Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc minutes - 06-21-07Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 50 file :HF: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren: Commissioner Hillgren arrived at 7:45 and Commissioner Peotter was excused STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Principal Civil Engineer Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Barbara E. Kautz Attorney at Law for Goldfarb Lipman Polly Marshall, Attorney at Law for Goldfarb Lipman Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on June 15, 2007. HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of May 17, 2007. Approved Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Excused: Peotter, Hillgren ITEM NO. 2 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of June 7, 2007. Approved Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the minutes as written. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge Page 1 of 50 file :HF: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 None Peotter. H ITEM NO. 3 JECT: 3 Thirty 3 Waterfront (PA2007 -004) PA2007 -004 333 Bayside Drive Approved application for an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit to allow the ;truction and operation of a 636 square foot outdoor dining area in unction with the existing full - service restaurant. enior Planner Patrick Alford noted staff has returned with a resolution pproval of the Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit with the conditions irected by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. He noted he I iet with some of the Lido Isle residents that morning who reques dditional clarifications and provisions to be placed in the conditions. aid they will be presenting these during public comment for Planr :ommission deliberation. He said a revised resolution has been distribu its evening at the dais that includes these additional recommendations. missioner Hawkins noted Condition 6 needs to have the adjusted. comment was opened. Al Dubrow, local resident noted changes on the conditions of approval: #7 - Extend the Plexiglas wall /screen partition on the west and soutt elevations, #8 - add the Parking Plan shall be approved by the Plannin< Department, #11 - add in -door noise requirements to the table, #17 - delete the use of umbrellas for shade purposes on the patio w there is no need, #18 - annual review by the Planning Department, #21 - add signage directing patrons to be courteous to residentia neighbors while outside the establishment. nmissioner Hawkins asked if the applicant agrees to the revise( )lution, would the folks on Linda Isle be appealing this decision? edition 11 periodic review, was by the Planning Department or the fining Commission? Dubrow answered he would not be appealing and he prefers idic review by the Planning Commission. 3ioner Eaton noted that in Condition 8, the Public ent handles review of circulation plans. Dubrow answered he would like both the Planning Department nning Commission to review the circulation plan. hairman Cole asked if Condition 14 was enforceable. Lepo answered this is very broad and is intended for the file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007 \mn06- 21- 07.htm Page 2 of 50 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 the proprietor as to his responsibility including having his security talk trons. He then noted a letter from Mr. Battaile that was received tl ernoon. He noted that both the noise ordinance and nuisance ordinan wide for limitations and this condition need not be part of the resoluti it is redundant. McCalla, local resident noted: Questions the validity of the timing of the noise testing, The base data was collected during off -peak times as to thf operation of the restaurant in January and April, We are concerned with the noise levels during July througl September, The larger the crowd the more amplified the sounds are, Study done in 1998 for the City included the review of nois( standards in relation to intrusion from restaurants in residentia areas, The summation included questions on this noise ordinance and the impacts concluding that there was inadequacy of the noise standards addressing potential impact of restaurant activity nois( levels as noise sources are sporadic and of short duration, Base data used for this application was done at the Blue Water Grill. missioner Hawkins asked if the applicant agrees to the ution would you be appealing this decision? McCalla answered he would accept it and hope that the ann Benvenuti, local resident asked about the occupancy of the outdc ing area. With the area that has been cleared for the smokers, what limit of the number of people allowed on the patio? missioner Hawkins asked if the applicant agrees to the ution would you be appealing this decision? Benvenuti answered if her question was satisfied as to the number ipants, she would accept this. Alford gave a quick calculation on the outdoor patio, if it was cleared ng tables, results in 636 square feet with a potential occupancy of pie. He noted staff had asked at the last meeting whether I nmission wanted to restrict occupants or seats and the Commissl cted staff to restrict seats. mmissioner Eaton clarified that this number was based on the removal tables. He asked what the number would be if there was seating for Alford answered that it depends on what cleared area is left and coy based on 1 person for 15 square feet (seating) or 1 person per 7 squa t (assembly purposes) Battaile, lawyer representing previous speakers and other Linda its. noted: Page 3 of 50 file: / /F: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Page 4 of 50 Concerned with interior noise standards listed in the staff report 12 decibels lower than the ambient outside, Letter from their Acoustical Engineer points out this situation different as clients' bedroom windows face this outdoor dining area, Noise will come directly across the water to bedroom windows, Interior noise standards are mandatory and need to be imposed : the applicant can not do something to violate policies in the Gener Plan, Wants indoor noise standards included in the conditions of approval, Would ask that the applicant be required to perform indoor nois( measurements on weekend nights during the summer will equipment that could be left in the bedrooms operating overnight, It will prove to be loud enough to disturb the residents, Applicant has to comply with the General Plan and the Municipa Code, Clients can hire their own engineer and come back when the reviev is up and show that there are noise standard violations, Condition 14 is general and the applicant stated he could not contrc his patrons in the parking lot; you should not accept that and shouk impose specific conditions as to the amount of security and wha they have to do. Cole noted the newly revised resolution has the interior listed. Battaile answered he wants exactly what is noted in the General Pla Municipal Code (Chapter 10.26.055) as a condition of approval. ant City Attorney Harp suggested that rather than state what standards are, reference Chapter 10.26.055 so that if the standa I change, this condition will equate to the Chapter. Alford noted that the condition was not meant to exempt the r ndards and were included as an information item for the applicant / future operator. Reuter applicant, noted he has to make a profit and wants to be a gc Ihbor. There are now extra stipulations included that he does not ag . He noted it was unfair that the neighbors got together this mom sad of four days ago. What we had at the last meeting was the best hairman Cole asked which ones were problematic. Reuter answered the interior noise standards and having to provide in in a year's time. The City has strict standards and there is co �rcement and they can tell us if we are out of line. Measuring t •ior noises, the people knew when they bought the property that th facing a commercial property on a very busy street. He said he w pathetic and will do everything possible to mitigate noise. With the w fs are now, he will have to stop serving dinner at 8:30 p.m. in order e at 9:30 p.m. file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007 \mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 nan Cole noted there is no change in the noise standards and it in the conditions for information only. Reuter then noted he really did not have a concern about anything, the way it was presented. Hawkins asked if these are the conditions will you m? Reuter answered he will accept and abide by them. comment was closed. issioner McDaniel noted: #14 condition regarding the proprietor would control noise generat by patrons outside the facility. There is no way to tell if the noise coming from these patrons and there is no way to enforce tl condition and therefore suggests deleting this condition, #11 condition delete wording after Municipal Code as it is r needed, was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve F Dining Permit 2007 -001 with the revised resolution and issioner Eaton noted: # 8 condition should have the circulation plan submitted to the Planning Department not the Planning Commission as it is technical, #18 condition should be the Planning Commission, not the Planninc Department. the maker of the motion is willing to include these changes, then he acond the motion. McDaniel agreed, Motion was seconded by issioner Toerge noted: The one -year review is problematic in this case as this is not ; existing patio where we add a few tables, but is a situation whe the applicant will build a several hundred thousand dollar structu and what is the Commission going to do after a year if it is problem? Our options are limited and the opportunity to add 37 more dine potentially 50 -60 more occupants to this facility only exacerbates ti noise problems created elsewhere, The concept of good neighbor should be employed today. TI neighbors are being asked to compromise in an effort to ga something to mitigate an impact that currently exists. To me a go( neighbor would take care of that impact today and not necessar have to gain some new right to take care of the existing impact, The added patrons and number of people who will come to & facility it is not clear to me what happens at 9:30 p.m.? Will they l inside? If they are at capacity, how is this handled? Page 5 of 50 file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\nm06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Page 6 of 50 It is too much, too loud, too close to neighbors and agrees that t neighbors did know when they bought their property that commercial facility existed, but they didn't know that an outdo dining facility would exist there, The Commission is not questioning the ability to remain in busine: they are discussing whether it should be allowed to be expanded outdoor dining in an area that is 215 feet away across the water fro residences that are impacted, I can't find this consistent with our finding that it won't be detrimen to the health, safety and welfare of the nearby residences, so I not be supporting the motion. mmissioner McDaniel noted his respect for Commissioner Toerge nion; however, this application had been previously approved two se times and if this construction had gone ahead the Commission wou have any say or ability to mitigate this which is what we are trying It might be unfair to any applicant to not approve something that hz an previously approved. There is a limit, either build or not. h xessed concern about additional seating but there appears to be quite of parking there to accommodate this addition. nissioner Hawkins noted his agreement with Commissioner Toerge cents and can not support the motion even as revised. TI nission has reduced the number of seats on the outdoor patio by n percentage. He suggested the square footage should have be( ed by a similar percentage. He agreed with the requirements of V Ordinance as it is the Code. He disagrees about the parking as I A believe there is sufficient parking and the applicant is not belt •ed to provide more spaces. There are spaces further into the b; but they are not close to this site. He noted Condition 14 has tunity for the proprietor, through his valet, to control the noise of tl is in the parking lot. irman Cole clarified that Condition 8 should have the circulation nitted to Public Works. Brine noted that typically the Public Works reviews the parking and circulation plans. maker of the Motion agreed to make that change. Alford clarified that in Condition 6, the beginning hour is 9:00 a.m. ker of the Motion agreed. airman Cole noted this is a long- standing restaurant and the oper shown an ability to react to the concerns of his neighbors. With editions outlined in the resolution it should improve an existing situz he will be supporting the motion. Eaton, Cole and Hawkins, Toerge file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 airman Cole then suggested that the Commission take Item 5 prior n 4 as the majority of the members of the audience in attendance we that item and that item 5 could be dispensed quickly. was made by Commissioner Eaton and seconded by to take Item 5 first. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge and McDaniel Noes: None Excused: Peotter and Hilloren Code Amendment 2007 -005 hould Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code mended to revise definitions, land use classifications, and regulatil slating to group occupancies and short-term lodgings? mmissioner Hillgren arrived at 7:45 p.m. in time to hear and vote on following excerpt is written verbatim from the audio recording of Cole: What is in front of the Planning Commission is a proposed Co( Amendment to Title 20 which is related to the residential ca facilities of the City, These proposed changes have come from suggestions of tf Planning Department, the City Attomey's office and outside couns and the City Council, Asked that comments be focused on what is in front of us, It is not appropriate to comment negatively or personal in natu regarding the people who use the care facilities, commen regarding perceived decrease in property values have been deeme discriminatory and are not appropriate for this evening, Any specific complaints on specific locations is not in front of r tonight and that should be directed to the City's Code Enforcement, Thank you for not being repetitive, We will allow a couple of spokespersons for the different group little longer time up front, after that all speakers will be required keep to three minutes for the first hour and we may reduce that tin if it goes on, Respectfully ask for your consideration in all those areas. issioner Hawkins, special counsel had referred us to 42USC36 ing diminution of property values. That Code Section has a SL i F9, which talks about substantial physical damage to property. like to have special counsel address that issue, or the City Attorne,. Harp, the courts have ruled that perceived diminution in value that is r ported by factual evidence has been ruled to be discriminatory. file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm C! Continued to 07/19/2006 Page 7 of 50 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 ieve that is the issue. The perception that your property is worth le ;ause you are next to a sober living home has been held by the courts discriminatory. nmissioner Hawkins, if in fact the property has been vacant for over r next to a recovery or regulated home, is that the sort of evidence v talking about in F9? )Ily Marshall, from Goldfarb & Lipman, LLP, special counsel for the City: to whole section reads nothing in the subsection requires that a dwelling made available to an individual whose tendency would constitute rect threat to the health or safety of other individuals, or whose tendenc, )uld result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. Thi; the very end of the statute and there are things before this which explaii iat a city is required to do to accommodate individuals with disabilities. tis is put at the very end to say, however, you are not forced to dr iything that is actually going to be a real threat to health or safety o ibstantial physical damage. The whole point of that and what it is saying exactly what the Deputy City Attorney said, not unsubstantiated fears. ie whole thing about property values goes back more than twenty year, th the block busting thing with racial discrimination. Somebody woulc ove into the neighborhood and suddenly everyone would say thei operty values have gone down, it wasn't physical damage or a rea reat. There wasn't evidence that it was truly damaging the property, but i as a public perception that had kind of a cascading effect. I think this i; iat it is trying to get at but in a much broader context that we can tall rout it. I think that is what it means, sir. ;loner Hawkins: Thank you, but that does not answer t What sort of evidence does that allow? We've just heard on in connection with, in talking about a perceived diminution values, I can understand that. But if in fact houses next to V regulated home is vacant for over a year, is that evidence al damage? Marshall: Not necessarily because it says substantial physica age. I think if they took an ax and started ripping at the fence, tha d be physical damage. The fact that someone has chosen to vacatf home and left it empty because the people next door are no :ssarily to their liking, that is not physical damage. She added that shf r not know the facts of this case so maybe that is what happened be it was noise, maybe it was smoke, maybe it was parking, maybe i traffic. Hawkins: Those sorts would be physical damage? r. Marshall: They could be, physical damage and you would have to it on a case by case basis. >mmissioner Toerge: There is a sign -in sheet and we ask people to before you speak. It would be helpful if we could put it on the other to d as somebody is speaking and the next person wants to speak wi me and sign their name so we are not waiting for you to sign your m each speaker comes up. That way we can queue this through and Page 8 of 50 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Conllnission\PC Minutes\20071mn06-21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 dose continuity. I appreciate that. rman Cole thanked Commissioner Toerge for the good suggestion asked for the staff report. Marshall introduced her colleague, Barbara Kautz, and then gave am the City's attorney and along with Barbara represent land use and fa ousing lawyers. Cities come to us with real problems they want solve nd we understand the way land use law works as well as the Fair Housin nd Civil Rights law works. We try to help you do what you can do withi ie parameters of that law so that you actually have a law you can use an nplement that won't be challenged or, it if is challenged, won't necessaril e struck down by the courts. So, we are part of your team, we're on yoi ide and here actually looking forward to hearing the comments an uestions from all of you and from the public because this is the first dra ying to balance a lot of competing interests. We would like to hear wh, eople think about it and we'll go back and make changes, so that is th pirit in which we are here. I felt this was important to say, especially th ray it started. I am really on your side trying to help you do it within th gal parameters that you are faced with. In California the parameters ar ery complex and conflicting and it is very hard to make something the Teets all the requirements. Very quickly, I will start by saying. Basic premise of California land use law is that cities have th( authority to regulate uses. Cities have the authority to separate uses into different districts residential and commercial. Boarding houses and group home: present a headache for many cities, as you probably know, becaus( they are a mixture of residential and commercial. People who live in residential dwelling units as their residence bu have separate leases leads to a greater intensity of use and leads t( greater physical impact on neighborhoods. Because of that, cities do have the right to regulate group homes boarding houses, fraternities, they have the right to prohibit them. That in fact, is what you have been already doing in your ordinance. The broad scenario of your ordinance is to prohibit group homes However, under Federal and State Fair Housing law it is recognize( that group homes are in some instances the only way that disable( persons can live in a neighborhood. In order not to discriminate against persons with disabilities, cities have to make exceptions to their group home prohibitions in order t( permit group homes that serve people with disabilities. The theory is that because of their disabilities they can't necessaril) always live in a family household unit like other people might live it the neighborhood and that they need to live in a group home with certain level of organizational services to be able to live in tha neighborhood at all. We have drafted your zoning amendments to continue the genera group home prohibition to allow exceptions for the small license( homes and the main reason for that is because under State Law yot are required to treat small, licensed group homes that are for six o fewer occupants the same as single family homes. We have put in a use permit process to permit the larger grouF Page 9 of 50 file: / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Page 10 of 50 homes for the disabled after a use permit hearing with the ability to impose conditions on it if necessary for the sake of the neighborhood. We have tried to tighten up the rules to stop the abuses but at the same time make sure that the rights of the person with disabilities are protected. The theory is that if you protect the legitimate homes and we have tried to adopt rules that address which homes are legitimate homes serving the disabled that benefit the disabled to distinguish those from homes that are just a pretext that say they are serving tha population in order to get around your group home prohibition. We have tried to develop some standards that distinguish between those and perhaps one of the most important ones is this integral facilities definition, which Patrick will tell you about, where we have tried to identify the homes and create a process to deal with the homes which have said they are small licensed six or fewer but are actually operating as integral facilities, several of them together so they are larger and they really would require a use permit. We have tried to put that process in. The other thing I want to say before we get into the details is we have given you guys a memo on just basic fair housing) considerations. Briefly, so that we are all on the same page here tonight, Fair Housing Laws protect not just racial minorities, religious minorities but also people with disabilities. People who are recovering from drug and alcohol addiction are considered people with disabilities. Current users of controlled substances are excluded from the definition. A zoning ordinance that treats disabled people differently from non - disabled persons is considered by the courts to be facially discriminatory and illegal unless it benefits the disabled and that is what we have tried to do here. General prohibition against group homes and exceptions that benefit the disabled. Or, you can treat disabled persons differently if it is necessary for public safety based on real objective evidence and the courts have said, "not the un- substantiated fears of residents ". You can not, and you know this I am sure, implement an ordinance with discriminatory intent, which means that you can't say you are regulating it because of the parking when you are really regulating it to discriminate against the disabled. I don't think this is an issue foi people here tonight, but I need to establish the parameters. Finally, there is the concept of reasonable accommodation. Citiee have an affirmative duty to modify their policies and rules i necessary to give disabled persons equal opportunity to use anc enjoy a home. Cities do not have to modify their rules and do no have to grant a reasonable accommodation if it will pose an undue financial or administrative burden or a fundamental alteration to their policies. What we have done is try to balance all these requirements, tc tighten up the rules, prevent the abuses but do it legally so that you ordinance won't be challenged or will survive in court. I will say tha although I haven't heard yet what people will say tonight, that I thin{ the result will be typical, which is that no one is going to be satisfied. We have done this in other cities and it really is a balancing anc file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutcs\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Page 11 of 50 compromise to meet the conflicting requirements. The last thing I want to say is that the real challenge is going to the implementation. You are going to need to make sure that it implemented fairly by people who are knowledgeable and it is goi to be your job as Commissioners, and it will be staffs job, you v need training and you are going to need judicious decisions by C staff and City officials to make this work. Alford The Code Amendment includes numerous revisions to a number o Chapters of Title 20, the City's Zoning Code, We are providing new and updated definitions relating to th( changes outlined in Ms. Marshall's presentation as well as som( updated or new land use classifications dealing with groul occupancy and transitory residential uses; these would be grout residential uses, parolee or probationary homes, residential care facilities and vacation home rentals, As stated earlier, the amendment does continue the genera prohibition on group occupancies in residential areas which wouk include boarding houses, fraternities and sororities, and the new Ian( use classification of parolee or probationary homes, However, we have updated information in the Code that deals witl group occupancies for the disabled, specifically to allow disable( persons to have equal opportunity to live in the City's residentia areas. As I mentioned, residential care facilities under the current Code ar( divided into two categories, Residential Care Facilities Limited, whicl deals with facilities six or fewer, and the Residential Care General which deals with facilities of seven or more persons. Hawkins, I believe that is small licensed rather than that correct? Alford, I was describing the current Code. As I was about to say:: Residential Care Facilities Limited, will be changed to resides care facilities small licensed, so it will be limited to only th facilities that are licensed by the State. As indicated earlier, by State Law these have to be treated as equivalent of a single - family home so they would be permitted in City's residential districts in R -A, R -1, R -1.5, R -2, MFR and t equivalents in our PC Districts and our Specific Plan Districts. nmissioner Hawkins: In the beginning of this in the current regulatior refer to disability. Where in the proposed definition of Residential Ca :ilitles, Small Licensed do we refer to disabilities? Maybe I am missing ause of the red - lining but I did not see it. Alford: I don't believe it is actually in the definition of the land ,sification, but we are dealing with trying to address the provisions contained in the State pre - emption and under the Federal Fair Hot file: / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Corn nlission\PC Mlnutes\2007\mn06-21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Marshall: That it says required by the State to be treated as a singl( ise- keeping unit. That is because the State does not just deal will nes for the disabled, it also includes foster homes, youth homes but the' uire that they all be treated in the same way as single - family homes. can certainly add something to make it clear that the disabled ones ar( uded, but it is a little broader than that. The definition of disable( years in the reasonable accommodations section at the end. mmissioner Hawkins: We will address that confusion a little later on. i, we are talking about a definition which in part, as I understood it, wa: attempt to at least identify facilities for which we are going to be allowing ising and encouraging housing of disabled and that's what residentia all licensed is supposed to do, right? Identify those units or uses. . Marshall: This definition actually narrows it a little bit from what you ore to say only what is required by State Law to be treated as a si isekeeping unit. So again, that would be for the disabled but would for a couple of others like for foster children. missioner Hawkins: Understood, but I think there is a way that y I handle including for everybody's understanding that we are talki about disability. Marshall: Okay. Alford: The new land use classification Residential Care Facilities, Smal LicenseD will be permitted in the City's residential districts; however using the new definition for integral facility, basically we have the provision in which these smaller facilities, which might have six of fewer persons per dwelling unit, could be treated as other land use classifications in the definition. So, if it is demonstrated that we have more than one dwelling unit and that could be within a building on site or even on non - contiguous sites if they total seven or more persons, they might fall into another land use classification, specifically perhaps, Residential Care Facilities, General, which would be facilities with seven or more persons and would require a use permit in the R -1.5, R -2 and MFF Districts and their equivalents in the Specific Plan Districts and the Planned Community Districts. nissioner Hawkins: I don't plan on going through each one, but it action with the definitions I believe it is incredibly important to know we are talking about so I will focus my comments right now as you ar( 1 through them. Integral Facilities - we have a definition of group residential and believe later on in the accommodations section you talk about sobe living homes, which is not really a defined term. I believe Mr. Alford you and I talked about this. Near as I can tell, sober living homes fal within the definition of group residential, which is on hand - written page 46B. It does seem to be that those sober living homes o whatever we want to call those group residential, can also functior as integral facilities. That is, you got small groups of people who ar( not licensed, not being treated but somehow are functioning as a uni Page 12 of 50 file: //F: \UsersTLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\nm06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 and it becomes a larger unit. So, instead of the small unit, you nov have twelve in this sober living or however you want to refer to it. I does seem to me that those need to be referred to in the integrz facilities. So that is the first, I make this a question and I am trying ti understand this and so some of it is probably going to be redundant. The second thing is it seems as the integral facilities are limited U sites that are only residential, so and we have had in the past facility I believe the Sober Living folks had a meeting facility that wa, in commercial area and then they were bringing in folks fron residential. From this definition because of the residential focus of i1 that use would not be regarded as an integral facility and I think it i important to broaden it for commercial. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Alford: As indicated, they could fall under a different land L >ification and either permitted or permitted with the use permit in I opriate zone. Now, we also have a new land use classification called Vacati Home Rental. This basically reflects the current practice of allowi the rental of homes for short term purposes that's basically vacation of less than thirty days. We did not treat this as a sepan land use classification before, it was simply referenced and it woi continue to be allowed in the residential zones other than sirn family zones and would still be subject to the short-term lodgi provisions of Title 5. Staff was also directed by City Council to prepare a sepan amendment to Title 5 to address the issue of short term lodging 0 came out through the studies associated with the moratorium a will be taking it to Council probably sometime next month. They Intended to tighten up some of the provisions and address some the impacts that were identified in the studies and surveys that conducted as part of the moratorium. immissioner Hawkins: Likewise with respect to the vacation home rental d Mr. Alford you and I talked about this as well, I think it is likely that we uld have a situation where a set of vacation rental homes would functior an integral facility. The question is, is there any regulation that needs tc attached to that, and I don't have an answer to that question, but it doe: em to me for parity and all things so that we are treating everyone the me here, that maybe the integral facility definition should include those cation homes. ank you Mr. Chairman. Hillgren arrived at 7:45 p.m. Alford: Moving on to more of administration: We are proposing changes to Chapter 20.91 which deals with i permits and variances and what is called Federal Except Permits. Basically, amendments to this Chapter would eliminate provisions associated with the Federal Exception Permit, since un the Land Use Schedules in the Residential Chapters, these will n be handled through a use permit. Finally, a new Chapter is being proposed that would deal v basically establishing a process in which requests for reasona accommodations for persons with disabilities could be handled. Page 13 of 50 file : / /F:1Users\PLNlShared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes120071mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Page 14 of 50 this sets up a process for how that request would be handled and would be processed by the City's Zoning Administrator in the Planning Department. The Chapter contains provisions how th requests will be processed, modifications and the fees. nmissioner Hawkins: We received a document from Assistant irney Harp, which attempted to reflect comments by CommisE cm. The question I have is staff embracing this draft? Is this the should be using and the public addressing? Harp: You should be using the draft that was distributed along with ket for tonight's meeting and that you should take Commissic m's comments basically as that as comments being presented ning. That draft has not been fully reviewed by our office, I rarded to everyone so you would know Commissioner Eaton's thou( e on this matter. missioner Hawkins: I find that understandable but incredible. Harp, I did not receive the document until 2 or 3 this afternoon. )mmissioner Hawkins: Commissioner Eaton was negligent in getting you? Harp: I am just letting you know it has not been fully reviewed. imissioner Hawkins: The concern I had in here and ma imissioner Eaton can address it, there is one provision that says ning Commission's decisions are final, period with no review ncil. I don't support that being a Planning Commissioner and I h the Councilmembers can hear that. . Marshall: that is the problem with this late draft which is why we wer sure that it should be distributed. That wasn't Commissioner Eaton, >ressly asked that it be appealable to the City Council and that N nething that I had hesitations about and wanted to talk to staff about. t is not in there, so don't blame Commissioner Eaton. airman Cole: That is something that just for the record has not been the public to review as well, correct? This is not a violation of the B , it is considered a comment from Commissioner Eaton to the pul :ributed staff. Is that correct? Harp: That is correct, and it is my understanding that additional copies Id be made but I can make additional copies now and distribute them. y are just comments being made, it is not part of the agenda packet. Cole: If you would do that, it would probably be great for ience. imissioner Hawkins: It is important for the public to understand wha comments are if in fact these are comments of Commissioner Eaton. decisions makers have them so we could make a motion to approve it Commissioner Eaton's decided and no one here would have a clue. file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\rnn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 an Cole: We would certainly go through them as there are not Any questions of staff? :)mmissioner McDaniel: Commissioner Hawkins is an attorney and know; r awful lot more about this than I do, so I may have some elementar restions. If indeed, I don't know who is listening to me, I am asking staff. indeed, these homes are among us and we want to make sure we are no scriminating, is there some value in knowing who they are? Identify wh( ey are so we don't cause any discrimination, is that a reasonabl( s. Marshall: That is a totally reasonable question, it is hard to answ( :cause the way the law is written it says you can't treat at least the sm� ensed, any differently than you would treat a single family home. Yc iuld pass a law that says every house in this entire district needs to corr rward and identify itself in the next sixty days and say whether it is mily, whether it is a group home, etc., etc. You couldn't pass a law, or )uld not be advisable I think to pass one that says every small grou )me is required to come and register, because you would not be treatir em the same. ommissioner McDaniel: That's good. My next question is, it is m, nderstanding that, I guess, it's Proposition 36 that said we are suppose( ( have disabled people and parolees and such, integrate into th( immunity. My thoughts there are, if they are supposed to be integrated it ( the community, that means they are here, here, here and not in any on( roup. If they are next door to each other and there are three of them, tha reans that they are not integrating very well and are clumped together. hat is almost discriminatory and we are not allowing them to b( itegrated. So, it seems to me that two together could be a problem. 3. Marshall: There are a couple of things to say about that. One is th; member you can distinguish the disabled from others if it benefits th >abled. So that is the argument that is made is that if you have a rul ainst over - concentration, it benefits the disabled. And so it is necessai have studies that say it does benefit the disabled, and we have looke those but haven't been able to find those and we have discussed th th residents and their attorneys. If anyone can find those studies, th; )uld be helpful, that's one thing. The other thing is that there are cou !cisions that say beware of what they actually say in the decisions ar tronizing attempts to say this benefits you. The example that is actual ten is the court decision is we all want racial integration forty years ag( t if you passed a rule that said we truly want it integrated we only wai )se African American families to live one or two on every block. As soc two move in, to keep it integrated others would have to go somewher >e. You could not do that because you are deciding what benefits them i way that is patronizing and could be a pretext for discrimination. S metimes it is helpful to look at it that way and most of the court decisior a racial ones and we just draw parallels when we have situations IN s. That is the problem with saying, gee only one on a block is who ar s to say that maybe you need two on a block so that this group of peopl n actually live here. Page 15 of 50 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planniug Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Harp: It is also important to know that there is some differences in h, cases have treated facial distancing type of requirements, which app( the face of the Statute as opposed to looking at concentration type aes and the actual setting where it is more of an applied looking at 1 Is on the ground and where someone is looking to situate. 3. Marshall: The last thing is that the legislature has considered this few times including just a couple of months ago to have a sp juirement for the drug and alcohol recovery facilities and it's feated every time. So that is also not very helpful. immissioner McDaniel: If I have six or less in one building and six or the next door building, do I not have twelve people in proximity to ier that are now more than six? Marshall: Yes, and that is what the integral facilities definition is tryii deal with. If they are truly integrated and you can say that they a gating an impact in the neighborhood. The theory is if they really a )arate they are just like a family. But, if they are integrated they a ire commercial and that is the hook for requiring a use permit, becau ty are creating more physical impact on the neighborhood. >ner McDaniel: The last question I have, can you tell between a boarding house and a residence. s. Marshall: Yes, a boarding house the people who live there :parate leases and they are not a single housekeeping unit. I do not you are talking about the technical definition of residence, but a >usekeeping unit whether it is a family or a group of people who tol iter into one lease and do the daily activities of life is a single McDaniel: A boarding house is people who come and go time Marshall: The definition in the Attorney General's decision and a definition that says they have separate leases is the rmination factor. issioner McDaniel: If someone operates a boarding house, living or whatever, that is basically a business is it not? nq in a residential? Marshall: Yes, that is the theory. It is basically more commercial a is why you can regulate it or prohibit it unless it is necessary ons with disabilities to live in that neighborhood. missioner McDaniel: So if we have three boarding houses together a commercial district as opposed to having one individual ho rated into different areas, then it is not a concentration and nc less. It is a residence. . Marshall: If it is integrated that is the theory. If they are really sepa like three families. Page 16 of 50 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\xnn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 'man Cole: To follow up going back to the registration question, a small licensed operator is not required to register but, are red to be licensed by the State to be operating a care facility? Marshall: Yes. airman Cole: Then why wouldn't the City be allowed to requi istration, and if we can't require registration, how are we going to I e to determine integral facilities if the whole purpose of the integi lity concept is to determine whether they are in effect getting around 3hole of having a bunch of these small care facilities adjacent to eai er with common services and creating a situation that should I ulated. r. Marshall: We have talked a lot about this with staff if there is a way ve people come forward and identify who they are now and to say I ha vays been separate and not a part of the integrative facility it wor rtainly help them if the City came after them five years from now and s, u are part of an 18 -unit thing. If they can say, look we came and told y it we weren't long before this was an issue. So those are some of t ,cussions we are having, if there is a way to set it up so that people c sically protect themselves from somebody later saying, prove who th by coming forward now. irman Cole: That language you say you are still discussing and Marshall: That is something we are discussing and I would be ested to hear what people think about it. immissioner Eaton: I want to first clarify that the changes that we ;sented tonight aren't my changes. I had informed Mr. Harp that I had sole bunch of questions about the proposal and he suggested that I to the consulting attorneys. I asked them a whole bunch of questions ar me of them I think they agreed were some things that needed to t rified like being able to be appealed to the Council. So, these are the empts to fill those holes that I had pointed out. I did have a lot of oth estions where they either did not agree with the way I wanted to go, ;y felt they ought to be talked about here at the hearing so I wanted k a couple of those questions here. As I understand it, you basically have a framework where in tl proposed ordinance where we now would require full conditional u: permits for the larger facilities of seven or more and those could t applied for in the R -1.5, R -2 and MFR zones. Then at the other end of the scale is the ministerial reasonab accommodation where there is no notice to the adjoining owne because that applies to the six or less kinds of facilities where tl State Law is so specific in saying we have to treat them like sing family homes. Those ministerial approvals as I understand it, ai essentially to allow them to in effect become registered and for # staff to be able to confirm that they really do qualify as unlicense facilities. There is an in- between category, which is reasonab Page 17 of 50 file : //F:1Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Page 18 of 50 accommodation with a limited notice. It does not have notice to extent that a use permit does, it only includes abutting or across alley. Can you clarify for me, which that middle process applies to, v kinds of facility? Marshall: The middle process applies to any reasonab commodation request except those small unlicensed facilities. Th asonable accommodation provision in the ordinance, which I am not sui Alford has gotten to describe yet, applies to the whole Zonir -dinance. So any rule, not just the ones in front of us, somebody wants ild a wheelchair ramp in the setback where you ordinarily couldn't bui ything, they would have to come and apply for reasonab commodation and say this is necessary for me to be able to enjoy n sidence on an equal basis to other people. So, anything like that wou this middle level where we don't notify everybody, we notify just tt mediately adjacent. The reason for that is there is this ragir ntroversy there are some people who think that there should be no noti( r reasonable accommodation because notice and hearing is �portunity for controversy and harassment. There are other people wl ink that when you are dealing with land use and rights related to propel at other property owners have the right to know if there is going to be range to the rules. What we have tried to do is balance the more limit( mice so we don't have the three hundred radius, which is in the regul )ning Code, but we have enough notice so that the people who have tl eatest interest, which are the adjoining neighbors and people across tl reet and you all, have the right to know about it and to appeal it. It is ju balance, its a drawing of line, it could be drawn elsewhere, it's just a ri ,id of an analysis. -a Kautz: There is one other category too and that is where tI ;t for reasonable accommodation requires another discretiona . In that case it goes along with that discretionary permit and has tl notice and so forth. So the middle category is more the, maybe a building permit accommodation and something that would n fly be a ministerial permit. nmissioner Eaton: But a new larger facility of seven or more w uire a use permit so that would require the full notice and the cessina. I want to confirm that is the case. Marshall: Yes. But one thing you should know is that it is also possibl ask for reasonable accommodation to not have the same notic uirements and so be forewarned because we just had a case like ther are someone said our reasonable accommodation because our use is s itroversial is that we do not want there to be notice. The Plannin ,nmission had to decide whether they were going to do that or not and ik they decided they weren't going to go along with that. That is uest that people sometimes make. Eaton: Is that provided for in these proposed regulations? Ms. Marshall: It is provided for in the fact that the reasonablell /accommodation request can be made on anything in your Zoning Code. So file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Conunission\PC Minutes\2007\rmi06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 r could come in and file it and say we are making this request that be notice and this is why. missioner Eaton: Could they do that if they were proposing a n n or more facility where the Code otherwise says that they have a use permit? Marshall: They could ask, but what I think would happen is that wh asked they have to show that it is necessary and then the City has that it is not a fundamental alteration in your policies. I think that 1 ng a notice and hearing for a use permit would be a fundamer ation so you would then deny the request. I probably shouldn't he ght it up but I felt like I had to. missioner Eaton: I want to continue on with a few more questions that When we first considered this, the nature of our regulations as tl apply to these facilities back in the early 2004, we considered possibility and as I understand it, let me confirm this first, the t permit for the seven or more is not applicable in the R -1 Zone so y can not apply for that in the R -1 Zone they way you propose correct? He was answered yes by Ms. Marshall. At that time back in 2004, we were wondering whether or not it re; ought to apply to the R -1.5 and R -2 Zones in as much as many if most of our lots in those zoning categories are very small lots wh the residences are in very close proximity to each other and wondered whether those larger facilities really ought to even provided for in those zones. Can you explain your rational allowing those in those zones? Marshall: Probably the biggest one was that you already had it And, why upset such a big apple cart if you don't need to, we atting apple carts in making these changes. So that is the biggest I think another one is you face so much more difficult situations, would be doing then if you wouldn't let them be in those districts is Idn't let them be here at all. nmissioner Eaton: No, we would allow then in the multiple family and we do have a lot of multiple family zones in the City. Marshall: Okay, I guess we kept it that way because it was already and I don't think we have discussed changing it. :ommissioner Eaton: I have the same question about whether integ rcilities particularly where the treatment facility might be in a commerc one as opposed to residential, as Mr. Hawkins did. In the staff report Ring about how the use permit procedure might work there was a list ie kinds of things that ought to be considered in handling those u ermits. Has that list or those items be codified anywhere in the propos mendment? Page 19 of 50 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 nmissioner Eaton: So it is sort of a list to put us on notice so when get into those hearings those are the kinds of things we ought to siderina. and not codified. Alford: It is basically intended to indicate how we might approach the problems that might be associated with that. missioner Eaton: In the staff report, you talked about requiri ration of facilities from each other is a difficult problem to addre rs you could show some positive aspect for the disabled. There h been some sentiment expressed that there ought to be some sort ction especially on the larger facilities of a separation from schools a :hes. Did you consider that at all and what is the reaction to tl Marshall: I think it was considered pretty much on the same basis separating them from each other. I think probably the best one wo separating it from liquor stores, but to separate it from a church c)ol, there is no way that benefits the disabled. nmissioner Eaton: Okay, and then I wanted to add one clarification t talked about on the phone that I needed to make sure that the pul r aware of and that is that this proposed ordinance does prohibit paro )ationer homes but that the definition of parolee probationary ieone who actually has been incarcerated in a State or Federal pri; therefore it excludes any probationers that might have be rrcerated in County jails and it excludes any probationers that mi e been given probation in -lieu of incarceration, is that correct? So the categories are not prohibited by this code, is that correct? Marshall: That is correct. Eaton: Can you give me a little bit of rational why >. Marshall: On the probationers who have just come from County jail: way the problem has been described to us and I think we have all rea out it in the paper, is that the real problem is with the parolees from th ate prisons. That there is so many of them and there is no place for ther go so there are a lot of people making a lot of money by setting up thes mes and the State is often even putting people in because they car nd people out without a place for them to go and they are fostering thes mes themselves. That is the real problem, so that is what we were tryin address that identified real problem. The people coming out of Couni I are having not been there that long, are more likely to still have ties I ;ir homes and a place to go back to and it was seen as one, it would be ge number of people who maybe had relatively minor offenses and so is just a question of sort of drawing the line somewhere. As far as th ople who are serving time not in prison but in a residence, I think we at rtain point felt that we didn't have the expertise to, 1 don't know enoug out the criminal justice system to actually know what category of peopl )se are and how many of them can live in your communities, etc., so w In't tackle that particular problem. We also looked at what othe mmunities had done and this definition had been adopted in Riversid Page 20 of 50 file: / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 they had a big rational for it and we talked to their City Attorney and ght it might be appropriate for you. Harp: I think typically the people who had been in the State prison more serious criminal offenders. We are not foreclosing the cater i it is important to get the input, so we appreciate your input on Eaton: I may ask more questions later. imissioner Hawkins: I agree with Commissioner Eaton in connecti( what I will call the criminal section. I think that you are dealing with ue class of people who have acted outside the law and that is wh sentences are and there is a reason for that. I would encoura<, iibition of all that class. Secondly Ms. Marshall, in connection with ti :r separations and so forth, has the City of Newport Beach conduct( studies in connection with that in terms of the benefit to the disabled? Marshall: Not that I am aware of sir. c)mmissioner Hawkins: We do all sorts of studies, traffic studies ai irking studies and I don't exactly know what sort of study this would t at I could envision for instance, if we are talking about the disabled and ,e talking about substance abusers however they are regarded, I G iagine that these folks have a recidivism rate that is substantial. One e reasons it is substantial is because they associate with others with milar dependency. So I can imagine that their treatment would :nefited by separating the potential substance abusers so that you do r ave that potential for recidivism. I guess that is the first question )nnection with that then. The second question is you mentioned sm ilicensed and we sort of will be talking about small unlicensed facilities t at goes back to my question. I don't think the ordinance has a definiti, at captures small unlicensed. Harp: So we can clarify that point. I think that the integral facilities the sober living environment and I think that the group reside nition picks that up for integral facilities. Is that correct Polly? Marshall: It was intended to, yes. I think so. mmissioner Hawkins: That was my question earlier and I didn't hear ,ponse and I am not sure that; once again one of the things we are tr identify and assist in is identification of disabled and to assist in I iabilitation or accommodation. So, I think the definitions need to inc se sorts of identifying factors. The group homes does not say one v )ut disability. Thank you Mr. Chairman. iairman Cole: I'd also like to ask a question regarding the use permit. staff report you reflected that there you felt there was the ability :ate some conditions would be potentially difficult but warranted. H out the idea for the Commission of actually having findings that would cessary to actually grant a use permit? Is that problematic? I think tl something that I would think important to have is some kind of stand; approving a use permit. Page 21 of 50 file: / /F: \USers\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Marshall: If you had it for all. It's a use permit and it's the findings u make for any use permit which are general health, safety, wel rrals, etc. I don't think it would be that advisable to have special set ,t applies to uses for the disabled. In fact it would probably limit you u would be better off having the broader set that applies to every rmit. irman Cole: So what you are currently proposing would be under oui :al use permit findings that we currently have for any kind of use permit. Marshall: That's correct. iairman Cole, how about occupancy limits, what are your thoughts occupancy limits for these facilities? Is that problematic? Marshall: There is a whole State Law provision and I don't know if y int to address it. The State requires that you as a City can not impo cupancy limits that are more stringent than what is in the State Buildii ide. The State Building Code is one person for every 50 square fe :y may not be the exact number but it is extremely broad and you a ve many, many people. Many more people than you might think sirable. So you are limited by State Law and there is actually a case c Santa Ana where that was tested. So, it is hard to do occupancy limits. -man Cole: Even though you can with a commercial facility use these are not designated as commercial you can not? Marshall: I think that in a use permit context for a licensed facility bees there would be an argument for a reasonable occupancy Stan it is something that I would want to explore. hairman Cole: Okay, and you could theoretically use the same standard reasonable accommodation to perhaps to address any discrimination tI ight come about as a result of that? Is. Marshall: The other thing that Aaron is pointing out to me is that you ave to also, the other part of State Law that is unique to California, is tI ie Adamson decision in Santa Barbara, anyone remembers that one whi Fas a case that challenged their definition of family, that it was a sine imily residence so why was there a twelve person commune. This was 979 or'80 and that's where the definition of family fell in State Law and t ;alifornia Supreme Court said you can't require that people be related food or marriage. As long as they are a single housekeeping unit they c e related anyway they want. Harp: But if occupancy limits are something you would like us to take at I think that is something we can review again and come back. immissioner Eaton: I have one more fundamental question I would like tc k that relates to the question of amortization. The City is in the process re -doing its Zone Ordinance to bring it up to date with the General Plan. ie of the Sections in the Zone Ordinance that is very out of date is the iortization provisions. If in the context of re -doing our entire section or Page 22 of 50 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 ization provisions and the various different kinds of amortization be applied to non - conforming uses, is there any reason ctivity with reasonable amortization could not be applied to tl of facilities? Marshall: I don't think there is any reason you couldn't treat them the ie way you treat any other non - conforming use in the City. It would N special circumstance where you would if it is a non - conforming use, tc form they would need a use permit and would have to apply for a use nit which they may or may not get depending on the circumstances. , as long as you deal with all your non - conforming uses in a fairy orm way I think that would be permissible. missioner Eaton: In other cities where I have worked we have ng amortization schedules depending on how much strucl istruction would be required to make the structures conforming. If uses that essentially have converted the use of existing structures I be converted back to their prior use, in the other cities where I t ad those have had shorter amortization periods. Could that be apt as well? >. Marshall: Absolutely, I think you would want to do some kind of a stud) justify what the period of time, or you would look at it on a case by case sis. But you are not eliminating all economic use, it's not like a ga,, ition that has to be torn down, it can just be used for something else. ie economic impact would not be as great, that is how the theory wouk You are correct sir. mmissioner McDaniel: I am having some concern with occupancy. ne of these units are supposed to be six or less, they should have a ;upancy of six or less. Do you see what I am saying, I am missing th t that you can't control the occupancy but they are supposed to have sl less in this. If we had a home that had physically disabled people in i there were supposed to be six in there, and I know that we have see TV that all of a sudden there are fifteen in there and people gE mmed in and abused and nobody checks on it. Don't we have som ,ponsibility to check back to see that there are indeed six people ther J these disabled people are okay? Marshall: Absolutely and I think it is a condition of their license th s be that many people. And you are right, so I can see why what I sa probably confusing. missioner McDaniel: If you don't identify them you don't know who And, I can't identify everyone in the community. Marshall: What it becomes is a non - conforming use. You can't say ber of people in that house is limited, in any single family house, t restrict the number beyond the State Building Code. But, you can you need a use permit if it is more than six. So, if it was seven, d do abatement proceedings to say that you need to apply for a missioner McDaniel: But that leads me back to my question where Page 23 of 50 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Cormnission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 iid I have to go check on everybody in the community on that row to se ho lives there. My point is these are disabled people and we have som !sponsibility to make sure if there is going to be six people in there that ar 3ving accommodations because it is in a residential area, we have som :sponsibly by the City to make sure that they are okay, and we have t entity them to know to check on them to see of they are okay. Fire Code there is a physically disabled person may need handrails or certain thing A so I am looking at the physically disabled or anybody else that i msidered in that disabled. We want to look to make sure that thes )ople are okay. They are disabled and we want to have extra effort t )Ip them. I am missing something from those two categories yo )scribed to me earlier. s. Marshall: I guess I would say it is a balancing act. The ;sumption of the law is that if it is six or fewer, it is the same as a mily use. If there are twelve, all bets are off. nmissioner McDaniel: How do we know there are more people know who they are? >. Marshall: Just like you would know if there was a non - conform mmercial use, someone might report it, you would inspect. ) mmissioner McDaniel: If it was reported we would have every right to id inspect then because it was a violation if someone did say somethi that nature. One of the neighbors said there are seven people living the id there is only supposed to be six. Harp: Your enforcement is the typical enforcement action where they g( it and conduct an investigation and determine how many are living there. they determine there are more than six there, then they would be it ) latton of law. mmissioner McDaniel: We don't want to discriminate against anybc tiously, but we want to make sure we are complying and we want ke sure that if these are disabled people who have special needs tl may indeed make sure that they are okay. Without having to check H the neighbors to say, hey you know there are some disabled peol Nn the street, how many people are in your house? I think it is fair to want to identify some of these people and some of these places tl re disabled people in it just from a protection standpoint. imissioner Hillgren: A follow -up question on the occupancy limit issue. it is the definition of an occupant? I am assuming that these home: a people who are living there and they are on a rotating basis, I don' N how long someone is in there for, but my guess is weeks or month: then they are replaced by somebody else. I would assume that there is there and they may or not be there around the clock, so what is the iition of an occupant? Is it six people living there and the staff tha it be there 24 hours a day are not included, or are they included in the it. How does that work? Marshall: They are not included in the count. Page 24 of 50 file: / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Hillgren: Why is that? Kautz: Because that is what the State Law says, it is the number >le that they serve excluding the staff for the licensed facilities. Hillgren: The definition of an occupant would be what? Kautz: Basically, they are licensed to serve a certain number ple. So you are licensed to serve, I think Polly said earlier, some of ised facilities are not necessarily facilities serving the disabled, th facilities for children and so forth that may even be day homes that have to treat that way. It is basically the number of clients, if you Ii they are licensed to serve and they may be occupants or they may pie that are being served. ssioner Hillgren: You could have a staff of twelve and have they might be serving. s. Kautz: I guess theoretically, but I think that is pretty rare in practicality. is usually a staff of two. rmissioner Hillgren: Are those occupants twenty-four hours, or the could have in a certain day would be six people? Kautz: It is the number of people you are licensed to serve. So, fi ance if you are talking about a residential care facility for the elder re you have people living there then you are having six elderly peop g there and being cared for by a certain number of staff. This is slight trent, but if you think about say a licensed day -care facility it would t number of people that the provider is licensed to serve and I think case it would be six people at any one time. So, I think it would vary depending on the type of facility, but it is basically no more than s its there, if you want to look at it that way. comment was opened. airman Cole: I would like first to actually have the spokesperson for tl ghbors alliance group, someone who is speaking for multiple parties, H allowed additional time, up to 15 minutes. 1 believe that there is al: neone here as an attorney for the group occupancy homes who will I )wed additional time as well who will speak next and then we will open for the rest of the public. een Taber: Attorney with Jackson /DeMarcolTidus Peckenpaugh, ensed City Planner and member of the American Planning Associat presents a large number of property owners and residents who are IN the City of Newport Beach, over 100 residents. is no disagreement that there needs to be sufficient opportunities �d persons to have equal opportunities to live in residential are er, that doesn't mean that the City can not regulate those partici s. The City, as you have heard from your special counsel, has ty and the responsibility to address issues associated with hea and public welfare. The City itself has acknowledged, and I wi Page 25 of 50 file: / /F: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Mlnutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 ate everybody's time by going through all the things that you have i it staff report, but there is a very extensive list in there of all the impacl t have been identified. However, in looking at the Ordinance, there are nber of loopholes, and in order to try to save some time for all of yo ve prepared a very brief summary that was handed out and I will brief through that summary to try to identify what some of those loophole It is about six areas. What we are requesting is that you direct thf staff as part of this process to go back and look at some of thesf issues. I think the first one is an issue that a number of the Commissioner: have raised and that has to do with the unlicensed residential can facilities. There seems to be a lot of melding and we keep talking abou facilities for six and under but there is no real distinction for thosf unlicensed facilities. I understand from your counsel that they are addressed in thf integral facility, I think that needs to be clarified. But even if they arf addressed in the integral facility definition they are not addressed a: a stand -alone so the Ordinance is silent. Are they permitted uses or are they not permitted uses? There ha: been a lot of well- documented public health, safety and welfare: issues associated with these unlicensed facilities of smoking, noise traffic, trash, as well as you Commissioners have recognized tha disabled persons want to be in a neighborhood environment. Thf whole idea is to be integrated into the residential community an( how can that occur if the whole community is ending up beinc composed of these institutional uses? So, we are requesting that the Ordinance be clear so that when yor go down the list of land uses that are permitted and not permitted it the City of Newport Beach, that the unlicensed residential care facilities for six or under is a defined term in the Ordinance and that i is listed there and that it is listed for a conditional use permit. The State Law that your counsel has been identifying for residentia facilities for six and under, has to do with State - licensed facilities. There is no prohibition in State Law that would prevent this City fron enacting a conditional use permit requirement for unlicensec facilities. Remember, there is no State oversight for these facilities at all. The second area that we are requesting you modify in you Ordinance has to do with the definition of integral facilities. A number of the Commissioners have identified the fact that the definitions in an ordinance are probably the most critical part of ar ordinance. That is what gets referred to, that is how you decide wha uses are subject to the Ordinance and what uses are not subject tc the Ordinance. Right now as integral facility stands, is that it doesn' deal with all residential uses; it doesn't deal with residential use: having to do whether they are State - licensed or not and whether o not they are in residential or commercial zones. As you all knov there is a number of locations in the City where residential zone: abut commercial zones. How do you implement integral facilities for uses that happen to be Page 26 of 50 fil e : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 one in a residential zone and one in a commercial zone? Also recognize that the definition of integral facilities relies ver heavily on what is services and treatments, both of which are absen from your Ordinance. There is no definition as to what does tha specifically mean. The definition of treatment should include things as providing an, kind of care or treatment, education, counseling, transportation services. These are all services being provided and it needs to ba clearly defined in the Ordinance. In addition, consider whether or not a treatment is being provided or site or off -site. A lot of times individuals are being transported t( another common location that would be considered service an( treatment. Another common treatment that is provided is prescription drugs that are not necessarily provided by a retail outlet but maybe the provider itself is having individuals going to a centra location to get that kind of medication. That is all within thf definitions of service and treatment and should be included. The third area has to do with registering all residential care facilities. I think this was recognized by again a number of the Commissioner that in order to enforce your Ordinance, you need to understanc where the facilities are located. Not only to deal with whether or no a facility has six or more or less, but also to deal with the issues o the disabled because these are the people who often have the leas access to public services, ability to call your Code Enforcemen officers, these people may not be able to do that so I think there is responsibility on the part of the City to make sure that they understand both where these facilities are located and to make surf they are complying with the law. The prohibition in State Law that your special counsel is referring tc does not prohibit the City from requiring that the facilities be registered. There is nothing that would prevent you from including it your specific ordinance and for your information, we've identified or Page 3 some of the things that you might be able to reques information of, for example, location, whether or not they have a State license, what kinds of operation, whose the twenty-four hou contact person, what happens if there is an issue in the middle of the night, your Code Enforcement or Police Department has to respond who is the contact person that they need to go to? The fourth issue has to do with the issue of over - concentration. Thk is probably one of the major concerns along with unlicensed facilities for six and under that the community has expressed. We are frankll very surprised and shocked that the Ordinance does not deal with this over - concentration issue. We are suggesting that you focus on the over - concentration issuE and any regulations associated with that only on those areas wherE over - concentration exists. You can easily identify what those are Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, Newport Heights, West Newport anc Corona del Mar. The City has the highest number of licensed and unlicensec residential group homes in Orange County. Your staff report goes into great length explaining and comparing the number of licensee and unlicensed facilities that you have in this City as compared tc anywhere else in the State. By just looking at those numbers alone Page 27 of 50 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Ptanning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 you see that Newport Beach has become the Mecca of all those types of uses. As a result of that there has been a lot of testimony provided, an( your staff report has it, of the well documented public health, safet, and welfare issues that have been associated with the over concentration of residential care facilities. It is really urgent that the City deal with this issue right now. Then are licenses that are pending with the State Board and the growth e these facilities will continue to go un- checked unless the City takes leadership role in dealing with this over - concentration issue. As a result of that, we are requesting that you specifically address over - concentration in the impacted district areas, that you have dispersal requirement of 1,000 feet between these types of uses an( this would be residential care facilities whether they an automatically permitted by your Ordinance or permitted by conditional use permit and again would include all residential can facilities whether they are licensed or unlicensed by the State. This is something a lot of other cities have done. The City e Riverside has a 1,000 foot separation and again I have identified fo you in this hand -out where those Code provisions are. Murrieb requires 1,000 foot separation; the California Attorney General ha: concluded that cities may limit operations of these types of homes ii low- density residential areas in order to preserve the residentie character of the neighborhood. We have identified case law for you where courts have said you cai limit the number of residents in group homes where there is rational legitimate reason and where you have the Familystyle of S1 Paul, Inc. case specifically dealt with dispersal requirement of 1,301 feet between units. Courts upheld and found these things to bE legitimate. The fifth area that we are requesting that the Planning Commisiooi address has to deal with the issue of criteria for evaluating conditional use permits. We think it is really important that thi Planning Commission, as well as the operators of the facilities, a; well as the community understand the criteria that the Planning Commission is going to use to make these sorts of land use decisions. We have identified on Pages 5 and 6 of our hand -out what we think some of those specific requirements could be an( again there are other cities that have done this, this is nothing new. The City of Riverside in their ordinance has specifically addresse( criteria that cities use to evaluate whether or not these uses compl, with their Zoning Ordinance and we have included such things sucl as staffing levels, which was a question from one of tho Commissioners. Understanding what the Management Plan is an( potential impacts are, dealing with over - concentration issues whether or not there is sufficient parking, where do all the people who come to provide services park? All those sorts of issues an addressed. The very last issue has to deal with the issue of transition. You proposed Ordinance right now is silent on the issue of transition. W1 think specific direction needs to be provided as to how thi: Ordinance is going to be implemented particularly to existing facilities. We are suggesting and requesting that the Commissioi Page 28 of 50 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning COmmission\PC Minutes \2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Page 29 of 50 consider that it require existing residential care facilities to reg within thirty days of the Ordinance adoption. That those that required to have conditional use permits submit those applical and have their use decisions made by the City of 180 days so t is certainty. Everybody needs to have some certainty in process. Last, to make it clear that there is no grand- fathering no exceptions. Thank you for the extra time and would be happy to an: questions. mmissioner Toerge: With regard to transition, how would you handle the ilities that are currently here when it relates to keeping the separate? :re are five of them within a 300 foot radius, what would you propose we if we enact the separation requirement but yet they are already there. Taber: It is an excellent question and one that will come up whether o the Ordinance addresses it. First of all, if it is required to have Jitional use permit, have those facilities submit for a conditional us( nit. The limit we are proposing is a limit that you could evaluate unde exception provisions as to whether or not it is appropriate. The fact e matter is there needs to be a public hearing and an opportunity for thi is to have input as well as the facility on whether or not there is ai - concentration issue and there is an impact. missioner Toerge: I can see there might be five applications in and how do you determine who to give it to? Is. Taber: That is really where the criteria comes into play. Right now yo ave no criteria to deal with that exact issue. I can't pre- suppose what ie individual uses are and how you would evaluate what those are. fould assume that you would evaluate what kinds of Management Plan: ow long the uses have been there, whether or not they are State license r not, what kind of code enforcement history those individuals' facilitie ave. Those are all the factors that you would look at and I would imagin iat you would probably bring all these uses as you said that were withi ne area together and that you would evaluate those. In some cases if yo ecided that the use was not meeting your criteria, then you would need t mortize out that use as Commissioner Eaton was suggesting, that ther eeds to be an established timeframe so that there is some certainty. :cognize they are tough decisions to make but the problem that we ar ealing with right now is that there is over - concentration and it is unchecke nd there is no criteria. Toerge: Great answer thank you. 3sioner Eaton: On several of your items you have provid as of other municipalities. But you didn't on transition ation, can you find other examples of how other municipalities he that? . Taber: I would be happy to provide additional information to your that issue. Cole: As well as you did not note them on the need to register file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 re there other communities that require registration of all care facilities? Taber: Yes, and I can provide that information again to your staff. an Cole: Thank you. Would anyone from the care facility attorney, , like to come and we will give you extra time. Please sign in. shard Terzian, lawyer representing Sober Living by the Sea, an operato a number of facilities for alcohol and drug abuse recovery in the City. Each one of these is licensed by the State. Each one of these serve six or fewer residents. And, as your staff report points out, the fief( regulating these particular types of facilities has been pre - empted b) the state and neither the City nor any other entity can regulate. We believe that the integral facilities provisions of the propose( ordinance are really a back door attempt to regulate. Those provisions are found in Sections 20.03.030 and 20.05.030 (h). Again, we think this is an end -around State law and we don't thinl you can regulate in the field. I won't go into the other reasons such an ordinance would be inappropriate because of its discriminatory nature, we set forth those arguments in prior submissions to the City Council and I won't gc over everything on the submission I made to you. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. missioner Eaton: I think you indicated all your facilities are licensed. to confirm, do you have any unlicensed facilities? Terzian: I am only here to discuss the actual licensed facilities. T be some sober living facilities that are operated unlicensed and Idn't be covered by this Ordinance. missioner Eaton: I meant by your client? Are there any :ies owned by your client? Terzian: Not that 1 know of. mmissioner Toerge: I thought you said there weren't. I thought you of them were licensed, isn't that what you just said? Terzian: yes. mmissioner Toerge: Is requiring sober living facilities to register, is th, elation? Terzian: Register in what way, that's what I don't understand. I kno, asked that question of one of the prior people. I think you ca :rtain whether or not there are actually six or fewer people there cents being served. You can do that. missioner Toerge: I mean asking for who the point of contact is, I / people are there; there is a whole host of issues on our ha Terzian: You are certainly entitled to know who a contact person Page 30 of 50 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 you need that for code enforcement. No one is saying you the Code the same way you can enforce it against any single I rmmissioner Hawkins: Thank you Mr. Terzian, that's how you pronoi ur name? Your June 18th letter states you operate a number of S Ping By the Sea, I take it that's an entity that is operating Reside ire Facilities Small Licensed. How many do you operate within the Newport Beach? Terzian: I believe it is 18. missioner Hawkins: One of the letters indicate you have been 1986. Do you have a history of how Sober Living by the Sea n in terms of the numbers. I assume you started with one in 1986 three or something like that. Do you have any idea of that history? Terzian: I've only been representing this firm for about three months. e been told they have been operating here since 1986 and I assun r started off with one facility and then they have simply grown over tl rs. They may have started facilities and stopped using them over th od of time. All I can tell you now is, as of now, there are 18 separa ised facilities. nmissioner Hawkins: Okay. In your June 18th letter you talk about ities being totally exempt from the moratorium and totally exempt proposed Ordinance. I am not sure that I follow and maybe I didn't ,ely enough, how that argument went. Ir. Terzian: Because we serve six or fewer residents at each facility. Eact rcility is separately licensed by the State. The Statute which is cited 1834.23 is quite clear that the only land use type regulation you car npose is the same regulation you impose on a single family residence. missioner Hawkins: Understood, so it's the preemption issue there is them exempt. Ir. Terzian: Yes, and that means you can not regulate. To me, when ay well we are just going to lump together two, three, four, what umber, and so therefore you immediately go over six and then we sgulate, we don't think you can do that. ommissioner Hawkins: Thank you and this was prior to yc :presentation, your client, Sober Living by the Sea, had a land L pplication for I think it was a parking waiver on a meeting site. T perator then was a gentleman by the name of Mr. Mosen and he did i arve himself well in the hearing. The application really was for the Sol iving small facilities to be sending their patients if you will, or residents, ie meeting facility. So it really was operating in this sort of spoke a heel sort of fashion. I do believe at that point it did provide soi vidence of an integral facility. But, has Sober Living by the Sea chang reir operations? Terzian: You mean with respect to that parking? I really don't know. Page 31 of 50 file: //F: \Users\PLMShared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007 \mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Hawkins: Thank you. nan Cole: As a follow -up, I am struggling with and maybe you c. r, maybe you can't, but are the facilities being used in a six or unc that people might be living there but using services like treatment acent facility and maybe even going to meals in a third facility. Is it one? Terzian: The treatment and the meals and the sleeping occur at each facilities. Cole: They are all self- contained? r. Terzian: Yes, there are from time to time I think they may go to eeting somewhere else where they will have more. 'nan Cole: But, the recovery and treatment and meals and all under one facility? r. Terzian: That's right. missioner Hillgren: The same kind of thing. I am not familiar with the but from a resident's point of view, what is the smallest number o pants that might be in one of those facilities? Individual bedrooms? is in charge of a facility as management staff? Who prepares th( s and takes care of the home? r. Terzian: Smallest number? Well, typically they are at six; there may nes when there are fewer. They share rooms, yes. There are typice ,o and there is at least one of those two that has to be there are least )urs, has to be there over night. I think most of the meals are prepared e house and they may have some brought in, frankly I am not sure Hillgren: Where they are brought in from? Terzian: I don't believe there is a central kitchen where they are ced in. ,sioner Hillgren: for the people who are operating or running what sort of management structure is there, who leads Terzian: I am not sure I understand your question. They are the company. Hillgren: The company is based where? Terzian: The company is based in San Jose. loner Hillgren: Is there a regional manager or somebody the staff? Page 32 of 50 file: / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007 \mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Terzian: Yes, there is one individual who oversees probably all of ities here in Newport Beach, man named Swiney, who I believe eared before the Council. missioner Hillgren: So he is responsible for running all eighteer ties? Marketing, how does that occur? How does somebody know does a patient or resident end up in one of your facilities? Terzian: Yes, primarily by referral from the medical profession, th organizations and the like. missioner Hillgren: What sort of treatment does someone get are in the home? Terzian: Most of the treatment is in the form of kind of a group therapy. never been in one and never participated in one, but most of the tment as I understand it, is kind of a form of group therapy o :ussions. That's basically it. oner Hillgren: So the resident manager is responsible therapy for each individual patient? Terzian: Well typically he is the leader of the group discussions. etimes some expert will be brought in to discuss issues of alcoho very and drug abuse recovery. mmissioner Hillgren: What portion of the day is devoted to that and they do the rest of the time? Terzian: I don't know. I mean there is a certain amount of time spent se sessions, a certain amount of time is spent looking at videos, deal 1 recovery. Certain amount of time is free time, but I can't break it do you any more specifically. missioner McDaniel: I guess that leads me to a couple of qt tions. If these people are there and have a program they have to igh, everybody there gets the same program pretty much? Terzian: Yes. )mmissioner McDaniel: They would all go to see the same video and ✓olved with the program at the same time. Whoever is at that faci nning it would have a program, is it my assumption that everybody at e facilities are getting the same thing at the same time? Terzian: I don't know and not necessarily. Just let me respond again ie of the questions that Commissioner Hillgren and you're asking. WI are asking me now, is the nature and the extent of the therapy a tment that the individual residents of these homes get. And I can i , the City does not have any power or authority to regulate that. missioner McDaniel: I am trying to understand what happens there. Terzian: That is done by the State. We are licensed by the State a Page 33 of 50 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Sharcd\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 State tells us what we have to do, the State sets standards, the us what we have to do in this respect just as they do for hospitals, they do for all kinds of facilities. What I have told you is all that I k iut the way it operates. McDaniel: This is what the State says you have to do people. Terzian: The State sets standards for what these facilities have to as they set standards for hospitals. nmissioner McDaniel: Okay, how many are responsible for it, and so iat for how long they are there, and what kind of care, that is all set State? Terzian: I don't think there is a limit. I can tell you that typically Dents are there for 90 days. McDaniel: Okay, I am just trying to find out how it Terzian: The State has broad guidelines on how these places )osed to operate, just like the State has guidelines on how F iorial Hospital has to operate. McDaniel: okay, I think you have answered my qu you. mmissioner Hawkins: I understand your frustration. I think what we ng to struggle with is how the use is operated, and so that was t ure of some of the questions. Our focus of course, as you point out, use of the facility itself. So, thank you for your comments. hairman Cole: Then asked for a show of hands of people who intend )eak. Three minutes is allowed for all speakers and a gentle reminder cus on what is in front of us, the proposed code amendment related tle 20. Please sign in. Oax Liskin: I have spoken before the Council. I think this is all about irocess of education. The first thing, based on some questions that can ip tonight, I would like to give some information. Sober Living by the SE vas purchased last year by CRC Health Corp. CRC is a large nation :ompany and this is a small percentage of their overall operations. CF foes own them and has a national campaign and a national presence. heir 10K, which is a financial form, they talk about their regulation and thi also talk about growth. So, I don't necessarily think past growth is ndication of future growth. The Company also has spoken to the press ai heir goal is to grow as much as they can to go public. They are owned I 3ayne. Bayne is an investment company out of Boston and in fact even 3ayne owns less than 50% of the stock, they in their 10K say that they c: ell their operators such as Sober Living by the Sea make manageme fecisions for them. So we are not really dealing with Sober Living by It 3ea here per se, we are dealing with CRC, which in turn is owned I file: / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm Page 34 of 50 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 iother point I would like to make is we're all here and part of Newport anc e have citizens, the planning group, why are we just talking to lawyers? A's talk to the operators so that we can make some progress. I don't thin) is acceptable to have answers, "I don't know ". This has gotten to a state here we need precision. Certainly if it ever gets litigated people are goinc be focusing on very precise facts. Now as far as the issue abou tegrated, I don't think we should rely on that but at the same time, I think i e are using that as a back door it is my opinion that these operators anc A just Sober Living by the Sea, I think they are very high profile or they ;come high profile it might extend to other people, I think they are usinc e six or fewer as a back door. So to accuse us of that, I think they shouk ok at how they grew and why they chose that path. I don't think it was ar :cident. So, what's good for them might be good for us. Finally, I'm >meowner, I live in an R -1, and several years ago I was told I could no nt my home for 30 days or fewer for short term rentals. I'm beinc gulated, I'm a homeowner. I am not sure what the length of stay is, bu e are struggling even with this issue of occupancy. Is occupancy rmeone there for one day, is it for three days, is it there for ninety days? ten in Sober Living by the Sea living in recovery, their stays are rggested stays. So, I think we have to really, in order to make this work it to the facts, have cooperation. I believe in recovery, but we do neec dance and to have balance you have to have the right information anc lople need to be honest. I don't think we are going to get it from oui wyers or their lawyers. Let's get the operators in here and understanc hat the real facts are. I've run businesses, in fact I started a fairly large lalth hospital company and one of the people who is a senior guy in CRC asked in our company. It would be unacceptable if he came to me anc iid I don't know how many facilities, they know or someone knows, maybe A this attorney. So, let's get the facts. Cole, thank you. 16 Morris: I'm from West Newport. Through all of this I have beer >ndering why all the cities mentioned by Ms. Taber have managed the me land use issue in a non - discriminatory way and to the fullest extent o ate and local law possible. Yet, Newport and it sounds like Ms arshall's firm is leaning in the same direction with the City Attorney': 'ice, has not done this with these ordinances. Residents were asked fo )ut and we gave our input and then it was not taken into account wher ase ordinances were written. Outside counsel and the residents :orneys input is also not reflected in these ordinances. We do not feel the II of the people has been expressed or has been taken into account. ,n't think Robin Clauson has given the direction that could have beer ten to the fullest extent of the law or to affect any kind of change for the nefit of the residents in Newport Beach. Who is overseeing the process what I would like to know. Who is overseeing these attorneys and Robir actually find out that this is going to affect change with these ordinances. ie hard question as to why the will of the residents are not reflected ha: it been answered and this is a stumbling block. This is what needs to be dressed. Please do not pass these ordinances as is. Please look tc tat has worked for other cities in a non - discriminatory way without beinc gated and the expert opinions that have been offered. Thank you very Page 35 of 50 file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning COmmission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Cole: Thank you Ms. Morris. >dd Kramer with Kramer Center of Newport Beach. The gentleman wh( )oke before this last woman motivated me to get up to speak. I am ar veer of a privately owned treatment center. We are grateful to be here id there are a couple of things I wanted to say within my three minute time nit. We feel that there is, in our recent experience to renew our facility gems to be a big disparity between what has been expressed here and the ality of opening a new treatment center and being compliant with the Cit) Newport Beach and the State of California. There is a very strict process one is to follow and abide by the rules of the State of California and the ity of Newport Beach, that has been our experience. We went to the late of California and to the City of Newport Beach and we found the pat[ be very narrow. So, if a treatment center is to be compliant and follow e rules without going through the 100 bullet points, all the things abou stance between facilities and the 24 hours staff and what do you do wit[ >ur residents, my neighbors came right up to us and told us what to do id what not to do. I said gosh, that sounds terrible, we don't want to have ;ople zipping around on bicycles, cigarettes and hooded sweatshirts an( I the stuff. So, we made a list just like the City and State of California. I as an overwhelming process, almost back breaking, but we did that as anted to be accepted in the community. Someone had asked what goes i, in the morning we do clinical therapy and education and in the temoon to be honest, we go sailing or horseback riding, go to school, gc the Long Beach Aquarium and things like that. That is what we do. cat's our place. I would like to continue to participate in this process but R honest, what I would like to say is that things that are being requester e do and had to do that to follow the rules. It was difficult to follow the des and will continue to follow the rules. We have one facility that has twc >ors and they are both the infamous six -bed arrangement which was the de that was loud and clear from the day one. I can't emphasize it enoug[ at there is an incredible amount of strict rules that you get hit with fron >th the State of California and Newport Beach. I don't know what else R iy. What I would like to say is that I want to continue to participate in this •ocess and be compliant and to be here and help people. Cole: Thank you Mr. Kramer. >ioner Hawkins: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kramer is yours or unlicensed facility? Kramer: There is a whole bunch of verbiage that goes with that. The ility itself, and I had to practice saying this myself to even be remotell se to saying it right, there is the facility and there is a residential part o The facility itself is licensed, the house itself is certified and can only be :nsed if it is with adolescence, if its with adults I don't think it can be :nsed it can only be certified. I believe we are both. I think there is ybe one more $2,000 fee that we could pay and get one more spifl) ig and then we could do treatment at the house. We didn't want to do atment at the house as we own the whole top floor of a building and we everything there, so why would I want to do, you know what I mean? s house is where we eat and sleep and we do all the treatment at the Iding, plus the neighbors said they didn't want it, so I said I didn't want tc Page 36 of 50 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 into anymore hot water than what I already am. So we do it all in nmercially zoned building and they have said they prefer that so 1 do that. I could if I wanted to I guess. issioner Hawkins: So your facility is in a commercial zone and that you hold the meetings and so forth? Kramer: Exactly. Hawkins: But you have a residential house as well which r. Kramer: Yes it is a couple of blocks down the street and that is wh ey eat, shower and live. They do normal type living stuff and there is satment there, they come to the commercially zoned building where all nical activities occur. It gets a little confusing as far as certified ver ensed and then there is a difference between the commercially zor irsus the residential. The terminology gets confusing of what you missioner McDaniel: Trying to get a handle on this too. You have where six people live and then there is a place where they go t ment. The place they go for treatment is in a commercial zone. A those six people going there or are there other people going there to( Kramer: Other people go there too because once they graduate residential portion there are referred to us in- patient. Just like a ho other medical facility once they are done with that level of treatment, nsition on to an out - patient level so they don't need to live imissioner McDaniel: So they can come from some place else and in your place. So there are more than six people at your treatn s. The people go through a general plan of treatment. r. Kramer: That's correct. We are pretty small and that is what we want be was small and private. So instead of six there might be nine or t rd they would be coming from their own homes or from their mom a id's home. ick Nichols: I think we're seeing what I would say is over- complicatior :)m trying to tie too much together. Our major problem is ADP homes o DP problems, and when we start tying elderly care and child care and al this under the same titles, each of these in the law has its own category. ach of these categories has hundreds of things that they have to do ti: eet all this stuff, like he was saying. So, basically I think we should bE icking to ADP because this is where our major problem is and we already 3ve said we can't handle elderly care, and we can't handle child care ven ell in this anyway. So, that's my comment on that facility. second thing is the key to all this as far as I can see, at least in r !rstanding of this, is that the person wants to have a diploma or ment from the organization that they have been treated in 24 -hc care I mean, residential care non - medical residential care facility a Page 37 of 50 file: / /F: \Users\PLN\5hared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 hey want to graduate or achieve a certain amount of time. They have to do his to get insurance, or to achieve something from the State on probatior )r whatever these various things are that they are jumping through. The mportant thing is that they are attending a 24 -hour residential care facility at least in this first part. This out - patient I'm not sure of all that aspect an( hat is a different kind of thing that you are dealing with. When you are sealing with this and this is what sober living to a high extent is dealinc vith, they are really a fully integrated facility, they change people, they have a common place where they eat. This gentleman, I think its wonderful tc lave his statement on record because I think you are going to be able tc absolutely wipe him to death on it. My real comment is, is that's ar ntegrated facility in every sense and what they are trying to tell you is tha hey are going to qualify legally as individual facilities. And that just doesn" it as they have 65 parking spots and they say they only have five cars, they )ouldn't get the use permit in our city and supposedly are now beinc serviced in another City. They go by bus to the facilities supposedly, I arr iot sure if that was ever accomplished. All of these things indicated that is a full integrated facility. There was also something, I can't find it right nom and I am very mad at myself for that, but in one of the letters that wa: associated with one of their inputs, Sober Living by the Sea, they said the} iad like 24 sober living facilities. Now, the law says, and I've got it rig4 sere and 1'd like to read it again, "except for facilities opened by a State kgency, no person, firm, partnership association, corporation, County, City )ublic agency or other governmental entity shall operate, establish nanage, conduct or maintain a facility which provides 24 -hour non - medics • esidential alcoholism and drug abuse recovery or treatment services tc adults without first obtaining a current valid license from the department;" e ;urrent valid license, so we should be using this State Law when a persor s in a 24 -hour thing they would have to prove that they have a residence hat is part of this 24- hours, that's part of the facility that they have the res A it provided too, that they have 24 -hour treatment. Going right by the lam s what we need to do, the California Law and by doing that, now we have a vay of actually solving this thing. We're getting closer. The integratec acility that we are bringing up is doing that, but we just need to go ever urther right back to the law the way it is written. If we do that, then I thinN ve have a handle on this. If we don't do that and if we blur it with all these iifferent kinds of facilities, you're going to die. rmissioner Hawkins: You folks made your comments on Sober Livi the Sea and obviously I think those comments would be useful to t ant Sober Living by the Sea seeks a reasonable accommodation ne other application. But our focus here today isn't on Sober Living, k the use generally. So, I am hoping that everyone else can focus th nments on the use generally. Nichols: That is also true. We just had the gentleman Kramer say he is ing the same thing. He has an integrated facility for his 24 -hour nor adical treatment and that should all be licensed. In fact it also says if i i't licensed it's illegal and that is another point for Sober Living. I think i very important for us to recognize that they are illegal if they are no ansed. Why are we giving amortization to unlicensed illegal facilities? illegal facility is illegal. Koler of West Newport: Gentlemen, I wasn't going to Page 38 of 50 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning COmmission\PC Minutes \2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 light, that is what we hired the attorneys to do. I think that the resider this community have been patient and I think we have worked in goy th. We have spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars o orneys to try to work with the City. The draft that came forward to n In't address what needed to be done. What I think is overlooked, besid points our attorneys made, is the over - concentration in o ighborhoods. The General Plan says as citizens we have a right, doi have a right my neighborhood have a right to be protected? No one ainst sober living, but my neighborhood now is institutionalized. There mething to be said for that. None of these residents are against sob ng, its about the over - concentration that has happened in the: ighborhoods since 2004 and how they've gotten there. I hope you Ion isely at what happened in 2004 and what you are about to do right now. pe you will look at our attorney's proposals because the issues a dressed. Thank you. 3sioner Hawkins: You indicated something has happened sir Is it your experience there has been a significant expansion a in the number of such facilities? Koler: I am surrounded by group homes. Hawkins: Did they occur in 2004? Koler: In the last two and half years. Crime is up drastically. Hawkins: So prior to 2004 you had zero of these uses. Koler: I don't know if we had zero right next to us, but as I speak I Funded. There are eight or nine around my home. iolores Otting: I live in Newport Beach and have been following this issue >r six years now. Anyway, in regards to staffing there is a place by where ve called Beau Monde, like Nichol Ritchie went there, all the famous movie tars come down and go shopping. They have dieticians, nutritionists iassage therapists, water activities, people that make the bed, 24 -hou elivery of food, friends, limos so that impacts some of the neighborhoods. want to applaud Aleen Taber from Jackson/DeMarco on her document. link they did a great job. I think it is a sad day in the City of Newpor each when the residents that have been coming here for years, have ha( > pay their own attorney to do this work. By the way, I am here also ecause Bob Rush called me today and asked me to come down because e had to go out of town. Denise Oberman had to go out of town too. Bol fas very instrumental in forming the IROC Committee and I'd like to knov ,hy this didn't go before the IROC, why is it before you guys? It wouk ave helped you. Also, Mr. Chairman, could you please explain to mo fterwards how many of these public hearings we are going to be able to ave because it seems we are like this (far apart) tonight. I thought you al sked great questions and I applaud you for taking this on because this ha: een going on and on and on and on and on. I would also like the City tc nd out where we are nationwide as a community to the amount o oncentration because I think in some ways we deserve to get a specie ispensation from the State because it can't be anymore than what it is. Je now are doing them a disservice because they want to be with a famil, Page 39 of 50 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 J we have so many in an area that they don't see any families. I do nt to go through this document because we only have three minutes I even have something here that they are going to have to pick up t arette butts at least once a day. It has to be six times a day. Thank y I please explain how this is going to work. We are not anywhere ne se and five months is not long enough. We could have gotten eighte inths and we should be talking to operators and it should have gone DC. So anyway, thank you very much. missioner Hawkins: You indicated we are separate on this. By that it you mean that staffs proposal and the residents expectations are ni . Otting: What we thought was going to happen and what the public wa: mised, we were promised months ago that we would be part of thi: cess. They had to hire someone that still didn't get to be part of thi: cess and were ignored by the City staff that we the residents pay for. that is why I am saying we are like this (far apart). mmissioner Hawkins: We are conducting a public hearing. Ms. Tabe I an opportunity to provide the input that you have indicated as well a j. We are not at the end of this process. I think everybody needs t Jerstand that during this public hearing process, this will be an iteratio our document. So, it may not be perfect and I don't think Ms. Marsha Neves it's perfect and Mr. Harp I don't believes it's perfect, but I think w getting to a point or we can get to a point and it may not be tonigt ere we have a document that reflects the best for the City. s. Otting: I hope so because another problem with the way the proce is been set up because we are on a fast track program for five months, s come here and get three minutes. If it had gone before IROC a fe nes, people should have had a little bit more time. And I understand yc e going to have more than this one public hearing, but again thr( inutes for somebody's life. To say that you have a house next to you ai been vacant for a year, again we have special circumstances that ha, ippened in our City because of certain other relationships that peon for to working here established for us. So now we have this big mess san up. I do applaud you for taking this on and three minutes though could have been done differently. Two hundred million dollar budget, v could have been handled differently. mmissioner Hawkins: Thank you, Ms. Otting. One comment just aryone. I understand the limitations placed on oral comments but th no limitation, and I applaud Ms. Taber she put together her writ nments in three minutes. I would love to hire her and then we co ike a lot of money. I would encourage everyone who feels they do ✓e enough time in their oral comments to make as many writ nments as they feel that they need to. Hopefully we can respond !m. Thank you. Harp: Just for clarification we have met with the citizens that acted us and have reviewed all the written materials that have I think it is a little unfair to say that staff has not made them: [able to the residents. We've had extensive telephone confer Page 40 of 50 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Counsel and I just want to clarify that for the record. relyn Schuster: I have lived in Newport Beach and have never been eting before. I feel it is necessary. On my street there are eig s in the past four years that are care facilities. I don't know if the y, but they are duplexes, so is that separate homes or are the ier? It is the concentration and I am in the minority. It is no longer borhood, it is a giant care facility. Other than the other side of tf rum who are the fraternity boys. Now I don't know how this benefi type of people who are trying to get off alcohol, they have to remof on the 4th of July. I don't think if these people would have so mar s if it wasn't Newport Beach, but this is a big issue and I think yc d listen to those other attorneys. Thank you. ,en Drellishak: I am a resident and homeowner down on Balboa Peninsula 'oint and we have not been subject to the kind of concentration of sucl icilities as other areas on the Peninsula but I can tell you that there is a bic oncern on our Board and from our residents about movement in tha irection. We are encouraged by what is going on here tonight and b7 ROC and all the issues associated with trying to limit such concentrations. think it's sad in a way that the residents have had to go out and hire ttorneys to protect themselves on issues that should have been the City', ssponsibilities all along. So that is sad in my mind, but it is done and it ie ver with. I would encourage you as you go along to listen to the attorney: >r the residents and make sure that the input gets inserted in the ;solutions, documents, ordinances that go forward. You may tend to loot >r the most conservative legal advice so you will never be sued in court le most conservative legal advice may not be the best approach for the ;sidents and I want you to think about that. When you go forward, you gc >rward with the most aggressive legal advice that you can imagine, not sc such that will get you into trouble but so that it supports the residents a: such as possible. Listen to these lawyers, the residents paid a lot o' coney for them and I hope you can take their input and use 1 ggressively. We are burdened in this whole issue with a set of, we tend tc fink in terms of houses and people and rehab and we tend to think it srms of the people who are being helped in this situation but what we are :ally burdened with is commercial entities. Businesses that are makinc Toney by moving into our neighborhood and by changing the nature of our eighborhood at the expense of our neighbors and in profit motive. They re here to make profit, they don't care about the neighborhood. 1 knofn nce in a while they say they worry about the neighborhood, but their rimary effort is to make profit down here. It is obvious they have changec re neighborhood and they are continuing to change it by making profit it re neighborhood. It is incumbent on us and you and all of us to look a' rose commercial entities, forget about the houses, residents and people >r a moment, and look at the companies that are doing this to us and try tc ee if there is some way we can get our hands around those companie; nd make sure we control them as a way to control the problem we see own here. Mr. Terzian comes up and says he has 18 houses and Mr ramer comes up and says he has one house and we tend to think in term: f numbers. There is a number around here, 100 facilities on the eninsula, that is over - concentration if there ever was. We've got to thinI4 bout it in terms of those 100 or more and maybe another 100 as these Page 41 of 50 file: //F:1UserslPLNlShared\Planning Commission\PC Mhiutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 ipanies grow and try to make more profit out of the businesses they I wish you would consider seriously when you go forward with the mi :rictive ordinances you can do because the companies will find ways loopholes in those too. Thank you very much. nmissioner Hawkins: Pregnant in your comment is to limit the profits operators, it sounds like. Also pregnant it seems to me is some sort control or way of lowering the cost of the housing so that the pro ive is gone, but then we may end up with a proliferation of those uses. r. Drellishak: I don't think in terms of the prices of the rental property, ink in terms of the character of the community. If we had ordinances tha ;fined the character of the community and defined in it such a way tha ese things could be limited, I think that is the approach we ought to bE eking at. But the companies coming down here to do these things ar( .re to make a profit. The only way we can control them is to define the iaracter of our residential community. We are not an industrial zone. sere are lots of other companies, organizations that could come dowr .re and set up businesses in our community but we regulate them ou ;cause we want to control the residential nature of our community. WE ive not found a way to do that quite with these businesses but these ar( sarly businesses moving in and they might as well as being sewing shop: id I know they do good things, but the might as well be any other kind o nail business that you run in a house and we try and control thos( ,cause we don't want those kinds of things in our neighborhoods. But wE in't control these as well and that is what I urge you to think about as yoi i forward. Hawkins: One of your suggestions is not some sort of Drellishak: No, not at all. (ay Mortenson, local resident on Peninsula Point, I have been following the vork that has been done by the concerned citizens of Newport beach and I support the proposal they have set forth to the Planning Commission. I am lisappointed that I do not see so many of those proposals that have been rery well researched in the presentation tonight by the staff and by the ittorney representing the City. One of the areas that I haven't seen nentioned or included is the recommendation that the group homes be separated from public parks and schools by 1,000 feet. That is a very mportant issue. I am wondering why that was not included and would you )lease consider that. I think that the wording is, "no group homes of any ;ind within 1,000 feet of any school, daycare facility, public park, etc." (hank you. blic comment was closed. mmissioner Toerge: Well, I kind of analogize this a little bit like you an iding some wood and you start out with 80 grit then move to 200 grit an( n to 400 grit and then you shine it up. We need some 10 grit here. O the speakers, Mr. Drellishak approached my feelings the most. I thin) need to take a much more aggressive stance with our ordinance here. a little concerned that we are so far apart from what I would support tha Page 42 of 50 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 really don't know if we should be getting into too much detailed debate might. 1 think we should be giving our staff and legal advisors our genera npressions and requiring them to go back and engage maybe at the Ciy: Kpense alternate legal advice and not the residents' expense to get a little t more aggressive position here. I kind of like Ms Taber to be sitting a its table. No disrespect to our legal advisor, it is my opinion. think we need to be more aggressive. I agree that we can employ a ver onservative legal policy and be completely safe, I don't think that work ere. We need to be aggressive and I think this is rather a new field, I thin iw is still being formed and our City is being inundated and we have th :sources. We should not put ourselves in a damaging legal position but link we need to be aggressive. I am speaking in generalities, I am nc oing to parse the words as I think we are too far away from that and ncourage my fellow Commissioners not to do the same and try to giv ome general direction to staff because this has a lot of work to be done. at I see is congregation of these facilities and concentration ve gration and spreading them out. To me integration is that, mixing lading and it's blending. What I am seeing is a congregation and I t need to address that in whatever way we can. We do need to inc Tees from any jurisdictions, whether it be city, state, maybe city do( e parolees but whether it's county, state, federal it doesn't matter to parolees need to be integrated into this process or called out. see no reason why we can't register these facilities whether they are tensed, unlicensed, six or more than six. I think it is more than reasonable iat we understand who and what is operating in our City. It may not ever ualify as regulation, but I think we need to register them and we need tc low who they are so that we can in fact deal with them in a more, whether iey are sober living or group homes of any kind, they should be registered. I think this expanded definition of treatment whether it is on -site or off -site, vas on the Commission when the Sober Living facility came before us and ust see a lot of integration here between commercial facilities that are not ;ending their residents to the neighborhoods in Newport Beach and I thin hat needs to be evaluated and understood and expressed in more deta erm so that we can address what we think is fair and reasonable. I'r *mpletely comfortable utilizing the current CUP conditions or findings i )rder to determine whether or not these facilities are appropriate rathe han creating special ones, but nonetheless we should have them and b rble to use the conditional use permit process in a much wider capacit han what is being proposed in this ordinance. a transitional issue needs to be addressed as well as it relates to, and ught the suggestion from Ms Taber, existing facilities should registe iin 30 days and other licensed ones should apply for CUP's within 18 fs. Again, there has been a lot of documentation and work done on thi I I am not an expert in the field, but it is our responsibility to provid feral guidance to our staff and our City and our attorneys. I hope I'v ie that and I hope my fellow Commissioner can do the same. I simpl ik we are way far off from where we need to be and I don't think we ca ig this out tonight. I think it will require that we ask our City attorneys t back to the drawing board, to get more aggressive, otherwise I won't b Page 43 of 50 file : //F:1Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes�2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 1211912007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Page 44 of 50 supporting this ordinance. Chairman Cole: I agree with a lot of sentiments Commissioner Toerge stated. I might suggest unless there is opposition from other Commissioners, I think that Ms. Taber's letter does an excellent job summarizing almost the majority of the people here tonight. I think there are specific requests that she has indicated that I would like to go through, here are six or seven of them, to see if there is consensus on the Commission to instruct staff to come back at another meeting and addres hem one by one. I would like to get consensus on those issues. ier Hawkins: By address do you mean respond to them in the Ordinance? Irman Cole: If there is consensus to incorporate them in the will be our instruction. imissioner Eaton: I am a little bit reluctant on that because I wo :r to see a response and an attempt to incorporate all of them into nance or else a clear response as to why that is not feasible. e Commissioners agreed. airman Cole: I would agree to that. The first request was to revise linance to require new and existing unlicensed residential care facil six or fewer residents to obtain a conditional use permit. iissioner Toerge: Mr. Chairman if I heard correctly, I think we ji voted on to include them all and to pass them to staff without goi h every one of them. nissioner Eaton: I said that I thought we ought to refer all of them for either incorporation or a clear response as to why that it is i hairman Cole: Okay, we can do that and summarize them for the purr F the audience, I would like to go through them briefly unless someone n opposition. missioner Hawkins: I think we should go through them point by use I don't know what staff and special counsel needs is simply a, this and respond to it and incorporate what you can and explain can't. I had understood what you were asking was that we pr( :tion as to which of these we want included in the ordinance and )e a response if we didn't. hairman Cole: That is correct, that is what I originally proposed and I thi we could do that. >mmissioner Hillgren: My comment was to include them or not and if r uld we get some suggestion as to altematives to try and address some ase things as I think all the issues are pertinent. What I am wrestling w the fact until I received this document I didn't know what alternatives ally ought to be thinking about and that is something I would really ho file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 could help me with. missioner McDaniel: I think that the information has been presented, it has been articulated fairly well, much better than I can do and m, is that there are some things that we can say here, take a look at i use our residents have spoken. They deserve the opportunity to hav( : they've written responded to, specifically. For us to go through, d just like them to have a clear shot. They have spoken and havf I people to do this and I think they ought to have a clear shot at havinc fly not what we think, just everything here. When it comes back they'I some responses as to which ones work and what doesn't work an( and specifically what they have asked for. Maybe it's right, maybe it': ig, but they have gone to a lot of work and they deserve a shot at it. 's my view. �mmissioner Hawkins: I think it just puts the shoe on the wrong foot. nk our job is to provide, we are not going to recommend adoption of th dinance tonight. So, I agree Ms. Taber has summarized a lot of issues, A think staff and special counsel is entitled to direction to the extent th, can provide it on these recommendations. I think that is our job. I dor nk our job is to say, here, and then they hand it back to us and we dor s any of it. man Cole: There are only six requests and I think for the benefit of :, it is worth going through at least briefly and getting consensus one. That is what I would like to do. ;ommissioner Toerge: I understand that but you just asked for a straw vote nd you got four Commissioners who believe you should submit them all. hey were summarized very clearly by Ms. Taber and to do it again I thins ,e should take the time for additional items and introduce them in concep s I mentioned earlier. This is a rough piece of wood that needs to be anded and done by staff. This is so far off that for us to get into these etails, I don't want to restrict my ability to object or agree to anything tha Ames up before us again. I just think this is so rough and it needs to be ,-worked by the experts with the understanding that the four people on the :ommission that offered their straw vote, that we understand why they an't be or summarize how they can be integrated and if not, why. I prefer of to go through them individually but I would encourage my fellom ommissioners to include any comments that are beyond the six. Cole: 1 am willing to entertain a motion if that is how you wish Eaton: Well I have some beyond the six, which I would get in man Cole: I think we are talking about this letter first and I :ain a motion to at least commence with what we want to do with from Ms. Taber. mmissioner Hawkins: I don't think we need a motion. Why don't we j through the straw vote and have staff respond to it or incorporate it i Ordinance. Given the fact the we have an action item before us, I Page 45 of 50 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 A sure that an actual motion and second is necessary. I think a >te probably is better. hairman Cole: I want us to give clear instruction to staff of what we do with this letter. Would you like to summarize that Commis: Toerge: I think Commissioner Eaton said it best if he cou it mmissioner Eaton: I think what I expressed was that I thought we ou submit the entire paper to staff with the intent that to the extent that tl n with the most aggressive posture possibly incorporate those into used ordinance or, some clear rational as to why they feel it can not nan Cole: Okay is there consensus. We have consensus for that. let's open it up to any additional comments that the Commissione have. )mmissioner Eaton: I would like a couple of other things looked at tl isiest of which first is that we be given whatever we can of what oth unicipalities have done and I would like staff to pass that on to us. What I feel is lacking is a good sense of what other aggressive citi have successfully been doing. We don't have much data in front us on what other cities have attempted to do and what they ha, been successful in doing. The second thing is I would like a little more in -depth study of wl we need to permit large facilities at all in the R -1.5 and R -2 zone including how many we have currently in those zones. The issue non - conforming might be an issue in the future with tl amortization. My sense is that we have a lot of small facilities in tl City and a more limited number of large care facilities and there m be not so many of those large care facilities in the R -1.5 and R zones. With the limitations of almost all those properties being sm and the structures being so close together that I think, if we can, th we should consider not allowing the large care facilities in tho: zones. The third thing is that I would like to have staff look to see in eith the case law or in studies, whether there has been any indication when a concentration reaches the tipping point that you actually c, conclude that it is detrimental to the disabled themselves to be in ghetto, if you will, of care facilities. If that actually happens, if the is a tipping point where you can say that is happening, that detrimental to the disabled as they should be entitled to live relatively normal characteristic residential neighborhoods. It seer to me that if you have such a concentration of facilities, even tl small scale facilities, that it becomes virtually a ghetto, then that inimical to the disabled as well as to those other neighbors IE nearby. So, I would like a look at that to see if there is anything the case law or studies that have looked at that issue to see wheth we can construct something in that way. rman Cole: Does staff understand that request? He was answered Page 46 of 50 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\rnn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 issioner Hawkins: I've indicated some of my comments earlier, lar with definitions. I think the group residential may be an appropriate category some of the homes we are talking about, but I think the majority those unlicensed facilities need a separate or sub - category unc that group, especially because they are going to attempt to regulz them in some fashion later in the ordinance in connection with t reasonable accommodation. I agree with Commissioner Eaton's suggestion of a prohibition large faculties in R -1, R -1.5 and R -2, but I think that same treatme needs to happen and maybe under our definition of integral faciliti it does happen, I just don't see it. That same treatment shot happen to the integral faculties. Near as I can tell, the thrust of t integral facility definition is if there are a bunch of small facilities th we can define the function in a coordinated fashion we treat them a larger facilities. Therefore, the prohibition for the large facilities those zones should also apply to the integral facilities. Generally, in connection with the process, I believe there should notice throughout and probably a 300 foot notice provision. I al believe that the residents ought to be able to appeal the decisions the Zoning Administrator. Obviously, the City Council needs to able to appeal the decisions of the Zoning Administrator and decision by this body should be final. I have a lot of respect for r fellow Commissioners, but we all report to the Council and t Council are the policy makers. Ms. Marshall sort of implied that could in some actions we take expose the City to some significs liability. I for one would rather have the policy makers make tt decision rather than this body. Thank you. mmissioner McDaniel: The testimony this evening that I have tried to i I think Commissioner Hillgren tried to get to, is what are these facilitie: i how do they operate. It is pretty clear to me that there is a busines: ng on there where there are rules and regulations and there are 1cedures and there is oversight and even a home office in some cases. , one by one, one of these in a residential area is not a big deal, bu en you put two or more now you've re-zoned that area into a busines: i is not a residence when they are all beside each other. If we don't do nething, we've re -zoned that area out of residences. One or two are but when there is a consolidation of them it's not a residence anymore a business and there probably is in my mind a need for these facilitie: to be in a residential area at all. If they are going to operate as >iness, they should be in a business zoned area. Maybe that is too far it direction, but it is clearly not residential. These are not people trying t( integrated into society from wherever they have come from. It is 3iness that is congregated in a residential area. If they go into >iness area, they get licenses to operate as a business and I am fully it or of that. It seems clear to me that it is not a residential application. )w there are lots of State regulations involved with that but when yot to a list of things you have to do, its a business and when you have npany that owns eighteen or more of them and you've got them side bl e, clearly it is a business being operated in a residential area that ha: Page 47 of 50 file: / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 1211912007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 an under the radar by saying they only have six units but they re a more than six and are operating many more than six. So, they h gotten under the radar and that irritates me, but I don't know how are going to be but I just wanted a go at it. ) mmissioner Hawkins: I have one final comment. I've heard and the stal port implies that the meeting could be contentious and folks get abusivr id we do have armed officers here tonight. This is my way of backing intc compliment because I do believe that the group, residents, Mr. Terzian feryone conducted themselves impeccably and you are to br ingratulated for that. To respond to Ms. Otting, we have heard that somr the IROC meetings have been not as cordial, but you see that mayb( is form is the way to do it. For Mr. Terzian, I understand your frustratior th the operational questions, but perhaps your client could come o rmeone to answer some of the potential operational questions that couk )p over on to the use issues that we are going to ultimately decide. lank you everyone. mmissioner Toerge: I will try a shot at making a motion here. Motior s made and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to continue this item de Amendment 2007 -005, to July 19th and incorporate the comment; ide by Commissioner Eaton relative to the comments we got from Ms ber as well as the three items that he addressed and the other items tha mmissioner Hawkins added as well. All of those were right on point an( )uld all be evaluated and brought back to us. ng a brief discussion on timing, it was determined that this be continued to July 19th. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: I Peotter SUBJECT: Zinc Caf6 and Market ITEM NO. 5 3222 East Coast Highway PA2003 -225 .rld the Planning Commission accept the annual review of Use Per 2001 -040, deem the operation of Zinc Caf6 and Market in compliar the conditions of approval, and require no further annual review Ling Condition No. 36 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1627? . Lepo noted this is an annual review for substantial conformance wi editions of approval particularly the outdoor dining that is used only f acial events. There was a concern of the parking waiver granted as s with the proviso that the employees are required to park at the City I Bayside and Marguerite. Code Enforcement, Police Department and inspection by staff have shown no problems or complaints from 0 ghbors. Staff recommends that you accept the annual review and wail condition for subsequent reviews. on was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded b, imissioner Hawkins to accept the annual review of Use Permit 2001 deeming the operations of Zinc Cafe and Market in compliance with th file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\nm06- 21- 07.htm Approved Page 48 of 50 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 editions of approval and require no annual review by deleting of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 1627. comment was opened. comment was closed. being no further discussion, the vote was called. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Excused: I Peotter and Hill ren ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up Nothing to report. Re op rt from Planning Commission's re r� esentative to Development Committee Commissioner Hawkins reported that they had received Economic Development Study that Councilmember Henn, staff several other EDC members assisted in drafting. It had issues are pertinent to us in terms of some of the land use incentives, This will be forwarded to the Council within the month and I w encourage everyone to take a look at it. Report from the Pla_nning Commission's representative to General_Plan/Local Coastal Pro r m Implementation Committee Commissioner Eaton reported on the issues of grade, height and 1 are starting to get to the point where we are coming to sor consensus on how to address t he issues of height and grade different slopes of lots. It is complicated and as a primary issue taking a lot of discussion to get to a point to have some equity a don't create a lot of non - conformity and make it easier on staff plan check. We had some initial discussion on incentives and wl is possible or feasible to provide and to the extent we want to provi incentives. We were passed out a thick first look at some of t earlier sections of the proposed re- write. Report from the Planni_ng_Commission's .representative to Intensive Residential Occupancy Committee Commissioner Toerge noted there had been no meeting and scheduled. Matt_�_which a Planning Com at subsequent meeting None. file: //F:1UserslPLNlSharedlPlanning Commission\PC Minutes\2007vnn06- 21- 07.htm Page 49 of 50 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/21/2007 Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to lace future agenda for action and staff report None. Project status None. Requests for excused absences Commissioner Hillgren noted he would not be available for meeting of July 19, 2007. 10:05 p.m. ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 50 of 50 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn06- 21- 07.htm 12/19/2007