HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - Ocean RecoveryCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 9
March 24, 2009
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Office of the City Attorney
David R. Hunt, City Attorney
949/644 -3131 or dhunt @city.newport - beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Officer's Continuance of Use Permit Hearing —1115 West
Balboa (Ocean Recovery)
ISSUE:
When the Hearing Officer continued the use permit hearing for Ocean Recovery, LLC's residential
care facility at 1115 W. Balboa to a date certain six months in the future, did he make a "decision"
under Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.91A.040 such that an appeal of the decision to
continue the hearing may be reviewed by the City Council, and if so, what action will the Council
take on the appeal filed on that decision to continue the hearing?
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council give an interpretation of the City's ordinance dealing with the
issue of whether an action to continue an ongoing hearing regarding an application for use permit
for a period of six months, where there is an existing use under application, is a "decision" that
makes a matter ripe for appeal and City Council review.
The City Council may provide an interpretation of our ordinances and regulations that concludes
such a continuance is not a "decision" and is, therefore, not appealable.
Alternatively, the City Council may provide an interpretation of our ordinances and regulations that
concludes such a continuance is an appealable "decision."
If the City Council determines that such an action is appealable, the City Council should address
the issue of the appeal on this matter. In that event, staff recommends that the City Council
select one of the following alternatives:
1. Sustain the Hearing Officer's decision to continue the use permit hearing for Ocean
Recovery's 1115 West Balboa Blvd. residential care facility to a date certain six months in
the future; or
2. Reverse or modify the Hearing Officer's decision to continue the use permit hearing for
Ocean Recovery's 1115 West Balboa Blvd. residential care facility and order a final
hearing within a prompt and reasonable time and that a decision on the substance of the
application be rendered; or
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Continuance of Use Permit Hearing
1115 West Balboa (Ocean Recovery)
March 24, 2009
Page 2
3. Remand the matter to the Hearing Officer for further consideration, which remand shall
include direction to consider speck issues.
BACKGROUND:
Newport Beach Ordinance 2008 -05 requires group residential uses that were in existence prior to
February 22, 2008 and were not in conformity with the provisions of Ordinance 2008 -05 to apply
for, and receive, a Use Permit if they wished to remain in operation at their nonconforming
location. (Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC ") section 20.91A.020) All existing group
residential uses subject to this requirement must have either received a Use Permit by February
22, 2009 or be within the administrative process in order to remain in operation past that date.
(NBMC section 20.62.090)
Ocean Recovery, LLC ( "Ocean Recovery") operates such a nonconforming use. It has applied for
a Use Permit. The application was heard on February 12, 2009 and the hearing continued for six
months, allowing Ocean Recovery to continue to operate the nonconforming use in this continued
period.
An appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to continue the hearing and thus temporarily allowing
the continued non - conforming use has been filed. That appeal is before the City Council in this
agenda item.
1. Ocean Recovery's Use.
Ocean Recovery, LLC, operates an alcohol or drug abuse recovery and treatment facility licensed
by the State to treat up to 22 men at 1115 West Balboa Blvd. The operator of this facility applied
for a Use Permit within the time period required by Ordinance 2008 -05.
2. Use Permit Hearing.
A public hearing on the Use Permit application was held on February 12, 2009. The staff report
prepared for the hearing is submitted as the Bates Stamp Number ( "BSN ") Hearing Record ( "HR ")
HR, BSN 0005. The transcript from that hearing is submitted as HR, BSN 0257. Any documents
and materials not included in attachments to staff reports that were submitted to the City or the
Hearing Officer by the applicant or members of the public before closure of the February 12, 2009
Use Permit hearing are submitted as HR, BSN 0257.
In its February 12, 2009 staff report, staff recommended the eleven required findings could be
made, provided the applicant made recommended changes to its operations, followed strict
operating standards, and limited its occupancy to 14 beds. However, because of credible
testimony from neighbors regarding negative secondary impacts of the facility on the residential
neighborhood, staff recommended that a condition of any Use Permit granted include a review of
impacts in six months, with amendment of the Use Permit conditions if necessary. This review
was to assess whether the facility operator was able to properly supervise and operate a
residential care facility with 14 beds in a manner that eliminated negative impacts on neighboring
properties. Staff indicated that if negative impacts were not shown to be substantially reduced,
the condition of the Use Permit limiting the facility's bed count could be maintained, reduced. or
increased according to Code Enforcement staffs assessment of impact reduction.
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Continuance of Use Permit Hearing
1115 West Balboa (Ocean Recovery)
March 24, 2009
Page 3
At the February 12, 2009 hearing, Hearing Officer Tom Allen heard testimony from City staff, the
applicant and the public. At the conclusion of public testimony and after the hearing was closed,
staff changed its recommendation to the Hearing Officer. Because of credible evidence of
negative secondary impacts provided by the owners and residents of directly adjacent properties,
staff recommended that rather than granting the Use Permit, the Hearing Officer continue the
hearing for approximately six months. This period, staff suggested, would enable the applicant to
demonstrate whether or not it could appropriately supervise the facility. Staff also noted that the
abatement of a nearby sober living facility at 1129 West Balboa Blvd. could also" occur during the
six month period, which would allow staff to discern between impacts from that facility and
impacts from 1115 West Balboa Blvd. (Transcript of Public Hearing on Ocean Recovery, LLC,
Thursday, February 12, 2009, pages 96 — 97; HR, BSN 0353 - 0354.)
3. Hearing Officer Action.
The applicant agreed to formulate conditions that could comprise a management and operations
plan that would be submitted to City staff, to work with neighbors to address concerns, and to
operate with no more than 18 residents until after the date of the next use permit hearing for this
facility. After hearing the testimony and closing the public hearing, the Hearing Officer noted that
a use permit, once granted, becomes a vested right that is very difficult to revoke (Transcript of
Public Hearing on Ocean Recovery, Thursday, February 12, 2009, pages 97 — 98; HR, BSN
0354 -0358) and continued the hearing on the application for six months, setting the continued
hearing on the date certain of August 12, 2009. (Transcript of Public Hearing on Ocean
Recovery, LLC, Thursday, February 12, 2009, page 104, HR, BSN 0361.) The applicant was
allowed to continue its operations consistent with the discussions at the hearing for that period of
time.
An interested member of the public, Mr. Larry
appeal to the City Council under the provisions
2009. A copy of the appeal is attached.
DISCUSSION
Mathena of 1125 West Balboa Blvd. filed this
of NBMC Section 20.91A.040 on February 26,
The City Council is now faced with two issues as a result of this appeal. First, the Council must
interpret our ordinances and regulations and give direction as to whether the decision by the
Hearing Officer to continue the hearing on the use permit application was a "decision" under our
ordinance which is appealable to the Council. If it is not an- appealable decision, no further action
is needed by the Council. If the Council determines that the action by the Hearing Officer was an
appealable "decision° then it needs to address the issues raised on appeal and take action as
allowed under NBMC Section 20.91A.040.
Was the Hearing Officers Action an Appealable "Decision ?"
This issue is a question of first impression under NBMC Section 20.91A.040. It presents a unique
issue for the Council to address. The Ordinance is not clear on this question. Since the Council
is the legislative body that enacted the ordinance, it has primary authority to interpret its
provisions. (City of Walnut Creek v. County of Contra Costa (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1021.)
The Council needs to interpret its ordinance on this issue, give direction, and then, if it decides the
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Continuance of Use Permit Hearing
1115 West Balboa (Ocean Recovery)
March 24, 2009
Page 4
action to continue the hearing under these specific circumstances is a "decision" that is
appealable, then the Council needs to take action on the appeal.
a. Ordinance Provisions.
Ordinance 2008 -05 creates a use permit process by which uses that were made nonconforming
by its provisions must seek City approval. That process generally requires that:
• A nonconforming use apply for a use permit within ninety days of the effective date of the
ordinance or be abated (NBMC section 20.91A.020).
• A Hearing Officer be designated to conduct the hearing process for the use permit
applications. (NBMC section 20.91A.040.)
• The hearing process be conducted consistent with the provisions of NBMC Chapter 20.91
(ld.)
• A "decision" on use permit applications be rendered within thirty -five days of conclusion of
the hearing. (NBMC section 20.91.025(B).)
• "Decisions" of the Hearing Officer may be appealed to the Council. (NBMC section
20.91A.040.)
• Uses for which use permits have not been granted by February 22, 2009 shall be abated.
(NBMC section 20.62.090.)
b. Hearing Officer Role.
It is clear that a Hearing Officer under the Municipal Code has the authority to "conduct hearings"
on the issue of issuance of use permits. (NBMC sections 20.03.030 and 1.08.055.) The conduct
of a hearing is uniformly recognized to include the opening and closing of the time for public
testimony, concluding the hearing, and possible continuance of the hearing. In effect, hearing
officers sit as quasi-judicial officers who have the power to conduct the proceedings in an orderly
fashion pursuant to their discretion. Shoults vs. Alderson, 55 Cal.App.527,531 (1921) Thus, it
was within the Hearing Officer's power to "continue" the public hearing in this matter.
c. Was the Continuance a Decision?
The answer to the pivotal question here is less clear, i.e. whether the action by the Hearing
Officer in this case was an appealable "decision." Was the continuance that was granted here
merely a procedural step to allow for the fair processing of the application and conducting of the
hearing or was it in effect a substantive decision under the ordinance?
NBMC section 20.91A.040 is the most critical municipal code provision that bears on this issue.
provides, as adopted in Ordinance 2008 -5, in pertinent part,
A Hearing Officer, as defined in Section 20.03.030, is designated to approve,
conditionally approve or disapprove applications for use permits, and the
modification or revocation thereof, in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Chapter 20.91. Decisions of the Hearing Officer may be appealed to the City
Council.
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Continuance of Use Permit Hearing
1115 West Balboa (Ocean Recovery)
March 24, 2009
Page 5
Thus, by the ordinance's terms, the Hearing Officer is to "approve, conditionally approve or
disapprove" a use permit application. If such an action occurred, then a "decision" was made that
is appealable.
One could arguably interpret the action of the Hearing Officer as being nothing more than a
continuance of the matter to a later date. It is an axiom of civil law that only "final" decisions are
appealable. First Security Bank of California v. Paquet, 98 Cal.App.e 468, 472 (2002) While that
axiom does not have direct application here, it is helpful by analogy. The Hearing Officer's action
seems to fit that interpretation since it was based upon an agreement between the City and the
applicant (HR, BSN 0353 -0361) and no findings or conclusions were issued by the Hearing
Officer on the substance of the application. The Hearing Officer simply adopted the proposal of
the parties. (HR, BSN 0361.) If that interpretation is adopted, then there was no appealable
"decision."
On the other hand, however, the action by the Hearing Officer allowed the use to continue. But
for that action continuing the matter, the use would have been required to be abated after
February 22, 2009 or a Use Permit would have been granted. One could interpret the action by
the Hearing Officer as, in effect, conditionally granting a temporary permit that allowed for six
months of operation. If that interpretation is accepted, then this was a "decision" that conditionally
approved a Use Permit, albeit for only a relatively short period of time. Looked at in that light, the
action could be considered analogous to the grant of preliminary relief in a civil action, and such
preliminary relief is appealable at law. Barenfeld v. City of Los Angeles, 162 Cal.App.3d 1035,
1041 (1984)
The procedures under NBMC Chapter 20.91 as referred to in the ordinance do not address this
specific issue. While section 20.91.025 uses the same language as section 20.91A.040 re the
authority to "approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove applications for use permits," it does
not address specifically the power of a decision maker to continue a hearing in a manner that
allows a nonconforming use to continue. It does, however, require that the decision on the use
permit be rendered within 35 days "after the conclusion of the hearing." (NBMC section
20.91.025(B).)
We have researched use of the term "decision" and "appeal" in our Municipal Code. That
information does not provide any significant guidance on the issues addressed here. There are
over one hundred and seventy -seven sections that reference the terms. Of those sections, there
are at least four contexts that are used, none of which are analogous. For example,
A Hearing Officer may continue a hearing under the City's Administrative Citations
Chapter in order to request "additional information" from an Enforcement Officer (NBMC
section 1.05.0801) and then make a "decision" to "uphold or deny the administrative
citation" (NBMC section 1.05.090(A).) The chapter does not, however, contemplate the
grant of interim relief as one can argue occurred here.
Others give appellate rights to "permittees" or "applicants" only where there are adverse
impacts to their permits or applications. (See e.g., NBMC sections 5.16.080 [Going Out of
Business Sales Permits], 5.20.050 [Pawnbrokers, Secondhand Dealers and Junk Dealers
permits], 5.28.040 [Live Entertainment Establishments], 20.67.100 [denial of sign permits],
etc.)
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Continuance of Use Permit Hearing
1115 West Balboa (Ocean Recovery)
March 24, 2009
Page 6
Others give appellate rights to permittees and applicants where they are aggrieved "by
any action or failure to act ... in issuing, failing to issue, or revoking any permit." (See,
e.g. NBMC section 5.34.110 [Pool Tables and Amusement Devices].) That is not,
however, the language used in section 20.91A.040 in defining "decision."
Still others give appellate rights to any person aggrieved by the "approval or disapproval"
of a permit. (NBMC section 5.46.060 [Regulation of Commercial Film Production].) Again,
that language, however, is not the language used in section 20.91A.040 in defining
"decision," though it is substantially closed than the other examples above.
The closest fit to the issues faced here are those provisions governing appeals under Title 20 of
the Municipal Code. Of those provisions, there are at least two contexts that are used, again
none of which are directly analogous. For example:
Appellate rights given where a use permit is "denied or revoked" for equestrian use in the
Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area in the City. (NBMC section 20.44.035.)
The right to appeal undefined "decisions" regarding nonconforming structures and uses in
unrelated section of the municipal code. (NBMC section 20.62.100.)
The provisions governing appeals of general use permit "decisions" do not help. They were
adopted in the same ordinance and do not address the issue of some temporary or interim use.
(See, NBMC section 20.91.025)
Finally, the provisions generally governing appeals under Title 20 do not help. While they clearly
allow appeals to be initiated by "interested parties" (NBMC section 20.95.020) as occurred here,
they do not specifically define "decisions," nor do they address possible grants of temporary or
interim uses.
In the end, we must simply state that if the Council interprets the Hearing Officer's action
continuing the hearing to be one that has in effect approved, conditionally approved or
disapproved an application, then that action is a decision under the ordinance and is appealable.
If it did not, it is not a decision under the ordinance and it is not appealable.
2. If the Action is Appealable. What Action Shall the Council Take on the Appeal?
If you determine the action to be appealable, you must decide what action to take on the appeal.
Appeals under this ordinance are different than any other appeals within the City. You are not
given full authority to address the issues as you may choose "de novo." You are restricted to
considering whether there is substantial evidence in the record of the proceeding that supports
the Hearing Officer's determination. If there is substantial evidence, whether you agree with the
determination or not, you must support the determination and deny the appeal. If there is not
substantial evidence, then you cannot support the decision of the hearing officer and you should
grant the appeal.
a. Unique Standard of Review
There are two different standards by which the Council makes decisions on appeals of use permit
decisions under our municipal code, one for use permits in districts zoned for non - residential uses
and one for districts zoned for residential uses such as this one.
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Continuance of Use Permit Hearing
1115 West Balboa (Ocean Recovery)
March 24, 2009
Page 7
(1) For use permits in districts zoned for non - residential uses.
NBMC Chapter 20.91 establishes procedures for approval, conditional approval or disapproval of
use permits and variances in all areas of the City that are not zoned for residential use. Section
20.91.060 provides that decisions made by the Planning Commission are reviewed by the City
Council on appeal, and that the procedures for such appeals are codified in NBMC Chapter
20.95. Chapter 20.95 states:
The public hearing on an appeal shall be conducted `de novo" in that the decision that has
been appealed has no force or effect as of the date on which the appeal was filed. The
appellate body is not bound by the decision that has been appealed or limited to the
issues raised on appeal. The appellate body shall hear testimony of the appellant, the
applicant, and any other interested party.
(NBMC Section 20.95.060(C).)
Therefore, the Council has acted as both the appellate body and the finder of fact in past hearings
on appeals from decisions on use permits in areas zoned for commercial or industrial use. Public
testimony and evidence not presented at the Planning Commission hearings has been properly
presented to and considered by the Council in these de novo hearings.
(2) For use permits in districts zoned for residential uses.
When considering permits for uses conditionally permitted in residential districts such as this one,
NBMC Chapter 20.91A establishes a different preliminary decision - making body and a
dramatically different standard of appellate review by the Council. Applications for use permits in
residential districts are reviewed and approved, conditionally approved or disapproved by a
Hearing Officer rather than the Planning Commission, in accordance with the procedures set forth
in Chapter 20.91A. Unlike appeals for use permits approved, conditionally approved or
disapproved by the Planning Commission, NBMC section 20.91A.040 states:
Decisions of the Hearing Officer may be appealed to the City Council.
Notwithstanding Section 20.95.060, the standard of review shall not be de novo
and the City Council shall determine whether the findings made by the Nearing
Officer are supported by substantial evidence presented during the evidentiary
hearing. The City Council acting as the appellate body may sustain, reverse or
modify the decision of the Hearing Officer or remand the matter for further
consideration, which remand shall include either specific issues to be considered
or a direction for a de novo hearing.
(NBMC Section 20.91A.040 [Italics added].)
When reviewing the decisions of a Hearing Officer, the Council is therefore required by NBMC
section 20.91A.040 to apply the "substantial evidence test." This means that the Council shall
uphold the decision of the Hearing Officer if there is substantial evidence in the hearing record as
a whole to support the decision he made.
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Continuance of Use Permit Hearing
1115 West Balboa (Ocean Recovery)
March 24, 2009
Page 8
If the Council reaches this stage of the analysis, it has essentially concluded the Hearing Officer
has conditionally granted a temporary use permit through the grant of the continuance to the
applicant at 1115 West Balboa Blvd. Thus, the inquiry for the Council is whether the Hearing
Officer abused his discretion when he granted the continuance of the hearing without making a
substantive decision on the ultimate question of whether a use permit should be granted or
denied.
While the concept of "abuse of discretion" is well defined in the law, it is a bit obtuse. In finding
abuse of discretion, the City Council shall consider whether the Hearing Officer's action was
arbitrary, capricious, in excess of his jurisdiction, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or without
reasonable or rational basis as a matter of law. A prejudicial abuse of discretion is established if
the Hearing Officer did not proceed in a manner required by law, or if his findings are not
supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121
Cal.App.e 1490, 1497.)
City staff, the applicant and members of the public may make comments on the record at the
appeal. However, in making its determination the City Council is limited to review of the hearing
record at the proceedings below. It may neither substitute its views for those of the Hearing
Officer, nor reweigh conflicting evidence presented to him. The decisions of the Hearing Officer
are given substantial deference and are presumed correct. (ld.)
The party seeking review (in this case, the applicant) bears the burden of showing that the
Hearing Officer's decisions are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The City
Council "must resolve reasonable doubts in favor of the administrative findings and
determination." (Id.)
"Substantial evidence" means "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this
information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other
conclusions might also be reached." Such substantial evidence may include facts, and expert
opinions supported by facts, but not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, or clearly
erroneous evidence. (ld.)
Although facts in the hearing record might lead the City Council to a conclusion different from the
Hearing Officer's, the City Council may not overturn the Hearing Officer's decision on the grounds
that an opposite conclusion based on the same set of facts would have been equally reasonable
or more reasonable. It also may not weigh conflicting evidence and determine which side has the
better argument. Instead, it must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the administrative
finding and decision below. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of
Commissioners of the Port of Oakland (2001) 91 Cal.App.e 1344, 1356.)
In summary, the City Council may overturn the Hearing Officer's decision only if it finds that there
are insufficient facts, or expert opinions supported by facts, in the administrative record to support
the decision the Hearing Officer made.
b. Discussion of Appellant's Specific Grounds for Appeal.
Though appellant discusses many facts and circumstances in his appeal document, his specific
appellate point goes directly to the grant of the continuance after the public hearing was closed
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Continuance of Use Permit Hearing
1115 West Balboa (Ocean Recovery)
March 24, 2009
Page 9
and the public was thus denied the right to address the continuance issue. He also discusses a
good deal of background facts. While all of them address the fundamental question of whether
the use permit should be granted or not, that really is not the issue of substantial evidence before
the Council at this time. Therefore, we will restrict our analysis to the specific basis for the appeal
and its underpinnings.
First, implicit in his appeal, Mr. Mathena challenges the ability of the Hearing Officer to grant a
"probationary" period for the use permit. He is correct there is no direct support for such an action
by the Hearing Officer. If, however, the action taken by the Hearing Officer is interpreted to be
consistent with the responsibility to "approve, conditionally approve or disapprove applications for
user permits" (NBMC section 20.91A.040), then the Hearing Officer has not abused his discretion
and the decision should be upheld. If, however, the action taken by the Hearing Officer is
interpreted as granting a "probationary" or temporary use permit without allowing public testimony
on the topic contrary to the authority of the ordinance and if the evidence in the record does not
support such a grant, then the Hearing Officer has abused his discretion and the appeal should
be granted and that decision should be overturned.
Second, the appellant raises the issue of the grant of the continuance of hearing without receiving
public testimony. If the continuance was merely an action to facilitate a fair hearing, consistent
with concepts of due process, then that issue is not grounds for finding an abuse of discretion. If,
however, that action is interpreted as granting a temporary, or "probationary," use permit without
allowing public testimony on the issue, the Council could conclude that action was an abuse of
discretion due to a failure to reopen the hearing and take testimony on the changed
recommendation.
c. Appropriate Relief.
Per NBMC Section 20.91A.040, the City Council may sustain, reverse or modify the decision of
the Hearing Officer. It may also remand the matter to the Hearing Officer for further
consideration. If the City Council remands the matter to the Hearing Officer, NBMC section
20.91A.040 requires that the Council either provide specific issues to be considered or direct that
the Hearing Officer conduct a de novo hearing of the matter.
If you decide that the grant of continuance was appealable and it was not supported by
substantial evidence, then you need to determine what relief is to be granted. As distinguished
from the restricted standard of review you exercise in this type of appeal, the relief you can grant
is broad. On the other hand, if this is an appealable decision, it is a "decision" due to the fact a
temporary or "probationary" Use Permit was issued and the relief should be restricted to that
error. Therefore, we would recommend that if you find the action to be an appealable decision
and to have been taken without substantial evidence, then we would recommend you remand the
matter to the Hearing Officer for further consideration and immediate action on the substance of
the application through setting and concluding the balance of the use permit hearing within a
reasonable time.
You have the authority to give specific direction as well. Mr. Mathena has requested two specific
directions, both of which go directly to what decision the Hearing Officer will have to make should
you remand this matter to him for final determination on the merits. The Hearing Officer will have
to make a decision on both of the issues if you remand it to him whether you direct him or not.
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Continuance of Use Permit Hearing
1115 West Balboa (Ocean Recovery)
March 24, 2009
Page 10
You may, however, give the Hearing Officer the direction to consider the two issues, denial for
false misleading statements of material facts and imposition of restrictions that deal with client
smoking at the facility, but you cannot at this stage direct him how to determine those issues
since no substantive decision has been made with respect to them at this time.
3. Permit Streamline Act:
The continuance does not present problems with the Permit Streamline Act since the applicant
consented to the continuance.
4. Environmental Review:
This application has 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. The City Council's consideration of this Agenda Item does not
require environmental review.
5. Public Notice:
This agenda item may be noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
CONCLUSION:
Please give us your direction whether the action of the Hearing Officer was an appealable
decision and, if so, what decision you make on addressing the appeal if it was an appealable
decision.
Submitted by:
Offiee Qf the City Attorney
� 1 N V 9
R. Hunt,
Attachment 1:
Appeal of Mr. Larry Mathena filed with City Clerk (with attachments) Hearing Record, Bate Stamp
Numbers 1 - 0409 previously forwarded and including:
• Staff Report prepared for February 12, 2009 hearing
• Documents or materials submitted to City and Hearing Officer prior to close of
February 12, 2009 hearing
• Hearing Transcript — February 12, 2009 hearing
f: usersrcal/sharedCCs1a11Reporl/i 115 W. Balboa appeal 03.19.09
Use Permit Hearings
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Ocean Recovery, LLC
16o1 West Balboa Boulevard
1115 West Balboa Boulevard
Agenda Item #1— Ocean Recovery,16oi West Balboa Boulevard
Use Permit Hearing
Brief Background on Ordinance zoo8 -o5 (Dave Kiff)
Presentation of the 16m. West Balboa application (Debbie Linn)
Public Hearing Opened
Comments limited to 3 minutes unless Hearing Officer determines otherwise
Public Hearing Closed
Applicant can return to rebut or clarify comments made
Questions from the Hearing Officer to the applicant or to City Staff
Hearing Officer's determination —alternatives are:
Approve with conditions;
Deny; or
Continue the hearing to a date certain
Agenda Item #2 — Ocean Recovery, 1115 West Balboa Boulevard
Same process, separate public hearing.
This is a Use Permit hearing held under NBMC Chapter 2o.g1(A) — Use
Permits in Residential Districts
Ordinance 2oo8 -o5, effective February 22, 2008, calls out this process:
Most existing group residential uses had to apply for a Use Permit to stay in
operations by May 22, 2oo8.
A Hearing Officer shall make a determination to approve or deny the Use
Permit.
The Hearing Officer's decision can be appealed to the City Council.
The City Council's decision may not be appealed, but "reasonable
accommodation may be requested. RA requests go before a hearing officer
at a public hearing, and can be appealed to the City Council.
Ordinance 2oo8 -o5 exempts one type of home from the Use Permit
requirement— ADP - licensed treatment homes:
Housing six or fewer persons, and
Which do not operate integrally with other facilities ( "Integral Facilities ").
US District Court Judge James Selna in May 20o8 blocked the City from
requiring networked ADP - licensed 6 and Unders from going through the
Use Permit process (SLBTS).
ti T
M
t
"
"f,
0 �_94N
Ocean Recovery
1115 West Balboa*
Item h6- location Map avid Similar Uses
JT
T
S
o^
❑
A
S
i
May 't4i EI W,
'W
w6
�t
0a_�4g8ft
Known Group Residential Uses within three li :ks:
BH- "Ibm Horizons Recdvely 113: Vest Balboa 112 beds. Women, approved use pe•mit', -15A away
NC -New port Cdssi P.emrtry 1218 West Balboa 129 beM, mm,denild uslPMnRI- A15']wav
OR -cYean Ae:dyNy. 1211 Wesi Ba'y I�MOing ADR I'ICame, 6 beds. womlml -M away
- .!29'West Balboa Iumxensed 12 -bed sober living home subjettto abatement) -so away
Other Uses:
A - Newport Elernemare 5[h00 -1321 West Ba boa - 71W away
B -fry 5 NArket ;3 coaolk beveage ouiletl -115 tart is" street -1,lor away
Amman leg on Po 391 Hall ;alcoholic beverage ouratl -215 East is" sueet-1,a20• away
D -Chr n Church 055 - clnsetl day [are -laa0 West Belboa - 1,220' away
- 911 i'.'!sf 6a bca pnl'censld is -bed "am ing to m subse t to cbmuMl -950 away
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1115 WEST BALBOA (OCEAN RECOVERY)
FINDINGS REQUIRED TO APPROVE THIS GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT
-
1-Yes, as an eaisting facility, this
Recommend a 14-bed count with a 6 -month review ,inc u ing
The use's location is in actord with the objectives of the Code
faclay operator is entitled to apply for
a public hearings to evaluate compliance with condioom.
andthe porPOSas ethe distract Finding encompasses IV
and receive a Use Permit,
2- Using a 517' block, it wN not resuh
Following the submittal of a compliance report by Code
Hear ng Offcer could determine to revoke
§`091.035 -A.1.
wrheoher this appl,cation is appropriate in tbs D'.scria; and 121
Enforcement; the
beds
Whether or not it curl resit in overcancer[nten
in ovarconcentration provided certain
the permit, keep the perm,, the same, or reduce or add
other uses abate.
Yes - conditions include:
• Beds capped at 14.
That the use and proposed conditions writ the use to be
• No assembly uses.
a dot
consistent with the General Plan and rrot be detrimental to
a Restore garages for parking - limit garage use for parking
public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of
No.
for staff, transport van, visitors.
§20.910.35 - A 2.
persons residing in or adjacent to the neighborhood of the use,
Clients may not have cars.
and won't be detrimental to the properties or improvements in
. Van pick -up and drop-off tootnsll .
the vsonity or to the general welfare of the City.
. Use permit review as noted in 20.91.035 -A.1.
No
Yes - conditions include ad here n.
§20.91.035 -0..3.
That the proposed ise comp) es.vitn the provu dns of the code.
No
Yes - conditions include all herein.
§ 2091. 035 -A 4.
That the proposed use complies with Chapter 20.91A
Yes -'o oruom. include:
. Standard operational conditions Ismoke control..
That the use conforms to Section 2091A.050 relating m
management plan, qu+et hours, curfew, medical waste
§20.910.060 -A
g, licsure'
operations and management s tandardssmokin ro
No
plan, morel .
residents per bedroom, ex l
. Requ.re qualified profession' manager on -site at all times.
Yes - Conditions include the conditions listed for
Pmfect includes sufficiem on -site parking, traffic mitigated to a
No
20.91.035.A2.
§20.91A.OfiO -B
level of insignificance.
ed to commodate the
property and structures pnyscahy suit ac
'Yes. Gerer all',.
N/A
§20.910..060 -C
use
Recommend a 14-bed taunt with a 6+nonM review (IIYriYtling
a public hearing) to evaluate compliance with conditions.
be compatible with the character of the neighborhood
Yes, provided abatement successful
following the submittal of a compliance report by Code
§20.91A 060- D
use will
won't create an overconcentratian of residential ore uses
with nearby Group Residential Uses
Enforcement, the Nearing Officer could determine to revoke
and
the permit, keep the permit the same, ar reduce or add beds.
yea - Condrt3an:
Oases and cars wort generate traTK substanI131 V greate, Ina'
• Compliance wlttl submated route plans.
§20.91A OEO —E
that onrr a'dY generatec ny- esidenbal BC.r+if45 in the
No i-im�tatroms on as tvnb=V uses clients rot hawrkg persomal
surrou,oieg area.
vehales, more
Delivery of goods is made within conprtible hours and won't
Ves - CorAmon:
No. Compliance with delivery hour limhatons.
§:�91ADfi0 —:
adversely impact the neighborhood_
Yas - Cp+Mh:on:
gegora use of a mmmarcial trash cW:ection service;
g$691AD60 —G
gash collecVm— romme,ciald necessary and done within
No. a ❑m2 cokchot hours to one vveekoay per wetl between
hours that do not aovermlyimpact the teFghborbood.
9 C a.m and 5:00 p.m
Staff:
Could not definitively ascertain if problems
attributed to 1115 West Balboa came from 1115
West Balboa versus 1129 West Balboa;
Considered that some of the allegations
(especially those that surfaced late) were serious
enough to preclude us from making key findings.
Sought a way to allow more time to pass,
including seeing if the abatement at 1129 West
Balboa addressed problems in the area.
Hearing Officer:
Thought that a "test period" was "worth
consideration" because this Use Permit decision
"was a very difficult one."
Said, "I am not persuaded it's a good idea to issue
a Use Permit at this time, because it becomes a
vested right for (Ocean Recovery)."
I much prefer to see us do, as (staff) alluded to ...
continue this for ... six months."
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT — APPEAL OF HEARING OFFICER'S DIRECTION
OCEAN RECOVERY, LLC
1115 WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will conduct a
public hearing on March 24, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The City Council will consider the
application of Ocean Recovery, LLC for the follow:
An appeal of the Hearing Officer's direction to continue the public hearing to a date certain for Use
Permit No. 2008 -030 requesting approval to allow a residential care facility to operate a state
licensed adult alcohol and /or drug abuse sober living facility for 22 resident clients, males only,
for property located at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. The appeal was filed by Mr. Larry
Mathena.
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 Gass 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 website at www.citv.newoort- beach.ca.us beginning on the
Wednesday 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 -101
Activity No.: UP2008 -030
V , xz&N X.. pnwy �/
Leilani I. Brown, City Clerg
City of Newport Beach
cagy r=,.– r. Ib i M send alongg line to 1"/Lt�t AVERVO 5960— is
Ise Aver 4 Template 5160® reed Paper expose ft p Edger" j Lr�J
047 263 04
DOUGLAS M WOOD
1214 E BALBOA BLVD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 13
VISSER TRUST
15605 AVENUE 208
STRATHMORE, CA 93267
047 290 03
CITY OF NEWPORT CH
0 PO BOX 1
NEWP BEACH, CA 92658
047 263 11
JOHN & D RIES
1352 N ALBRIGHT AVE
UPLAND, CA 91786
047 263 16
EDWARD LALONDE NICHOLSON
4051 DAVENPORT DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649
047 263 21
DAVID G RUCKER
1136 W BALBOA BLVD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 18
BENJAMIN TROSKY
28101 ASCOT UN
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
047 251 02
THEODORE MARK LEVENTHAL
207 N BAYFRONT
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662
939 70011
DENNIS L & JANET A GRIEBEL
1036 W BALBOA BLVD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
Black Cat, LLC
5 Trafalgar
Newport Beach, CA 92660
047 264 23
RODNEY MONROE DOUGLASS
640 SAINT JAMES RD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
047 263 24
SHAW DOLORES J TRUST
0 W BALBOA BLVD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
047 251 12
MARY N L MOYER
1101 W BALBOA BLVD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
939 700 10
MILLIE L WATKINS
0 PO BOX 80764
SAN MARINO, CA 91118
Ocean Recovery, LLC
Attention: Jim McCloskey
4001 MacArthur Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92642
Carpa, LLC
111 Sepulveda Boulevard
Manhattan Beach, CA 91266
Richard S. Zeilenga, Esq.,
Stowell, Zeilenga, Ruth,
Vaughn & Treiger LLP
2815 Townsgate Road, Ste 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Mr. Tim Gehrich, AICP
Manager of Planning & Development Svcs.
City of Irvine
P.O. Box 19575
Irvine, CA 92623 -9575
PA2008 -101 for UP2008 -030
1115 WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD
Ocean Recovery, LLC
Etiquettes faciles a peter A, ReplIez 6 la hachure afln de www.avery.com
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 i chSenns de eM rM�ler le rebord Pop -Upm 1- 800- GO-AVERY
H
1
AViA 9 -0os -L
• uwr,Gane�mmA&
mdn,dnd Wo" al Aal9n� ivaulaweyp
' a u am a da op sues
P ge
T o9t s a3AV luege6 al zes Rf1
T ® II.
'
za
4m4 I @ II a
salad q sMl3e; senenbq�
.:i -
i
047 263 23
047 252 22
047 252 01
STEINHOFF GRACE M TRUST
JAMES B LYNCH
LEO B BEILIN
1141 BALBOA BLVD kA
10261 SYCAMORE CIR
1051 W BALBOA BLVD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
VILLA PARK, CA 92861
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 25106
047 252 06
047 263 05
MARY MORO DEROBERTIS
CROSBY
GLENN E ROBERTS
12632 BRADFORD PL
1035 W BALBOA BLVD
1145 SAN JULIAN DR
GRANADA HILLS, CA 91344
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
SAN MARCOS, CA 92078
047 263 26
047 241 12
939 71014
TUYEN D LECONG
HANSEN ANTOINETTE K TRUST
LOPEZ PAUL A TRUST
15021 SABRE LN
1205 W BALBOA BLVD
1125.5 W BALBOA BLVD
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
939 710 13
047 25120
047 251 11
LARRY MATHENA
EDWARDS ANDREW C TRUST
CHARLES RJR ZIERES
1125 W BALBOA BLVD
1230 S LEWIS ST
1105 W BALBOA BLVD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
ANAHEIM, CA 92805
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 252 21
047 264 01
047 263 12
G HORMEL III
RICHARD D LEWIS
BEACH HOUSE LYONS -SMITH
6112 N PARADISE VIEW DR
1027 W BAY AVE
22536 RIDGE LINE RD
PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
047 263 27
047 251 01
047 263 03
FIRST STEP /LLC
TERENCE JAMES MCKENZIE
ALLEN KLINGENSMITH
1120 W BALBOA BLVD
1151 W BALBOA BLVD
453 VIA LIDO SOLID
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
047 263 09
047 252 05
047 251 03
HENRY LIVING TRUST
MATTHEW ALLEN
JOHN & CAROLYN VYN
1109 W BAY AVE
1037 W BALBOA BLVD
14751 MULBERRY AVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
IRVINE, CA 92606
047 251 16
047 263 18
047 263 06
MARY E HANLEY
1ANDIAL FAMILY TRUST
ABBEY S R/C A FAMILY TRUST
1112 W OCEANFRONT
1645 BLACKHAWK DR
5124 SOLLIDEN LN
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
SUNNYVALE, CA 94087
LA CANADA, CA 91011
047 25109
047 263 08
047 264 22
COLLEEN E DARLING
CHRIS LARSON
FRANK C MARSHALL
1161 LETTY LN
1111 W BAY AVE
0 PO BOX 540
TUSTIN, CA 92780
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 02
047 25108
047 252 04
ALBERT C WALTERS
JACK CANCELLIERI
STILES CHARLES 1/S D TRUST
1125 W BAY AVE
5 TRAFALGAR
2168 BOGIE DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
LA VERNE, CA 91750
Y
wa096s ®i\M�\/
oua6P3 dmdod asodxe laded peas
0091s a1eldwal �'tl asfl
of au euo u
11 l puall ♦ i
sloge7 ®laad Ase3
'.ay uuan 1 A Sendalonyy lioeto ��� 1,.
Use Avery® Template 51600 j Feed Paper expose Pop Up Edgem i & AVERY® 5960TM ,
1
047 252 24 047 252 03 047 263 07
ROBERT U WILHELM SUE GEE;GEE SANDY DELMER ALVIN MATTHEW ASHLEY
1036 W OCEANFRONT 1041 W BALBOA BLVD 1113 W BAY AVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 21 047 25122 047 263 20
BLEVINS CAROLYN R TRUST TECHENTIN THOMAS /E TRUST DAVID LONGRIDGE
1130 W OCEANFRONT 640 MAGNOLIA AVE 8006 E EUCALYPTUS TRL
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 PASADENA, CA 91106 ORANGE, CA 92869
047 25104 047 251 10 047 234 11
ROGER V BOYVEY DARRYL R KERR MCBRIDE
1139 W BALBOA BLVD 21845 HURON LN 1200 W BALBOA BLVD APT C
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 14 047 251 23 047 263 13
RIZZOLO LISA M TRUST CONSTANCE C QUARRE GREGORY GLADSTONE
8632 CANYON VIEW DR 3 MONTEREY CIR 1100 W BALBOA BLVD
LAS VEGAS, NV 89117 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 01 047 290 03 047 263 25
HARRIET V PHILLIPS CITY OF NEWP BEACH MARK M LUCAS
481 VEREDA DEL CIERVO 0 PO BOX >48 812 N KALAHEO AVE #L
GOLETA, CA 93117 NEWP 016T BEACH, CA 92658 KAILUA, HI 96734
047 251 15 047 252 23 047 263 19
JACK AVAKIAN CORKETT JAMES T & RITA C TSO
30536 COUNTRY CLUB DR 1032 W OCEANFRONT 11716 LOUCKS
REDLANDS, CA 92373 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 TUSTIN, CA 92782
047 263 14 939 71017 939 710 18
JAY E.VILORIA PATRICIA BOTWINICK MICHAEL K FLYNN
1104 W BALBOA BLVD 1201 W BALBOA BLVD 2760 E MAIN ST #106
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 MESA, AZ 85213
047 252 02 047 251 19 047 263 22
M LORRAINE FOULKS RICHARD ALLEN RIDDLE JOHN M SCIARRA
1403 TALMADGE ST 335 DEODAR LN 4420 WOODLEIGH UN
LOS ANGELES, CA 90027 BRADBURY, CA 91008 LA CANADA, CA 91011
047 264 21 047 251 17 047 251 05
JUDITH A HARVEY VICTOR F & WENDELA P SELLIER GEORGE WILLIAM SISCO
527 S ORANGE AVE 710 SPRINGVALE RD 524 GREENFIELD CT
BREA, CA 92821 GREAT FALLS, VA 22066 UPLAND, CA 91786
047 263 15 04726316 047 241 14
RONALD P BEARD TY G RIES LEAR MARY L TRUST
1108 W BALBOA BLVD 1107 W BAY AVE 10640 MATHER BLVD #200
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 MATHER, CA 95655
Etiquettes fadles h peter A Repliez B la hachure afln de www.averycom de
Utilisez le gabarit AVERIf6 57600 i chaergnement r€vEler le rebord Pop -Upw j 1- 800.60 -AVERY i
A113AV- 09-008 -1,
' W07/GBAe -mmm
.a
1 047 251 15
RESIDENT
1106 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 2S1 18
RESIDENT
1120 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 21
RESIDENT
1130 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 241 14
RESIDENT
1200 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
Twao965 ®A"MVf
i mdn4od luogw 81 �19MW auew0wV4J
sp uge amipeg el Q zalldes eP •es
047 251 16
RESIDENT
1112 OCEAN FRONT W .
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 19
RESIDENT
1124 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 22
RESIDENT
1136 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
{ C109LS GAL3AV }ljege6 al zeslilin
jalad 9 seIM sauenb"
047 251 17
RESIDENT
1116 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 20
RESIDENT
1128 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 23
RESIDENT
1140 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
PA2008 -101 for UP2008 -030
1115 WEST BALBOA BOULEVARDQA.v�'
Ocean Recovery, LLG
_T �a6p3 dg-dod esodxa jaded psai ®09L5 aleldwa1 OfJanV asn
04 Gull 6uole puag V slagel eland Ase3
AMAV-09.008 -1 { mdn dad luoger al jala^gi wap � Wsu may, 00915 ®AN3Atl 3NeQe6 al zasll!ln
,i wo7 AmAommm i op uge amtpeg el @ zellda8 - ` salad @ selpe; smenbg1
t t
047 252 02 939 710 18 047 252 06
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
108 11TH ST 107 12TH ST 1035 BALBOA BLVD W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 252 05 047 264 21 047 252 04
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1037 BALBOA BLVD W 1038 BALBOA BLVD W 1041 BALBOA BLVD W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 252 03 047 264 23 047 252 01
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1045 BALBOA BLVD W 1050 BALBOA BLVD W 1051 BALBOA BLVD W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 13 047 251 12 047 263 14
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1100 BALBOA BLVD W 1101 BALBOA BLVD W 1104 BALBOA BLVD W'
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 11 047 251 10 047 263 16
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1105 BALBOA BLVD W 1111 BALBOA BLVD W 1112 BALBOA BLVD W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 25109 047 263 16 047 25108
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1113 BALBOA BLVD W 1114 BALBOA BLVD W 1115 BALBOA BLVD W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
939 710 13 047 25106 047 263 20
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1125 BALBOA BLVD W 1129 BALBOA BLVD W 1132 BALBOA BLVD W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 21 047 25104 047 263 22
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1136 BALBOA BLVD W 1139 BALBOA BLVD W 1140 BALBOA BLVD W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 03 047 263 23 047 25102
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1141 BALBOA BLVD W 1144 BALBOA BLVD W 1145 BALBOA BLVD W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 24 047 25101 047 263 24
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1148 BALBOA BLVD W 1149 BALBOA BLVD W 1150 BALBOA BLVD W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
0965 ®�►jJ3gt/ T w a6p3 do -dad asodza laded paN f 6091S aleldtual okaw asn
.0
! of null 6uole puag ♦ i slags l ®lead Ase3
i A213Atl-09-008 -L i w,d0aod piogar algal + ' "°"'werw ; ®091,5 ®AH3AV l!aege6 al zesmin
y WCO "Ae'MMM ; ep Up Gintpeg el @ MICIGH � sus i waled B selle3 serianbrq
1 i
939 710 17 047 241 12 047 263 18
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1201 BALBOA BLVD W 1205 BALBOA BLVD W 1124 BALBOA BLVD W 1
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 12 047 263 16 047 263 16
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1101 BALBOA BLVD W 1/2 1112 BALBOA BLVD W 1/2 1114 BALBOA BLVD W 1/2
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
939 710 14 047 25103 047 263 24
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1125 BALBOA BLVD W 1/2 1141 BALBOA BLVD W 1/2 1150 BALBOA BLVD W 1/2
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 18 047 263 18 047 251 12
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1124 BALBOA BLVD W 2 1124 BALBOA BLVD W 3 1101 BALBOA BLVD W 3/4
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
04726319 047 263 27 047 263 19
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1124 BALBOA BLVD W 4 1120 BALBOA BLVD W 5 1128 BALBOA BLVD W 5
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 27 047 263 19 047 263 27
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1120 BALBOA BLVD W 6 1128 BALBOA BLVD W 6 1120 BALBOA BLVD W 7
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 19 047 263 19 939 70010
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1128 BALBOA BLVD W 7 1128 BALBOA BLVD W 8 1036 BALBOA BLVD W A
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 264 22 047 263 15 047 263 26
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1040 BALBOA BLVD W A 1108 BALBOA BLVD W A 1116 BALBOA BLVD W A
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 05 047 234 11 939 700 11
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1133 BALBOA BLVD W A 1200 BALBOA BLVD W A 1036 BALBOA BLVD W B
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 264 22 047 263 15 .047 263 26
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
1040 BALBOA BLVD W B 1108 BALBOA BLVD W B 1116 BALBOA BLVD W B
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
T n T mefip3 do -dad asodza laded 1308�1 T 00916 %eldway O"Ay esn
wa0965 ®% 3Af/ V i 04 awl Boole puag sla4e7 ®I�d ASe3
i AH3AV-09.008-L
s worNenemMnn
047 25105
RESIDENT
1133 BALBOA BLVD W B
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 26
RESIDENT
1116 BALBOA BLVD W C
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 26
RESIDENT
1116 BALBOA BLVD W D
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 11
RESIDENT
1103 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 09
RESIDENT
1109 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 06
RESIDENT
1115 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 03
RESIDENT
1121 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 01
RESIDENT
1127 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 252 22
RESIDENT
1028 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 13
RESIDENT
1100 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
i mdndod iuogaj al iammu ivawaametp
ep else wntpeq el 9 zalldetl eP SUDS
047 234 11
RESIDENT
1200 BALBOA BLVD W B
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9.2663
047 234 11
RESIDENT
1200 BALBOA BLVD W C
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
047 264 01
RESIDENT
1027 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 11
RESIDENT
1105 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 08
RESIDENT
1111 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 05
RESIDENT
1117 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 25
RESIDENT
1123 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 06
RESIDENT
1115 BAY AVE W 1/2
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 252 23
RESIDENT
1032 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 13
RESIDENT
1102 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
T ®091,5 ®AH3AV 3Nege6 el zegiFLFI
i waled B soloed smenb.rq
047 263 15
RESIDENT
1108 BALBOA BLVD W C
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 15
RESIDENT
1108 BALBOA BLVD W D
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 12
RESIDENT
1101 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 10
RESIDENT
1107 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 07
RESIDENT
1113 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 26304
RESIDENT
1119 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 263 02
RESIDENT
1125 BAY AVE W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 252 21
RESIDENT
1024 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 252 24
RESIDENT
1036 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
047 251 14
RESIDENT
1104 OCEAN FRONT W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
T®A�3/�t/ f w 06p3 dndod asodxa sded paN f 009LS awidwal (WUa^V as0
wa0965 i o3 awl Boole poop ♦ ; slage7 ®Wad Ase3
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT - APPEAL OF HEARING OFFICER'S DIRECTION
OCEAN RECOVERY, LLC
1115 WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will conduct a public hearing on March 24, 2009, at 7:00 p.m.
in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The City Council will consider the
application of Ocean Recovery, LLC for the follow:
An appeal of the Hearing Officers direction to continue the public hearing to a date certain for Use Permit No. 2008-030 requesting approval to
allow a residential care facility to operate a state licensed adult alcohol and/or drug abuse sober living facility for 22 resident clients, males
only, for property located at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. The appeal was filed by Mr. Larry Mathena.
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 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(bx3) 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 website at www.citv.newoort- beach.ca.us beginning on the
Wednesday prior to the hearing. 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 -101
Activity No.: UP2008 -030
Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by
Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A -6214.
September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June t I, 1963. RECEIVED
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 am
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:
March 14, 2009
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on March 17, 2009 at
Costa Mesa, California.
Signtflure
MAR 19 PIT t0- 05
OFFICE OF
T I_ CITY CLERK
= hh,fimORT BE'Af ,
NOTICE Of PUBLIC HEARING
GROUP RESIDENTIAL USE
PERMIT - APPEAL OF HEARING
OFFICER'S DIRECTION
OCEAN RECOVERY, LLC
I I 15 WEST BALBOA
BOULEVARD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV-
EN that the City Council
of the City of Newport
Beach will conduct a
public hearing on March
24, 2009, Of 1:00 p.m.
in the Cdy Council
Chambers (Building A)
at 3300 Newport Bou-
levard, Newport Beach,
California. The City
Council will consider the
application of Ocean Re-
covery, LLC for the fol-
low:
An appeal of the Hearing
Officer's direction to
continue the public hear-
ing to a date certain for
Use Permit No- 2ON-030
requesting approval to
allow a residential care
facility to operate a
state licensed adult al-
cohol and /or drug abuse
sober living facility for
22 resident clients,
males only. for property
located at 1115 west
Balboa Boulevard. The
appeal was filed by Mr.
Larry Marlene.
This activity has been
determined to be cate-
gorically exempt under
,ha rani cements of the
Quality Act (CEQA) un-
der Class 1 (Existing
Facilities). This class of
projects has been deter-
mined not to have a
significant effect on the
environment and is
exempt from the provi-
srons of CEQA. This ac
tivity 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 (de-
scribed in this notice) or
in written corre-
spondence delivered to
the City, at. or prior to,
the public hearing. The
staff report may be re-
Newport Bogl e v 1rrp,
Newport Beach, Califon
nia, 92663 or at the City
of Newport Beach web -
site at www.dfy.
be inning on th Wed
beginning on the Wetl-
ing. F r m to the hear-
ing. For more informa-
tion call (94.3 02. To 32
or (949) 6443002. To
added to a permanent
to receive these
File No.: PA2008
Activity No.: OP2008 030
Leilani I. Brown,
City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
Published Newport
Beach /Costa Mesa Daily
Pilot March 14, 200
59