian Subject: Sober Living Homes Dear Janet, My husband attended the last city meeting addressing the potential closures of the Yellowstone sober YS 01388 houses. I am writing to you now because my husband and I became aware at this meeting, of certain policies the occupants of the sober living homes are supposed to be abiding by. We bought our house last April and just moved in December 20, 2008. In the short time we have lived here, it seems that they have been in constant violation of a lot of the policies set forth by the city. As we were unaware of these policies until recently, we have not complained or kept track of their activities. In the past week or so however, we have been more vigilant about noticing things they may be in violation of. The following are some of these things: 1. I believe it was the weekend before last, I was letting my dog out and could hear someone on the phone at the Pegasus house which backs up to our property. They appeared to be angry and used foul language. 2. Both of these properties frequently have their trash cans out after trash day for up to one to two days. 3. People are frequently coming or going after hours, easily past 11pm. We have heard loud cars racing from the house and one night /early morning someone honking their horn. 4. People appear to be in the house during hours when this is prohibited. I come home for lunch at 2pm and often see people being dropped off and /or picked up. 5. There are often different cars in the driveway that do not appear to be the house mothers. 6. Yesterday, while out tending to my roses in the front yard, I could smell cigarette smoke coming from the 1561 Indus property. These are just a few of the things we have noted. Not only that, but in reading some of the information they put forth in their applications, it appears as though the attorney was misinformed or not being truthful. The men's house on Redlands, up until recently, was having weekly Tuesday meetings in which it was obvious that a large number of men, that were not occupants, were attending. It brought in quite a bit of car and foot traffic. Also, remembering back to when we were working on our house last summer, girls from the other houses were walking to and from 1561 Indus with towels and bathing suits to use the pool. I hope this information is helpful to your decision making process. We love our new home and want to have a safe, clean and positive environment to live in. Sincerely, Jennifer Haining 1572 Indus Street YS 01389 1571 PEGASUS: STAFF REPORT (w/ Attachments 1- 6) FOR MARCH 12, 2009 HEARING - \v.aoc YS 01390 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT March 12, 2009 Agenda Item 4 SUBJECT: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -107) 1571 Pegasus Street • Use Permit No. 2008 -036 • Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -06 APPLICANT: Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., Isaac R. Zfaty, Attorney . CONTACT: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3236, ibrown (a)citv.newoort- beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY A use permit application to allow the continued operation of an existing unlicensed adult residential sober living facility with a total occupancy of 18. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. A reasonable accommodation application has also been submitted requesting: The residents of the facility be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NMBC); 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which restricts occupancy to two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; and 3. An exemption from NBMC Section 20.90.030 that states applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, are accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer reopen the public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, the City of Newport Beach and its legal counsel, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends the Hearing Officer: Deny the use permit application based on the findings discussed in the February 20, 2009, staff report (Attachment 5), and based on new information provided this report, and provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution of denial with prejudice of Use Permit No. 2008 -036. YS 01392 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -107) 1571 Pegasus Street March 12, 2009 Page 2 2. Deny the request for reasonable accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a single housekeeping unit subject to the findings discussed in this staff report. 3. Consistent with the Hearing Officer's February 20, 2009, decision to deny the use permit at this address, deny the request for reasonable accommodation for an exemption from the use permit operating standards' occupancy restrictions as set forth in NBMC Section 20.91A.050. In the event the Hearing Officer reopens the hearing as to use permits and grants a use permit for this facility, staff recommends that the requested accommodation for an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 be granted as to the current residents. As to future residents of this facility, staff recommends denial of the requested accommodation subject to the findings discussed in this staff report.. 4. Deny of the request for reasonable accommodation for an exemption of the application filing fee, subject to the findings in this staff report.. INTRODUCTION On February 20, 2009, the Hearing Officer conducted the public hearing for Use Permit No. 2008 -036, taking testimony from staff, the applicant and members of the public. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Officer concurred with stafrs recommendation to deny the use permit subject to the findings in the staff report (Attachment 5), and directed staff to prepare a resolution for denial with prejudice of Use Permit No. 2008 -036. The hearing was continued to March 12, 2009, to take action on the application for Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -06. Following testimony by the applicant at the February 20 hearing which characterized the existing sober living use as an established nonconforming use of the property, staff conducted further investigation into the circumstances and laws applicable at the time the facility was established while under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. Based on new information provided by the County, staff believes one of the findings previously made in the February 20 staff report cannot be made. Therefore, staff recommends the Hearing Officer reopen the hearing in order to consider the additional information contained in this report, and adopt the attached draft resolution to deny with prejudice Use Permit No. 2008 -036. BACKGROUND The subject property is located in an area referred to as West Santa Ana Heights, which was annexed into the City of Newport Beach effective January 1, 2008. Prior to annexation, West Santa Ana Heights was an unincorporated area under the jurisdiction YS 01393 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -107) 1571 Pegasus Street March 12, 2009 Page 3 of the County of Orange. The subject property was located in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area and zoned Residential - Single Family (RSF). According to information submitted to the City by the applicant, the use of the single family dwelling located at 1571 Pegasus Street as a sober living facility use was established in 2005 (although documentation from the County indicates the use may have been established in 2003). When the use changed from that of a single family dwelling to a sober living facility, it was subject to any land use regulations the County of Orange placed on such uses at that time.' County of Orange Planning Department and Code Enforcement staff informed the City that a sober living use would have been classified as either a community care facility or a congregate care facility. Aoolicable Land Use Regulations: The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan was adopted by the County in October 1986 and was last revised by the County in 2001. Portions of the Specific Plan are attached as Attachment 1. The property located at 1571 Pegasus Street was zoned RSF. Principal uses permitted in the RSF district under the Specific Plan are as follows: 1. Single family detached dwellings or single family mobile homes 2. Community care facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons and large family day care homes. 3. Parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields. 4. Riding and hiking trails. A number of additional principal uses not relevant to this analysis, such as communication transmitting facilities, fire and police stations, and churches, were permitted with a use permit or site development permit. Temporary uses and accessory uses were also allowed, some which required a use permit. All other uses were prohibited. In addition, the Specific Plan provided, "The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per Zoning Code section 7 -9 -150: Any other use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district." At the time property located 1571 Pegasus Street was established as a sober living facility, the County of Orange's Zoning Code definition of community care facility was "Any facility which may or may not require a State license to provide nonmedical residential care or day care for children, adults, or both, including physically 1 A change of occupancy for purposes of the California Building Code (CBC) also occurred when the use changed, and to operate legally the structure was required to conform with any CBC requirements for the occupancy type created. YS 01394 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -107) 1571 Pegasus Street March 12, 2009 Page 4 handicapped and mentally incompetent persons. This includes child day care facilities/day care nurseries and family day care homes." A congregate care facility was defined as: "A facility, including a Congregate living Health Facility as defined in State law, providing care on a monthly basis or longer and which is the primary residence of the people it serves. It provides services to the residents such as the following. dining, housekeeping, security, medical, transportation and recreation. Any commercial services provided are for the exclusive use of the occupants of the facility. Such a facility may be located in more than one building and on contiguous parcels within the building site. It includes facilities offering occupancy on a monthly basis and longer such as hotels, resorts, etc. which have characteristics similar to the above." Definitions from the May 2002 version of the County of Orange Zoning Code (in effect in 2005) are attached as Attachment 2, Section 7 -9 -141 of the County's 2002 comprehensive Zoning Code further discussed requirements for community care facilities. That section provided: Community care facilities serving six (6) or less persons and large family day care homes shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or speck plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single family dwelling or purposes of zoning and land use regulations. Community care facilities serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons, except for large family day care homes, shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. The closest classification provided in County regulations for the unlicensed facility located at 1571 Pegasus Street appears to be a community care facility. Therefore, if the operators established and maintained the facility with a bed count of six or fewer, it was a permitted use and thus legally established at that occupancy level at that location. If the operator obtained a use permit from the County Planning Commission for seven to 12 residents under the provision of the Specific Plan "other uses which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district," it would also have been a lawfully established use. However, the applicant has never indicated to the City that the facility was a community care facility housing six or fewer clients at any time, and there is evidence that more than six residents were housed at the facility in 2005 (see below.) There are no County records of a use permit being issued for this address, although County Planning employees conducted a thorough search of their records at the request of City staff. Even if a use permit had been applied for, it is unlikely the County would have granted a use permit for the 18 beds as currently requested by the applicant because the County YS 01395 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -107) 1571 Pegasus Street March 12, 2009 Page 5 Zoning Code granted the Planning Commission the authority to approve use permits for up to 12 beds for community care facilities. The County of Orange Planning Commission did not have the authority to a grant use permits for a community care facility housing more than 12 beds. Records obtained from the County of Orange indicate that in 2003, Yellowstone Recovery attempted to obtain County sober living certification at 1571 Pegasus Street (Attachment 4). There is also some evidence that County Code Enforcement was aware that the facility was housing more than six residents without a use permit. Records show an undated Code Enforcement action at this address stating "Sober Living home, operating without a permit (over 6 people)." On February 25, 2009, City staff spoke with Lt. Len Nearing of the Orange County Sheriffs Department. Lt. Nearing is the current coordinator of the County's sober living certification program, run through the Orange County Sheriffs Department. Lt. Nearing stated that the certification program relied on the local jurisdictions to inspect the physical setting of a sober living facility, and confirm that the facility's building and grounds meet the requirements for a County certified program. (Most of the requirements are related to the physical conditions on the property, but one requirement is "conformance with all locally applicable and regularly enforced zoning regulations. ") Lt. Nearings' assistant, Margo Grise added that in the case of the facilities under County jurisdiction, County code enforcement personnel would conduct "the SI." The County certification program relies on the Special Investigation reports it receives from the local jurisdictions, and does not require further proof of land use compliance. Of the 26 sober living homes certified by the County, none are located in Newport Beach or Santa Ana Heights, and none of the Yellowstone addresses in Newport Beach hold current County certification. At one time, Ms. Grise indicated, one of the Yellowstone facilities held certification, but dropped out of the certification program. CONCLUSION Based on the above information, it appears the facility located 1571 Pegasus Street was operating as a sober living facility with more than six beds without the approval of a use permit issued by the County of Orange Planning Commission; and therefore, is not a legally established use. Finding A of NBMC Section 20.91A.060 requires that the use conform to all application provisions of Section 20.91A.050, including items b and h of the development and operational standards: b. Facility must comply with state and local law, and the submitted management plan, including any modifications required by this use permit. h. No owner or manager shall have any demonstrated pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of the law. YS 01396 Yellowstone Women's f=irst Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -107) 1571 Pegasus Street March 12, 2009 Page 6 If in fact the facility was established in 2003 or in 2005 as a sober living facility with an occupancy greater than six beds, it did not comply with local law at that time because the operator had not obtained approval of a use permit from the Orange County Planning Commission. Review of County records document that a second facility operated by the applicant located at 20172 Redlands Drive was also operating as a sober living facility with an occupancy greater than six beds without approval of a use permit (Attachment 3). This evidence supports a conclusion that the applicant has demonstrated a pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of County law. Therefore, NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding A cannot be made. In addition, staff believes there is some doubt whether the Yellowstone facilities are even qualified to apply for and receive a use permit under NBMC Section 20.62.030 (Determination of Nonconformity). Subsection B of NBMC Section 20.62.030 provides that a use that was lawfully established under the laws in place at the time, but that no longer conforms to the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which is was located because of annexation to the City, shall be deemed to be a nonconforming use. However, °a use shall not be considered to have been "lawfully established and maintained" and is an illegal use if it was established or operated without required permits and licenses, including to not limited to permits and licenses required by any federal, state, or local government agency" (italics added). Pursuant to NMBC Section 20.91A.020, persons whose use of their property in a residential district was rendered nonconforming by the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 are qualified to seek a use permit to continue the use in its current location. There is no similar provision for illegal uses. Staff believes the facility located at 1571 Pegasus Street could be more accurately characterized as an illegal use than a nonconforming use as described by NBMC Section 20.62.030 (B). Use Permit No. 2008 -036 Analysis Summary In conclusion, staff recommends denial of Use Permit No. 2008 -036 for the following reasons: The inability to make all of the findings required by the NBMC Section 20.91.035 (A), and 20.91A.060. 2. The proposed use is not consistent with the purposes of NBMC Section 20.91A as set forth in Section 20.91A.010, and the requirements of Section 20.91.020. 3. There are inconsistencies and /or factual misrepresentations in the application documentation. This recommendation is based on analysis of the proposed project's submitted documentation, review of the property setting, applicant testimony, apparent documentation contradictions and /or misrepresentations, new information regarding the establishment of the facility, and staffs conclusion that the required findings from NBMC YS 01397 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -107) 1571 Pegasus Street March 12, 2009 Page 7 Section 20.91.035 (A) Findings Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 cannot be made, that the required findings from NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Findings A, B and D cannot be made. If, after reviewing this report, and hearing any further testimony from the applicant, the Hearing Officer agrees with staffs recommendation for denial, staff requests the Hearing Officer's direction to prepare a resolution for denial with prejudice of Use Permit No. 2008 -036. APPLICATIONS FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION BACKGROUND The background of the applicant's requests for reasonable accommodation is summarized in the February 20, 2009, staff report, attached to this report for reference (Attachment 5). The specific accommodations requested by the applicant are: That the residents of the Yellowstone facility at 1571 Pegasus Street be treated as a single housekeeping unit, as the term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; and 3. An exemption from the City's requirement that all use permit applicants pay a use permit application deposit fee to permit cost recovery by the City. (NBMC Chapter 3.36 and NBMC Section 20.90.030) The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), adopted in 1988, prohibits housing discrimination based on a resident's disability. Under the FHAA, it is discriminatory for government entities to refuse to make reasonable accommodations from rules, policies, and practices when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(13)). Cases interpreting the FHAA have held that a government agency has an affirmative duty to grant a requested reasonable accommodation if: (1) the request is made by or on behalf of a disabled individual or individuals, (2) the accommodation is necessary to afford the disabled applicant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and (3) the request is reasonable. Cities may find an accommodation request unreasonable if granting the request would: (1) result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program (often described as _.. ----- ------- _ YS 01398 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -107) 1571 Pegasus Street March 12, 2009 Page 8 "undermining the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve "), or (2) would impose undue financial or administrative burdens on the city (See U.S. v. Village of Marshall, 787 F.Supp. 872, 878 (W.D. Wisc. 1991). Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary must be determined on a case -by -case basis. Because the applicant has requested three very different types of reasonable accommodation, staff provided a separate analysis of each specific accommodation request in the February 20 staff report, and will continue to follow that format. In the January 29, 2009 letter clarifying applicant's request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested that its facility be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit, as that term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030. Staff fully analyzed this request in the February 20 staff report and recommended denial of the request. The denial recommendation was based on the grounds that the accommodation requested was broader than necessary to afford disabled individuals an opportunity to reside in the housing of their choice, and that the request was not reasonable because it would fundamentally alter the nature of this portion of the zoning program, and undermine its basic purpose. For a more in -depth analysis and findings, please see the February 20, 2009, staff report. SUMMARY With regard to the applicant's request to provide reasonable accommodation that treats the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit, two of the five required findings cannot be made. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, all five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. Therefore, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny the Reasonable Accommodation request for the residents of the subject property to be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. In the January 29, 2009, letter from applicant's counsel's clarifying and supplementing applicant's request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested that the facility receive an exemption from the occupancy standards of NBMC Section 20.91A.050. NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2) requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. YS 01399 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -107) 1571 Pegasus Street March 12, 2009 Page 9 At the February 20 hearing, staff recommended that a use permit be denied for this facility. Because of new information gathered as a result of testimony by the applicant at the February 20 hearing, staff has recommended that the use permit portion of the hearing be reopened, and that the Hearing Officer deny a use permit for other Yellowstone addresses as well as this facility. If there is no use permit granted for this facility, an exemption from the occupancy restrictions the use permit would have imposed does not need to be analyzed. In the event the Hearing Officer decides to grant a use permit to this facility after the hearing is reopened, please apply the staff recommendations and findings in the March 12, 2009, staff report for 20172 Redlands Drive to this request. The applicant has stated that as a non -profit organization that relies on contributions from the community to keep it from operating at a loss, paying the use permit application fee deposit presents a financial hardship. Staff offered a payment plan to enable the applicant to pay the application fee within a reasonable period of time. In lieu of the payment plan, the applicant has requested an exemption from the $2,200 use permit application deposit required to process the use permit application submitted for this facility. NBMC Chapter 3.36 sets forth the fee schedule for municipal services, and mandates 100% cost recovery for services when the fee schedule does not set forth a lower rate of recovery. Use permit processing is not one of the services that are generally provided at a rate below 100% cost recovery NBMC Section 20.90.030 states that applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. Federal courts have periodically reviewed whether the financial limitations of disabled individuals must be considered when analyzing reasonable accommodation requests, with inconsistent results. The Ninth Circuit has indicated that some disability- related financial constraints must be considered when the request is reasonable. As with all reasonable accommodations, the analysis of whether a requested accommodation from financial policies is reasonable must be determined on a case -by -case basis. The applicant has submitted a signed Affidavit of Disability- Related Financial Hardship that gives general information on the pre- and post - disability average income range of typical facility residents. The applicant has also submitted an unverified statement of the average income and expenses related to the four facility properties, discussed above in Reasonable Accommodation Request No. 2, Finding 2 (C). Although staff requested further verifiable financial information from the applicant, this information had not been received at the time this report was prepared. Therefore, staff YS 01400 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -107) 1571 Pegasus Street March 12, 2009 Page 10 the average income and expenses related to the four facility properties, discussed above in Reasonable Accommodation Request No. 2, Finding 2 (C). Although staff requested further verifiable financial information from the applicant, this information had not been received at the time this report was prepared. Therefore, staff is unable to perform an accurate analysis of the actual financial needs of the applicant at this time. However, based on the general summary of average expenses for each facility submitted by the applicant for the February 20 hearing, and the weekly client fee range which the applicant posts on its website, staffs analysis indicates that the applicant should have been able to meet the use permit fee obligation. The average monthly expense for each house is reported by the applicant to be around $6,200, with an average mortgage of $4,500 /month, $800 /month for utilities (electricity, gas, trash service, water and phone) and $900 /month for food (the May 20, 2008 reasonable accommodation application states that residents are responsible for their own meals; the $900 may represent basic supplies.) Applicant reports an average monthly expense of $6,200, leaving only a $200 monthly profit. Applicant has stated that it relies on contributions from the community to keep it from operating at a loss. The applicant states that in general, its weekly fees are based on a sliding scale from $50 to $160 per week, with an average rent of $100 per resident per week. With 16 residents (the number of resident clients; facility managers do not appear to pay rent) the applicant reports the average monthly income from each house is $6,400. The applicant's statement was not supported by requested documentation (bills, etc. requested by staff), and was not signed under penalty of perjury. Yellowstone's own website indicates that income and expense calculations may be inaccurate. The website's "Our Fees" page (dated 2008) states that fees for sober living are $160 - $180 per week. Using the applicant's own reporting formula, this represents an average of $170 per resident per week. With 16 paying residents (resident staff may not be paying rent), this would result in an average monthly income per house of $10,880. If the reported average expense of $6,200 is accurate, each facility housing 16 residents generates a monthly profit of $4,680. ($56,160 per year for each house of the three with 16 residents; or an estimated $168,480 total for the three facilities at 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive.) RECOMMENDATION: For the foregoing reasons, staff recommends that Reasonable Accommodation Request No. 3 be denied. YS 01401 Yellowstone Women's First Step Environmental Review House, Inc. (PA2008 -107) 1571 Pegasus Street March 12, 2009 . Page 11 This activity has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and therefore it is not subject to CEQA. Public Notice Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site and posted at the project site a minimum ten (10) days in advance of this Public Hearing consistent with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In addition, the item appeared on the agenda for this Public Hearing, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Kiff Assistant City Manager County of Orange Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan County of Orange Zoning Code Definitions County of Orange Records regarding 20172 Redlands Drive County of Orange Records regarding 1571 Pegasus Street February 20, 2009 Staff Report Correspondence Received After February 20, 2009 YS 61462 ■ Attachment No. 1 County of Orange Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan YS 01403 LL L6 L. d Z rA W c 0. E go, .00 cn A cg 0 tg is Z E ro YS 01404 x U z v .. N E ^ '6 CL O S d � �m N = N O S.O = �S $v � C 0 E F` «V° N � n Ste' "xm O $ 6 E N � C 3 ''O GA t � C FA p =,CvgO a s J .o Ou v O S Uzi C O E _ € 3'e 5 'a - CL. 'g � o g E t9 $ v " 9 V qq C CC =5gr a dd m a4 E^ c t$ �t G E 3 o j11 a� a E 1µI O 0 b k M r ME �= i m m m m m go= m m 1� ..... ... . YS 01405 `Q3° dapJ. •� oa v u E� w � N vi R �a = O C.2 'G O F G C a F N ` I El C C_ C C 0 b k M r ME �= i m m m m m go= m m 1� ..... ... . YS 01405 y�' dapJ. •� u E� w � N �a = O C.2 'G O F G C a F ` I C C en a ar 0 b k M r ME �= i m m m m m go= m m 1� ..... ... . YS 01405 V W i Q r m•o Em as o.e3l`0 =t 3 a � srS to .�• .0 4 N Qj _ _- p asa -q4 E'> c b a E a E g�� aA oo. ,°, oc �aId °�9a d d' r v cy c Ara E,q��$��° �lit��•8 ��;3 .d p '� .c g• .ri. $ c3S� 3 .9 m gi m of -° (`J `c y� c j , $.°°m_ a5 a '� mm5{j°J0j Fp2w`YyQ YyN; S+ m3j - of �.C'�.�.. �•EQ O�C��N1' }�'OC�y�8C H9.O C vi m .M L�SI -YYY C�Gm LEY 3 ^V CN —�C N�.E ak N cL d� Oi P m�� c�S N � g_30 Ap o Qii N ?. C } N E Egli �cCi9m a vi�y� °YdbB Ec�topI •4� I fig �Eca V$�Eo gg �gs3 �2 E $g�° 5 ° gip '- •s° ..°g,� o 8 o'1i � � � •� �` �'�, b. x Z3c�Pn?8$ ZE�.N.Ec .B •5 �m8SI �p a r° I m I YS 01406 ■.... . ... \2 � �$ ƒ Q « } IL �7N 1e�-S E=) - J`` fj �!J) ! $ ! 2]$ a)$Ja m m m .m = m m M M M YS 014071 Attachment No. 2 County of Orange ,Zoning Code Definitions YS 01409 RECEIVED BY PU•MNI H'G DEPAR T hTN T CITI' OF lNictV'I ' C, EA H r>r� i [AP. 41 2003 .'' :%� ?10191IOliili21ilF 131�:i816 COUNTY OF ORANGE ZONING CODE Planning and Development Services Department May, 2002 Edition YS 01410 Community care facility: Any facility which may or may not require a State license to provide nonmedical residential care or day care for children, adults, or both, including physically handicapped and mentally incompetent persons. This includes child day care facilities /day care nurseries and family day care homes. Community facility: A noncommercial use established primarily for the benefit or enjoyment of the population of the community in which it is located. Condominium: An estate consisting of an undivided interest in common in a parcel of real property together with a separate interest in space in a residential, industrial or commercial building on such real property, such as an office or store or multifamily dwelling. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of such real property. Congreoate care facility: A facility, including a Congregate Living Health Facility as defined in State law, providing care on a monthly basis or longer and which is the primary residence of the people it serves.. It provides services to the residents such as the following: dining, housekeeping, security, medical, transportation and recreation. Any commercial services provided are for the exclusive use of the occupants of the facility. Such a facility may.be located in more than one building and on contiguous parcels within the building site. It includes facilities offering occupancy on a monthly basis and longer such as hotels, resorts, etc. which have characteristics similar to the above. Convalescent home: A facility licensed by the State Department of Health Services which provides bed and ambulatory care for more than six (6) patients with postoperative convalescent, chronically ill or dietary problems and persons unable to care for themselves; including persons undergoing psychiatric care and treatment both as inpatients and outpatients but not including persons with contagious diseases or afflictions. Also known as nursing home, convalescent hospital, rest home, or home for the aged. Conversion oroiect: An apartment house; multiple or group dwelling existing, under construction or for which building permits have been issued, which is proposed for conversion to a residential condominium, community apartment, residential stock cooperative or planned development; or an existing mobilehome park which is proposed to be converted to a mobilehome condominium project, a mobilehome stock cooperative project, a mobilehome planned development or a conventional mobilehome subdivision. Sec. 7-9-25. Definitions. (D) Day (care) nursery: A.k.a. child day care facility and day care center. Any facility operated by a person, corporation or association used primarily for the provision of nonmedical daytime care, training, or education of more than six (6) children under eighteen (18) years of age at any location other than their normal place of residence, excluding any children normally residing on the premises. Detached buildings and structures: Two (2) or more buildings or structures that are each structurally independent and freestanding and not connected by walls, roofs, floors, decks, supports, trellises, architectural features or any other structure, fixture or device that exceeds thirty (30) inches in height above the finished grade. -11- YS 01411 Sec. 7- 9.141. Community Care Facilities Community care facilities serving six (6) or less persons and large family day care homes shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. Community care facilities serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons, except-for large family day care homes, shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. Sec. 7 -9- 141.1. Reserved. Sec. 7 -9- 141.2. Child care facilities /day care nurseries. Child day care facilities /day care nurseries serving more than fourteen (14) persons may be permitted in any district, planned community or specific plan area (except in designated airport accident potential zones) where this use Is not otherwise identified as a permitted use, subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. Sec. 7-9-141.3. Reserved. COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES Sec.7.9 -141 • 141.2 r R lNfO TION ON(Y or less NO PERMIr eople Large Family Day Care (7 tol4children) 7 to 12 people �— USE PERMIT BY except LFDC PLANNING' COMMISSION Child Day Care Facilities wish over 14 chi)dren � YS 61412 Sec. 7- 9.142. Congregate Care Facilities. (a) A congregate care facility serving six (6) or fewer persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single - family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. (b) A congregate care facility serviog seven (7) to twelve (12) persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to section 7- 9 -150. A congregate care facility shall; (1) Demonstrate compatibility with adjacent development; (2) Provide adequate on site parking for residents and staff; (3) Provide adequate screening of the facility by landscaping and /or fencing; and, (4) Limit signage and lighting. (c) A congregate care facility serving more than twelve (12) persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for either multifamily residential or hotels subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to section 7 -9 -150. (d) Equivalent dwelling unit counts for congregate care facilities shall be determined by the following table. The consequent unit counts are to be subtracted from the total number of allowed dwelling units for a planned community or specific plan area, and will also determine consistency with area per dwelling unit zoning limitations. Configuration 2 or more bedrooms in the unit 1 bedroom in the unit 0 bedroom in the unit Medical care rooms Dwelling Unit Counts 1 dwelling .5 dwelling .25 dwelling 0 dwelling Density bonuses may be granted to congregate care facilities in residentially -zoned areas in the same manner that they may be granted to standard residential projects per the Housing Element. -178- • YS 01413 Attachment No. 3 County of Orange Records Regarding 20172 Redlands Drive YS 01414 Account Activity Report Activity Report for Permit Number S1050059 Page 1 of 1 ACCOUNT APPLICANT/FRP SITE Created: 08413/2005 YeUDwstOrle Women's Recovery of California Tract. 4307 35 TR Lot(s): null Status: CLOSED 1571 Pegasus 20172 REDLANDS DR NEWPORT Status Updated: 05/0612008 Santa Ana, CA 92627 BEACH Status Updated By: Ramon Kimpo Phone: 949846.4494 Permit Description: SI for sober fiving cenificatlon, refer to CE050237, certification to be on an annual basis Post I Type Work Date Description Work Name I Hours Title I Amount Balance Date (Hourly Rate) 0911=0011 Deposit Initial Deposit Yellowstone $460.00 $460.00 Women's Recovery of - 09113=06 1 Charge I Permit issuance Charge Cookta EM $15.00 $435.00 09420/2005 charge soradmin 09420/2005 Mike Powell 0.0962 Building Inspector $13.64 $421.311 r IV ($143.25) 09atimig5 Charge F6. ANNUAL FIRE 09P2012005 Don Parker 1.0000 Building Inspector $14325 $278.11 INSPECTION APPROVED. IBED& IV ($14326) HOUSE SETUP FOR 15 =40ML005 Charge ML Travel timech2rge. 0%20P2008 Don Packer 0.1333 Bulkling Inspector $19.10 $269.01 ANNUAL FIRE INSPECTION N ($14325) APPROVED. HOUSE SET UP FOR 16 BEDS. . 0942=1)(15 Charge 9K Admin Omarharge. 0 912 012 0 0 5 on Parker - 0.1500 Building Inspector $21.49 $237.62 ANNUAL FIRE INSPECTION IV ($14326) APPROVED. HOUSE SET UP FOR 15 BEDS. 11114/2005 Charge I Wdeta SI 0911312006 John Powers 0.4867 Stag $49.45 $188.07 Specialist. ($105.95) 0412942008 Charge ADMIN Admin timecharge. 04!29/2008 Don Parker 0.2500- Building Inspector $38.67 $149.40 Reviews of open parmff• This IV ($154.68) . inapadion was camPleOed and approved On 912010.5. Please final and d08& . 04729/2008 Charge I PE Admkk finjecharge. Close 04/29/2008 Allan Metz 0.7333 Adminlabafte $147118 $1.82 out SI Sober LINn9 Permit - Manager II ($20128) 06/0612008 Refund Aulomatic RefundTrensfec Yellowstone $1.82 - $0.00 Request for dhac k forwarded to Women's A✓C on OSM&08 Recovery of California Total Hours 2.8285 Balance 50.00 Notes O.T. - Ovedime E.O.T. - ExtraordineryOverome E.O.T.' • Extraordinary Overtime (Flat Fee Perm #) Attachment No. 4 County of Orange Records Regarding 1571 Pegasus Street ... .. ...... ------- . ........ ... YS 01416 %00IF -n VP: %1-111H,11.214IlRl II'KNQ I , III 11,11: :'.11 •QIIL' . :I I I February 1, 2006 Mr. Matin Angel County of Orange Planning & Development Re: St 060004 -1571 Pegasus, Santa Ana heights, Ca. Mr. Angel, Per Laurie's request t am requesting an St Permit for a IS bed sober living home located at 1571 Pegasus, Santa Ana Hetghis, this is a reeawal o(81 1040097. I have enclosed a copy informaiion application. Ptease advice at your earHest convience when.1 can pickup permit and schedule inspection. Situs Permit Update Page 1 of 1 4307- 8 -4 -TR (TRACT) : ATTACHED PERMITS Legal Description : 4307.8.4•TR (Track) Location; APN : 119 - 361 -14 (Release) Address : 1571 Pegasus St, Santa Ana (Permanent Bldg Address) Effective: Jun 09, 2001 Srb- 0i*All Clear All Primary Flag $ Status Owner Description Address Permit No. CE060M * Closed Sober living home, operating without a permit 1571 Pegasus (over 6 peopfs) St, Santa Ana * $ Closed- Women's Yellowstone Fi p Special investigation to cover cost of sober 1571 Pegasus Complete Hornen'sFirstSte Ilvinghome _ St Santa Ana QSI040097 * Closed- $ Complete Yellowstone en's Recovery Special Investigation to cover cost of sober living for Yellowstone Women's Recovery 1571 Santa Ana St Santa Ane Q Slaeamm * $ Filed Yellowstone Women's First Step Special Investigation to cover costs of sober 1671 Pegasus living home for Yellowstone Women's Recovery H Center St Santa Ana Attachment No. 5 Staff Report dated February 20, 2009 ...... _ YS 01419 Attachment No. 6 Correspondence Received After February 20, 2009 _ _ ...... _..... YS 01420 Brown, Janet From: Jenn Haining Uinnee4 @hotmaii.com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 9:26 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: 1561 Indus Street - Sober Home Dear Janet, The sober living home next door to our house habitually leaves their garbage cans out after trash day. Yesterday was our trash pick up and this morning, as of ten to nine when I left for work,.their cans were still in front of their house, This is not unusual, as it is common for them to leave them out until late Thursday, or even into Friday. They used to place their cans in front of our house, but as one of our neighbors brought it up at the last city meeting, and after we talked to one of Yellowstone's representatives on 3 different, occasions, they are finally placing them in front of their own property. Can something be done about this? Thank you for your time, Jennifer Haining YS 01421 Brown, Janet From: Jenn Haining Ulnnee4 @hotmail.00mj Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 1:52 PM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Contino, Brian; Kiff, Dave; Wolcott, Cathy; Kappeler, John Subject: RE: Sober Living Homes Dear Ms. Brown, Thank you.for your quick reply. I know my husband plans on attending the meeting this Thursday. I also wanted to mention that yes, were aware that 1561 Indus was a sober living home when we purchased our house (although we did not know the other sober living house we share a fence with on Pegasus was, nor were we made aware of the other house on Indus). However, when we found our house and purchased it, 1561 Indus was on the market as well. We anticipated that it would be sold to a family and there would no longer be a business operating next to us. We have nothing against the sober living houses or their occupants, but it La a business operating next to us (though I understand this may be a matter of opinion) and therefore has issues we would rather not have to deal with in a single family residential neighborhood. Sincerely, Jennifer Haining 1572 Indus Street Subject: RE: Sober Living Homes Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:25:07 -0700 From: 3 Brow n0city newport-beach ca us To: iinnge4Calhotmail.com CC: BContinoc@city newport -beach ca us; DKiff (&city.newport- beach. ca. us; CWoicott0city.newvort- beach.ca,us; JKappeleralcity newport-beach ca us Dear Ms. Haining. Thank you for your e-mail. This information will be made a part of the record for the Yellowstone public hearings. In addition, I have requested the Code Enforcement Officer assigned to this area to look into code violations that may be occurring. The public hearing for the applications submitted by Yellowstone was continued to this Thursday, March 12, at 4:00 p.m. The meeting will take place in the City Council Chambers (same location as the February 2dh meeting). Janet Johnson Brown Associate Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 ibrown(aD.city. newport - beach. ca. us From: Jenn Haining [mailtc:jinnee4 @hotmail.com1 Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 1 :09 PM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Contino, Brian Subject: Sober Living Homes Dear Janet, My husband attended the last city meeting addressing the potential closures of the Yellowstone sober YS 01422 houses. I am writing to you now because my husband and I became aware at this meeting, of certain policies the occupants of the sober living homes are supposed to be abiding by. We bought our house last April and just moved.. in December 20, 2008. In the short time we have lived here, It seems that they have been in constant violation of a lot of the policies set forth by the city. As we were unaware of these policies until recently, we have not complained or kept track of their activities. In the past week or so however, we have been more vigilant about noticing things they may be in violation of. The following are some of these things: 1. I believe it was the weekend before last, I was letting my dog out and could hear someone on the phone at the Pegasus house which backs up to our property. They appeared to be angry and used foul language. 2. Both of these properties frequently have their trash cans out after trash day for up to one to two days. 3. People are frequently coming or going after hours, easily past IIpm. We have heard loud cars racing from the house and one night/early morning someone honking their horn, 4. People appear to be in the house during hours when this is prohibited. I come home for lunch at 2pm and often see people being dropped off and /or picked up. 5. There are often different cars in the driveway that do not appear to be the house mothers. 6. Yesterday, while out tending to my roses in the front yard, I could smell cigarette smoke coming from the 1561 Indus property. These are just a few of the things we have noted. Not only that, but in reading some of the information they put forth In their applications, it appears as though the attorney was misinformed or not being truthful. The men's house on Redlands, up until recently, was having weekly Tuesday meetings in which it was obvious that a large number of men, that were not occupants, were attending. It brought in quite a bit of car and foot traffic. Also, remembering back to when we were working on our house last summer, girls from the other houses were walking to and from 1561 Indus with towels and bathing suits to use the pool. I hope this information is helpful to your decision making process. We love our new home and want to have a safe, clean and positive environment to live in. Sincerely, Jennifer Halning 1572 Indus Street _..... _ ...... ........._.............._............ ...... ........_...._..-......_... ................... ...... ...... 2 YS 01423 20172 REDLANDS: STAFF REPORT (w/ Attachments 1 -6) FOR MARCH 12, 2009 HEARING - \v.aoc YS 01424 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT March 12, 2009 Agenda Item 5 TO: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer SUBJECT: Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive • Use Permit No. 2008 -037 • Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 417 APPLICANT: Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. Isaac R. Zfaty, Attorney CONTACT: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3236, Lbrown(&citv.newport- beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY A use permit application to allow the continued operation of an existing unlicensed adult residential care facility providing a sober living environment with a total occupancy of 17 persons. This application has been filed in accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2008. A reasonable accommodation application has also been submitted requesting: 1. The residents of the facility be treated as a single housekeeping. unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC); 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which restricts occupancy to two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; and 3. An exemption from NBMC Section 20.90.030 that states applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, are accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer reopen the public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, the City of Newport Beach and its legal counsel, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends the Hearing Officer: YS 01425 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 2 Deny the use permit application with prejudice subject to the findings discussed in this report, and direct staff to prepare a resolution to deny with prejudice Use Permit No. 2008 -037. 2. Deny the request for reasonable accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a single housekeeping unit based on the information discussed in this staff report. 3. If the Hearing Officer decides to grant a use permit for this facility, staff recommends that the requested accommodation for an exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 be granted as to the current residents. As to future residents of this facility, staff recommends denial of the requested accommodation based on the information discussed in this staff report. 4. Deny the request for reasonable accommodation for an exemption of the application filing fee requirement, based on the information and findings discussed in this staff report. INTRODUCTION On February 20, 2009, the Hearing Officer conducted the public hearing for Use Permit No. 2008 -037, taking testimony from staff, the applicant and members of the public. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Officer concurred with staffs recommendation to approve the use permit with a reduced occupancy subject to the findings in the staff report (Attachment 5), and directed staff to prepare a resolution for approval of Use Permit No. 2008 -037. The hearing was continued to March 12, 2009, to take action on the application for Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -07. Fallowing testimony by the applicant at the February 20 hearing which characterized the existing sober living use as an established nonconforming use of the property, staff conducted further investigation into the circumstances and laws applicable at the time the facility was established while under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. Based on information provided by the County, staff believes not all of the findings required to approve the use permit can be made. Therefore, staff recommends the Hearing Officer reopen the hearing as to whether a use permit at this location should be granted, reconsider the decision to approve the use permit, and deny Use Permit No. 2008 -037 for the reasons stated below. BACKGROUND The subject property is located in an area referred to as West Santa Ana Heights, which was annexed into the City of Newport Beach effective January 1, 2008. Prior to annexation, West Santa Ana Heights was an unincorporated area under the jurisdiction YS 01426 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 3 of the County of Orange. The subject property was located in the Santa Ana Heights Speck Plan area and zoned Residential - Single Family (RSF). According to information submitted to the City by the applicant, the use of the single family dwelling located at 20172 Redlands Drive as a sober living facility use was established in 2005. When the use changed from that of a single family dwelling to a sober living facility, it was subject to any land use regulations the County of Orange placed on such uses at that time.' County of Orange Planning Department and Code Enforcement staff informed the City that a sober living use would have been classified as either a community care facility or a congregate care facility. Applicable Land Use Regulations: The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan was adopted by the County in October 1986 and was last revised by the County in 2001. Portions of the Specific Plan are attached as Attachment 1. The property located at 20172 Redlands Drive was zoned RSF. Principal uses permitted in the RSF district under the Specific Plan are as follows: 1. Single family detached dwellings or single family mobile homes 2. Community care facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons and large family day care homes. 3. Parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields. 4. Riding and hiking trails. A number of additional principal uses not relevant to this analysis, such as communication transmitting facilities, fire and police stations, and churches, were permitted with a use permit or site development permit. Temporary uses and accessory uses were also allowed, some of which required a use permit. All other uses were prohibited. In addition, the Specific Plan provided, "The following principal. uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per Zoning Code section 7 -9 -150: Any other use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district." At the time property located at 20172 Redlands Drive was established as a sober living facility, the County of Orange's Zoning Code definition of community care facility was "Any facility which may or may not require a State license to provide nonmedical residential care or day care for children, adults, or both, including physically 'A change of occupancy for purposes of the California Building Code (CBC) also occurred when the use changed, and to operate legally the structure was required to conform with any CBC requirements for the occupancy type created. YS 01427 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 4 handicapped and mentally incompetent persons. This includes child day care facilities/day care nurseries and family day care homes." A congregate care facility was defined as: "A facility, including a Congregate Living Health Facility as defined in State law, providing care on a monthly basis or longer and which is the primary residence of the people it serves. It provides services to the residents such as the following: dining, housekeeping, security, medical, transportation and recreation. Any commercial services provided are for the exclusive use of the occupants of the facility. Such a facility may be located in more than one building and on contiguous parcels within the building site. it includes facilities offering occupancy on a monthly basis and longer such as hotels, resorts, etc. which have characteristics similar to the above." Definitions from the May 2002 version of the County of Orange Zoning Code (in effect in 2005) are attached as Attachment 2. Section 7 -9 -141 of the County's 2002 comprehensive Zoning Code further discussed requirements for community care facilities. That section provided: Community care facilities serving six (6) or less persons and large family day care homes shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single family dwelling or purposes of zoning and land use regulations. Community care facilities serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons, except for large family day care homes, shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. The closest classification provided in County regulations for the unlicensed facility located at 20172 Redlands Drive appears to be a community care facility. Therefore, if the operators established and maintained the facility with a bed count of six or fewer, it was a permitted use and thus legally established at that occupancy level at that location. if the operator obtained a use permit from the County Planning Commission for seven to 12 residents under the provision of the Specific Plan "other uses which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district," it would also have been a lawfully established use. However, the applicant has never indicated to the City that the facility was a community care facility housing six or fewer clients at any time, and there is evidence that more than six residents were housed at the facility in 2005 (see below). There are no County records of a use permit being issued for this address, although County Planning employees conducted a thorough search of their records at the request of City staff. Even if a use permit had been applied for, it is unlikely the County would have granted a YS 01428 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 5 use permit for the 17 beds as currently requested by the applicant because the County Zoning Code granted the Planning Commission the authority to approve use permits for up to 12 beds for community care facilities. The County of Orange Planning Commission did not have the authority to grant use permits for a community care facility housing more than 12 beds. Records obtained from the County of Orange indicate that in 2005, Yellowstone Recovery attempted to obtain County sober living certification at 20172 Redlands Drive (Attachment 3). Notes in a County activity report indicate that on September 20, 2005, an annual fire inspection was performed, and that the house was "set up for 15 beds." On February 25, 2009, City staff spoke with Lt. Len Nearing of the Orange County Sheriffs Department. Lt. Nearing is the current coordinator of the County's sober living certification program, run through the Orange County Sheriff's Department. Lt. Nearing stated that the certification program relied on the local jurisdictions to inspect the physical setting of a sober living facility, and confirm that the facility's building and grounds meet the requirements for a County certified program. (Most of the requirements are related to the physical conditions on the property, but one requirement is "conformance with all locally applicable and regularly enforced zoning regulations. ") Lt. Nearings' assistant, Margo Grise added that in the case of the facilities under County jurisdiction, County code enforcement personnel would conduct "the St." The County certification program relies on the Special Investigation reports it receives from the local jurisdictions, and does not require further proof of land use compliance. Of the 26 sober living homes certified by the County, none are located in Newport Beach or Santa Ana Heights, and none of the Yellowstone addresses in Newport Beach hold current County certification. At one time, Ms. Grise indicated, one of the Yellowstone facilities held certification, but dropped out of the certification program. CONCLUSION Based on the above information, it appears the facility located at 20172 Redlands Drive was operating as a sober living facility with more than six beds without the approval of a use permit issued by the County Planning Commission; and therefore, is not a legally established use. NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding A requires that the use conform of all applicable provisions of Section 20.91A.050, including items b and h, as follows: ' b. Facility must comply with state and local law, and the submitted management plan, including any modifications required by this use permit. h. No owner or manager shall have any demonstrated pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of the law. YS 01429 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 6 If in fact the facility was established in 2005 as a sober living facility with an occupancy greater than six beds, it did not comply with local law at that time because the operator had not obtained approval of a use permit from the Orange County Planning Commission. Review of County records document that a second facility operated by the applicant located at 1571 Pegasus Drive was also operating as a sober living facility (Attachment 4) with an occupancy greater than six beds without approval of a use permit. This evidence supports a conclusion that the applicant has demonstrated a pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of County law. Therefore, NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding A cannot be made. Staff believes there is substantial doubt whether the Yellowstone facilities are qualified to apply for and receive a use permit under NBMC Section 20.62.030 (Determination of Nonconformity). Subsection B of NBMC Section 20.62.030 provides that a use that was lawfully established under the laws in place at the time, but that no longer conforms to the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which is was located because of annexation to the City, shall be deemed to be a nonconforming use. However, "a use shall not be considered to have been "lawfully established and maintained" and is an illegal use if it was established or operated without required permits and licenses, including but not limited to permits and licenses required by any federal, state, or local government agency" (italics added). Pursuant to NMBC Section 20.91A.020, persons whose use of their property in a residential district was rendered nonconforming by the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 are qualified to seek a use permit to continue the use in its current location. There is no similar provision for illegal uses. Staff believes the facility located at 20172 Redlands Drive could be more accurately characterized as an illegal use than a nonconforming use as described by NBMC Section 20.62.030 (B). APPLICATIONS FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION BACKGROUND The background of the applicant's requests for reasonable accommodation is summarized in the February 20, 2009 staff report, attached to this report for reference (Attachment 5). The specific accommodations requested by the applicant are: That the residents of the Yellowstone facility at 20172 Redlands Drive be treated as a single housekeeping unit, as the term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; 2. An exemption from the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050, which requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident; and ....... ...... ..... ...... ... ...... YS 01430 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 7 3. An exemption from the City's requirement that all use permit applicants pay a use permit application deposit fee to permit cost recovery by the City. (NBMC Chapter 3.36 and NBMC Section 20.90.030) The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), adopted in 1988, prohibits housing discrimination based on a resident's disability. Under the FHAA, it is discriminatory for government entities to refuse to make reasonable accommodations from rules, policies, and practices when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(13)). Cases interpreting the FHAA have held that a government agency has an affirmative duty to grant a requested reasonable accommodation if: (1) the request is made by or on behalf of a disabled individual or individuals, (2) the accommodation is necessary to afford the disabled applicant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and (3) the request is reasonable. Cities may find an accommodation request unreasonable if granting the request would: (1) result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program (often described as "undermining the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve "), or (2) would impose undue financial or administrative burdens on the city (See U.S. v. Village of Marshall, 787 F.Supp. 872, 878 (W.D. Wisc. 1991). Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary must be determined on a case -by -case basis. Because the applicant has requested three very different types of reasonable accommodation, staff provided a separate analysis of each specific accommodation request in the February 20 staff report, and will continue to follow that format. Reasonable Accommodation Analysis No. 1 — Reguest to be Treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit In the January 29, 2009 letter clarifying applicant's request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested that its facility be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit, as that term is defined in NBMC Section 20.03.030. Staff fully analyzed this request in the February 20 staff report and recommended denial of the request. The denial recommendation was based on the grounds that the accommodation requested was broader than necessary to afford disabled individuals an opportunity to reside in the housing of their choice, and that the request was not reasonable because it would fundamentally alter the nature of this portion of the zoning program, and undermine its basic purpose. For a more in -depth analysis and findings, please see the February 20, 2009, staff report. - YS 01431 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 8 basic purpose. For a more in-depth analysis and findings, please see the February 20, 2009, staff report. SUMMARY With regard to the applicant's request to provide reasonable accommodation that treats the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit, two of the five required findings cannot be made. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, all five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. Therefore, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny the Reasonable Accommodation request for the residents of the subject property to be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit. In the January 29, 2009, letter from applicant's counsel's clarifying and supplementing applicant's request for reasonable accommodation, the applicant requested that the facility receive an exemption from the occupancy standards of NBMC Section 20.91A.050. NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2) requires that use permits granted to residential care facilities restrict facility occupancy to no more than two residents per bedroom plus one additional resident. At the February 20 hearing, staff had recommended that a use permit be granted for this facility. Because of new information gathered as a result of testimony by the applicant at the February 20 hearing, staff now recommends that the use permit for this facility be denied. If there is no use permit granted for this facility, an exemption from the occupancy restrictions the use permit would have imposed does not need to be analyzed. In the event the Hearing Officer decides to grant a use permit to this facility, however, staff makes the following analysis and findings. All of applicant's facilities currently have residents in excess of the number that would be permitted under the use permit standards. One facility (1561 Indus Street) has 12 residents in five bedrooms; another facility has 17 beds in six bedrooms (20172 Redlands Drive), and the other two (1621 Indus Street, and 1571 Pegasus Street) have 18 residents in six bedrooms. Under the operating standards of NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2), a use permit issued this facility would be limited to no more than 13 residents. The applicant requests an exemption from this requirement that will allow the facility to continue at its current occupancy level. S 0 432 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 9 Applicant's counsel asserts that, as to current residents of this facility, the accommodation is necessary because if a use permit were granted restricting occupancy to 13, five current residents would be displaced. Because of financial constraints on the displaced residents' earning capability that result from the residents' disability, the applicants counsel states that the displaced residents would have no other place to reside in a sober environment. As to prospective residents of the facility, the applicants counsel states that the accommodation is necessary because the prospective residents of this facility also have financial constraints caused by their disability, and would be unable to afford to rent a dwelling if the additional beds at this facility were unavailable to them because of the occupancy restrictions of NBMC Section 20.91A.050(C)(2). Ordinance No. 2008 -05 codified the procedures for requesting, reviewing and granting, conditionally granting, or denying all requests for reasonable accommodation in the City of Newport Beach. The Hearing Officer is designated to approve, conditionally approve, or deny all applications for a reasonable accommodation. The ordinance also established required findings, and factors the Hearing Officer may consider when making those findings. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(8) of the NBMC, the written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. Finding: That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. This finding can be made. The applicant has submitted a statement signed under penalty of perjury that every resident of the facility is in recovery from alcohol addiction. Federal regulations and case law have defined recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction as a disability, because it is a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs one or more major daily life activities. 2. Finding: That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. As to current residents: This finding can be made. If a use permit is issued for this facility without the requested accommodation, five current residents of this facility would have to be removed from the facility in order comply with the terms of the use permit. The applicant reported in its application that the average length of stay for residents of this facility is six months; the applicant later verbally informed staff that residents stay six months to one year, sometimes longer. Granting the requested accommodation would allow those individuals to remain in the dwelling for the remainder of their temporary stay, providing YS 01433 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 10 them with the opportunity to continue to live in their current dwelling for the necessary limited period of time. As to prospective residents: This finding cannot be made. Applicant states that it charges monthly fees on a sliding scale based on ability to pay, and that this is a needed service for many persons in recovery from alcoholism. Applicant has submitted an Affidavit of Disability- Related Hardship, signed under penalty of perjury, on behalf of the facility's residents. The affidavit states that before becoming disabled, Yellowstone residents earned an average of $50,000 per year, and that in recovery the residents are earning an average of $20,000 per year. It is plausible that persons in early recovery from addiction tend to have lower incomes than they had before addiction temporarily reduced their employment opportunities. This will necessitate shared living arrangements in one form or another. Adding five beds to this facility could afford five additional disabled individuals the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The analysis does not stop at the financial needs of the potential residents, however. Were that the case, the City might be obligated to authorize an unlimited number of residents at the applicant's facilities at greatly reduced rents; the population of recovering alcoholics with financial limitations is vast. Even the Ninth Circuit has noted that mandating lower rents for disabled individuals would probably not be considered a reasonable request. (See Giebeler v. M &B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)) NBMC Section 20.98.025(C) permits the City to consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: A. Whether the requested accommodation will afirrmaUvely enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disability. Staff does not question the need for sober living homes, nor the fact that persons with a disability must have the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. If the requested accommodation is granted, a higher number of the applicant's current and potential clients will be able to live in a home in a single family neighborhood with other recovering alcoholics. This is a situation that can affirmatively enhance the quality of fife of a person in recovery from addiction, unless overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhood interferes with the residents' re- integration into society. The applicant's sliding scale of rental rates offers a sober living environment to residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in a single family home in this area. YS 01434 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 11 B. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation. As to current residents: If the use permit is granted and the accommodation is denied, five residents will be displaced from their temporary home. . As to prospective residents: The applicant has not submitted information on whether this facility is currently occupied at full capacity, or whether there is a waiting list of potential residents. C. in the case of a residential care facility, whether 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. The applicant states that each facility requires 15 residents in order to be financially viable, and provides a general summary of average income and expenses for all four facilities. In some federal cases in which a sober living or other group home made a similar statement in support of its request for an accommodation allowing additional residents, courts found that the accommodation should be granted. However, the courts generally consider more detailed, verified financial information to reach that conclusion. (See Oxford House - Evergreen v. City of Plainfield, 769 F.Supp. 1329 (1991)) The applicant has not submitted financial information specific to each facility, but it has supplied an average cost analysis for its four facilities overall. The analysis was not signed under penalty of perjury, and although staff requested it repeatedly, the applicant did not submit specific evidence such as mortgage statements or utility bill by the date this report was prepared. Therefore, staff has performed a financial needs analysis based on the information supplied by the applicant, and other information publicly available on the applicant's website. The applicant states that in general, its weekly fees are based on a sliding scale from $50 to $160 per week, with an average rent of $100 per resident per week. With 16 residents (the number of resident clients; facility managers do not appear to pay rent) the applicant reports the average monthly income from each house is $6,400. The average monthly expense for each house is reported by the applicant to be around $6,200, with an average mortgage of $4,500 /month, $800 /month for utilities (electricity, gas, trash service, water and phone) and $900 /month for food (the May 20, 2008 reasonable accommodation application states that residents are responsible for their own meals; the $900 may represent basic supplies.) YS 01435 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 12 Applicant reports an average monthly expense of $6,200, leaving only a $200 monthly profit. Applicant has stated that it relies on contributions from the community to keep it from operating at a loss. The applicant's statement was not supported by requested documentation (bills, etc. requested by staff), and was not signed under penalty of perjury. Yellowstone's own website indicates that income and expense calculations may be inaccurate. The website's "Our Fees" page (dated 2008) states that fees for sober living are $160 - $180 per week. Using the applicant's own reporting formula, this represents an average of $170 per resident per week. With 16 paying residents (resident staff may not be paying rent), this would result in an average monthly income per house of $10,880. If the reported average expense of $6,200 is accurate, each facility housing 16 residents generates a monthly profit of $4,680. ($56,160 per year for each house of the three with 16 residents; or an estimated $168,480 total for the three facilities located at 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street, and 20172 Redlands Drive.) For the facilities currently housing 16 paying residents, if the resident count were reduced to 11 paying residents (of the maximum 13 occupants permitted under the operating standards, two are Yellowstone staff), the monthly income would be $7,480. Without knowledge of the actual mortgage and utility costs, staff cannot say whether this facility would actually operate at 'a monthly profit of approximately $1,280, or approximately $15,360 per year ($46,080 total for three facilities currently housing 16 residents each), but this profit range seems sufficient for a non - profit that raises funds from the community to keep from operating at a loss. Therefore, staff does not agree with the applicant's contention that it needs 15 residents at each facility to be financially viable. The facilities do not appear to need residents in excess of the number allowed under the operational standards to be financially viable under the business model the applicant has described. Several of the homes are owned by the applicant's CEO and /or her husband and leased to the applicant. The average monthly mortgage for each house that the CEO has reported appears to be more than covered by the fees which residents pay to the applicant. Additionally, extended operation of the homes with 15 or 16 residents at the rental rate reported on Yellowstone's website appears to result in the CEO's eventual full ownership of several homes and a significant annual profit for the applicant. If a residential recovery home is adding residents for its own financial advantage rather than to accommodate the financial limitations of the residents, the City is not obligated to grant the requested accommodation. YS 01436 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 13 D. In the case of a residential care facility, 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. In 2007, City staff estimated that there were approximately 315 sober living beds in the city. (This estimate does not include the up to 213 ADP - licensed residential beds in the City.) These numbers were compiled before applicant's facilities, with a total of 58 sober living and eight staff beds, were added to the City's supply by annexation. Operators of many sober living facilities within the City have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Yellowstone clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment without granting the accommodation. However, many of these alternate sober living beds are probably not offered on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. Even if the applicant provides housing for the disabled, and even if the requested accommodation is necessary, the City is not required to grant a request for accommodation that is not reasonable. Cities may find a requested accommodation unreasonable if it either (1) imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the City, or (2) results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program, often described as "undermining the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve." 3. Finding: That 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. As to current residents: This finding can be made. Allowing five additional beds on a temporary basis at the facility would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. Applicant states that the average length of stay for individual residents is 6 months. It creates little burden on the City to allow five of the current residents of this facility to complete their stay at the facility. Upon their departure, the facility's bed count will be within the range contemplated by the operating standards of the NBMC. The primary administrative burden on the City would be ensuring compliance. As to prospective residents: This findina can be made. Allowing five extra beds at this facility would not create a currently identifiable undue financial or administrative burden on the City. However, staff makes this finding with caution, because the applicant is requesting similar accommodations at additional facilities. 4. Finding. That the requested accommodation will not 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. YS 01437 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 14 As to current residents. This finding can be made. Allowing five additional beds on a temporary basis at the facility would not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program. Applicant states that the average length of stay for individual residents is six months to one year. It does not fundamentally undermine the nature of the City's zoning program to allow five of the current residents of this facility to complete their stay. Upon their departure, the facility's bed count would be within the range contemplated by the zoning program. As to prospective residents: This finding cannot be made. Permanently allowing five additional beds in excess of the highest number allowed under the operational standards of the NBMC could undermine the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve. The basic purpose of the bed count limits is to draw a line at a reasonable density for a business providing residential recovery services within a residential neighborhood. The City Council adopted these regulations to ensure that the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code can be achieved, and so that secondary impacts of the higher density residential care facilities on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated. Staff is also concerned that if use permits are granted at each facility for which staff recommended approval at the February 20 hearing, and each facility receives the reasonable accommodation requested here, the extra 10 individuals could trigger an overconcentration that contributes even further to the change in the character of the neighborhood. This could create a quasi- institutional environment within the neighborhood that will not benefit either the surrounding neighborhood, or the recovering individuals attempting to reintegrate into the lifestyle found in a residential neighborhood. In a joint statement on the Fair Housing Act, the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have recognized that it would adversely affect persons with disabilities and be inconsistent with the object of integrating persons with disabilities into the community if a neighborhood came to be composed largely of group homes. They agree it is appropriate to be concerned about the setting for a residential care facility, and that a consideration of overconcentration may be considered in this context. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(D) of the NBMC, the City may also consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program: A. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. YS 01438 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 15 Staff acknowledges that a petition stating "Yellowstone is a good neighbor" was presented to the City, signed by four residents of Pegasus Street (where one of the other facilities of the applicant is located) However, the petition was countered by letters, emails and phone calls from neighbors that reported increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood as the applicant established more facilities there in recent years. The letters of support, the letters of complaint, and the applicant's submissions do not indicate which Yellowstone facility the impacts are reported (or denied) for. Therefore, staff will analyze the reported impacts as if they apply to each facility equally. The impacts reported include: Litter in the neighborhood which complainants attribute to the applicant's facilities, including cigarette butts, soda cans, and beer cans and bottles • Family and other visitors to the facilities • Facility residents traveling in groups between one facility and the others • Meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicant's facilities, with outside attendees • Excessive use of on- street parking by facility residents and their guests • Decline in property values in the neighborhood Due to a number of factors, including general fluctuations in the real estate market, staff is reluctant to speculate whether any decline in property values is a direct result of the operation of applicant's facilities. This consideration was not included in staff's analysis. However, a number of the neighbors' allegations appear credible, and directly contradict representations made to the City by the applicants. Specifically, the applicant has stated in its reasonable accommodation applications and supplemental communications that: • There are no outside visitors allowed at the facility Residents are not permitted to have cars while they reside at the facility and rely on public transportation, carpools with the resident managers to get to the full -time jobs which the applicant states all residents have, and facility vans to get to treatment facilities and church (although the May 20, 2008, use permit application stated that this facility then allowed up to four resident vehicles onsite.) YS 01439 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 16 • No interaction between the four facilities operated in close proximity by the applicant is permitted Based on the other misstatements and inconsistencies in the information supplied by the applicant in its use permit and reasonable accommodation applications, staff is inclined to view the applicant's representations about restrictions on visitors and facility interaction with skepticism. In particular, staff is not sure the applicant's statement about its "no visitors" policy is credible, because neighbors report visitors are common, and because one of the letters of support submitted by a former Yellowstone resident said, "I come to Yellowstone every week and am still a part of this place still to this day. .. 6 years later. I hope it is here for other girls to come back and work with the newcomers the way I have been given the chance too." Another former resident wrote, "Yellowstone is the place that I will continue to come back to and visit the new girls who are struggling the way I did." (Note: applicant's attorney states that these letters refer to meetings at another Yellowstone facility in Costa Mesa.) The applicant's possible misstatements of easily verifiable facts (such as policies about no meetings, no visitors, and no inter - facility interaction), and early written and oral representations that two of the facilities held ADP licenses (which they never had), causes staff concern about the overall responsibility of the operator, and its ability to successfully manage both its residents and their impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Allowing facilities that are not well run to operate with a high concentration of residents can lead to a further alteration in the character of the neighborhood. If a use permit in this location is granted, it may be necessary to scale back rather than expand the population of the facility, and increase su pervision and enforcement of existing house rule to mitigate the negative impacts its facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood. Applicant's counsel has been informed of the inconsistencies in the applicant's submitted materials, and will submit additional information addressing the inconsistencies. On February 12, 2009, applicant's counsel informed staff by telephone that: Meetings referenced in Yellowstone alumnae letters of support occur only at Yellowstone's Costa Mesa facility, and there are no meetings held at the Newport Beach facilities. There has been a change in policy since the original application for reasonable accommodation was submitted in May 2008. Personal vehicles are no longer allowed at 1561 Indus Street. Only the two resident managers may have vehicles in the neighborhood, which must be parked on -site. YS 01440 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 17 vehicles are no longer allowed at 1561 Indus Street. Only the two resident managers may have vehicles in the neighborhood, which must be parked on -site. Letters and public testimony from facility neighbors indicate this may not be the case. B. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking. Parking - The applicant stated in its original reasonable accommodation application for this property (May 20, 2008) that non -staff facility residents were not permitted to have personal vehicles at the property. The use permit application also stated that no residents except the two resident managers have personal vehicles which they park onsite. If residents are not allowed personal vehicles in the neighborhood, then there should not be a substantial increase in insufficient parking as a result. However, the weekly meetings and weekend visitors reported by neighbors and former residents of the facilities do appear to impact neighborhood parking to an excessive degree. Letters and testimony from the public say that meetings occur and that parking is impacted, but do not indicate which of the facilities hold meetings. Traffic and Generated Trips — The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. Trip rates for residential care facilities are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Based on these standards, an 17 -bed residential care facility would generate approximately 46.58 average daily trips. A 13 -bed facility would generate 35.62 average daily trips, arguably an appreciable difference in traffic generation. 5. Finding: That 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. This finding can be made. A request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if granting it would pose "a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). This is a very limited exception and can only be used when, based on the specific facts of a situation, a requested accommodation results in a•significant and particularized threat. Federal cases interpreting this exception in the FHAA indicate that requested YS 01441 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 19 RECOMMENDATION The applicant has requested that this facility continue to have five beds in excess of that allowed by the operating standards specified in the NBMC operating standards for the duration of the stay of the five extra residents. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.98.025 of the NBMC, all five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation. Current Residents. All five findings can be made as to the current residents of this facility. Staff recommends that if a use permit is granted for this facility, the Hearing Officer also grant the requested accommodation as to the current residents only. Prospective Residents., Findings 1, 3 and 5 can be made with respect to the additional prospective residents at this facility. However; Findings 2 and 4 cannot be made. All five findings must be made in order for the Hearing Officer to grant the use permit. If a use permit is granted for this facility, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny this accommodation request as to prospective residents. If the Hearing Officer denies the use permit at this facility, staff recommends that this reasonable accommodation request be denied as unnecessary; the occupancy restrictions are tied to the use permit operating conditions. If the Hearing Officer decides to grant the use permit which staff recommended at the February 20 hearing, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer conduct a public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, the City of Newport Beach, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the hearing, if the Hearing Officer plans to approve a use permit with conditions of approval, staff recommends that the Hearing Officer grant the reasonable accommodation request as to current residents only, and deny the reasonable accommodation request as to prospective residents. The applicant has stated that, as a non -profit organization that relies on contributions from the community to keep it from operating at a loss, paying the use permit application fee deposit presents a financial hardship. Staff offered a payment plan to enable the applicant to pay the application fee within a reasonable period of time. In lieu of the payment plan, the applicant has requested an exemption from the $2,200 use permit application deposit required to process the use permit application submitted for this facility. NBMC Chapter 3.36 sets forth the fee schedule for municipal services, and mandates 100% cost recovery for services when the fee schedule does not set forth a lower rate of recovery. Use permit processi ng is not one of the services that are generally YS 01442 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 19 provided at a rate below 100% cost recovery NBMC Section 20.90.030 states that applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. Federal courts have periodically reviewed whether the financial limitations of disabled individuals must be considered when analyzing reasonable accommodation requests, with inconsistent results. The Ninth Circuit has indicated that some disability- related financial constraints must be considered when the request is reasonable. As with all reasonable accommodations, the analysis of whether a requested accommodation from financial policies is reasonable must be determined on a case -by -case basis. The applicant has submitted a signed Affidavit of Disability - Related Financial Hardship that gives general information on the pre- and post - disability average income range of typical facility residents. The applicant has also submitted an unverified statement of the average income and expenses related to the four facility properties, discussed above in Reasonable Accommodation Request No. 2, Finding 2 (C). Although staff requested further verifiable financial information from the applicant, this information had not been received at the time this report was prepared. Therefore, staff is unable to perform an accurate analysis of the actual financial needs of the applicant at this time. However, based on the general summary of average expenses for each facility submitted by the applicant for the February 20 hearing, and the weekly client fee range which the applicant posts on its website, staffs analysis indicates that the applicant should have been able to meet the use permit fee obligation. The average monthly expense for each house is reported by the applicant to be around $6,200, with an average mortgage of $4,500 /month, $800 /month for utilities (electricity, gas, trash service, water and phone) and $900 /month for food (the May 20, 2008 reasonable accommodation application states that residents are responsible for their own meals; the $900 may represent basic supplies.) Applicant reports an average monthly expense of $6,200, leaving only a $200 monthly profit. Applicant has stated that it relies on contributions from the community to keep it from operating at a loss. The applicant states that in general, its weekly fees are based on a sliding scale from $50 to $160 per week, with an average rent of $100 per resident per week. With 16 residents (the number of resident clients; facility managers do not appear to pay rent) the applicant reports the average monthly income from each house is $6,400. The applicant's statement was not supported by requested documentation (bills, etc. requested by staff), and was not signed under penalty of perjury. Yellowstone's own website indicates that income and expense calculations may be inaccurate. The website's "Our Fees" page (dated 2008) states that fees for sober living are $160 - $180 YS 01443 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 20 per week. Using the applicant's own reporting formula, this represents an average of $170 per resident per week. With 16 paying residents (resident staff may not be paying rent), this would result in an average monthly income per house of $10,880. If the reported average expense of $6,200 is accurate, each facility housing 16 residents generates a monthly profit of $4,680. ($56,160 per year for each house of the three with 16 residents; or an estimated $168,480 total for the three facilities at 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive.) RECOMMENDATION: For the foregoing reasons, staff recommends that Reasonable Accommodation Request No. 3 be denied. Environmental Review This activity has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and therefore it is not subject to CEQA. Public Notice Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site and posted at the project site a minimum ten (10) days in advance of this Public Hearing consistent with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In addition, the item appeared on the agenda for this Public Hearing, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: NZ w NWA O� r— I� art s7l 15 YS 01444 Yellowstone First Step House, Inc. (PA2008 -108) 20172 Redlands Drive March 12, 2009 Page 22 Attachments: 1. County of Orange Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan 2. County of Orange Zoning Code Definitions 3. County of Orange Records regarding 20172 Redlands Drive 4. County of Orange Records regarding 1571 Pegasus Street 5. February 20, 2009 Staff Report 6. Correspondence Received After February 20, 2009 YS 01445 Attachment No. 1 County of Orange Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan YS 01446 F Z" � � L Z 9 Z u. M w� Z `n m w a a e a Q h C a o. oil L C� W a0 H o ° o m� E L 'a m �+ 1-0 z 9 N � � ■w m m= ■w , m m m rye i m m m = I YS 01447 IT Z G V e- $$ m m c m$ 10 3 As CL . oll �y M c 1.19 Z _ I'L �o — n¢ V � v oa °✓ 8 C 9 w I a .6 7i .pC� g po S v CL Ao 6-G CAN o. E- rm �O oz� 33 M— g m s ^ R o$ .E > 41 f o� ISM! w v u L o. m A A M m a YS 01448 {7 Z d 14- a 3g�3� v c LL tii S L L C O Q 0. € M d i Q Z 5sm6 f3 l d Id a _EL b a � JIM v 6 F d d v o Aa HAS jj ' �C 0. � N �� rd � � w. C O O � L' P2 S � � � O .O � � m �• ,�._e_ov 8 O EC M Q p p m }� per C� 'pg C� pp 1O• C '�p� n G •_ $rw�` yG� `�- •arm, t _q, Z Z e w° 5� _g 3 �' Z .€ � I A 6.T a°� r.n •b � m 'N i3 �±7 F O Im m m m m m =no m rs = mm r m YS 01449 p z § x z a K = ) } \k 33ƒ - !§ \A ,a2 §, ! E E e « s � � $ a. � 7 \ =" M .M M r" m= m= m= m m YS 01450 Attachment No. 2 County of Orange Zoning Code Definitions YS 01452 o _ 2 lit Oil RECEIVED BY PLANNIING DEPAR T MF%! i CITY Or Idc V-P.nP T GEACH firs PM 1 1 2003 PM 7121911011111211121314 isle ZONING CODE Planning and Development Services Department May, 2002 Edition YS 01453 Community care facility: Any facility which may or may not require a State license to provide nonmedical residential care or day care for children, adults, or both, including physically handicapped and mentally incompetent persons. This includes child day care facilities/day care nurseries and family day care homes. Community facility: A noncommercial use established primarily for the benefit or enjoyment of the population of the community in which it is located. Condominium: An estate consisting of an undivided interest in common in a parcel of real property together with a separate interest in space in a residential, industrial or commercial building on such real property, such as an office or store or multifamily dwelling. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of such real property. Congregate care facility: A facility, including a Congregate Living Health Facility as defined in State law, providing care on a monthly basis or longer and which is the primary residence of the people it serves.. It provides services to the residents such as the following: dining, housekeeping, security, medical, transportation and recreation. Any commercial services provided are for the exclusive use of the occupants of the facility. Such a facility may. be located in more than one building and on contiguous parcels within the building site. It includes facilities offering occupancy on a monthly basis and longer such as hotels, resorts, etc. which have characteristics similar to the above. Convalescent home: A facility licensed by the State Department of Health Services which provides bed and ambulatory care for more than six (6) patients with postoperative convalescent, chronically iA or dietary problems and persons unable.to care for themselves; including persons undergoing psychiatric care and treatment both as inpatients and outpatients but not including persons with contagious diseases or afflictions. Also known as nursing home, convalescent hospital, rest home, or home for the aged. Conversion oroiect: An apartment house; multiple or group dwelling existing, under construction or for which building permits have been issued, which is proposed for conversion to a residential condominium, community apartment, residential stock cooperative or planned development; or an existing mobilehome park which is proposed to be converted to a mobilehome condominium project, a mobilehome stock cooperative project, a mobilehome planned development or a conventional mobilehome subdivision. Sec. 7-9-25. Definitions. (D) Day (care) nursery: A.k.a. child day care facility and day care center. Any facility operated by a person, corporation or association used primarily for the provision of nonmedical daytime care, training, or education of more than six (6) children under eighteen (18) years of age at any location other than their normal place of residence, excluding any children normally residing on the premises. Detached buildings and structures: Two (2) or more buildings or structures that are each structurally independent and freestanding and not connected by walls, roofs, floors, decks, supports, trellises, architectural features or any other structure, fixture or device that exceeds thirty (30) inches in height above the finished grade. -11- YS 01454 Sec. 7-9 -141. Community Care Facilities. Community care facilities serving six (6) or less persons and large family day care homes shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. Community care facilities serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons, except,for large family day care homes, shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. Sec. 7.9- 141.1. Reserved. Sec. 7- 9- 141.2. Child care facliMeslday care nurseries. Child day care facilities/day care nurseries serving more than fourteen (14) persons may be permitted in any district, planned community or specific plan area (except in designated airport accident potential zones) where this use is not otherwise identified as a permitted use, subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. Sec. 7-9-141.3. Reserved. COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES ITIES Sec. 7 -9 -141 • 1413 or less <-- NO PERMIT \ eople Large Family Day Care (7 t014children) 7 to 12 people 4--- USE PERMIT BY except LFDC PLANNING COMMISSION Child Day Care Facilities with over 14 children / -177 - YS 01455 Sec. 7 -9 -142. Conareoate Care Facilities. (a) A congregate care facility serving six (6) or fewer persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or speck plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single - family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. (b) A congregate care facility shrvi0g seven (7) to twelve (12) persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or speck plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to section 7- 9-150. A congregate care facility shall; (1) Demonstrate compatibility with adjacent development; (2) Provide adequate on site parking for residents and staff; (3) Provide adequate screening of the facility by landscaping and/or fencing; and, (4) Limit signage and lighting. (c) A congregate care facility serving more than twelve (12) persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for either multifamily residential or hotels subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to section 7 -9 -150. (d) Equivalent dwelling unit counts for congregate care facilities shall be determined by the following table. The consequent unit counts are to be subtracted from the total number of allowed dwelling units for a planned community or specific plan area, and will also determine consistency with area per dwelling unit zoning limitations. Configuration 2 or more bedrooms in the unit 1 bedroom in the unit 0 bedroom in the unit Medical care rooms Dwelling Unit Counts 1 dwelling .5 dwelling .25 dwelling 0 dwelling Density bonuses may be granted to congregate care facilities in residentially -zoned areas in the same manner that they may be granted to standard residential projects per the Housing Element. -1178- YS 01456 Attachment No. 3 County of Orange Records Regarding 20172 Redlands Drive YS 01457 Account Activity Report Page 1 of I Post Typo Work Activity Report for Permit Number S1050059 ACCOUNT APPLICANTMFRP SITE Created: 0911912005 Yellowstone Women". Recovery of Calfomia Tract 4307 36 TR Logs) null Status: CLOSED 1571 Pegasus 20172 REDLANDS OR NEWPORT Status Updated: 05M08M20D8 Santa Ana, CA 92627 BEACH Status Updated By Ramon Mmpo Phone: 949. 846 -4494 Women". Permit Description: St for saber ®ving certification, refer to CE050237, certification to be on an annual basis Recovery of Post Typo Work Work Name Hours mile Amount Salaries Data DesMption Date (Hourly Rate) Balance $0.00 09113MMI Dsposftj Inns! Deposit Yellowstone $450.00 $46(100 Women". Recovery of 0911312006 Charge IParmit Issuance Charge Cookie Ead $1540 $435.00 092202005 Charlie 1 X5_ Supervisor admen 09420MOg6 Mike Powell 0.0951 Building IrsspaW $1384 $421.38 tlmecharge I I IV ($14325) 091202005 Charge $B,Lr ANNUAL FIRE 09/2022005 I Don Parker IMMI Bull ft Inspector $14325 $278.11 INSPECTION APPROVED. IV ($14325) HOUSE SET UP FOR 15 BEDS. O1: &2005 Charlie MIL Travel tirrnerharge. 09202005 Don Packer 0.1333 Building Inspector $19.10 $269.01 ANNUAL FIRE INSPECTION IV ($14825) APPROVED. HOUSE SET UP FOR 15 BEDS. 09/20!2005 Charge M. Admkk Omecharge. O9MOM005 Don Packer 0.1600 Builft Inspector $21A9 $23752 ANNUAL FIRE 1NSPECnON IV ($143,25) APPROVED. HOUSE SET UP FOR 16 BEDS. 11114/2006 Charge INIlate 81 0811312005 John Povrem 0A687 610 f $*A5 $188.07 Specialist ($106.90 04/2912008 Charge ADMIN Admin I 04M8M008 Don Parker 02500 BWldng Inspector $38.87 $149A0 Reviews of open perm!. This IV ($15486) Inspection was completed and approved on 920105. Please tirel and close. 04/292008 Charge FF Admkr thocharge. Close Nit 04M=8 Alan Melt 0.7333 Administrative $147.58 $1.82 SI Sober Living Parnit Manager 11($20120) MOM MOOS Refund lAduffiatIcRollundTranter Yataashme $1.82: $0.00 Request forc08 forwerdadtD womers Yof California . - Total Hours 28286 Balance $0.00 Deposits $450.00 Charges $448.18. Refunds $1.82 Adjustments $0.00 Balance $0.00 i)t0,tt!§ O.T. - Overtime E.O.T. - EtdrnordGmryOveri me E.O.T.• - Eldramrinaiy Overtime (Fief Fee Parmk) Attachment No. 4 County of Orange Records Regarding 1571 Pegasus Street YS 01459 %m r- •I 4V: -1-411 February 1. 2006 , 111 1-F IL' : A k ' It UL- :I I I Mr. Malin fmgcl County of Orange Planing & Development Re: St 060004-1571 Pegasus, Santa Ana Heights, Co. Mr. Angel, Per L=rWs request t am requesting an Sl Permit fur a 19 bed sober living home located at 1571 Pegasus, Santa Ana Haloiis, this is a renewal of 811040097. I have enclosed a copy infimmi.ion wlicadom Picase advice at your earliest convience wheal can pick up permit and schedule inspection. .-Thank yo Lelsba Mello YS 01460 Situs Permit Update Page 1 of 1 4307- 8 -4 -TR (TRACT) : ATTACHED PERMITS Legal Description: 4307- 5.3 -TR (Tract) Location : APN : 119.361 -14 (Release) ik Address : 1571 Pegasus St, Santa Ana (Permanent Bldg Address) Effective: Jun 09. 2001 Check All Clear Perms NO. An Primary Flag t Status Owner Description Address CE050277 * Closed Sober living home. operating without a permit 1571 Pegasuu (over 6 people). St, Santa Ana Q .t * Closed- $ Yellowstone Women%R omoni� First Step Special investigation to cover cost of sober 1571 Pegasus Complete H tivhng home St Santa Ana [� S1040097 * $ Closed- We�,� a very dal Imrestigallon to cover coat of saber 1571 Pegasus i ft tarn for Yellowstone Women's Recovery it Complete Of Of Calwomis Santa Ana BI * $ Flied yanomtone Women's First Step Special investigation to covercosts of sober 1571 Pegasus livin home for Yellowstone Women's Recovery St Santa Ana Attachment No. 5 Staff Report dated February 20, 2009 YS 01462 Attachment No. 6 Correspondence Received After February 20, 2009 YS 01463 Brown, Janet From: Jenn Haining Uinnee4@hotmail.00m] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 9:26 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: 1561 Indus Street - Sober Home Dear Janet, The sober living home next door to our house habitually leaves their garbage cans out after trash day. Yesterday was our trash pick up and this morning, as of ten to nine when I left for work, their cans were still in front of their house. This is not unusual, as it is common for them to leave them out until late Thursday, or even into Friday. They used to place their cans in front of our house, but as one of our neighbors brought it up at the last city meeting, and after we talked to one of Yellowstone's representatives on 3 different occasions, they are finally placing them in front of their own property. Can something be done about this? Thank you for your time, Jennifer Haining YS 01464 Brown, Janet From: Jenn Haining pinnee4 @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 20091:52 PM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Contino, Brian; Kiff, Dave; Wolcott, Cathy; Kappeler, John Subject: RE: Sober Living Homes Dear Ms. Brown, Thank you for your quick reply. I know my husband plans on attending the meeting this Thursday. I also wanted to mention that yes, were aware that 1561 Indus was a sober living home when we purchased our house (although we did not know the other sober living house we share a fence with on Pegasus was, nor were we made aware of the other house on Indus). However, when we found our house and purchased it, 1561 Indus was on the market as well. We anticipated that it would be sold to a family and there would no longer be a business operating next to us. We have nothing against the sober living houses or their occupants, but it ig a business operating next to us (though I understand this may be a matter of opinion) and therefore has issues we would rather not have to deal with in a single family residential neighborhood. Sincerely, Jennifer Haining 1572 Indus Street Subject: RE: Sober Living Homes Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:25:07 -0700 From: JBrown(&city.newport- beach.ca.us To: jinnee4(alhotmail.com CC: BContino0city.newoort- beach. ca. us; DKiff(alcitv.newoort- beach.ca.us; CWolcott(dcity.newoort- beach.ca.us; J Kapoeler (&city.newoort- beach.ca.us Dear Ms. Haining. Thank you for your e-mail. This information will be made a part of the record for the Yellowstone public hearings. In addition, I have requested the Code Enforcement Officer assigned to this area to look into code violations that may be occurring. The public hearing for the applications submitted by Yellowstone was continued to this Thursday, March 12, at 4:00 p.m. The meeting will take place in the City Council Chambers (same location as the February 20'" meeting). Janet Johnson Brown Associate Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 ibrown ftity.newoort- beach.ca.us From: Jenn Haining [mai[to:jinnee4 @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 1:09 PM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Contino, Brian Subject: Sober Living Homes Dear Janet, My husband attended the last city meeting addressing the potential closures of the Yellowstone sober YS 01465 houses. I am writing to you now because my husband and I became aware at this meeting, of certain policies the occupants of the sober living homes are supposed to be abiding by. We bought our house last April and just moved in December 20, 2008. In the short time we have lived here, it seems that they have been in constant violation of a lot of the policies set forth by the city. As we were unaware of these policies until recently, we have not complained or kept track of their activities. In the past week or so however, we have been more vigilant about noticing things they may be in violation of. The following are some of these things: 1. I believe it was the weekend before last, I was letting my dog out and could hear someone on the phone at the Pegasus house which backs up to our property. They appeared to be angry and used foul language. 2. Both of these properties frequently have their trash cans out after trash day for up to one to two days. 3. People are frequently coming or going after hours, easily past 11pm. We have heard loud cars racing from the house and one night /early morning someone honking their horn. 4. People appear to be in the house during hours when this is prohibited. I come home for lunch at 2pm and often see people being dropped off and /or picked up. 5. There are often different cars in the driveway that do not appear to be the house mothers. 6. Yesterday, while out tending to my roses in the front yard, I could smell cigarette smoke coming from the 1561 Indus property. These are just a few of the things we have noted. Not only that, but in reading some of the information they put forth in their applications, it appears as though the attorney was misinformed or not being truthful. The men's house on Redlands, up until recently, was having weekly Tuesday meetings in which it was obvious that a large number of men, that were not occupants, were attending. It brought in quite a bit of car and foot traffic. Also, remembering back to when we were working on our house last summer, girls from the other houses were walking to and from 1561 Indus with towels and bathing suits to use the pool. I hope this information is helpful to your decision making process. We love our new home and want to have a safe, clean and positive environment to live in. Sincerely, Jennifer Haining 1572 Indus Street YS 01466 TRANSCRIPT OF MARCH 12, 2009 HEARING - \v.aoc YS 01467 wil NE IE IE IE In w -,P CERTIFIED COPY PUBLIC HEARING ON OCEAN RECOVERY, INC. and YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. BEFORE THOMAS W. ALLEN, ESQ., HEARING OFFICER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2009 T P X%-U-JC I SE REPORTING SERVICE (714) 647-9099 • (800) 647-9099 • FAX (714) 543-1614 www.precisereport!ng.com 0 YS 01468 im 59 1E In IE ■7 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 Public hearing was taken on behalf of the City of Newport Beach at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, beginning at 4:00 p.m., and ending at 6:16 p.m., on Thursday, March 12, 2009, before LAURA A. MILLSAP, RPR, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 9266, PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 2 I YS 01469 1E In 1E 1E a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 APPEARANCES: For The City of Newport Beach: RICHARDS, WATSON, GERSHON BY: PATRICK K. BOBKO, ESQ. j 355 S. Grand Avenue, 40th Floor j Los Angeles, CA 90071 -3101 (213) 626 -8484 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BY: CATHY WOLCOTT, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY DAVE KIFF, Assistant City Manager JANET JOHNSON BROWN, Associate Planner NOELANI MIDDENWAY, Assistant City Clerk 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 j (949) 644 -3002 i For Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc.: DAVIS, ZFATY BY: ISAAC R. ZFATY, ESQ. 580 Broadway Street, Suite 301 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 376 -2828 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 3 YS 01470 0 m m LA WYER'S NOTES b YS 01471 F, 1E 1E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2009 4:00 P.M. - 6:16 P.M. MR. ALLEN: We'll open the hearing again. Let's see. My name is Thomas W. Allen, and I've been designated by the City as the Hearing Examiner for the matters that are before us today. We have four continued hearings from a previously meeting, all involving the Heights area and Yellowstone. The addresses are 1561 and 1621 Indus, 20172 Redlands, and 1571 Pegasus. And as I indicated, Yellowstone Recovery is the Applicant in each of these instances. The City staff has requested that we reopen the hearings on all of these, that is, the use permit hearings on the basis of later discovered information. The staff will explain that in more detail. But basically, the contention is that the four units that were acted upon at the previous meeting were not lawfully established at the time they were annexed into the City, and, therefore, they don't qualify for use permits. However, before going any further with those, I need to step back in the agenda for the purpose of the adoption of Resolution Number One, Resolution of Approval PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 M YS 01472 Z, 0 Ell 7 D 0 a E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 ffor Ocean Recovery. And this is not a public hearing. It's simply an administrative action. So the Hearing Officer hereby adopts the Resolution. MR, KIFF: Actually, Mr. Allen, it's 2009 -003. i That's the number that it would be assigned. j MR. ALLEN: Thank you. So I hereby adopt i Resolution Number 2009 -003 Resolution of Approval for i Ocean Recovery at 1601 Balboa Boulevard. And then back to the Indus matters. I think I gave a sufficient opening. MR. KIFF: We'll have you sign that now. i Sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. MR. ALLEN: And we can proceed with the initial I staff report on the Yellowstone matters. And as we do at the previous meeting, we'll open consideration of all four of these together, simply because they are all the same Applicant and virtually identical, unless staff disagrees with that approach? MR. KIFF: We agree. MR. ALLEN: So let's proceed in that fashion. MR. KIFF: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Allen, just as a reminder, as you noted, this is a public hearing item per our ordinance on group residential uses involving four facilities in West Santa Ana Heights. 5 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 YS 01473 im ME 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 We did do a presentation. There is a staff report available at the table out front of our presentation, generally, at the last meeting. I'll let Janet Brown explain some of the additional information evaluated in between the last meeting and this meeting. MS. BROWN: Thank you, and good afternoon. I am going to take a couple of moments to just recap what occurred at the February 20th hearing. At that hearing, staff recommended that the Hearing Officer approve the use permits with operational conditions for the Redlands property and the property located at 1621 Indus to allow the sober living facilities to continue operating with the reduced occupancy of 15 beds. Staff also recommended denial of the use permits for the properties located on Pegasus Street and at 1561 Indus. Our recommendations were based on documentation that had been provided by the Applicant and information that was available to us at the time that the reports were written. We noted at that hearing that there might be new information introduced that may require further evaluation by staff and the Hearing Officer to help us determine whether or not our recommendations were correct. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing 3 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 YS 01474 E] 0 El E 10 0 13 E a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 Officer concurred with staff recommendation and determined, based on the information provided, that the Pegasus property and the 1561 Indus property be closed, and that the Redlands property and the 1621 Indus property continue to operate a sober living facility. Staff was directed to prepare the appropriate Resolutions, and the hearing was continued for action to March 12th. Due to testimony provided by the Applicant's Counsel and new information that is provided in this latest staff report, staff recommends that the hearing for the use permit be reopened. During the February 20th hearing, the Applicant's Counsel made an argument that had never been raised during the prior discussions with staff during the past nine months that we had worked with he and his clients to bring the applications to the point of completeness. At the hearing, the Applicant's Counsel characterized the Yellowstone facilities as established non - conforming uses, and cited a number of California cases that held that established uses generally retain the same rights they had before the law was changed. In response to this argument, staff conducted an investigation into the circumstances and laws that were applicable to the properties at the time the uses PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 71 YS 01475 i1) I ME 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 were established in 2003, 2005 and 2007. I we were informed by the County Planning and Code Enforcement staff that a sober living facility would have been classified as either a community care facility or a congregate care facility. The Orange County Zoning Code defines a community care facility as "any facility which may or may not require a state license, to provide non - medical residential care, or day care for children, adults, or both, including physically handicapped and mentally incompetent persons. This includes day care facilities, day care nurseries, and family day care homes." This use classification most closely matches the uses of the Yellowstone facilities. As noted in the staff report, at the time the uses were established, the properties were located in the Santa Ana Height Specific Plan and were zoned RSF, or Residential Single Family. The Specific Plan, which was last revised by the County in 2001, included land use regulations for the RSF district that allowed certain principal uses, including singlely attached family dwellings, and community care facilities serving six or fewer persons, and large family day care homes. The Specific Plan also included provisions that stated that "The following principal uses are permitted PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 8 YS 01476 H li 2 3 12 4 5 6 7 17 8 9 10 11 12 0 19 WWI 13 14 15 16 17 18 0 19 WWI F PUBLIC HEARING 3/12/2009 subject to a use permit by the Planning Commission, per Zoning Code Section 7.9.150. Any other use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district." Section 7.9.141 of the Orange County Zoning Code provided requirements for community care facilities basically stating that "a facility serving six or less persons was permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan areas zoned for residential uses. And that a facility serving seven to twelve persons was permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area subject to the issuance of the use permit by the Planning Commission." Because very little information in the way of permits or other records were turned over to the City by the County following annexation of this area, City staff contacted the County to request copies of all records they had for the four addresses. There are no records of a use permit being issued for any of the four Yellowstone facilities, even though County Planning staff thoroughly conducted a search of their records at our request. We did find records of a temporary use permit issued for 1621 Indus that allowed meetings four times a year, ten days each, allowing up to a total of 40 meetings. That permit was PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 0 YS 01477 21 22 23 24 25 F PUBLIC HEARING 3/12/2009 subject to a use permit by the Planning Commission, per Zoning Code Section 7.9.150. Any other use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district." Section 7.9.141 of the Orange County Zoning Code provided requirements for community care facilities basically stating that "a facility serving six or less persons was permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan areas zoned for residential uses. And that a facility serving seven to twelve persons was permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area subject to the issuance of the use permit by the Planning Commission." Because very little information in the way of permits or other records were turned over to the City by the County following annexation of this area, City staff contacted the County to request copies of all records they had for the four addresses. There are no records of a use permit being issued for any of the four Yellowstone facilities, even though County Planning staff thoroughly conducted a search of their records at our request. We did find records of a temporary use permit issued for 1621 Indus that allowed meetings four times a year, ten days each, allowing up to a total of 40 meetings. That permit was PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 0 YS 01477 I I I ID 1E 1E M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 issued in March of 2005. We also found a letter sent by the Applicant to the County in February of 2006 requesting to obtain Sober Living Certification for an 18 -bed sober living home at the Pegasus property. Also at the Pegasus property, an undated Code Enforcement Action stating "Sober living home operating without a permit (over six people)." We also found a record from 2005 that Yellowstone attempted to obtain County Sober Living Certification for the Redlands property with notes in the County Activity Report dated September 2005, and an actual fire inspection was performed, and the house was set up for 15 beds. Based on these records, it appears as if the Redlands and Pegasus properties were being used as sober living homes for more than 12 persons. we believe that this demonstrates a pattern and a practice by the Applicant of operating residential care facilities in violation of local laws in effect at the time the Yellowstone facilities were established. And for this reason, we believe that Finding A of Section 20.91A.060 cannot be made with regards to the development and operational standard that no owner or manager shall have demonstrated any pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of the law. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 10 YS 01478 In IE W a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 Staff also questions whether the Yellowstone I {facilities were even qualified to apply for and receive I use permits under Municipal Code Section 20.62.030, Determination of Non- Conformity. i Section B of that section states that, I I "A use that was lawfully established," i excuse me, "under the laws in place at the time that that no longer conforms to the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which it is located because of annexation to the City shall be deemed to be an non - conforming use. i "However," it continues, "a use shall not be continued to have been lawfully established and maintained and is an illegal use if it was established or operated without required permits and licenses, including, but not limited to, permits and licenses required by any Federal, state or local governmental agency." Pursuant to section 20.91A, "Persons whose use of their property in a residential district was rendered non - conforming by adoption of Ordinance 2008 -05 are qualified to seek a use permit to continue the use in its current PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 11 1 YS 01479 K0 Im 1 1E 1E 1E a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 location." But there's no similar provision or illegal uses. So, therefore, staff believes the Yellowstone facilities might more accurately be characterized as an illegal use rather than as a non - conforming use. And for these reasons and as stated in greater detail in our staff report, staff recommends denial of all four use permits as requested by the Applicant. If the Hearing Officer agrees with staff recommendations, staff recommends the Hearing Officer adopt the Draft Resolution of Denial with Prejudice for Use Permit Number 2008 -030, for the property located at 1561 Indus, and also to direct staff to prepared a Resolution of Denial for the other three use permits. And that concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions you might have. MR. ALLEN: I don't have any questions at this time. Does the staff have anything to add? MR. KIFF: No. MR, ALLEN: All right. What about the Applicant? Would you like to respond, I presume? MR. ZFATY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Again, Isaac Zfaty on behalf of Yellowstone. I think as a preliminary matter we have to have some ruling as to whether we are going to reopen the CUP PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 12 1 YS 01480 E W 1E E 1E 1E W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 hearings as to these four properties. I say that because my understanding is that those were completed at the February 20th hearing. And, of course, I have a presentation that I would be happy to provide to you, Mr. Allen, in terms of why it is that I think that the argument that's offered by the staff at this point in favor of reopening these hearings falls short. MR. ALLEN: I've thought somewhat about that. My thought is this. That staff has timely made the request to reopen the hearings. I don't expect but would be willing to listen that your client has incurred any detrimental reliance or adverse effect as a result of reopening the hearings. In other words, I don't see that there would be any changes that took place in that short period of time that would constitute a vesting of some sort such that the hearings couldn't be reopened. So my ruling would be that the hearings can be reopened for the purpose of considering the position now taken by the staff. MR. ZFATY: Well, we're not going to make an argument that we have detrimentally relied at this point. So with that, I would ask that I be allowed to give a presentation on the CUP for each of the four properties PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 13 YS 01481 IE 1E IH W, a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 based on the new information, I think, is what we're talking about here? i MR. ALLEN: Yes, MR. ZFATY: Okay. MR. ALLEN: Yes, you're welcome to proceed. MR. ZFATY: Just to frame the issue, Mr. Allen, i ithe comment that Ms. Brown just made on the record was that there's been new -- and I'm going to quote f this -- "information available to us at the time of the hearing," referring to the February 20th hearing. And the issue here is whether there was actually something new that was presented at that i hearing. Ms. Brown just noted that it was testimony by, I think, myself that for the very first time, we brought to the City's attention that we were claiming that we were an established non - conforming use. I would submit to you that we have said from the very beginning, going all the way back to our original application in May of 2008, that we are an established use, and, of course, I think that it goes without saying that based on the implementation of the ordinance that we are non - conforming. So I don't agree that there's anything new here. But the bigger picture is, what is it that we're analyzing? The issue, in terms of what this new PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 14 1 YS 01482 In 10 IE E U 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 information is -- assuming that it actually is new information, just arguendo, is that Yellowstone was operating facilities in Santa Ana Heights unlawfully. And that requires an analysis of the County's requirements by the City ex post facto, far after the time, and we really have a mootness problem. It stretches far beyond just a basic Constitutional analysis of whether we've been afforded due process on the issue. Because, as you can imagine, if the County had decided that we were not in conformance with something that -- some County Zoning Regulation, we would be provided with, under the 5th and 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, notice and opportunity to be heard, and we were provided with neither one of those. And I think the City would agree with me that, in fact, there was nothing that turned up that showed in their subsequent search since February 20th that we were cited or asked to be -- that we were held in abatement or in violation of any zoning ordinance. So that's the big picture analysis. What would have to happen, though, Mr. Allen, in order to get to the place that the staff is now recommending, is that the City would have to make a finding -- this is necessary -- the City would have to make a finding that we had violated a County rule without PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 15 I YS 01483 1E 1E le a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 an opportunity to be noticed and without an opportunity to be heard on that. That is it a -- that is a Pandora's box that I don't think the City wants to open. I don't think the City wants to start going back and looking at potential violations that were never cited, never noticed, and never given an opportunity to be heard upon. That's the big picture. Specifically, the City requests to open the CUP hearing -- I think that ship sailed -- and have you analyze County requirements and, again, have you make an actual judicial finding that Yellowstone violated some law in the past. Again, the City's indicated that "it conducted a further investigation" -- this is based on the staff report -- "into the laws applicable at the time the facility was established while under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange." And the reason provided again is information obtained in the February 20th hearing. Now, at the February 20th hearing, there was factual information provided based upon the issues that the City raised in terms of conflicts that were perceived by the staff, and we provided those clarifications and submitted to you, Mr. Allen, that there were no discrepancies that were based upon -- that were PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 W-91 YS 01484 1E 1E W3 1E E 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 necessarily in contrast to each other. There were explanations, for example, length of stay, things like that, that we talked about that may have varied during the time from our initial submission and the February 20th hearing. The staff recommendation for the rejection of the CUP now is based upon section 20.91A.060, items (b) and (h). Subsection (b) provides that "A facility must comply with state and local law, and the submitted management plan, including any modifications, required by this use permit." (H) provides that "No owner or manager shall have any demonstrated pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of the law." The 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution provide that Yellowstone can't be deprived of liberty or property without due process. And this is a substantial due process issue. As I mentioned earlier, it means we have to have been provided notice, and we have to have been provided with an opportunity for a hearing as to the purported County violation. Article I of the California Constitution actually provides a much broader scope. And the quoted language here from Ryan versus California PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 17 YS 01485 EA El a I a J n a I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 Interscholastic -- Interscholastic Federation, San Diego I section, at 94 Cal. App. 4th, 1069, talks generally about that standard. The pertinent language is that "Procedural due process under the California Constitution is much more inclusive and protects a broader range of interest than under the Federal Constitution." i Importantly, Mr. Allen, the staff report cites to no violation of law. The staff reports infers a violation based on a multiple -step process that was just reported to you. And the conclusion is that there could have been a notice by the County based upon the City's assessment here today. And I would submit that the staff report relies upon a bunch of untested and speculative information that had we been provided due process with the County, we would have had an opportunity to be heard, and we would have had our rights voiced. One example -- and this is quoted from the report -- that "The County of Orange Planning Department and Code Enforcement Staff informed the City that a sober living use would have been classified as either a community care facility or a congregate care facility." We don't even know which it is even today. The staff report concludes that "Had the County PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 "I I YS 01486 EWW KU- im 1E In 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 pursued the matter, a violation of law would have been found." And the inference there -- and I think it's pretty clear here -- that the County did not, in fact, pursue the matter. No County evaluation occurred. No notice was given. No hearing was held. And we had no opportunity to be heard. I provided here three pieces of evidence that were included by the City, but -- purported evidence. It's sort of -- again, it's hard to test this stuff. But the first is that "Yellowstone Recovery attempted to obtain County Sober Living Certification at 1571 Pegasus Street." And the inference there is that we didn't obtain it, or that we were rejected, but there's no evidence of that. The second is that there's also some evidence that the County Code Enforcement was aware that the facility was housing more than six residents without a use permit. Well, without getting into the Code analysis -- the County Code analysis, for my money, reading that quote from the staff report tells me that somebody in the County at some point knew who we were, knew what we were doing, and didn't do anything about it. So -- and on that point, I would mention to you, Mr. Allen, that last night, to my wife's chagrin, I PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 19 YS 01487 Is I NE In In E a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 spent a couple of hours reviewing the Santa Ana Specific Plan, which is about 150- some -odd pages. Then, I got to i the Zoning Code. As you can see, this is approximately 2 inches i thick -- 2 inches of paper that we're now being called to look at with a snapshot, without any due process, and say, "Yellowstone violated this." Okay? That's problematic. The last point that I would raise directly from I the staff report is the staff notes that, "Had there been an investigation, County Code Enforcement personnel would conduct the SI." Didn't happen. Staff report concludes that, "It," meaning i Yellowstone, "did not comply with the local law at that i time, because the operator had not obtained approval of a I use permit from the Orange County Planning Commission." Again, no enforcement action. No opportunity to be I heard. No opportunity to appeal. I At this point, Mr. Allen, Yellowstone's not able to and won't attempt to defend an action that the County never initiated. It didn't happen. The staff report provides that the Planning Commission, per Zoning Code -- and this is this 2 -inch thick document that I was just referring to -- Section 7 -1 -950 allows for, to quote, "any other use which the PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 20 1 YS 01488 NEI NE 1E 1E 10 J I 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district." That quote is important, because it's a catchall. It basically says that had we been in front of the County, had we had an opportunity to be heard, had we been put on notice that perhaps we were violating some County ordinance, we would have been able to apply for i something similar to the way that we here today. We i would have been able to apply for a use permit. And the Code section that -- the Zoning Code section that the staff cites specifically says "Any other use," and so it's very broad. This is also set forth in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. And, you know, I sound like a broken record. No notice of a violation was issued. No opportunity to be heard. No opportunity to apply for a permit. No opportunity to cure it. Based on my cursory review, I could find that there was a County use permit procedure that was set forth in 7- 9- 105.1C that's set forth a process. It included a public hearing. It included that variances could be applied for under subsection (e), and that special use permits could be applied for under subsection (f) . So, the next point that I'd like to make refers PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 21 ! YS 01489 M NE lu- 1E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 to this discussion about the potential application for a Sheriff's Certification process. I think that there's some confusion there. First off, the Sheriff's Certification Program is -- the staff report notes that at one time, one of Yellowstone's facilities was certified but dropped out of the Certification Program. That is a purely optional program. It's a program that some sober living homes are a part of. Some are not. It's not required by the County. And it's something that we initially wanted to become a part of, and, for reasons completely unrelated to zoning, we made a decision that we would rather become a part of the Sober Living Coalition. And again, there'.s another loose affiliation of sober living homes. It has nothing to do with the zoning. It has nothing do with violations of zoning. It has nothing to do with compliance of zoning. The staff tries to cast Yellowstone in the staff's judgment of how the County Zoning Code should be interpreted here as a community care facility. we would note that we don't provide care. If given the opportunity to be heard, Yellowstone would argue that no Yellowstone home fell into a category requiring a use permit. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 22 1 YS 01490 NE 1E IE 1E IE a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 If that argument didn't rule today, then { Yellowstone would apply for a use permit with the County. 3 But how the County would have decided the issue is pure speculation. � Currently, all four of the houses have County i j Fire Clearances, and those include inspections. So we can infer, if we're making inferences, that the County has come through our property, and we know that they have come . through our properties, and still, there's been no citation. Staff report admits that there's also some i evidence that County Code Enforcement was aware that the (facility was housing more than six residents without a ' use permit. Again, no enforcement action. i So the question is, how are we to know what the County would have done? Well, we don't have any standing to seek injunctive relief from a court of competent i jurisdiction, because it's moot. There's no court of competent jurisdiction that would even listen to us. We're not a part of the County any longer. So again, it goes back to the due process issue. And the City cannot be and may not be the arbiter of some other jurisdictional rules now. The City can't do what a court could not do now. There could be no decision made, because of the Doctrine of Mootness. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 23 YS 01491 W N I 1E 1E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 The staff report concludes -- I think this is also telling, Mr. Allen -- that "it's unlikely that the County would have granted a use permit." I've listed here -- and I won't go through all of them on the record, but I've listed here just a few questions that the City would have to answer, not just ask, but answer, in order to reach the conclusion that the staff has now proposing in order to get to the conclusion that Yellowstone was in violation of some County law without there actually being some citation, some notice, and some opportunity to be heard. First is, whether the County would have required a use permit at any of the Yellowstone homes in the first place? The second is, what guidelines would have been utilized in making the analysis? what type of notice would have been provided? You know, what reasonable accommodation provisions the County would have analyzed? And that goes back to what we talked about on February 20th, where there are affirmative requirements that reasonable accommodations be provided. So the list goes on. But these are all questions -- and they are just the ones that are off the top of my head that we would have to answer, not just PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 24 1 YS 01492 M 12 E 0 U- 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 ask, but answer, in order to go back and open up this hearing, and reverse the original ruling based upon the claim that Yellowstone did something unlawful in the past. There's some more -- on this slide, there's some more discussions about what was included in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. In Section C, there's a general provision that shows that the County contemplated that it was even possible that portions of its Zoning Code or, excuse me, it's Specific Plan could have been adjudicated invalid. The quote that I have up there is, "If any portion of these regulations is, for any reason, declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or ineffective in whole or in part, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions thereof." That's kind of boilerplate stuff. But it shows that at least the County, itself, contemplated that there could be a problem here. We could have gone back and said, you know, we could have had a Constitutional challenge to the County requirements. But again, we don't even come close to getting that far. And actually going back, the last point that I make there is we can't have that adjudication because we don't have standing. We don't have any standing to go PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 25 YS 01493 C7 r 1E A a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 and challenge the County's Specific Plan, because we are no longer part of that unincorporated part of that County. As to our legal conduct, at a minimum, what we i know is that Yellowstone has been lawfully operating in the City of Newport Beach since January 1 of 2008. And, of course, the response to that could be, "well, it was I contemplated that Santa Ana Heights would become part of the County and that this ordinance was going into place." That doesn't make any difference. The bottom line is that at least until now, and actually up through and including now, Yellowstone has i received no notice, no notice of abatement, and there's been no requirement that Yellowstone do anything with these properties, other than what they are currently doing. And that's the end of my presentation, Mr. Allen, on the issue of the claim of some violation by the City. MR. ALLEN: Does the City wish to make any response to that -- to those points raised by Mr. Zfaty? MR. BOBKO: Just a few quick ones, Mr. Allen. Patrick Bobko. First thing is with regard to reopening the hearing. Just as a matter of procedure, there hasn't PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 MI YS 01494 NE 1 is IM 1E 1E I IM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 been a final decision yet in this hearing. Until there's ia final decision, I think it's perfectly acceptable for i the City to come forward with more information. With regard to the second issue about this i being -- this hearing somehow being a post -hoc trial, it i is not. what's going on right now is the City is being asked to accept, merely on the Applicant's word, that they have a legal non - conforming use. And that's different from being an illegal non - conforming use. And the fact that the Applicant has come forward and said that they were legal does not make it SO. And I don't think that there's any authority for the City to have to be required to take that at the Applicant's word. In fact, if you were to come into the town and say that you were buying a home, and that your home was -- you were going to do some expansion to your home, and it wasn't a non - conforming home, City would immediately go to the records and check and see whether or not it was. So the City's really just doing its due diligence here. There's no trial going on. There's no conviction happening. It's simply verifying that the Applicant's presentation as a legal non - conforming use is true. And the City has now come with evidence to suggest PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 27 j YS 01495 IN I IE I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 that perhaps that is not the case. I So we don't believe that there's any Latches argument, which effectively is what the Applicant is i asserting now, that the City is estopped or foreclosed i from going back into the records to determine whether or not it is a legal or illegal non - conforming use. Again, it's simply a matter of due diligence for the City, and I it's actually no different than any other research the City would do for a non - conforming use. Finally, I want to put to rest this idea that there's somehow been some terrible miscarriage of justice with regard to due process here. You know, Counsel has just put on another very lengthy presentation. He's been presented with all of the evidence and all of the information that the City has. He's had an opportunity to basically examine everything point by point, and challenge, refute, discredit it. He's been heard. Evidence has been presented. The Applicant had an opportunity to present evidence. This is the hearing. This is it right here. There's been no miscarriage of justice. And the City -- again, if the Hearing Officer thinks that perhaps more time would be reasonable, we'd be willing to stipulate to a week's continuance so that there would be further preparation. But we don't think PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 YS 01496 Is Is IR In In a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8". 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 that's necessary. But let's be clear that there has been no miscarriage of due process here at all. Unless you have any other questions of me? MR. ALLEN: No, not at the moment. Thank you. MR. BOBKO: Okay. MR. ZFATY: May I approach and respond? MR. ALLEN: Sure. Does the City wish to say something else first? MS. WOLCOTT: I was going to augment his statement. MR. ALLEN: No. You go ahead, and then he can respond to both of you. MS. WOLCOTT: All right. Cathy Wolcott. I wanted to address Mr. Zfaty's characterization of his earlier correspondence with the City in May of 2008 when they first submitted their reasonable accommodation and use permit applications. They did mention non - conforming, you know. They asked for certification of non - conforming use. The reason that we looked farther after the February 20th presentation by the Applicant's Counsel is that up to that point, they had not asserted that they had vested rights as an non - conforming use that should excuse them from having to be subject to a use permit in the first place. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 WA YS 01497 K3 7 21 I 2 a a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry. Would you say that again, please? MS. WOLCOTT: Sure. Up until the February 20th hearing, the Applicant had never asserted that they had vested rights as a legal non - conforming use that should excuse them from having to be subject to a use permit from the City in the first place. At the February 20th hearing, the Applicant presented a substantial amount of case law about specific cases, which they were characterizing as law that indicated that they shouldn't be subject to the use permit process of the City because they had their rights vested. Because of the assertions made and the case law cited, staff determined that it needed to review what those vested rights, if any, actually were. And so at that point, we needed to find out if the County had already placed specific conditions on the facility operations or if they had established a specific occupancy load to which Yellowstone was already legally entitled before annexation. If those conditions were something that was in the County records that we hadn't seen, we thought, out of fairness, we needed to find out what they are. What we found out in contrast was that actually nothing had PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 30 YS 01498 1E a] 1E 1E a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 been applied for, nothing had been granted. I would also say that I've never heard the argument before that failure to apply for a required permit from a government entity equaled lack of notice, lack of right to be heard. It equals you failed to apply for a permit that you needed. And finally, the Applicant has asserted many times over the nine months it took to get this application to a complete form that every one of their facilities had a fire clearance. In fact, only one, 1571 Pegasus, had a signed fire clearance from the Orange County Fire Authority. There was nothing presented that indicated final fire clearance for any of the other facilities. Thank you. MR. KIFF: I have one comment before Mr. Zfaty comes up, too, Mr. Allen. MR. ALLEN: Sure. MR. KIFF: Just a clarification for you, Mr. Zfaty, the Orange County Fire Authority has nothing to do with the County of Orange. They are separately formed governments and have separate Boards of Directors. So if I'm a County Fire Authority Inspector, I'm not going to be checking to see that that home -- it complies with Orange County land -- County of Orange land use PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 31 YS 01499 10 1E 2 J 2 13 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 law. MR. ZFATY: All right. I just want to comment -- I want to respond to a couple of things. First, we're not making a Latches claim. That's not what we're saying at all. We're not saying that the City is foreclosed from analyzing any particular issues. As I said at the front end of this, if the City thinks that it needs to make any more analyses of any of the facts that has been presented with, that's fine. The bottom line, though, is I don't want to get confused, because we're talking over here, and this is really the issue over here. The issue is, is the City going to deny a use permit to Yellowstone based on an affirmative finding that prior to December 31 of 2007, when Yellowstone was not a part -- when these four properties were not a part of the City of Newport Beach, that Yellowstone violated some County law? It has to be an affirmative finding. I think the comment was that, "We've taken Yellowstone's word that they were in compliance." Well, the reality is that we were in compliance. You do have to take our word for it, because we were there. We were established. If there's some interpretation of the Code that any -- any entity, any person wants to make as to whether PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 32 YS 01500 I Is I NE I In In V a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 Yellowstone is in compliance, then what happens is Yellowstone gets due process on the issue. That's how this works. So going back to our initial discussion, had Yellowstone violated something, some rule, some zoning rule of the County of Orange, what would have happened is there would have been a notice that we were in violation, and we would have been given an opportunity to be heard, and there could have been Appellate rights, and there could have been another appeal, and we could have attacked the ordinance, and it goes on and on and on. MR. ALLEN: I don't get that entirely. You're saying, I think, that because they didn't catch you, that is, they didn't come out and find that you hadn't gotten a use permit, you were somehow vested? MR. ZFATY: No. MR. ALLEN: You need to get that clarified. Because it seems to me quite clear from what I read here that there were permit requirements for you, and that you didn't get them. MR. ZFATY: What I'm saying is -- yeah, no. I understand. And I think we were very clear. I actually reread the transcript from the February 20th hearing. I made it clear that we did not have a use permit. The question was asked, I think, by Mr. Kiff. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 33 YS 01501 10 i In a a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 We're not claiming that we had any use permit. What I'm saying is, we're not even sure that we needed to have a use permit. And the problem is -- and I understand, with all due respect, Mr. Allen, that you're looking at the City's analysis and saying, "Well, that kind of make sense to me. I can read. It's pretty clear. Based upon my review of this, yes, Yellowstone should have had a use permit with the County as of December 31 of 2007." The problem with that analysis is that had that been true, then somebody from the County would have had to go through that analysis and provided Yellowstone with some notice that it was in violation of some County zoning regulation. And then we get into the due process part of it. MR. ALLEN: But you have to make the application first, and you didn't. That belies the whole analysis you're doing here, it seems to me. MR. ZFATY: I would respectfully disagree. Perhaps we would have had to make the application, perhaps not. Perhaps we would have been given some sort of, you know, reasonable accommodation. Who knows what he would have happened. But that's the problem. We don't know. There's no way to know. And so for us to sit here now, as a part of the PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 34 YS 01502 Im 7 7 J 0 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 City of Newport Beach, and look back and say, "We think this could have been a violation, and we're going to assume that Yellowstone operated unlawfully as a result of this speculation that there was a violation, or that they would have remained in violation of the Code had they gone through all these processes that I just described for you, we're going to go ahead now and revoke the CUP," that's not proper. That's my point. The City of Newport Beach has an affirmative requirement that it find that Yellowstone operated in violation of some Federal, state or local law. MR. ALLEN: You just said the City would revoke. The City's not revoking anything, right? I mean, you just used the word "revoking." MR. ZFATY: Yeah, and I misspoke. I think the better way to put it is the City is going to deny Yellowstone use permits based upon its inability to make a critical finding. And that inability to make a critical finding is subject to the City's inability to say that Yellowstone was somebody who was acting within the laws, generally speaking. I mean, it's a pretty broad statute. But that's the analysis. And the problem is, again, tying this back in, the problem is that we haven't had that hearing, and we PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 35 YS 01503 KU No 1E 1H I7 E 1E M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 can't have that hearing. It's impossible. It's legally i impossible. So I understand your point. What you're saying is, well, you're just saying that you didn't get caught. I But the fact of the matter is, we're not saying that. We're not saying that we didn't get caught. We're saying that we weren't in violation, period. That's the end of i it. And there's no way that we can make that finding I now. MR. ALLEN: All right. I'm sensitive to your argument regarding denial of due process. And, you know, the City should not be engaged in denying you the opportunity to be heard. I recognize that we can't go I back and hold a County hearing to determine whether or not you might get a County hearing. That's not going to happen here. But we can delay this matter for a week or two, or whatever time is agreed upon, if you wish to conduct a further hearing and make a presentation on -- further on what you've already presented today, and I would be receptive to that, if you wish to do that. MR. ZFATY: I don't think that there's anything I need to add, because -- and I think it's a good question, though. And it goes to one of the main points that I'm trying to make here, which is that between now PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 36 YS 01504 Ell E a r 19 2 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 and a week from now and two weeks from now, there's nothing that we can do to go back and get a judicial declaration or a County approval of something. It won't happen. It can't happen, right? We don't have standing. If I went into court tomorrow and said, "We need a judicial declaration immediately that we didn't violate some zoning code for the County that happened, you know, two years ago," I'm going to get laughed at in the courtroom. It's not going to happen. They are going to say, "You don't have standing. Are you part of the County still ?" "No." "Well, did you get cited for some violation ?" "No." "Well, what are we here to talk about ?" "Well, there's some speculation that perhaps, had we gone in to try to get a use permit" -- actually that skips a step. "That perhaps we were required to get a use permit, and had we done in to the use permit, we would have been found -- we would have been denied the use permit with the County." We'll never get there. That will never happen. It can't happen. MR. ALLEN: I understand that. But what I'm suggesting or asking is whether you need any more PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 37 YS 01505 WIN ILM 10 IE lu R, s a E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 opportunity to lock at your position, given the fact that i you can't go back and get something that's no longer obtainable? i But, nevertheless, if there's further analysis i of County law you'd like to do to make presentation on 1 why you didn't need -- I don't want to start speculating i on what you might find. ` I'm just saying that at the outset of this I discussion, you made pretty serious allegations about being denied due process of law. And I don't believe i it's appropriate for us to make a quick decision today Iunless you're saying, "I've had all the due process I i need from the City for you to make a decision." I I MR. ZFATY: Yeah. And there's actually two responses to that. The first is that, as I mentioned, there is nothing that will happen between now and two weeks from now that will give me that due process. And the second is that I am absolutely saying that we're not being afforded due process to the extent that the City's going to make a finding that we violated some County rule, right? In other words, I'm saying that we are not being afforded due process on that issue, and we cannot be afforded due process on that issue. It's mutually exclusive at this point, right? PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 N YS 01506 Is IE U2 W"7 In W& M 0 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 The problem is that whatever the County was doing up until December 31 of 2007 in connection with the Yellowstone, or any other facility in the Santa Ana Heights area, if the County thought -- and we've presented some particular comments that was in the staff report that said that the County knew who we were, they knew what we were doing, and there was no citation, if the County believed that we would doing something wrong, the County would have had to act on that. And had the County acted on it, then we would have had an opportunity to respond, right? I mean, that's how due process works. We notice somebody that, "You know what? We think you're doing something wrong." And the person is given an opportunity to be heard. And perhaps what happens there is go in and we convince the County, "No, we are not required to have to use permit." Or what happens there is we go in and we convince the County that, "You know, we shouldn't be subject to this, but maybe we'll agree to some conditions, or maybe we'll figure something out," and we reach an agreement. Or perhaps what happens is we go into the County. County says, "No, you're required to have a use permit." We disagree. We appeal. We lose. We appeal PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 YS 01507 I Is I I NE W3 1E IUD D, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 again. We win or we appeal again, and we lose or win. I I mean, we don't know. That's the problem, but that's why we have due process is because we don't -- it sounds cliche, but you're innocent until proven guilty. i And I'm not trying to say that we snuck under the radar here. I think there's evidence before us today, without doing any further investigation, that the County knew exactly who we were, and exactly what we were doing, and we were not cited. But we cannot be afforded due process, not today, not a week from today, not two weeks from today. It won't happen. MR. ALLEN: Okay. Anything further? Does the City wish to respond any further to the comments that were just made? MR. ZFATY: Oh, one other comment -- I'm sorry. We have County Fire Clearances. We brought copies with us here today if the City wants to see them. MR. ALLEN: Sure, yeah. Those should be submitted. MR. BOBKO: I'm actually going to look for an assist here from staff, but I don't think that the idea that -- and I think you hit it right on the head, Mr. Allen -- that if you establish a use that's illegal and simply don't get caught, and then you're annexed, well, now you're beyond the reach of the law, because PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 40 YS 01508 IN 1E NE M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 you've existed for all that time, and clearly they took no action against us, the former jurisdiction, so we must be legal. I don't think that that's the way things typically work. And, in fact, I would ask staff for a little clarification on that. But in a beach community like this, I'm sure there are many homes that were built probably before there were much of a Building Code, and they remain non - conforming. And the Codes have been upgraded, upgraded, upgraded through the years. And today, you have houses that are probably legally non - conforming. And the reason that they are legally non - conforming is because at the time that they were built, they conformed with the Codes at that time. This is really no different. You have a County rule. We are shining a bright light now on whether or not the Applicant complied with the requirements of the rules at the time they were established. The rules have now changed on them, admittedly, when the City annexed the property. And now we're asking, I think, a very reasonable question is, "Given that you no longer -- you clearly don't comply with our rules, did you comply with the rules when you initiated your business ?" PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 41 I YS 01509 IE Im 1E W W 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 And if you did, . you're non - conforming, and we'll give you all of the protections that you're afforded under the law. If you didn't, well, now you're illegally non - conforming, and that's a whole different matter entirely. This is no different than the situation -- and, again, I'll ask the planners to amplify this. But this is no different than the situation that occurs whenever you have little beach bungalows out here that try to expand or put on an upper level. And you say -- I'm sure the City tells them, "You can't do that. You're an illegal non - conforming use." And you go back and do all that research. Exact same thing, a little bigger scale. And again, if you would require more briefing, then we would -- the City would be happy to provide more briefing on the matter. So again, we want to make sure that the Applicant has had all the due process they can stand. So any extra time or anything like that, of course, the City will stipulate to whatever the Applicant thinks is necessary. MR. ZFATY: The problem is -- and we keep coming back to it is we are looking now at Yellowstone, as Mr. Bobko said, as you aptly put it, Mr. Allen, we're shining a bright light, and we're taking a look at what PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 42 YS 01510 IN Im 10 E 1E 1H E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 Yellowstone did, and we're looking at the County requirements now. i And we are -- what's inclusive in here is we I are deciding -- we are deciding that Yellowstone violated some County zoning requirement. That is a critical, I critical decision here. Okay? I. Because I think, as we will all admit, and I still haven't heard it, the City has had a number of opportunities to make this claim. And according to the City, you know, the new information came out on February i 20th. I got this information yesterday, all right? Or I maybe it was a day before yesterday. But it was -- it was no sooner than two days ago, okay? The City's had plenty of time to analyze this. And I'm not asking for a continuance. What I'm telling you is we're not going to get there. There wouldn't be I any due process, because we cannot be heard on that critical issue upon which the entire house of cards falls down, and that is whether Yellowstone was in violation of a County requirement. We cannot make that finding here. It's not possible. MR. ALLEN: I understand. Well, given those circumstances, I'm persuaded that the Yellowstone facilities were not lawfully established uses when they were annexed into the City. r PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 43 1 YS 01511 10 NEI 1 19 In h 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 They simply didn't have the County approvals that were required of them. And so, therefore, I think the staff's position is well taken and correct. So therefore, we don't have adequate language. In fact, I believe there are a few more determinations that need to be made in this respect. And before we adopt a Resolution that establishes a denial of all four of the use permits, I would just like to see that Resolution include a determination that the likelihood is that -- at least the likelihood, if not the certainty, that these uses were impliedly approved or could have been approved by the language -- and maybe I'm going out too far here and may have to drop back. But I'm only concerned about the concept that other -- that the County could approve permits for other similar uses. And that may be very, very difficult to analyze. In fact, if you have any observations on that right now, I mean, I'd like to hear that. Here's the situation, it seems to me. They defined the congregate care facilities, and then they talked about six beds or less. And then there was another section, as I recall, that allowed 12 beds or less, yeah, 7 to 12. So the implication would be that in that "other PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 44 I YS 01512 1E 1H Fa F 01 I a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 uses" category, the County might have authorized, you i know, a use with 17 beds. And I think that's kind of 1 what Mr. Zfaty is saying is that we don't know whether they might have done that. But we'll never know, because I they can't go back and get that. All right. Going around in circles here. But if there's analysis of that that should be done in that Resolution, it should be done, in my estimation. MR. KIFF: Mr. Allen, I think that's a good point, and we're -- we can go through that analysis in more detail in part because most -- obviously government staff changes, but the folks who have been in County Planning have not changed. And it's fairly straight forward to work with them on an analysis of what they interpreted their laws to have been and what it would have been applicable at the time, and continuing on. So we'll do that within the proposed Resolution of Denial. I would offer, though, before you close the public hearing, public testimony would -- is probably still an opportunity at this time. MR. ALLEN: True. MR. KIFF: Okay. MR. ALLEN: By the way, Mr. Zfaty, you did an excellent job of analysis also in a very short period of time. I'm surprised you didn't know about this before. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 45 1 YS 01513 10 In F1 E 10 I E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 we do have public hearing provisions here for these uses. And so, despite the fact the Hearing Officer has pretty much announced the decision, if someone feels the reed to come forward and give us their wisdom, we'd be happy to hear it. Okay. Seeing none, hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. Thank you, Mr. Kiff. MR. ZFATY: Can I make one more comment on the record? MR. ALLEN: Sure. MR. ZFATY: My last comment would be that based on what Mr. Kiff just said, I think it's interesting that even the City even now is saying to us that, "well, we want to go and talk to the people at the County and get their analysis, because they are the same people who have been there for a long time, and they will be able to tell us whether Yellowstone would have been in violation of the zoning requirements." I mean, to me, what that means is even now, even now, at the end of this hearing, which Mr. Bobko said, "The time is here and now," even now at the end of the hearing, we still don't know if Yellowstone is in violation of some zoning requirement from the County, which we will never have standing to go and challenge. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 46 YS 01514 NE ILI In R a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 And the second part of that is that if the City is having some behind closed doors discussion with the County folks in zoning, how are we afforded an opportunity to be heard on that? How does that happen? MR. KIFF: I have a couple of comments. Mr. Zfaty, I was just being kind. I have no doubt that Yellowstone Recovery, from my analysis of the law, needed use permits for these four facilities. You are also welcome to contact the County and go through the same discussions that we would have in preparing the Resolution of Denial. That's your opportunity to work with them, too. MR. MC DONOUGH: Can I make -- Mr. Allen, can I make a public comment, just one? MR. ALLEN: Sure. MR. MC DONOUGH: Mike McDonough, 1562 Pegasus Street, Santa Ana Heights. Mr. Zfaty keeps saying that or has said that they're not sure they actually needed a permit. I would think Yellowstone's Counsel would have checked to see if they needed it. The fact that they did not check to see if they were required does not exempt them. And to reply on the fact that the County did not enforce the law does not mean the law didn't exist or that there was a violation. Had they checked, they would PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 !! m YS 01515 im 1E 1E IF IE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 have been able to tell if they were required and if they I could get the permit. To just say, "We didn't have an opportunity to i i be heard," had they requested the use permit, the i residents would have had an opportunity to be heard and (could have objected to it. Thank you. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. MR. ZFATY: Can I respond? MR. ALLEN: Well, we have until 6 o'clock, I guess? MR. ZFATY: I think Mr. Mc Donough's comment is a wonderful one. Because had we checked -- he said, "Had he checked, we would have found out. And had we found out, the citizens would have had an opportunity to be heard, and we would have been at a use permit hearing." Exactly. Exactly. That's exactly my point. Had all of these things happened, we would have been in front of the County and asking for a use permit. But none of those things happened. So we don't get our due process. We never do. We never will. And here we are. MR. MC DONOUGH: We didn't get due process either. have? MR. ALLEN: Okay. Thanks. All right. Is there anything else that we PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 "I YS 01516 A S KI M 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 MR. KIFF: No, sir. I'm sorry. The reasonable accommodation discussion could be next. We move right into that I section of the hearing, I apologize. MR. ALLEN: That's right, we do. So let's -- MR. KIFF: So -- sorry. MR. ALLEN: Does the reasonable accommodation application apply if there's no permit? But doesn't that have to be amended somehow to then find a reasonable accommodation to grant the permit? Or am I -- I'm sorry. I'm not following you as well. MR. BOBKO: I suggest that we perhaps take a five- minute break here, if, for nothing else, the Court Reporter. And maybe we can all regroup and come up with a plan of attack. MR. ALLEN: So ordered. (Pause in proceeding.) MR. ALLEN: All right. We're ready to reconvene, and we have the reasonable accommodation hearings in front of us. Staff? Can you start out by explaining why we would be having these, given that the permits were being denied? MS. WOLCOTT: Yes. Two of the -- Applicant's made three requests for reasonable accommodation. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Ml YS 01517 i Is 1E 1E In 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 First, I'll state my name for the record, Cathy i j Wolcott, Deputy City Attorney. i There were three requests that the Applicant i made for each of their facilities, 12 requests in all. i j Request number one was request to be treated as a single housekeeping unit. Request number two was a request for exemption from the occupancy limitations of the operating standards for use permit. And request number three was a request for a hardship waiver, a waiver of having to pay the usual use I permit fee. Of those requests, one of the requests, number two, is directly tied to the issuance of the use permit; therefore, we will not address that particular request today. We will, however, address request number one and three. MR. ALLEN: Okay, MS. WOLCOTT: All right. To give you little bit of background on reasonable accommodation, the Unfair Housing Act Amendment require government entities to make exceptions from the usual rules, policies and practices when the request is reasonable and the request is necessary to afford the disabled person an equal opportunity to reside PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 50 i YS 01518 No 1E 2, 04 9 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 in a dwelling. This is a Federal requirement, and it poses an I affirmative duty on government entities to grant the i request if the request is reasonable and the request is necessary. And it has to have both of those two elements. When you look at the reasonable prong of the i j analysis, the request would be considered unreasonable if granting the request would either impose an undue I financial administrative burden on the City, or result in a fundamental change in the nature of the City zoning program. And fundamental alteration in the -- excuse me -- not zoning program. It can -- zoning can be one of the factors, but any City program. Fundamental alteration would be defined as undermining the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve. When you get -- if you establish that the request is not unreasonable, then you move to whether or not the request is necessary. Will the accommodation allow a disabled individual to live in the dwelling? Would the disabled individual be unable to live in the dwelling out the accommodation? If the answer to the question would be "yes" to PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 51 ! YS 01519 El In E F7 E 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 question one but there might be something else that would be more narrowly tailored and more reasonable for the government entity, alternative accommodations can be suggested and considered. And in every situation, when you're doing your reasonable accommodation analysis, it's going to be on a case -by -case basis. So you may have a similar request from a different entity and come up with a different result, because there are different facts applicable in that case. Yellowstone has requested to be treated as a single housekeeping unit and for a waiver of the usual use permit fee. To address the single housekeeping issue first, Newport Beach -- the Newport Beach Zoning Code has a definition of a single housekeeping unit, which is, "The functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of and responsibility for common areas, sharing household activities and responsibilities, such as meals, chores, household maintenance and expenses, and where, if the unit is rented, all adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 52 YS 01520 �7 W IE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 the entire premises of the dwelling unit under a single written lease, with joint use and responsibilities for the premises, and the makeup of the household occupying the unit is determined by the residents of the unit, rather than the landlord or property manager." Every aspect of the definition is important in the analysis of whether or not a group living in the dwelling unit is considered a single housekeeping unit. The restrictions on single housekeeping units are different from other residential uses within the City. Single housekeeping units live in any residential district. There are no occupancy restrictions under zoning code. However, there are California Building Code restrictions on the number of people who can reside in the dwelling. So to return to our analysis, first, is the request reasonable? The request to be treated as a single housekeeping unit is essentially a request to be exempt from all the restrictions and conditions that the City might impose to reduce adverse secondary impacts from larger facilities. The basic purpose of Ordinance 2008 -05 was to mitigate those adverse secondary impact. Therefore, it's PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 53 YS 01521 IM IM lu W] E M a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 our opinion that exempting them from any kind of controls the City could put to reduce those negative impacts undermines the purpose. All other groups not living in the single housekeeping unit currently are prohibited in all residential districts in the City of Newport Beach. Boarding houses, fraternities, sororities, lodging houses, no group that follows that operational pattern can reside in any residential zone. Essentially, the City has already made a reasonable accommodation for residential care facilities. They are the only non - single housekeeping group that can reside in residential districts in the City of Newport. The next step in the analysis is whether or not the request is necessary. Would the requested accommodation allow disabled persons to live in a dwelling? Yes. Would disabled individuals be unable to live in a dwelling without this specific accommodation? No. This is an unnecessarily broad exemption, and we can find other ways to accommodate that don't so severely undermine our Zoning Code. Alternative request for more reasonable could be formulated that could get to that result. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 54 YS 01522 WIRI Im Ii 1E 1E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 we're going to skip request two. Okay. Moving to request three, the fee waiver. Because it's a nonprofit and raises money for the community to support its program, Yellowstone's requested a waiver of the standard $2200 use permit fee deposit. The Ninth Circuit does allow or does require that some financial constraints directly arising from the disability of individuals may require reasonable accommodation. However, Newport Beach also requires 100 percent cost recovery for use permits. To make a recommendation on financial accommodation, financial information must be reviewed by the staff. We made many attempts to get specific financial information from this Applicant, and we got a very general statement of average expenses for each house. They are saying approximately $6200 expense per house. And they gave us an estimate of what fees they would normally charge their clients, the residents. The number that they gave us was $50 to $160, I believe, a week. That was the fee that they said that they would charge their facility residents. When you go on the Yellowstone's Web site, which I checked again this morning before we came up, PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 55 YS 01523 in 1 In IE 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 there Web site creates a different picture. The Web sites sans that the fees are $160 to $180 a week, which is about $170 average. So we used that to do what analysis we could in the finances. We estimate that the average cost per house, based on the Applicant's assertions, is $6200 a month. Estimated monthly profit per house -- you can see on the screen. If every one of the houses is fully occupied at the average rate which their Web site states that they are charging their facility residents, and if the expenses that they submitted to us without verification or without supporting documentation are accurate, they are making approximately $400 month profit on 1561 Indus, $4,680 a month profit on 1621 Indus, $4,680 at Pegasus, and $4,000 a month at the Redlands facility, which, by our analysis, should make them able to afford to pay the use permit fees. And for that reason, we believe it does not reach the necessity prong of the reasonable accommodation analysis. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. MR. ALLEN: So seeking a complete exemption or -- from the -- or having them found to be a single PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Im YS 01524 1 1 1 Im I W 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 housekeeping unit completely would then allow a sober living facility to occupy a residence in any of the i residential zones with no conditions imposed on them insofar as their operation is concerned? I 1 MS. WOLCOTT: Any residential district, any amount of residents, up to the amount that the California Building Code determines is not permitted for a i particular size of a structure, which is a fairly permissive standard. No restrictions, other than those imposed by, say, our Nuisance Code, Penal Code on any other residence I in a single housekeeping unit within the City. That is I correct. MR. ALLEN: Okay. Thanks. Any more, staff? MR. KIFF: No, sir. MR. ALLEN: Would the Applicant like to address 1 this? MR. ZFATY: Sure. Thank you. As Ms. Wolcott -- Isaac Zfaty again, Mr. Allen. I As Ms. Wolcott mentioned, we're asking for, I think, our first and third request for reasonable accommodation in light of the finding that I think you will sign soon. Request number two becomes moot. The first request is that we be treated as a single housekeeping unit. The third is that we have our PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 57 i YS 01525 NE IR IE 1E Im 1E PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 i 1 application fees waived. i 2 The "Single Housekeeping Unit" is defined in 3 section 20.03.030, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4 And that's defined as, 5 I "A functional equivalent of a traditional I 6 family, whose members are an interactive group 7 of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling 8 unit, including the joint use of and 9 ( responsibility for common areas, sharing 10 ( household activities and responsibilities, such 11 as meals, chores, household maintenance and ; i 12 expenses, and where, if the unit is rented, all 13 adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy i 14 the entire premises of the dwelling unit under 15 i a single written lease, with joint use and 16 responsibilities for the premises, and the 17 makeup of the household occupying the unit is I 18 determined by the residents of the unit, rather i 19 than the landlord or property manager." 20 And we would submit that we would accurately be i 21 described as a single housekeeping unit. 22 First off, the residents are the functional 23 equivalent of a traditional family. They are supportive 24 of one another in the -- in their community in terms of 25 recovery from addiction. They are in an interactive i PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 YS 01526 E ,:� 0, KI M 3 A U In 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 j group. They are in ---with respect to each of our four i homes that we're talking about here today, our single I dwelling units, each house stands alone. As we mentioned in the February 20th hearing and in our submissions to the City, there's no interaction between the homes. And as to common areas, chores and activities, the property provides the residents with a network of support to encourage recovery from the systems -- from the symptoms of alcoholism. i The residents reside separately at the property. There is common area, however, where each I resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses, chores, et cetera. There is no individual treatment. There's no group treatment or group therapy sessions that occur on the property -- on any of the properties. And the sole I purpose for each resident living on the property is to live in the house with other sober individuals with I similar disabilities and in a community. There are no delivery vehicles going to and from the property, and I guess this applies to request number two, so we can skip that. As to request number one, that we'd be deemed a single housekeeping unit, again, I would submit that we PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 59 YS 01527 1E IR In IM In IE E a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 have provided the City with all of the information that it needs to make that finding that we are a single housekeeping unit, and to grant reasonable accommodations as to each of the four properties. The required findings are each of the following five: "First, that the requested accommodation is requested on the behalf of one or more individuals of a disability, protected under the Fair Housing Laws." This, by the way, is section 20.98.025B. "The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. "The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City, as 'undue financial or administrative burden' is defined in the Fair Housing Laws and also interpretative case law. "And the requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's Zoning Program, as 'fundamental alteration' is defined in Fair Housing Laws and interpretative case law. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 CI7 YS 01528 N7 IE IE In a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 "And the requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of i other individuals or substantial physical i j damage to the property of others." As to findings one, three and five, Mr. Allen, the City staff report notes that those findings can be made. "The requested accommodation is requested by or on behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws." We've established that. Federal regulations and case law define alcoholism as a disability. As to the third prong, "the requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City," the bed count that we've proposed does not impose any financial or administrative burden on the City. I think we're all in agreement on that. As to the fifth prong, "That the reasonable -- the requested accommodation," excuse me, "will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to health or safety," I think we are all in agreement that there's no threat there. As to finding number two, which was one that PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 61 YS 01529 C7 1 1E A M f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 the staff felt that it could not make, "that the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or I more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling," there are a number of ifactors that are considered in connection with this particular prong. First is "whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or i more individuals with a disability." i Staff report says that "the facilities enhance the quality of life of recovering addicts." And the i staff also agrees that rental rates for the Yellowstone offer low cost sober living environment, and some of them I are actually free. This is a point that we will come i back to later when we talk about our request for number three. But one of the comments that Ms. Wolcott made was that the Yellowstone Web site has a cost range that differs from the submission. There's two pieces to that. First off, Yellowstone has facilities throughout the County and, in fact, outside of the County as well. And so the rates that are quoted on there are not necessarily the rates that we charge at these facilities that we're talking about here today. And as you can imagine, sometimes the rates 0 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 62 YS 01530 IM IM lu in 1E IM M I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 that are quoted on the Web site are not, in fact, the rates that are actually charged to customers, so -- in any kind of setting. So you can only imagine that in a situation like this, where Yellowstone, in some instances -- and this is noted on the Web site -- provides absolutely free accommodations for people, that there would be some exceptions made when somebody wants to become a member of one of these single housekeeping units. I The second factor is "whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal i opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation." The staff report notes that "current future residents will be denied affordable sober living." This is, again, one of the key factors that we're talking about here. We're analyzing this in terms of the City of Newport Beach. And as I think it is essentially undisputed, Yellowstone provides some of the lower cost types of sober living within this City. As compared to some of the other facilities, it is far less expensive to reside at one of these homes. The only negative thing that's mentioned in the staff report as to this piece is that there's PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 63 I YS 01531 OEM MLIU 10 1E IE 1E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhoods. Again, in the original application, i we provided information that evidenced the benefits and, which I would comment, is undisputed. The third prong is, in the case of a residential care facility, "whether or not the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a I similar nature operation economically viable in light of i the particularities of the relevant market and the market participants." And the staff report notes that "maintaining the current number of beds is not necessary for i Yellowstone to remain economically viable." Again, I think this goes back to what I mentioned earlier, which I is that the staff is operating under some assumptions that are not necessarily accurate as to what is charged per resident per bed to stay in one of these homes. The Yellowstone submission provided that it needs to keep each house at its current occupancy to remain open. The City's own calculations, based on the information that we provided them, concludes the opposite. And the City, I think, takes issue with the fact that the Yellowstone's application was not supported by bills, things of that nature. I would say that we provided the information 64 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 YS 01532 on 1E 1E In a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 that we felt was appropriate in light of privacy I concerns. We supported that with information. I actually disagree. My recollection is that we provided i signed under penalty of perjury statements related to what we submitted. That might not be right. I'll go back to look at that. But if that's an issue, that's one that can very easily be remedied. Another issue that was raised in the staff report was in the May 12, the one that pertains to this hearing today, is that I think the City is under a misconception that the CEO is eventually going to fully own these properties, and that's not accurate. As to at least two other properties that are owned, they are now actually owned by Yellowstone. They were donated to Yellowstone. And that is the plan as to these properties as well, that they are not going to be -- we're not talking about somebody who's one step removed from the process who's going to be a profiteer, just because they are able to rent out these properties to Yellowstone, and then Yellowstone is able to, in turn, collect rents from the tenants. As to the issue of the whether Yellowstone, the entity, operates at a profit, Yellowstone is a 501(c)(3). So it is a nonprofit entity. That's an adjudication that I don't think anyone here is looking to overturn. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 65 YS 01533 IE In M In 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 i Point four, Mr. Allen, is "in the case of a residential care facility, whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a t disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential i setting." And we would submit that if these four homes i are removed, there absolutely would be a dirth of availability for these people. These are individuals who I are at our homes, because these are the places they can I iafford to go. These are oftentimes -- without getting ' too far into details, they are oftentimes individuals who i have been subject to abuse themselves, who have -- who are living with dependencies, and who, with the closure I of these four homes, will not be in a sober living home. We don't know where they going to be, but I can i tell you right now that they are not going to be in a I sober living home. So the closure of these properties j i will directly effect that result. There is no there is no middle step in between that. If we close these i 'facilities, these people are out on their own. In the staff report, there's mention of a couple of other homes on Pegasus that -- I think they are i called the Lynn houses. These are houses that are closing. So I don't think that that should have any part ! 66 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 YS 01534 1E I IM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 of the calculation as to whether there's availability of a similar nature and operation in the community of these types of facilities. On the issue of whether we are a single housekeeping unit, the other factors that affect the staff's suggested denial, City argues that Yellowstone's request is too broad, that Yellowstone's requesting an exception from all of the provisions of the Ordinance, and that's not the case. Were asking that we be treated as a single family -- a single dwelling -- single housekeeping facility. We are not asking for no regulation. We're not asking for -- that we be -- that the sky's the limit as to how we operate. We're simply asking that we be treated as a single housekeeping unit, as any other single housekeeping unit would be treated, subject to all of the other rules and regulations of the City. The City says that -- that the accommodation requesting -- that's being requested is "broader than necessary to afford the disabled individuals an opportunity to reside in housing of their choice." Yellowstone actually takes issue with that statement in that we're not -- again, we're not asking for any kind of reasonable regulation. We're simply asking that we be given this one type of exemption. 67 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 YS 01535 is IM NE W 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 As to -- specifically as to finding number I I four, the staff said it "couldn't make the finding that I the requested accommodation will not result in the fundamental alteration of the nature of the City's Zoning i j Program." The entire presentation that we provided on I February 20th of 2009 speaks to this issue. And it actually parlays a little bit into what we were talking about earlier in that we've established use at this property -- at these four properties continuously. And when we became part of the City of Newport Beach, for at least 52 days we can say that we were operating lawfully. Even if you're inclined to make a finding that we operated unlawfully, okay -- we'll let that ship sale -- if the City's inclined to make that finding, which I strongly object to, it certainly can't make the finding that for a minimum of those 52 days -- and I think even broader. I think from January 1, 2008, even until the present -- we've been operating lawfully. There's nothing -- there's nothing that has required to us do anything different than what we're doing as we stand here today since we've been a part of the City of Newport Beach. So as to this specific issue, whether there would be a fundamental alteration, there is no alteration 0 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 C '�7 YS 01536 NE E W3 Q 0 71 a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 in the City's Zoning Program, inasmuch as the Zoning Program allows for reasonable accommodation of uses such I as ours that are there, that have been there, that i I continue to be there lawfully. On the factors that the City's considering of whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of neighborhood or whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking, the staff report notes that "the requested accommodation will fundamentally alter the neighborhood because of litter, meetings, visitors and parking." Dealing with those in order, as to the issue of litter, we talked last time we met, on February 20th, about the idea that -- that there is no evidence before us, either then or now -- I've looked at the City's attachments to the staff record, and I haven't seen any evidence that there's been litter that has come from any of our properties. Since February 20th -- I made the statement at the February 20th hearing that we don't have that evidence. Since that time, it still hasn't appeared. So I think that -- at least that piece is questionable at best. As to the issue of meetings, we talked last PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 M YS 01537 IE 1E 1E a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 time about how we have one meeting. And it is a meeting that is restrictive to just the residents of the homes. There are no other on -site meetings, and this is a once -a -week thing. As to the issue of visitors, the City, again, mentioned in the staff report, as to the reasonable i accommodation request, that there was some commentary provided by someone who e- mailed the City in support of I our either getting a continued use permit, excuse me, a conditional use permit or a reasonable accommodation. As I mentioned in the last hearing, that pertained to a visitation, an alumni visitation, at one i of our Costa Mesa facilities. So that is not an issue here. And then as to the parking, we provided i photographs of parking the last time we came on February 20th. We talked about our parking practices. And again, I don't see that those are issues here. Other factors affecting, I think, the staff's suggested denial were that the purpose of the bed count limit would be undermined and overconcentration. The City says "the basic purpose is to draw a line at a reasonable density for business providing residential recovery services within a residential neighborhood." Given the size of these homes, the available PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 70 YS 01538 E El E E] A PE E7 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 parking, the proposed densities, we think that we've provided the City with ample information that this request is reasonable and this continued use is reasonable. As I mention had earlier, two of the homes at Pegasus are going to be closed or have closed already, 1501 and 1502. These are these Lynn houses. This reduces the bed count by 24 collectively. So that actually concludes our request on -- for reasonable accommodation as to number one,. As to number three, on the fee waiver, I'll just go through this quickly. The applications for discretionary approvals, including use permits, has to be accompanied by a fee as established by the Resolution of the City Council, and we're asking for a waiver of that fee. The City cites to -- that it's had insufficient data and talks about the Oxford House, Evergreen versus City of Plainfield case, and says that that case stands for the proposition that actual hard, solid information, specific information, supported information, must be provided. As to that piece, we have attempted to provide the City with a type of information that we think is -- strikes a fair balance and an equitable balance PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 71 1 YS 01539 Im NE 1E 1E 1E 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 between our privacy concerns, excuse me, and the City's need for information. I would note, again, that to the extent that we haven't provided sufficient information for this fee waiver, that we would be willing to discuss that further. And then lastly, Ms. Wolcott made the comment that "we can find more reasonable ways to accommodate our residents." And I heard that, and I've still not seen how I that's supposed to happen. In light of what the City's doing with this Ordinance in reducing the number of beds in the City of Newport Beach, it strains the imagination to think that there's going to be some other accommodation that's going to satisfy the needs of these disabled individuals. There is a -- there's already a bed reduction that's happened in the City of Newport Beach. Sounds as if there's going to be a further reduction as time goes by. And to blanketly say that there are other accommodations, there's other possibilities, without any further discussion on how that might occur and within the confines of the City of Newport Beach, I think it's difficult to analyze that. Thank you. MR. ALLEN: Staff wish to make response to any PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 72 YS 01540 U- 10 is In 1E lu a 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 of the comments? i MS. WOLCOTT: Yes, please. I'll start with saying that Mr. Zfaty presented his analysis of request number two, as well as request number one and three. i I did not -- in the interest of due process and fairness, we did not stop him and allowed him to present i that information. I will not give you all of my analysis on number two. It is in the staff report in detail. What I'm trying to give orally is kind of a shorthand version of the analysis for purposes of brevity. But if anybody wants more details on our analysis and how we reached them, they can find it in the staff reports from February 20th and today. Okay. To be begin with, the last assertions made first. As far as the fee waiver, the Hearing Officer has seen other applications for financial reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodation based on financial limitations which arose directly from the applicant's disability. And the Hearing Officer has seen the rigor with which staff has had to pursue making sure that it really is an accommodation that's necessary. And to that end we have required individual applications in the past to submit financial information which they found somewhat intrusive. They were not at PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 73 1 YS 01541 Im lu NE 0 i4 1 0 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 I all excited about producing it. But they produced their ;financial information when requested, because they recognize that if they were raising the financial issue, their duty was to backup their financial request by showing what the hardship was. i i Individual applicants have submitted W -21s, I Social Security statements. They have given confidential medical information. Where the information was confidential, we have -- staff has reviewed it and has made a recommendation, based on the review of that information, but has not made the information public to I protect the privacy concerns. We are very sensitive to I privacy concerns of individuals. i Where a business is concerned, I'm not sure they have the same privacy concerns to protect. As a 501(c)(3), that's not, you know, an open -- doesn't mean that the analysis stops there. The Hearing Officer also would have the opportunity to review any information that was submitted to the staff in camera, which would mean he could view it himself, make his own determination without making the information public if it was considered to be confidential. So while I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Zfaty's characterization of our request as overly PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 74 1 YS 01542 C NE lul lu ME 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1D 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 intrusive and designed to violate any kind of privacy concerns, we need to verify whether the hardship is there or not. As far as the single housekeeping unit, we are j not -- we are not refuting that it's an interactive i group. We are not refuting that there's no treatment done on -site. We don't know it's done on -site, but we have no evidence that treatment is performed there. However, many of the other essential elements of our single housekeeping unit definition are not present in this instance. Mr. Zfaty's office's characterization of what the use looks like, what the characterization of the residential occupancy pattern is, has changed over time. On May 20th of 108, the original characterization on the I reasonable accommodation application was, i "The residents reside separate at the property and interact within the property. I j There's individual use common areas. The residents are responsible for their own meals, expenses and chores. And most significantly, each individual resides at the property subject to a separate contractual arrangement with the applicant." In January of 109, after being informed by the PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 75 YS 01543 In W7 1E IE 1E NE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 City staff that their request for single housekeeping unit was overbroad and that the reported pattern didn't fit, they said, "The residents are" -- in the letter from Mr. Zfa*_y's office, they stated, "The residents are functionally equivalent to a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit. Like a single housekeeping unit, there's a common area, and each resident is responsible for their own meals, expenses and chores. Also, the makeup of the property is determined by the residents of the unit, rather than the property manager." This directly mirrors the language of our Code, and it majorly conflicts with their early assertions. it began to appear that the Applicant was characterizing their use according to the result they wanted, not the actual character- -- not the actual operating pattern. But again, staff gave the Applicant a chance to correct the inconsistencies. We did not want to do unfair surprise. We did not want to do an ambush. Staff informed them that there were inconsistencies between their letter and May 20, 2008, application. After being informed, the Counsel sent a letter 76 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 YS 01544 NE IW7 a N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 on February 13th of 109 saying, I "Material submitted to the City May 2008 reflects some inaccurate information. Yellowstone does not have a contractual relationship with the residents at its properties. With respect to the residents of the four Yellowstone homes in Santa Ana Heights, Yellowstone's position is correctly stated in a letter to the City dated January 29, 2009. "The makeup of the property is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the property manager. More specifically, Yellowstone's Board of Directors does not determine who resides at each of the four homes. New residents are introduced and approved by the current residents during house meetings, or they are not accepted." That was the first time that characterization was ever presented. And I believe if we had not presented them with an opportunity, this would never have been raised. The Hearing Officer can determine which characterization he believes to be the true one. The cost of the Web site differing from the submission from the Applicant. It's the first time I've PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 77 1 YS 01545 In NE 1E 1E W a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 ever heard the argument that the facilities are cheaper in Newport Beach than elsewhere in the County. "The I rates quoted are not always the rates charged." Sir, we used what we had to go with. We made every attempt to get more financial information from the Applicant. What we were able to get, we used. 1 iMy final comment is when Mr. Zfaty said that j when they are asking for an exemption from the single j housekeeping unit, they are not asking for a broad exemption, they are asking for a very simple exemption, (what they are asking for is no conditional use permit I required, no conditions required, no reasonable conditions the City could impose, such as reasonable bed count, quiet hours, smoking areas, reasonable parking controls, for extensive density. None of those would be required, and, therefore, we do feel this is an overly broad request. Janet Brown was also going to address the issue of whether or not the facility was ever legally occupied for the 52 days between when Santa Ana Heights was annexed and when our Zoning Code -- the changes to the Zoning Code took effect in February of 2008. MR. ALLEN: Let's just ask a question, here. It's 10 minutes to 6. We're getting close to probably being done, but we still have a public hearing PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 78 i YS 01546 NE NE 1E 1E ME 1E PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 1 I to conduct on the reasonable accommodations. Can we keep 2 going? 3 I MR. KIFF: We don't have a conflict tonight 4 with this room. Sometimes we do on Thursdays. This time 5 we don't. 6 MR. ALLEN: Okay. 7 MS. BROWN: Thank you. 8 Yes. Starting in January 1, 2008, when the 9 ' properties were annexed to the City of Newport Beach, the 10 ' requirement at that time for sober living use would have 11 ( been the approval of a Federal Exemption Permit, which i 12 the applicant did not have or did not make an application 13 for at any time. 14 So to say that they were conforming use or in 15 compliance with the City regulations at that time would 16 I not be a correct statement. i 17 MR. ALLEN: Would they have had to have that i 18 1 permit as a County facility? I 19 MS. BROWN: No. That was not a County i 20 requirement. It's a City of Newport Beach requirement. 21 MR. ALLEN: So -- but they should have had one I 22 as a City -- as soon as the annexation occurred? 23 j MS. BROWN: Correct. 24 MR. ALLEN: All right. So anything else from I 25 staff? I 79 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 YS 01547 10 1E E E W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 MR. KIFF: I'll make one comment. Near the end of Mr. Zfaty's presentation, he was noting that -- I apologize. I'm going to be i paraphrasing about how the City's enactment of this Ordinance limits of the amount of -- what will significantly decrease the amount of beds in the community. And as you're aware, Mr. Allen, you've approved the use permit for 11 beds and 14 beds. The City has -- City Council has approved a development for 204 beds with the largest operator of facilities in the City, Sober Living by the Sea. Your denial actions have only been, up until this point, one, Newport Coast Recovery at 29 beds. And then the facility at Narconon, Southern California, voluntarily offered -- asked to be allowed to stay up until February 2010, when its ADP license expires, and then they had entered into an abatement agreement from that date forward. That reflects 22 nighttime beds. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. So before -- Mr. Zfaty, do you need to make some more comments before we see if any public needs to talk? MR. ZFATY: Yeah, I would like to have an opportunity to respond to some of that, thank you. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 80 YS 01548 10 [ in ■] lu- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 First off, maybe I'll just go backwards. As to I j the last comment about number of beds, though there may have been some approved beds, and though there may have been some beds that were -- there that was agreements i reached, the net effect, I think we can all agree, is that the number of beds available have been decreased. That much I think there's no dispute over. We can talk about what we've approved and what we've denied, but the bottom line is, there are less beds available today of the nature that we're discussing here than there were before February 22nd of 2008. As to the issue of the Federal Exemption Permit, I'm actually a little bit surprised by Ms. Brown's comment. Because if you look at our initial submission in May of 2008, we asked specifically -- we noted that there was a provision in the Code for Federal Exemption Permit. And we asked, "We'd like to apply for a Federal Exemption Permit." And the Code talked about how that was supposed to -- how that process happened. We never heard anything back from that or from the City on that issue. One of our representatives actually went down to the City, and said, "I'd like to have the Federal Exemption Permit document," and was denied, was told to PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 f YS 01549 7 H 0 7 M 7 a 0 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 go anyway. "We don't have those." So unless I'm missing something, and I may be, we have asked the City specifically that we be available to a Federal Exemption Permit. MR. KIFF: While you're looking there, Mr. Zfaty, you are missing something. The Federal Exemption Permit went away on February 22nd, when the Ordinance took effect. So it was a requirement for those days up until the effective date of the Ordinance. We could not issue any more from that date forward, because the change stripped away the FEP process. MR. ZFATY: Give me one second. As to the issue of whether we were heard on our request number two, notwithstanding that there may have been some slides that talked about request number two, I actually redacted my entire presentation on number two. So we haven't argued our request for number two. And I think it makes sense that we don't, because request number two is that we be provided additional beds. If at some point in time the City wants to hear our argument on that, I'm more than happy to make it, but it has not been made. As to the production of financials, it kind of gave me a little pause to hear that some of the facilities may have provided medical information, because PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 YS 01550 El 2 12 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 j it sounds like a HIPPA problem to me. But that I notwithstanding, we've never been asked to provide I anything in way of medical anything relating to our I residents. And again, I don't think that's an issue here. From my read of the staff report, there's no question that we have a disabled class that we're talking about in connection with these properties. As to the information on the Web site, again, I want to be real clear here, because I didn't say that the bed -- the cost for staying in a bed in Newport Beach is less than anything we do anywhere else. That's interesting advocacy and argument, but that's not what I said. What I said was, as with anybody, you have something on your Web site, that doesn't necessarily mean that that's actually what is charged. So, we've provided the City with information as to what we actually charge or what we actually collect, is probably a better way to put it, from the individuals who stay at these properties. If there's an issue regarding whether we have properly signed them under penalty of perjury, because I think that might have been the City's bigger problem or larger concern, that can be provided. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 MI YS 01551 Im- IE W 1E W W a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 Certainly if there's an issue as to whether we're entitled to an exemption on that issue, whether the City's inclined to grant us an exemption on that issue, or whether that casts any aspersions on veracity of any comments or statements we've made, that can be very easily remedied. Again, nobody has said at any point in time that there's treatments at our facilities. It was discussed that -- well, I'll leave that one alone. And I think that's all I have. MR. ALLEN: Okay. Thanks. Shall we -- let's open the public hearing now. Would anyone like to make comments on the elements of the reasonable accommodation, either the single housekeeping unit aspect or the fee waiver? Mr. Mathena? MR. MATHENA: Good to see you. A couple of brief comments. I'm Larry Mathena, M- a- t- h- e -n -a. I just warted to second Mr. Kiff's observations in respect to making the observation that, yes, hopefully actually bed counts are declining, considering that there's still excessively disproportionate, even after the decline, compared to anywhere else in the state. And I just think that's worth having in the record. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Las YS 01552 M 0 7 7 A ,2 a a I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 And the second point I'd like to make, there's I an implied lack of cooperation relative to financial data on the hardship point. I would observe that, as a i nonprofit entity, all you need to do is ask them for copy of their 990, and they have to give it to. And you will instantly be given the global economic status, as least reported for tax purposes. I And, in fact, I would find it very disappointing that they didn't choose to volunteer that for you. It's the law that that is available. Secondly, I believe, although I don't have the expertise, that there's similar State filings that are also absolutely publicly available. And I have two observation there. One, I would view that as a sign of a lack of cooperation in terms of saying, "Here's the things we have to give to anybody." It also troubles me that actually the City, in a nonprofit examination, isn't aware enough to understand that and go get that as additional evidence of what charges are, frankly, what expenses are, and a variety of other things that are useful. And just an aside to that, the whole process, I have to say of this, is as long as you tell us what you're going to tell us, and if -- assuming you do it subject to a penalty of perjury, it's like I don't see PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 85 YS 01553 1E 10 IE 10 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 the City independently verifying. I don't see the City doing even a small amount of confirmation that it really I ought_ it. And otherwise, you're kind of stuck with us poor citizens, who really don't have the tools to do it j either. And you end up with this evolving mishmash, and j you also sort of end up -- because the City isn't, I think, doing a great job of investigating, it sort of says, "well, but we can kind of see there's this i potential violation here, but for us to answer that, we I have to ask the question." And once of question is j asked, you have this evolution of what the answer is. And the easy answer is, the way these things are unfolded, from my perspective, if you're smart and paying attention and you're the operator, you probably ought to be able to get yourself into the box that you qualify. And it's unfortunate that it isn't really necessarily what the operations are and what the reality is. And one final brief point. A whole bunch of testimony was presented at the February 20th hearing about a whole bunch of different issues that do get to parking, do get to, frankly, unlawful assembly, do get to safety and health issues. And I -- I know you're aware of that, but I just wanted to reiterate it in this PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 YS 01554 I E W1 1E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 hearing. Thank you. MS. WALKER: Good evening. Judy Walker, 1571 I Indus. We have heard repeatedly that there are no parking problems, and that no evidence has been i j presented. I bring with me this evening photographs. I I i will leave the disk with -- I have the thumbprints as well. It's hard for me to be able to say, "Here, plug in a thumb drive." I These are documentation of parking issues that we did explain in February. And we now are I substantiating those with visuals in addition, because that was brought up, that there were no parking issues. Also, that there are no safety issues. Also, there are photographs of behavior with, particular case, trash receptacles being placed and left in front of the fire hydrants that, I believe, is a safety issue to the neighborhood. And hearing that the residents decide who's going to be the next set of residents is most disconcerting when you understand that these are the people who are parking and are taking care of things like trash and not paying attention to safety issues. Thank you. MR. ALLEN: Anyone else from the public? PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Film YS 01555 WE 1E IE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 Okay. Thank you. We'll close the public hearing. Anything else from staff? MR. KIFF: No, sir. MS. WOLCOTT: No, sir. MR. ALLEN: I'm persuaded by staff's argument with respect to the single housekeeping. I just don't think that the reasonable accommodation requirements extend that far, and the analysis that's been done is solid. So I would rule to deny that portion. Frankly, with the reasonable accommodation for the fee, I can't get my head clearly around all of the information and numbers here to be able to do it. And I'm not sure how I can -- I don't see the need to continue the hearing necessarily, but I'd like to be able to take further time to analyze what's been presented and what's been said to make a decision. Does anybody have any suggestions? MR. KIFF: Just a moment. (Pause in proceeding.) MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry. Can I intervene one moment? MR. KIFF: Sure. MR. ALLEN: Mr. Mathena made the suggestion about the 990, which I assume is some Federal tax return PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 . YS 01556 Im Im in 1E 1E In a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 or some such document that hasn't been provided. And i whether that would help at all, that should be considered I in my mind, if it's available and helpful. MS. WOLCOTT: I would ask whether the Applicant I is willing to submit more, because we have always been i willing to review more up to the minute the staff report I was published, yes. MR. ALLEN: Would the Applicant like to respond i to that at this point? MR. ZFATY: As I mentioned in my presentation, Mr. Allen, we're more than happy to continue our dialog with the City on that issue. MR. ALLEN: All right. Well then, again, the procedure -- I hate to have to take up and spend City money and time to conduct hearings here just on that issue, because -- but if that's inappropriate, tell me, you know. I wish we could do it without having to go that far. MR. ZFATY: I would actually defer to the staff on that issue, but we are certainly willing to submit that you can take the matter under submission, Mr. Allen, subject to additional provision of information by us. MS. WOLCOTT and I are in frequent communication, so I'm more than happy to speak with her next week about the provision of additional information. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 2M YS 01557 IE 1E 1E In I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 She can forward it on to you whatever she needs. I don't need about the public -- the transparency issues. I will leave that to the staff, but -- MR. ALLEN: Right. MR. ZFATY: -- in terms of our requirements, we will waive anv kind of additional hearing on that particular issue. MR. ALLEN: All right. Thank you. MR. BOBKO: Mr. Allen, what we suggest is -- Kit Bobko -- is that the Applicant will submit to staff whatever additional documentation that they'd like to provide, and staff will submit it to you, and, you know, two weeks from now or whatever, whatever is convenient for you, you can issue your ruling. But the City would be acceptable to letting you take this under submission with that proviso, MR. ALLEN: That's just fine with me. MR. BOBKO: Okay. MR. ALLEN: Let's proceed in that fashion, then. Applicant will present whatever they wish to present within, what, a week? MR. ZFATY: That's fine. Actually, before you do this, let me say one additional thing, because I wanted to make sure we're clear. PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Fill YS 01558 Im Im I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 Any such documentation that we provide that relates to the broad Yellowstone, Yellowstone as a facility, may not be specific enough. I think we're talking about individual homes here. But with that proviso, just so we're all clear -- MS. WOLCOTT: The kind of documentation we requested before was mortgage statements, utility bills, that kind of information, nothing confidential. MR. ALLEN: Okay. MR. BOBKO: The other thing is that to the extent that any of this is sensitive information, we would be more than happy, the City would, to submit it to you under seal, or for review confidentially, of course, and, of course, we return it back to them. MR. ALLEN: If you'll identify that when you submit it to me, then I would hold it confidentially. MR. BOBKO: I'm sorry. I wasn't paying attention. Could you say it again? MR. ALLEN: I said that if you submitted it to me under confidential -- in a confidential manner, then I would hold it in that right and nevertheless consider. MR. BOBKO: Okay. And the other thing is, of course, just for clarity's sake, when staff provides this information to you, there is no further communication between the Hearing Officer and staff. I just want PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 91 YS 01559 IQ IR 1E lu NE 1E 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 everybody to be clear on that. MR. ALLEN: Yes. MR. BOBKO: Staff is providing you with information in response, of course, to any additional questions that you have. But staff does not work with you in any regard. You are making these determinations completely. MR. ALLEN: Independently. So then also I would prepare whatever finding needed to be made to incorporate into a Resolution. MR. BOBKO: Very well. MR. ALLEN: Correct? MR. BOBKO: Yes. I just want to make sure that everyone who is listening or perhaps watching will know that even though that this is going to occur under submission, that, in fact, you will still be making this independently. MR. ALLEN: Correct. MR. BOBKO: Okay. MR, KIFF: I just had announcements, if you're going to end the hearing, as to when the next hearings are for the public's input, I'm sorry, for the public's participation and information. I'm sorry. It's a long day. Notwithstanding the Yellowstone case, I was PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 92 YS 01560 Int R-1 U 0 M a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 going to -- for the folks in the audience who usually attend these, just so they know when the next ones are, if you're ready for that. MR. ALLEN: I just wanted to clarify for us the procedure we'll follow. Is it necessary to hold up the entire Resolution on just -- for this fee, or can we do that separately? That is, we can adopt a Resolution with the determinations that have been made today with respect to all except the fee waiver request, and do that separately or -- MR. KIFF: That would be my understanding. After conferring with Counsel, we would -- we could maybe do them in three different steps. The Resolution of Denial for the use permit could be one. The Resolution of the Denial on the single housekeeping unit reasonable application. And then a third one could be the use permit -- sorry -- the fee waiver, and that would be held under your submission until you review additional financial data. MR. ALLEN: I think that's the way to do it. MR. KIFF: Okay. MR. ALLEN: All right. Then, there's nothing further from me, except -- now, you wanted to make an announcement about upcoming hearings? PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 93 1 YS 01561 IF 1 1E IE Im M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 i6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 MS. WOLCOTT: Mr. Zfaty also asked me to interject. He'd like you to put on the record the procedure of how the Resolution will be adopted so that they don't lose any due process rights. MR. ALLEN: The procedure of how the Resolution will be adopted? MS. WOLCOTT: Maybe you could ask Mr. Zfaty to clarify. MR. ZFATY: I'm not talking about due process now. I'm just talking about notice. I just want to know what the procedure is going to be. In other words, will the staff provide you with a proposed Resolution? will you sign the Resolution? Will we subsequently be -- will there be an announcement? After the Resolution has been adopted, will we be provided with some notice that that's occurred? Those are my questions, just so we don't lose any appellate rights. MR. ALLEN: What we've been doing heretofore on these is bringing the Resolutions back at a subsequent -- like we did this afternoon with that -- with the one that I signed. It was made public by the staff several days ago. MR. ZFATY: Perfect. MR. ALLEN: So I would expect that we would do PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 e YS 01562 E El El F 2 0 11 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 the same procedure with this one, so that you get an adequate opportunity to at least look at that before it's signed. MR. KIFF: And for, again, the Applicant's information, the appeal timeline, which is deemed 14 days, takes effect -- begins, the clock starts, when Mr. Allen signs the Resolution. Let me go into, then, the next hearings. We have a reasonable accommodation hearing for 900 West Balboa. That's scheduled for March 19 at 4 o'clock. We have another reasonable accommodation for Pacific Shores Recovery. These are facilities at 3309 Clay, and 492 and 492 1/2 Orange. And that's scheduled for March 25th, at 2 o'clock. The Council has also hearing two appeal issues. One is the Newport Coast Recovery denial. So the Council will hear -- decide whether or not to uphold or overturn that denial. That's March 24 at 7 p.m. here, starting at 7 p.m. That's a regular City Council meeting. At the same night, the Council is expected to weigh in on an Ocean Recovery application relating to 1115 West Balboa. And the action by the Hearing Officer to continue that hearing to -- for six months. So the Council has been asked to offer an opinion about that, and potentially either declare it to be a decision or not PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 95 YS 01563 1E NE 1E 1E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 a decision, and then uphold it or return it to the Hearing Officer for future action or further action. Thank you. MR. ALLEN: So that concludes our proceedings for today, and we'll convene our hearings again on the 19th; is that correct? MR. KIFF: Yep. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. (Ending time: 6:16 p.m.) PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Mm YS 01564 ME NE IE lu I 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 13 14 1'n 77 18 19 2Q 21 22 23 24 25 I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand Reporter for the State of California, do hereby certify: That prior foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the time and place herein set forth; that any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior to testifying, were placed under oath; that a verbatim record of the proceedings was made by me using machine shorthand which was thereafter transcribed under my direction; further, that the foregoing is an accurate transcription thereof. I further certify that I am neither financially interested in the action nor a relative or employee of any attorney of any of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribed my name. Dated: MAR 2 5 zon Lau a A. Millsap, RPR CSR No. 9266 YS 01565 R1 9 0 0 A_ abatement 15:18 26:13 80:18 able20:20 21:7,9 46 :17 48:1 56 :17 65:19,20 78:6 86:16 87:8 88:13 88:15 absent63:13 absolutely 38:18 63:6 66:8 85:13 abuse66:13 accept27:7 acceptable 27:2 90 :16 accepted 77:18 accommodate 54:22 72:7 accommod... 24:18 29:17 34:22 49:2 49:7,10,19 49:25 50:21 51:21,24 52:6 54:11 54:16,20 55:10,13 56:20 57:22 60:7 60:12,16 60:21 61:1 61:9,15,21 62:2,7 63:13 64:7 67:18 68:3 69:2,6,8 69:10 70:7 70:10 71:10 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 72:14 73:18,18 73:22 75:16 84:14 88:8 88:11 95:9 95:11 accommod... 24:22 52:3 60:3 63:7 72:20 79:1 accompanied 71:14 accurate 56:13 64:16 65:12 97:12 accurately 12:4 58:20 achieve 51:18 act39:9 50:21 acted4:19 39:10 acting 35 :21 action 5:2 7 :7 10:6 20:17,20 23:14 41:2 95:22 96:2 96:2 97:15 actions 80:13 activities 52:22 58:10 59:7 Activity 10:11 actual 10:12 16:12 71:20 76:19,19 addl2:18 36:23 addiction 58:25 addicts 62:11 addition 87:12 additional 6:4 82:19 85:19 89:22,25 90:7,12,24 92:4 93:19 address 29:14 50 :15,16 52 :14 57:16 78:18 addresses 4:10 9:18 adequate 44:5 95:2 adjudicated 25:11 adjudica... 25:24 65:24 administ... 5:2 51:10 60:17,18 61:16,18 admit43:7 admits23:11 admittedly 41:20 adopt5:6 12:11 44:7 93:8 adopted 94:3 94:6,15 adoption 4:25 11:23 adopts 5:3 ADP 60:17 adult52:25 58:13 adults8:9 adverse 13:13 53:22,25 advocacy 83:13 affect 67:5 affiliation 22:15 affirmative 24:21 32:14,18 35:9 51 :3 affirmat... 62:8 afford50:25 56:17 66:11 67:20 affordable 63:15 afforded 15:8 38:19 38:23,24 40:9 42:3 47:3 afternoon 6:6 94:21 agency 11:20 agenda4:24 ago37:8 43:13 94:23 agree5:19 14:23 15:15 39:20 81:5 agreed36:18 agreement 39:22 61:19,24 80:18 agreements 81:4 agrees12:9 62:12 ahead 29:11 35:7 alcoholism 59:10 61:13 allegations PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 1 38:9 Allen 1:11 4:4,5 5:4 5:6,13,20 5:22 12:17 12 :20,22 13:5,9 14:3,5,6 15:21 16:24 18:8 19:25 20:19 24 o-2 26:18,20 26:22 29:4 29:7,11 30:1 31:17 31:18 33:12,17 34:5,16 35:12 36:10 37:24 40:12,18 40:23 42:24 43 :22 45:9 45:21,23 46:11 47:13,15 48:7,9,23 49:5,7,16 49:18 50:18 56:24 57:14,16 57:19 61:6 66:1 72:25 78:23 79:6 79:17,21 79:24 80:8 80:20 84:11 87:25 88:6 88:21,24 89:8,11,13 89:21 90:5 90:9,10,18 90:20 91:9 YS 01566 Is I I I I 91:15,19 92:2,8,12 92:18 93:4 93:21,23 94:5,19,25 95:7 96:4 96:8 allow 6: 12 51:22 54:16 55:7 57:1 allowed8:20 9:24 13:24 44:24 73:7 80:16 allowing 9:25 allows20:25 69:2 alter 69:7 69:11 alteration 51:13,16 60:22,24 68:4,25,25 alternative 52:3 54:23 alumni 70:12 ambush 76:22 amended49:9 Amendment 15:12 50:22 Amendments 17:16 amount30:9 57:6,6 80:5,6 86:2 ample71:2 amplify 42:7 Ana5:25 8:16 15:3 20:1 21:13 25:7 26:8 39:3 47:17 77:7 78:20 analyses PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 32:6 analysis 15:4,7,20 19:20,20 24:16 34:6 34:10,12 34:18 35:23 38:4 45:7,10,14 45:24 46:16 47:7 51:8 52:6 53:8,17 54:14 56:4 56:17,21 73:4,8,11 73:13 74:17 88:9 analyze 16:11 43:14 44:18 72:23 88:16 analyzed 24:19 analyzing 14:25 32:6 63:17 Angeles 3:5 annexation 9:16 11:11 30:21 79:22 annexed4:20 40:24 41:21 43:25 78:21 79:9 announced 46:3 announce... 93:25 94:14 announce... 92:20 answer24:6 24:7,25 25:1 51:25 56:23' 86:10,12 86:13 anybody 73:12 83:15 85:16 88:18 anyway 82:1 apologize 49:4 80:3 Appl8:2 appeal 20:18 33:10 39:25,25 40:1 95:5 95:15 appear 76:17 APPEARANCES 3:1 appeared 69:22 appears 10:14 appellate 33:9 94:17 applicable 7:25 16:16 45:16 52:9 applicant 4:12 5:17 6:17 10:2 10:18 12:8 12:21 27:10 28:3 28:19 30:4 30:8 31:7 41:18 42:18,20 50:3 55:15 57:16 75:24 76:17,20 77:25 78:6 79:12 89:4 89:8 90:11 90:21 applicants 74:6 applicant's 7:9,13,18 27:7,14,24 29:21 49:24 56:6 73:20 95:4 application 14:19 22:1 31:9 34:17 34:20 49:8 58:1 64:2 64:23 75:16 76:24 79:12 93:17 95:21 applicat... 7:16 29:17 71:13 73:17,24 applied 21:22,23 31:1 applies 59:22 apply 11:2 21:7,9,16 23:2 31:3 31:5 49:8 81:18 approach 5:18 29:6 appropriate 7:6 38:11 65:1 approval 4:25 5:7 20:15 37:3 79:11 approvals 44:1 71:13 approve 6:10 44:16 approved 44:12,12 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 2 77:17 80:8 80:10 81:3 81:8 approxim... 20:4 55:17 56:14 aptly 42:24 arbiter 23:23 area 4: 9 9:12,16 39:4 59:12 76:10 areas 9:9 52:21 58:9 59:7 75:19 78:14 argue 22:23 argued82:17 arguendo 15:2 argues67:6 argument 7:13,23 13:6,23 23:1 28:3 31 :3 36:11 78:1 82:21 83:13 88:6 arising 55:8 arose 73:19 arrangement 75:23 Article 17:23 aside 85:22 asked15:18 27:7 29:18 33:25 80:16 81:15,18 82:2 83:2 86:12 94:1 95:24 asking 37:25 41:22 43:15 48:18 YS 01567 NE W] 1E 1E 57:20 67:9 67:12,13 67:14,23 67:25 71:16 78:8 78:9,10,11 aspect53:7 84:15 aspersions 84:4 assembly 86:23 asserted 29:22 30:4 31:7 asserting 28:4 assertions 30:14 56:6 73:15 76:16 assessment 18:13 assigned 5:5 assist40:21 Assistant 3:8,9 Associate 3:8 assume 35:3 88:25 assuming 15:1 85:24 assumptions 64:15 attached 8:21 attachments 69:17 attack49:15 attacked 33:11 attempt 20:20 78:5 attempted 10:9 19:10 71:23 attempts PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 55:14 attend93:2 attention 14:15 86:15 87:23 91:18 attorney 3:7 50 :2 97:16 audience 93:1 augment29:9 authority 27:12 31:12,20 31:23 authorized 45:1 availabi... 66:9 67:1 available 6:2,18 12:16 14:9 70:25 81:6 81:10 82:3 85:10,13 89:3 Avenue3:5 average 55:16 56:3 56:5,10 aware19:16 23:12 80:8 85:18 86:24 B b11:5 17:7 17:9 back 4:24 5:9 14:18 16:5 23:21 24:20 25:1 25:19,23 28:5 33:4 35:1,24 36:14 37:2 38:2 42:13 42:23 44:14 45:5 62:15 64:14 65:6 81:21 91:14 94:20 background 50:20 backup74:4 backwards 81:1 balance 71:25,25 Balboa5:8 95:10,22 based6:16 7:2 10:14 14:1,21 16:15,21 16:25 17:7 18:10,12 21:18 25:2 32:14 34:7 35:17 46:12 56:6 64:20 73:18 74:10 basic15:7 51:17 53:24 70:22 basically 4:18 9:7 21:4 28:16 basis4:16 52:7 beach1:12 2:8,9 3:3 3:7,10,14 4:1 26:6 32:17 35:1 35:9 41:6 42:9 52:15 52:15 54:6 55:10 58:3 63:18 68:11,23 72:12,17 72:22 78:2 79:9,20 83:11 bed 61:16 64:17 70:20 71:8 72:16 78:13 83:11,11 84:22 beds 6:13 10:13 44:22,24 45:2 64:12 72:11 80:6 80:9,9,11 80:14,19 81:2,3,4,6 81:9 82:20 began76:17 beginning 2:9 14:18 begins95 :6 behalf2:7 12:23 60:8 61:10 behavior 87:15 belies34:17 believe 10:16,21 28:2 38:10 44:5 55:21 56:19 77:20 85:11 87:17 believed 39:8 believes 12:3 77:23 benefits 64:3 best 69:24 better35:16 83:19 beyond15:7 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 3 40:25 big 15:19 16:8 bigger14:24 42:14 83:24 bills 64:24 91:7 bit 50:20 68:8 81:13 blanketly 72:19 Board 77:14 Boarding 54:7 Boards31:22 Bobko3:4 26:22,23 29:5 40:20 42:24 46:21 49:12 90:10,11 90:19 91:10,17 91:22 92:3 92:11,13 92:19 boilerplate 25:17 bottom26:11 32:10 81:9 Boulevard 2:8 3:9 5:8 box 16: 3 86:16 break49:13 brevity 73:12 brief 84:IS 86:20 briefing 42:15,17 bright41:17 42:25 bring 7:16 87:6 YS 01568 I@ 1 NE In In bringing 94:20 broad21:12 35:22 54:21 67:7 78:9,17 91:2 broader 17:24 18:6 67:19 68:18 Broadway 3:13 broken21:14 brought 14:14 40:16 87:13 Brown 3:8 6:4,6 14:7 14:13 78:18 79:7 79:19,23 Brown's 81:14 Building 41:8 53:14 57:7 built41:7 41:14 bunchl8:15 86:20,22 bungalows 42:9 burden 51:10 60:17,19 61:16,18 business 41:25 70:23 74:14 buying27:16 C C25:7 CA3:5,10,14 Cal 18:2 calculation 67:1 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 calculat... 64:20 California 1:12 2:9 4:1 7:20 17:23,25 18:5 53:14 57:6 80:15 97:5 called 20:5 66:24 camera74:20 cards43:18 care8:4,5,7 8:9,9,11 8:12,12,22 8:23 9:6 10:18 18:23,23 22:21,22 44:22 54:11 64:6 66:2 87:22 case28:1 30:9,14 52:10 60:20,25 61:2,12,22 64:5 66:1 67:9 71:19 71:19 87:16 92:25 cases 7:21 30:10 case- by -... 52:7 cast22:19 casts84:4 catch33:13 catchall 21:4 category 22:24 45:1 Cathy 3:7 29:13 50:1 caught36:4 36:6 40:24 CEO 65:11 certain 8:20 (certainly 68:16 84:1 89:20 certainty 44:11 certi£ic... 10:4,10 19:11 22:2 22:4,7 29:19 certified 2:11 22:6 97:4 certify 97:5 97:14 cetera 59:14 chagrin 19:25 challenge 25:21 26:1 28:17 46:25 chance 76:20 change51:11 82:11 changed 7:22 41:20 45:13 75:14 changes 13:16 45:12 78:21 character 69:7 76:19 characte... 29:15 74:25 75:12,13 75:15 77:19,23 characte... 7:19 12:4 characte... 30:10 76:17 charge55:20 55:23 62:23 83:18 charged63:2 64:16 78:3 83:17 charges 85:20 charging 56:11 cheaper78:1 check27:19 47:21 checked 47:20,25 48:12,13 55:25 checking 31:24 children 8:9 choice 63:12 67:21 choose85:9 chores52:23 58:11 59:7 59:14 75:21 76:12 chosen52:25 58:13 circles45:6 Circuit55:7 circumst... 7:24 43:23 citation 23:10 24:10 39:7 cited7:20 15:18 16:6 30:15 37:13 40:9 citesl8:8 21:11 71:17 citizens 48:14 86:5 City2:8 3:3 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 4 3:7,7,8,9 4:6,14,21 9:15,16 11:11 15:5 15:15,23 15:24 16 :4 16:5,9,22 18:21 19:8 23:22,23 24:6 26:6 26:19,20 27:3,6,13 27:18,25 28:4,7,9 28:15,22 29:7,16 30:7,12 32:5,7,13 32:17 35:1 35 :9,12,16 36:12 38:13 40:13,17 41:21 42:11,16 42:20 43:8 43:10,25 46:14 47:1 50:2 51:10 51:11,15 53:12,21 54:2,6,10 54:13 57:12 59:6 60:1,18 61:7,16,18 63:17,21 64:22 65:10 67:6 67:17,18 68:11,23 70:5,8,22 71:2,15,17 71:19,24 72:12,17 72:22 76:1 77:2,9 78:13 79:9 P YS 01569 IM Fil 7 E R 0 79:15,20 79:22 80:9 80:10,11 81:21,24 82:2,20 83:18 85:17 86:1 86:1,7 89:12,14 90:16 91:12 95:19 City's 14:15 16:14 18:12 27:21 34:6 35:13,20 38:20 43:14 60:23 64:20 68:4 68:15 69:1 69:5,16 72:1,10 80:4 83:24 84:3 claim25:3 26:18 32:4 43:9 claiming 14:15 34:1 clarific... 31:19 41:6 clarific... 16:23 clarified 33:17 clarify93:4 94:8 clarity's 91:23 class 83:7 classifi... 8:13 classified 8:4 18:22 Clay 95:13 clear 19:3 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 29:1 33:18 33:22,24 34:7 83:10 90:25 91:5 92:1 clearance 31:10,11 31:13 Clearances 23:6 40:16 clearly 41:1 41:23 88:12 Clerk3:9 cliche 40:4 client13:12 clients 7:16 55:20 clock 95:6 close25:22 45:18 46:6 66 :20 78:24 88:1 closed7:3 47:2 71:6 71 :6 closely 8:13 closing 66:25 closure 66:14,18 Coalition 22:14 Coast80:14 95:16 code8:3,6 9:2,6 10:6 11:3 18:21 19:16,19 19:20 20 :3 20:11,23 21:10,10 22:20 23 :12 25:10 32:24 35:5 37:7 41:8 52:15 53:14,14 54:23 57:7 57:11,11 58:3 76:15 78:21,22 81:16,19 Codes41:10 41:14 collect 65:21 83:19 collecti... 71 :8 come23:8,9 25:22 27:3 27:10,15 27:25 33:14 46:4 4 9: 14 52:8 62:14 69:18 comes31:17 coming 42:23' comment 14:7 31:16 32:3 32:19 40:15 46:9 46:12 47 :14 48:11 64:4 72:6 78:7 80:1 81:2 81:14 commentary 70:7 comments; 39:5 40:14 47:5 62:17 73:1 80:22 84:5,13,18 Commission 9:1,3,13 20:16,23 21:1 common52:21 58:9 59:7 59:12 75:19 76:10 communic... 8 9: 24 91:24 community 8:4,7,22 9:6,8,11 18:23 22:21 41:6 55:4 58:24 59:20 66:4 67:2 80:7 compared 63:21 84:24 competent 23:17,19 25:14 complete 31:9 56 :24 completed 13:2 completely 22:12 57:1 92:7 complete... 7 :17 compliance 22:18 32:20,21 33:1 79:15 complied 41:18 complies 31:24 comply 17:10 20:14 41:23,24 concept 44:15 concern 83:25 concerned 44:15 57:4 74:14 concerns 65:2 72:1 74:12,13 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 5 74:15 75:2 concludes 12:15 18:25 20:13 24:1 64:21 71 :9 96:4 conclusion 6:25 18:11 24:7,9 concurred 7:1 conditional 70:10 78.11 conditions 6:10 11:9 30:18,22 39:21 53:21 57:3 78:12,13 conduct 20:12 26:4 36:18 79:1 89:15 conducted 7:23 9:21 16:14 conferring 93:13 confiden... 74:7,9,23 91:8,20,20 confiden... 91:13,16 confines 72:22 confirms. ... 86:2 conflict 79:3 conflicts 16.22 76:16 conformance 15:10 conformed 41:14 YS 01570 1 I 0 IE 1E conforming 79:14 conforms 11:8 confused 32:10 confusion 22:3 congregate 8:5 18:23 44:21 connection 39:2 62:5 83:8 consider 91:21 consider... 5:15 considered 51:8 52:4 53:9 62:5 74:22 89:2 considering 13:20 69:5 84:22 consistent 9:3 21:1 constitute 13:17 Constitu... 15:13 17:17,23 18:5,7 Constitu... 15:7 25:20 constraints 55:8 contact47:9 contacted 9:17 contempl... 25:8,18 26:8 contention 4:18 continuance 28:24 43:15 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 continue 6:12 7:5 11:25 69:4 88:15 89:11 95:23 continued 4:8 7:7 11:14 70:9 71:3 continues 11:13 continuing 45:16 continuo... 68:10 contractual 75:23 77:4 contrast 17:1 30:25 controls 54:1 78:15 convene96:5 convenient 90:15 conviction 27:23 convince 39:17,19 cooperation 85:2,15 copies9:l7 40:16 copy85:4 correct6:24 44:4 57:13 76:21 79:16,23 92:12,18 96:6 correctly 77 :8 correspo... 29:15 cost55:11 56:5 62:13 62:18 63:20 77:24 83:11 Costa70:13 Council 71:15 80:10 95:15,16 95:19,20 95:24 Counsel7:10 7:13,18 28;12 29:21 47:20 76:25 93:13 count61:16 70:20 71:8 78:14 counts84:22 County8:2,6 8:19 9:5 9:16,17,21 10:3,9,11 15:9,11,25 16:11,18 17:22 18:12,16 18:20,25 19:3,4,11 19:16,20 19:22 20:11,16 20:21 21:5 21:7,19 22:10,20 23:2,3,5,7 23:12,16 23:20 24:3 24:10,12 24:19 25:8 25:18,21 26:3,9 30:17,23 31:12,20 31:21,23 31:25,25 32:18 33:6 34:9,11,13 36:14,15 37:3,7,11 37:22 38:5 38:21 39:1 39:4,6,8,9 39:10,17 39:19,24 39:24 40:8 40:16 41:16 43:1 43:5,20 44:1,16 45:1,12 46:15,24 47:3,9,23 48:18 62:21,21 78:2 79:18 79:19 County's 15:4 26:1 couple 6:7 20:1 32:3 47:5 66:23 84:18 course13:4 14:20 26:7 42:20 91:13,14 91:23 92:4 court23:17 23:18,24 25:14 37:5 49:13 courtroom 37:9 creates56:1 critical 35:18,19 43:5,6,18 CSR1:24 97:23 CUP12:25 13:25 16:9 17:7 35:8 cure21:17 current PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (600) 647 -9099 Page 6 11:25 63:14 64:12,19 77:17 currently 23 ;5 26:15 54:5 cursory 21:18 customers 63:2 D damage61:5 data 71:18 85:2 93:20 date 80:19 82:9,10 97:17 dated10:11 77:9 97:20 DAVE 3: 8 DAVIS3:12 day 8:9,11 8:12,12,23 43:12 92:24 days 9:24 43:13 68:12,17 78:20 82:9 94:23 95:6 Dealing 69:13 December 32:15 34:9 39:2 decide 87:19 95:17 decided 15:10 23:3 deciding 43:4,4 decision 22:13 23:25 25:15 27:1 27:2 38:11 38:13 43:6 YS 01571 10 E IF IR W" J U :a E 46:3 88:17 95:25 96:1 declaration 37:3,6 declare 95:25 declared 25:13 decline 84:24 declining 84:22 decrease 80:6 decreased 81:6 deemedll:ll 59:24 95:5 def end 20:20 defer89:19 de£ine61 :13 defined 44:21 51:16 58:2 58:4 60:19 60:24 defines 8 : 6 definition 52:16 53:7 75:10 delay 36:17 delivery 59:21 demonstr... 10:24 17:14 demonstr... 10:17 denial 6:14 12:7,11,14 36:11 44:8 45:17 47:11 67:6 70:20 80:13 93:15,16 95:16,18 denied37:21 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 38:10 49:23 63:11,15 81:9,25 densities 71:1 density 70:23 78:15 deny 32:13 35:16 88:10 denying 36:12 Department 18:20 dependen... 66:14 deposit55:6 deprived 17:18 Deputy 3:7 50:2 described 35:7 58:21 designated 4:6 designed 75:1 despite46:2 detail 4:17 12:6 45:11 73:9 details 66:12 73:12 determin... 11:4 44:10 74:21 determin... 44:6 92:6 93:9 determine 6:23 28:5 36:14 77:15,22 determined 7:2 30:15 53:5 58:18 76:13 77:11 determines 57:7 detrimental 13:13 detrimen... 13:23 development 10:23 80:10 dialog 89:11 Diego18:1 difference 26:10 different 27:9 28:8 41:16 42:4 42:6,8 52:8,8,9 53:11 56 :1 68:21 86:22 93:14 differing 77.24 differs 62:19 difficult 44:17 72:23 diligence 27:22 28:7 direct 12:13 61:3,23 directed 7:6 direction 97:12 directly 20:9 50:14 55:8 66:19 73:19 76:15 Directors 31:22 77:14 dirth66:8 disabili... 59:20 disability 55:9 60:9 60:14 61:10,13 62:3,9 63:11 66:5 73:20 disabled 50:25 51:22,23 54:17,19 67:20 72:15 83 :7 disagree 34:19 39:25 65:3 74:24 disagrees 5:18 disappoi... 85:8 disconce... 87:21 discovered 4:16 discredit 28:18 discrepa... 16:25 discreti... 71:13 discuss 72:4 discussed 84:9 discussing 81:10 discussion 22:1 33:4 38:9 47:2 49:3 72:21 discussions 7:14 25:6 47 :10 disk 87:7 dispropo... 84:23 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800)647 -9099 Page 7 dispute81:7 district 8:20 9:4,8 9:11 11:10 11:22 21:2 53:13 57:5 districts 54:6,13 Doctrine 23:25 document 20:24 81:25 89:1 document... 6:17 56:13 87:10 90:12 91:1 91:6 doing 19:23 26:16 27.21 34:18 39:2 39 :7,8,14 40:7,9 52:5 68:22 72:11 86:2 86:8 94:19' donated 65:15 DONOUGH 47:13,16 48:21 Donough's 48:11 doors47:2 doubt47:7 Draft 12:11 draw 70:22 drive 87:9 drop 44:14 dropped22:6 due 7:9 15:8 17:18,19 18:4,16 20:6 23:21 27:21 28:7 28:12 29:2 33 :2 34:5 YS 01572 MWA I W] IE W3 W ILI 0 34:14 36:11 38:10,12 38:17,19 38:23,24 39:12 40:3 40:10 42:18 43:17 48:19,21 73:6 94:4 94:9 duty 51:3 74:4 dwelling 51:1,22,24 52:19 53:1 53:9,16 54:17,20 58:7,14 59:4 60:15 62 :4 67:10 76:9 dwellings 8 :21 E e21:22 earlier 17:20 29:15 64 :14 68:9 71:5 early 76:16 easily 65:7 84:6 easy 86:13 economic 85:7 economic... 64:8,13 e£fect10:19 13:13 25:16 66:19 78:22 81:5 82:8 95:6 effective 82:9 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 effectively 28:3 either8:4 18 :22 48:22 51:9 69:16 70:9 84:14 86:6 95:25 elements 51:6 75:9 84:14 employee 97:15 enactment 80:4 encourage 59:9 enforce 47:24 enforcement 8:3 10:6 18:21 19:16 20:11,17 23:12,14 engaged 36:12 enhance62:8 62:10 enjoy 60:15 62:4 63:12 entered 80:18 entire43:18 53:1 58:14 68:6 82:16 93:6 entirely 33:12 42:5 entities 50:22 51:3 entitled 30:21 84:2 entity31:4 32:25 52:3 52:8 65:23 65:24 85:4 environment 62:13 equal50:25 60:14 62:3 63:11 66:5 equaled 31:4 equals 31:5 equitable 71:25 equivalent 52:17 58:5 58:23 76:6 ESQ1:11 3:4 3:13 essential 75:9 essentially 53:20 54:10 63:19 establish 40:23 51:19 established 4:20 7:19 7:21 8:1 8:15 10:20 11:6,14,16 14:16,20 16:17 30:19 32:23 41:19 43:25 61:12 68:9 71:15 establishes 44:8 estimate 55:19 56:5 Estimated 56:7 estimation 45:8 estopped 28:4 et 59: 14 evaluated 6:5 evaluation 6:22 19:4 evening 87:2 87:6 eventually 65:11 Evergreen 71:18 everybody 92:1 evidence 19:7,8,14 19:15 23:12 27:25 28:14,18 28:20 40:6 69:15,18 69:22 75:8 85:19 87:5 evidenced 64:3 evolution 86:12 evolving 86:6 ex15:5 Exact42:13 exactly 40:8 40:8 48:16 48:16,16 examination 85:18 examine 28:16 Examiner4:6 example 17:2 18:19 excellent 45:24 exception 67:8 exceptions 50:22 63:8 excessively 84:23 excited74:1 exclusive PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 8 38:25 excusell:7 25:10 29:24 30:6 51:13 61:21 70:9 72:1 exempt47:22 53:20 exempting 54:1 exemption 50:7 54:21 56:24 67:25 78:8 78:10,10 79:11 81:12,17 81:19,25 82:3,7 84:2,3 exist47:24 existed41:1 existing 66:2 expand42:10 expansion 27:17 expectl3:11 94:25 expected 95:20 expense 55:17 expenses 52:24 55:16 56:12 58:12 59:13 75:21 76:12 85:20 expensive 63:22 expertise 85 :12 expires YS 01573 IV NMI 1E 1E IE 80:17 explain4:17 6:4 87:11 explaining 49:21 explanat... 17:2 extend88:9 extensive 78:15 extent38:19 72:3 91:11 extra42:19 e- mailed 70:8 F £21:24 facilities 5 :24 6:12 7:19 8:11 8:14,22 9:6,20 10:18,20 10:25 11:2 12:4 15:3 17;15 22:6 31:10,14 43:24 44:22 47:8 50:4 53:23 54:11 62:10,20 62:24 63:22 64:7 66:3,21 67:3 70:13 78:1 80:11 82:25 84:8 95:12 facility 7:5 8:3,4,5,7 8:7 9:7,10 16:17 17:9 18:23,23 19:17 22:21 23:13 30:18 39:3 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 55:23 56:11,16 57:2 64:1 64:6 66:2 67:11 78:19 79:18 80:15 91:3 fact 15:16 19:3 27:10 27:15 31:10 36:5 38:1 41:5 44:5,19 46:2 47:21 47:23 62:21 63:1 64:23 85:8 92:16 facto 15:5 factor63:10 factors 51:15 62:5 63:16 67:5 69:5 70:19 £acts32:9 52:9 61:2 61:22 factual 16:21 failed31:5 failure31:3 fair60:10 60:19,24 61:11 71:25 fairly45:13 57:8 fairness 30:24 73:7 falls 13:8 43:18 family 8:12 8:17,21,23 52:18 58:6 58:23 67:10 76:7 far 15:5,7 25:22 44:13 63:22 66:12 73:16 75:4 88:9 89:18 farther 29:20 fashion 5:20 90:20 favor 13:7 February6:8 7:12 10:3 13:3 14:10 15:17 16:19,20 17:5 24:20 29:21 30:3 30:8 33:23 43:10 59:5 68:7 69:14 69:20,21 70:16 73:14 77:1 78:22 80:17 81:11 82:7 86:21 87:11 Federal 11:19 18:7 35:11 51:2 61:12 79:11 81:12,16 81:18,24 82:3,6 88:25 Federation 18:1 fee 50:12 52:13 55:2 55:5,22 71:11,14 71:16 72:4 73:16 84:15 88:12 93:6 93:10,18 feel 78:16 feels 46:3 fees 55:19 56:2,18 58:1 fell 22 ;24 felt 62: 1 65:1 FE P 82: 11 fewer8:22 fifth 61:20 figure 39:21 filings 85:12 final 27:1,2 31:13 78:7 86 :20 finally 28:10 31:7 finances 56:4 financial 51:10 55:8 55:12,13 55:15 60:17,18 61:15,17 73:17,19 73:24 74:2 74:3,4 78:5 85:2 93:20 financially - 97:14 financials 82 :23 find9:22 21:18 30:17,24 33:14 35:10 38:7 49 ;9 54:22 72:7 73:13 85:8 finding 10:21 15:24,25 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 9 16:12 32:14,18 35:18,19 36:8 38:20 43:20 57:22 60:2 61:25 68:1 68:2,13,15 68:17 92:9 findings 60:5 61:6 61:7 finds 9:3 21:1 fine 32:9 90:18,23 fire 10:12 23:6 31:10 31:11,12 31:13,20 31:23 40:16 87:17 first 1:10 3:11 14:14 19:10 22:4 24:12,14 26:24 29:8 29:16,25 30:7 32:4 34:17 38:15 50:1 52:14 53:17 57:21,24 58:22 60:7 62:7,20 73:16 77:19,25 81:1 fit 76:3 five 60:6 61:6 five - minute 49 :13 Floor 3:5 folks45:12 47:3 93:1 YS 01574 I W In 9 follow 93:5 following 8:25 9:16 49:11 60:5 follows54:8 foreclosed 28:4 32:6 foregoing 97:6,8,72 form 31: 9 formed31:22 former41:2 formulated 54:24 forth 21:12 21:20,20 97:7 forward27:3 27:11 45:14 46:4 80:19 82:10 90:1 found10:2,8 19:2 30:25 37:21 48:13,13 56:25 73:25 four 4:8,18 5:16,24 9:18,20,24 12:7 13:1 13:25 23:5 32:16 44:8 47:8 59:2 60:4 66:1 66:7,15 68:2,10 77:7,15 frame14:6 frankly 85:20 86:23 88:11 £raterni... 54:7 free62:14 63:6 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 frequent 89:23 front 6 : 2 21:4 32:7 48:18 49:20 87:17 fully56:9 65:11 functional 52:17 58:5 58:22 function... 76:6 fundamental 51:11,13 51:16 60:22,24 68:4,25 fundamen.. 69:6,10 further4:23 6:21 16:15 28:25 36:19,19 38:4 40:7 40:12,13 72:5,18,21 88:16 91:24 93:24 96:2 97:12,14 future63:14 96:2 G general25:8 55:16 generally 6:3 7:21 18:2 35:22 GERSHON3:4 getting 19:19 25:22 66:11 70:9 78:24 give 13:24 38:17 42:2 46:4 50:20 73:8,10 82:12 85:5 85 :16 given 16:7 19:5 22:22 33:8 34:21 38:1 39:14 41:22 43:23 49:22 67:25 70:25 74:7 85:6 global 85:6 go24:4 25:1 25:25 27:19 29:11 34:12 35:7 36:13 37:2 38:2 39:16 39:18,23 42:13 45:5 45:10 46:15,25 47:10 55:24 65:5 66:11 71:12 78:4 81:1 82:1 85:19 89:17 95:8 goes 14:20 23:21 24:19,23 33:11 36:24 64:14 72:18 going 4:23 6:7 12:25 13:22 14:8 14:18 16:5 25:23 26:9 27:6,17,22 28:5 29:9 31:24 32:13 33:4 35:2,7,16 36:15 37:8 37:9,10 38:20 40:20 43:16 44:13 45:6 52:6 55:1 59:21 65:11,16 65:18 66:16,17 71:6 72:13 72:14,18 78:18 79:2 80:3 85:24 87:20 92:15,21 93:1 94:11 good 6: 6 36:23 45:9 84:17 87:2 gotten33:14 government 31:4 45:11 50:22 51:3 52:3 governme... 11:19 governments 31:22 Grand3:5 grant49:10 51:3 60:3 84:3 granted 24:3 31:1 granting 51:9 great86:8 greater12:6 group 5:23 52:18 53:8 54:8,12 58:6 59:1 59:16,16 75:6 76:8 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 10 groups54:4 guess48:10 59:22 guidelines 24:15 guilty 40:4 H h17:8,13 handicapped 8:10 happen15:21 20:12,21 36:16 37:4 37:4,9,23 37:23 38:16 40:11 47:4 72:10 happened 33:6 34:23 37:7 48:17 48:19 72:17 81:20 happening 27:23 happens33:1 39:16,18 39:23 happy 13:5 42:16 46:5 56:22 82:21 89:11,24 91:12 hard 19: 9 71:20 87:8 hardship 50:11 74:5 75:2 85:3 hate 89:14 head24:25 40:22 88:12 health 61 :3 61:23 86:24 YS 01575 Ia NEI NE IE 1E so I E hear44:20 46:5 82:20 82:24 95:17 heard 15:14 16:2,7 18:17 19;6 20.:18 21:5 21:16 22:23 24:11 28:18 31:2 31:5 33:8 36:13 39:15 43:8 43:17 47:4 48:4,5,15 72:9 78:1 81:21 82:13 87:4 hearing l:7 1:11 2:7 4:4,6 5:1 5:2,23 6:8 6:9,9,20 6:22,25,25 7:7,11,13 7:18 12:9 12:10 13:3 14:10,10 14:13 16:10,19 16:20 17:5 17:22 19:5 21:21 25:2 26:25 27:1 27:5 28:20 28:22 30:4 30:8 33:23 35:25 36:1 36:14,15 36:19 45:19 46:1 46:2,6,7 46:21,23 48:15 49:4 59:5 65:10 69:21 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 70:11 73:16,20 74:18 77:22 78:25 84:12 86:21 87:1 87:19 88 :2 88:15 90:7 91:25 92 ;21 95:9 95:15,22 95:23 96:2 hearings4:8 4:15,16 13:1,8,11 13:14,18 13:19 49:20 89:15 92:21 93:25 95:8 96:5 Height 8:16 Heights4:9 5:25 15:3 21:13 25:7 26:8 39:4 47:17 77:8 78:20 held 7: 21 15:18 19:5 93:18 help 6:22 89:2 helpful89:3 heretofore 94:19 HIPPA83:1 hit40:22 hold 36:14 91:16,21 93:5 home 10:4,7 22:24 27:16,16 27:17,18 31:24 66:15,18 homes8:12 8:23 10:16 22:8,15 24:13 41:7 59:3,6 63:23 64:17 66:7 66:10,15 66:23 70:2 70:25 71:5 77:7,16 91:4 hopefully 84:21 hours20:1 78:14 housel:10 3:11 10:12 43:18 55:17,18 56:5,7 59:4,19 64:19 71:18 77:17 household 52:22,23 53:4 58:10 58:11,17 housekee... 50:6 52:12 52:14,16 53:9,10,12 53:20 54:5 54:12 57:1 57:12,25 58:2,21 59:25 60:3 63:9 67:5 67:11,15 67:16 75:4 75:10 76:1 76:10 78:9 84:15 88:7 93:16 houses23:5 41:11 54:7 54:8 56:9 66:24,24 71:7 housing 19:17 23:13 50:21 60:10,19 60:25 61:11 63:12 67:21 hydrants 87:17 I idea 28:10 40:21 69:15 identical 5:17 identify 91:15 illegal 11:15 12:2 12:5 27:9 28:6 40:23 42:12 illegally 42:4 imagination 72:12 imagine 15:9 62:25 63:4 immediately 27:19 37:6 impact53:25 impacts 53:22 54:2 implemen... 14:21 implication 44:25 implied 85:2 impliedly 44:12 important 21:3 53:7 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 11 Importantly 18:8 impose51:9 53:22 60:16 61:15,17 78:13 imposed57:3 57:10 impossible 36:1,2 inability 35:17,19 35:20 inaccurate 77:3 inapprop... 89:16 inasmuch 69:1 inches20:4 20:5 inclined 68:13,15 84:3 include23:6 44:'9 included 8:19,24 19:8 21:21 21:21 25:6 includes 8:11 including 8:10,21 11:17 17:11 26:12 52:20 58:8 71:14 inclusive 18:6 43 ;3 incompetent 8:11 inconsis... 76:21,23 incorporate 92:10 YS 01576 FS In In w I1) 9 increase 69:8 incurred 13:12 independ... 86:1 92 :8 92:17 indicated 4:11 16 :14 30:11 31:13 individual 51:22,23 59:15 63:10 73:23 74:6 75:19,22 91:4 individuals 54:19 55:9 59:19 60:9 60:13 61:4 61:10 62:3 62:9 63:11 66:4,9,12 67:20 72:15 74:13 83:20 Indus4:10 5:9 6:12 6:16 7:3,4 9:23 12:13 56:14,15 87:3 ineffective 25:15 infer23:7 inference 19:2,12 inferences 23:7 infers18:9 information 4:16 6:4 6:18,21 7:2,10 9:14 14 :1 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 14:9 15:1 15:2 16:19 16:21 18:15 27:3 28:15 43:10,11 55:13,15 60:1 64:3 64:21,25 65:2 71:2 71:20,21 71:21,24 72:2,3 73:8,24 74:2,8,8 74:11,11 74:19,22 77:3 78:5 82:25 83:9 83:18 88:13 89:22,25 91:8,11,24 92:4,23 95:5 informed8:2 18 :21 75:25 76:23,25 initial5:13 17:4 33:4 81:14 initially 22:11 initiated 20:21 41:24 injunctive 23:17 innocent 40:4 input92:22 insofar57:4 inspection 10:12 inspections 23:6 Inspector 31:23 instance 75:11 instances 4:13 63:5 instantly 85:6 institut... 64:1 insuffic... 69:9 71:17 intent9:4 21:2 interact 75:18 interaction 59:6 interactive 52:18 58:6 58:25 75:5 76:8 interest 18:6 73:6 interested 97:15 interesting 46:13 83:13 interject 94:2 interpre... 32:24 interpre... 60:20,25 interpreted 22:21 45:15 interrupt 5:12 Intersch... 18:1,1 intervene 88:21 introduced 6:21 77:16 intrusive 73:25 75:1 invalid 25:11,14 investig... 86:8 investig... 7 :24 16:15 20:11 40:7 involving 4:9 5:24 Isaac 3:13 12:23 57:19 issuance 9:12 50:14 issue14:6 14:11,25 15:8 17:19 23:3,21 26:18 27:4 32:12,13 33:2 38:23 38:24 43:18 52:14 64:22 65:6 65:8,22 67:4,22 68:7,24 69:13,25 70:5,13 74:3 78:18 81:12,22 82:10,13 83:5,22 84:1,2,3 87:18 89:12,16 89:20 90:8 90:15 issued 9:20 9:23 10:1 21:15 issues 16:21 32:6 70:18 86:22,24 87:10,13 87:14,23 90:3 95:15 item5:23 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Paae 12 items 17:7 J Janet 3: 8 6:4 78:18 January 26:6 68:18 75:25 77:9 79:8 job 1:24 45:24 86:8 JOHNSON3:8 joint 52:20 53:2 58:8 58:15 jointly 52:19,25 58:7,13 76:8 judgment 22:20 judicial 16:12 37:2 37:6 Judy 87:2 jurisdic... 16:17 23:18,19 25:14 41:2 jurisdic... 23:23 justice 28:11,21 K K3:4 keep 42:22 64:19 79:1 keeps 47:18 key 63:16 Kiff 3:8 5:4 5:11,19,21 12:19 31:16,19 33:25 45:9 45:22 46:8 46:13 47:5 49:1,6 57:15 79:3 YS 01577 IE 10 D J a 2 80:1 82:5 88:4,19,23 92:20 93:12,22 95:4 96:7 Kiff's84:20 kind 25:17 34:6 45:2 47:6 54:1 63:3 67:24 73:10 75:1 82:23 86:4 86:9 90:7 91:6,8 Kit 90:11 knew 19:22 19:23 39:6 39:7 40:8 know 18:24 21:14 23:8 23:15 24:18 25:20 26 :5 28:12 29:18 34 :22,24 34:24 36:11 37:8 39:13,19 40:2 43:10 45:2,3,4 45:25 46:23 66:16 74:16 75:7 86:24 89:17 90:14 92:14 93:2 94:10 knows34:22 L lack 31:4,5 85:2,15 Laguna3:14 land8:19 31:25,25 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 landlord 53:6 58:19 language 17:25 18:4 44:5,13 76:15 large 8:23 larger53:23 83:25 largest 80:11 Larry 84:18 lastly 72:6 Latches28:2 32:4 latest7:11 laughed37:8 Laural:23 2:11 97:22 law 7:22 10:25 16:13 17:10,15 18:9 19:1 20:14 24:10 30:9 30:10,14 32:1,18 35:11 38:5 38:10 40:25 42:3 47:8,24,24 60:20,25 61:12 85:10 lawfully 4:20 11:6 11:14 26:5 43:24 68:12,19 69:4 laws7:24 10:19 11:7 16:16 35:21 45:15 60:10,19 60:25 61:11 lease53:2 58:15 leave84:9 87:7 90:3 left 87:16 legal 26:4 27:8,11,24 28:6 30:5 41:3 legally 30:20 36:1 41:12,13 78:19 length 17:2 lengthy 28:13 letter 10:2 76:4,24,25 77:9 letting 90:16 let's 4:5 5:20 29:1 49:5 78:23 84:11 90:20 level 42:10 liberty 17:18 license8:8 80:17 licenses 11:17,18 life62:8,11 light41:17 42:25 57:22 64:8 65:1 72:10 likelihood 44:10,11 limit 67:13 70:21 limitations 50:8 73:19 limited 11:18 limits 80:5 line 26:11 32:10 70:22 81:9 list 24:23 listed24:4 24:5 listen 13:12 23:19 listening 92:14 litter69:11 69:14,18 little 9:14 41:6 42:9 42 :14 50:20 68:8 81:13 82:24 live 51: 22 51:23 53:12 54:17,19 59:19 66:5 living 6:12 7:5 8:3 10:4,4,6,9 10:16 18:22 19:11 22:8 22:14,15 53:8 54:4 57:2 59:18 62:13 63:15,21 66:14,15 66:18 79:10 80:12 load30:20 local 10:19 11:19 17:10 20:14 35:11 located6:11 6:15 8:16 11:10 12:12 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 13 location 12:1 lodging54:7 long46:17 85:23 92:23 longer 11:8 23:20 26:2 38:2 41:23 look 20:6 35:1 38:1 40:20 42:25 51:7 65:6 81:14 95:2 looked29:20 69:16 looking 16:5 34:5 42:23 43:1 65:25 82:5 looks 75:13 loose22:14 Los3:5 lose 39:25 40:1 94:4 94:17 low 62:13 lower63:20 Lynn 66:24 71:7 M machine 97:10 main 36:24 maintained 11:15 maintaining 64:11 maintenance 52:23 58:11 majorly 76:16 makeup53:4 58:17 76:12 77:11 YS 01578 In NE NEr W making23:7 24:16 32:4 56:14 73:21 74:21 84:21 92:6 92:16 management 17:11 manager3:8 10:24 17:13 53:6 58:19 76:14 77:13 manner91:20 March 1:13 2:10 4:1 7:8 10:1 95:10,14 95:18 market64:9 64:9 matches 8:13 Material 77:2 Mathena 84:16,17 84:18 88:24 matter12:24 19:1,4 26:25 28:7 36:5,17 42:5,17 89:21 matters4:7 5:9,14 Mc 47:13, 16 48:11,21 McDonough 47:16 meals52:23 58:11 59:13 75:20 76:12 mean 5:12 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 35:14,22 39:12 40:2 44:20 46:20 47:24 74:16,20 (83:16 meaning 20:13 means17:20 46:20 medical74:8 82:25 83:3 meeting4:9 4:19 5:15 6:3,5,5 70:1,1 95:19 meetings 9:24,25 69:11,25 70:3 77:18 member63:8 members 52:18 58:6 76:7 mentally 8:10 mention 19:24 29:18 66:22 71:5 mentioned 17:19 38:15 57:20 59:4 63:24 64 :14 70:6 70:11 89:10 merely27:7 Mesa 70:13 met69:14 3:9 middle66:20 Mike47:16 Millsap1:23 2:11 97 :22 mind 89:3 minimum 26:4 68:17 minute89:6 minutes 78:24 mirrors 76:15 miscarriage 28:11,21 29:2 misconce... 65:11 mishmash 86:6 missing 82:1 82:6 misspoke 35:15 mitigate 53:25 modifica... 17:11 moment29:4 88:19,22 moments6:7 money 19:20 55:3 89:15 month 56:6 56:14,15 56:16 monthly 56:7 months7:15 31:8 95:23 moot23:18 57:23 mootness 15:6 23:25 morning 55:25 mortgage 91:7 move49:3 51:20 Moving55:2 multiple... 18:10 Municipal 11:3 58:3 mutually 38:24 M- a- t -h -... 84:19 N name 4:5 50:1 97:18 Narconon 80:15 narrowly 52:2 nature51:11 60:23 64:8 64:24 66:3 67:2 68:4 81:10 Near80:2 necessarily 17:1 62:23 64:16 83:16 86:18 88:15 necessary 15:24 29:1 42:21 50:24 51:5 51:21 54:15 60:12 62:2 64:7,12 67:20 73:22 93:5 necessity 56:20 need4:24 33:17 36:23 37:6 37:25 38:6 38:13 44:6 46:4 72:2 75:2 80:21 85:4 88:14 90:2 needed30:15 30:17,24 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 14 31:6 34:2 47 :8,19,21 92:9 needs32:8 60:2 64:19 72:14 80:22 90:1 negative 54:2 63:24 neighbor... 69:7,11 70:24 87:18 neighbor... 64:2 neither 15:14 97:14 net81:5 network59:8 never7:14 16:6,6,7 20:21 30:4 31:2 37:22 37:23 45:4 46:25 48:20,20 77:21 81:20 83:2 neverthe... 38:4 91:21 new 6:21 7:10 14:1 14:8,12,23 14:25 15:1 43:10 77:16 Newport1:12 2:8,8,9 3:3,7,9,10 4:1 26:6 32:17 35:1 35:9 52:15 52:15 54:6 54:13 55:10 58:3 63:18 68:11,23 YS 01579 1 1E In 10 72:12,17 72:22 78:2 79:9,20 80:14 83:11 95:16 night 19:25 95:20 nighttime 80:19 nine 7:15 31:8 Ninth 55:7 NOELANI3:9 nonprofit 55:3 65:24 85:4,18 non- conf... 7:20 11:12 11:23 12:5 14:16,22 27:8,9,18 27:24 28:6 28:9 29:18 29:19,23 30:5 41:9 41:12,13 42:1,4,12 Non- Conf... 11:4 non - medical 8:8 non - single 54:12 normally 55 :20 note 22:22 72:2 noted5:22 6:20 8:14 14:13 63:6 81:16 notes10:10 20:10 22:5 61:7 63:14 64:11 69:9 notice15:13 17:20 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 18:12 19 :5 21:6,15 24:11,17 26:13,13 31:4 33:7 34:13 39:13 94:10,16 noticedl6:1 16:6 noting80:3 notwiths... 82:14 83:2 92:25 Nuisance 57:11 number4:25 5:5,7 7:20 12:12 43:8 50:5,7,10 50:13,16 53:15 55:21 57:23 59:23,24 61:25 62:4 62:15 64:12 68:1 71:10,11 72:11 73:4 73:5,9 81:2,6 82:14,15 82:16,17 82:19 numbers 88:13 nurseries 8:12 O oath 97:9 object68:16 objected 48:6 observation 84:21 85:14 observat... 44:19 84:20 observe 85:3 obtain 10:3 10:9 19:11 19:13 obtainable 38:3 obtained 16:19 20:15 obviously 45:11 occupancy 6:13 30:20 50:8 53:13 64:19 75:14 occupied 56:9 78:19 occupy52:25 57:2 58:13 occupying 52:19 53:4 58:7,17 76:8 occur59:16 72:21 92:15 occurred 6:8 19:4 79:22 94:16 occurs42:8 Ocean 1: 8 5:1,8 95:21 offer45:18 62:13 95:24 offered 13:6 80:16 office76:5 Officer 1:11 5:3 6:9,22 7:1 12:9 12:10 28:22 46:2 73:17,20 74:18 77:22 91:25 95:22 96:2 office's 75:12 oftentimes 66:11,12 Oh 40:15 okay5:21 14:4 20:7 29:5 40:12 43:6,13 45:22 46:6 48:23 50:18 55:2 57:14 68:14 73:15 79:6 84:11 88:1 90:19 91:9 91:22 92:19 93:22 once 86:11 once -a -week 70:4 ones 24:24 26:22 93:2 on- site70:3 75:7,7 open 4 : 4 5:15 16:4 16:9 25:1 64:20 74:16 84:12 opening5:10 operate7:5 67:14 operated 11:16 35:3 35:10 68:14 operates 65:23 operating PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 15 6:13 10:7 10:18,24 15:3 17:14 26:5 50:8 64:15 68:12,19 76:19 operation 57:4 64:8 66:3 67:2 operational 6:10 10:23 54:8 operations 30:19 86:18 operator 20:15 80:11 86:15 opinion54:1 95:24 opportun... 43:9 opportunity 15:13 16:1 16:1,7 17:21 18:17 19:6 20:17,18 21:5,15,16 21:17 22:23 24:11 28:16,19 33:8 36:13 38:1 39:10 39:15 45:20 47:4 47:12 48:3 48:5,14 50:25 60:14 62:3 63:12 66:5 67:21 74:19 77:21 80:25 95:2 YS 01580 NE 1E 1E w I opposite 64:22 optional 22:7 orally 73:10 Orange8:6 9:5 16:18 18:20 20:16 31:11,20 31:21,25 31:25 33:6 95:13 order15:22 24:7,8 25:1 69:13 ordered 49:16 ordinance 5:23 11:24 14:22 15:19 21:7 26:9 33:11 53:24 67:8 72:11 80:5 82:8,9 original 14:19 25:2 64:2 75:15 ought86:3 86:16 outset38:8 outside 62:21 overbroad 76:2 overconc... 70:21 overcrow... 64:1 overly74:25 78:16 overturn 65:25 95:17 owned65:14 65:14 owner10:23 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 17:13 Ox£ord71:18 o'clock48:9 95:10,14 P Pacific 95:12 pages 20:2 Pandora's 16:3 paper20:5 paraphra... 80:4 parking 69:9 69:12 70:15,16 70:17 71:1 78:14 86:23 87:5 87:10,13 87:22 parlays68:8 part22:9,11 22:13 23:20 25:15 26:2 26:2,8 32:16,16 34:15,25 37:11 45:11 47:1 66:25 68:11,22 particip... 64:10 particip... 92:23 particular 32:6 39:5 50:15 57 :8 62:6 67:16 90:8 particul... 64:9 parties 97:16 Patrick3:4 26:23 pattern 10:17,24 17:14 54:8 75:14 76:2 76:19 pause49:17 82:24 88:20 pay 50:11 56:17 paying86:15 87:23 91:17 Pegasus4:11 6:15 7:3 10:5,5,15 19:11 31:11 47:16 56:15 66:23 71:6 Pena157:11 penalty65:4 83:23 85:25 people 10:7 46:15,16 53:15 63:7 66:9,21 87:22 perceived 16:22 percent 55:11 Perfect 94:24 perfectly 27 :2 performed 10:12 75:8 periodl3:16 36:7 45:24 perjury 65:4 83:23 85:25 permissive 57:9 permit4:15 7:12 9:1 9:12,19,23 9:25 10:7 11:25 12:12 17:12 19:18 20:16 21:9 21:16,19 22:25 23:2 23:14 24:3 24:13 29:17,24 30:6,12 31:4,6 32:14 33:15,19 33:24 34:1 34:3,9 37;17,20 37:20,22 39:18,25 47:19 48:2 48:4,15,18 49:8,10 50:9,12,14 52:13 55:5 56:18 70:9 70:10 78:11 79:11,18 80:9 81:13 81:17,19 81:25 82:4 82:7 93:15 93:18 permits4:22 6:10,15 9:15 11:3 11:17,18 12:8,14 21:23 35:17 44:8 44:16 47:8 49:22 55:11 71:14 permitted PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Paa° 16 8:25 9:8 9:11 57:7 person32:25 39:14 50:25 personnel 20:11 persons8:11 8:22 9:8 9:10 10:16 11:21 52:19 54:17 58:7 76:8 perspective 86:14 persuaded 43:23 88:6 pertained 70:12 pertains 65:9 pertinent 18:4 photographs 70:16.87:6 87:15 physical 61:4 physically 8:10 picture 14:24 15:20 16:8 56:1 piece 63:25 69:23 71:23 pieces 19:7 62:19 placell:7 13:16 15:22 24:14 26:9 29:25 30:7 97:7 placed30:18 87:16 97:9 YS 01581 IE IM 1E 1E IE 2 places66:10 Plainfield 71:19 plan8:17,18 8:24 9:9 9:12 17:11 20:2 21:13 25:7,10 26:1 49:15 65:15 planned 9:8 9:11 Planner 3:8 planners 42:7 Planning 8:2 9:1,3,13 9:21 18:20 20:16,22 21:1 45:13 please 30:2 73:2 plenty43:14 plug 87:8 point 7:16 13:7,23 19:22,24 20:9,19 21:25 25:23 28:17,17 29:22 30:17 35:8 36:3 38:25 45:10 48:16 62:14 66:1 80:14 82:20 84:7 85:1,3 86:20 89:9 points26:21 36:24 policies 50:23 poor86:5 portion 25:13 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 88:10 portions 25:9,16 poses51:2 position 13:20 38:1 44:3 77:8 possibil... 72:20 possible 25:9 43:21 post 15:5 post -hoc 27:5 potential 16:5 22:1 86:10 potentially 95:25 practice 10:17 practices 50:23 70:17 Prejudice 12:11 preliminary 12:24 premises 53:1,3 58 :14,16 preparation 28:25 prepare7:6 92:9 prepared 12:13 preparing 47:11 present 28:19 68:19 73:7 75:10 90:21,22 presents... 6:1,3 12:15 13:4 13:25 26:17 27:24 28:13 29:21 36:19 38:5 68:6 80:2 82:16 89:10 presented 14:12 28:14,19 30:9 31:12 32:9 36:20 39:5 73:3 77:20,21 86:21 87:6 88:16 presume 12:21 pretty19:3 34:7 35:22 38:9 46:3 previous 4:19 5:15 previously 4:9 principal 8:20,25 prior7:14 32:15 97:6 97:8 privacy 65:1 72:1 74:12 74:13,15 75:1 probably 41:8,12 45:19 78:25 83:19 86:15 problem 15:6 25:19 34:4 34:10,23 35:24,25 39:1 40:2 42:22 83:1 83:24 problematic 20:8 problems 87:5 Procedural 18:4 procedure 21:19 26:25 89:14 93:5 94:3,5,11 95:1 proceed5:13 5:20 14:5 90:20 proceeding 49:17 88:20 proceedings 96:4 97:6 97:8,10 process15:8 17:18,19 18:5,10,16 20:6 21:20 22:2 23:21 28:12 29:2 30:12 33:2 34:14 36:11 38:10,12 38:17,19 38:23,24 39:12 40:3 40:10 42:18 43:17 48:20,21 65:18 73:6 81:20 82:11 85:22 94:4 94:9 processes 35:6 produced 74:1 producing PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Paae 17 74:1 production 82:23 profit56:7 56:14,15 65:23 profiteer 65:18 program 22:4 22:7,8,8 51:12,14 51:15 55:4 60:23 68:5 69:1,2 prohibited 54:5 prong 51:7 56:20 61:14,20 62:6 64:5 proper35:8 properly 83:23 properties 6:15 7:25 8:16 10:15 13:1,25 23:9 26:15 32:16 59:17 60:4 65:12,13 65:16,19 66:18 68:10 69:19 77:6 79:9 83:8 83:21 property 6:11,11 7:3,3,4,5 10:5,5,10 11:22 12:12 17:18 23:8 41:21 53:6 58:19 59:8 59:12,17 59:18,22 YS 01582 IM El 1E 91 10 1E 61:5 68:10 75:18,18 75:22 76:13,14 77:11,13 proposed 45:17 61:17 71:1 94:13 proposing 24:8 proposition 71:20 protect 74:12,15 protected 60:9 61:11 protections 42:2 protects 18:6 proven40:4 provide8:8 13:5 17:17 22:22 42:16 60:13 62:2 66:4 71:23 83:2 90:13 91:1 94:12 provided 6:17 7:2,9 7:10 9:6 15:12,14 16:18,21 16:23 17:20,21 18:16 19:7 24:17,22 34:12 60:1 64:3,18,21 64:25 65:3 68:6 70:8 70:15 71:2 71:22 72:3 82:19,25 83:17,25 89:1 94:16 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 provides 17:9,13,24 20:22 59:8 63:6,20 91:23 providing 70:23 92:3 provision 12:2 25:8 81:16 89:22,25 provisions 8:24 24:19 46:1 67:8 proviso 90:17 91 :5 public l:7 2:7 5:1,23 21:21 45:19,19 46:1,7 47:14 74:11,22 78:25 80:22 84:12 87:25 88:1 90:2 94:22 publicly 85:13 public's 92:22,22 published 89:7 pure23:3 purely22:7 purported 17:22 19:8 purpose4:24 9:3 13:20 21:1 51:17 53:24 54:3 59:18 70:20,22 purposes 73:11 65:7 Pursuant 11:21 pursue19:4 73:21 pursued19:1 put21:6 28:10,13 35:16 42:10,24 54:2 63:20 94:2 p.m 2:9,10 4:2,2 95:18,19 96:9 4 qualified 11:2,24 qualify 4:21 86:17 quality 62:8 62:11 question 23:15 33:25 36:24 41:22 51:25 52:1 78:23 83:6 86:11,11 question... 69:23 questions 11:1 12:16 12:17 24:6 24:24 29:3 56:22 92:5 94:17 quick26:22 38:11 quickly 71:12 quiet 78:14 quite33:18 quotel4:8 19:21 20:25 21:3 25:12 quoted 17:24 18:19 62:22 63:1 78:3 R R3:13 radar40:6 raise20:9 raised7:14 16:22 26:21 65:8 77:22 raises55:3 raising 74:3 range18:6 62:18 rate56:10 rates 62:12 62:22,23 62:25 63:2 78:3,3 reach 24:7 39:22 40:25 56:20 reached 73:13 81:5 read33:18 34:7 83:6 reading 19:21 ready49:18 93:3 real83:10 reality 32:21 86:18 really 15:6 27:21 32:11 41:16 73:22 86:2 86:5,17 reason10:21 16:18 25:13 29:20 41:12 56:19 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 18 reasonable 24:18,21 28:23 29:17 34:22 41:22 49:2 49:7,9,19 49:25 50:21,24 51:4,7 52:2,6 53:18 54:11,24 55:9 56:20 57:21 60:3 61:21 67 :24 69:2 70:6,10,23 71:3,4,10 72:7 73:18 73:18 75:16 78:12,13 78:14 79:1 84:14 88:8 88:11 93:16 95:9 95:11 reasons12:6 22:12 recall44:23 recap6:8 receivell:2 received 26 :13 receptacles 87:16 receptive 36:21 recognize 36:13 74:3 recollec... 65:3 recommen... 7:1 17:6 55:12 74:10 recommen... YS 01583 i@ 1 1 lu IE 6:16,23 12:10 recommended 6:9,14 recommen .. . 15:23 recommends 7:11 12:7 12:10 reconvene 49:19 record10:8 14:7 21:14 24:5 46:10 50:1 69:17 84:25 94:2 97:10 records9:15 9:17,19,22 9:23 10:14 27:19 28:5 30:23 recovering 62:11 recovery l:8 4:12 5:1,8 19:10 47:7 55:11 58:25 59:9 70:24 80:14 95:12,16 95:21 redacted 82:16 Redlands 4:11 6:11 7:4 10:10 10:15 56:16 reduce53:22 54:2 reduced6:13 reduces71:8 reducing 72:11 reduction 72:16,18 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 referring 14:10 20:24 refers21:25 reflects 77:3 80:19 refute28:17 refuting 75:5,6 regard26:24 27:4 28:12 92:6 regarding 36:11 83:22 regards 10:22 regroup 49:14 regular 95:19 regulation 15:11 34:14 67:12,24 regulations 8:19 11:9 25:13 61:12 67:17 79:15 reiterate 86:25 rejected 19:13 rejection 17:6 related65:4 relates91:2 relating 83:3 95:21 relation... 77:5 relative 85:2 97:15 relevant 64:9 reliance 13:13 relied13:23 relief 23:17 relies 18:14 remain 41:9 64:13,20 remained 35:5 remaining 25:16 remedied 65:7 84:6 reminder 5:22 removed 65:18 66:8 rendered 11:23 rent65:19 rental 62:12 rented 52:24 58:12 rents65:21 reopen 4:14 12:25 13:11 reopened 7:12 13:18 13:20 reopening 13:7,14 26:24 repeatedly 87:4 reply47:23 report 5:14 6:2 7:11 8:15 10:11 12:7 16:16 18:8,14,20 18:25 19:21 20:10,13 20:22 22:5 23:11 24:1 39:6 61:7 62:10 63:14,25 64:11 65:9 66:22 69:9 70:6 73:9 83:6 89:6 reported 1:23 18:11 76:2 85:7 Reporter 2:11 49:14 97:5 reports 6:19 18:9 73:14 represen... 81:23 request 9:17 9:22 13:11 50:5,5,7,7 50:10,10 50:15,16 50:24,24 51:4,4,4,8 51:9,20,21 52:7 53:18 53:19,20 54:15,23 55:1,2 57:21,23 57:24 59:22,24 62:15 67:7 70:7 71:3 71:9 73:4 73:4 74:4 74:25 76:1 78:17 82:14,15 82:17,19 93:10 requested 4:14 12:8 48:4 52:11 54:16 55:5 60:7,8,12 60:16,21 61:1,9,9 61:14,21 62:2,7 64:6 67:19 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 19 68:3 69:6 69:10 74:2 91:7 requesting 10:3 67:7 67:19 requests 16:9 49:25 50:3,4,13 50:13 require6:21 8:8 42:15 50:22 55:7 55:9 required . 11:9,16,18 17:11 22:10 24:13 27:13 31:3 37:19 39:17,24 44:2 47:22 48:1 60:5 68:21 73 : 23 78:12,12 78:16 requirement 26:14 35:10 43:5 43:20 46:24 51:2 51:17 79:10,20 79:20 82:8 requirem.... 9:6 15:5 16:11 24:21 25:21 33:19 41:18 43:2 46:19 88:8 90:6 requires 15:4 55:10 requiring D YS 01584 IS 1E 1E U reread33:23 research 26:8 42 :13 reside50:25 53:15 54:9 54:13 59:11 63:22 67:21 75:17 residence 57:2,11 resident 59:13,18 64:17 76:11 residential 5:24 8:9 8:17 9:9 10:18 11:22 53:11,12 54:6,9,11 54:13 57:3 57:5 64:6 66:2,5 70:23,24 75:14 residents 19:17 23:13 48:5 52:25 53:5 55:20,23 56:11 57 :6 58:13,18 58:22 59:8 59:11 63:15 70:2 72:8 75:17 75:20 76:4 76:6,13 77:5,6,12 77:16,17 83:4 87:19 87:20 resides 75:22 77:15 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 Resolution 4:25,25 5:3,7,7 12:11,14 44:7,9 45:8,17 47:11 71:15 92:10 93:6 93 :8,14,15 94 :3,5,13 94:13,15 95:7 Resolutions 7:7 94:20 respect34:5 44:6 59:2 77:6 84:21 88:7 93:9 respectf... 34:19 74:24 respond 12:21 29:6 29:12 32:3 39:11 40:13 48:8 80:25 89:8 response 7:23 26:7 26:21 72:25 92:4 responses 38:15 responsi... 52:22 53:3 58:10,16 responsi... 52:21 58:9 responsible 59:13 75:20 76:11 rest 28:10 restrict... 53:10,13 53:15,21 57:10 restrictive 70:2 result 13:13 35:3 51:10 52:9 54:25 60:22 61:2 61:22 66:19 68:3 69:8 76:18 retain 7:21 return 53:17 88:25 91:14 96:1 reverse25:2 review21:18 30:15 34:8 74:10,19 89:6 91:13 93:19 reviewed 55:13 74:9 reviewing 20:1 revised 8:18 revoke35:7 35:13 revoking 35:13,14 RICHARDS3:4 right12:20 27:6 28:20 29:13 31:5 32:2 35:13 36:10 37:4 38:21,25 39:11 40:22 43:11 44:20 45:6 48:24 49:3 49:5,18 50:19 65:5 66:17 79:24 89:13 90:5 90:9 91:21 93:23 rights7:22 18:18 29:23 30:5 30:12,16 33:9 94 :4 94:18 rigor 73 :21 room 79:4 RPR1:23 2:11 97:22 RSF8:17,20 rule 15:25 23:1 33:5 33:6 38:21 41 :17 88:10 rules 23:23 41:19,20 41:24,24 50:23 67:17 ruling 12:25 13:19 25:2 90:15 Ryan 17:25 S S3:5 safety 61:3 61:23 86:24 87:14,18 87:23 sailed16:10 sake91:23 sale68:15 San 18 : 1 Santa 5:24 8:16 15:3 20:1 21:13 25:7 26:8 39:3 47:17 77:7 78:20 satisfy 72:14 saying 14:21 32:5,5 33:13,21 34:2,6 36:3,4,5,6 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 20 36:6 38:8 38:12,18 38:22 45:3 46:14 47:18 55 :17 73:3 77:1 85:16 says 21 :4,11 39:24 56:2 62:10 67:18 70 :22 71:19 86:9 scale 42:14 scheduled 95:10,13 scope 17:24 screen56:8 Sea 8 0. 12 seal 91:13 search 9:22 15:17 second19:15 24:15 27:4 38:18 47:1 63:10 82:12 84:20 85:1 secondary 53:22,25 Secondly 85:11 section 9:2 9:5 10:22 11:3,5,5 11:21 17:7 18:2 20:24 21:10,11 25:7 44:23 49:4 58:3 60:11 Security 74:7 see4:5 13:15 20:4 27:19 31:24 40:17 44:9 YS 01585 IE F 0 47:20,21 56:7 70:18 80:22 84:17 85:25 86:1 86:9 88:14 Seeing 46:6 seek 11:24 23:17 seeking 56:24 seeks51:17 seen 30:23 69:17 72:9 73:17,20 sense34:7 82:18 sensitive 36:10 74:12 91:11 sent 10:2 76:25 separate 31:22 75:17,23 separately 31:21 59:11 93:7 93:10 September 10:11 serious38:9 services 70:24 serving8:22 9:7,10 sessions 59:16 set 10: 13 21:12,19 21:20 87:20 97:7 setting63:3 66:6 seven 9:10 severely 54:23 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 sharing 52 :21 58:9 Sheriff's 22:2,4 shining 41:17 42:25 ship 16 :10 68:14 Shores95 :12 short13:8 13:16 45:24 shorthand 2:11 73:11 97:4,11 showedl5:16 showing74:5 shows25:8 25:17 SI 20: 12 sign 5:11 57:23 85:15 94:13 signed31:11 65:4 83:23 94:22 95:3 signific... 75:21 80:6 signs 95:7 similar 10:25 12:2 17 :14 21:8 44:17 52:7 59:20 64:8 66:3 67:2 85:12 simple 78:10 simply5:2 5:16 27:23 28:7 40:24 44:1 67:14 67:24 single 8:17 50:6 52:12 52:14,16 52:19 53:2 53:9,10,12 53:19 54:4 56:25 57 :12,25 58:2,7,15 58:21 59:3 59:25 60:2 63:9 67:4 67:10,10 67:10,15 67:16 75:4 75 :10 76:1 76:9,9 78 :8 84:15 88:7 93:16 singlely 8:21 sir 49: 1 57:15 78:4 88:4,5 sit34:25 site 55:24 56:1,10 62:18 63:1 63:6 77 :24 83:9,16 sites 56:2 situation 42:6,8 44:21 52:5 63:4 six8:22 9:7 10:7 19:17 23:13 44 :22 95:23 size 57:8 70:25 skip 55:1 59:23 skips 37:18 sky's 67:13 slide 25:5 slides82:15 small 86:2 smart86:14 smoking 78:14 snapshot 20:6 snuck40:5 sober6:12 7:5 8:3 10:3,4,6,9 10:15 18:21 19:11 22:8 22:14,15 57:1 59:19 62:13 63:15,21 66:15,18 79:10 80:12 Socia174:7 sole59:17 solid 71:20 88:10 somebody 19:22 34:11 35:21 39:13 63:8 65:17 somewhat 13:9 73:25 soon57:23 79:22 sooner43:13 sororities 54:7 sorry 5:12 30:1 40:15 49:2,6,10 88:21 91:17 92:22,23 93:18 sort13:17 19:9 34:21 86:7,8 sound21:14 sounds 40:3 72:17 83:1 Southern 80:15 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 21 speak 89:24 speaking 35:22 speaks68:7 special 21:23 specific 8:16,18,24 9:9,11 20:1 21:13 25:7,10 26:1 30:9 30:18,19 54:20 55:14 61:2 61:22 68:24 71:21 91:3 specific... 16:9 21:11 68:1 77:13 81 :15 82:3 speculating 38:6 speculation 23:4 35 :4 37:16 speculative 18:15 spend89:14 spent20:1 staff4:14 4:17 5:14 5:17 6 :1,9 6:14,22 7:1,6,11 7:11,15,23 8:3,15 9:16,21 11:1 12:3 12:7,7,9 12:10,13 12:18 13:7 13:10,21 15:22 16:15,23 17:6 18:8 18:9,14,21 YS 01586 Inft NE IEF W7 1 9 18:25 19:21 20:10,10 20:13,22 21:11 22:5 22:19 23:11 24:1 24:8 30:15 39:5 40:21 41:5 45 :12 49:21 55:14 57:14 61:7 62:1,10,12 63:14,25 64:11,15 65:8 66:22 68:2 69:9 69:17 70:6 72:25 73:9 73:14,21 74:9,20 76:1,20,22 79:25 83 :6 88:3 89:6 89:19 90:3 90:12,13 91:23,25 92:3,5 94:12,23 staff's 22:20 44:3 67:6 70:19 88:6 stand42:19 68:22 standard 10:23 18:3 55:5 57:9 standards 50:8 standing 23:16 25:25,25 37:4,11 46:25 stands59:4 71:19 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 start 16:5 38:6 49:21 73:3 starting 79:8 95:18 starts95:6 state 8:8 11:19 17:10 35:11 50:1 84:24 85:12 97:5 stated8:25 12:6 76:5 77:9 statement 29:10 55:16 67:23 69:20 79:16 statements 65:4 74:7 84:5 91:7 states 11:5 15:13 17:17 56:10 stating 9:7 10:6 status85:7 statute 35:22 stay 17:3 64:17 80:16 83:20 staying 83:11 step 1:10 3:11 4:24 37:18 54:14 65:17 66:20 steps 93:14 stipulate 28:24 42:20 stop73:7 stops74:17 straight 45:13 strains 72:12 Street3:13 6:15 19:12 47:17 stretches 15:7 strikes 71:25 stripped 82:11 strongly 68:16 structure 57:8 stuck86:4 stuffl9:9 25:17 subject9:1 9:12 29:24 30:6,11 35:20 39:20 66:13 67:16 75:22 85:25 89:22 submission 17:4 62:19 64:18 77:25 81:15 89:21 90:17 92 :16 93:19 submissions 59:5 submit14:17 18:14 58:20 59:25 66:7 73:24 89:5 89:20 90:11,13 91:12,16 submitted 16:24 17:10 29:16 40:19 56:12 65:5 74:6,19 77:2 91:19 subscribed 97:17 subsection 17:9 21:22 21:23 subsequent 15:17 94:21 subseque... 94:14 substantial 17:19 30:9 61:4 69:8 substant... 87:12 sufficient 5:10 66:4 72:3 suggest 27:25 49:12 90:10 suggested 52:4 67:6 70:20 suggesting 37:25 suggestion 88:24 suggestions 88:18 Suite3:13 supply66:2 support55:4 59:9 70:8 supported PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 22 64:23 65:2 71:21 supporting 56:13 supportive 58:23 supposed 72:10 81:20 sure 29:7 30:3 31:18 34:2 40:18 41:7 42:11 42:17 46 :11 47:15,19 57:18 73:21 74:14 88:14,23 90:25 92:13 surprise 76:22 surprised 45:25 81:13 symptoms 59:10 systems59:9 T table 6: 2 tailored 52:2 take 6:7 27:13 32:22 49:12 88:16 89:14,21 90:17 taken2:7 13:21 32:19 44:4 97:6 takes 64:22 67:22 95:6 YS 01587 ICE W7 ink a] I talk 37:15 46:15 62:15 80:23 81:8 talked17:3 24:20 44:22 69:14,25 70:17 81:19 82:15 talking14 :2 32:11 59:3 62:24 63:16 65:17 68:8 83:7 91:4 94:9,10 talks 18:2 71:18 tax 85:7 88:25 tell 46:17 48:1 66:17 85:23,24 89:16 telling24:2 43:15 tells 19:21 42:11 temporary 9:23 ten 9: 24 tenants 65:21 terms 13:5 14:25 16:22 58:24 63:17 85:15 90:6 terrible 28:11 test19:9 testifying 97:9 testimony 7:9 14:13 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 45:19 86:21 thank 5:6,21 6:6 12:22 29:4 31:15 46:8 48:6 48:7 57:18 72:24 79:7 80:20,25 87:1,24 88:1 90:9 96:3,8 Thanks48:23 57:14 84:11 therapy 59:16 thereof 25:16 97:13 they'd 90:12 thick20:5 20:24 thing26:24 42:14 63:24 70:4 90:24 91:10,22 things 17:3 32:3 41:4 48:17,19 64:24 85:16,21 86:13 87:22 think 5: 9 12:24 13:6 14:1,14,20 15:15 16:4 16:4,10 19:2 22:2 24:1 27 :2 27:12 28:25 32:19 33:13,22 33:25 35:1 35:15 36:22,23 39:13 40:6 40:21,22 41:4,22 43:7 44:3 45:2,9 46:13 47:20 48:11 57:21,22 61:18,23 63:19 64:14,22 65:10,25 66:23,25 68:18,18 69:23 70:19 71:1 71:24 72:13,22 81:5,7 82:18 83:5 83:24 84:10,25 86:8 88:8 91:3 93:21 thinks28:23 32:8 42:21 third 57:21 57:25 61:14 64:5 93:17 Thomasl:ll 4:5 thoroughly 9:21 thought13:9 13:10 30:23 39:4 threat61:3 61:23,24 three 12:14 19:7 49:25 50:3,10,17 55:2 61:6 62:16 71:11 73:5 93:14 thumb 87:9 thumbprints 87:7 Thursday 1:13 2:10 4:1 Thursdays 79:4 tied50:14 time 4:20 6:18 7:25 8:15 10:19 11:7 12:18 13:16 14:9 14:14 15:6 16:16 17:4 20:15 22:5 28:23 36:18 41:1 41 :14,15 41:19 42:19 43:14 45:16,20 45:25 46:17,22 69:14,22 70:1,16 72:18 75:14 77:19,25 79:4,10,13 79:15 82:20 84:7 88:16 89:15 96:9 97:7 timeline 95:5 timely 13:10 times9:24 31:8 today 4:7 18:13,24 21:8 23:1 36:20 38:11 40:7 40:10,10 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 23 40:11,17 41:11 50:16 59:3 62:24 65:10 68:22 73:14 81:10 93:9 96:5 told 81:25 tomorrow 37:5 tonight 79:3 tools 86:5 top 24:25 total9:25 town 27:15 traditional 52:17 58:5 58:23 76:7 traffic 69:9 transcribed 97:11 transcript 33:23 transcri... 97:13 transpar... 90:3 trash 87:16 87:23 treated 50:5 52:11 53:19 57:24 67:9 67:15,16 treatment 59:15,16 75:6,8 treatments 84:8 trial27:5 27:22 tries 22:19 troubles 85:17 true 27:25 34:11 YS 01588 NE 1E 1E K] El 0 R, M 45:21 77:23 try 37:17 42:9 trying36:25 40:5 73:10 turn 65:20 turned 9:15 15:16 twelve 9:10 two 36:17 37:1,8 38:14,16 40:10 43:13 49:24 50:7 50:14 51:5 55:1 57:23 59:23 61:25 62:19 65:13 71:5 73:4,9 82:14,15 82:16,18 82:19 85:14 90:14 95:15 tying35:24 type 24:17 63:12 67:25 71:24 types63:20 67 :3 typically 41:5 U unable51:23 54:19 undated10:6 undermine 54:23 undermined 70:21 undermines 54 :3 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 undermining 51:17 undersigned 97:4 understand 33:22 34:4 36:3 37:24 43:22 85:18 87:21 understa... 13:2 93:12 undisputed 63:19 64:4 undue 51:9 60:17,18 61 :15 unfair50:21 76:22 unfolded 86:14 unfortunate 86:17 unincorp... 26 :2 unit50:6 52:12,16 52:20,24 53:1,4,5,9 53:9,20 54:5 57:1 57:12,25 58:2,8,12 58:14,17 58:18,21 59:25 60:3 67:5,15,16 75:4,10 76:2,9,10 76:14 77:12 78:9 84:15 93:16 United15:13 17:16 units4:19 53:10,12 59:4 63:9 unlawful 25:3 86:23 unlawfully 15:3 35:3 68:14 unnecess... 54:21 unreason... 51:8,20 unrelated 22:12 untested 18:15 upcoming 93:25 upgraded 41:10,10 41:11 uphold 95 :17 96:1 upper42 :10 use4:15,21 6:10,14 7:12 8:13 8:19 9:1,2 9:12,19,23 11:3,6,8 11:12,13 11:15,21 11:24,25 12:5,5,7 12:12,14 14:16,20 17:12 18:22 19:18 20:16,25 21:9,12,19 21:23 22:24 23:2 23 :14 24:3 24:13 27:8 27:9,24 28:6,9 29:17,19 29:23,24 30:5,6,11 31:25 32:13 33:15,24 34:1,3,8 35:17 37:17,19 37:20,21 39:18,24 40:23 42:13 44:8 45:2 47:8 48:4,15,18 50:9,11,14 52:13,20 53:2 55:5 55:11 56:18 58:8 58:15 60:14 62:4 68:9 70:9 70:10 71:3 71:14 75:13,19 76:18 78:11 79:10,14 80:9 93:15 93:17 useful85:21 uses5 :24 7 :20,21,25 8:14,15,20 8:25 9:9 12:3 43:25 44:11,17 45:1 46:2 53:11 69:2 usual 50:11 50:23 52:12 usually 93:1 utility 91:7 utilized 24:16 V validity 25:16 variances 21:21 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 24 varied 17:4 variety 85:20 vehicles 59:21 veracity 84:4 verbatim 97:9 verifica... 56:12 verify 75:2 verifying 27:23 86:1 version 73:11 versusl7:25 71:18 vested29 :23 30:5,13,16 33:15 vesting 13:17 viable64:8 64:13 view 74:20 85:15 violate37:7 75:1 violated 15:25 16:12 20:7 32:17 33 :5 38:20 43:4 violating 21:6 violation 10:19,25 15 :19 17:15,22 18:9,10 19:1 21:15 24:9 26:18 33:7 34:13 35:2,4,5 35:11 36:7 37:13 43:19 YS 01589 IE IN IH A 0 19 46:18,24 47:25 86:10 violations 16:6 22:17 virtually 5:17 visitation 70:12,12 visitors 69:12 70:5 visuals 87:12 voiced18:18 voluntarily 80:16 volunteer 85:9 W W1:11 4:5 waive 90:7 waived58:1 waiver50:11 50:11 52:12 55:2 55 :5 71 :11 71:16 72:4 73:16 84:15 93:10,18 Walker 87:2 87:2 want 28:10 32:2,3,10 38:6 42:17 46:15 76:21,22 83:10 91:25 92:13 94:10 wanted22:11 29:14 76:18 84:20 86:25 90:25 93:4 93:24 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 wants16:4,5 32:25 40:17 63:8 73:12 82:20 wasn1t27:18 91:17 watching 92:14 WATSON3:4 way 9:14 14:18 21:8 34:24 35:16 36:8 41:4 45:23 60:11 83:3 83:19 86:13 93:21 ways54:22 72:7 Web55:24 56:1,1,10 62:18 63:1 63:6 77:24 83:9,16 week 36:17 37:1 40:10 55:22 56:2 89:25 90:22 weeks37:1 38:17 40:11 90:14 week's28:24 weigh 95:21 welcome14:5 47:9 went37:5 81:23 82:7 weren't36:7 West5:24 95:9,22 we'114:4 5:11,15 37:22 39:20,21 42:2 45:4 45:17 46:6 68:14 88:1 93:5 96:5 we'rel3:22 14:1,24 20:5 23:7 23:20 32:4 32:5,5,11 34:1,2 35:2,7 36:5,6,6 38:19 41:21 42:24,25 43:1,16 45:10 49:18 55:1 57:20 59:3 61:18 62:24 63 :16,17 65:17 67:9 67:12,14 67:23,23 67:24 68:21 71:16 78:24 81:10 83:7 84:2 89:11 90:25 91:3 91:5 we've 15:8 32:19 39:4 61:11,17 68:9,19,22 71:1 81 :8 81:9 83:2 83:17 84:5 94:19 WHEREOF 97:17 wife's19:25 willing 13:12 28:24 72:4 89:5,6,20 win 40: 1,1 wisdom 46:4 wish 26:20 29:7 36:18 36:21 40:13 72:25 89:17 90:21 WITNESS 97:17 witnesses 97:8 Wolcott3:7 29:9,13,13 30:3 49:24 50:2,19 57:5,19,20 62:17 72:6 73:2 88:5 89:4,23 91:6 94:1 94:7 Women's1:10 3:11 wonderful 48:12 word 27:7,14 32:20,22 35:14 words13:15 38:22 94:12 work41:5 45:14 47:12 92:5 worked 7:15 works33:3 39:12 worth84:25 wouldn't 43:16 written 6:19 53:2 58:15 wrong 39:8 39:14 W- 2's74:6 Y PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 25 yeah 33:21 35:15 38:14 4 0: 18 44:24 80:24 year9:24 years37:8 41:11 Yellowstone 1:10 3:11 4:10,12 5:14 7:19 8:14 9:20 10:9,20 11:1 12:3 12:23 15:2 16:12 17:17 19:10 20:7 20:14 22:19,23 22:24 23:2 24:9,13 25:3 26:5 26:12,14 30 :20 32:14,15 32:17 33:1 33:2,5 34 :8,12 35:3,10,17 35:21 39:3 42:23 43:1 43:4,19,24 46:18,23 47:7 52:11 62:12,18 62:20 63:5 63:20 64:13,18 65:14,15 65:20,20 65:22,23 67:22 77:4 77:7 91:2 91:2 92:25 Yellowst... YS 01590 Wol 19 IE IE w7 IE W) IE I 9 20:19 22:6 32:20 47:20 55:4 55:24 64:23 67:6 67:7 77:8 77:14 Yep 96:7 yesterday 43:11,12 _Z Zfaty3:12 3:13 12:22 12:23 13:22 14:4 14:6 26:21 29:6 31:16 31:20 32:2 33:16,21 34:19 35:15 36:22 38:14 40:15 42:22 45 :3 45:23 46:9 46:12 47:6 47:18 48:8 48:11 57:18,19 73:3 78:7 80:21,24 82:6,12 89:10,19 90:6,23 94:1,7,9 94:24 Zf sty Is 29:14 74:25 75:12 76:5 80:2 zone54:9 zoned8:17 9:9 zones57:3 zoning8:6 9:2,5 PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 15:11,19 20:3,23 21:10 22:12,16 22:17,18 22:20 25:9 33:5 34:14 37:7 43:5 46:19,24 47:3 51:11 51:14,14 52:15 53:14 54:23 60:23 68:4 69:1,1 78:21,22 $16055:21 56:2 $17056:3 $18056:2 $220055:5 $4,00056:16 $4;68056:15 56:15 $40056:14 $5055:21 $620055:17 56:6 0 08 75 : 15 0975:25 77:1 090312LAM 1:24 126:6 68:18 79:8 1/295:13 10 78 :24 10055:10 106918:2 1180:9 111595:22 121:13 2:10 4:1 10:16 44:24,24 50:4 65:9 12th 7:8 13th 77:1 1480:9 95:5 14th 15:12 17:16 15 6: 13 10:13 150- some... 20:2 150171:7 1502 71: 7 15614:10 6:16 7:3 12:13 56:14 156247:16 15714:11 19:11 31:10 87:2 16015 : 8 16214:10 6:11 7:4 9:23 56:15 1745:2 18 -bed 10:4 19 95: 10 19th 96:6 2 220:4,5 95:14 2 -inch 20:23 20 76: 24 20th 6:8 7 :12 13:3 14:10 15:17 16:19,20 17:5 24:20 29:21 30:3 30:8 33:23 43:11 59:5 68:7 69:14 69:20,21 70:17 73:14 75:15 86:21 20.03.030 58:3 20.62.030 11:3 20.91A11:21 20.91A.060 10:22 17:7 20.98.025B 60:11 20018:19 2003 8: 1 2005 8:1 10:1,8,11 2006 10: 3 2007 8: 1 32:15 34:9 39:2 200814:19 26:6 29:16 68:18 76:24 77:2 78:22 79:8 81:11,15 2008 -030 12:12 2008 -05 11:24 53:24 2009 1: 13 2:10 4:1 68:7 77:10 2009 - 0035:4 5:7 201080:17 20172 4: 11 20480:10 2133:6 22 80 : 19 22nd 81:11 82:7 2471:8 95:18 25th95:14 2977:10 8 0: 14 Ee PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 Page 26 3013:13 3132:15 34:9 39:2 33002:8 3:9 3309 95: 12 3553:5 376 -2828 3:14 4 4 95 : 10 4th 18:2 4:002:9 4:2 40 9:25 40th 3:5 492 95:13,13 5 5th 15: 12 17 :16 501 (c) (3) 65:23 74:16 5268:12,17 78:20 580 3 : 13 6 64'8:9 78 :24 6:162:10 4:2 96:9 626- 84843:6 644 -3002 3:10 7 744:24 95:18,19 7 -1 -950 20:25 7- 9- 105.1C 21:20 7.9.1419:5 7.9.1509:2 9 90095:9 90071 -3101 3:5 YS 01591 MI IE IE- PUBLIC HEARING - 3/12/2009 Page 27 926513:14 92658 -8915 3 :10 9266 1: 24 2:12 97:23 94 18: 2 9493:10,14 99085:5 88:25 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE (800) 647 -9099 YS 01592 1561 INDUS: USE PERMIT DENIAL RESOLUTION DATED MARCH 14, 2009 - \v.aoc YS 01593 RESOLUTION No. HO- 2009 -003 A RESOLUTION OF A HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING WITH PREJUDICE USE PERMIT NO. 2008 -034 TO ALLOW AN EXISTING GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE TO CONTINUE AT 1561 INDUS STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA (PA2008 -105) WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council on January 22, 2008, following noticed public hearings; and WHEREAS, the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-05 amended the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code (NBMC) relating to Group Residential Uses; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 added Chapter 20.91A to the NBMC. Chapter 20.91A sets forth a process by which existing nonconforming uses in residential areas, including existing group residential care facilities (except for state - licensed drug or alcohol treatment homes serving six or fewer clients), must apply for use permits to remain in operation at their current location beyond February 2009; and WHEREAS, Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., submitted Group Residential Use Permit applications for four sober living facilities located at 1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive, all located in the City of Newport Beach, California; and WHEREAS, Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., located at 1561 Indus Street ( "Use Location") in Newport Beach, California, is an existing group residential care facility operating an unlicensed "sober living" facility for 12 women in an existing single - family dwelling; and WHEREAS, an application was filed by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Use ") pursuant to Ordinance No. 2008 -05 within the applicable time period with respect to property located at 1561 Indus Street, and legally described as Lot 14, Tract 4307 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California (APN 119- 361-08), as per map recorded in Book 153, Pages 18 -20 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, requesting approval of Use Permit No. 2008 -034 to allow a residential care facility to continue its operations as a 12 bed adult sober living facility for females only; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2009, a Hearing Officer held a noticed hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California at which time the project application was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Hearing Officer at this meeting, and the hearing was continued to March 12, 2009, when the YS 01594 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1561 Indus Street (Use Permit No. 2008 -034) Page 2 of 4 public hearing was reopened to receive additional evidence, both written and oral from the applicant, staff and the public; and WHEREAS, both hearings were presided over by Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Yellowstone facility located at 1561 Indus Street was established on or after December 2006, during the time when the location was part of Orange County unincorporated territory and subject to the Orange County Codified Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Yellowstone facility located at 1561 Indus Street was established by Yellowstone in advance of the City's January 1, 2008, annexation of West Santa Ana Heights. Previous to January 1, 2008, the Yellowstone facility was subject to the regulations of the County of Orange, as such regulations apply to County unincorporated lands. The Orange County Codified Ordinances allows certain specified recovery facilities to establish in residential zones, provided that the facilities obtain a use permit issued by the Orange County Planning Commission. More specifically, the use permit requirement applies to "Community Care Facilities" and "Congregate Care Facilities" which house from seven (7) to twelve (12), inclusive, persons requiring care (Section 7 -9 -141, Section 7- 9- 141.3[b], and Section 7 -9 -150 of the Orange County Codified Ordinances); and WHEREAS, an inquiry made by the City to the County of Orange's Planning Department ( "OC Planning ") in February 2009 showed that only one use permit was issued by the County of Orange that applies to any of Yellowstone's four operations, and that use permit was a temporary use permit (TPU 050001) authorizing the facility at 1621 Indus Street to hold 40 meetings at 1621 Indus Street within Calendar Year 2005. The County has no record of any of the four Yellowstone facilities (1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street, and 20172 Redlands Drive) having received use permits authorizing their operation as either Community Care Facilities or Congregate Care Facilities from the County of Orange's Planning Commission per the Orange County Codified Ordinances. Although County Planning staff and Code Enforcement staff informed City staff verbally and in writing (Exhibit 1, attached hereto) that sober living houses would be considered a Community Care Facility or a Congregate Care Facility, nothing in the record known to the City shows that the facilities were legally - established uses at any time Yellowstone operated them while the West Santa Ana Heights area was part of the County of Orange's unincorporated territory; and WHEREAS, any person whose property in a residential district was rendered nonconforming by the passage of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 adding Chapter 20.91A may YS 01595 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1561 Indus Street (Use Permit No. 2008 -034) Paae 3 of 4 seek the issuance of conditional use permit to allow the continued use of an existing group residential care facility if the application was timely filed; and WHEREAS, pursuant to NBMC Section 20.62.030 (Determination of Nonconformity), a nonconforming use is "Any use found to have been lawfully established and maintained, but which does not conform with the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which it is located by reason of adoption or amendment of this code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City, shall be deemed to be a nonconforming use. A nonconforming use includes a use that was lawfully established and maintained but is conditionally permitted in the district and has not obtained a use permit. A use shall not be considered to have been "lawfully established and maintained" and is an illegal use if it was established or operated without required permits and licenses, including but not limited to permits and licenses required by any federal, state, orlocal govemment agency' (emphasis added); and WHEREAS, the Yellowstone facility located at 1561 Indus Street was not a legally - established use when the use was established within the Orange County unincorporated territory known as West Santa Ana Heights, and is not qualified to seek a use permit to continue the use in its current location; and WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not subject to CEQA; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Hearing Officer hereby denies with prejudice Use Permit No. 2008 -034. Section 2. The action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. YS 01596 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1561 Indus Street (Use Permit No. 2008 -034) Paae 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of April, 2009. ATTEST Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer YS 01597 Hearing Officer Resolution 1561 Indus Street Use Permit No. 2008 -034 EXHIBIT 1 YS 01598 _. From Wellborn, Michael [mai[to:Michael.Wellborn @rdmd ocgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:19 PM To: Kiff, Dave Subject: RE: Not an MB Issue Dave The only property from your list with any kind of Use Permit is 1621 Indus with a 2005 Temporary Use Permit to hold meetings (attached). Also, the OC Zoning Code definitions of the possible facilities are below. See ya, Mike Congregate Care Facility: A facility, including a Congregate Living Health Facility as defined in State law, providing care on a monthly basis or longer and which is the primary residence of the people it serves. It provides services to the residents such as the following: dining, housekeeping, security, medical, transportation and recreation. Any commercial services provided are for the exclusive use of the occupants of the facility. Such a facility may be located in more than one (1) building and on contiguous parcels within the building site. It includes facilities offering occupancy on a monthly basis and longer such as hotels, resorts, etc., which have characteristics similar to the above. Community Care Facility: Any facility which may or may not require a State license to provide nonmedical residential care or day care for children, adults or both, including physically handicapped and mentally incompetent persons. This includes child day care facilities /day care nurseries and family day care homes. ------ Message---- - From: Kiff, Dave [ mailto :DKiff@dty.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:27 PM To: Wellborn, Michael Subject: RE: Not a VIM Bal Issue Hi Mike - -- YS 01599 Many thanks for that input. Can I ask for one more favor, just to confirm the below question: • 1561 Indus Street houses 12 women, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2007 • 1621 Indus Street houses 18 women, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2003 • 1571 Pegasus Street houses 18 women, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2005 • 20172 Redlands Drive houses 18 men, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2005 1 -- Do your records show any Use Permits issued for these locations? 2 — Can you refer me to the OCCO section that defines a Congregate or a Community Care Facility? Dave From: Wellborn, Michael [mailto:Michael .Wellborn @rdmd.ocgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:28 PM To: Kiff, Dave Subject: Not a IW Bpo Issue Hi Dave — In response to your inquiry to Tim and Nick, I have spliced on the relevant OC Zoning Code sections for Community Care and Congregate Care facilities (7 -9 -141 and 7 -9 -142). Both allow up to six residents in a group home without any permit. Both require a Use Permit from the Planning Commission for seven to twelve residents. Mike Sec. 7 -9 -141. Community care facilities. Community care facilities serving six (6) or less persons and large family day care homes shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single - family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. Community care facilities serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons, except for large family day care homes, shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150, (Ord. No. 3470, § 4, 6- 20 -84; Ord. No. 3560, § 15, 12- 17 -85; Ord. No. 3655, § 5, 8- 25 -87; Ord. No. 3816, § 29,3-12-91; Ord, No. 3887, § 21, 3- 23 -93) Sec. 7-9-141.1. Reserved. Editor's note! Section 7 -9 -141.1 was repealed by § 21 of Ord. No. 3887, adopted Apr. 6, 1993. The section related to larger congregate care facilities and was derived from Ord. No. 3655, § 6, Aug. 25, 1987. See now § 7 -9 -142. YS 01600 Sec. 7 -9- 141.2. Child day care facilities /day care nurseries. Child day care facilities/day care nurseries serving more than fourteen (14) persons may be permitted in any district, planned community or specific plan area (except in designated airport accident potential zones) where this use is not otherwise identified as a permitted use, subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. (Ord. No. 3754, § 82, 5- 16 -89; Ord. No. 3887, § 21, 3- 23 -93; Ord. No. 3981, § 21, 4- 22 -97) Editor's note: Section 7 -9 -141.3 was repealed by § 21 of Ord. No. 3887, adopted Apr. 6, 1993. The section related to single room occupancy facilities and was derived from Ord. No. 3834, § 2, adopted Aug. 20, 1991. See now § 7 -9 -138. Sec. 7- 9- 141.3. Congregate care facilities. (a) A congregate care facility serving six (6) or fewer persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single - family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. (b) A congregate care facility serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to section 7 -9 -150. A congregate care facility shall; (1) Derlionstrate compatibility with adjacent development; (2) Provide adequate on site parking for residents and staff; (3) Provide adequate screening of the facility by landscaping and/or fencing; and (4) Limit signage and lighting. (c) A congregate care facility serving more than twelve (12) persons may be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for either multifamily residential or hotels subject to the approval of a use permit by the planning commission pursuant to section 7- 9 -150. (d) Equivalent dwelling unit counts for congregate care facilities shall be determined by the following table. The consequent unit counts are to be subtracted from the total number of allowed dwelling units for a planned community or specific plan area, and will also determine consistency with area per dwelling unit zoning limitations. TABLE INSET: Configuration Dwelling Unit Counts 2 or more bedrooms in the unit I dwelling 1 bedroom in the unit .5 dwelling 0 bedroom in the unit .25 dwelling Medical care rooms 0 dwelling Density bonuses may be granted to congregate care facilities in residentially -zoned areas in the same manner that they may be granted to standard residential projects per the housing element. (Ord. No. 08 -015, § 2,11-18-08) - - - -- Original Message--- - From: Kiff, Dave [ mailto :DKiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:18 PM To: Chrisos, Nick [COCO]; Neely, Tim Subject: Not a M` B` Issue YS 01601 Hi Tim and Nick — Maybe a quick question for you. About six group homes in West Santa Ana Heights were added to the City after annexation in Jan 2008. The operators are saying that the County never required any kind of permit for these homes, despite the fact that at least four of them house 18 people each. Is there anything in your codes for unincorporated areas that requires a Use Permit or other discretionary land use action for large group homes? Dave Kiff Assistant City Manager 949- 644 -3002 YS 01602 1621 INDUS: USE PERMIT DENIAL RESOLUTION DATED MARCH 14, 2009 - \v.doc YS 01603 RESOLUTION No. HO- 2009 -004 A RESOLUTION OF A HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING WITH PREJUDICE USE PERMIT NO. 2008 -035 TO ALLOW AN EXISTING GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE TO CONTINUE AT 1621 INDUS STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA (PA2008 -106) WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council on January 22, 2008, following noticed public hearings; and WHEREAS, the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 amended the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code (NBMC) relating to Group Residential Uses; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 added Chapter 20.91A to the NBMC. Chapter 20.91A sets forth a process by which existing nonconforming uses in residential areas, including existing group residential care facilities (except for state - licensed drug or alcohol treatment homes serving six or fewer clients), must apply for use permits to remain in operation at their current location beyond February 2009; and WHEREAS, Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., submitted Group Residential Use Permit applications for four sober living facilities located at 1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive, all located in the City of Newport Beach, California; and WHEREAS, Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., located at 1621 Indus Street ( "Use Location ") in Newport Beach, California, is an existing group residential care facility operating an unlicensed "sober living" facility for 18 women in an existing single - family dwelling; and WHEREAS, an application was filed by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Use ") pursuant to Ordinance No. 2008 -05 within the applicable time period with respect to property located at 1621 Indus Street, and legally described as Lot 18, Tract 4307 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California (APN 119- 361-04), as per map recorded in Book 153, Pages 18 -20 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, requesting approval of Use Permit No. 2008 -035 to allow a residential care facility to continue its operations as an 18 bed adult sober living facility for females only; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2009, a Hearing Officer held a noticed hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California at which time the project application was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Hearing Officer at this meeting, and the hearing was continued to March 12, 2009, when the YS 01604 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1621 Indus Street (Use Permit No. 2008 -035) Paqe 2 of 4 public hearing was reopened to receive additional evidence, both written and oral from the applicant, staff and the public; and WHEREAS, both hearings were presided over by Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Yellowstone facility located at 1621 Indus Street was established on or after August 2003, during the time when the location was part of Orange County unincorporated territory and subject to the Orange County Codified Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Yellowstone facility located at 1621 Indus Street was established by Yellowstone in advance .of the City's January 1, 2008, annexation of West Santa Ana Heights. Previous to January 1, 2008, the Yellowstone facility was subject to the regulations of the County of Orange, as such regulations apply to County unincorporated lands. The Orange County Codified Ordinances allows certain specified recovery facilities to establish in residential zones, provided that the facilities obtain a use permit issued by the Orange County Planning Commission. More specifically, the use permit requirement applies to "Community Care Facilities" and "Congregate Care Facilities" which house from seven (7) to twelve (12), inclusive, persons requiring care (Section 7 -9 -141, Section 7- 9- 141.3[b], and Section 7 -9 -150 of the Orange County Codified Ordinances). Congregate Care Facilities which house 13 or more persons are permitted with a use permit issued by the Orange County Planning Commission in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for multifamily residential dwellings or hotels (Section 7- 9- 141.3[c] and Section 7 -9 -150 of the Orange County Coded Ordinances); and WHEREAS, an inquiry made by the City to the County of Orange's Planning Department ( "OC Planning ") in February 2009 showed that only one use permit was issued by the County of Orange that applies to any of Yellowstone's four operations, and that use permit was a temporary use permit (TPU 050001) authorizing the facility at 1621 Indus Street to hold 40 meetings at 1621 Indus Street within Calendar Year 2005. The County has no record of any of the four Yellowstone facilities (1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street, and 20172 Redlands Drive) having received use permits authorizing their operation as either Community Care Facilities or Congregate Care Facilities from the County of Orange's Planning Commission per the Orange County Codified Ordinances. Although County Planning staff and Code Enforcement staff informed City staff verbally and in writing (Exhibit 1, attached hereto) that sober living houses would be considered a Community Care Facility or a Congregate Care Facility, nothing in the record known to the City shows that the facilities were legally- established uses at any time Yellowstone operated them while the West Santa Ana Heights area was part of the County of Orange's unincorporated territory; and YS 01605 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1621 Indus Street (Use Permit No. 2008 -035) Paqe 3 of 4 WHEREAS, any person whose property in a residential district was rendered nonconforming by the passage of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 adding Chapter 20.91A may seek the issuance of conditional use permit to allow the continued use of an existing group residential care facility if the application was timely filed; and WHEREAS, pursuant to NBMC Section 20.62.030 (Determination of Nonconformity), a nonconforming use is "Any use found to have been lawfully established and maintained, but which does not conform with the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which it is located by reason of adoption or amendment of this code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City, shall be deemed to be a nonconforming use. A nonconforming use includes a use that was lawfully established and maintained but is conditionally permitted in the district and has not obtained a use permit. A use shall not be considered to have been "lawfully established and maintained" and is an illegal use if it was established or operated without required permits and licenses, including but not limited to permits and licenses required by any federal, state, or local govemment agency' (emphasis added); and WHEREAS, the Yellowstone facility located at 1621 Indus Street was not a lawfully established and maintained use when it was established within the Orange County unincorporated territory known as West Santa Ana Heights, and is therefore not qualified to seek a use permit to continue the use in its current location; and WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not subject to CEQA; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Hearing Officer hereby denies with prejudice Use Permit No. 2008 -035. Section 2. The action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. YS 01606 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1621 Indus Street (Use Permit No. 2008 -035) Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of April, 2009. By: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer ATTEST YS 01607 Hearing Officer Resolution 1621 Indus Street Use Permit No. 2008 -035 EXHIBIT 1 YS 01608 .. -. _.. .......... __ . - - -.__ _.._._ ... ..... .. .... ..... _. From. Wellborn, Michael [mailto: Michael .Wellborn @rdmd.ocgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:19 PM To: Kiff, Dave Subject: RE: Not an MB Issue Dave — The only property from your list with any kind of Use Permit is 1621 Indus with a 2005 Temporary Use Permit to hold meetings (attached). Also, the OC Zoning Code definitions of the possible facilities are below. See ya, Mike Congregate Care Facility: A facility, including a Congregate Living Health Facility as defined in State law, providing care on a monthly basis or longer and which is the primary residence of the people it serves. It provides services to the residents such as the following: dining, housekeeping, security, medical, transportation and recreation. Any commercial services provided are for the exclusive use of the occupants of the facility. Such a facility may be located in more than one (1) building and on contiguous parcels within the building site. It includes facilities offering occupancy on a monthly basis and longer such as hotels, resorts, etc., which have characteristics similar to the above. Community Care Facility: Any facility which may or may not require a State license to provide nonmedical residential care or day care for children, adults or both, including physically handicapped and mentally incompetent persons. This includes child day care facilities /day care nurseries and family day pare homes. -= - -- Original Message---- - From: Kiff, Dave [ mailto :DKiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:27 PM To: Wellborn, Michael Subject: RE: Not a NW Ia Issue Hi Mike -- YS 01609 Many thanks for that input. Can I ask for one more favor, just to confirm the below question: • 1561 Indus Street houses 12 women, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2007 • 1621 Indus Street houses 18 women, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2003 • 1571 Pegasus Street houses 18 women, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2005 • 20172 Redlands Drive houses 18 men, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2005 1 -- Do your records show any Use Permits issued for these locations? 2 — Can you refer me to the OCCO section that defines a Congregate or a Community Care`facility? Dave From: Wellborn, Michael [mailto:Michael .Wellborn @rdmd.ocgov.com) Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:28 PM To: Kiff, Dave Subject: Not a 40 Ban Issue Hi Dave In response to your inquiry to Tim and Nick, I have spliced on the relevant OC Zoning Code sections for Community Care and Congregate Care facilities (7 -9 -141 and 7 -9 -142). Both allow up to six residents in a group home without any permit. Both require a Use Permit from the Planning Commission for seven to twelve residents. Mike Sec. 7 -9 -141. Community care facilities. Community care facilities serving six (6) or less persons and large family day care homes shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single - family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. Community care facilities serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons, except for large family day care homes, shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. (Ord. No. 3470, § 4, 6- 20 -84; Ord. No. 3560, § 15, 12- 17 -85; Ord. No. 3655, § 5, 8- 25 -87; Ord No. 3816, § 29, 3- 12 -91; Ord. No. 3887, § 21, 3- 23 -93) Sec. 7-9-141. 1. Reserved. Editor's note! Section's -9 -141.1 was repealed by § 21 of Ord. No. 3887, adopted Apr, 6, 1993 The section related to larger congregate care facilities and was derived from Ord. No. 3655, § 6, Aug. 25, 1987. See now § 7 -9 -142. YS 01610 Sec.. 7 -9- 141.2. Child day care facilities/day care nurseries. Child day care facilities /day care nurseries serving more than fourteen (14) persons may be permitted in any district, planned community or specific plan area (except in designated airport accident potential zones) where this use is not otherwise identified as a permitted use, subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. (Ord. No. 3754, § 82, 5- 16 -89; Ord. No. 3887, § 21, 3- 23 -93; Ord. No. 3981, § 21, 4- 22 -97) Editor's note: Section 7 -9 -141.3 was repealed by § 21 of Ord. No. 3887, adopted Apr. 6, 1993. The section related to single room occupancy facilities and was derived from Ord. No. 3834, § 2, adopted Aug. 20, 1991. See now § 7 -9 -138. Sec. 7- 9- 141.3. Congregate care facilities. (a) A congregate care facility serving six (6) or fewer persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single - family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. (b) A congregate care facility serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to section 7 -9 -150. A congregate care facility shall; (1) Demonstrate compatibility with adjacent development; (2) Provide adequate on site parking for residents and staff; (3) Provide adequate screening of the facility by Iandscaping and/or fencing; and (4) Limit signage and lighting. (c) A congregate care facility serving more than twelve (12) persons may be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for either multifamily residential or hotels subject to the approval of a use permit by the planning commission pursuant to section 7- 9 -150. (d) Equivalent dwelling unit counts for congregate care facilities shall be determined by the following table. The consequent unit counts are to be subtracted from the total number of allowed dwelling units for a planned community or specific plan area, and will also determine consistency with area per dwelling unit zoning limitations. TABLE INSET: Configuration Dwelling Unit Counts 2 or more bedrooms in the unit 1 dwelling 1 bedroom in the unit .5 dwelling 0 bedroom in the it .25 dwelling Medical care rooms 0 dwelling uensmry oonuses may be granted to congregate care facilities in residentially -zoned areas in the same manner that they may be granted to standard residential projects per the housing element. (Ord. No. 08 -015, § 2, 11- 18 -08) - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Kiff, Dave [ mailto :DKiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:18 PM To: Chrisos, Nick [COCO]; Neely, Tim Subject: Not a Me BM Issue YS 01611 Hi Tim and Nick— Maybe a quick question for you. About six group homes in West Santa Ana Heights were added to the City after annexation in Jan 2008. The operators are saying that the County never required any kind of permit for these homes, despite the fact that at least four of them house 18 people each. Is there anything in your codes for unincorporated areas that requires a Use Permit or other discretionary land use action for large group homes? Dave Kiff Assistant City Manager 949- 644 -3002 YS 01612 1571 PEGASUS: USE PERMIT DENIAL RESOLUTION DATED MARCH 14, 2009 - Av.doc YS 01613 RESOLUTION No. HO- 2009 -005 A RESOLUTION OF A HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING WITH PREJUDICE USE PERMIT NO. 2008 -036 TO ALLOW AN EXISTING GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE TO CONTINUE AT 1571 PEGASUS STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA (PA2008 -107) WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council on January 22, 2008, following noticed public hearings; and WHEREAS, the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 amended the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code (NBMC) relating to Group Residential Uses; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 added Chapter 20.91A to the NBMC. Chapter 20.91A sets forth a process by which existing nonconforming uses in residential areas, including existing group residential care facilities (except for state - licensed drug or alcohol treatment homes serving six or fewer clients), must apply for use permits to remain in operation at their current location beyond February 2009; and WHEREAS, Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., submitted Group Residential Use Permit applications for four sober living facilities located at 1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive, all located in the City of Newport Beach, California; and WHEREAS, Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., located at 1571 Pegasus Street ( "Use Location ") in Newport. Beach, California, is an existing group residential care facility operating an unlicensed "sober living" facility for 18 women in an existing single - family dwelling; and WHEREAS, an application was filed by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Use ") pursuant to Ordinance No. 2008 -05 within the applicable time period with respect to property located at 1571 Pegasus Street, and legally described as Lot 8, Tract 4307 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California (APN 119 - 361 -14), as per map recorded in Book 153, Pages 18 -20 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, requesting approval of Use Permit No. 2008 -036 to allow a residential care facility to continue its operations as an 18 bed adult sober living facility for females only; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2009, a Hearing Officer held a noticed hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California at which time the project application was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Hearing Officer at this meeting, and the hearing was continued to March 12, 2009, when the YS 01614 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1571 Pegasus Street (Use Permit No. 2008 -036) Paae 2 of 4 public hearing was reopened to receive additional evidence, both written and oral from the applicant, staff and the public; and WHEREAS, both hearings were presided over by Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Yellowstone facility located at 1571 Pegasus Street was established on or after December 2004, during the time when the location was part of Orange County unincorporated territory and subject to the Orange County Codified Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Yellowstone facility located at 1571 Pegasus Street was established by Yellowstone in advance of the City's January 1, 2008, annexation of West Santa Ana Heights. Previous to January 1, 2008, the Yellowstone facility was subject to the regulations of the County of Orange, as such regulations apply to County unincorporated lands. The Orange County Codified Ordinances allows certain specified recovery facilities to establish in residential zones, provided that the facilities obtain a use permit issued by the Orange County Planning Commission. More specifically, the use permit requirement applies to "Community Care Facilities" and "Congregate Care Facilities" which house from seven (7) to twelve (12), inclusive, persons requiring care (Section 7 -9 -141, Section 7- 9- 141.3[b], and Section 7 -9 -150 of the Orange County Codified Ordinances). Congregate Care Facilities which house 13 or more persons are permitted with a use permit issued by the Orange County Planning Commission in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for multifamily residential dwellings or hotels (Section 7- 9- 141.3[c] and Section 7 -9 -150 of the Orange County Coded Ordinances); and WHEREAS, an inquiry made by the City to the County of Orange's Planning Department ( "OC Planning ") in February 2009 showed that only one use permit was issued by the County of Orange that applies to any of Yellowstone's four operations, and that use permit was a temporary use permit (TPU 050001) authorizing the facility at 1621 Indus Street to hold 40 meetings at 1621 Indus Street within Calendar Year 2005. The County has no record of any of the four Yellowstone facilities (1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street, and 20172 Redlands Drive) having received use permits authorizing their operation as either Community Care Facilities or Congregate Care Facilities from the County of Orange's Planning Commission per the Orange County Codified Ordinances. Although County Planning staff and Code Enforcement staff informed City staff verbally and in writing (Exhibit 1, attached hereto) that sober living houses would be considered a Community Care Facility or a Congregate Care Facility, nothing in the record known to the City shows that the facilities were legally - established uses at any time Yellowstone operated them while the YS 01615 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1571 Pegasus Street (Use Permit No. 2008 -036) Paoe3of5 West Santa Ana Heights area was part of the County of Orange's unincorporated territory; and WHEREAS, any person whose property in a residential district was rendered nonconforming by the passage of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 adding Chapter 20.91A may seek the issuance of conditional use permit to allow the continued use of an existing group residential care facility if the application was timely filed; and WHEREAS, pursuant to NBMC Section 20.62.030 (Determination of Nonconformity), a nonconforming use is "Any use found to have been lawfully established and maintained, but which does not conform with the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which it is located by reason of adoption or amendment of this code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City, shall be deemed to be a nonconforming use. A nonconforming use includes a use that was lawfully established and maintained but is conditionally permitted in the district and has not obtained a use permit. A use shall not be considered to have been "lawfully established and maintained" and is an illegal use if it was established or operated without required permits and licenses, including but not limited to permits and licenses required by any federal, state, or local government agency' (emphasis added); and WHEREAS, the Yellowstone facility located at 1571 Pegasus Street was not a lawfully established and maintained use when it was established within the Orange County unincorporated territory known as West Santa Ana Heights, and is therefore not qualified to seek a use permit to continue the use in its current location; and WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not subject to CEQA; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Hearing Officer hereby denies with prejudice Use Permit No. 2008 -036_ Section 2. The action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City YS 01616 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1571 Pegasus Street (Use Permit No. 2008 -036) Page 4 of 4 Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of April, 2009. ATTEST CIT Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer YS 01617 Hearing Officer Resolution 1571 Pegasus Street Use Permit No. 2008 -036 EXHIBIT 1 YS 01618 .. - - -- _....-. -.__ From: Wellborn, Michael [ mailto; Michael.Wellbom @rdmd.ocgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:19 PM To: Kiff, Dave Subject: RE: Not an MB Issue Dave The only property from your list with any kind of Use Permit is 1621 Indus with a 2005 Temporary Use Permit to hold meetings (attached). Also, the OC Zoning Code definitions of the possible facilities are below. See ya, Mike Congregate Care Facility: A facility, including a Congregate Living Health Facility as defined in State law, providing care on a monthly basis or longer and which is the primary residence of the people it serves. It provides services to the residents such as the following: dining, housekeeping, security, medical, transportation and recreation. Any commercial services provided are for the exclusive use of the occupants of the facility. Such a facility may be located in more than one (1) building and on contiguous parcels within the building site. It includes facilities offering occupancy on a monthly basis and longer such as hotels, resorts, etc., which have characteristics similar to the above. Community Care Facility: Any facility which may or may not require a State license to provide nonmedical residential care or day care for children, adults or both, including physically handicapped and mentally incompetent persons. This includes child day care facilities /day care nurseries and family day pare homes. - =--- Originai Message---- - From: Kiff, Dave [ mailto :DKiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:27 PM To: Wellborn, Michael Subject: RE: Not a VW Ba Issue Hi Mike - -- YS 01619 Many thanks for that input. Can I ask for one more favor, just to confirm the below question: • 1561 Indus Street houses 12 women, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2007 • 1621 Indus Street houses 18 women, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2003 • 1571 Pegasus Street houses 18 women, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2005 • 20172 Redlands Drive houses 18 men, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2005 1- Do your records show any Use Permits issued for these locations? 2 — Can you refer me to the OCCO section that defines a Congregate or a Community Care`Facility? Dave From: Wellborn, Michael [mailto: Michael .Wellborn @rdmd.ocgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:28 PM TO:i(iff, Dave Subject: Not a 40 81= Issue Hi Dave -- In response to your inquiry to Tim and Nick, I have spliced on the relevant OC Zoning Code sections for Community Care and Congregate Care facilities (7 -9 -141 and 7 -9 -142). Both allow up to six residents in a group home without any permit. Both require a Use Permit from the Planning Commission for seven to twelve residents. Mike Sec. 7 -9 -141. Community care facilities. Community care facilities serving six (6) or Iess persons and large family day care homes shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single - family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. Community care facilities serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons, except for large family day care homes, shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. (Ord. No. 3470, § 4, 6- 20 -84; Ord. No. 3560, § 15, 12- 17 -85; Ord. No. 3655, § 5, 8- 25 -87; Ord, No. 3816, § 29, 3- 12 -91; Ord. No. 3887, § 21, 3- 23 -93) Sec. 7 -9- 141.1. Reserved. Editor's note? Section 1-9 -141.1 was repealed by § 21 of Ord. No. 3887, adopted Apr. 6, 1993. The section related to larger congregate care facilities and was derived from Ord. No. 3655, § 6, Aug. 25, 1987. See now § 7 -9 -142. YS 01620 Sec. 7 -9- 141.2. Child day care facilities /day care nurseries. Child day care facilities/day care nurseries serving more than fourteen (14) persons may be permitted in any district, planned community or specific plan area (except in designated airport accident potential zones) where this use is not otherwise identified as a permitted use, subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. (Ord. No. 3754, § 82, 5- 16 -89; Ord. No. 3887, § 21, 3- 23 -93; Ord. No. 3981, § 21, 4- 22 -97) Editor's note: Section 7 -9 -141.3 was repealed by § 21 of Ord. No. 3887, adopted Apr. 6, 1993. The section related to single room occupancy facilities and was derived from Ord. No. 3834, § 2, adopted Aug. 20, 1991. See now § 7 -9 -138. See. 7- 9- 141.3. Congregate care facilities. (a) A congregate care facility serving six (6) or fewer persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single- family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. (b) A congregate care facility serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to section 7 -9 -150. A congregate owe facility shall; (1) Dethonstrate compatibility with adjacent development; (2) Provide adequate on site parking for residents and staff, (3) Provide adequate screening of the facility by landscaping and /or fencing; and (4) Limit signage and lighting. (c) A congregate care facility serving more than twelve (12) persons may be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for either multifamily residential or hotels subject to the approval of a use permit by the planning commission pursuant to section 7- 9 -150. (d) Equivalent dwelling unit counts for congregate care facilities shall be determined by the following table. The consequent unit counts are to be subtracted from the total number of allowed dwelling units for a planned community or specific plan area, and will also determine consistency with area per dwelling unit zoning limitations. TABLEINSET: Configuration Dwelling Unit Counts 2 or more bedrooms in the unit 1 dwelling 1 bedroom in the unit .5 dwelling 0 bedroom in the unit .25 dwelling Medical care rooms 0 dwelling Density bonuses may be granted to congregate care facilities in residentially -zoned areas in the same manner that they may be granted to standard residential projects per the housing element. (Ord. No. 08 -015, § 2,11-18-08) - - - -- Original Message---- - Prom: Kiff, Dave [ mailto: DKiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:18 PM To: Chrisos, Nick [0000]; Neely, Tim Subject: Not a M` B` Issue YS 01621 Hi Tim and Nick— Maybe a quick question for you. About six group homes in West Santa Ana Heights were added to the City after annexation in Jan 2008. The operators are saying that the County never required any kind of permit for these homes, despite the fact that at least four of them house 18 people each. Is there anything in your codes for unincorporated areas that requires a Use Permit or other discretionary land use action for large group homes? Dave Kiff Assistant City Manager 949 -644 -3002 YS 01622 20172 REDLANDS: USE PERMIT DENIAL RESOLUTION DATED MARCH 14, 2009 - \v.doc YS 01623 RESOLUTION No. HO- 2009 -006 A RESOLUTION OF A HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING WITH PREJUDICE USE PERMIT NO. 2008 -037 TO ALLOW AN EXISTING GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE TO CONTINUE AT 20172 REDLANDS DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA (PA2008 -108) WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council on January 22, 2008, following noticed public hearings; and WHEREAS, the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 amended the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code (NBMC) relating to Group Residential Uses; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 added Chapter 20.91A to the NBMC. Chapter 20.91A sets forth a process by which existing nonconforming uses in residential areas, including existing group residential care facilities (except for state - licensed drug or alcohol treatment homes serving six or fewer clients), must apply for use permits to remain in operation at their current location beyond February 2009; and WHEREAS, Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., submitted Group Residential Use Permit applications for four sober living facilities located at 1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street and 20172 Redlands Drive, all located in the City of Newport Beach, California; and WHEREAS, Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., located at 20172 Redlands Drive ( "Use Location ") in Newport Beach, California, is an existing group residential care facility operating an unlicensed "sober living" facility for 17 men in an existing single - family dwelling; and WHEREAS, an application was filed by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. ( "Use ") pursuant to Ordinance No. 2008 -05 within the applicable time period with respect to property located at 20172 Redlands Drive, and legally described as Lot 36, Tract 4307, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California (APN 119 - 362 -07), as per map recorded in Book 153, Pages 18 -20 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, requesting approval of Use Permit No. 2008 -037 to allow a residential care facility to continue its operations as a 17 bed adult sober living facility for males only; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2009, a Hearing Officer held a noticed hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California at which time the project application was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Hearing Officer at this meeting, and the hearing was continued to March 12, 2009, when the YS 01624 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 20172 Redlands Drive (Use Permit No. 2008 -037) Page 2 of 4 public hearing was reopened to receive additional evidence, both written and oral from the applicant, staff and the public; and WHEREAS, both hearings were presided over by Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Yellowstone facility located at 20172 Redlands Drive was established on or after March 2005, during the time when the location was part of Orange County unincorporated territory and subject to the Orange County Codified Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Yellowstone facility located at 20172 Redlands Drive was established by Yellowstone in advance of the City's January 1, 2008, annexation of West Santa Ana Heights. Previous to January 1, 2008, the Yellowstone facility was subject to the regulations of the County of Orange, as such regulations apply to County unincorporated lands. The Orange County Coded Ordinances allows certain specified recovery facilities to establish in residential zones, provided that the facilities obtain a use permit issued by the Orange County Planning Commission. More specifically, the use permit requirement applies to "Community Care Facilities" and "Congregate Care Facilities" which house from seven (7) to twelve (12), inclusive, persons requiring care (Section 7 -9 -141, Section 7- 9- 141.3[b], and Section 7 -9 -150 of the Orange County Codified Ordinances). Congregate Care Facilities which house 13 or more persons are permitted with a use permit issued by the Orange County Planning Commission in any district, planned community, or speck plan area zoned for multifamily residential dwellings or hotels (Section 7- 9- 141.3[c] and Section 7 -9 -150 of the Orange County Codified Ordinances); and WHEREAS, an inquiry made by the City to the County of Orange's Planning Department ( "OC Planning ") in February 2009 showed that only one use permit was issued by the County of Orange that applies to any of Yellowstone's four operations, and that use permit was a temporary use permit (TPU 050001) authorizing the facility at 1621 Indus Street to hold 40 meetings at 1621 Indus Street within Calendar Year 2005. The County has no record of any of the four Yellowstone facilities (1561 Indus Street, 1621 Indus Street, 1571 Pegasus Street, and 20172 Redlands Drive) having received use permits authorizing their operation as either Community Care Facilities or Congregate Care Facilities from the County of Orange's Planning Commission per the Orange County Codified Ordinances. Although County Planning staff and Code Enforcement staff informed City staff verbally and in writing (Exhibit 1, attached hereto) that sober living houses would be considered a Community Care Facility or a Congregate Care Facility, nothing in the record known to the City shows that the facilities were legally - established uses at any time Yellowstone operated them while the YS 01625 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 20172 Redlands Drive (Use Permit No. 2008 -037) Page 3 of 4 West Santa Ana Heights area was part of the County of Orange's unincorporated territory; and WHEREAS, any person whose property in a residential district was rendered nonconforming by the passage of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 adding Chapter 20.91A may seek the issuance of conditional use permit to allow the continued use of an existing group residential care facility if the application was timely filed; and WHEREAS, pursuant to NBMC Section 20.62.030 (Determination of Nonconformity), a nonconforming use is "Any use found to have been lawfully established and maintained, but which does not conform with the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which it is located by reason of adoption or amendment of this code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City, shall be deemed to be a nonconforming use. A nonconforming use includes a use that was lawfully established and maintained but is conditionally permitted in the district and has not obtained a use permit. A use shall not be considered to have been "lawfully established and maintained" and is an illegal use if it was established or operated without required permits and licenses, including but not limited to permits and licenses required by any federal, state, or local government agency" (emphasis added); and WHEREAS, the Yellowstone facility located at 20172 Redlands Drive was not a lawfully established and maintained use when it was established within the Orange County unincorporated territory known as West Santa Ana Heights, and is therefore not qualified to seek a use permit to continue the use in its current location; and WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Sectionl 5061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not subject to CEQA; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Hearing Officer hereby denies with prejudice Use Permit, No. 2008 -037. Section 2. The action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City YS 01626 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 20172 Redlands Drive (Use Permit No. 2008 -037) Page 4 of 4 Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14"' day of April, 2009. By: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer ATTEST YS 01627 Hearing Officer Resolution 20172 Redlands Drive Use Permit No. 2008 -037 EXHIBIT 1 YS 01628 ._.-...._---- --------- _.._ .... .. .. .......... .. .. ..__... -__ -_. .......... ._.... From. Wellborn, Michael [ malko: Michael,Wellbom @rdmd.ocgov,com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:19 PM To: Kiff, Dave Subject: RE: Not an MB Issue Dave — The only property from your list with any kind of Use Permit is 1621 Indus with a 2005 Temporary Use Permit to hold meetings (attached). Also, the OC Zoning Code definitions of the possible facilities are below. See ya, Mike Congregate Care Facility: A facility, including a Congregate Living Health Facility as defined in State law, providing care on a monthly basis or longer and which is the primary residence of the people it serves. It provides services to the residents such as the following: dining, housekeeping, security, medical, transportation and recreation. Any commercial services provided are for the exclusive use of the occupants of the facility. Such a facility may be located in more than one (1) building and on contiguous parcels within the building site. It includes facilities offering occupancy on a monthly basis and longer such as hotels, resorts, etc., which have characteristics similar to the above. Community Care Facility., Any facility which may or may not require a State license to provide nonmedical residential care or day care for children, adults or both, including physically handicapped and mentally incompetent persons. This includes child day care facilities /day care nurseries and family day pare homes. -_ - -- Original Message---- - From: Kiff, Dave [ mailto :DKiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:27 PM To: Wellborn, Michael Subject: RE: Not a PJW Bag Issue Hi Mike - -- YS 01629 Many thanks for that input. Can 1 ask for one more favor, just to confirm the below question: • 1561 Indus Street houses 12 women, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2007 • 1621 Indus Street houses 18 women, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2003 • 1571 Pegasus Street houses 18 women, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2005 • 20172 Redlands Drive houses 18 men, in a congregate /community care environment, and the operator states that they have done so since 2005 1 =- Do your records show any Use Permits issued for these locations? 2 — Can you refer me to the OCCO section that defines a Congregate or a Community Care f=acility? Dave .... - . . From: Wellborn, Michael [malito:Mlchael Wellborn @rdmd.ocgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:28 PM To: Kiff, Dave Subject: Not a 40 B$= Issue Hi Dave In response to your inquiry to Tim and Nick, I have spliced on the relevant OC Zoning Code sections for Community Care and Congregate Care facilities (7 -9 -141 and 7 -9 -142). Both allow up to six residents in a group home without any permit. Both require a Use Permit from the Planning Commission for seven to twelve residents. Mike Sec. 7 -9 -141. Community care facilities. Community care facilities serving six (6) or less persons and large family day care homes shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single - family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. Community care facilities serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons, except for large family day care homes, shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150, (Ord. No. 3470, § 4, 6- 20 -84; Ord. No. 3560, § 15, 12- 17 -85; Ord. No. 3655, § 5, 8- 25 -87; Ord. No. 3816, § 29,3-12-91; Ord. No. 3887, § 21, 3- 23 -93) Sec. 7-9-141.1. Reserved. Editor's note! Section's -9 -141.1 was repealed by § 21 of Ord. No. 3887, adopted Apr. 6, 1993. The section related to larger congregate care facilities and was derived from Ord. No. 3655, § 6, Aug. 25, 1987. See now § 7 -9 -142. YS 01630 Sec. 7- 9- 141.2. Child day care facilities /day care nurseries. Child day care facilities/day care nurseries serving more than fourteen (14) persons may be permitted in any district, planned community or specific plan area (except in designated airport accident potential zones) where this use is not otherwise identified as a permitted use, subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7 -9 -150. (Ord. No. 3754, § 82, 5- 16 -89; Ord. No. 3887, § 21, 3- 23 -93; Ord. No. 3981, § 21,4-22-97) Editor's note: Section 7 -9 -141.3 was repealed by § 21 of Ord. No. 3887, adopted Apr. 6, 1993. The section related to single room occupancy facilities and was derived from Ord. No. 3834, § 2, adopted Aug. 20, 199I. See now § 7 -9 -138. Sec. 7- 9- 141.3. Congregate care facilities. (a) A congregate care facility serving six (6) or fewer persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses and shall be regarded as a single - family dwelling for purposes of zoning and land use regulations. (b) A congregate care facility serving seven (7) to twelve (12) persons shall be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for residential or agricultural uses subject to the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to section 7 -9 -150. A congregate care facility shall; (1) Demonstrate compatibility with adjacent development; (2) Provide adequate on site parking for residents and staff; (3) Provide adequate screening of the facility by landscaping and/or fencing; and (4) Limit signage and lighting. (c) A congregate care facility serving more than twelve (12) persons may be permitted in any district, planned community, or specific plan area zoned for either multifamily residential or hotels subject to the. approval of a use permit by the planning commission pursuant to section 7- 9 -150. (d) Equivalent dwelling unit counts for congregate care facilities shall be determined by the following table. The consequent unit counts are to be subtracted from the total number of allowed dwelling units for a planned community or specific plan area, and will also determine consistency with area per dwelling unit zoning limitations. TABLE INSET: Configuration Dwelling Unit Counts 2 or more bedrooms in the unit 1 dwelling 1 bedroom in the it .5 dwelling 0 bedroom in the unit .25 dwelling Medical care rooms 0 dwelling "VIRULy ounuses may oe grantea to congregate care facilities in residentially -zoned areas in the same manner that they may be granted to standard residential projects per the housing element. (Ord. No. 08 -015, § 2, 11- 18 -08) - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Kiff, Dave [ mailto :DKiff @city:newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:18 PM To: Chrisos, Nick [COCO]; Neely, Tim Subject: Not a M40 8` Issue YS 01631 Hi Tim and Nick — Maybe a quick question for you. About six group homes in West Santa Ana Heights were added to the City after annexation in Jan 2008. The operators are saying that the County never required any kind of permit for these homes, despite the fact that at least four of them house 18 people each. Is there anything in your codes for unincorporated areas that requires a Use Permit or other discretionary land use action for large group homes? Dave Kiff Assistant City Manager 949 -644 -3002 YS 01632 1561 INDUS: REASONABLE ACCOMODATION DENIAL RESOLUTION DATED MARCH 14, 2009 - \v.aoc YS 01633 RESOLUTION NO. HO- 2009 -007 A RESOLUTION OF A HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION NO. 2009 -04 TO ALLOW RESIDENTS OF AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 1561 INDUS STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, BE TREATED AS A SINGLE HOUSEKEEPING UNIT (PA 2008 -105) WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council on January 22, 2008, following noticed public hearings; and WHEREAS, the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 amended the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code (NBMC) relating to Group Residential Uses; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 added Chapter 20.98 to the NBMC. Chapter 20.98 sets forth a process to provide reasonable accommodations in the City's zoning and land use regulations, policies, and practices when needed to provide an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and WHEREAS, an application was filed by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., with respect to property located at 1561 Indus Street, and legally described as Lot 14, Tract 4307 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California (APN 119 - 361 -08), as per map recorded in Book 153, Pages 18-20 of Miscellaneous Maps, requesting approval of a Reasonable Accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC); and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 20, 2009 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented and considered at this meeting and the hearing was continued to March 12, 2009 for action on the resolutions and where the public hearing was reopened to receive additional evidence, both written and oral from the applicant, staff and the public; and WHEREAS, the both hearings were presided over by Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.98.025(B) of the NBMC, the written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. 1. Finding: That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. Facts in support of finding: The applicant submitted a written statement stating that every resident of the facility is in recovery from alcohol addiction. Federal regulations and case law have defined recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction as a disability, YS 01634 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution (1561 Indus Street) (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -04) Paoe 2 of 7 because it is a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs one or more major daily life activities. 2. Finding: That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Facts do not support the finding: The exemption requested by the applicant is unnecessarily broad to achieve the goal of providing disabled housing. The request to be considered a Single Housekeeping Unit is essentially a request to be exempted from all of the provisions of Ordinance 2008 -05 which place any sort of reasonable regulation on the operations of residential care facilities. This is not necessary, because there are many more narrowly tailored accommodations that could enable facility residents to enjoy the housing of their choice without depriving the surrounding neighborhood of reasonable conditions that mitigate the adverse secondary impacts that emanate from this facility. The applicant's counsel asserts in a letter dated January 29, 2009, that being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary "because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility." Even if the facility were not transient or institutional in nature, and did not clearly fit the definition of a sober living home, or unlicensed residential care facility, an exemption from the provisions of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 is not necessary to afford its residents the opportunity to live in and enjoy a dwelling. However, the applicant raised the issue of how the facility should be characterized in its necessity argument, and asserted the facility more closely resembles a Single Housekeeping Unit than any other type of residential use. Staff has analyzed the facility's appropriate use classification based on the applicant's submitted materials. The nature of applicant's facility operations, as reported in the original application for reasonable accommodation submitted in May 2008, closely resembles a boarding house use. But for the fact residents are recovering alcoholics, the facility would be classed as a prohibited Group Residential use, or a Boarding or Rooming House as that term is defined in .NBMC 20.05.030. (Residential Use Classifications) ( "A residence or dwelling unit, or part thereof, wherein a room or rooms are rented under two or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof ... ") The applicant's May 2008 application for reasonable accommodation states, "The residents at the property reside separately at the property and interact within the property. There is individual use of common areas. The residents are responsible for their own meals, expenses and chores. Each individual resides at the property subject to a separate contractual arrangement with the applicant." YS 01635 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution (1561 Indus Street) (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -04) Page 3 of 7 Dr. Anna Thames, CEO of Yellowstone, has also stated that the facility has no written leases with any of the residents. Rental agreements with residents are verbal. Again, the description of operations is much closer to the NBMC's definition of a boarding house or group residential use than a Single Housekeeping Unit, as the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit requires dwellings rented to bona fide Single Housekeeping Units to be occupied under a single written lease. The self - reported pattern of facility operations and resident interaction in no way resembles the NBMC definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit. NBMC Section 20.03.030 (Definitions) defines a Single Housekeeping Unit as: "The functional equivalent of a traditional. family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of and responsibility for common areas, and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, household maintenance, and expenses, and where, if the unit is rented, all adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy the entire premises of the dwelling unit, under a single written lease with joint use and responsibility for the premises, and the makeup of the household occupying the unit is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the landlord or property manager." Applicant's resident clients may be an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit who share common areas, but the applicant's own submittals indicate there is no joint responsibility for meals or expenses, no single written lease (or any written leases at all), and the makeup of the household is determined by the applicant rather than the residents. NBMC Section 20.98.025(C) allows the City to consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: A. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disability. If the requested accommodation is granted, any number of the applicant's current and potential clients will be able to live in a home in a single - family zone with other recovering alcoholics. This is a situation that can affirmatively enhance the quality of Iffe of a person in recovery from addiction, unless overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhood interferes with the residents' re- integration into society. The applicant's sliding scale of rental rates offers a sober living environment to residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in a single - family home in this area. YS 01636 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution (1561 Indus Street) (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -04) Page 4 of 7 B. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation. The exemption requested by the applicant is broader than necessary to achieve the goal of enabling disabled individuals an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice. There are more narrowly tailored exemptions that could enable disabled individuals to reside at the applicant's facility. C. In the case of a residential care facility, whether 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. The applicant does not state why being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make its facilities viable in light of the current market for the type of services it provides. The applicant states that each facility requires 15 residents in order to be financially viable, and provides a general summary of average income and expenses for all four facilities. The evidence presented does not lead to the conclusion that being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make applicant's facilities financially viable. D. In the case of a residential care facility, 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. In 2007, the City estimated that there were more than 315 sober living beds in the city (these are exclusive of the up to 213 ADP - licensed treatment beds). These numbers were compiled before applicant's facilities, with a total of 58 sober living and eight staff beds, were added to the city's supply. Operators of many sober living facilities within the city have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Yellowstone clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment without granting the accommodation. A recent agreement with Sober Living by the Sea, Inc., authorized SLBTS to provide up to 204 beds citywide. Many of these alternate sober living beds are probably not offered on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. The evidence does not support the applicant's contention that treating residents of its facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit will change the availability of the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature, or afford them a substantially greater access to an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. Based on the foregoing analysis, the finding of necessity cannot be made in that the request is unnecessarily broad, the unit does not operate as the YS 01637 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution (1561 Indus Street) (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -04) Page 5 of 7 functional equivalent of a single family unit, and the unit does not otherwise meet the criteria of a Single Housekeeping unit. The City is not required to grant a request for accommodation that is not reasonable. Cities may find a requested accommodation unreasonable if it either (1) imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, or (2) results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program, often described as undermining "the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve." 3. Finding: That 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. Facts in support of finding: Treating the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit would not impose a currently identifiable undue financial or administrative burden on the City. If this reasonable accommodation request were granted for all four Yellowstone facilities, the applicant would be able to house a number of residents far in excess of the 66 individuals currently residing in the four homes. Currently unidentifiable financial or administrative burdens could arise as a result. 4. Finding: That the requested accommodation will not 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. Facts do not support the finding: The purpose of the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit is to allow the detennination of whether groups of related or unrelated individuals are living together in a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. This definition is necessary because of the persistent attempts by landlords to establish illegal boarding houses in dwellings within the City. Groups living as a single housekeeping unit can live together in any residential zone in Newport Beach. Groups not living as a single housekeeping unit are prohibited from establishing residences in any of the City's residential zones. There is an important exception to the total prohibition of groups not living as a single housekeeping unit -- groups not living as a single housekeeping unit in residential care facilities of any size. All residential care facilities in the City have received a reasonable accommodation from the NBMC's restrictions on groups not living as a single housekeeping unit. The NBMC provides many opportunities for new facilities to establish, and has provisions for existing facilities t o continue in their current locations with appropriate impact mitigation. Licensed facilities housing six or fewer residential can establish in any residential zone of the City. YS 01638 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution (1561 Indus Street) (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -04) Paqe 6 of 7 The NBMC's Zoning Code also applies regulations to unlicensed and larger (more than seven residents) licensed facilities. These regulations are in place to ensure that the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code can be achieved, and so the adverse secondary impacts higher density residential care facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(D) of the NBMC, the City may also consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program: A. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. There were numerous letters, emails and phone calls from neighbors of the facilities that reported increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood as more of the applicant's facilities established there in recent years. The impacts reported include: family and other visitors to the facilities; litter in the neighborhood which complainants attribute to the applicant's facilities, including cigarette butts, soda cans, and beer cans and bottles; facility residents traveling in groups between one facility and the others; meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicant's facilities, with outside attendees; excessive use of on- street parking by facility residents and their guests. B. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking. Parking - The enclosed garage spaces and driveway parking spaces allow for the staff vehicles to be accommodated without impacting neighborhood parking. Traffic and Generated Trips - The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. Trip rates for residential care facilities are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Based on these standards, a 12 -bed residential care facility is estimated to generate approximately 32.88 average daily trips. Applying this formula, the facility will generate average daily trips substantially in excess of surrounding single family dwellings. 5. Finding: That 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. YS 01639 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution (1561 Indus Street) (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -04) Paae 7 of 8 Facts in support of finding: A request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if granting it would pose "a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). This is a very limited exception and can only be used when, based on the specific facts of a situation, a requested accommodation results in a significant and particularized threat. Federal cases interpreting this exception in the FHAA indicate that requested accommodations cannot be denied due to generalized fears of the risks posed by disabled persons. WHEREAS, to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation all five required findings contained Section 20.98.025(B) of the NBMC must be made; and WHEREAS, specifically, findings Nos. 2 and 4 of Section 20.98.025(B) of the NBMC cannot be made; and WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not subject to CEQA; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Hearing Officer of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies with prejudice Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -04, Request No. 1, that the residents of the facility to be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Section 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. I YS 01640 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution (1561 Indus Street) (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -04) Page 8 of 8 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10 DAY OFAPRIL, 2009. ATTEST: c By: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer YS 01641 1621 INDUS: REASONABLE ACCOMODATION DENIAL RESOLUTION DATED MARCH 14, 2009 - 1v.doc YS 01642 RESOLUTION NO. HO- 2009 -008 A RESOLUTION OF A HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION NO. 2009 -06 TO ALLOW RESIDENTS OF AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 1621 INDUS STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA BE TREATED AS A SINGLE HOUSEKEEPING UNIT (PA 2008 -106) WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council on January 22, 2008, following noticed public hearings; and WHEREAS, the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 amended the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code (NBMC) relating to Group Residential Uses; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 added Chapter 20.98 to the NBMC. Chapter 20.98 sets forth a process to provide reasonable accommodations in the City's zoning and land use regulations, policies, and practices when needed to provide an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and WHEREAS, an application was filed by Yellowstone First Step House, Inc., with respect to property located at 1621 Indus Street, and legally described as Lot 18, Tract 4307, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California (APN 119- 361 -04), as per map recorded in Book 153, Pages 18 -20 of Miscellaneous Maps, requesting approval of a Reasonable Accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC); and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 20, 2009 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented and considered at this meeting and the hearing was continued to March 12, 2009 for action on the resolutions and where the public hearing was reopened to receive additional evidence, both written and oral from the applicant, staff and the public; and WHEREAS, the both hearings were presided over by Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.98.025(B) of the NBMC, the written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. 1. Finding: That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. Facts in support of finding: The applicant submitted a written statement stating that every resident of the facility is in recovery from alcohol addiction. Federal regulations and case law have defined recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction as a disability, YS 01643 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1621 Indus Street (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -05) Page 2 of 7 because it is a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs one or more major daily life activities. 2. Finding: That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Facts do not support finding: The exemption requested by the applicant is unnecessarily broad to achieve the goal of providing disabled housing. The request to be considered a Single Housekeeping Unit is essentially a request to be exempted from all of the provisions of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 which place any sort of reasonable regulation on the operations of residential care facilities. This is not necessary, because there are many more narrowly tailored accommodations that could enable facility residents to enjoy the housing of their choice without depriving the surrounding neighborhood of reasonable conditions that mitigate any adverse secondary impacts that emanate from this facility. The applicant's counsel asserts in a letter dated January 29, 2009, that being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary "because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility.° Even if the facility were not transient or institutional in nature, and did not clearly fit the definition of a sober living home, or unlicensed residential care facility, an exemption from the provisions of 2008 -05 is not necessary to afford its residents the opportunity to live in and enjoy a dwelling. However, the applicant raised the issue of how the facility should be characterized in its necessity argument, and asserted the facility more closely resembles a Single Housekeeping Unit than any other type of residential use. Staff analyzed the facility's appropriate use classification based on the applicant's submitted materials. The nature of the facility operations, as reported in the original application for reasonable accommodation submitted in May 2008, closely resembles a boarding house use. But for the fact residents are recovering alcoholics, the facility would be classified as a prohibited Group Residential use, or a Boarding or Rooming House as that term is defined in NBMC 20.05.030. (Residential Use Classifications) ( "A residence or dwelling unit, or part thereof, wherein a room or rooms are rented under two or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof. . . ") The applicant's May 2008 application for reasonable accommodation states, "The residents at the property reside separately at the property and interact within the property. There is individual use of common areas. The residents are responsible for their own meals, expenses and chores. Each individual resides at the property subject to a separate contractual arrangement with the applicant." YS 01644 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1621 Indus Street (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -05) Page 3 of 7 Dr. Anna Thames, CEO of Yellowtstone, has also stated that the facility has no written leases with any of the residents. Rental agreements with residents are verbal. Again, the description of operations is much closer to the NBMC's definition of a boarding house or group residential use than a Single Housekeeping Unit, as the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit requires dwellings rented to bona fide Single Housekeeping Units to be occupied under a single written lease. The self - reported pattern of facility operations and resident interaction in no way resembles the NBMC definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit. NBMC Section 20.03.030 (Definitions) defines a Single Housekeeping Unit as: "The functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of and responsibility for common areas, and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, household maintenance, and expenses, and where, if the unit is rented, all adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy the entire premises of the dwelling unit, under a single written lease with joint use and responsibility for the premises, and the makeup of the household occupying the unit is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the landlord or property manager." Applicant's resident clients may be an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit who share common areas, but the applicant's own submittals indicate there is no joint responsibility for meals or expenses, no single written lease (or any written leases at all), and the makeup of the household is determined by the applicant rather than the residents. NBMC Section 20.98.025(C) allows the City to consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: A. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disability. If the requested accommodation is granted, any number of the applicant's current and potential clients will be able to live in a home in a single - family zone with other recovering alcoholics. This is a situation that can affirmatively enhance the quality of life of a person in recovery from addiction, unless overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhood interferes with the residents' re- integration into society. The applicant's sliding scale of rental rates offers a sober living environment to residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in a single - family home in this area. YS 01645 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1621 Indus Street (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -05) B. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation. The exemption requested by the applicant is broader than necessary to achieve the goal of enabling disabled individuals an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice. There are more narrowly tailored exemptions that could enable disabled individuals to reside at the applicant's facility. C. In the case of a residential care facility, whether 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. The applicant does not state why being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make its facilities viable in light of the current market for the type of services it provides. The applicant states that each facility requires 15 residents in order to be financially viable, and provides a general summary of average income and expenses for all four facilities. The evidence presented does not lead to the conclusion that being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make applicant's facilities financially viable. D. In the case of a residential care facility, 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. In 2007, the City estimated that there were more than 315 sober living beds in the city (these are exclusive of the up to 213 ADP - licensed treatment beds). These numbers were compiled before applicant's facilities, with a total of 58 sober living and eight staff beds, were added to the city's supply. Operators of many sober living facilities within the city have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Yellowstone clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment without granting the accommodation. A recent agreement with Sober Living by the Sea, Inc., authorized SLBTS to provide up to 204 beds citywide. Many of these alternate sober living beds are probably not offered on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. The evidence does not support the applicant's contention that treating residents of its facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit will change the availability of the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature, or afford them a substantially greater access to an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. Based on the foregoing analysis, the finding of necessity cannot be made in that the request is unnecessarily broad, the unit does not operate as the YS 01646 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1621 Indus Street (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -05) Page 5 of 7 functional equivalent of a single family unit, and the unit does not otherwise meet the criteria of a Single Housekeeping unit. Even when an applicant can demonstrate necessity, the City is not required to grant a request for accommodation that is not reasonable. Cities may find a requested accommodation unreasonable if it either (1) imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, or (2) results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program, often described as undermining "the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve." 3. Finding: That 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. Facts in support of finding: Treating the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit would not impose a currently identifiable undue financial or administrative burden on the City. If this reasonable accommodation request were granted for all four Yellowstone facilities, the applicant would be able to house a number of residents far in excess of the 66 individuals currently residing in the four homes. Currently unidentifiable financial or administrative burdens could arise as a result. 4. Finding: That the requested accommodation will not 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. Facts do not support the finding: The purpose of the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit is to allow the determination of whether groups of related or unrelated individuals are living together in a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. This definition is necessary because of the persistent attempts by landlords to establish illegal boarding houses, and illegal dwelling units in dwellings within the City. Groups living as a single housekeeping unit can live together in any residential zone in Newport Beach. Groups not living as a single housekeeping unit are prohibited from establishing residences in any of the City's residential zones. There is an important exception to the total prohibition of groups not living as a single housekeeping unit -- groups not living as a single housekeeping unit in residential care facilities of any size. All residential care facilities in the City have received a reasonable accommodation from the NBMC's restrictions on groups not living as a single housekeeping unit. The NBMC provides many opportunities for new facilities to establish, and has provisions for existing facilities to continue in their current locations with appropriate impact residential zone of the City. YS 01647 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1621 Indus Street (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -05) Page 6 of 7 The NBMC's Zoning Code also applies regulations to unlicensed and larger (more than seven residents) licensed facilities. These regulations are in place to ensure that the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code can be achieved, and so the adverse secondary impacts higher density residential care facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(D) of the NBMC, the City may also consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program: A. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. There were numerous letters, emails and phone calls from neighbors of the facilities that reported increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood as more of the applicant's facilities established there in recent years. The impacts reported include: family and other visitors to the facilities; litter in the neighborhood which complainants attribute to the applicant's facilities, including cigarette butts, soda cans, and beer cans and bottles; facility residents traveling in groups between one facility and the others; meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicant's facilities, with outside attendees; excessive use of on- street parking by facility residents and their guests. B. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking. Parking - The enclosed garage spaces and driveway parking spaces would allow for the staff vehicles to be accommodated without impacting neighborhood parking. Traffic and Generated Trips - The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. Trip rates for residential care facilities are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Based on these standards, a 17 -bed residential care facility is estimated to generate approximately 47 average daily trips. Applying this formula, the facility will generate average daily trips substantially in excess of surrounding single family dwellings. 5. Finding: That 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. YS 01648 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1621 Indus Street (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -05) Paae 7 of 8 Facts in support of finding: A request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if granting it would pose "a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). This is a very limited exception and can only be used when, based on the specific facts of a situation, a requested accommodation results in a significant and particularized threat. Federal cases interpreting this exception in the FHAA indicate that requested accommodations cannot be denied due to generalized fears of the risks posed by disabled persons. WHEREAS, to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation all five required findings contained Section 20.98.025(6) of the NBMC must be made; and WHEREAS, specifically, findings Nos. 2 and 4 of Section 20.98.025(B) of the NBMC cannot be made; and WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not subject to CEQA; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Hearing Officer of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies with prejudice Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -05, Request No.1, that the residents of the facility be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Section 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. YS 01649 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 1621 Indus Street (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -05) Paqe 8 of 8 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14"' DAY OFAPRIL, 2009. By: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer ATTEST: YS 01650 1571 PEGASUS: REASONABLE ACCOMODATION DENIAL RESOLUTION DATED MARCH 14, 2009 - \v.doc YS 01651 RESOLUTION NO. HO- 2009 -009 A RESOLUTION OF A HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION NO. 2009.06 TO ALLOW RESIDENTS OF AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 1571 PEGASUS STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO BE TREATED AS A SINGLE HOUSEKEEPING UNIT (PA 2008 -107) WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council on January 22, 2008, following noticed public hearings; and WHEREAS, the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 amended the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code (NBMC) relating to Group Residential Uses; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 added Chapter 20.98 to the NBMC. Chapter 20.98 sets forth a process to provide reasonable accommodations in the City's zoning and land use regulations, policies, and practices when needed to provide an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and WHEREAS, an application v with respect to property located at 1 4307 in the City of Newport Beach, as per map recorded in Book 153, of a Reasonable Accommodation i Housekeeping Unit as defined in (NBMC); and tas filed by Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., 571 Pegasus Street, and legally described as Lot 8, Tract County of Orange, State of California (APN 119 - 361 -14), Pages 18 -20 of Miscellaneous Maps, requesting approval or the residents of the facility to be treated as a Single ; ection 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 20, 2009 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented and considered at this meeting and the hearing was continued to March 12, 2009 for action on the resolutions and where the public hearing was reopened to receive additional evidence, both written and oral from the applicant, staff and the public; and WHEREAS, both hearings were presided over by Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.98.025(6) of the NBMC, the written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. 1. Finding: That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. Facts in support of finding: The applicant submitted a written statement that every resident of the facility is in recovery from alcohol addiction. Federal regulations and case law have defined recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction as a disability, YS 01652 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution (1571 Pegasus Street) (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -06) Paae 2 of 7 because it is a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs one or more major daily life activities. 2. Finding: That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Facts do not support the finding_ The exemption requested by the applicant is unnecessarily broad to achieve the goal of providing disabled housing. The request to be considered a Single Housekeeping Unit is essentially a request to be exempted from aN of the provisions of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 which place any sort of reasonable regulation on the operations of residential care facilities. This is not necessary, because there are many more narrowly tailored accommodations that could enable facility residents to enjoy the housing of their choice without depriving the surrounding neighborhood of reasonable conditions that mitigate any adverse secondary impacts that emanate from this facility. The applicant's counsel asserts in a letter dated January 29, 2009 that being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary "because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility." Even if the facility were not transient or institutional in nature, and did not clearly fit the definition of a sober living home, or unlicensed residential care facility, an exemption from the provisions of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 is not necessary to afford its residents the opportunity to live in and enjoy a dwelling. However, the applicant raised the issue of how the facility should be characterized in its necessity argument, and asserted the facility more closely resembles a Single Housekeeping Unit than any other type of residential use. Staff analyzed the facility's appropriate use classification based on the applicant's submitted materials. The nature of applicant's facility operations, as reported in the original application for reasonable accommodation submitted in May 2008, closely resembles a boarding house use. But for the fact residents are recovering alcoholics, the facility would be classified as a prohibited Group Residential use, or a Boarding or Rooming House as that term is defined in NBMC 20.05.030. (Residential Use Classifications) ( "A residence or dwelling unit, or part thereof, wherein a room or rooms are rented under two or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof. . . ") The applicant's May 2008 application for reasonable accommodation states, "The residents at the property reside separately at the property and interact within the property. There is individual use of common areas. The residents are responsible for their own meals, expenses and. chores. Each individual resides at the property subject to a separate contractual arrangement with the applicant." YS 01653 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 0 571 Pegasus Street) (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -06) 3 of Dr. Anna Thames, CEO of Yellowtstone, has also stated that the facility has no written leases with any of the residents. Rental agreements with residents are verbal. Again, the description of operations is much closer to the NBMC's definition of a boarding house or group residential use than a Single Housekeeping Unit, as the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit requires dwellings rented to bona fide Single Housekeeping Units to be occupied under a single written lease. The self - reported pattern of facility operations and resident interaction in no way resembles the NBMC definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit. NBMC Section 20.03.030 (Definitions) defines a Single Housekeeping Unit as: "The functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of and responsibility for common areas, and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, household maintenance, and expenses, and where, if the unit is rented, all adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy the entire premises of the dwelling unit, under a single written lease with joint use and responsibility for the premises, and the makeup of the household occupying the unit is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the landlord or property manager." Applicant's resident clients may be an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit who share common areas, but the applicant's own submittals indicate there is no joint responsibility for meals or expenses, no single written lease (or any written leases at all), and the makeup of the household is determined by the applicant rather than the residents. NBMC Section 20.98.025(C) allows the City to consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: A. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disability. If the requested accommodation is granted, any number of the applicant's current and potential clients will be able to live in a home in a single - family zone with other recovering alcoholics. This is a situation that can affirmatively enhance the quality of life of a person in recovery from addiction, unless overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhood interferes with the residents' re- integration into society. The applicant's sliding scale of rental rates offers a sober living environment to residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in a single - family home in this area. YS 01654 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution (1571 Pegasus Street) (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -06) Paae 4 of 7 B. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation. The exemption requested by the applicant is broader than necessary to achieve the goal of enabling disabled individuals an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice. There are more narrowly tailored exemptions that could enable disabled individuals to reside at the applicant's facility. C. in the case of a residential care facility, whether 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. The applicant does not state why being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make its facilities viable in light of the current market for the type of services it provides. The applicant states that each facility requires 15 residents in order to be financially viable, and provides a general summary of average income and expenses for all four facilities. The evidence presented does not lead to the conclusion that being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make applicant's facilities financially viable. D. In the case of a residential care facility, 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. In 2007, the City estimated that there were more than 315 sober living beds in the city (these are exclusive of the up to 213 ADP - licensed treatment beds). These numbers were compiled before applicant's facilities, with a total of 58 sober living and eight staff beds, were added to the city's supply. Operators of many sober living facilities within the city have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Yellowstone clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment without granting the accommodation. A recent agreement with Sober Living by the Sea, Inc., authorized SLBTS to provide up to 204 beds citywide. Many of these alternate sober living beds are probably not offered on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. However, evidence does not support the applicant's contention that treating residents of its facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit will change the availability of the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature, or afford them a substantially greater access to an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. Based on the foregoing analysis, the finding of necessity cannot be made in that the request is unnecessarily broad, the unit does not operate as the YS 01655 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution (1571 Pegasus Street) (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -06) Paae 5 of 7 functional equivalent of a single family unit, and the unit does not otherwise meet the criteria of a Single Housekeeping unit. Even when an applicant can demonstrate necessity, the City is not required to grant a request for accommodation that is not reasonable. Cities may find a requested accommodation unreasonable 9 it either (1) imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, or (2) results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program, often described as undermining "the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve." 3. Finding: That 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. Facts in support of finding: Treating the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit would not impose a currently identifiable undue financial or administrative burden on the City. If this reasonable accommodation request were granted for all four Yellowstone facilities, the applicant would be able to house a number of residents far in excess of the 66 individuals currently residing in the four homes. Currently unidentifiable financial or administrative burdens could arise as a result. 4. Finding: That the requested accommodation will not 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. Facts do not support the finding The purpose of the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit is to allow the determination of whether groups of related or unrelated individuals are living together in a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. This definition is necessary because of the persistent attempts by landlords to establish illegal boarding houses, and illegal dwelling units in dwellings within the City. Groups living as a single housekeeping unit can live together in any residential zone in Newport Beach. Groups not living as a single housekeeping unit are prohibited from establishing residences in any of the City's residential zones. There is an important exception to the total prohibition of groups not living as a single housekeeping unit — groups not living as a single housekeeping unit in residential care facilities of any size. All residential care facilities in the City have received a reasonable accommodation from the NBMC's restrictions on groups not living as a single housekeeping unit. The NBMC provides many opportunities for new facilities to establish, and has provisions for existing facilities to continue in their current locations with appropriate impact residential zone of the City. YS 01656 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution (1571 Pegasus Street) (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -06) Page6of7 The NBMC's Zoning Code also applies regulations to unlicensed and larger (more than seven residents) licensed facilities. These regulations are in place to ensure that the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code can be achieved, and so the adverse secondary impacts higher density residential care facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(D) of the NBMC, the City may also consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program: A. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. There were numerous letters, emails and phone calls from neighbors of the facilities that reported increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood as more of the applicant's facilities established there in recent years. The impacts reported include: family and other visitors to the facilities; litter in the neighborhood which complainants attribute to the applicants facilities, including cigarette butts, soda cans, and beer cans and bottles; facility residents traveling in groups between one facility and the others; meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicant's facilities, with outside attendees; excessive use of on- street parking by facility residents and their guests. B. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking. Parking - The enclosed garage spaces and driveway parking spaces would allow for the staff vehicles to be accommodated without impacting neighborhood parking. Traffic and Generated Trips - The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. Trip rates for residential care facilities are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Based on these standards, an 18 -bed residential care facility is estimated to generate approximately 49.32 average daily trips. Applying this formula, the facility will generate average daily trips substantially in excess of surrounding single family dwellings. If the facility's bed count is reduced to the 13 beds permitted under the use permit operating standards of NBMC Chapter 20.91A.050, the facility could generate approximately 35.62 average daily trips. YS 01657 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution (1571 Pegasus Street) (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -06) Pace 7 of 5. Finding: That 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. Facts in support of finding: A request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if granting it would pose "a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). This is a very limited exception and can only be used when, based on the specific facts of a situation, a requested accommodation results in a significant and particularized threat. Federal cases interpreting this exception in the FHAA indicate that requested accommodations cannot be denied due to generalized fears of the risks posed by disabled persons. WHEREAS, to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation all five required findings contained Section 20.98.025(6) of the NBMC must be made; and WHEREAS, specifically, findings Nos. 2 and 4 of Section 20.98.025(B) of the NBMC cannot be made; and WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not subject to CEQA; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Hearing Officer of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies with prejudice Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -06, Request No. 1, that the residents of the facility be treated. as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Section 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. YS 01658 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution (1571 Pegasus Street) (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -06) Page 8 of 8 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS W" DAY OF A PLW ATTEST: V City Clerk By:� Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer YS 01659 20172 REDLANDS: REASONABLE ACCOMODATION DENIAL RESOLUTION DATED MARCH 14, 2009 - %v.aoc YS 01660 RESOLUTION NO. HO- 2009 -010 A RESOLUTION OF A HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION NO. 2009 -07 TO ALLOW RESIDENTS OF AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 20172 REDLANDS DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO BE TREATED AS A SINGLE HOUSEKEEPING UNIT (PA 2008 -108) WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council on January 22, 2008, following noticed public hearings; and WHEREAS, the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 amended the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code (NBMC) relating to Group Residential Uses; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008 -05 added Chapter 20.98 to the NBMC. Chapter 20.98 sets forth a process to provide reasonable accommodations in the City's zoning and land use regulations, policies, and practices when needed to provide an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and WHEREAS, an application was filed by Yellowstone First Step House, Inc., with respect to property located at 20172 Redlands Drive, and legally described as Lot 36, Tract 4307, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California (APN 119 - 362 -07), as per map recorded in Book 153, Pages 18 -20 of Miscellaneous Maps, requesting approval of a Reasonable Accommodation for the residents of the facility to be treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC); and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 20, 2009 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented and considered at this meeting and the hearing was continued to March 12, 2009 for action on the resolutions and where the public hearing was reopened to receive additional evidence, both written and oral from the applicant, staff and the public; and WHEREAS, the both hearings were presided over by Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.98.025(B) of the NBMC, the written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. 1. Finding: That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. Facts in support of finding: The applicant submitted a written statement stating that every resident of the facility is in recovery from alcohol addiction. Federal regulations and case law have defined recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction as a disability, YS 01661 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 20172 Redlands Drive (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -07) Paae 2 of 7 because it is a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs one or more major daily life activities. 2. Finding: That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Facts do not support the finding: The exemption requested by the applicant is unnecessarily broad to achieve the goal of providing disabled housing. The request to be considered a Single Housekeeping Unit is essentially a request to be exempted from all of the provisions of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 which place any sort of reasonable regulation on the operations of residential care facilities. This is not necessary, because there are many more narrowly tailored accommodations that could enable facility residents to enjoy the housing of their choice without depriving the surrounding neighborhood of reasonable conditions that mitigate any adverse secondary impacts that emanate from this facility. The applicant's counsel asserts in a letter dated January 29, 2009 that being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary "because the Property is not transient or institutional in nature such that it fits the definition of a non - licensed residential care facility." Even if the facility were not transient or institutional in nature, and did not clearly fit the definition of a sober living home, or unlicensed residential care facility, an exemption from the provisions of 2008 -05 is not necessary to afford its residents the opportunity to live in and enjoy a dwelling. However, the applicant raised the issue of how the facility should be characterized in its necessity argument, and asserted the facility more closely resembles a Single Housekeeping Unit than any other type of residential use. Staff analyzed the facility's appropriate use classification based on the applicant's submitted materials. The nature of the facility operations, as reported in the original application for reasonable accommodation submitted in May 2008, closely resembles a boarding house use. But for the fact residents are recovering alcoholics, the facility would be classified as a prohibited Group Residential use, or a Boarding or Rooming House as that term is defined in NBMC 20.05.030. (Residential Use Classifications) ( "A residence or dwelling unit, or part thereof, wherein a room or rooms are rented under two or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof ... ") The applicant's May 2008 application for reasonable accommodation states, "The residents at the property reside separately at the property and interact within the property. There is individual use of common areas. The residents are responsible for their own meals, expenses and chores. Each individual resides at the property subject to a separate contractual arrangement with the applicant." YS 01662 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 20172 Redlands Drive (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -07) Pane 3 of 7 Dr. Anna Thames, CEO of Yellowtstone, has also stated that the facility has no written leases with any of the residents. Rental agreements with residents are verbal. Again, the description of operations is much closer to the NBMC's definition of a boarding house or group residential use than a Single Housekeeping Unit, as the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit requires dwellings rented to bona fide Single Housekeeping Units to be occupied under a single written lease. The self - reported pattern of facility operations and resident interaction in no way resembles the NBMC definition of a Single Housekeeping Unit. NBMC Section 20.03.030 (Definitions) defines a Single Housekeeping Unit as: "The functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of and responsibility for common areas, and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, household maintenance, and expenses, and where, if the unit is rented, all adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy the entire premises of the dwelling unit, under a single written lease with joint use and responsibility for the premises, and the makeup of the household occupying the unit is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the landlord or property manager." Applicant's resident clients may be an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit who share common areas, but the applicant's own submittals indicate there is no joint responsibility for meals or expenses, no single written lease (or any written leases at all), and the makeup of the household is determined by the applicant rather than the residents. NBMC Section 20.98.025(C) allows the City to consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: A. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disability. If the requested accommodation is granted, any number of the applicant's current and potential clients will be able to live in a home in a single - family zone with other recovering alcoholics. This is a situation that can affirmatively enhance the quality of life of a person in recovery from addiction, unless overcrowding of the facility or institutionalization of the neighborhood interferes with the residents' re- integration into society. The applicant's sliding scale of rental rates offers a sober living environment to residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in a single - family home in this area. YS 01663 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 20172 Redlands Drive (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -07) Paae 4 of 7 B. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation. The exemption requested by the applicant is broader than necessary to achieve the goal of enabling disabled individuals an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice. There are more narrowly tailored exemptions that could enable disabled individuals to reside at the applicant's facility. C. In the case of a residential care facility, whether 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. The applicant does not state why being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make its facilities viable in light of the current market for the type. of services it provides. The applicant states that each facility requires 15 residents in order to be financially viable, and provides a general summary of average income and expenses for all four facilities. The evidence presented does not lead to the conclusion that being treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit is necessary to make applicant's facilities financially viable. D. In the case of a residential care facility, whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the c ommunity is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. In 2007, the City estimated that there were more than 315 sober living beds in the city (these are exclusive of the up to 213 ADP - licensed treatment beds), These numbers were compiled before applicant's facilities, with a total of 58 sober living and eight staff beds, were added to the city's supply. Operators of many sober living facilities within the city have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Yellowstone clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment without granting the accommodation. A recent agreement with Sober Living by the Sea, Inc., authorized SLBTS to provide up to 204 beds citywide. Many of these alternate sober living beds are probably not offered on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. The evidence does not support the applicant's contention that treating residents of its facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit will change the availability of the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature, or afford them a substantially greater access to an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. Based on the foregoing analysis, the finding of necessity cannot be made in that the request is unnecessarily broad, the unit does not operate as the YS 01664 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 20172 Redlands Drive (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -07) Page 5 of 7 functional equivalent of a single family unit, and the unit does not otherwise meet the criteria of a Single Housekeeping unit. Even when an applicant can demonstrate necessity, the City is not required to grant a request for accommodation that is not reasonable. Cities may find a requested accommodation unreasonable if it either (1) imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, or (2) results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program, often described as undermining "the basic purpose which the requirement seeks to achieve." 3. Finding: That 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. Facts in support of finding Treating the facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit would not impose a currently identifiable undue financial or administrative burden on the City. If this reasonable accommodation request were granted for all four Yellowstone facilities, the applicant would be able to house a number of residents far in excess of the 66 individuals currently residing in the four homes. Currently unidentifiable financial or administrative burdens could arise as a result. 4. Finding: That the requested accommodation will not 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. Facts do not support the findino• The purpose of the NBMC's definition of Single Housekeeping Unit is to allow the determination of whether groups of related or unrelated individuals are living together in a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. This definition is necessary because of the persistent attempts by landlords to establish illegal boarding houses, and illegal dwelling units in dwellings within the City. Groups living as a single housekeeping unit can live together in any residential zone in Newport Beach. Groups not living as a single housekeeping unit are prohibited from establishing residences in any of the City's residential zones. There is an important exception to the total prohibition of groups not living as a single housekeeping unit — groups not living as a single housekeeping unit in residential care facilities of any size. All residential care facilities in the City have received a reasonable accommodation from the NBMC's restrictions on groups not living as a single housekeeping unit. The NBMC provides many opportunities for new facilities to establish, and has provisions for existing facilities to continue in their current locations with appropriate impact residential zone of the City. YS 01665 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 20172 Redlands Drive (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -07) Page 6 of 7 The NBMC's Zoning Code also applies regulations to unlicensed and larger (more than seven residents) licensed facilities. These regulations are in place to ensure that the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code can be achieved, and so the adverse secondary impacts higher density residential care facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated. Pursuant to Section 20.98.025(D) of the NBMC, the City may also consider the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program: A. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. There were numerous letters, emails and phone calls from neighbors of the facilities that reported increasing negative secondary impacts on the neighborhood as more of the applicant's facilities established there in recent years. The impacts reported include: family and other visitors to the facilities; litter in the neighborhood which complainants attribute to the applicant's facilities, including cigarette butts, soda cans, and beer cans and bottles; facility residents traveling in groups between one facility and the others; meetings held regularly at one or more of the applicants facilities, with outside attendees; excessive use of on- street parking by facility residents and their guests. 8. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking. Parking - The enclosed garage spaces and driveway parking spaces allow for the staff vehicles to be accommodated without impacting neighborhood parking. However, the weekly meetings and weekend visitors reported by neighbors and former residents of the facilities disproportionately consume available neighborhood parking. Traffic and Generated Trips - The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. In the case of a single family dwelling, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. Trip rates for residential care facilities are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed. Based on these standards, a 17 -bed residential care facility is estimated to generate approximately 46.58 average daily trips. Applying this formula, the facility will generate average daily trips substantially in excess of surrounding single family dwellings. YS 01666 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 20172 Redlands Drive (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -07) Page 7 of 8 5. Finding: That 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. Facts in su000rt of finding A request for reasonable accommodation may be denied if granting it would pose "a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(0(9). This is a very limited exception and can only be used when, based on the specific facts of a situation, a requested accommodation results in a significant and particularized threat Federal cases interpreting this exception in the FHAA indicate that requested accommodations cannot be denied due to generalized fears of the risks posed by disabled persons. WHEREAS, to approve a request for Reasonable Accommodation all five required findings contained Section 20.98.025(B) of the NBMC must be made; and WHEREAS, specifically, findings Nos. 2 and 4 of Section 20.98.025(B) of the NBMC cannot be made; and WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not subject to CEQA; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Hearing Officer of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies with prejudice Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -07, Request No.1, that the residents of the facility be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Section 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. YS 01667 City of Newport Beach Hearing Officer Resolution 20172 Redlands Drive (Reasonable Accommodation No. 2009 -07) Page 8of8 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14'h DAY OFAPRIL, 2009. ATTEST: '; • �1 City Clerk Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer YS 01668 Additional Documents from Yellowstone Presented at March 12, 2009 Hearing YS 01669 Srarea�;CFUCCRNIA FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION REQUEST GcNCY CONTACTS UWE DORIS GREEN TEIEMiONb NUNAfR _ _ -"-- 916 322 -1265 C- 2 vnLUnronsNaME NOT ASSIGNED YET - - - - -- -.. flfOUESTINCAGENCYFACILItYN STREGTA[HJAESS(AWa/LxaGn) - ..__�____ YET LICENSING I Departmcm of Drug and Alcohol Pmgrnms AGENCY Liccnsing and Certification Branch NAME AND 1700 K'Sttec4 Third Floor ADDRESS Sacramento, CA 958144037 See instructions on reverse. A/DRP' HEOUEST CODE 2A _., -_., ,_ CODES �- 1. ORIGINAL A. FIRE CLEARANCE 2. RENEWAL 0. LIFE SAFErY 1 CAPACR'Y CHANGE 4. OWNERSHIP CHANCE S. ADDRESS CHANCE 6. NAME CHANGE OTHER 18 i 18 I 0 0 i 0 0 iAfttllYNaMf. ••_ —• —_�— •-�__ I _______.._.. YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE _ - - -- ` STREGTA[HJAESS(AWa/LxaGn) - ..__�____ I ALC'OHOCIDRU(i I.-ACILLFY 1571 PEGASUS STREET NUbNEROFBULL0INGG A. EXITS SANTA ANA IiIiIGHTS ' ACa1TYCONTACTPBRSON'GNAME �' —'------ ---___ I NONE _ _ DR. A. M. THAMES (949)678.9000 AMANDA KRAMER C. FIRE ALARM D. SPRINKLERS OGCUVUU;yCLASS (949)678-3214 :1' EC1ALfANpilpNS - ^� 24-1- TO DE COMPLETED DY INSPECTING AUTHORITY I a - cl 962S9tb96'66 au04SmQIIaA 11 YS 01670 CLEgRANCE10EN1AL000E O1y FIRE i CODES__ AUTHORITY _ - - -- ` NAME AND t. FIRE CLEARANCE GRANTED ADDRESS 2. FI CLEARANCE DENIED A. EXITS L 1 "_ _J n. CONSTRUCTION MPECTOITSUA E(rLR„rywamte0 IELEaHCNENUMBEA -' -J _ 7af ( C. FIRE ALARM D. SPRINKLERS OGCUVUU;yCLASS -.71 r J) S r E. HouS eFPING ( G EM J(iq - '- WSPECTORs I F. SPECIAL HAZARD �N��'URE /rJ�'J I._.. / \fl�i'7/ G. OTHER I a - cl 962S9tb96'66 au04SmQIIaA 11 YS 01670 ;:�:; -. ,,.,,; ��a 1•4 kW, 4. OVM0$WP 4kAWOe 6.'AQQkR*O CF aHC6 6. NAme "Not 7.OTHER C. #IRS ALNW E. MVWXEPPING P. I$PEQIAL IWIARD b. 0114tR ............ YS 01672 6 *Q1 6U,Qq;*Ima I I OA YS 01673