Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - Supplemental Correspondence"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" k� 4 t10 Brown, Le[lani 12 4 From: paul lopez [p.lopez @adelphia.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:49 PM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: Fw: 1115 W. Balboa and 1216 W. Balboa Sober Living Facilities -- Appeal Hearings Attachments: Letter to City Clerk Mar 16 09.doc Ms. Brown, Please forward to each City Council member and please make part of the permanent record for the upcoming March 24th City Council meeting. Please confirm receipt of this email Sincerely, Paul Paul A. Lopez 1125 1/2 W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 949 - 673 -0489 p.lo pez(cDroad ru n ner, com Newport City Council c/o Ms. Leilani L Brown City Clerk, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Dear Ms. Brown and the Newport City Council, I am requesting that this letter be provided to all City Council members and become part of the public record for the March 24, 2009 public hearing regarding the Group Residential Use Permits for both 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. (Ocean Recovery, LLC) and 1216 W. Balboa Blvd (Newport Recovery). 1115 W. Balboa Blvd (Ocean Recovery. LLC) I am writing to object to the decision of the Hearing Officer to continue the public hearing to a date certain (i.e. 6 months). A total of 143 petition signatures were submitted to the City requesting denial of this application. Additionally, the City received numerous letters, pictures and public testimony from local neighbors that clearly highlight that this facility and its clients have consistently operated in a manner that is detrimental to the local neighborhood for the past five years. Noise, profanity, illegal gatherings, excessive second hand smoke on adjoining properties, no full time supervision, utilization of parking garages for meeting rooms were all substantiated by the neighbors. Additionally, this facility is within 100 feet of the residential care facility previously approved at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd., which represents an overconcentration of these businesses in our neighborhood, and importantly, the number of these businesses that are close to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds. I believe the local neighbors have provided the City with strong and compelling evidence that should have led the Hearing Officer and the City to deny this Ocean Recovery Use Permit. I am now asking the City Council to direct the Hearing Officer to make his decision now and deny this Use Permit without further delay. It is now time for the City to consider the safety and wellbeing of the neighborhood. 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. (Newport Recovery) The Hearing Officer has already denied this application based upon its close proximity to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds, the long history of repeated nuisances (smoking, loitering, loud noise, profanity), and repeated permit and code violations by the Operator. The public's input, signed petition and letters of opposition provided to the City have substantiated this Operator's unacceptable performance record. Therefore, I am urging the City to uphold the prior decision made by the Hearing Officer and deny the Use Permit for this facility. Name Address Brown, Leilani From: Ronel Mathena [ronelis @pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:15 PM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: City Council Submission for March 24th Hearing Newport City Council c/o Ms. Leilani I. Brown City Clerk, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Dear Ms. Brown and the Newport City Council, I am requesting that this email be provided to all City Council members and become part of the public record for the March 24, 2009 public hearing regarding the Group Residential Use Permits for both 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. (Ocean Recovery, LLC) and 1216 W. Balboa Blvd (Newport Recovery). 1115 W. Balboa Blvd (Ocean Recovery. LLC) I am writing to object to the decision of the Hearing Officer to continue the public hearing to a date certain (i.e. 6 months). A total of 143 petition signatures were submitted to the City requesting denial of this application. Additionally, the City received numerous letters, pictures and public testimony from local neighbors that clearly highlight that this facility and its clients have consistently operated in a manner that is detrimental to the local neighborhood for the past five years. Noise, profanity, illegal gatherings, excessive second hand smoke on adjoining properties, no full time supervision, utilization of parking garages for meeting rooms were all substantiated by the neighbors. Additionally, this facility is within 100 feet of the residential care facility previously approved at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd., which represents an overconcentration of these businesses in our neighborhood, and importantly, the number of these businesses that are close to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds. I believe the local neighbors have provided the City with strong and compelling evidence that should have led the Hearing Officer and the City to deny this Ocean Recovery Use Permit. I am now asking the City Council to direct the Hearing Officer to make his decision now and deny this Use Permit without further delay. It is now time for the City to consider the safety and wellbeing of the neighborhood. 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. (Newport Recovery) The Hearing Officer has already denied this application based upon its close proximity to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds, the long history of repeated nuisances (smoking, loitering, loud noise, profanity), and repeated permit and code violations by the Operator. The public's input, signed petition and letters of opposition provided to the City have substantiated this Operator's unacceptable performance record. Therefore, I am urging the City to uphold the prior decision made by the Hearing Officer and deny the Use Permit for this facility. Newport City Council c/o Ms. Leilani I. Brown City Clerk, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Dear Ms. Brown and the Newport City Council, I am requesting that this letter be provided to all City Council members and become part of the public record for the March 24, 2009 public hearing regarding the Group Residential Use Permits for both 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. (Ocean Recovery, LLC) and 1216 W. Balboa Blvd (Newport Recovery). 1115 W. Balboa Blvd (Ocean Recovery. LLC) I am writing to object to the decision of the Hearing Officer to continue the public hearing to a date certain (i.e. 6 months). A total of 143 petition signatures were submitted to the City requesting denial of this application. Additionally, the City received numerous letters, pictures and public testimony from local neighbors that clearly highlight that this facility and its clients have consistently operated in a manner that is detrimental to the local neighborhood for the past five years. Noise, profanity, illegal gatherings, excessive second hand smoke on adjoining properties, no full time supervision, utilization of parking garages for meeting rooms were all substantiated by the neighbors. Additionally, this facility is within 100 feet of the residential care facility previously approved at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd., which represents an overconcentration of these businesses in our neighborhood, and importantly, the number of these businesses that are close to Newport Elementary. School and playgrounds. I believe the local neighbors have provided the City with strong and compelling evidence that should have led the Hearing Officer and the City to deny this Ocean Recovery Use Permit. I am now asking the City Council to direct the Hearing Officer to make his decision now and deny this Use Permit without further delay. It is now time for the City to consider the safety and wellbeing of the neighborhood. 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. (Newport Recovery) The Hearing Officer has already denied this application based upon its close proximity to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds, the long history of repeated nuisances (smoking, loitering, loud noise, profanity), and repeated permit and code violations by the Operator. The public's input, signed petition and letters of opposition provided to the City have substantiated this Operator's unacceptable performance record. Therefore, I am urging the City to uphold the prior decision made by the Hearing Officer and deny the Use Permit for this facility. Sincerely, Tom Taylor 901 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach,Ca.92661 19 March 2009 Newport City Council c/o Ms. Leilani I. Brown City Clerk, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Dear Ms. Brown and the Newport City Council, I am requesting that this letter be provided to all City Council members and become part of the public record for the March 24, 2009 public hearing regarding the Group Residential Use Permits for both 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. (Ocean Recovery, LLC) and 1216 W. Balboa Blvd (Newport Recovery). 1115 W. Balboa Blvd (Ocean Recovery. LLC) I am writing to object to the decision of the Hearing Officer to continue the public hearing to a date certain (i.e. 6 months). A total of 143 petition signatures were submitted to the City requesting denial of this application. Additionally, the City received numerous letters, pictures and public testimony from local neighbors that clearly highlight that this facility and its clients have consistently operated in a manner that is detrimental to the local neighborhood for the past five years. Noise, profanity, illegal gatherings, excessive second hand smoke on adjoining properties, no full time supervision, utilization of parking garages for meeting rooms were all substantiated by the neighbors. Additionally, this facility is within 100 feet of the residential care facility previously approved at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd., which represents an overconcentration of these businesses in our neighborhood, and importantly, the number of these businesses that are close to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds. I believe the local neighbors have provided the City with strong and compelling evidence that should have led the Hearing Officer and the City to deny this Ocean Recovery Use Permit. I am now asking the City Council to direct the Hearing Officer to make his decision now and deny this Use Permit without further delay. It is now time for the City to consider the safety and wellbeing of the neighborhood. 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. (Newport Recovery) The Hearing Officer has already denied this application based upon its close proximity to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds, the long history of repeated nuisances (smoking, loitering, loud noise, profanity), and repeated permit and code violations by the Operator. The public's input, signed petition and letters of opposition provided to the City have substantiated this Operator's unacceptable performance record. Therefore, I am urging the City to uphold the prior decision made by the Hearing Officer and deny the Use Permit for this facility. Victor and Wendela Sellier 1116 W. Oceanfront Newport Beach, Ca. 92661 Mailing Address: 3 Clarks Branch Rd. Great Falls, Va. 22066 Newport City Council c/o Ms, Leilani I. Brown City Clerk, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Dear Ms. Brown and the Newport City Council, I am requesting that this letter be provided to all City Council members and become part of the public record for the March 24, 2009 public hearing regarding the Group Residential Use Permits for both 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. (Ocean Recovery, LLC) and 1216 W. Balboa Blvd (Newport Recovery). 1115 W. Balboa Blvd (Ocean Recovery, LLCI I am writing to object to the decision of the Hearing Officer to continue the public hearing to a date certain (i.e. 6 months). A total of 143 petition signatures were submitted to the City requesting denial of this application. Additionally, the City received numerous letters, pictures and public testimony from local neighbors that clearly highlight that this facility and its clients have consistently operated in a manner that is detrimental to the local neighborhood for the past five years. Noise, profanity, illegal gatherings, excessive second hand smoke on adjoining properties, no full time supervision, utilization of parking garages for meeting rooms were all substantiated by the neighbors. Additionally, this facility is within 100 feet of the residential care facility previously approved at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd., which represents an overconcentration of these businesses in our neighborhood, and importantly, the number of these businesses that are close to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds. I believe the local neighbors have provided the City with strong and compelling evidence that should have led the Hearing Officer and the City to deny this Ocean Recovery Use Permit. I am now asking the City Council to direct the Hearing Officer to make his decision now and deny this Use Permit without further delay. It is now time for the City to consider the safety and wellbeing of the neighborhood. 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. (Newport Recovery) The Hearing Officer has already denied this application based upon its close proximity to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds, the long history of repeated nuisances (smoking, loitering, loud noise, profanity), and repeated permit and code violations by the Operator. The public's input, signed petition and letters of opposition provided to the City have substantiated this Operator's unacceptable performance record. Therefore, I am urging the City to uphold the prior decision made by the Hearing Officer and deny the Use Permit for this facility. Joseph & Kristi Verdugo 1113 W. Balboa Bl., Newport Beach, CA 92661 Newport City Council c/o Ms. Leilani I. Brown City Clerk, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Dear Ms. Brown and the Newport City Council, I am requesting that this letter be provided to all City Council members and become part of the public record for the March 24, 2009 public hearing regarding the Group Residential Use Permits for both 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. (Ocean Recovery, LLC) and 1216 W. Balboa Blvd (Newport Recovery). 1115 W. Balboa Blvd (Ocean Recovery. LLC) I am writing to object to the decision of the Hearing Officer to continue the public hearing to a date certain (i.e. 6 months). A total of 143 petition signatures were submitted to the City requesting denial of this application. Additionally, the City received numerous letters, pictures and public testimony from local neighbors that clearly highlight that this facility and its clients have consistently operated in a manner that is detrimental to the local neighborhood for the past five years. Noise, profanity, illegal gatherings, excessive second hand smoke on adjoining properties, no full time supervision, utilization of parking garages for meeting rooms were all substantiated by the neighbors. Additionally, this facility is within 100 feet of the residential care facility previously approved at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd., which represents an overconcentration of these businesses in our neighborhood, and importantly, the number of these businesses that are close to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds. I believe the local neighbors have provided the City with strong and compelling evidence that should have led the Hearing Officer and the City to deny this Ocean Recovery Use Permit. I am now asking the City Council to direct the Hearing Officer to make his decision now and deny this Use Permit without further delay. It is now time for the City to consider the safety and wellbeing of the neighborhood. 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. (Newport Recovery) The Hearing Officer has already denied this application based upon its close proximity to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds, the long history of repeated nuisances (smoking, loitering, loud noise, profanity), and repeated permit and code violations by the Operator. The public's input, signed petition and letters of opposition provided to the City have substantiated this Operator's unacceptable performance record. Therefore, I am urging the City to uphold the prior decision made by the Hearing Officer and deny the Use Permit for this facility. Name Terry and Laurie McKenzie Address 1151 West Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 March 24, 2009 VIA E -MAIL AND FACSIMILE Edward D. Selich, Mayor City Council City of Newport Beach Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 "RECEIV D AFTER AGENDA PRIKEW' -0q__ 650 Town Center Drive 1 4th Floor I Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1993 714- 513 -5100 ofrrce I 714 - 513 -5130 fox I w ..rheppordmuff pxom Writer's Direct Line: 714424 -2846 socmnor@sheppardmullin.com our Pik Num6ec 14YP- 136436 n j YQ c w Re: Appeal of Hearing Officer's Continuance of Use Permit Hearing at 1 l Ij° W. Balboa Blvd. (Ocean Recovery) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This firm represents Ocean Recovery, LLC, operator of a residential care facility at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard. For the reasons set forth below, we urge the City Council to conclude that the continuance of the use permit hearing was not a "decision," and is therefore not appealable. Alternatively, in the event that the continuance is deemed a "decision," the Hearing Officer's decision to continue the hearing is supported by substantial evidence and should be upheld. Ocean Recovery specifically requests that this letter be made part of the record on this matter. As noted in the City Attorney's March 24, 2009 Staff Report (the "Staff Report"), only "final" decisions are appealable. First Security Bank of California v. Paquet (2002) 98 Cal.App. 4a' 468, 472. In this matter, the Hearing Officer made no "final" decision, but instead merely adopted an agreement between the City and Ocean Recovery. (BSN 0353- 0361). Indeed, the Hearing Officer summarized City staffs proposal to continue the hearing for approximately six months and specifically asked Ocean Recovery: "are you willing to live with this process ?" (BSN 0357). Ocean Recovery specifically responded that they were agreeable to the City's suggestion. (BSN 0357). It is important to note that the City staff suggested a continuance of the hearing and use the six month interval as a "test period" to better determine whether Ocean Recovery could satisfactorily operate under agreed upon conditions. (BSN 0353 - 0354). This "test period" was also suggested because some of the other operators (specifically the operator at 1 129 W. D!--�D� t ^i f1 J IM 0 SHEPPARD MULLIN 6If,73rlta & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Newport Beach March 24, 2009 Page 2 Balboa Blvd.) near Ocean Recovery's facility would presumably be shut down during the six month period.' City staff specifically recommended a continuance of six months on the hearing so that it could better analyze Ocean Recovery's operations without the operator at 1129 W. Balboa Blvd. in operation. Ocean Recovery agreed with the City's proposal to continue the hearing and the Hearing Officer adopted the agreement between the parties. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer made no decision subject to an appeal. Instead, City staff made a proposal to continue the hearing for six months, Ocean Recovery agreed to that proposal, and the Hearing Officer merely adopted the proposal of the parties. This is not a "final" decision subject to appeal. Even If The Continuance Is Considered A "Decision" Subject To Auoeal. Substantial Evidence Suunorts The Hearing Officer's Decision To Continue The Hearin. As noted in the Staff Report, if this action is appealable, the standard of review is "abuse of discretion." This means that, as also noted in the Staff Report, the City Council must support the Hearing Offtcer's continuance if there is substantial evidence to support that decision. Under the "abuse of discretion" standard, the decisions of the Hearing Officer are given substantial deference and are presumed correct. Sierra Club v. County Of Napa (2004 121 Cal.App.4' 1490, 1497. The parties seeking review (here, the appellant) bears the burden of showing that the Hearing Officer's decisions are not supported by substantial evidence on 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." Id. In this matter, even if the determination to continue the use permit hearing was a "decision" subject to appeal, there is clearly substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's determination in this regard. The Hearing Officer considered Ocean Recovery's arguments that the complained of problems were not caused by Ocean Recovery's clients, but by clients of an adjacent operator. In explaining City staffs rationale for a continuance, City staff commented: "I think there is enough uncertainty in this, especially, as it relates to 1129 [the adjacent operator] . . . we can continue this action and have a period of time where [Ocean Recovery] can prove that they can live by those conditions." (BSN 0353). City staff was clearly concerned that Ocean Recovery was being blamed for problems caused by the operator at 1129 W. Balboa Blvd., and in "fairness" suggested a continuance. City staff specifically noted: Ocean Recovery believes, and the evidence supports, that many of the concerns expressed by Ocean Recovery's neighbors were caused not by Ocean Recovery clients, but by the clients of the operator at 1129 W. Balboa Blvd., who is in the abatement process. SEMARD KLUIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Newport Beach March 24, 2009 Page 3 "a question in staffs mind is that, is the proximity to 1129 West Balboa causing a number of the problems that are attributed by 115 West Balboa? And in fairness to 115 West Balboa and to this process, I don't believe staff can make the evaluation that all of the problems in that block are caused by 1115. So this time period, staff believes, would have allowed us to take look at the operations without 1129 around and make an evaluation at that time." (BSN 0293 -0294) The Heating Officer also considered the fact that Ocean Recovery stated that it could operate satisfactorily with the conditions being imposed by City staffs revised recommendation. The Hearing Officer then suggested that the hearing be continued for six months to "see the extent to which [Ocean Recovery) has been able to live with these conditions." (BSN 0355 - 0356). Simply put, the Hearing Officer's decision to "put things on hold" to consider Ocean Recovery's operations without the impact of operations at 1129 W. Balboa Blvd. made good sense and was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, even if this is considered a "decision" subject to appeal, it must be upheld, because substantial evidence supports that decision. Conclusion The Hearing Officer's continuance of the hearing was not a "decision" subject to appeal, but instead was merely an adoption of a proposal between City staff and Ocean Recovery. Further, even if the continuance is considered a "decision" subject to appeal, substantial evidence supports that determination such that it must be upheld by the City Council. Ve y yours, Sean P. O'Conno� for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP W 02- W EST: NSO440 14 4 78 8 1.1 cc: City Clerk David Hunt, City Attorney "RECEI'V ..FTER,�¢GENDA RECFIVE Thomas A. Techentin 444 S. Flower Street, Suite el C 9 1 Tel: 213- 362 -9200, ext. 219 Fax: - - V March 23, 2009 !Cc g Newport City Council CIfi' ( I B, ACN C/o Ms. Leilani I. Brown City Clerk, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 RE: Business Use/Residential Area Dear Ms. Brown and the Newport City Council, I have communicated to you earlier about the matter of conducting a business in residential areas on the Peninsula. I now sending you this draft created by my well - intended neighbors and I am requesting that this letter be provided to all City Council members and become part of the public record for the March 24, 2009 public hearing regarding the Group Residential Use Permits for both 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. (Ocean Recovery, LLC) and 1216 W. Balboa Blvd (Newport Recovery). 1115 W. Balboa Blvd (Ocean Recovery. LLCI I am writing to object to the decision of the Hearing Officer to continue the public hearing to a date certain (i.e. 6 months). A total of 143 petition signatures were submitted to the City requesting denial of this application. Additionally, the City received numerous letters, pictures and public testimony from local neighbors that clearly highlight that this facility and its clients have consistently operated in a manner that is detrimental to the local neighborhood for the past five years. Noise, profanity, illegal gatherings, excessive second hand smoke on adjoining properties, no full time supervision, utilization of parking garages for meeting rooms were all substantiated by the neighbors. Additionally, this facility is within 100 feet of the residential care facility previously approved at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd., which represents an over concentration of these businesses in our neighborhood, and importantly, the number of these businesses that are close to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds. I believe the local neighbors have provided the City with strong and compelling evidence that should have led the Hearing Officer and the City to deny this Ocean Recovery Use Permit. I am now asking the City Council to direct the Hearing Officer to make his decision now and deny this Use Permit without further delay. It is now time for the City to consider the safety and wellbeing of the neighborhood. 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. (Newport Recovery) The Hearing Officer has already denied this application based upon its close proximity to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds, the long history of repeated nuisances (smoking, loitering, loud noise, profanity), and repeated permit and code violations by the Operator. The public's input, signed petition and letters of opposition provided to the City have substantiated this Operator's unacceptable performance record. Therefore, I am urging the City to uphold the prior decision made by the Hearing Officer and deny the Use Permit for this facility. Tom Techentin 640 Magnolia Avenue Pasadena, CA 91106-3622 "RECEIV D A ER AGEND Brown, Leilani PRINTED:" 0 302 -( From: BandCSisco @aol.com Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 4:37 PM To: (brown @city.newport - beach..ca.us; p.lopez @adelphia.net Subject: 1115 W. Balboa Sober Living Facility— Newport City Council c/o Ms. Leilani I. Brown City Clerk, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Dear Ms. Brown and the Newport City Council, I am requesting that this letter be provided to all City Council members and become part of the public record for the March 24, 2009 public hearing regarding the Group Residential Use Permits for both 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. (Ocean Recovery, LLC) and 1216 W. Balboa Blvd (Newport Recovery). 1115 W. Balboa Blvd (Ocean Recovery, LLC) I am writing to object to the decision of the Hearing Officer to continue the public hearing to a date certain (i.e. 6 months). A total of 143 petition signatures were submitted to the City requesting denial of this application. Additionally, the City received numerous letters, pictures and public testimony from local neighbors that clearly highlight that this facility and its clients have consistently operated in a manner that is detrimental to the local neighborhood for the past five years. Noise, profanity, illegal gatherings, excessive second hand smoke on adjoining properties, no full time supervision, utilization of parking garages for meeting rooms were all substantiated by the neighbors. Additionally, this facility is within 100 feet of the residential care facility previously approved at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd., which represents an overconcentration of these businesses in our neighborhood, and importantly, the number of these businesses that are close to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds. I believe the local neighbors have provided the City with strong and compelling evidence that should have led the Hearing Officer and the City to deny this Ocean Recovery Use Permit. I am now asking the City Council to direct the Hearing Officer to make his decision now and deny this Use Permit without further delay. It is now time for the City to consider the safety and well being of the neighborhood. 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. (Newaort Recovery) The Hearing Officer has already denied this application based upon its close proximity to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds, the long history of repeated nuisances (smoking, loitering, loud noise, profanity), and repeated permit and code violations by the Operator. The public's input, signed petition and letters of opposition provided to the City have substantiated this Operator's unacceptable performance record. Therefore, I am urging the City to uphold the prior decision made by the Hearing Officer and deny the Use Permit for this facility. Name: Mr. and Mrs. George W. Sisco Address: 1133 W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. I am requesting that this letter be provided to all City Council members and become part of the public record for the March 24, 2009 public hearing regarding the Group Residential Use Permits for both 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. (Ocean Recovery, LLC) and 1216 W. Balboa Blvd (Newport Recovery). 1115 W. Balboa Blvd (Ocean Recovery, LLCI I am writing to object to the decision of the Hearing Officer to continue the public hearing to a date certain (i.e. 6 months). A total of 143 petition signatures were submitted to the City requesting denial of this application. Additionally, the City received numerous letters, pictures and public testimony from local neighbors that clearly highlight that this facility and its clients have consistently operated in a manner that is detrimental to the local neighborhood for the past five years. Noise, profanity, illegal gatherings, excessive second hand smoke on adjoining properties, no full time supervision, utilization of parking garages for meeting rooms were all substantiated by the neighbors. Additionally, this facility is within 100 feet of the residential care facility previously approved at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd., which represents an overconcentration of these businesses in our neighborhood, and importantly, the number of these businesses that are close to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds. I believe the local neighbors have provided the City with strong and compelling evidence that should have led the Hearing Officer and the City to deny this Ocean Recovery Use Permit. I am now asking the City Council to direct the Hearing Officer to make his decision now and deny this Use Permit without further delay. It is now time for the City to consider the safety and wellbeing of the neighborhood. 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. (Newport Recovery) The Hearing Officer has already denied this application based upon its close proximity to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds, the long history of repeated nuisances (smoking, loitering, loud noise, profanity), and repeated permit and code violations by the Operator. The public's input, signed petition and letters of opposition provided to the City have substantiated this Operator's unacceptable performance record. Therefore, I am urging the City to uphold the prior decision made by the Hearing Officer and deny the Use Permit for this facility. Kim Flores 1113 % W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92661 RECENED Newport City Council c/o Ms. Leilani I. Brown 1 ?9 MAR 24 A 8: 31 City Clerk, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. O, , C r E OF Newport Beach, CA 92661 1` Ci Y C,! ERK CI P/ 0= ;:., - A;,R 7 BEgrN Dear Ms. Brown and the Newport City Council, I am requesting that this letter be provided to all City Council members and become part of the public record for the March 24, 2009 public hearing regarding the Group Residential Use Permits for both 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. (Ocean Recovery, LLC) and 1216 W. Balboa Blvd (Newport Recovery). 1115 W. Balboa Blvd (Ocean Recovery, LLCI I am writing to object to the decision of the Hearing Officer to continue the public hearing to a date certain (i.e. 6 months). A total of 143 petition signatures were submitted to the City requesting denial of this application. Additionally, the City received numerous letters, pictures and public testimony from local neighbors that clearly highlight that this facility and its clients have consistently operated in a manner that is detrimental to the local neighborhood for the past five years. Noise, profanity, illegal gatherings, excessive second hand smoke on adjoining properties, no full time supervision, utilization of parking garages for meeting rooms were all substantiated by the neighbors. Additionally, this facility is within 100 feet of the residential care facility previously approved at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd., which represents an overconcentration of these businesses in our neighborhood, and importantly, the number of these businesses that are close to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds. I believe the local neighbors have provided the City with strong and compelling evidence that should have led the Hearing Officer and the City to deny this Ocean Recovery Use Permit. I am now asking the City Council to direct the Hearing Officer to make his decision now and deny this Use Permit without further delay. It is now time for the City to consider the safety and wellbeing of the neighborhood. 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. (Newport Recovery) The Hearing Officer has already denied this application based upon its close proximity to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds, the long history of repeated nuisances (smoking, loitering, loud noise, profanity), and repeated permit and code violations by the Operator. The public's input, signed petition and letters of opposition provided to the City have substantiated this Operator's unacceptable performance record. Therefore, I am urging the City to uphold the prior decision made by the Hearing Officer and deny the Use Permit for this facility. Kim Flores 1113 % W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92661 RECEIVED Newport City Council c/o Ms. Leilani I. Brown 2V MAR 24 A 8: 3'1 City Clerk, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. OFFICE OF Newport Beach, CA 92661 THE CR CLERK Dear Ms. Brown and the Newport City Council, I am requesting that this letter be provided to all City Council members and become part of the public record for the March 24, 2009 public hearing regarding the Group Residential Use Permits for both 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. (Ocean Recovery, LLC) and 1216 W. Balboa Blvd (Newport Recovery). 1115 W. Balboa Blvd (Ocean Recovery. LLC) I am writing to object to the decision of the Hearing Officer to continue the public hearing to a date certain (i.e. 6 months). A total of 143 petition signatures were submitted to the City requesting denial of this application. Additionally, the City received numerous letters, pictures and public testimony from local neighbors that clearly highlight that this facility and its clients have consistently operated in a manner that is detrimental to the local neighborhood for the past five years. Noise, profanity, illegal gatherings, excessive second hand smoke on adjoining properties, no full time supervision, utilization of parking garages for meeting rooms were all substantiated by the neighbors. Additionally, this facility is within 100 feet of the residential care facility previously approved at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd., which represents an over concentration of these businesses in our neighborhood, and importantly, the number of these businesses that are close to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds. I believe the local neighbors have provided the City with strong and compelling evidence that should have led the Hearing Officer and the City to deny this Ocean Recovery Use Permit. I am now asking the City Council to direct the Hearing Officer to make his decision now and deny this Use Permit without further delay. It is now time for the City to consider the safety and wellbeing of the neighborhood. 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. (Newport Recovery) The Hearing Officer has already denied this application based upon its close proximity to Newport Elementary School and playgrounds, the long history of repeated nuisances (smoking, loitering, loud noise, profanity), and repeated permit and code violations by the Operator. The public's input, signed petition and letters of opposition provided to the City have substantiated this Operator's unacceptable performance record. Therefore, I am urging the City to uphold the prior decision made by the Hearing Officer and deny the Use Permit for this facility. Thank you, Bob and Laura Keane 808 West Oceanfront Newport Beach, CA 92661 Mar 24 09 08:07a LEVENTHAL 949 723 0753 p.1 RECEIVED 20 LIAR 24 AN D 30 0,77HCE OF TrE CITY CLERK CITY Ot VV 'CRT BEACH malk,L el-?r3, C PnD � k-=4 „� J i f / i s i i :s • t m-8-0-pq OCEAN RECOVERY APPEAL HEARING EXCERPTS FROM RECORD Larry Mathena 1125 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92661 949 -752 -5115 Extension 18 mathenaesq @aoLcom February 2, 2009 TO: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer David ICHi; Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Ocean Recovery at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach • Use Permit No. 2008430 Application ISSUE: Should the Hearing Officer approve or deny Occan Recovery's application for a Use Permit for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard (UP- 2008-030), to allow a residential care facility to operate a state licensed adult alcohol and/or drug abuse sober living facility for 22 resident (male only) clients? ACTION: 1. Conduct the Public Hearing; and 2. Deny the Use Permit for Failare to meet the requirement ofthe City's Group Residential Uses Ordinance ("Ordinance" or "Ordinance 2008 -05'j. To protect the integrity of residentially turned areas of the city, residential uses like boarding houses and fratemitieslsororities have been prohibited in all residential districts. Following the adoption of Ordinance 2008 -05 on January 22, 2008, the City has changed the way it regulates residential uses that do not consist of a single housekeeping unit' but Provide group home living arrangements for the disabled, such as sober homes and alcohol and drug recovery treatment homes licensed by the State of California's Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs ( "ADP"). In Cafiforoia ADP Fact Sheet, California in Treatment: Fiscal Year 2006 -07 the following point is noted: 27% of residents of a rehabilitation facility do no abstain from using their primary drug during their residency. This is consistent with the Operations -- .... - OR 0157 there has been a substantial amount of evidence submitted proving Ocean Recovery's inability to meet the requirements necessary to receive a Use Permit. Correspor deuce from nearby residents delivered to you (some but not all of which is attached to this document as Exhibit One) indicate that at the 1115 West Balboa site - Ocean Recovery: • has eliminated all on -site parking, despite the fact that some of its residents and marry of its regular visitors drive and park automobiles at the facility; • constantly generates second -hand smoke at the facility which permeates the adjoining neighbors' properties; • has clients at the facility regularly using inappropriate coarse, vulgar language full of curse words often within hearing range of young girls; • accumulates dramatic amounts of trash which is stored without proper bagging directly below the open windows of neighbors' bedroom windows- causing odor and beg problems when it Is warm:, • has not adequately supervised its clients. There is a reoccurring theme in the correspondences received of inappropriate behavior; • does not adhere to the required "quiet time fmm 10 pm to g am, and in violating this requirement, its clients use loud and crude language both late at night and very early in the morning; • clients participate in the institutionalized weekend alcohol and drug rehabilitation gatherings on the beach at 15th street, just 50 foes away from children utilizing the playground; and • is evidence of over the overconcenhation of residential care facilities on the 1100 and 1200 blocks of West Balboa Boulevard. Additional salient facts: Ocean Recovery, despite having its operations begin in 2004 at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard in 2004, never applied for a Federal Exemption Permit under the law that existed prior to the Ordinance. A petition signed by 120 neighborhood residents of the neighborhood expressing their position that there is an overooncentratiort of group residential facilities and that there are too many- too close to Newport Elementary school and the Use Permit for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard (as well as 1601 West Balboa Boulevard) should be denied. A copy of the petition is attached as Exhibit 1t . OR 0159 1. NBMC Section 20.91.035(A) Finding NO. 1: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The use is not in conformance with the requirements of this finding and this fading cannot be made for the following reasons: This finding cannot be made because the use is not in accord with the objectives of NBMC Section 20.91A.010. One of the two stated purposes in the provisions of this section is "to protect and implement the recovery and residential integration of the disabled, including time receiving treatment and counseling in connection with dependency recovery. In doing so the City seeks to avoid the ovarooncentration of residential raze facilities so that such facilities are reasonably dispersed throughout the community and are not congregated or over - concentrated in any particular area so as to institutionalize the area." The achievement of this purpose is compromised at the subject property location by the proximity of the surrounding uses. There is easy access to alcoholic beverages at two locations - three and a half blocks away. Due to the sober living objective of the project use, nearby commercial uses that either serve and!or sell alcoholic beverages is a concern. Sven more troubling is the degree of residential care facilities nearby. A rises to the level of institutionalization of the area. There are four other facilities less than a block length away. An 11 bed facility is dkeWy across the street (1132 West Balboa Boulevard). Another 14 bed facility is one house away (1129 West Balboa Boulevard). A third 29 bed facility is a block away (1216 West Balboa Boulevard). Another 6 bed facility will be a little more than a block away (1217 West Bay). including the Applicant- within less than 550 feet (less than calculable median block length of 617 feet in the area as will be discussed in greater detail below) there am currently five residential ewe facilities with a total of 92 beds). This is institutionalization. 2. NBMC Section 20.91.035(A) Finding NO2: That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safely, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity of to the general welfare ofibe city. The use is not in conformance with the requirements of this finding and this finding can not be made for the following reasons: General Plan Policy LU 62.7 directs that the City regulate day care and residential care facilities to the maximum extent allowed by federal and state law so as to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods. But based on the record provided- substantial OR 0161 a) No secondhand smoke can be detectable outside the property. b) Operations must comply with state and local law, the submitted management standards plan, including any modifications required by this Use Permit c) A contact name and number be provided. d) No services requiring a license can be provided if the facility does not have a license for those services. e) There shall be no more than 2 persons per bedroom plus one additional resident, unless a greater occupancy is requested and granted. Occupancy must also comply with state licensing if applicable. f) If certification from an entity other than ADP's licensing program is available, applicants must get that certification. g) All individuals and entities involved in the facility's operation and ownership must be disclosed. h) No owner or manager shall have any demonstrated pattern of operating similar Facilities in violation of the law. There is substantial evidence in the record indicating that Development and Operational Standards Near (a) will not be met and therefore, this finding cannot be made because many residents of the City have provided testimony, of the serious, unrelenting problem of second hand smoke at the facility. The applicant has root provided any reasonable basis for how it would avoid this problem at the facility. 6. NBMC Section 2091A.060 Finding B: The project includes sufficing oo-sfte Parking for the use, and traffic and transportation impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. The use is not in conformance with the requirements of this fording and this finding can not be made for the following reasons: The NBMC states that the required number of off - street parking and loading spaces for a residential care facility is one space per throe beds. Based on the evidence provided, *a project site provides no parking spaces in the garage at the rear of the building. The number of parking spaces provided do not meet requirements of the code. Based on the evidence provided by adjoining residents the complete elimination of Ig spaces provided on -site by the Applicant, leaves it to meet the parking needs for the activities of the facility. In addition the adjoin residents have provided evidence indicating flat the facility vans provides transportation for residents are blocking the alley behind the facility. 7. NBMC Section 20.41A.060 Finding C: The property and existing shuctrues are physically suited to accommodate the use. The writer is unable to generate a conclusion on this finding at this tune. OR 0163 weekend mammoth drug and alcohol meetings beside the school playground are direct evidence of this overeoncentration in precisely the wrong location for the City and its residents. The petition submitted by the surrounding residents of the elementary school speaks directly to this overconcenuration at such a sensitive point. In addition, if the Hearing Officer did determine to apply the American Planning Association Standard under Subsection Be above, he should determine under the Standard that the Use Permit should be denied under the terms of the Standard. A detailed analysis of the Standard is attached as Exhibit Three. As the analysis notes, the Standard states that one or two "Group Homes" are acceptable per city block. But Applicant's Use Permit is not for a "Group Home" as defined under the Standard -- it is for a Halfway House. The Standard is clear that a higher degree of regulation and separation is warranted for such a use. Clearly, in light of the existence of a total of five facilities and 92 beds (f Applicants facility is included) within a distance shorter than a median block in the area the Standard is dramatically exceeded. 9. NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding E: The operation of buses and vans to transport residents to and from off -site activities does not generate vehicular traffic substantially greater than that normally generated by residential activities in the surrounding area The use is not in conformance with the requirements of this fording, subject to appropriate conditions. This fording can not be made because facility vans do park, load, and unload illegally in the alley blocking the flow of traffic, because there are no garages available onsite. 10. NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding F: Arrangements for delivery ofgoods are made within the hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quid of neighboring properties. The writer is unable to generate a conclusion on this finding at this time. 11. NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding G: Arrangements for commercial trash collection in excess of usual residential colketion arc made within hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. The use is not in conformance with the requirements of this finding. This finding can not be made because there has been credible evidence presented that trash in excess of usual residential collection is present but no commercial trash collection occurs at the facility. APPLICANT UNQUALIFIED TO MAKE PERMIT APPLICATION In any event, Occan Recover is not qualified to apply for and receive a Use Permit under NBMC Section 20.62.030 (Determination of Nonconformity). Subsection B ofNBMC OR 0165 1. Newport Beach Residents Comspondcnces 2. Newport Beach Residents Petition 3. American Plamling Association Standard Analysis . 11 OR 0167 OCEAN RECOVERY APPEAL HEARING PICTURE ONE i % OCEAN RECOVERY APPEAL HEARING PICTURE TWO 6 F l 3, J. � ._ .. r.. .,.��,......- - -� `` (yam ♦ 6 F l 3, J.