HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - CorrespondenceAdditional Correspondence
(received by City of Newport Beach Planning Department after
submission of the Staff Report, but prior to Hearing)
Av.doc
OR OM
Brown, Janet
From: Ktff, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 20091:18 PM
To: Brown, Janet, Wolcott, Cathy
Subject: FW: 1115 Recommendation
FYI.
_............— .. ....................
........ ....
From: Paul Lopez [mallto:PaulLopez @sumwdics.mm]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 12:39 PM
To: IOff, Dave
Subjed: AN: 1115 Recommendation
Dave,
I have reviewed your staff report for 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in
the City s recommendation for approval. This finding is confusing in light of the strong and specific body of
evidence that was submitted by local neighbors who are directly impacted by the poor management of this
facility and the related negative impact that it has had to our "local" neighborhood. Additionally, the City's
arbitrary establishment of W. Balboa Blvd. as some kind of dividing line for block designation is now going to
enable approval of two such facilities within 90 feet of my residence. Given the interaction going on across the
street, I believe this is overconeentration by anyone's definition! We have lived with the negative impacts of
1115 for over 4 1/2 years and the City is now giving more time to this operator to get his act together.
Additionally, the City is now putting the continued policing of this facility back on the tired shoulders of the
residents. What is missing from the evidence presented to the City? I believe that 4 1/2 years of past
performance is the true indicator of future performance, rather than an operator's promise to do things
completely different in the future. I have to conclude that the City is so frightened of this operator that it is
willing to abandon the tax paying and respectful neighbors that have gone on record in large numbers to oppose
this application.
The public hearing is our final opportunity to lay out our case once again. For the third time, I am asking for
your permission to present my photos (adjusted to protect the faces of clients) at the public hearing on
Thursday. Tbese are the photos that were submitted to you in my letter dated January 27, 2008. I also need to
confirm that you have the equipment, i.e. both the PowerPoint program and a USB data port on the computer
connected to the proj ector. If not, I will bring my own laptop. I look forward to your timely approval of this
request.
Finally, and for the record, I have 23 additional petition signatures from "local" residents and several additional
letters that have been sent to your attention. I will be dropping these off at City Hall today. This brings petition
signatures to a total of 143 and am I aware of 10 opposition letters that have been sent and/or emailed to your
attention. I want to ensure that each become part of the public record.
I appreciate your assistance with these above matters
Sincerely, Paul
Paul Lopez
1125 12 W. Balboa Blvd.
OR 0214
Brown, Janet
From:
KIT, Dave
Sent:
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:24 PM
To:
'Tom Allen; Brown, Janet; Wolcott, Cathy
Subject:
FW. Ocean Recovery Use Permit Application UP 2008-030
For the record.
From: Larry Matliena [mailto:tm02oSS7 @pacbell.netj
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 200910:25 AM
To: KIT, Dave
Cc mathenaesq aol.00m
Subject: Ocean Recovery Use Permit Application UP 2008 -030
Mr. Kiff:
My husband asked me to write you and the hearing officer about the goings on of
the rehab crowd - on both sides of 1100 West Balboa Boulevard. I am a
housewife. I am at home most days at 1125 West Balboa Boulevard.
The more interesting thing to watch during throughout the day is the young girls
from the 1132 West Balboa Boulevard rehab facility. Many times during the day
the young men from the rehab facility at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard go over to
1132 West Balboa Boulevard and knock at the door at 1132 and clearly ask the girls
if they can come out and play. Often mid day they evidently can- typically they
hang out together smoking constantly and using curse words in the courtyard at
1129 West Balboa Boulevard.
In fact on Tuesday, late afternoon I saw a male resident of 1129 (I can identify his
car) pick up a young woman from 1132.
I have also seen the women from 1132 meet young men who cross West Balboa
Boulevard from 1115 and meet at 1120. They hang out together on the stairs at
1120.
I assume that the management at 1132 West Balboa Boulevard knows about these
activities because on more than one occasion, I have seen the silver van of 1132
West Balboa Boulevard pick up the girls behind the alley of 1129 West Balboa
Boulevard.
When the girls at 1132 West Balboa Boulevard arrive in their van and park, I have
seen the young men at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard yell at them and cross in the
middle of the street to go talk to them.
19P.1 DIAR
I have also seen many many times the young men who seem to live on the second
floor of floor of 1120 West Balboa Boulevard come over and appear to hang out
with the clients of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. You can hear /see them yelling at
each other across the street. Since I have been asked to pay attention, there is a
young man who lives at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard who every morning, every
midafternoon, and late afternoon leaves the 1120 facility to hang out at the 1115
facility. I could tell you the car he drives.
I cant see fully around the edge of the 1115 West Balboa Boulevard building, but I
can often hear them in the front courtyard at 1115 and of course I can smell their
relentless cigarette smoke.
My belief is just given the clear camaraderie between the people at 1120 and 1115
is that the residents at 1120 either are still or have been clients at 1115. I could be
wrong but from my perspective, it seems like the facility at 1115 West Balboa
Boulevard has spread to directly across the street at 1120 and 1120 is becoming a
meeting place for residents of 1132 and 1115.
1 was asked to compare the interactions I see with anything going on with 1216
West Balboa Boulevard on the next block. The easy and obvious answer is that
there are countless opportunities for people on either side of the 1100 block of West
Balboa Boulevard to see and interact with each other. For example, there is an
almost direct view of 1132 West Balboa Boulevard and 1115 West Balboa
Boulevard. People can and easily do yell out to each other across the street. There
is a constant opportunity to interact which is often made.
I was asked if the street between the two sides of 1100 West Balboa Boulevard is a
break in communication and contact between the two sides of the road. The
opposite is obviously true. Being almost directly across the street from each other
clearly encourages interaction. Being almost a block away but really not visible
does not.
I dont see the same interaction happening or the opportunity for it to happen at 1216
West Balboa Boulevard. It is too far away compared to seeing someone in open
view across an eighty foot wide street- with a speed limit of 30 mphand in particular
when there is little traffic other than the rehab people during the middle of the day -
when most people other than rehab residents, mothers home with kids, and the
retired are the only ones home.
So I guess my point is obviously rehab facilities directly across West Balboa
Boulevard have much more affect on each other than one on the same side of the
OR 0216
street but like three times the distance away. To say anything else would either be
crazy or stupid.
Ronel Mathena
949 566 0107
OR 02V
Brown, Janet
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:24 PM
To: Tom Alen ; Brown, Janet; Wolcott, Cathy
Subject FW: Rehab facilities up for review
For the record.
-- _ —. -- - - -- _ - -- - - - - -- ------ ----
- -.�
From: Laurie McKenzie (mailto:mcktalk @mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:04 AM
To: Kdf, Dave
Ca paul lopez-, Denys Oberman
Subject: Rehab fall -dies up for review
Good Morning Dave,
I will not be able to attend tomorrow aftemoon's rehab permit review for Ocean Recovery's facilities at 1115
W. Balboa Blvd. and 1601 W.Balboa Blvd. due to medical reasons.
I wanted to reiterate my husband's, and my concerns regarding these facilities:
Regarding the applications for group recovery homes on the Balboa Peninsula, specifically those in the 1100
and 1200 blocks of West Balboa Blvd.:
As 32 year residents of Newport Beach, specifically the Balboa Peninsula at 11 th and 12th Streets, we would
like to voice our concerns.
1. The over - concentration of these homes in this residenital area will continue to hurt our home values and it
changes the neighborhood feel. We understand and appreciate that those in need of rehab have their rights.
We, as homeowners, also have rights to protect our home values and quality of life issues.
2. These 'recovery homes' are for profit businesses. They add a burden on the city's trash services. traffi
3. The homes in this area under review have more than 6 beds and need to be strictly regulated.
4. A vast number of these group homes are owned and operated by a handful of for profit businesses. These
businesses need to be regulated by density of their facilities within a given area to avoid over-concentration.
5. These facilities are all too close to Newport Elementary (within 1000 feet) and its adjacent playgrounds, and
are incompatible with surrounding residences, public health and safety.
We urge the City of Newport Beach to continue its efforts in making this City on of the finest in the country.
We hope that you put the citizens and local taxpayers interests and needs at the forefront, as you review and
regulate these Residential Care Facilities so that their density and proliferation will not negatively affect this
wonderful beach community.
Sincerely,
OR 0218
Terry and Laurie McKenzie
1151 W. Balboa Blvd.
Balboa Peninsula, CA 92661
949 -673 -2379
OR 0219
Brown, Janet
From:
Kit, Dave
Sent:
Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:07 PM
To:
Brown, Janet ' ptlaw@_sboglobal. ner :'s000nnor@sheppardmullin.com'
Subject:
Fw: Comments and requested corrections to the Staff Report for the 1115W. Balboa Blvd.
Use Permit
Dave Kiff
Sent from my Blackberry
-- Original Message —
From: Paul Lopez <PaulLopez@surmodics.com>
To: Kill, Dave
Sent: Thu Feb 12 14:01:48 2009
Subject: Comments and requested corrections to the Staff Report for the 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. Use
Permit
Dave,
Please forward this to the Hearing Officer. l have finally reviewed.the Staff Report for the 1115 W.
Balboa Blvd. Use Permit 1 believe it is the City's responsibility to gather the appropriate "facts"
regarding this facility in order to present appropriate findings and recommendations to the Hearing
Officer for his approval or denial of this application. Although the City has not left the public with
much time to review and comment on its findings and recommendation, below is my feedback
regarding specific components of the report.
As it relates to a few of the Operator's comments:
1)The Operator states that 1115 residents don't attend weekend Narcotics Anonymous meetings on
the beach at 15th street. This is not true. In fact, the Operator, himself, has provided the City with his
residents' schedules that show they clearly attend. Furthermore, and as I sit on my deck on Saturday
and Sunday mornings, , 1 routinely see residents leaving the 1115 facility, beach chairs in hand and
yelling back at slower residents to "hurry up, we are going to be late for the meeting ". I have followed
these groups on several occasions and have verified that they do indeed attend these meetings at
15th SL
2)The Operator states that they discourage smoking at this facility. There is no evidence of this, and
in fact, direct neighbors on the east, west and south side of 1115 have gone on record complaining
about the amount of second hand smoke that is being generated from this facility and voicing their
concerns over their family's health and restricted Irving environment. It is a fact that large groups of
residents smoke daily in the courtyard and around the facility, both front and back. Immediate
neighbors have documented to the the City their concerns related to the negative impacts created by
this volume of secondhand spoke. Specific examples provided include: children can't play in the yard,
windows need to be kept closed at all times and recent reports of personal health conditions such as
Asthma. To further prove that the Operator is not being forthright on this issue with the neighbors and
the City, up to forty people, mostly guests , are allowed to smoke during the Thursday barbecue. I
have sent several pictures to you that demonstrate this fact I think the City needs to ask the
Operator to explain his definition "discouraging smoking ", as they have recently installed a tent over
the courtyard smoking table to shield their smokers from getting wet during the recent rainfall.
OR 0220
3)The Operator states that most of their residents don't have personal autos, but just a few that are in
late stages of treatment. This is not true. I believe he should have stated "Most residents have Cars."
Neighbors provided City with personal observations, including pictures, that show that 1115 residents
are seen and heard at all times of the day and night in personal vehicles. Additionally, the Operator
states that there is a maximum of 5 additional parked cars on W. Balboa as a result of their weekly
Thursday gathering. This is not true. Thursday gatherings generate 30-40 people, most of these
guests who arrive by personal auto. Anyone trying to park on the 1100 bkodk on Thursday evenings
knows this to be true.
4)The Operator states that local neighbors' observations and the unhealthy living environment is due
to the adverse behavior from the residents at the 1129 W. Balboa facility, not his 1115 facility. This is
absolutely not true. The record dearly shows that all observed behaviors, code violations, second
hand smoke, offensive language etc. are emanating from 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. The record is clear
on this issue and substantiated by petition signatures, letters and pictures that have been submitted
to the City.
5)The Operator states that there are at least 4 staff members on site at 1115 each day. This is not
true. Several local residents have gone on record questioning whether "any" staff is on site daily.
6)The Operator states that "one" van transports all 22 residents at 1115 to offsite events and
meetings. This is not true. In fact, the number of vans is at least two. The City has received a picture
substantiating this fact from me.
7)Operator states curfew is 10:OOPM on Weekdays and 12:OO13M on Weekends and lights out at
11 :OOPM. This is not true. Local residents have gone on record with observations that residents are
coming and going on bikes and cars at all hours of the night, well past any of these stated times.
Rarely, are lights "ever" out at this facility.
My conclusion: The Operator is not telling the truth, and actually appears to be lying, on several of
the above issues. The Operator's poor track record in managing this facility is very clear and has
been clear for almost 5 years. By making a recommendation that the Operator will now somehow
comply with more stringent conditions going forward, is not supported by his prior mismanagement, or
lack thereof, of the operations and residents at 1115. Additionally, it also very evident that he is
currently misrepresenting the facts and /or lying. I believe that past performance is a great indicator of
future performance. Based upon the facts that have been put forward in this application process, it is
clear that this Operator's business operation and facility at 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. is detrimental to the
public health, safety, peace, comfort and welfare of persons residing adjacent to this facility.
As it relates key findings/ decisions made by the City in this report, I have the following comments:
1)The City's recommendation that smoking must be in an enclosure with four walls and can be open
to the sky is ridiculous and dearly has not been well thought out by the City Staff. Direct neighbors on
the east and west side, the same neighbors that have gone on record with the negative impacts of the
second hand spoke, reside in structures that are three stories (versus the two stories at 1115), with
master bedrooms and windows on the third floor. The residence directly south of this facility is only
two stories, but has a bedroom and windows that sit higher than the structure at 1115. This will not
eliminate the current second hand spoke issue for local neighbors.
2) The City's arbitrary linear block designation, instead of utilizing a radius/cirde methodology, and
recommending that W. Balboa Blvd is some form of dividing line for the 1100 block of W. Balboa
OR 0221
Blvd. is ill conceived and seems to bias this process in favor of the Operator. In fact, residents are on
record stating that there is daily contact and face to face communication between sober living
residents at 1115 and other renters (or residents) directly across the street at 1120 W. Balboa Blvd
and between sober living residents at 1129 and the sober living residents across the street at 1132_
From all practical viewpoints, W. Balboa is not a dividing line and does not prevent the over
concentration and institutionalization of these facilities in a local neighborhood. This arbitrary
definition and interpretation of the APA standard appears to disadvantages local residents. For the
record, the City is recommending overconcentration of these facilities due to their proximity to each
other, within our local neighborhood and as it relates to the number in close proximity to my
residence. The fact is that 1115 is only 85 feet from the approved Balboa Horizons facility at 1132 W.
Balboa Blvd. Approval of the 1115 application would now put two approved facilities within 80 feet of
my residence. This recommendation by the City would now provide for four sober living facilities
withiin 300 feet of my house. This is not fair and dearly represents over concentration in my local
neighborhood.
3)The over concentration of these facilities to Newport El and playgrounds is indeed is a real issue for
residents. The City continues to ignore the fact that most of these residents do attend NA meetings
each Saturday and Sunday on the beach at 15th Street They are adding to an already large
gathering (in excess of 100 people) and within 50-100 feet of the school and playgrounds.
Additionally, the City is also ignoring the fact that sober living residents do use Operator provided
bicycles to tour the strand. The majority of these bike excursions are in direct proximity to the school
and playgrounds, creating an untenable situation for families with children fearing for their safety
caused by an overconcentration of these type facilities in this local area.
I am not sure of what additional facts the City needs from residents to document that 1115 W. Balboa
Blvd does not meet the charter of City Ordinance 2008-05 which empowers the City to "Protect the
Integrity of the City's Residential Areas". Does the community need more than 144 opposition
signatures? More than 14 letters of opposition, most identifying specific observations at 11157 More
pictures?
A large number of residents from the local community have presented compelling facts to
demonstrate that this Operator's business and facility at 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. is detrimental to the
public health, safety, peace, comfort and welfare of persons residing adjacent to this facility.
I urge the Hearing Officer to overrule the City's recommendation and deny this application for a Use
Permit.
Paul Lopez
11251/2 W. Balboa Blvd.
OR 0222
Brown, Janet
Fran: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Wednesday, February i i, 200810:02 PM
To: 'Tom Allen'; Broom, Janet; Wolcott, Cathy
Subject FW: Ocean Recovery Use Permit Submittal UP 2008-030
Not sure if ( got this one to you.
- - -- Original Message —
From: Paul Lopez (mailto:PaulLopez@sum odics.comJ
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 200910:57 AM
To: Kiff, Dave
Subject FW: Ocean Recovery Use Permit Submittal UP 2008 -030
Dave:
I supplement my prior letter to you for delivery to Hearing Officer
Alien, regarding Ocean Recovery's Use Permit application for 1115 West
Balboa Boulevard with this email. I do this because I have been told
the interaction of the rehab facilities on either side of West Balboa
Boulevard at the 1100 block has become legally meaningful.
For at least the past two months as 1 have been parking my car on West
Balboa Boulevard, 1 have noticed the Ocean Recovery clients of 1115 West
Balboa Boulevard crossing West Balboa Boulevard every day and visiting
several male residents of the upstairs unit at 1120 West Balboa
Boulevard.
They sometimes just visit at the entry way stairs at 1120, but I have
observed on multiple occasions the 1115 clients entering the upstairs
unit on the south side of the 1120 building.
At first, perhaps paranoiacty I thought some type of drug activity was
going on, but have nothing to substantiate this. I have seen embraces
and have a feeling that these renters know many of the clients at 1115
West Balboa Boulevard. 1 believe they are affiliated with or perhaps
graduates of Ocean Recovery. This perception is further reinforced as I
have seen the residents at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard cross the street
(to and from) for the Thursday night get together and barbecue at 1115.
Further, I have heard yelling back and forth between the two facilities.
Kristi, the renter /neighbor at 1113 West Balboa Boulevard has also seen
the same and has seen the traffic going back and forth between the
buildings. She told me there is constant yelling from the residents at
1115 to the renters across the street. The upstairs unit at 1120 West
Balboa Boulevard looks directly down at the courtyard at Ocean Recovery.
The renters at 1120 keep their balcony open day and night, providing
OR 0223
them with a clear view of the courtyard of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard.
Additionally, I have seen the rehab residents at 1129 West Balboa
Boulevard yelling across the street at the female clients of Balboa
Horizons at 1132 West Balboa Boulevard. This has been most pronounced
when young men are on the upper balcony at 1129 or out front in the
courtyard at 1129- with a group of girls sitting outside of 1132 and /or
are arriving or departing by van. They seem to know one another. It
might very well be from the weekend gatherings on the beach or other
mutual meeting places.
These facts raise significant issues around the City's arbitrary
finding /designation of appropriate distances between these facilities
and block designations. First, W. Balboa Blvd. is not a dividing line
for interaction between residents of 1115 and renters at 1120 W. Balboa
Blvd, or between sober living residents at 1129 and 1132 W. Balboa Blvd.
It is a short distance of —120 feet between 1115 and 1132 and It
apparently does not impede traffic or communication between them as
noted above. This leads to my second point Why does the City believe
that 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. is too close to 1132 W. Balboa Blvd. (within
300 Feet), but feels that the 120 ft distance between 1132 and 1115 is
a sufficient distance based upon an arbitrary designation that W. Balboa
Blvd. is somehow a dividing line between blocks - especially given the
fact that dearly West Balboa Boulevard does not seem to be stopping
1115 spreading its ongoing regular daily activities to people living
across West Balboa Boulevard at 1120 W. Balboa.
If you are going to pick West Balboa Boulevard as a dividing line
between two facilities- it would probably be a good idea to confirm that
the one you are giving a permit to- didn't already apparently have
attendees of its activities regularly piercing what appears to me to be
an artificial and irrational barrier. The direct line of sight,
demonstrated interactions between the facilities on both sides of W.
Balboa Blvd., and the presence of daily attendees of 1115 functions
living across Balboa Boulevard are clear and rational reasons that this
simply is not the case. Both of these facilities, 1115 and 1132, are
within 105 ft. of my residence and 120 feet of each other. This is
overconcentration for the neighbors of the 1100 block, and for me,
regardless of what side of the street you live on
I hope this additional factual information is helpful in reaching the
right conclusion in regards to Ocean Recovery's Use Permit for 1115 West
Balboa Boulevard.
Best, Paul
Paul Lopez
1125 1/2 W. Balboa Blvd,
949 -673 -0489
OR 0224
P.S. Please confirm your receipt of this email and the attachments_
Thank you.
OR 0225
OCEAN RECOVERY
Foundation for Hope
February It, 2W
Mr. Thomas W. Allen, Hearing OfSecr
Mr. Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Re: Ocean &W= facility at 1115 W. Balboa Blvd.: Use Penn_t No. 2008 -030
Gentlemen:
I on wriing this letter in support of Ocean Recovery's Use Permit Application, the
hearing on which is scheduled to take place on February 12, 2009. I am also writing to
set doe record straight concerning certain objections that have been made concerning
Occan Recovery's application.
I am currently the Program Director of Ocean Recovery's facility at 1115 W. Balboa
Blvd — the facility that is the subject of this Use Permit Application. I am the person
primarily responsible for the supervision of dtis facility, a position I have held since May
of 2008.
I have been working with Ocean Recovery for approximately two yews, the fast year and
a quarter working unda the tuselage of Kathy Tenney, Oscan Recovery s Fxecarive
Director. In May of 2006, I became Program Director for the facility at 1115 W. Balboa
after the previous Program Aioectog Mike Ballue, left. Ocean Recovery a8er being
offered a job closer to his borne.
To briefly describe my personal background, I have a Master's Degree in Marriage and
Family Therapy from St. Thomas University in Minneapolis, Minnesota and an
undergraduate degree from the University of Rochester. Before joiniag Ocean Recovery
apprommate /y, two years agq I bad ova two years oferpe ianx work3og at Hazelden, a
nationally known. treatment antes in Minneapolis, Minnesota
1 generally work at the 1115 W. Balboa facility Monday tbtuugh Friday from 10 am to
6 pm. When I am no therm, there are other qualified clinical ease supervisors
supervising this facility, and the supervisors report to me.
I have reviewed the staff report concerning Ocean Recovery's applicatiou, and I have also
mvietved e- tuails std letters in opposition m Ocean Recovery's applica<ioa Generally
speaking, I am PnVdsed to see the objections raised in the ematls/lettem as none of the
3419 Via Lido, Suite 310 Newport Beach, CA 92663
Phone 949- 675 -3764 Fax 949 -675 -5797
OR 0226
authors of the emaiMetters have ever contacted me (or to my knowledge anyone else at
Ocean Recovery) to bring these alleged problems to our attention. Had they Nought
these alleged problems to ow attention, we would have addressed their coneems
promptly.
Turning specifically to some of the e- mailsllettcrs submitted in opposition to Ocean
Recovery's application, I have the following com mem based on my personal knowledge
as the person primarily responsible for supervising 1115 W. Balboa Blvd., and my
conversations with the clinical case supervisors at this facility who report to ate:
E-mail from Kim Rorer
At the outset, I have never to tray knowledge met or heard from Ms. Flores. Her
allegations are news to me. Had she brought these allegations to my attention (or for that
matter, any supervisor at Ocean Recovery), we would have acted promptly to address
these alleged concerns. I Sad it hard to believe that there has been causing and music
playing "at all hours" as Ocean Recovery has strict rules in this regard. Specifically,
Ocean Recovery's written rules do not allow foul language. Anyone caught using fout
language is reprimanded and subject to discipline. Similarly, Ocean Recovery has curfew
hours (as stated in its written rules) of 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 12 a m.
Friday end Saturday. All residents must have their lights out by 11 p.m. Noise after
earkw horns is not tolerated. Camcemiog smoking, smoking is discouraged at Ocam
Recovery, and its only allowed at a designated location designed to minimize the impacts
to airy of our neighbors.
To my knowledge, them have rower been any visits by the City's police department or
code enforcement division concerning any of the foregoing allegations. Ford=, it is my
understanding that the first time these complaints were made was after the City noticed
the bearing on Ocean Recovers we permit application -
Frmall from Road Mather
At the outset, I base never to my knowledge met Ms. Madman. Other than the situation
with her daughter, described below, her allegatiom are news to we Had she brought
these allegations to my attention (or for that matter, any supervisor at Ocean Recovery),
the would have acted promptly to address these alleged concerns.
I am aware of the facts surrounding the alleged 'thratuating" ofMs. Mad=Ws daughter,
but the allegations are misleading. ?s. ?&theme's daughter was parallel petking bar car
and accidentally bumped into my car. Otte of the Ocean Recovery residents noticed thiL%
and mentioned to Ms. ?athmWs daughter than she had hit my car. There was no
'threatening° involved — one of the residents merely brought to the daughter's aaendon
that she had hit my car.
Concerning smoke. profanity and noise, as mentioned above, Ocean Recovery has strict
rules in this regard. Further, I am raX swam ofany of our residents threatening anyone.
Such threats would net be tolerated and are expressly prohibited by Ocean Recovery's
3419 Via Lido, Suite 310 Newport Beach, CA 92663
Pion 949 -675 -3764 Fax. 949-675,5797
OR 0227
written rules which prohibit "violence or threats of violence."
To my knowledge, there have never been any visits by the Citys police department or
code enforcement division concerning any of the foregoing allegations. Furtber, it is my
understanding that the first time these complaints were made was after the City noticed
the heating on Ocean Recovery's use permit application.
Letter from Paul Lopez
At the outset, I have never to my knowledge met or heard from Mr. Lopez iris
allegations are news to in& Had he brought these allegations to my attention (or for that
matter, any supervisor at Ocean Recovery), we would have acted pinniptty to address
Thew alleged concerns- Mr. Lopez complains abort smoke invading his property, yet the
designated smoking area at the Ocean Recovery facility is located such that it is to my
knowledge physically impossible for smoke to reach Mr. Lopez s property (the smoking
we is on the south side of the Ocean Recovery property whereas Mr. Lopez's property is
on the north side such that smoke would have to travel through the Ocean Recovery
building to reach Mr. Lopea's property}
Mr. Lopez appears to be mistaken regarding Ocean Recovery residents attending the
Narcotics Anonymous meetings on Saturday* at 9:30 a m on the beach. Ocean Recovery
residents do not attend this meeting. Concerming profanity, yelling and smoking, as
mentioned above, Ocean Recovery has strict rules in this regard
To my knowledge, there have never been arty visits by the City's police dcpmlmc= or
code enforcement division concerning any of the foregoing allegations. Further, it is my
tmderstanding that the first time these complaints were made was after the City noticed
the,heariing on Ocean Recovery's use permit application.
I.erter from Kristi Ver }per:
I understand that Ms. Vudugo lives next door to the 1115 W. Balboa property, but I have
never met Ms. Verdugo. Had she brought these allegations to my attention (or for that
matter, any supervisor at Ocean Recoveryl we would have acted promptly to address
these alleged concerns. Concerting smoke, prof onty and noise, as mentioned above,
Ocean Recovery has strict rules m this regard. While the allegations of "inappropriate
behavior" are undefined and therefore impossible to specifically address, we will not
allow any inappropriate behavior by any ofa m residents. I plan to race[ with Ms.
Verdugo to encourage her to comes me in the event she has any problems with any of
our residents ou a going- farwmrd basis. We have been doing our best and will continue to
do our best to be a Mood neighbor.
To my knowledge, there have never been any visits by lie City's police department or
code enforcement division concerning any of the foregoing allegations. Further, it is my
understanding that the first time these complaints were trade was after the City noticed
the hearing on Ocean Reovety s use permit appiieaticm.
3419 Via Lido, Suite 310 Newport Beaeb, CA 92663
Phone 949-675 -3764 Fax 949 -675 -5797
OR 0228
In that I am not aware of any of the alleged problems set forth in the letters and emaiils in
opposition to Ocean Recovery's application, I have to believe that there has been some
sort of misunderstanding. In particular, l believe that residents of Ocean Recovery are
being blamed for the actions of residents of a nearby unlicensed sober home two doors
west of the 1115 W. Balboa facility, at 1129 W. Balboa Blvd_ i too have noticed some
inappropriate behavior from some of the residue of this facility at 1129 W. Balboa
Blvd. I have to believe that the concerns raised by some of those objecting to Ocean
Recovery's Use Permit Application are really concerns dbected at the residents of 1129
W. Balboa It is my understanding that the operation at t 129 W. Balboa will cease
operations by the end of this month.
I am happy to answer aoY questions you may have regarding any of the foregoing.
Very truly you
Karen Knab, MA.
Program Director, Ocean Recovet
3419 Via Lido, Suite 310 Newport Beach, CA 92663
Phone 949.675 -3764 rax 949. 675 -5797
OR 0229
S.. .. .... ............ ..... —...__
February 11, 2009
VIA E MAIL AND FACSIMILE
Mr. Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer
Mr. Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Oentlemen:
65o Ta c mw Dev 1 4th Ro i CoO Mesa, G 92626 -1993
714-513-510006W 1 714513 -5130 *a 1 wn+raheppordnxd9n
Wdtees Dfreet Uw.. 714424.2946
toc*mw@sheppsrdm JIiacom
Oar RIB 14umbec: 14YP- 136436
Re: Use Permit Applications for 1115 W. Balboa Btvd.and 1601 W. Balboa
Blvd: Use Permit Nos. 2008 -030 and 2008 -031
This firm represents Ocean Recovery LLC, operator of two group residential
facilities located at the above - referenced addresses. This letter is submitted in support of Ocean
Recovery's use permit applications, and is also being submitted to address certain issues raid in
the City's staff reports on these matters. Although most of the comments herein are directed to
the facility at 1115 W. Balboa Blvd, this letter is intended to apply to both facilities and should
be included as part of the record for each use permit application.
As a preliminary matter, and as sot forth in this firm's May 20, 2008 letter to the
City (which letter is attached as Exhibit No. 3 to the staff report), Ocean Recovery has chosen to
proceed through the use permit application process, even though (as explained more filly herein)
Ocean Recovery contends that the process and Ordinance No. 2008 -05 (the "Ordinance ") are
unlawful. Accordingly, Ocean Recovery is proceeding through this process but is doing so under
protest and with full reservation of rights.
Ocean Recovery and Its Ooer'atams
Ocean Recovery has been in business for approximately eight years. Unlike
many operators in the City, Ocean Recovery has concentrated on providing assistance to a
limited number of people at only two locations —1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and 1601 W.
Balboa Boulevard. Ocean Recovery has intentionally run a small operation under only two
locations so they can have the best possible supervision of their residents and provide the best
possible care. Also, unlike many operators in the City, both of Ocean Recovery's facilities are
licensed by the ADP.
OR 0230
Mr. Thomas W. Allen. Hearing Officer
Mr. Dave Kitt; Assistant City Manager
Febnmry 11, 2009
Page 2
In order to provide the highest level of service to its clients, Ocean Recovery
hires only highly qualified counselors and employees_ Ocean Recovery requires that a
supervisor be on -site seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Ocean Recovery is also selective
concerning the clients it will admit, and bas a stringent application review and selection process.
Unlike most operators in the City, Ocean Recovery does not take court- appointed clients.
Ocean Recovery's Qistory of Being a Responsible Operator and Good Neiehbor
Due to the fact that Ocean Recovery runs a mailer, more selective operation,
with the best possible staff and constant on -site supervisan, Ocean Recovery has enjoyed a
reputation as being one of the best (if not the best) operators of group residential facilities in the
City. The City's staff has commented in this regard on numerous occasions. Probably the best
evidence of Ocean Recovery s excellent reputation is the relative lack of complaints concerning
its operations over the course of its operation in the City.
As the City well knows, residential care facility operators have been under the
microscope for the Iast several years and there has been enormous public scnuny of woup
homes and their operations. Despite this high level of scrutiny, Ocean Recovery has received
very little, if any, complaints concerning its operations until very recently and only after the City
publicly noticed the hearing on Ocean Recovery's use permit application (this will be addressed
in more detail below).
The relative lack of complaints is a clear indication that Ocean Recovery can
provide much needed care to its clients while at the same time being compatible with the
neighborhood in which it operates.
Both of Ocean Recovery's facilities would be prime rental properties for high
occupancy college students andlor smnmer vacationers. If this were to occur, not only would a
total of 36 to 38 people in need of care be deprived of rehabilitation services, but the alternatives
to the neighbors could be far worse. If the Ocean Recovery facilities were converted to rental
properties, the following would likely occur:
More people (potentially twice as many or more) would occupy the property than
is currently the case;
Parking would likely be dramatically worse, as renters would have cars compared
to Ocean Recovery residents who do not have cars;
OR 0231
Mr. Thomas W. Allen, fimringOflicer
Mr. Dave Kitt Assisnat City Manager
February 11, 2009
Page 3
• There would be no qualified, individual supervision of the residents, compared to
the professional 74/7 supervision that currently exists;
• There would be more trash generated by more occupants on the property;
• There would be no curfew, as currently exists at the property; and
• There would be no written elks or internal enforcement mechanisms regarding
profanity, smoking and other public behavior which the City cannot control in the
private context
Ocean Recovery understands that residential care facilities are not popular among
many City tesiden% but the fit remains that these residents have a legal right to be here, and
when properly analyzed, Ocean Recovery's operation represents a better use than is the case with
alternatives allowable under the City's Code.
The Proposed Condition Reducing the Bed Count From 22 to 14 at 1 115 W. Balboa Blvd
Would Pat Ocean Reeoyery Out of Business
City staff has informed Ocean Recovery that the City does not want to see Ocean
Recovery go out of business. But the City's proposed condition regarding the bed wont would
do precisely that Ocean Recovery's facility at 1 115 W. Balboa Boulevard is currently licensed
for 22 residents, The proposed condition reducing the bed count to 14 represents an astonishing
361% reduction in bed count. As will be explaiwd by Ocean Recovery's CEO, Jim McCloskey,
this dramatic (if not draconian) redaction will 1il ety put Ocean Recovery out of business.
Simply put, the overhead costs of a facility this size is too Imp to warrant servicing only 14
residents. This exaction is unreasonable and is not related to any legitimate City purpose.
There Is Inspfrrcient Lyidenoe to Warrant the Drastic Conditions'Beine Imposed By the
MY
Less then two weeks ago, the City was prepared to recommend 18 or even 20
beds at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard. In the course of just a few days, the City has drastically
changed its position and is now recommending a reduction to 14 beds at this facility. The City
has apparently done so directly in response to recent concerns expressed by some residents,
without the benefit of a third party investigation, fad fording or hearing. These concerns are
specifically addressed by Karen Knab, Ocean Recovery's Program Director for the facility at
1115 W. Balboa Boulevard. As explained in detail by Ms. Knab, the person primarily
responsible for the supervision of this facility, time of the residents now voicing concerns had
ever approached her or anyone at Ocean Recovery to bring these alleged concerns to Ocean
OR 0232
vaa... . :;F:, a,
Mr. Thomas W. ARM Hearing OfflM
Mr. Dave KitT, Assisted City Manage
Feluuaty 11, 2009
Page 4
Recovery's attention. Had these residents done so, as Ms. Knab explains, Ocean Recovery
would have promptly responded to any such concerns.
There have never been any visits by the City's police department or code
enforcement division concerning any of the allegations made by the residents. Further, and
importantly, it appears that these complaints of the residents were made for the very first time
only after the City noticed the hearing on Ocean Recovery's use permit application.
Lastly, the negative comments recerdly received by the City appear to be
orchestrated by Paul Lopez and Larry Mathena — certainly no strangers to the City.
Many of the Proposed Conditions Are Discriminatory and Have Not Been Applied to Other
Oneratora
In addition to the proposed condition reducing the bed count at 1115 W. Balboa
Boulevard to 14 beds, Ocean Recovery strongly objects to the following proposed conditions
concerning this facility:
Condition No. 2 — Use Permit's Mandatory Review. This condition is extremely
troublesome for Ocean Recovery as it seems to set Ocean Recovery up for failure.
Ocean Recovery is unaware of any other operator that has been subjected to such
a condition. Ocean Recovery appears to have been singled out and subjected to
this onerous condition.
Condition No. g - Smoking and Tobacco Products. This condition would prohibit
Ocean Recovery residents from smoking on the patio on Ocean Recovery's
property. The condition prohibits any smoking outdoors. Ocean Recovery is
unaware of any other similarly situated residential property in the City subject to
such an onerous condition. Certainly, Sober Living by the Sea, able to operate
156 beds under its "deal" with the City, is not subject to such a restriction, nor is
Balboa Horizons, with its recently approved use permit application. Instead,
Ocean Recovery seams to be singled out for receiving this condition.t This
The irony here is unmistakable — Ocean Recovery did not initiate litigation against the
City as the City told Ocean Recovery that it was viewed as a good operator and that
Ocean Recovery would be treated fairly. Accordingly, Ocean Recovery chose to work
cooperatively with the City instead of fighting the City through litigation. Ocean
Recovery was "rewarded" with this onerous condition, while Sober Living (which did
initiate litigation against the City) struck a deal with the City that includes much more
favorable conditions than Ocean Recovery is facing.
OR 0233
sttta'rnaUMUMNI MraasRAM MttP
Mr. Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer
Mr. Dave Kiff, Assistant City Managa
February 11, 2009
Pages
condition is unf air, discriminatory, and unlawful. Other measures can be taken to
address second -hand smoke, such as having smoking in a designated area.
proposed Condition No. 27 - Compliance with Conditions of Ammroval. This
proposed condition would require an amendment to Ocean Recovery s use permit
or the issuance of a new permit in the event that, among other things, there is a
change in onsite staffing, a change in the "operations and management plan" or a
change in property ownership. This condition is unfair and unmanageable.
Carried to its logical extreme, if Ocean Recovery hires a new clinical supervisor,
it would technically be required to get a new use permit or an amendment to a use
permit.
The Proposed Conditions and the Ordinance Are Unlawful
Ocean Recovery contends the Ordinance in general and the use permit process in
particular are unlawful for a variety of reasons, including, among other reasons, the following:
• The Ordinance, and its related enforcement mechanisms such as this use permit
process are being applied in a discriminatory and unlawful manner, violate the
Americans with Disabilities Act ( "ADA ").
• The Ordinance and its enforcement mechanisms are being applied in a
discriminatory manner and violate section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
29 U.S. Code section 794(a).
• The Ordinance is being applied in a discriminatory and unlawful manner and
violates the Fair Housing Amendments Act, 42 U.S. Code section 3601, et seq.
CWHAA') which extended the federal guarantee of fair housing to individuals
with disabilities.
• The Ordinance as applied constitutes a violation of the equal protection clause. 42
U.S. Code section 1993 prohibits an agency or local goverment such as the City
from violating any provision of the United States Constitution or federal statutes
under color of law in violation of the 14th amendment guarantee of equal
protection of the law.
• The Ordinance as it relates to licensed facilities is preempted by State law,
• The Ordinance is being applied in an unfair and/or discriminatory manner and is
prohibited by the Califomia Fair Employment and Housing Act ( "FEHA "), which
Prohibits discrimination in providing housing for the handicapped.
OR 0234
SJUMM )KRI1N all>p11R 69Al1PM HP
Mr. Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Ofter
Mr. Dave Kift; Assistant City Manager
Febnwy 11, 2009
Page 6
As a reminder, Ocean Recovery specifically requests that this letter be included in
the record (as to both 1115 W. Balboa Blvd.and 1601 W. Balboa Blvd) and considered as pact of
the use permit application process. Please contact me with any questions.
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
WW- WEST:NS04A01358242 t
cc: Jim McCloskey
OR 0235
Larry Mathena
1125 West Balboa Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92661
949- 752 -5115 Extension 18
mathenaesq @aol.com
February 12,2009- Submission I
To: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer
David Kiff, Assistant City Manager
Subject Ocean Recovery, LLC
1115 West Balboa Boulevard
1601 West Balboa Boulevard
Application for Use Permit Number 2009-30
Application for Use Permit Number 200&31
From: Larry Mathena
Introduction:
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARI(VIW
FES 12 2009
CIi1f OF Ail 'r ART$EACH
This correspondence is written by me as a combined response regarding both Use Permit
applications listed above. I am a resident of Newport Beach for over nine years. I object
to the issuance of the proposed use permits identified above for both facilities. I live next
door to the 1115 West Balboa facility and have been negatively impacted by the
proliferation of rehabilitation facilities on the peninsula. If you seek additional
information from me, my contact information is included above. I will prepare and make
a separate submission for each facility to supplement this global submission.
Global Comments regarding the Public Hearing Process-
I originally submitted the following comments regarding the hearing process on
December 3, 2008 in regards to Balboa Horizons. The comments are even more
applicable today.
1. The Public is NOT given sufficient time to reWad to applications for conditional use
Permits and to review Staff Reports.
The (129) page Staff Report was only posted approximately 72 hours prior to this
hearing. Unless the public is given adequate time to review all appropriate
documentation and to be given the opportunity to generate a response, have that response
heard and only then have a determination made will the requirements of law be met. I
believe that at a minimum, the public should be given at least one week to respond
following the issuance of a Staff Report.
OR 0236
3. The City should do a better job of giving notice of hearings and p or viding access to
data. At this time the notification is by "blue post card mailer" based on street address.
But that is insufficient. The City's web page should include a true calendar of hearing .
schedules. In addition, the data is presented in teams of Operators of facilities as opposed
to the addresses where permits are sought I would argue that this is a defective means of
notice by the City given that most citizens do not know specific operators but do know
where they live and what nearby addresses are.
I supplement this data previously submitted with the following:
Nothing has changed in regards to my concerns listed above. Specifically (for example)
the only notification regarding what is actually four separate sites tentatively scheduled to
be heard on February 20, 2009 at 2 pm is a calendar entry on the Group Homes Web page
stating: Yellowstone Recovery
And the email fiwn Mr. Kiff stating:
--- Original Message--- -
From: Kitt; Dave <DKiff@city.newport- beach,ca.us>
Sent: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 2:55 pm
Subject Schedule Change -- Use Permit Hearings
Group Residential Uses Interested Parties:
The following is a change to the schedule for upcoming Use Permit hearings
Ocean Recovery (two facilities) is now set for Thursday, February 12th at 4:00
p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Yellowstone Recovery (four facilities) is tentatively set for Friday, February 20th
at 2:00 pm. in the City Council Chambers. Yellowstone's applications include up to
eight "reasonable accommodation" analyses and the four Use Permit applications, all
relating to four facilities. .
There is no hearing set for this coming Thursday, February 50L
The Ocean Recovery and Yellowstone Recovery hearings will complete the City's Use
Permit hearing schedule for existing facilities that requested use permits by May 22,
2008.
Dave Kiff
City of Newport Beach
949 -644 -3002
OR 0237
I note that for the Ocean Recovery hearing- after complying with the requirements of law
to schedule the Ocean Recovery hearings on February 5k the only written notification
that I am aware of in regards to the change of the date of the hearing is the email above
and also a subsequent calendar entry.
The lack of communication by the City serves to discourage resident input that the City
badly needs to gather the fads that the Hearing Officer needs to reach proper decisions.
In a communication I made on January 12, 2009, in response to the proposed conditions
of approval that the City Staff proposed for Newport Coast I raised the questions that
follow, that I now reiterate in regards to the Ocean Recovery Use Permits applications,
Staff Reports and proposed conditions.
RRR
Finally, I have a number of questions regarding the enforcement of the conditions under
which a permit is issued. Specifically:
[S.] Under what circumstances will a use permit be revoked?
[2] How many violations will it take?
[3.1 How shall those violations be documented?
[4.] What level of proof will be required?
[5.] 1 assume that the City is going to rely on its residents to gather evidence of
violations?
[6.] Is that correct?
[7.1 If it is relying on its residents, will the City protect the residents from claims
of privacy violations that may arise?
[8.] How many opportunities will a permit holder be given before revocation
occurs?
[9.1 Precisely where should violations be reported?
[10.] Whatever this answer might be- why isn't the City publicizing it?
[1I.] What City entity will investigate complaints?
OR 0238
[12.) Does the City intend to timely investigate facilities onsite at the time
complaints are received?
[13.] Should citizens call the police for a concurrent confirmation of violations?
[14.) As a resident neat door to two facilities- can I safely videotape and or
record the activities at these properties that I in good faith believe provide evidence of
violation of law and/or specifically a use permit?
[15.] If I detect smoke on my property can I legally take pictures and or
videotape individuals on a group home property smoking?
[16.] In the case of the enclosed courtyard of 1216 West Balboa Boulevard if I
were adjacent to the facility and regularly detected second hand smoke- with the only
apparent source of the smoke being the facility- how would I document it?
[Note that I have added the bracketed numbers above. Otherwise it is the text of my
questions as noted.]
♦s*
My questions above have never been responded to in any manner by the City Staff or the
Hearing Officer. In light of the Staff Reports and proposed conditions for Ocean
Recovery- these are not rhetorical questions. Therefore for the record, I request answers
to my questions above which are all directly applicable to the proposed conditions for
Ocean Recovery (other than changing the enclosed courtyard language to "enclosed
structure" language in number 16).
My final observation applicable to both Use Permit requests centers on smoking.
The City Staffs means of meeting the required finding that "No secondhand smoke can
be detectable outside the property" is through the following proposed condition number 7
for 1601 West Balboa and proposed condition number 8 for 11 B West Balboa:
"Smoking on -site shall be restricted to a designated area interior to the facility, or an area
that is enclosed on all sides but can be open to the sky, to prevent secondhand smoke
from impacting adjacent residences. Smoking outdoors is prohibited....
Analysis:
The Applicant is allowed to smoke in "an area that is enclosed on all sides but can be
open to the sky."
I do not know what this means in the context of the either of the Applicant's locations. It
is vague and does not provide sufficient guidance or direction to achieve the stated
requirement to receive a use permit ofNBMC §20.91A.050A which directs that "no
OR 0239
staff, clients, guests, or any other users 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."
Similarly the City is also authorizing smoking in any "designated area interior to the
facility"- but depending an where that is it could mean a hoard of peopl a smoking six feet
away from an adjoining property's window and actually worsening the impact of second
hand stroke.
The City must be much more mechanically explicit in stating that the condition is to
actually meet the requirement of NBMC ¢20.91 A.050.A which directs that "no staff,
clients, guests, or any other users 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" and that mechanically it may be pursued in some manner- but the
manner stated must on its face reasonably indicate the achievement that the goal will be
met - in the context of the two applications being considered - this is simply not the case
without substantially increasing the specific terms of the condition.
Thank you for your attention to my input.
Sincere /
C/
Z7? them
OR 0240
Larry Mathena IYANNIM6 irPART
1125 West Balboa Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92661 FEB 12 ZW
949 - 752 -5115 Extension 18
rir of s'SF�'Jf BEACH
mathenaesq@aol.com
February 12, 2009- Submission 2
To: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer
David I{iff, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Ocean Recovery, LLC
1115 West Balboa Boulevard
Application for Use Permit Number 2008 -30
From: Larry Mathena
Although many of us have tried to present as much data to the Hearing Officer through
email and other processes as early as possible to maximize the ability of the Hearing
Officer to review the evidence available to him, it is important to note that the purpose of
the public hearing is to allow additional evidence to be received by the Hearing Officer
before a decision is reached.
Thee are serious issues raised in portions of the City Staff Report. Those issues are
found in the following language of the report:
1. Page Five Neat to Last Paragraph: ""There are two apparent code violations
related to the facility located at It 15 West Balboa Boulevard, these include the
conversion of garages to non - parking uses and assembly uses at the facility. To
date, Ocean Recovery has not been issued citations for these code violations."
2. The following excerpted language from the top of Page 11:
ABOUT THE PUBIdC 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:
OR 0241
Ocean Recovery's clients' participation (or lack thereof) in the Saturday at 9:30
a.m. Narcotics Anonymous ("NA ") meetings at 15 h Street. Ocean Recovery
has consistently said that its residents do not attend that meeting.
Allegations that this specific use at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard is too close to
Newport Elementary School. This use is roughly 740 feet away from Newport
Elementary School. While the NBMC ( §20.91A.060D.1.) allows the Hearing
Officer to consider "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 (emphasis added);"
there is no evidence on the record that Newport Elementary School — at 750 feet
away — affects or is affected by this specific Ilse.
3. The following excerpted language from the top of Page 12:
"At the same time, there is an unlicensed sober home two doors west of 1115
West Balboa Boulevard at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard. 1129 West Balboa
Boulevard is scheduled for abatement after February 22, 2009. An Ocean
Recovery representative asserts that much of the problems that residents have
identified are caused by residents at the 1129 West Balboa facility. It is nearly
impossible for City staff to know which is true. It is certainly toe that a
successful abatement of the 1129 West Balboa Boulevard use could reduce some
of the problems identified above. While City staff expects abatement to be
successful, at the date of this staff report, that remains uncertain, A condition of
approval is included to attempt to address this uncertainty."
The text above leads to the following observations:
I. City Staff doesn't enforce existing law agxili§t Grant) Homes. Senior City officials
have been aware of the "two apparent code violations related to the facility located at
It 15 West Balboa Boulevard; these include the conversion of garages to non - parking
uses and assembly uses at the facility" for at a minimum of two weeks now. As of this
rooming following my visit to Code Enforcement to confirm- there has been no reporting
of these code violations to the appropriate officials to begin enforcement or other action
in regards to these violations.
2. Inaonropriate direction to Hearing Officer in performance of his lob. Although
some of the item listed in page 11 of the City Staff Report as items that should be treated
as disregarded factors, others are clearly appropriate factors for the Hearing Officer to
consider for a variety of reason. Specifically the factors that should be considered in
direct conflict to the City Staff directions include:
"Allegations that this specific use it too close to Newport Elementary School."
OR 0242
Until the hearing is completed- legally there is the opportunity to introduce evidence
involving Newport Elementary School. To direct the Bearing Officer to dismiss this as a
source of evidence is inappropriate.
"Ocean Recovery's clients' participation (or lack thereof) in the Saturday at 9:30
a.m. Narcotics Anonymous ("NA'J meetings at 15m Street."
The fact that "Ocean Recovery has consistently said that its residents do not attend that
meeting" is not a reason in and of itself to disallow this as a factor to consider.
Evidence to the contrary, despite Ocean Recovery consistent statements, is of course still
admissible and if so admitted this factor should be considered.
3. Failure to Properly perform fact Ending function, make statement& draw
conclusions and provide direction to Rearitig, Officer in contravention to facts
gathered.
As noted above the City Staff Report states that the factors considered by the Hearing
Officer should exclude:
"Ocean Recovery's clients' participation (or lack thereof) in the Saturday at 9:30
am. 15'r' Narcotics Anonymous ("NA") meetings at Street. Ocean Recovery has
consistently said that its residents do not attend that meeting."
This direction and observation is made despite direct documentation from Ocean
Recovery in its few submittals to City Staff that directly contradict this assertion.
Specifically please review Attachment One hereto- from Exhibit Number 4 Staff
/Applicant Correspondences (page 42 of 85 of the City's Web page pdt) which indicates
the following in the weekly schedule for the clients of Ocean Recovery at 1115 West
Balboa Boulevard:
Saturday 9:30 (am.) Beach Meeting NA
Sunday 9:30 (am.) Beach Meeting AA
This documentation in the file is corroborated by the testimony that Mr. Paul Lopez shall
be giving at the hearing indicating clients of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard walk weekend
mid morning to the beach down the back alley (and in from of Mr. Lopez' patio deck)
with lawn furniture saying things like, "hurry or we'll be late for the meeting."
The Narcotics Anonymous meeting on Saturday mornings and the Alcoholic Anonymous
meeting on Sunday is actually held directly adjacent to the Newport Elementary School
playground. It provides direct evidence contrary to the direction to the Hearing Officer
by the City Staff that the presence of Newport Elementary School should be a
disregarded factor - the opposite is true. In fact; Newport Elementary School "could be
affected by or affect the operation of the subject use." Mr. Lopez's submitted photograph
OR 0243
of a young child swinging on the Newport Elementary School playground swing with the
mammoth Narcotics Anonymous meeting going on behind him- is direct proof of this
[Attachment Two).
The City Staff Report also takes a mere assertion by an Ocean Recovery representative
and makes it an absolute fad. The Ocean Recovery representative assets that in light of
the presence of two facilities so close together that "much of the problems that residents
have identified are caused by residents at the 1129 West Balboa facility." If I was in
Ocean Recovery's situation I would make the same statement. The City Staff then leaps
to the conclusion that, "It is nearly impossible for City staff to know which is true."
No, it's not impossible at all. The key and most compelling evidence received by the
direct neighbors surrounding 1115 West Balboa Boulevard intimately know that the
activities they reported on were by the residents of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard- not by
any other facility.
How do I know this? I asked. lust like the City Staff could have asked. The obvious
answer is twofold. We live with these facilities. We know where the residents come
from. We see them coming and going.
In addition the activities at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard were intentionally omitted from
the submissions of the neighbors for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard- or where appropriate
explained activities that occurred at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard specifically if relevant.
Why? Because we anticipate having to make a Reasonable Accommodation counter
argument for 1129 West Balboa Boulevard and did not want to hear 1129 West Balboa
Boulevard make exactly the same argument that Ocean Recovery now makes- that the
City Staff is so eager to accept as the gospel truth.
So to turn the direct testimony submitted by neighbors regarding 1115 West Balboa
Boulevard and to simply state "It is nearly impossible for City staff to know which Is
true." Nearly impossible means only that the City Staff chose not choose to ask.
What do these multiple errors on the part of the City Staff lead to?
Directly contrary to the City Staff report the directions to the Hearing Officer should be
as follows:
1. Full weight should be given to the testimony given by the residents- as the activities of
1115 West Balboa Boulevard.
2. On the evidence presented before the Hearing Officer, Ocean Recovery's clients do
participate in the Saturday and Sunday NA and AA meetings at the beach along side the
Newport Elementary playground.
OR 0244
3. The presence of Ocean Recovery approximately 700 feet (by the way- not 740 feet)
away from Newport Elementary School "could be affected by or affect the operation of
the subject use" for amongst other reasons the attendance of Ocean Recovery residents at
the Saturday and Sunday NA and AA meeting.
4. If, and based on the evidence that the Hearing Officer has to consider, it should be
accepted, that Ocean Recovery's clients do participate in the Saturday and Sunday NA
and AA meetings at the beach along side the Newport Elementary playground - then as
was stated in Kramer Center's City Staff Report `there are factual misrepresentations
and/or omissions in the application documentation."
5. A final direction to the Hearing Officer involves the issue of the APA standard and
whether or not the presence of Balboa Horizons at 1132 West Balboa Boulevard should be
considered by the Hearing Officer in regards to determining whether or not overconcentration
occurs because of the presence of a facility across West Balboa Boulevard at 1115 West
Balboa Boulevard The City Staffs conclusion- is no, the mechanical language of the APA
standard precludes it. Looking at the City Staffs performance benignly this conclusion is
erroneous for two reasons:
Evidence is presented in the testimony provided by Mr. Paul Lopez and Mrs. Ronel
Mathena [See Attachment Three hereto] of cross street activities of residents of the facilities
as noted:
Between the 1129 West Balboa group home and thel132 West
Balboa group home.
Between 1132 West Balboa clients and 1115 West Balboa clients at
1120 West Balboa
Regular daily interaction between residents of 1120 West Balboa and
1115 West Balboa
As Mr. Lopez's email indicates - unlike the City Staffs conclusion- that at least for Ocean
Recovery- West Balboa Boulevard is not a barrier- it is a magnet drawing facilities together.
But fortunately under Section 20.91A.060 D.3 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"
Based on the preceding analysis the Hearing Officer should, contrary to the findings
proposed by the City Staff, determine that the Use Permit request of Ocean Recovery should
be rejected for the following reasons:
1. Overconcentration of Group Residential Use. Based on the interaction of the existing
facilities across West Balboa Boulevard and the apparent presence of 1115 West Balboa
clientele/ alumni across West Balboa Boulevard at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard, as detailed
in the entails submitted by Mr. Paul Lopez and Mrs. Ronel Mathena- the acceptance of a Use
Permit for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard generates an unacceptable overconcentration of
group residential facilities leading to the institutionalization of both sides of the 1100 block
of West Balboa Boulevard that is unacceptable under the law.
OR 0245
2. Proximity To Other Uses. Based on the evidence presented, Newport Elementary
School "would affect or be affected by the use or operation" under the proposed Use Permit
for Ocean Recovery.
3. False Statements "Under Paragraph E of Section 20.96.040 the Hearing Officer is
required to revoke the permit upon making one or more of the following findings:
2. The applicant has made a false or misleading statement of a material fact, or an
omission of a material fact in the application for the permit."
Assuming the Hearing lacer does make the factual deternination that Ocean Recovery
clients attend the weekend Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, the
"consistent" misleading statements of the Ocean Recovery applicant in regards to its clients'
attendance at weekend NA and AA meetings beside Newport Elementary School clearly fall
within the purview of this section.
Finally if notwithstanding this compelling analysis, if the Hearing Officer does come to the
decision that the Use Permit should be allowed, in addition to general concerns previously
presented in my earlier submittal today regarding proposed City Staff condition number 8,1
have the following more specific observations:
Under proposed condition number 8, the Applicant is allowed to smoke in "an area that is
enclosed on 0 sides but can be open to the sky."
What does this mean? The home I live in borders Applicant's building's 90 foot long -
two story height on its West side. My home is a three story building with windows along
this border on all three floors- just six feet away. So if this is suggestive of a skylight
type approach- it won't work for the 1125 building boundary because a skylight will open
on my building's windows. Similarly on the East Side- where the length of Applicant's
building is about thirty feet (and again two story)- there is another taller (three story
residence) with windows- so it won't work there either.
Otherwise- it appears that the City is also authorizing smoking in any "designated area
interior to the facility " - but depending on where that is and weather conditions that could
mean a hoard of people smoking six feet from my front door at an open window.
Any condition regarding second hand smoke needs to explicitly state reasonable steps to
achieve the requirements of law that no second hand smoke be present outside of the
Applicant's property. The current Language does not do that.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincere ly
i�
a
OR 0246
Attachment One
Ocean Recovery
Client Schedule for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard
OR 0247
OCEAN RECOVERY
Foundation for Hope
Time
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
'Thursday
Friday
Saturday'
Sunday
Wake -up &
Wake -up &
Wake-up &
Wake -up &
Wake up &
7:45
Meditation
Meditation
Meditation
Meditation
Meditation
wake -up &
8 :00
Breaklimst &
Breakfast &
Breakfast &
Breakfast &
Breakfast &
Meditation
Breakfast &
Chores
Chores
Chores
Chores
Chores
Breakfast&
Chew
Chores
8:45
10:30
Gyro
Gym
Gym
GYM
GYM
9:30 Beach
Meeting NA
9:30 Beach
Mewing AA
11:00
12:15
Process Group
Process Group
Process Group
Process Group
Process Group
]?stress
11:15
Process
11:15
1:30
Education
Education
(Primary Relapse
Education
Community
Meeting
Education
Outing
Leisure Tinge
2:30
Prevention
(1:00-2:00)
8
2:30
Assignmemsll:1's
(3:001ertial
Assignmentsll:l's
(2:15pMMartial
Asslgfrmemslt:l's
OuftCont
Leisure time
3:30
Amigomentsll:l's
Assignroentsll:l's
Amignakxns/LI's
Assigamentsll:l's
Meditation Group
Outing Cont
LeismeTime
4:00
Group
Assigamenmll:l's
Education
Assigtmments/l:l's
Assignmentsll:l's
Assignmeartsfl:l's
Assigpmenrsil:l's
ProPri
5:00
Dinner
Dinner
Dinner
5:30 BBQ
Dinner
Dinner
Diner
Pm
6:30 House
Outside Meeting
Outsido Meeting
Leisure TSme
AA Meeting
Outside Meeting
Outside Meeting
Outside Meeting
10th Step Group
10th Step Group
10th Stop Croup
10th Step Group
Leisure Time
Leisure Time
10th step Group
1pInn
Lights Out
Lights Out
Lights Out
Lights Out
12:00
Lights Out
12;00
Lights Our
Lights Out
ASchedule
O
- _....�.�__- ,...._._ ..,., .......................... .. .. ....... ..................... ......_._._.................... ...... .. ......... _ ............ .... .._...._...
Attachment Two
Ocean Recovery
Weekend Activities at Newport Elementary School
OR 0249
F�7
Attachment Three
Ocean Recovery
Testimony regarding activities on the 1100 block of West
Balboa Boulevard
— Original Message –
From: Paul Lopez
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 200910:57 AM
To: 'Kdf, Dave'
Subject FW: Ocean Recovery Use Permit Submittal UP 2008-030
Dave:
I supplement my prior letter to you for delivery to Hearing Officer Allen, regarding
Ocean Recovery's Use Permit application for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard with
this email. I do this because I have been told the interaction of the rehab
facilities on either side of West Balboa Boulevard at the 1100 block has become
legally meaningful.
For at least the past two months as I have been parking my car on West Balboa
Boulevard, I have noticed the Ocean Recovery clients of 1115 West Balboa
Boulevard crossing West Balboa Boulevard every day and visiting several male
residents of the upstairs unit at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard.
They sometimes just visit at the entry way stairs at 1120, but I have observed on
multiple occasions the 1115 clients entering the upstairs unit on the south side of
the 1120 building.
At first, perhaps paranoiacly 1 thought some type of drug activity was going on,
but have nothing to substantiate this. I have seen embraces and have a feeling
that these renters know many of the clients at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. I
believe they are affiliated with or perhaps graduates of Ocean Recovery. This
perception is further reinforced as I have seen the residents at 1120 West Balboa
Boulevard cross the street (to and from) for the Thursday night get together and
barbecue at 1115.
Further, I have heard yelling back and forth between the two facilities.
Kristi, the renter /neighbor at 1113 West Balboa Boulevard has also seen the
same and has seen the traffic going back and forth between the buildings. She
told me there is constant yelling from the residents at 1115 to the renters across
the street. The upstairs unit at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard looks directly down
at the courtyard at Ocean Recovery. The renters at 1120 keep their balcony
open day and night, providing them with a clear view of the courtyard of 1115
West Balboa Boulevard.
OR 0251
Additionally, I have seen the rehab residents at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard
yelling across the street at the female clients of Balboa Horizons at 1132 West
Balboa Boulevard. This has been most pronounced when young men are on the
upper balcony at 1129 or out front in the courtyard at 1129- with a group of girls
sitting outside of 1132 and/or are arriving or departing by van. They seem to
know one another. It might very well be from the weekend gatherings on the
beach or other mutual meeting places.
These facts raise significant issues around the City's arbitrary finding /designation
of appropriate distances between these facilities and block designations. First,
W. Balboa Blvd. is not a dividing line for interaction between residents of 1115
and renters at 1120 W. Balboa Blvd, or between sober living residents at 1129
and 1132 W. Balboa Blvd.
It is a short distance of —120 feet between 1115 and 1132 and it apparently does
not impede traffic or communication between them as noted above. This leads
to my second point Why does the City believe that 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. is too
dose to 1132 W Balboa Blvd. (within 300 Feet), but feels that the 120 ft.
distance between 1132 and 1115 is a sufficient distance based upon an arbitrary
designation that W. Balboa Blvd, is somehow a dividing line between blocks -
especially given the fad that clearly West Balboa Boulevard does not seem to be
stopping 1115 spreading its ongoing regular dairy activities to people living
across West Balboa Boulevard at 1120 W. Balboa.
If you are going to pick West Balboa Boulevard as a dividing line between two
facilities- it would probably be a good idea to confirm that the one you are giving
a permit to- didn't already apparently have attendees of its activities regularly
piercing what appears to me to be an artificial and irrational barrier. The direct
line of sight, demonstrated interactions between the facilities on both sides of W.
Balboa Blvd., and the presence of daily attendees of 1115 functions living across
Balboa Boulevard are dear and rational reasons that this simply is not the case.
Both of these facilities,1115 and 1132, are within 105 ft of my residence and 120
feet of each other. This is overconcentration for the neighbors of the 1100 block,
and for me, regardless of what side of the street you live on
I hope this additional factual information is helpful in reaching the right conclusion
in regards to Ocean Recovery's Use Permit for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard.
Best, Paul
Paul Lopez
1125 112 W. Balboa Blvd.
949. 673 -0489
P.S. Please confirm your receipt of this email and the attachments.
Thank you.
OR 0252
--- Original Message —
From: Larry Mathena <Im020557(apacbell.nev
To: DKiff@city.newport- beach.ca.us
Sent: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:25 am
Subject: Ocean Recovery Use Permit Application UP 200"30
Mr. Kiff:
My husband asked me to write you and the hearing officer about
the goings on of the rehab crowd - on both sides of 1100 West
Balboa Boulevard. I am a housewife. I am at home most days at
1125 West Balboa Boulevard.
The more interesting thing to watch during throughout the day is
the young girls from the 1132 West Balboa Boulevard rehab
facility. Many times during the day the young men from the rehab
facility at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard go over to 1132 West
Balboa Boulevard and knock at the door at 1132 and clearly ask
the girls if they can come out and play. Often mid day they
evidently can- typically they hang out together smoking constantly
and using curse words in the courtyard at 1129 West Balboa
Boulevard.
In fact on Tuesday, late afternoon I saw a male resident of 1129 (1
can identify his car) pick up a young woman from 1132.
I have also seen the women from 1132 meet young men who cross
West Balboa Boulevard from 1115 and meet at 1120. They hang
out together on the stairs at 1120.
I assume that the management at 1132 West Balboa Boulevard
knows about these activities because on more than one occasion, I
have seen the silver van of 1132 West Balboa Boulevard pick up
the girls behind the alley of 1129 West Balboa Boulevard.
When the girls at 1132 West Balboa Boulevard arrive in their van
and park, I have seen the young men at 1129 West Balboa
Boulevard yell at them and cross in the middle of the street to go
OR 0253
talk to them.
I have also seen many many times the young men who seem to live
on the second floor of floor of 1120 West Balboa Boulevard come
over and appear to hang out with the clients of 1115 West Balboa
Boulevard. You can hear /see them yelling at each other across the
street. Since I have been asked to pay attention, there is a young
man who lives at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard who every
morning, every midafternoon, and late afternoon leaves the 1120
facility to hang out at the 1115 facility. I could tell you the car he
drives.
I can't see fully around the edge of the 1115 West Balboa
Boulevard building, but I can often hear them in the front
courtyard at 1115 and of course I can smell their relentless
cigarette smoke.
My belief is just given the clear camaraderie between the people at
1120 and 1115 is that the residents at 1120 either are still or have
been clients at 1115. I could be wrong but from my perspective, it
seems like the facility at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard has spread
to directly across the street at 1120 and 1120 is becoming a
meeting place for residents of 1132 and 1115.
I was asked to compare the interactions I see with anything going
on with 1216 West Balboa Boulevard on the next block. The easy
and obvious answer is that there are countless opportunities for
people on either side of the 1100 block of West Balboa Boulevard
to see and interact with each other. For example, there is an almost
direct view of 1132 West Balboa Boulevard and 1115 West Balboa
Boulevard. People can and easily do yell out to each other across
the street. There is a constant opportunity to interact which is
often made.
I was asked if the street between the two sides of 1100 West
Balboa Boulevard is a break in communication and contact
OR 0254
between the two sides of the road. The opposite is obviously true.
Being almost directly across the street from each other clearly
encourages interaction. Being almost a block away but<really not
visible does not.
I don't see the same interaction happening or the opportunity for it
to happen at 1216 West Balboa Boulevard. It is too far away
compared to seeing someone in open view across an eighty foot
wide street - with a speed limit of 30 mph --and in particular when
there is little traffic other than the rehab people during the middle
of the day- when most people other than rehab residents, mothers
home with kids, and the retired are the only ones home.
So I guess my point is obviously rehab facilities directly across
West Balboa Boulevard have much more affect on each other than
one on the same side of the street but like three times the distance
away. To say anything else would either be crazy or stupid.
Ronel Mathena
949 566 0107
OR 0255
Larry Mathena
1125 West Balboa Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92661
949 - 752 -5115 Extension 18
mathenaesq @aol.com
February 12, 2009
Submittal Three
TO: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer
David Kiff, Assistant City Manager
p����
R,cCf1VC ) By
PLAN (Nr-- -KodPjA*V
CITYtJ� i %: A 8EACH
SUBJECT: Ocean Recovery at 1601 West Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach
• Use Permit No. 2008 -031 Application
From: Larry Matbena
There are at least three reasons for disallowing the Use Permit application at 1601 West
Balboa Boulevard.
They are:
1. This Sober living halfway house is a block from a convenience store that sells liquor.
As previously noted a quarter of the clients at this facility will not maintain their sobriety
during their stay.
2. A Sober living halfway house should not be across the street from a tot lot
3. in light of the extremely serious management problems raised through the evidence
presented for Applicant's 1115 West Balboa facility- Applicant's Use Permit at this
location should also be denied
4. If the apparent falsehood of the submissions made by Applicant for the 1115 West
Balboa Boulevard are accepted as such that should be grounds for denying this Use
Permit too.
5. The City Staff has said otherwise, but there is a real failure of cooperation in the
application process by the Applicant and a failure to provide many key pieces of
information-
ou for your aat�tentio /n to this matter.
Larry Mathena
OR 0256