Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - Appeal from Larry MathenaCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF TH HEARING OF ICER Project No. PA 2008 -101 Application No. UP 2008 -30 Name of Appellant Larry Mathena Phone 949 -265 -2018 Site Address 1115 West Balboa. Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92661 Date of Hearing Officers decision February 12, 20 09 Name of Applicant Ocean Recovery, LLC for (Description of application filed with Hearing Officer) Application for a Use Permit for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard 2008- 030),to allow a residential care facility to operate a state licensed adult alcohol and /or drug abuse sober living facility for 22 resident (male only) clients. Reasons for Appeal See Attached Ar _February 2009 Fee received Date = ^T "` C.00cuments and Settings%sobomy %Local SetfingslTemporary Internet FileSXContentOutlook1277DB2P7 %Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision.dgcx Revised 02 -04-09 jjb <� 9 Fn ��n T 4? E C.00cuments and Settings%sobomy %Local SetfingslTemporary Internet FileSXContentOutlook1277DB2P7 %Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision.dgcx Revised 02 -04-09 jjb Larry Mathena 1125 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92661 949 265 2018 949 752 5334 (fax) APPEAL OF HEARING OFFICER THOMAS ALLEN'S DECISION ON FEBRUARY 12, 2009 IN REGARDS TO OCEAN RECOVERY, LLC USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR 1115 WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD February 25, 2009 TO: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach SUBJECT: Ocean Recovery at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach • Use Permit No. 2008 -030 Application This is an appeal of the decision described below made by Hearing Officer Thomas W. Allen at the hearing held on February 12, 2009- regarding Ocean Recovery, LLC "Applicant" at 1 115 West Balboa Boulevard. Specifically the decision for which an appeal is sought is the decision Hearing Officer Allen made, after the close of the public hearing portion of the hearing, to continue the hearing for a six month period with the application of interim conditions to be determined at some later point in time. BACKGROUND: To protect the integrity of residentially zoned areas of the city, residential uses like boarding houses and fratemities/sororities have been prohibited in all residential districts. Following the adoption of Ordinance 2008 -05 (the "Ordinance" j on January 22, 2008, the City has changed the way it regulates residential uses that do not consist of a single housekeeping unit, but provide group home living arrangements for the disabled, such as sober homes and alcohol and drug recovery treatment homes licensed by the State of California's Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs ( "ADP In California ADP Fact Sheet, California in Treatment: Fiscal Year 2006 -07 the following point is noted: 27% of residents of a rehabilitation facility do not abstain from using their primary drug during their residency. This is consistent with the Operations Manual of Newport Coast Recovery- which has a goal of getting and keeping "75% of all clients sober /clean for the duration of the program." Therefore statistically in the discussion of the facilities that follow, one can reasonably assume that one quarter of the residents of the facilities continue to use and abuse their primary drug. As of the date of this submittal, the following has occurred in the immediate vicinity of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard: • The 11 -bed Balboa Horizons facility for women at 1132 West Balboa (almost directly across the street from 1115 West Balboa Boulevard) received a conditional use permit under the Ordinance. • The 29 -bed Newport Coast Recovery facility for men at 1216 West Balboa (approximately a block's length away from 1115 West Balboa Boulevard) was denied a permit under the Ordinance. However, Newport Coast has appealed the decision to the City Council. • The 12 -bed Kramer Center facility hearing on Thursday, January 29, 2009 was cancelled- because the operator has withdrawn its application. [In accordance with an email from David Kiff, Assistant City Manager to interested parties, this does not mean that the operator won't seek reasonable accommodation.] • Applicant's 6 -bed rehabilitation facility is expected to receive a state ADP license shortly at 1217 West Bay Street. As a six bed licensed facility- the City has no power to reject its operations at this location. An unlicensed fourteen bed facility at 1.129 West Balboa Boulevard (thirty feet from 1115 West Balboa Boulevard) is scheduled for abatement. As of the date of this appeal, the writer is unaware of any City action taken in regards to the abatement requirement. • In regards to Applicant's other facility at 1601 West Balboa Boulevard (UP- 2008 -031) Hearing Officer Allen asked that a Resolution of Approval be brought to him to document his apparent approval of this facility at a later date. DISCUSSION Ocean Recovery Operations at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard Applicant operates a residential care facility- (a halfway house under the American Planning Association standard) located at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. There are two buildings at the project which house a total of 22 adult residents in a sober living environment. The facility has been operating since the summer of 2004. Under the Ordinance, Applicant - while protesting the legality of the Ordinance- applied for a Use Permit from the City for its activities at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. City staff has spent more than eight months attempting to gather information from the Applicant. On February 12, 2009 a hearing originally scheduled on February 5, 2009 was held to review whether or not the Use Permit should be approved. Substantial documentary evidence and verbal testimony was presented by Newport Beach residents regarding Applicant's activities at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard that indicated the following: Applicant: • has eliminated all on -site parking, despite the fact that some of its residents and many of its regular visitors drive and park automobiles at the facility; • constantly generates second -hand smoke at the facility which permeates the adjoining neighbors' properties; • has clients at the facility regularly using inappropriate coarse, vulgar language full of curse words often within hearing range of the neighboring young girls; • accumulates dramatic amounts of trash which is stored without proper bagging directly below the open windows of neighbors' bedroom windows- causing odor and bug problems when it is warm; • has not adequately supervised its clients. There is a reoccurring theme in the correspondences and in the testimony of the hearing of inappropriate behavior; • does not adhere to the required "quiet time" from 10 pm to 8 am, and in violating this requirement, its clients use loud and crude language both late at night and very early in the morning; • clients participate in the institutionalized weekend alcohol and drug rehabilitation gatherings on the beach at 15th street adjacent to the Newport Elementary School, and just 50 feet away from children utilizing the playground; and • clients interact with the clients of Balboa Horizons across West Balboa Boulevard at the Balboa Horizon facility. In addition residents in a building three doors down from Balboa Horizon regularly attend activities at the 1115 West Balboa Boulevard facility. • facility should be abated in order to avoid over concentration and institutionalization at the 1100 block of West Balboa Boulevard. To the extent I have been able to collect documentary evidence submitted by the residents (including my own prior submittals) - I include it as Exhibit One. Additional salient facts presented at the hearing include: A petition signed by 143 nearby residents of the neighborhood was submitted expressing the position that there is an overconcentration of group residential facilities and that there are too many- too close to Newport Elementary school and the Use Permit for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard (as well as 1601 West Balboa Boulevard) should be denied. A copy of the petition is attached as Exhibit Two. The testimony and submittals of the Applicant presented multiple instances where there was direct evidence to the contrary to the statements and submissions Applicant made. After the close of the public portion of the hearing and the closed portion of the hearing began, the senior City staff' ultimately responsible for code enforcement acknowledged at the hearing the presence of code violations by Applicant as reported by many residents in writing to the City as part of the Application process- but stated that the City does not enforce code violations brought to its attention during the Application process. In addition, these same residents identifying code violations were not advised of how to file code violation complaints that the City might choose to begin to enforce. The City Staff Report to the Hearing Officer directed the Hearing Officer to approve Applicant's use permit request but only on a six month interim basis. In light of the very substantial record presented describing Applicant's failure to perform in a manner consistent with the conditions upon which a use permit may be granted, it appears that the basis for the City Staff Report position for the six month window is that notwithstanding the substantial record presented upon which Applicant's use permit application under the Ordinance can and should be denied that provided that the Applicant states its agreement to meet the conditions under which a Use Permit can be granted under the Ordinance the City Staff's position appears to be that the use permit must be issued. The City Staff Report Proposed Condition of Approval Number Eight read as follows: Smoking and Tobacco Products. Smoking on -site shall be restricted to a designated area interior to the facility, or an area that is enclosed on all sides but can be open to the sky, to Prevent secondhand smoke from impacting adjacent residences. Smoking outdoors is prohibited. In addition, Operator will not allow clients, staff; or residents to litter cigarette butts, on the ground, floor, deck sidewalk, gutter, boardwalk or street.... During the public portion of the hearing, the Applicant through its counsel proposed to follow the standards of smoking in the Sober Living By the Sea settlement. The public vehemently objected in light of the overwhelming record of Applicarn's poor behavior and stated that the standard as codified in NBMC Section 20.91A.050 A. should be followed- and that there t h no justification for not enforcing the standard of the law. It reads: 20.91A.050 Development and Operational Standards The following standards are applicable to uses granted a use permit under this Chapter. A. No staff, clients, guests, or any other users of the facility may smoke in an area from which the second hand smoke may be detected on any parcel other than the parcel upon which the facility is located. The Hearing Officer stated on the record that once a use permit was granted that it was extremely difficult for a use permit to be revoked. During the closed portion of the hearing the Hearing Officer stated that he had decided to continue the hearing for six months to give the Applicant the opportunity to prove that it can meet the conditions upon which a use permit may be granted. He also stated that the conditions which would apply during this continuance period would be negotiated approximately three weeks after the hearing. Since this happened during the closed portion of the hearing the public was not given a full opportunity to respond to the decision of the Hearing Officer. I respectfully request that this decision by the Hearing Officer be reversed and that the Hearing Officer be ordered by the City Council, as permitted under N13MC Section 20.62.100, to make a final determination under the Ordinance based on the substantial evidence on the record. I make this request based on the following: The Hearing Officer's decision was made after the close of the public hearing. The public was not given the chance to fully respond to the apparent probationary period permitted for this particular Applicant. By its terms the Ordinance requires the abatement begin of facilities that are not issued a use permit by February 22, 2009. There is a more complete record for the determination that Applicant should be denied a use permit than any other facility that has applied for a use permit under the Ordinance. This continuation and probational status granted to the Applicant is inconsistent with the face and the intent of the Ordinance. In the event that the City Council does honor my request I have two additional directions I believe based on the record should be made by City Council to the Hearing Officer: First, that the Hearing Officer directly determine the applicability of NBMC Section 20.96.040 Paragraph E under which the Hearing Officer is required to revoke the permit upon making one or more of the following findings: 2. The applicant has made a false or misleading statement of a material fact, or an omission of a material fact in the application for the permit. Second, in the event that the Hearing Officer were to approve the use permit application of Applicant that above and beyond any condition that provides mechanical provisions dealing with smoking that such a condition explicitly simply and plainly include as part of the condition the full language without limitation of NBMC Section 20.91A.050 A: "No staff, clients, guests, or any other users of the facility may smoke in an area from which the second hand smoke may be detected on any parcel other than the parcel upon which the facility is located." Finally, I respectfully reserve my right to appeal any and all issues that may be presented in a foal determination made in regards to Applicant's use permit application, including any other procedural objections that may be 9pplicable. EXHIBITS Newport Beach Residents Correspondences 2. Newport Beach Residents Petition 7 EXHIBIT ONE: Newport Beach Residents Correspondences ATTACHED ARE SOME OF THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE HEARING OFFICER. ALL NEIGHBORS ADJOINING THE 1115 WEST BALBOA FACILITY HAVE SENT LETTERS AND SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS IN OPPOSITION TO THE 1115 WEST BALBOA USE PERMIT APPLICATION - -- Original Message - -- From: kim flores To: DKiff{dicity.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: Paul lope z ; Colleen Darling Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 9:13 AM Subject: neighborhood letter Hello Dave, My name is Kim Flores and 1 rent the back house at 1113 112 West Balboa Blvd. I am writing this letter because i believe the permit of the Ocean Recovery Center should be denied. i have lived at this residence with my family for almost 5 years. Since the facility has moved in, there have been many problems with the recovery house. I have 2 young daughters, they are 16 and 12 years old. Many times my children have been out in the yard playing or just relaxing out there and the men have looked over the wall and tried to talk to them, even striking up a conversation with them. They have done this with me too. To me this is unacceptable. I don't know what these men have done to be in this recovery center but the last thing I need is for them to be friends with my family. Trash day is Monday morning and it never fails how they like to take their trash cans out at 10:30pm Sunday night. This wakes up our entire family, especially in the summer time when we keep all our windows open. Their trash is so bad and over stacked that in the summer time the flies from the trash have become such a nuisance. We have such a bad problem with flies over the summer that we have to buy fly spray and spray our house on a daity basis and keep about 3 fly trap bags in our yard. Every Thursday night they have a BBQ at the facility and about 20-30 people attend. It gets very loud and we have to deal with this on a weekly basis. They are constantly smoking and cussing outside of their facility in the patio area. We have found many cigarette buds in our yard and nobody in my family smokes or in the front house. There have been many times that a recovery patient plays an instrument that he will constantly play it during the day or at night. The guitar playing and bongos can be very annoying. Also, they constantly open and slam their screen doors throughout the day. I noticed when the facility first opened up the parking situation had gotten worse. I know that they use their garage for their meetings and never use it for parking. This is just another problem we have with it being a recovery center and having too many people living there. We never had any issues when it was just rented out to tenants. Too many of these facilities are being allowed to come in and reside here. They are close to our schools and families. I pay a lot of rent to live here at the beach and I never planned on living next to a recovery center. I could move to another house and trust me I have looked at other places. There are so many recovery centers down here, no matter where I move they would still be a few doors away from me. l never thought Newport Beach would be a place where recovery centers would even exist. Please take this into consideration when you decide on the renewal permit of the Ocean Recovery Center at 1115 West Balboa Blvd. Thank you, Kim Flores 1113112 West Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92661 949.673.1564 From: Colleen Darling Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 200911 :32 AM To: .nnwrt- beach.ca.L& Cc: 'g_lopezOadelghiamet ,Subject: Property at 1115 West Balboa Blvd. Hi Dave, My name is Colleen Darling and I am the owner of record for the property at 1113 and 1113 X W. Balboa Blvd. I understand there is a hearing coming up regarding a permit Issuance for the rehab facility at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. I would like to speak up in opposition of this. I spent 6 months at my property, in the spring and summer of 2008, updating the house and Hying in It after a long term tenant moved out in March. I would like to share with you what I experienced firsthand. The hou rs stated for quiet time of 10 pm to 8 am are not, in my experience, followed. I have personally gone to the fence after 10:30 pm and asked them to quiet down many times. They congregate out in the patio area and talk but this is right next to our house. They can get loud and keep our children and ourselves awake when we are trying to sleep. They were always respectful but I didn't think I should have to ask them to quiet down. The on site manager would typically come down and apologize but, Ws his job to make sure the 10PM -BAM ordinance is in effect. Why Isn't he doing it sip front? The residents would then go to their rooms with the doors and windows open. Their televisions were blaring so loud that we had to keep cur windows shut to get some sleep. In the summertime, It's not Ideal. The clients of the recovery house are up at 6am outside their rooms, talking with little or no regard to the hour of the day. They congregate outside in the patio area at the tables and smoke. They talk about what theyare doing that day and believe me again, everyone can hear their conversations (good and bad language). Another issue is second hand smoke. Many of the men (it Is an all male facility by our observation) over there were smokers. it is disgusting to be near that much smoke. It can get so annoying that we will not let our children in the backyard to play. We did not enjoy the backyard dining area as it too is affected by the secondhand smoke. Regarding the smoking, I know there are laws set up for commercial spaces. There should be regulations that with the number of people occupying such a small space, that they must provide smokeless ash trays, high fences to block the smoke and or some type of odor absorbing green shrubbery to help out The regulations should also address the trash generated from the cigarette butts. Cigars are worse and at times, there are men there smoking them. Parking in front of my own house was interesting. 1 bought a permit to help out. I know there Is a garage out back since it used to be an apartment house. I don't think it was used for parking though. Parking in this area of Newport is already crowded. This group has used the garage Spam of this apartment house for a meeting room. This means that cars that could be parked in the garage are now taking up space in front of our house. This is just another negative impact of having this group next door. Now I have tenants In both houses next to 1115 W. Balboa property. Neither tenant uses the Yard very much because of the facility next door (noise, smoke, strangers). Do you know l have to tell people before I rent that house that it's a recovery house of some sort? Not a good opener for bringing someone Into the area is it. Having a "recovery house" right next door makes it much more difficult to rent. Potential renters are very concerned about the type of person that is over there. We know they cycle through and so there are new men there every few weeks or so. It is very unsettling. Dave, I have owned this property for over ten years. I remember the apartment building being filled with great people, one of them being Paul Lopez. Please help us put it back to way it was In Newport. Bring the community back to a place that people can live and families can grow up comfortably. Nobody wants a recovery house next to them and I'm sure many would be as uncomfortable as I am to communicate with the some of the people next door. We want It back to where we could barbeque together, go and enjoy the beach and boat parade together and be proud of our block. We pay a lot of money to the dty for taxes and should be able to enjoy our home. I will see you at the meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration. Colleen Darling 1161 Letty Lane Tustin, CA 92780 714- 263 -6998 P 714-730 -5163 F 310. 528 -1174 C February 6, 2009 Mr. David Kfff. Assistant City Manager 3300 Newport Blvd. Ncwport Beach, CA 92661 Re: 1115 W. Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 Dear Mr, Kiff, This letter is being written to inform you, the City Council Members, and the Independent Hearing Officer of some of the negative experiences my family and I have experienced living next door to the Ocean Recovery facility located at 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. It though I feat retaliation position to its use permit application. Make certain I am writing, even against my family and/or myself for doing so. But, have decided it best to report the truth. We moved in five short months ago and suffer from daily stress regarding Parking issues, loitering, loud noises, profanity and inappropriate discussions, fear of tenants, lack of Privacy, and side - stream smoke. The following is our perspectives and opinions. Some specific examples of these issues are: PARKING • I come home and there is no street parking near my home, so I park amund the comer. As I approach my home, I see the Ocean Recovery van and the supervisor's vehicle parked in front of my house. My thoughts are, `won't they have asix -car garage w}ry are they taking up street parking" �e fact is this facility, its vendors, and its visitors all occupy street parking, which only exacerbates the already crowded street parking. • On several occasions, I have had to park elsewhere because their clesuirrg lady's van is parked in front of my home. This in and of itself seems of no issue, however, this is a very strange situation. At first, I thought she was waiting for a drug deal. One of the ladies sits in the van from l Oam until after I Opm - and smokes cigarettes, literally, the entire time. The odd behavior, so noticeable, that my kids ask, "What is that lady doing ?" I.O-- ITF.R -INr • I come home with my children in tow and we have a very rough looking guy standing in our yard, smoking his cigarette, like he lives there. As we park, he continues to remain on our step, smoking his cigarette. We have to walk through side - stream smoke to get to our front door; a very intimidating and unhealthy situation Last night, among many, many other nights, I la m bed Ii to people talking, yelling, la y groups of and out of doors; just beyond my bedroom' m windows' el �a� Wig, in experiences the same. When I asked one of my school age children about it, he tells me he falls asleep listening to the neighbors e, very night. people calling across the courtyard to one another, late night, is not unusual. This is C:1Documenrs rrnd SeWnP'0V=V_0Cd &U'VV%T=P0I ,y JMI't FiII%O[K4714 W retta tIDk}B:dno especially disruptive when my kids are trying to get to sleep on school nights. The inappropriate and noticeable noise also includes the packing of cigarette packs - constantly (the kids are very aware of this now). There have also been incidents of musical instruments played outside late at night Iately, yelling across the street to another apartment full of affiliates has been witnessed. • My husband, all my children, and myself have heard profanity, almost on a daily basis! It is extremely disturbing, especially, as a parent Drying to limit inappropriate exposure to negative behavior. • One night, while in my bathroom, I could hear two people talking, quite late in the night One was discussing details of his extreme problems, the other providing counsel. Again, a situation I do not want in my life, nor want my kids to have to be exposed to. I was forced to close the windows and door of that room. SIDE - STREAM SMOKE • Three rooms of our home have become dungeon -like because the windows and shades cannot be opened. This having been discovered after several incidents of cigarette smoke has come directly into our home (front door, back door, windows). We have had to close our front door and retreat to back rooms for several minutes to allow smoke in the living room to clear out. The same incidents have happened in the bedrooms, as well. Smoke has been and continues to be breathed by my children, husband, and myself. I am asthmatic and have respiratory issues from the frequent side -strew n smoke exposure. We have eighteen windows in our house and eleven can never be opened, because of the constant smoking next door. The children and my husband have complained of being hot and stuffy in the house, due to lack of fresh air! While it is winter now, I fear what will happen to us in the summer. Our back door is also kept closed almost constantly because of side - stream smoke. This its a real inconvenience because I personally like the idea of having a back door for fresh air. But, in this house, that is not the case. • When the kids and I come home, we are bombarded with side - stream smoke surrounding the two properties. It makes it nearly impossible to go and come without breathing it! Some actions I have had to take arc having my kids inside the house until I ouea the car, and the list goes on. The smoke is almost constant. We have had various negative experiences coming in the back gate too, where we have had to run in, hold our breath, cover our faces, etc. • Constant smoke next door has prohibited my children from being able to play in the backyard (for which we pay rent)! If the rare occasion arises and no one is outside next door, we are able to sneak out for about three minutes. Then, someone (or many) comes out to smoke - then the protocol is, "Burry, get inside, Mommy smells smoke." It is quite sad, actually. "AR OF TENANTS • It is a rule for us that our kids cannot go in the backyard alone, ever. I feel fear not knowing the various backgrounds of the multiple, ever- Chan einQ tenancy next door. This, mppiLa—Hy. after my young &Ug ter was given a piece of cake over the fend from a man next door, Having heard many conversations of these tenants, I fear where they have been, what they have done, and who they know. It is very apparent jail is a commonality among them, as my children have become aware of this, as well. As I stated in the C.AD=ments and sellmslOopeal meal Settings\Ten MVXY IntanetFaa OU47=06 Utter to 6kilidac beginning of my letter, I am writing this letter knowing the people living in these facilities are criminals. Many of them actually belong in jail, but have been allowed to live next door to me because they agreed to this program, instead of jail time. My husband and son have to walk around on alert all the time, never knowing what could arise with these type of men (and number of men) next door. Not to mention the unnerving feelings of the females in our household. Because there are always multiple men outside next door, we have experienced problems with people looking over the fence and into our windows. This makes it uncomfortable; therefore, we have been forced to keep many of our window shades closed at all times. The last thing I want is for a tenant there knowing the set up and whereabouts of my kid's room. Just yesterday, I was getting my child out of the car in front of my house and turned around to see a man watching us from inside his screen door, over there. It was very unsettling. When I come and go with my children, I always remind them to not look `over there." Additionally, the fact is that Newport Elementary School is in very close proximity to this and many other like -kind facilities, which the City has allowed to operate. This is not right and does pose an unnecessary danger to children. It is also, within close proximity to other facilities of like kind, another situation the City has allowed to occur. This over - concentration is also not right. I thought there were rules regarding a 1000 foot proximity to schools and one another. The number of these facilities throughout our City is ridiculous! 1 want to say this letter is just the tip of the iceberg of daily experiences and added stress that our family has, and is, going through. It is unfair my children have to go through this so someone can keep their profits up. It is undeniable; Newport Beach is expensive to reside in. For this reason alone, we expect a nice place to live. And right now, it is not a very nice place to live. Good families like ours will not continue to be community members here if this is low it is going to be. Isn't it your job to protect and serve all the community members ofNewport Beach? I hope the City Council Members and Hearing Officer will take our perspective (and other concerned community members) into account and deny, without appeal, the use permit application for the Ocean Recovery facility located at 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. If ibis facility is abated, it would allow our family and neighbors to live a more normal life without daily exposure to side - stream smoke, lack of parking and privacy, loitering, intimidation, fear, loud noise, and profanity. Sincerely, Kristi Verdugo Cc: Colleen Darling, Landlord Cc: Paul Lopez c:V OMManfs o d SeampVbpalmQ SaftmpWaMomy tmMA PaSNOLK47 Oxa6 LcM to tsdnd« Page 1 of 3 Paul Lopez From: Paul Lopez Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:02 PM To: 'Kill, Dave' Subject: Comments and requested corrections to the Staff Report for the 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. Use Permit Dave, Please forward this to the Hearing Officer. I have finally reviewed the Staff Report for the 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. Use Permit I believe it is the City's responsibility to gather the appropriate "facts" regarding this facility in order to present appropriate findings and recommendations to the Hearing Officer for his approval or denial of this application. Although the City has not left the public with much time to review and comment on its findings and recommendation, below Is my feedback regarding spedfic components of the report. As it relates to a few of the Operator's comments: 1)The Operator states that 1115 residents don't attend weekend Narcotics Anonymous meetings on the beach at 15th street. This is not true_ In fact, the Operator, himself, has provided the City with his residents' schedules that show they clearly attend. Furthermore, and as I sit on my deck on Saturday and Sunday momings, , I routinely see residents leaving the 1115 facility, beach chairs in hand and yelling back at slower residents to "hurry up, we are going to be late for the meeting ". t have followed these groups on several occasions and have verified that they do indeed attend these meetings at 15th St. 2)The Operator states that they discourage smoking at this facirdy. There is no evidence of this, and in fad, direct neighbors on the east, west and south side of 1115 have gone on record complaiming about the amount of second hand smoke that is being generated from this facility and voicing their concerns over their family's health and restricted living environment It is a fact that large groups of residents smoke daily in the courtyard and around the facility, both front and back. Immediate neighbors have documented to the the City their concerns related to the negative impacts created by this volume of secondhand spoke. Specific examples provided include: children can't play in the yard, windows need to be kept closed at all times and recent reports of personal health conditions such as Asthma. To further prove that the Operator is not being forthright on this issue with the neighbors and the City, up to forty people, mostly guests, are allowed to smoke during the Thursday barbecue. 1 have sent several pictures to you that demonstrate this fact. I think the City needs to ask the Operator to explain his definition "discouraging smoking ", as they have recently installed a tent over the courtyard smoking table to shield their smokers from getting wet during the recent rainfall. 3)The Operator states that most of their residents don't have personal autos, but just a few that are in late stages of treatment This Is not true. 1 believe he should have stated "Most residents have Cars." Neighbors provided City with personal observations, including pictures, that show that 1115 residents are seen and heard at all times of the day and night in personal vehicles. Additionally, the Operator states that there is a maximum of 5 additional parked cars on W. Balboa as a result of their weekly Thursday gathering. This is not true. Thursday gatherings generate 30-40 people, most of these guests who arrive by personal auto. Anyone trying to park on the 1i00 block on Thursday evenings knows this to be true. 4)The Operator states that local neighbors' observations and the unhealthy living environment is due to the adverse behavior from the residents at the 1129 W. Balboa facility, not his 1115 facility. This Is absolutely not true. The record clearly shows that all observed behaviors, code violations, second hand smoke, offensive language etc. are emanating from 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. The record is clear on this issue and substantiated by petition signatures, letters and pictures that have been submitted to the City. 5)The Operator states that there are at least 4 staff members on site at 1115 each day. Th(s is not true. Several local residents have gone on record questioning whether "any" staff is on site daily. 6)The Operator states that "one" van transports all 22 residents at 1115 to offside events and meetings. This is not tine. in fact, the number of vans is at least two. The City has received a picture substantiating this fact from 2/12/2009 a Page 2 of 3 ,me. 7)Operator states curfew is 10:OOPM on Weekdays and 12:OO13M on Weekends and lights out at 11:OOpM. This Is not true. Local residents have gone on record with observations that residents are coming and going on bikes and cars at all hours of the night, well past any of these stated times. Rarely, are lights "ever" out at this facility. My conclusion: The Operator is not telling the truth, and actually appears to be lying, on several of the above issues. The Operator's poor track record in managing this facility is very dear and has been clear for almost 5 years. By making a recommendation that the Operator will now somehow comply with more stringent conditions going forward, Is not supported by his prior mismanagement, or lack thereof, of the operations and residents at 1115. Additionally, it also very evident that he is currently misrepresenting the facts and /or lying. I believe that past performance is a great Indicator of future performance. Based upon the facts that have been put . forward in this application process, h is clear that this Operatoes business operation and facllf eat 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. is detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, comfort and welfare of persons residing adjacent to this facility. As it relates key findings/ decisions made by the City In this report, I have the following comments: 1)The City's recommendation that smoking must be in an enclosure with four wails and can be open to the sky is ridiculous and ready has not been well thought out by the City Staff. Direct neighbors on the east and west side, the same neighbors that have gone on record with the negative impacts of the second hand spoke, reside in structures that are three stories (versus the two stories at 1115), with master bedrooms and windows on the third floor. The residence direly south of this facility is only two stories, but has a bedroom and windows that sit higher than the structure at 1115. This will not eliminate the current second hand spoke issue for local neighbors. 2) The City's arbitrary linear block designation, instead of utilizing a radius/cirde methodology, and recommending that W. Balboa Blvd Is some form of dividing line for the 1100 block of W. Balboa Blvd. is ill conceived and seems to bias this process in favor of the Operator. In fact, residents are on record stating that there is daily contact and face to face communication between sober living residents at 1115 and other renters (or residents) directly across the street at 1120 W. Balboa Blvd and between sober living residents at 1129 and the sober living residents across the street at 1132. From all practical viewpoints, W. Balboa Is not a dividing line and does not prevent the over concentration and institutionalization of these facilities in a local neighborhood. This arbitrary definition and interpretation of the APA standard appears to disadvantages local residents. For the record, the City is recommending overconoentretion of these facilities due to their proximity to each other, within our local neighborhood and as it relates to the number in dose proximity to my residence. The fact is that 1115 is only 85 feet from the approved Balboa Horizons facility at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd. Approval of the 1115 application would now put two approved facilities within 80 feet of my residence. This recommendation by the City would now provide for four sober living facilities withiin 300 feet of my house. This is not fair and clearly represents over concentration in my local neighborhood, 3)The over concentration of these facilities to Newport Ei and playgrounds is indeed is a real Issue for residents. The City continues to ignore the fact that most of these residents do attend NA meetings each Saturday and Sunday on the beach at 15th Street. They are adding to an already large gathering (in excess of 100 people) and within 50-100 feet of the school and playgrounds. Additionally, the City is also Ignoring the fact that sober living residents do use Operator provided bicycles to tour the strand. The majority of these bike excursions are in direct proximity to the school and playgrounds, treating an untenable situation for families with children fearing for their safety caused by an overconcentration of these type facilities in this local area. 1 am not sure of what additional facts the city needs from residents to document that 1115 W. Balboa Blvd does not meet the charter of City Ordinance 2008 -05 which empowers the City to "Protect the Integrity of the City's Residential Areas ". Does the community need more than 144 oppos plctures7 aw signatures? More than 14 letters of opposition, most Identifying specific observations at 1115? Mare A large number of residents from the local community have presented compalling-ft0sto demonstrate that this Operator s business and faculty at 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. is detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, comfort and welfare of persons residing adjacent to this faculty. I urge the Hearing Officer to overrule the City's recommendation and deny this application for a Use 2/12/2009 Paul A. Lopez 1125'/: W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 949 - 673 -0489 January 27, 2009 To: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer David Kiff, Assistant City Manager Subject: Opposition to Use Permit # UP 2008 -030 & UP 2008 -031 Ocean Recovery Facilities at 1115 and 1601 W. Balboa Blvd. I am writing this letter as a 10 year resident of Newport Beach, eight years as owner of my current residence at 1125 '/: W. Balboa Blvd and two years as a renter at 1 l 15 W. Balboa Blvd. My residence lies directly between the Ocean Recovery facility at 1115 W. Balboa Blvd and the sober living facility operated by Richard Perlin at 1129 W. Balboa Blvd. Within 100 feet of my home and across the street is the recently approved Balboa Horizons facility at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd. My proximity to these three facilities qualifies me to speak directly to the issues of overconcentration of sober living facilities in my local neighborhood and the negative impact that such businesses have on my family and my neighbors' quality of life as homeowners in Newport Beach The City is now reviewing Conditional Use Pemit applications for the Ocean Recovery facility located at 1 115 W. Balboa (which abuts my home to the south), and its sister facility at 1601 W. Balboa Blvd. I am requesting that the City deny these applications on the following grounds: At present, at least five (5) sober living facilities with more than six beds operate within 1000 feet of Newport Elementary School. These facilities include: 1115 (22 residents), 1129 (14 residents), 1132 (11 residents), 1216 (29 residents) and 1601 (I8 residents) W. Balboa Blvd. There are also several other <6 bed facilities operating or requesting to lc area. tttr weeken aohol and dugreh bilit tion gatherings on the beacchatl5hstre t, just feet away from children utilizing the playground. This group has gown dramatically as the number of sober living homes has increased in the neighborhood. Over 100 recovering individuals attend these weekly meetings. It is well known that many of the recovering individuals now housed in our community come to us with legal issues, multiple behavior problems, and a vulnerability to relapse. They are people at risk for behaving impulsively and without good judgment, and as such do not represent good role models for our children —in fact, one could easily argue that such individuals are at risk for endangering our children. Despite the fact that the community has gone on record multiple times with the City regarding our concerns for the safety of children attending Newport Elementary and other children using our public playgrounds between 13a` and 14'h streets, the City still approved the facility at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd. Enough is enough! The City must now exercise reasonable judgment and legal responsibility to reject the applications for both of these facilities on grounds that this overconcentration will endanger the well being and safety of our community and children. See attached pictures # 1, 2 & 3 As noted, the City has already approved the use permit at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd (11 residents). This facility is within 100 feet of my residence and within 100 feet of two other sober living facilities at 1129 W. Balboa and 1115 W. Balboa ,both of which abut my property line and are within 5 feet of my residence. If we then include the current sober living facility at 1216 W. Balboa Blvd, I now have four facilities and 65 residents within <800 feel of„ Y residence. Any reasonable city official or local resident would conclude that this represents an overconcentration of sober living facilities within one local neighborhood. I am looking to the City to rectify this situation immediately. The 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. Ocean Recovery application should be rejected due to 1.) its close proximity to four other sober living facilities and 2.) the overconcentration of these facilities in direct proximity ervy residence. I am a tax paying and respectful resident, and I don't believe I or my neighbors should be subject to such unreasonable concentration. It is clear that the Operators of these facilities are taking advantage of their rights for reasonable accommodation at the expense of our rights as citizens of Newport Beach. Furthermore, the City has made this possible by failing to enforce any type of limitations on the proliferation of these facilities. The time is now for the City to rectify this unfair situation for the benefit of all residents within the 1000 to 1200 blocks of W. Balboa Blvd. See attached picture # 4 residents. The Ocean Recovery facility at 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. has three two -car parking garages that open to the alley. Since moving into the building approximately four years ago, Ocean Recovery has never used any of these six parking spaces for parking automobiles, but has used them instead as meeting or living rooms equipped with carpet, chairs, white boards, stereos, couches, and TVs. Furthermore, Ocean Recovery assembles anywhere from 10 -40 people on a regular basis in these garages. During summertime, the garage doors are regularly raised, permitting unwanted group conversation, profanity, yelling, and other unacceptable behavior to invade the privacy of neighbors. Not only is this a violation of the rights of the local community, but it is also further testament to the fact that Ocean Recovery is not a residence, but rather a business operating within a residential neighborhood In the past, the owner has indicated that none of his clients have vehicles on site while in treatment. Truthfully, many clients own cars that are regularly parked on W. Balboa Blvd. Although clients sometimes travel by van to outside meetings, they continually come and go in their own cars throughout the day. Additionally, visitors to this facility also park on W. Balboa Blvd. In fact, I am sure the City has assessed many violations for .parking in the alley behind 1115, as clients and their visitors often cannot find available parking on W. Balboa. Personal vehicles and facility visitors make it difficult, if not impossible, for other residents to find parking on the 1100 block of W. Balboa Blvd. Residents are disadvantaged because Ocean Recovery uses garages as meeting rooms and not for parking. This is another example of Ocean Recovery misleading the City and failing to consider the needs and rights of their neighbors. See attached pictures # 5,6,7,8,4,10 & 11 Constant second -hand smoke from the 1115 W. Balboa facility is a serious health hazard for my family and all other residents within the 1100 block of W. Balboa Blvd. Numerous clients at the 1115 facility constantly smoke cigarettes in the courtyard, in front of the facility, and behind the facility. It is not uncommon for 10 -20 individuals to smoke at the same time in these areas. At the facility's regular Thursday evening barbecue —which individuals from other sober living locations and/or recently departed residents attend — the number of smokers can exceed 40 individuals. The courtyard where most smokers gather is within fifteen feet of four other residences that abut the property. This is a genuine health and safety concern for all of us who live within range of this second -hand smoke. From my own experience, attempting to avoid second -hand smoke has left me and my family literally shuttered in our home. We cannot open any windows on the south side of OUT residence without being exposed. I know the neighbors on the south side of 1115 W. Balboa have the same problem.' Like most residences on the Peninsula we do not have air conditioning, so we are forced to open windows in warmer weather and endure these noxious fumes, which not only settle in our upholstery and shades but pose a serious health risk. Coincidentally, I developed asthma approximately three years ago. I am now wondering whether the second -hand smoke from 1115 has been a contributing factor. Living next to Ocean Recovery has burdened me financially as well. My house was built in the 1980's with wood and single -pane glass windows. Shortly after Ocean Recovery moved in to 1115 W. Balboa Blvd., cigarette fumes and noise penetrated my home even when my windows were closed. This problem worsened when the sober living facility at 1129 W. Balboa Blvd. took up residence about 6 months later next door to the north. Consequently, I spent $30,000 replacing 31 windows with double -paned glass. I also had to replace the north and south side windows with opaque glass, as we found residents peering into our home when the shades were up and/or windows opened. Should I as a tax - paying and respectful resident have to spend this kind of money to block out the detrimental and unsafe environmental impacts created by each of the facilities at 1115 and 1129 W. Balboa? This doesn't seem fair or legally right. The City has banned smoking on the beach and in most areas in City buildings, but I am subjected to second -hand smoke seven days a week. This is a health hazard for my family and me, and 1 request that the City reject the 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. application based upon these safety risks to myself and my neighbors. When Ocean Recovery first opened, a full -time manager lived on site. He has since left, and I am not aware that Ocean Recovery has replaced him. If they have, I have not been able to distinguish the new manager from the other residents. This lack of leadership and poor management has led to an increase in noise level (e.g., residents yelling at each other, fighting, loud stereos, loud TVs, etc.) and behavior detrimental to the neighbors at all hours of the day and night. I don't think there is even a curfew, as I see and hear clients leaving the facility on bikes at all hours of the night, residents' cars pulling up in the alley in the late evening with stereos blasting, and large groups of clients gathering in selected rooms and making noise well into the night. The profanity that emanates from the facility on a daily basis is disgusting and offensive to anyone who can hear. Groups of residents frequently loiter aimlessly in front and behind the facility. They are intimidating to other residents and visitors and rude to those who approach them about unreasonable consistent with the City executing its legal responsibility of protecting the rights of the citizens and neighborhood that they have been entrusted to protect. Importantly, approximately 125 local residents have signed a petition opposing approval of these applications. Over 30 of these signatures were secured from families with children at Newport El and 70 from owners and renters within 3 blocks of the 1115 facility. Additionally, the City has received at least 10 letters from immediate neighbors of the facility at 1115 W. Balboa Blvd., voicing their specific concerns and experiences for opposing these applications. l trust that the City will take this strong community opposition and deny the Ocean Recovery facilities at 1115 and 1601 W. Balboa Blvd. incerely, Paul A. Lopez IM '/2 W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 949.673 -0489 0 r, ol® 2 f 4 '— `o ° i ,ti 1. � 'feW ; -4 : 1 ir. to 1: 9I makrore ms E �:_ 3 raa a m s r, t, 0 0[: ID 10 fal 011, low=# 21 W, 1 E 10 11 iiti O. *I I I a ILTArw T11, 0 dace arld."Smokin/c 0 • a • jed y L C 1� 1 • jed C] 5e i cW Ll m I 0, lk (r 0 M L I TR O nt ash ) ( � A r i S ��' ,Paul Lopez From: Paul Lopez Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 200910:57 AM To: Wff, Dave' Subject: FW: Ocean Recovery Use Perrnit Submittal UP 2008 -030 Dave: I supplement my prior letter to you for delivery to Hearing Officer Allen, regarding Ocean Recovery's Use Permit application for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard with this email. I do this because I have been told the interaction of the rehab facilities on either side of West Balboa Boulevard at the 1100 block has become legally meaningful. For at least the past two months as I have been parking my car on West Balboa Boulevard, I have noticed the Ocean Recovery clients of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard crossing West Balboa Boulevard every day and visiting several male residents of the upstairs unit at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard. They sometimes just visit at the entry way stairs at 1120, but I have observed on multiple occasions the 1115 clients entering the upstairs unit on the south side of the 1120 building. At first, perhaps paranoiacly I thought some type of drug activity was going on, but have nothing to substantiate this. I have seen embraces and have a feeling that these renters know many of the clients at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. I believe they are affiliated with or perhaps graduates of Ocean Recovery. This perception is further reinforced as I have seen the residents at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard cross the street (to and from) for the Thursday night get together and barbecue at 1115. Further, I have heard yelling back and forth between the two facilities. Kristi, the renter /neighbor at 1113 West Balboa Boulevard has also seen the same and has seen the traffic going back and forth between the buildings. She told me there is constant yelling from the residents at 1115 to the renters across the street. The upstairs unit at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard looks directly down at the courtyard at Ocean Recovery. The renters at 1120 keep their balcony open day and night, providing them with a clear view of the courtyard of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. Additionally, I have seen the rehab residents at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard yelling across the street at the female clients of Balboa Horizons at 1132 West Balboa Boulevard. This has been most pronounced when young men are on the upper balcony at 1129 or out front in the courtyard at 1129- with a group of girls sitting outside of 1132 and /or are arriving or departing by van. They seem to know one another. It might very well be from the weekend gatherings on the beach or other mutual meeting places. These facts raise significant issues around the City's arbitrary finding /designation of appropriate distances between these facilities and block designations. First, W. Balboa Blvd. is not a dividing line for interaction between residents of 1115 and renters at 1120 W. Balboa Blvd, or between sober living residents at 1129 and 1132 W. Balboa Blvd. It is a short distance of -120 feet between 1115 and 1132 and it apparently does not impede traffic or communication between them as noted above. This leads to my second point. Why does the City believe that 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. is too close to 1132 W. Balboa Blvd. (within 300 Feet), but feels that the 120 ft. distance between 1132 and 1115 is a sufficient distance based upon an arbitrary designation that W. Balboa Blvd. is somehow a dividing line between blocks- especially given the fact that clearly West Balboa Boulevard does not seem to be stopping 1115 spreading its ongoing regular daily activities to people living across West Balboa Boulevard at 1120 W. Balboa. If you are going to pick West Balboa Boulevard as a dividing line between two facilities - it would probably be a good idea to confirm that the one you are giving a permit to- i b hidn't already apparently have attendees of its activities regularly piercing what appears to me to be an artificial and irrational barrier. The direct line of sight, demonstrated 'interactions between the facilities on both sides of W. Balboa Blvd., and the presence of daily attendees of 1115 functions living across Balboa Boulevard are clear and rational reasons that this simply is not the case. Both of these facilities,1115 and 1132, are within 105 ft. of my residence and 120 feet of each other. This is overconcentration for the neighbors of the 1100 block, and for me, regardless of what side of the street you live on 1 hope this additional factual information is helpful in reaching the right conclusion in regards to Ocean Recovery's Use Permit for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. Best, Paul Paul Lopez 1125 1/2 W. Balboa Blvd. 949 - 673 -0489 P.S. Please confirm your receipt of this email and the attachments. Thank you. 2 Page I of 1 Paul Lopez From: Paul Lopez Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 12:39 PM To: 'Kiff, Dave' Subject: FW: 1115 Recommendation Dave, I have reviewed your staff report for 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in the City's recommendation for approval. This finding is confusing in light of the strong and specific body of evidence that was submitted by local neighbors who are directly impacted by the poor management of this facility and the related negative impact that it has had to our "local" neighborhood. Additionally, the City's arbitrary establishment of W. Balboa Blvd. as some kind of dividing line for block designation is now going to enable approval of two such facilities within 80 feet of my residence. Given the interaction going on across the street, I believe this is overconcentration by anyone's definition! We have lived with the negative impacts of 1115 for over 4 1/2 years and the City is now giving more time to this operator to get his act together. Additionally, the City is now putting the continued policing of this facility back on the tired shoulders of the residents. What is missing from the evidence presented to the City? I believe that 4 1/2 years of past performance is the true indicator of future performance, rather than an operator's promise to do things completely different in the future. I have to conclude that the City is so frightened of this operator that it is willing to abandon the tax paying and respectful neighbors that have gone on record in large numbers to oppose this application. The public hearing is our final opportunity to lay out our case once again. For the third time, I am asking for your permission to present my photos (adjusted to protect the faces of clients) at the public hearing on Thursday. These are the photos that were submitted to you in my letter dated January 27, 2008. I also need to confirm that you have the equipment- i.e. both the PowerPoint program and a USB data port on the computer connected to the projector. If not, I will bring my own laptop. I look forward to your timely approval of this request. Finally, and for the record, I have 23 additional petition signatures from "local" residents and several additional letters that have been sent to your attention. I will be dropping these off at City Hall today. This brings petition signatures to a total of 143 and am I aware of 10 opposition letters that have been sent and/or emailed to your attention. I want to ensure that each become part of the public record. I appreciate your assistance with these above matters. Sincerely, Paul Paul Lopez 1125112 W. Balboa Blvd. 2/10/2009 "-- Original Message_ Frown: mathenaesq@aol.com To: DKitT@city.newport- beach.ca.us Sent: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 3:27 pm Subject: Ocean Recovery Hearings For February 5th, 2008 Dear Mr. Kiff: Here is my personal letter to the Hearing Officer regarding the circumstances that I have lived with - between two rehabilitation facilities and my personal objection to the Ocean Recovery petition for a permit at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard as well as at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard. Being surrounded on either side by rehab facilities for four years has been difficult. Everyone living in my home has been detrimentally affected by these facilities. My children on the ground floor do not open their windows, even in Summer because the cigarette smoke is too great from both facilities. Each member of my family has had multiple run -ins with residents of the facilities. I have found beer at left at the back of our building left hidden by a resident of 1115 W. Balboa so he could go get the beer after some function at the facility. I have had confrontations with rehab residents claiming that people in my house have threatened their dog. I have been swom at, stared at and generally made to feel unwelcome at my own home. My wife will no longer sit on our patio deck because it is adjacent to 1115 and the residents stare at her when she sits there. They never close their blinds. I have had operators of facilities tell me to tell them If there are any problems- but the problem is there are always problems. I feet as though they are requiring me to be unpaid staff for the operators to supervise their troubled clients. There is a constant turnover of typically young men with serious problems who seem to spend a substantial amount of time doing nothing more than hanging around. Their language is offensive and disturbing. They play music and instruments late at night. Most of them seem to smoke relentlessly. They constantly litter with their cigarette butts. Some are truly troubled. One of them residing at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard assaulted one of my daughters and only backed off when my wife threatened to call the police. The manager of the facility was apologetic. The facility was smart enough to remove this disturbed individual from the facility. But there is a constant turnover at these facilities and there will be more seriously disturbed individual's right next door to me and my family in the future. There are times, when conditions are right- particularly on Thursday nights at around 7pm that the smoke from the 1115 W Balboa facility funnels down their back walkway and to my front door so that the air at my front door and my neighbor's front door reeks of cigarette smoke. I have also seen the disturbing scene of a driver of the van of the 1115 West Balboa facility (presumably someone done with treatment?) smash into the back of a car and then nun out of the van and hide in the facility. Additionally the 1115 West Balboa facility has permanently eliminated its onsite parking. i put tape down on the edge of their garage doors and none of it has been disturbed since I put it down prior to Christmas. There are parking Issues - particularly in Summer as a result of this lost parkking. There are often twenty plus people coming to their Thursday events. Clearly they are not parking on site. The City review process seems to put some weight on the number of police calls at a facility. The police are not called because the police do n't do anything. They have no power to do anything. We had a circumstance where a cigarette ash tray receptacle caught fire at a facility and was spewing toxic fumes into our home. The fire department was called. We were told by the fire department that it was inappropriate for us to call them for such a small fire. Fortunately the 1115 West Balboa facility was only established itself after my children were at least 16. If my children were much younger I would have felt compelled to move. Flow a facility like this can be allowed a short block and half from Newport Elementary School- is simply unforgiveable. a Both of the Ocean Recovery facilities use permits should be denied. I will provide a separate legal analysis explaining why many of the requirements that must be met to receive a use permit can not be met by Ocean Recovery. Larry Mathena 949 265 2018 From: Ronei.Mathene [mallto:ronens@lpacbeil.net] sent Monday, February 02, 2009 10:42 AM To: DKIff@cIty.newpert-beaM Ca.us Subpect � Ocean Dmry Use Permit Application UP 2008 30 and 31 Mr. Kiff: I cant begin to explain to you how awful it is to have rehab facilities on either side of my home at 1125 W. Balboa Boulevard. 1 keep the windows on the first two stories closed all year (even in Summer) - all the time to avoid the cigarette smoke, offensive language and noise of the 1115 W. Balboa house. I wont sit on MY patio deck across from the Ocean Recovery home. The residents stare at me. They never close their blinds. The staff at Ocean Recovery sound helpful. But even the staff have issues. I believe they are addicts too. I saw a driver of Ocean Recovery smash into a parked car in front of the 1115 West Balboa and run screaming into the building. There are serious parking Problems on our block because 1115 West Balboa has closed its lge ping in total. The residents wander around the neighborhood unsupervised all the time. There is constant turnover at the home. There is always a brand new set of troubled young men. Some are truly scary. One Ocean Recovery resident directly threatened my daughter. I ran up to him in front of 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and got him to back off by screaming at him that I would calll the cops. The staff said they were sorry and the person disappeared. But what about the next one? I called the fire department when an ashtray caught fire at a rehab. Smoke was entering my home. I was directly told by a senior fireman that it was wrong that I called them for such a small fire. I shouldnt have to feel like a prisoner within my own home. I shouldnt have to feel that the City will do nothing about these halfway homes. I shouldnt have to feel at risk. I shouldnt have to N- bear cigarette smoke, litter, and foul language. Please reject Ocean Recoverys use permit at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard and 1601 West Balboa Boulevard. Thank you, Ronel Mathena 949 -566 -0107 PaulLopea Subject: ~ FW: Ocean Recovery Use Permit Submittal Mr. Kiff: My husband asked me to write you and the hearing officer about the goings on of the rehab crowd - on both sides of 1100 West Balboa Boulevard. I am a housewife. I am at home most days at 1125 West Balboa Boulevard. The more interesting thing to watch during throughout the day is the young girls from the 1132 West Balboa Boulevard rehab facility. Many times during the day the young men from the rehab facility at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard go over to 1132 West Balboa Boulevard and knock at the door at 1132 and clearly ask the girls if they can come out and play. Often mid day they evidently can- typically they hang out together smoking constantly and using curse words in the courtyard at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard. In fact on Tuesday, late afternoon I saw a male resident of 1129 (I can identify his car) pick up a young woman from 1132. I have also seen the women from 1132 meet young men who cross West Balboa Boulevard from 1115 and meet at together at 1120. They hang out on the stairs at 1120. I assume that the management at 1132 West Balboa Boulevard knows about these activities because on more than one occasion, I have seen the silver van of 1132 West Balboa Boulevard pick up the girls behind the alley of 1129 West Balboa Boulevard. When the girls at 1132 West Balboa Boulevard arrive in their van and park, I have seen the young men at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard yell at them and cross in the middle of the street to go talk to them. I have also seen many many times the young men who seem to live on the second floor of floor of 1120 West Balboa Boulevard come over and appear to hang out with the clients of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. You can hearlsee them yelling at each other across the street. Since I have been asked to pay attention, there is a young man who lives at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard who every morning, every midafternoon, and late afternoon leaves the 1120 facility to hang out at the 1115 facility. I could tell you the car he drives. I can't see around the edge of the 1115 West Balboa Boulevard building, but I can often hear them in the front courtyard at 1115 and of course I can smell their relentless cigarette smoke. My belief is just given the clear camaraderie between the people at 1120 and 1115 is that the residents at 1120 either are still or have been clients at 1115. i could be wrong but from my perspective, it seems like the facility at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard has spread to directly across the street at 1120 and 1120 is becoming a meeting place for residents of 1132 and 1115. I was asked to compare the activities I see with anything going on with 1216 West Balboa Boulevard on the next block. The easy and obvious answer is that there are countless opportunities for people on either side of the 1100 block of West Balboa Boulevard to see and interact with each other. For example, there is an almost direct view of 1132 West Balboa Boulevard and 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. People can and easily do yell out to each other across the street. There is a constant opportunity to interact which is often made. I was asked if the street between the two sides of 1100 West Balboa Boulevard is a break in communication and contact between the two sides of the road. The opposite is obviously true. Being almost directly across the street from each other clearly encourages interaction. Being almost a block away but really not visible does not. I don't see the same interaction happening or the opportunity for it to happen at 1216 1 i West Balboa Boulevard. It is too far away compared to seeing someone in open view across an eight foot wide street- with a speed limit of 30 mph -and in particular when there is 4 little traffic other than the rehab people during the middle of the day- when most people other than rehab residents, mothers home with kids, and the retired are the only ones home;. So I guess my point is obviously rehab facilities directly across West Balboa Boulevard have much more affect on each other than one on the same side of the street but like three times the distance away. To say anything else would either be crazy or stupid. Aonel Mathena 949 566 0107 Larry Mathena Direct Phone: 949/265 -2018 1 Fax: 949/752 -5334 2 t Deirdre M. Lopez 1125 % W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 February 7, 2009 To: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer David Kiff, Assistant City Manager Subject: Opposition to Use Permit # UP 2008 -030 & UP 2008 -031 Ocean Recovery Facilities at 1115 and 1601 W. Balboa Blvd Dear Mr. Allen: My name is Deirdre Lopez. I am a clinical psychologist who treats individuals who use drugs and alcohol to cope. Getting sober is a long and painful journey that takes enormous courage, and I have great compassion and respect for the people who have successfully roughed the road of recovery. I believe that treatment is a better solution than jail for the sole "crime" of being an addict, and because of this I support the concept of sober living. But let us move from the concept of sober living to the reality of sober living on Balboa Peninsula, specifically on the 1100 block of W. Balboa Blvd., where there are at least three residential care facilities for recovering drug and alcohol abusers. I can speak to this because not only do I work with the daily challenges of sobriety in an outpatient setting, but for the last five of the eight years of residing at 1125 -M W. Balboa Blvd., I have lived with the daily challenges of residing between two residential care facilities. Please understand that these are not facilities down the street, but literally 6 -10 feet on either side of my home. The facility on the south side of my home at 1115 W. Balboa Blvd., Ocean Recovery, is up for a Use Permit approval hearing on February 12, and I am writing this letter to voice my opposition. There are at least four residential care facilities within 800 feet of my husband's and my home that house a total of 65 residents. As noted, two of these facilities abut our home and a third is across the street. My husband and I are nearly surrounded by residential care homes, and the facility across the street at 1132 W. Balboa has already been approved by the City to continue operations. I cannot open my windows without breathing cigarette smoke, and the City will not permit us to install air conditioning because of the "noise pollution" this will create for our next door neighbors. If this is not an issue of overconcentration, a violation of my right to a healthy living environment, and an absurdly skewed idea about who is polluting whom, I'm not sure what is. More importantly, all four of the facilities in our immediate neighborhood are within 1000 feet of Newport Elementary School, and upwards of 100 residential care residents cross the playground area and attend meetings on the beach at 15s' St. on weekends. A disproportionate number of these residents smoke cigarettes, they are predominantly male, and they use profanity excessively. The net result is overwhelming-second-hand smoke, litter (particularly cigarette bans), and a locker room culture replete with loud, offensive language and conversation that is impossible to ignore in such numbers. Moreover, behavior problems abound in this popula oti n, n trouble with the law for their substance and it is not uncommon for many of these men to be i abuse and poor judgment. Despite the repeated protests of the community about these issues, the City has wady approved a use permit for the residential care facility at 1132 W. Balboa Blvd. It would be unconscionable for the City to approve yet another facility and abdicate their responsibility to better protect our children from being repeatedly exposed to poor role modeling and maladaptive behaviors. For this reason 'done, I am in complete opposition of granting a use Permit to either of the Ocean Recovery facilities. With respect to the operation of the Ocean Recovery facility at 1 115 W. Balboa, in my opinion it is poorly managed. First, they are not in compliance with the City, s re gulations regarding garage usage, as they utilize their 6 car garage for meetings, entertainment, and bicycle storage. In addition, l am angry that time alter time it has fallen on my shoulders to "police" the behaviors Of the residents, whether it be for parking behind my garage, dumping obsolete appliances in the side yard in front of my front door, playing loud music, or leaving cigarette butts in the alley. I am also fivstrated by the total lack of compliance with curfews. Time and again my husband and I hear groups of residents rounding the comer of the building on their bicycles well 10 after pm, voices raised with no regard for the fact that most of the neighborhood is trying to sleep, part of recovery involves learning to respect yourself and the rights of others. While every recovering individual must ultimately make this commitment him or herself, it is also the responsibility of the counselors and operators to model and encourage these practices. In my estimation, no ne of these entities has taken a responsible leadership role with respect to the Ocean Recovery facility, which has left the owners and residents on my block rightly frustrated, change. angry, and crying for The City has already approved one facility on our block, which is fair and reasonable accommodation on its part. But the City also has a duty to preserve the culture of our neighborhood, protect our children, and provide a healthy environment for all of us; denying the use permits at 1115 and 1601 W. Balboa will alleviate the overconcentration issue and go a long way in restoring balance to our neighborhood. Respectfully, Deirdre Lopez Sent: Monday, January 19, 21199 9:32 AM Subject: Letter for Mr. David Koff Dear Mr. Kiff, We are concerned residents who live at 1100 W. Oceanfront on the Balboa Peninsula. We are writing to you to respectfully make our concerns known, My wife and I have four children, ages 17 -25 and a two -year -old granddaughter. We love and cherish the time our family is able to spend together at our beach home in Newport. Our prime location between the two piers was originally ideal to us as it was quiet, safe, and surrounded by wonderful families, neighbors, and other small children. We are strongly concerned about the local neighborhood sobriety living facilities. The disturbing foul language, smell of cigarette smoke, police visits, and late night brawls on the sidewalk next to our home have made me troubled about the safety of my family. Of course, we are supportive of individuals seeking to turn away from alcohol and other substance abuse problems .... but our residential neighborhood is certainly NOT the place. We are aware that two of these facilities are within 300 feet of our residence. I am writing to you asking for your help, for the safety of my family and neighbors, and to restore the peace of our neighborhood. Best regards, John Visser 1100 West Oceanfront Newport Beach, CA 92661 v_isserranch@agl com From: Paul IoPez [P.Iopez@adelphia.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:53 PM To: Paul Lopez Subject: Fw: PA2008 -101 & 102 - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: "yukonjak" <yukonjak @ix.netcom.com> To: < dkiff @city,newport -beach .ca.us> Cc: <p.lopez @roadrunner.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:25 AM Subject: PA2008 -101 & 102 > Dear Mr Kiff • Regarding PA2008 -101 6 PA2008 -102 Ocean Recovery, LLC 1115 West Balboa • Blvd UP2008 -030 • My wife and I own the property behind and over 1 lot (1106 w • oceanfront)from subject property • We would like to see the applications rejected, here are some concerns • that we have regarding this application. • Excessive trash 6 oders • People cutting through my property to get to the beach • Vans parked in the alley and on the street (free parking is a premium in • Newport) • Loitering in the alley smoking and staring, at people and property • I have 4 bikes stolen out Of my garage in the last couple of years my • neighbor had 2 stolen • Decreased property values > Thank You > Jack S Melinda Avakian > 1106 w Oceanfront > 949 -566 -9272 or 909- 725 -6197 cell 1 Page I of 2 Paul Lopez From: paul lopez [p.lopez@adelphia.net] Sent Wednesday, February 11, 200910:53 PM To: Paul Lopez Subject: Fw: Rehab facilities up for review — Original Message — From: L@ude McKenzie To: dave kiff Cc: Paul looez ; Denys Oberman Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 40:03 AM Subject: Rehab facilities up for review Good Morning Dave, I will not be able to attend tomorrow afternoon's rehab permit review for Ocean Recovery's facilities at 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. and 1601 W.Balboa Blvd. due to medical reasons. I wanted to reiterate my husband's, and my concerns regarding these facilities: Regarding the applications for group recovery homes on the Balboa Peninsula, specifically those in the 1100 and 1200 blocks of West Balboa Blvd.: As 32 year residents of Newport Beach, specifically the Balboa Peninsula at 11th and 12th Streets, we would like to voice our concerns. 1. The aygneoncentration of these homes in this residenital area will continue to hurt our home values and it changes the neighborhood feel. We understand and appreciate that those in need of rehab have their rights. We, as homeowners, also have rigbts to protect our home values and ua ality of life issues. 2. These'recovery homes' are for businesses. They add a burden on the city's tra 3. The homes in this area under review have more than 6 beds and need to be strictly regulated 4. A vast number of these group homes are owned and operated by a handful of for profit businesses. These businesses need to be regulated by density of their facilities within a given area to mid over - concentration. 5. These facilities are all too close to Newport Elementary (within 1000 feet) and its adjacent playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding residences, public health and safety. We urge the City of Newport Beach to continue its efforts in making this City on of the finest in the country. We hope that you put the citizens and local taxpayers interests and needs at the forefront, as you review and regulate these Residential Care Facilities so that their density and proliferation will not negatively affect this wonderful beach community. 2/12/2009 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Terry and Laurie McKenzie 1151 W. Balboa Blvd. Balboa Peninsula, CA 92661 949 - 673 -2379 2/12/2009 a, Page 1 of 3 Paul Lopez Subject: FW: Use Permit applications for "Ocean Recovery" From: Sellier, Vic Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 3:03 PM To: Kiff, Dave Subject: RE: Use Permit applications for "Ocean Recovery" Mr. Kiff, Thank you for your very prompt response to my e-mail, and I appreciate your willingness to add it to the record. I would like, however, to clarify my message, which based on your response, does not appear to have been well communicated. I'm not an attorney, so the views I express below may not carry the appropriate references to ordinances and law, but rather are my attempt to address this issue from a common sense perspective. I have no interest in trying to deny "housing" to any class of people, whether in recovery, or based on ethnicity, or religion. To me this issue is more about the permitting of business enterprises within a residential community, and the consequences of having a concentration of business enterprises affect the homeowners in the neighborhood. If the owners of these buildings were to be seeking permits to operate a bar, or a strip joint, or a restaurant, I assume that there are ordinances controlling that process which, at their origin, took into consideration, the impact that such operations would have on the homeowners in ther neighborhood, and the interest of the City to protect those homeowners' rights. I suspect that the owners of these facilities made business judgements before they invested in their properties, that they could make a profit, by forming treatment facilities in a very attractive locale. If it were only a matter of individuals paying rent and living in these facilities, I don't believe the conditions I described in my initial message would exist, and I would have had no need to complain. But these are not just residences, they are businesses, and its the permitting of the business that I'm objecting to. Part of the reason we bought our home in Newport Beach was the diversity it exposed us to. We welcome that diversity. However we didn't know we were buying into a commercial district with a focus on rehabilitation. I don t believe that the infrastructure of the community supports that mission, and if the City continues to approve the operations of commercial treatment facilities the City will face a major challenge in funding the investment to change the infrastructure from a dwindling tax base. Thanks again for your consideration. Victor F. Sellier 3 Clarks Branch Rd. Great Falls, Va. 22066 (C) 703 -622 -9457 (II) 703- 759 -4152 From: Kiff, Dave (p ci .n_yev port- beach.ca us] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 2:10 PM To: Sellier, Vic Subject: RE: Use Permit applications for "Ocean Recovery" Dear Mr. and Mrs. Seller -- 224/2009 A Page 2 of 3 Thank you for your e-mail. I will add it to the record. We at the City believe that the amount of recovery beds on this part of the Balboa Peninsula is too many. Thus, we adopted an ordinance in 2008 to attempt to provide relief from the secondary effects of overconcentration and to, if possible, spread them out across the city. The ordinance is being watched in California and other states, maybe even Virginia, because it attempts (I believe) to fairly and legally address a class of people who are specifically protected in Federal fair housing law. Persons in recovery are disabled, and entitled to fair housing. The 9th Circuit, where California sits, has specifically thrown out the distancing standards that you discuss in your e-mail. State law specifically prohibits it as well. We are doing our best under the law. Respectfully, you may want to substitute persons in recovery for an ethnic group, or persons of a specific religious faith, and repeat your comments -- then you will see how the law relates to this issue. Dave Kiff Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach - - - -- Original Message--- - From: Sellier, Vic [mailto:Vic.Sellier onst.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 200910:55 AM To: Kiff, Dave Subject: Use Permit applications for "Ocean Recovery" Mr. Kiff, My wife and 1 own the home at 1116 West Oceanfront, on the Balboa Peninsula, and are writing today in opposition of the use permit application for the Ocean Recovery facility at 1115 W. Balboa, and another facility at 1601 W. Balboa. Although we are not permanent residents at 1116 West Oceanfront, we are there frequently with our family and friends, including young people, and in the four years we have owned the home we have become increasingly concerned about the impact of the sober living facility; on our family and on the community as a whole. Our home shares the alley with Ocean Recovery at 1115 W. Balboa Blvd., and backs up directly to their garages. Despite the number of residents in the facility the garages can't be used for vehicle parking because they have been converted to meeting spaces. The resultant impact is that the residents are significantly worsening an already difficult parking Problem in the neighborhood, including vehicles frequently standing in the alley behind the garages, directly across from our garage. In addition, the congregating in the alley results in frequent loud and 2/24/2009 Page 3 of 3 • sometimes offensively profane behavior, and left over trash and cigarette butts on the ground, including on our property. I have come to find out that in addition to the above referenced two facilities, for which permits are being considered, there are at least two others within 1000 feet of our home, and even more in close Proximity to Newport Elementary school, housing in excess of 100 residents who are enrolled in some form of drug or alcohol rehabilitation. As a property owner, and taxpayer, I am amazed that the city officials of Newport Beach consider this an appropriate level of concentration, and an appropriate burden for the small neighborhood to shoulder. And let me assure you that it is a burden. I have no objection to providing opportunities for individuals to improve themselves, but I believe that the responsibility for providing the environment for that effort should be shared fairly across the entire community, and multiple neighborhoods. I would challenge you, or other city officials, to demonstrate to as the homeowners, that this concentration of sober livingtrecovery facilities, is representative of concentrations throughout the City of Newport. I believe that approval of these additional Use Permits would result in an unfair concentration of such facilities, and is an inappropriate burden on the homeowners in the neighborhood. Please reject the applications. Sincerely, Victor and Wendy Sellier 1116 West Oceanfront Newport Beach, Ca. Mailing Address: Victor F., Sellier 3 Clarks Branch Rd. Great Falls, Va. 22066 (C) 703 -622 -9457 (H) 703- 759 -4152 2/24/2009 Paul Lopez From: paul lopez 1p.lopezoadelphia.net] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 11:15 PM To: Paul Lopez Subject: Fw: Opposition To Halfway Residential Homes — Original Message — From: ruz5 ol.p9_M To: DKIFF�CiN_r�gw�ort leach p.us Cc: Ip ODEZ ®roadrunner oom Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:27 PM Subject: Opposition To Halfway Residential Homes Dear Mr. Kiff, I'm writing to let you know that I am opposed to the application for the halfway house's located at 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. and also 1601 W. Balboa Blvd. These types of facilities are, for some reason, in abundance in this area. This neighborhood was initially safe and clean and only negatively affected by visitors that would misbehave on occasion, now we have a constant issue. I don't understand how these facilities keep getting approved. We have schools, churches, playgrounds and preschools. Shouldn't we be concerned about the health and safety of our children. I have a significant investment in my home and I am very concerned about preserving the safety and security as well as the value of my property. I urge the City Council to deny any requests that is before them for halfway residential homes. Thank you for considering this email in your effort to maintain our neighborhood. Lisa Rizzolo 1 104 W. Oceanfront Newport Beach, California 92661 Get Instant access to the latest & most popular FREE games while you browse with the Games Toolbar - Download N ?ronnno From: Sent: To: Subject: FYI W Gaye Monday. December 08, 2008,9:56 AM To Allen'; R rnm, Janet Group esldential Use Norge up for review From.' Laurie onda McKenzie [mammmcktalk@maccom) Semi: Monday, December 08, 2008 9:55 AM To: Kiif, Dave CA-. Henn, Michael "eft GrouP Residentlal Use permits up for revew Dear Dave, Regarding the applications for group recovery homes on the Balboa Peninsula, specifically those in the 1100 and 1200 blocks of West Balboa Blvd.: As 32 year residents of Newport Beach, specifically the Balboa Peninsula at 1 !th and 12th like to voice our concerns. Streets, we would 1- The then neighborhood od of these homes in this residenital area will continue to hurt our home values and it changes the neighhorhood feel. 2 These recovery homes' are or fit businesses, They add a burden on the city s trash services, traffic, security, parking, as well as added noise and air pollution. 3. The homes in this area under review have more than 6 beds and need to be strictly regulated. 4. Avast number b these group homes are owned an b d operated by a handfW of for profit businesses. These businesses need to e regulated by density of their tatylities Within a given area to avoid over- concentration. We urge the City of Newport Beach to continue its efforts in We hope tl�t You put the citizens and local taxpayers itttetrststeeds at the f of the finest in the country. regulate these Residential erfud beach commum a Facilities so that their density and Proliferation willo not negatively affect this Sincerely, Terry and Laurie McKenzie 1151 W. Balboa Blvd. Balboa Peninsula, CA 92661 949 - 673-2379 Larry Mathena 1125 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92661 949- 752 -5115 Extension 18 mathenaesq @aol.com February 12, 2009- Submission 2 To: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer David Kiff, Assistant City Manager Subject: Ocean Recovery, LLC 1115 West Balboa Boulevard Application for Use Permit Number 2008 -30 From: Larry Mathena Although many of us have tried to present as much data to the Hearing Officer through email and other processes as early as possible to maximize the ability of the Hearing Officer to review the evidence available to him, it is important to note that the purpose of the public hearing is to allow additional evidence to be received by the Hearing Officer before a decision is reached. There are serious issues raised in portions of the City Staff Report. Those issues are found in the following language of the report: 1. Page Five Next to Last Paragraph: "There are two apparent code violations related to the facility located at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard; these include the conversion of garages to non - parking uses and assembly uses at the facility. To date, Ocean Recovery has not been issued citations for these code violations." 2. The following excerpted language from the top of Page 11: ABOUT THE PUBLIC INPUT City staff is concerned about the comments from area residents. However, some of the comments should not be factors considered by the Hearing Officer. These include: Ocean Recovery's clients' participation (or lack thereof) in the Saturday at 9:30 a.m. Narcotics Anonymous ( "NA ') meetings at 15a' Street. Ocean Recovery has consistently said that its residents do not attend that meeting. Allegations that this specific use at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard is too close to Newport Elementary School. This use is roughly 740 feet away from Newport Elementary School. While the NBMC ( §20.91A.060D.1.) allows the Hearing Officer to consider "the proximity of the use location to schools, parks, other residential care facilities, outlets for alcoholic beverages and any other uses which could be affected by or affect the operation of the subject use (emphasis added)," there is no evidence on the record that Newport Elementary School — at 750 feet away — affects or is affected by this specific use. 3. The following excerpted language from the top of Page 12: "At the same time, there is an unlicensed sober home two doors west of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard. 1129 West Balboa Boulevard is scheduled for abatement after February 22, 2009. An Ocean Recovery representative asserts that much of the problems that residents have identified are caused by residents at the 1129 West Balboa facility. It is nearly impossible for City staff to know which is true. It is certainly true that a successful abatement of the 1129 West Balboa Boulevard use could reduce some of the problems identified above. While City staff expects abatement to be successful, at the dale of this staff report, that remains uncertain. A condition of approval is included to attempt to address this uncertainty." The text above leads to the following observations: 1. City Staff doesn't enforce existing law against Group Homes. Senior City officials have been aware of the "two apparent code violations related to the facility located at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard; these include the conversion of garages to non - parking uses and assembly uses at the facility" for at a minimum of two weeks now. As of this morning following my visit to Code Enforcement to confirm- there has been no reporting of these code violations to the appropriate officials to begin enforcement or other action in regards to these violations. 2. Inappropriate direction to Hearine Officer in performance of his Job. Although some of the items listed in page 11 of the City Staff Report as items that should be treated as disregarded factors, others are clearly appropriate factors for the Hearing Officer to consider for a variety of reason. Specifically the factors that should be considered in direct conflict to the City Staff directions include: "Allegations that this specific use it too close to Newport Elementary School." Until the hearing is completed- legally there is the opportunity to introduce evidence involving Newport Elementary School. To direct the Hearing Officer to dismiss this as a source of evidence is inappropriate. "Ocean Recovery's clients' participation (or lack thereof) in the Saturday at 9:30 a.m. Narcotics Anonymous ("NA ") meetings at 15"' Street," The fact that "Ocean Recovery has consistently said that its residents do not attend that meeting" is not a reason in and of itself to disallow this as a factor to consider. Evidence to the contrary, despite Ocean Recovery consistent statements, is of course still admissible and if so admitted this factor should be considered. 3. Failure to properly perform fact finding function; to make statements draw conclusions, and provide direction to Hearing Officer in contravention to facts gathered. As noted above the City Staff Report states that the factors considered by the Hearing Officer should exclude: "Ocean Recovery's clients' participation (or lack thereof) in the Saturday at 9:30 a.m. 15'h Narcotics Anonymous ("NA") meetings at Street Ocean Recovery has consistently said that its residents do not attend that meeting." This direction and observation is made despite direct documentation from Ocean Recovery in its few submittals to City Staff that directly contradict this assertion. Specifically please review Attachment One hereto - from Exhibit Number 4 Staff /Applicant Correspondences (page 42 of 85 of the City's Web page pdf) which indicates the following in the weekly schedule for the clients of Ocean Recovery at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard: Saturday 9:30 (a.m.) Beach Meeting NA Sunday 9:30 (am.) Beach Meeting AA This documentation in the file is corroborated by the testimony that Mr. Paul Lopez shall be giving at the hearing indicating clients of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard walk weekend mid morning to the beach down the back alley (and in front of Mr. Lopez' patio deck) with lawn furniture saying things like, "hung or we'll be late for the meeting." The Narcotics Anonymous meeting on Saturday mornings and the Alcoholic Anonymous meeting on Sunday is actually held directly adjacent to the Newport Elementary School playground. It provides direct evidence contrary to the direction to the Hearing Officer by the City Staff that the presence of Newport Elementary School should be a disregarded factor - the opposite is rive. In fact, Newport Elementary School "could be affected by or affect the operation of the subject use." Aft. Lopez's submitted photograph of a young child swinging on the Newport Elementary School playground swing with the mammoth Narcotics Anonymous meeting going on behind him- is direct proof of this [Attachment Two]. The City Staff Report also takes a mere assertion by an Ocean Recovery representative and makes it an absolute fact. The Ocean Recovery representative asserts that in light of the presence of two facilities so close together that "much of the problems that residents have identified are caused by residents at the 1129 West Balboa facility." If I was in Ocean Recovery's situation I would make the same statement. The City Staff then leaps to the conclusion that, "It is nearly impossible for City staff to know which is true." No, it's not impossible at all. The key and most compelling evidence received by the direct neighbors surrounding 1115 West Balboa Boulevard intimately know that the activities they reported on were by the residents of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard- not by any other facility. How do I know this? I asked. Just like the City Staff could have asked. The obvious answer is twofold. We live with these facilities. We know where the residents come from. We see them coming and going. In addition the activities at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard were intentionally omitted from the submissions of the neighbors for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard- or where appropriate explained activities that occurred at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard specifically if relevant. Why? Because we anticipate having to make a Reasonable Accommodation counter argument for 1129 West Balboa Boulevard and did not want to hear 1129 West Balboa Boulevard make exactly the same argument that Ocean Recovery now makes- that the City Staff is so eager to accept as the gospel truth. So to turn the direct testimony submitted by neighbors regarding 1115 West Balboa Boulevard and to simply state "It is nearly impossible for City staff to know which is true." Nearly impossible means only that the City Staff chose not choose to ask. What do these multiple errors on the part of the City Staff lead to? Directly contrary to the City Staff report the directions to the Hearing Officer should be as follows: 1. Full weight should be given to the testimony given by the residents - as the activities of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. 2. On the evidence presented before the Hearing Officer, Ocean Recovery's clients do participate in the Saturday and Sunday NA and AA meetings at the beach along side the Newport Elementary playground. 3. The presence of Ocean Recovery approximately 700 feet (by the way- not 740 feet) away from Newport Elementary School "could be affected by or affect the operation of the subject use" for amongst other reasons the attendance of Ocean Recovery residents at the Saturday and Sunday NA and AA meeting. 4. If, and based on the evidence that the Hearing Officer has to consider, it should be accepted, that Ocean Recovery's clients do participate in the Saturday and Sunday NA and AA meetings at the beach along side the Newport Elementary playground- then as was stated in Kramer Center's City Staff Report "there are factual misrepresentations and/or omissions in the application documentation." 5. A final direction to the Hearing Officer involves the issue of the APA standard and whether or not the presence of Balboa Horizons at 1132 West Balboa Boulevard should be considered by the Hearing Officer in regards to determining whether or not overconcentration occurs because of the presence of a facility across West Balboa Boulevard at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. The City Staff's conclusion- is no, the mechanical language of the APA standard precludes it. Looking at the City Staffs performance benignly this conclusion is erroneous for two reasons: Evidence is presented in the testimony provided by Mr. Paul Lopez and Mrs. Ronel Mathena [See Attachment Three hereto) of cross street activities of residents of the facilities as noted: Between the 1129 West Balboa group home and the1132 West Balboa group home. Between 1132 West Balboa clients and 1115 West Balboa clients at 1120 West Balboa Regular daily interaction between residents of 1120 West Balboa and 1115 West Balboa As Mr. Lopez's email indicates- unlike the City Staff's conclusion - that at least for Ocean Recovery- West Balboa Boulevard is not a barrier- it is a magnet drawing facilities together. But fortunately under Section 20.91A.060 D.3 the Hearing Officer "shall retain the discretion to apply any degree of separation of uses, which he or she deems appropriate in any given case." Based on the preceding analysis the Hearing Officer should, contrary to the findings proposed by the City Staff, determine that the Use Permit request of Ocean Recovery should be rejected for the following reasons: 1. Overconcentration of Group Residential Use. Based on the interaction of the existing facilities across West Balboa Boulevard and the apparent presence of 1115 West Balboa clientele/ alumni across West Balboa Boulevard at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard, as detailed in the emails submitted by Mr. Paul Lopez and Mrs. Ronel Mathena- the acceptance of a Use Permit for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard generates an unacceptable overconcentration of group residential facilities leading to the institutionalization of both sides of the 1100 block of West Balboa Boulevard that is unacceptable under the law. 2. Proximity To Other Uses. Based on the evidence presented, Newport Elementary School "would affect or be affected by the use or operation" under the proposed Use Permit for Ocean Recovery. 3. False Statements. "Under Paragraph E of Section 20.96.040 the Hearing Officer is required to revoke the permit upon making one or more of the following findings: 2. The applicant has made a false or misleading statement of a material fact, or an omission of a material fact in the application for the permit." Assuming the Hearing Officer does make the factual determination that Ocean Recovery clients attend the weekend Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, the "consistent" misleading statements of the Ocean Recovery applicant in regards to its clients' attendance at weekend NA and AA meetings beside Newport Elementary School clearly fall within the purview of this section. Finally if notwithstanding this compelling analysis, if the Hearing Officer does come to the decision that the Use Permit should be allowed, in addition to general concerns previously presented in my earlier submittal today regarding proposed City Staff condition number 8,1 have the following more specific observations: Under proposed condition number 8, the Applicant is allowed to smoke in "an area that is enclosed on all sides but can be open to the sky." What does this mean? The home I live in borders Applicant's building's 90 foot long - two story height on its West side. My home is a three story building with windows along this border on all three floors- just six feet away. So if this is suggestive of a skylight type approach- it won't work for the 1125 building boundary because a skylight will open on my building's windows. Similarly on the East Side- where the length of Applicant's building is about thirty feet (and again two story) - there is another taller (three story residence) with windows- so it won't work there either. Otherwise- it appears that the City is also authorizing smoking in any "designated area interior to the facility " - but depending on where that is and weather conditions that could mean a hoard of people smoking six feet from my front door at an open window. Any condition regarding second hand smoke needs to explicitly state reasonable steps to achieve the requirements of law that no second hand smoke be present outside of the Applicant's property. The current language does not do that. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerer M G Attachment One Ocean Recovery Client Schedule for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard OCEAN RECOVERY Foundatlon for Hope Tune Monday Tuesday Wednesday ThursdsY Friday Saturday Sunday 7.45 Wake -up '& Wake -up & Wake -up & Wake -up & Wake -up & Meditation Meditation Meditation Meditation Meditation 8:00 Breakfast & Chores Breakfast & Breakfast & Breakfast & Breakfast & Wako-up & Meditation Breakfast & Chores C11bICS Chores Chores Breakfast & Chores Chores 8:45 9:30 Beach 10:30 �� Gym Oyln 9:30 Beach 11:00 Meeting NA Meeting AA' 12:15 Process Group Process Group Process Group P;meeting Group Process Group Process Process 1:30 Education untly 11:15 Gro 11:15 2:30 Education (P Relapse Education Education Recreational Leisure Time 1:00 -2:00 Ogg 2:30 Assignments/1:1'5 (3:OOPM)Martial Acts Assi g ®ents/l:l s (2:15PM)Martial Arts Assignments/1:l's Outing Cont Leisure time 3:30 Assignments /1:1's Assignments /1:1's A.ssignmeuWl:1's Assignments/1:1's Meditation Group Outing Copt Leisure Time 4:00 Process G up eats/1:1's Education Assignments/1:1's Assiguroents/1:1's Assignments/1:11s Assignmems/L•1's an Jan Dinner Dinner Di 5:30 BBQ 6:30 House Dinner Dinner Dinner 6:30 Outside Meeting Outside Meeting Outside Meeting Pm Outside Meeting Outside Meeting Leisure Time AA Meeting 10:00 pin 10th Step Group loth Step Group 10th Step Group 10th Step Group Leisure Toro a Leisure Time 10th Step Group 11:00 Lights Out Lights Out Lights Out Lights Out 12:00 12:00 Lights Out Lights Om Lights Out liedule Attachment Two Ocean Recovery Weekend Activities at Newport Elementary School Attachment Three Ocean Recovery Testimony regarding activities on the 1100 block of West Balboa Boulevard - -- Original Message-- - From: Paul Lopez Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:57 AM To: 'Kiff, Dave' Subject: FW: Ocean Recovery Use Permit Submittal UP 2008 -030 Dave: supplement my prior letter to you for delivery to Hearing Officer Allen, regarding Ocean Recovery's Use Permit application for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard with this email. I do this because I have been told the interaction of the rehab facilities on either side of West Balboa Boulevard at the 1100 block has become legally meaningful. For at least the past two months as I have been parking my car on West Balboa Boulevard, I have noticed the Ocean Recovery clients of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard crossing West Balboa Boulevard every day and visiting several male residents of the upstairs unit at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard. They sometimes just visit at the entry way stairs at 1120, but I have observed on multiple occasions the 1115 clients entering the upstairs unit on the south side of the 1120 building. At first, perhaps paranoiacly I thought some type of drug activity was going on, but have nothing to substantiate this. I have seen embraces and have a feeling that these renters know many of the clients at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. I believe they are affiliated with or perhaps graduates of Ocean Recovery. This perception is further reinforced as I have seen the residents at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard cross the street (to and from) for the Thursday night get together and barbecue at 1115. Further, I have heard yelling back and forth between the two facilities. Kristi, the renter /neighbor at 1113 West Balboa Boulevard has also seen the same and has seen the traffic going back and forth between the buildings. She told me there is constant yelling from the residents at 1115 to the renters across the street. The upstairs unit at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard looks directly down at the courtyard at Ocean Recovery. The renters at 1120 keep their balcony open day and night, providing them with a clear view of the courtyard of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. Additionally, I have seen the rehab residents at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard yelling across the street at the female clients of Balboa Horizons at 1132 West Balboa Boulevard. This has been most pronounced when young men are on the upper balcony at 1129 or out front in the courtyard at 1129- with a group of girls sitting outside of 1132 and /or are arriving or departing by van. They seem to know one another. It might very well be from the weekend gatherings on the beach or other mutual meeting places. These facts raise significant issues around the City's arbitrary finding /designation of appropriate distances between these facilities and block designations. First, W. Balboa Blvd. is not a dividing line for interaction between residents of 1115 and renters at 1120 W. Balboa Blvd, or between sober living residents at 1129 and 1132 W. Balboa Blvd. It is a short distance of —120 feet between 1115 and 1132 and it apparently does not impede traffic or communication between them as noted above. This leads to my second point. Why does the City believe that 1216 W. Balboa Blvd. is too close to 1132 W. Balboa Blvd. (within 300 Feet), but feels that the 120 ft. distance between 1132 and 1115 is a sufficient distance based upon an arbitrary designation that W. Balboa Blvd. is somehow a dividing line between blocks - especially given the fact that clearly West Balboa Boulevard does not seem to be stopping 1115 spreading its ongoing regular daily activities to people living across West Balboa Boulevard at 1120 W. Balboa. If you are going to pick West Balboa Boulevard as a dividing line between two facilities - it would probably be a good idea to confirm that the one you are giving a permit to- didn't already apparently have attendees of its activities regularly piercing what appears to me to be an artificial and irrational barrier. The direct line of sight, demonstrated interactions between the facilities on both sides of W. Balboa Blvd., and the presence of daily attendees of 1115 functions living across Balboa Boulevard are clear and rational reasons that this simply is not the case. Both of these facilities, 1115 and 1132, are within 105 ft. of my residence and 120 feet of each other. This is overconcentration for the neighbors of the 1100 block, and for me, regardless of what side of the street you live on I hope this additional factual information is helpful in reaching the right conclusion in regards to Ocean Recovery's Use Permit for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. Best, Paul Paul Lopez 1125 1/2 W. Balboa Blvd- 949-673-0489 P.S. Please confirm your receipt of this email and the attachments. Thank you. - - -- Original Message---- - From: Larry Mathena <1m020557 @pacbell.net> To: DKiff@city.newpori- beach.ca.us Sent: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:25 am Subject: Ocean Recovery Use Permit Application UP 2008 -030 Mr. Kiff: My husband asked me to write you and the hearing officer about the goings on of the rehab crowd - on both sides of 1100 West Balboa Boulevard. I am a housewife. I am at home most days at 1125 West Balboa Boulevard. The more interesting thing to watch during throughout the day is the young girls from the 1132 West Balboa Boulevard rehab facility. Many times during the day the young men from the rehab facility at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard go over to 1132 West Balboa Boulevard and knock at the door at 1132 and clearly ask the girls if they can come out and play. Often mid day they evidently can- typically they hang out together smoking constantly and using curse words in the courtyard at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard. In fact on Tuesday, late afternoon I saw a male resident of 1129 (I can identify his car) pick up a young woman from 1132. I have also seen the women from 1132 meet young men who cross West Balboa Boulevard from 1115 and meet at 1120. They hang out together on the stairs at 1120. I assume that the management at 1132 West Balboa Boulevard knows about these activities because on more than one occasion, I have seen the silver van of 1132 West Balboa Boulevard pick up the girls behind the alley of 1129 West Balboa Boulevard. When the girls at 1132 West Balboa Boulevard arrive in their van and park, I have seen the young men at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard yell at them and cross in the middle of the street to go talk to them. I have also seen many many times the young men who seem to live on the second floor of floor of 1120 West Balboa Boulevard come over and appear to hang out with the clients of 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. You can hear /see them yelling at each other across the street. Since I have been asked to pay attention, there is a young man who lives at 1120 West Balboa Boulevard who every morning, every midafternoon, and late afternoon leaves the 1120 facility to hang out at the 1115 facility. I could tell you the car he drives. I can't see fully around the edge of the 1115 West Balboa Boulevard building, but I can often hear them in the front courtyard at 1115 and of course I can smell their relentless cigarette smoke. My belief is just given the clear camaraderie between the people at 1120 and 1115 is that the residents at 1120 either are still or have been clients at 1115. I could be wrong but from my perspective, it seems like the facility at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard has spread to directly across the street at 1120 and 1120 is becoming a meeting place for residents of 1132 and 1115. I was asked to compare the interactions I see with anything going on with 1216 West Balboa Boulevard on the next block. The easy and obvious answer is that there are countless opportunities for people on either side of the 1100 block of West Balboa Boulevard to see and interact with each other. For example, there is an almost direct view of 1132 West Balboa Boulevard and 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. People can and easily do yell out to each other across the street. There is a constant opportunity to interact which is often made. I was asked if the street between the two sides of 1100 West Balboa Boulevard is a break in communication and contact between the two sides of the road. The opposite is obviously true. Being almost directly across the street from each other clearly encourages interaction. Being almost a block away but really not visible does not. I don't see the same interaction happening or the opportunity for it to happen at 1216 West Balboa Boulevard. It is too far away compared to seeing someone in open view across an eighty foot wide street- with a speed limit of 30 mph —and in particular when there is little traffic other than the rehab people during the middle of the day- when most people other than rehab residents, mothers home with kids, and the retired are the only ones home. So I guess my point is obviously rehab facilities directly across West Balboa Boulevard have much more affect on each other than one on the same side of the street but like three times the distance away. To say anything else would either be crazy or stupid. Ronel Mathena 949 566 0107 Larry Mathena 1125 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92661 949 - 752 -5115 Extension 18 mathenaesq @aol.com February 12,2009- Submission 1 To: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer David Kiff, Assistant City Manager Subject: Ocean Recovery, LLC 1115 West Balboa Boulevard 1601 West Balboa Boulevard Application for Use Permit Number 2008 -30 Application for Use Permit Number 2008 -31 From: Larry Mathena Introduction: This correspondence is written by me as a combined response regarding both Use Permit applications listed above. I am a resident of Newport Beach for over nine years. I object to the issuance of the proposed use permits identified above for both facilities. I live next door to the 1115 West Balboa facility and have been negatively impacted by the proliferation of rehabilitation facilities on the peninsula. If you seek additional information from me, my contact information is included above. I will prepare and make a separate submission for each facility to supplement this global submission. Global Comments regarding the Public Hearing Process - I originally submitted the following comments regarding the hearing process on December 3, 2008 in regards to Balboa Horizons. The comments are even more applicable today. 1. The Public is NOT given sufficient time to respond to applications for conditional use Permits and to review Staff Reports. The (129) page Staff Report was only posted approximately 72 hours prior to this hearing. Unless the public is given adequate time to review all appropriate documentation and to be given the opportunity to generate a response, have that response heard and only then have a determination made will the requirements of law be met. I believe that at a minimum, the public should be given at least one week to respond following the issuance of a Staff Report. 3. The City should do a better job of giving notice of hearings and providing access to data. At this time the notification is by "blue post card mailer" based on street address. But that is insufficient. The City's web page should include a true calendar of hearing schedules. In addition, the data is presented in terms of Operators of facilities as opposed to the addresses where permits are sought. I would argue that this is a defective means of notice by the City given that most citizens do not know specific operators but do know where they live and what nearby addresses are. I supplement this data previously submitted with the following: Nothing has changed in regards to my concerns listed above. Specifically (for example) the only notification regarding what is actually four separate sites tentatively scheduled to be heard on February 20, 2009 at 2 pm is a calendar entry on the Group Homes Web page stating: Yellowstone Recovery And the email from Mr. Kiff stating: ----- Original Message--- - From: Kiff, Dave <DKiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us> Sent: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 2:55 pm Subject: Schedule Change -- Use Permit Hearings Group Residential Uses Interested Parties: The following is a change to the schedule for upcoming Use Permit hearings: Ocean Recovery (two facilities) is now set for Thursday, February 12th at 4:00 p.m in the City Council Chambers. Yellowstone Recovery (four facilities) is tentatively set for Friday, February 20th at 2:00 pan. in the City Council Chambers. Yellowstone's applications include up to eight "reasonable accommodation" analyses and the four Use Permit applications, all relating to four facilities. There is no hearing set for this coming Thursday, February 5th. The Ocean Recovery and Yellowstone Recovery hearings will complete the City's Use Permit hearing schedule for existing facilities that requested use permits by May 22, 2008. Dave Kiff City of Newport Beach 949 -644 -3002 2 I note that for the Ocean Recovery hearing- after complying with the requirements of law to schedule the Ocean Recovery hearings on February 5's- the only written notification that I am aware of in regards to the change of the date of the hearing is the email above and also a subsequent calendar entry. The lack of communication by the City serves to discourage resident input that the City badly needs to gather the facts that the Hearing Officer needs to reach proper decisions. In a communication I made on January 12, 2009, in response to the proposed conditions of approval that the City Staff proposed for Newport Coast I raised the questions that follow, that I now reiterate in regards to the Ocean Recovery Use Permits applications, Staff Reports and proposed conditions. Finally, I have a number of questions regarding the enforcement of the conditions under which a permit is issued. Specifically: [l.] Under what circumstances will a use permit be revoked? [2.] How many violations will it take? [3.] How shall those violations be documented? [4.] What level of proof will be required? [5.] I assume that the City is going to rely on its residents to gather evidence of violations? [6.] Is that correct? [7] If it is relying on its residents, will the City protect the residents from claims of privacy violations that may arise? [8.] How many opportunities will a permit holder be given before revocation occurs? [9.] Precisely where should violations be reported? [10.] Whatever this answer might be- why isn't the City publicizing it? [11.1 What City entity will investigate complaints? [12.] Does the City intend to timely investigate facilities onsite at the time complaints are received? [13.] Should citizens call the police for a concurrent confirmation of violations? [14.] As a resident next door to two facilities- can I safely videotape and or record the activities at these properties that I in good faith believe provide evidence of violation of law and/or specifically a use permit? [15.] If I detect smoke on my property can I legally take pictures and or videotape individuals on a group home property smoking? [16.] In the case of the enclosed courtyard of 1216 West Balboa Boulevard if I were adjacent to the facility and regularly detected second hand smoke - with the only apparent source of the smoke being the facility- how would I document it? [Note that I have added the bracketed numbers above. Otherwise it is the text of my questions as noted.] My questions above have never been responded to in any manner by the City Staff or the Hearing Officer. In light of the Staff Reports and proposed conditions for Ocean Recovery- these are not rhetorical questions. Therefore for the record, I request answers to my questions above which are all directly applicable to the proposed conditions for Ocean Recovery (other than changing the enclosed courtyard language to "enclosed structure" language in number 16). My final observation applicable to both Use Permit requests centers on smoking. The City Staff s means of meeting the required finding that: "No secondhand smoke can be detectable outside the property" is through the following proposed condition number 7 for 1601 West Balboa and proposed condition number 8 for 1115 West Balboa: "Smoking on -site shall be restricted to a designated area interior to the facility, or an area that is enclosed on all sides but can be open to the sky, to prevent secondhand smoke from impacting adjacent residences. Smoking outdoors is prohibited...." Analysis: The Applicant is allowed to smoke in "an area that is enclosed on all sides but can be open to the sky." I do not know what this means in the context of the either of the Applicant's locations. It is vague and does not provide sufficient guidance or direction to achieve the stated requirement to receive a use permit of NBMC §20.91 A.050.A which directs that "no 4 staff, clients, guests, or any other users of the facility may smoke in an area from which the secondhand smoke may be detected on any parcel other than the parcel upon which the facility is located." Similarly the City is also authorizing smoking in any "designated area interior to the facility% but depending on where that is it could mean a hoard of people smoking six feet away from an adjoining property's window and actually worsening the impact of second hand smoke. The City must be much more mechanically explicit in stating that the condition is to actually meet the requirement of NBMC §20.91A.050.A which directs that "no staff, clients, guests, or any other users of the facility may smoke in an area from which the secondhand smoke may be detected on any parcel other than the parcel upon which the facility is located" and that mechanically it may be pursued in some manner- but the manner stated must on its face reasonably indicate the achievement that the goal will be met- in the context of the two applications being considered- this is simply not the case without substantially increasing the specific terms of the condition. Thank you for your attention to my input. Sincerel Mathena Ocean Recovery Memo For UP 2008 -030 1115 West Balboa http: / /webmail.aol.conV 41421/ aoi /en- us/maii /PrintMessage.asp: From: mathenaesq@aol.com To: DKifr@city.newport- beach.ca.us Bcc: '[PaulLopef"' @surmodics.com]; Paullopez@aol.com Subject Ocean Recovery Memo For UP 2001-0301115 West Balboa Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 1:31 pm Attachments: Ocean Rewvery_l115 W Balboa_Objectlon_Memo_Short Part of Ech_l.doc.pdf(21B2K) Dear Dave: I would have preferred to have the chance to look at the Staff Report and the file for the Ocean Recovery Hearing- but I confirmed this morning at City Hall that the Staff Report was not done and that the file was offsite. am afraid that I am going to run out of time and I want to give the Bearing Officer a reasonable amount of time to review my input- so I am sending in my memo for Ocean Recovery's Use Permit Application for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard (UP 2008 -030) without reviewing the Staff Report or the file. Therefore, I reserve the right to submit appropriate supplementation. I am submitting this in two pieces. Exhibit One to my memorandum is correspondence from Residents. Paul Lopez' correspondence to you- that I dropped off this morning personally and gave to W. Frederickson to deliver to you - is an awful big file with its photos. I am going to separately send it to you immediately after this 2 mg email of everything else. I would appreciate in light of my delivery concern- your confirmation of receipt of both this email and the next one and your receipt of Paul's two deliveries (i.e. his letter and the petition). If you have any questions you may reach me at 949- 265 -2018. Note that I will be submitting a separate memorandum for 1601 West Balboa as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Larry Mathena You can't always choose whom you love, but you can choose how to find them. Start with AOL Personals. 1 of 1 2262009 1 G. ISM Larry Mathena 1125 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92661 949 - 752 -5115 Extension 18 mathenaesq @aol.com February 2, 2009 TO: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer David Kiff, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Ocean Recovery at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach • Use Permit No. 2008 -030 Application ISSUE: Should the Hearing Officer approve or deny Ocean Recovery's application for a Use Permit for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard (UP- 2008 -030), to allow a residential care facility to operate a state licensed adult alcohol and/or drug abuse sober living facility for 22 resident (male only) clients? RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Conduct the Public Hearing; and 2. Deny the Use Permit for Failure to meet the requirement of the City's Group Residential Uses Ordinance ("Ordinance" or "Ordinance 2008 -05'j. BACKGROUND: To protect the integrity of residentially zoned areas of the city, residential uses like boarding houses and fmternities/sororities have been prohibited in all residential districts. Following the adoption of Ordinance 2008 -05 on January 22, 2008, the City has changed the way it regulates residential uses that do not consist of a single housekeeping unit, but provide group home living arrangements for the disabled, such as sober homes and alcohol and drug recovery treatment homes licensed by the State of California's Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs ( "ADP "). In California ADP Fact Sheet, California in Treatment: Fiscal Year 2006 -07 the following point is noted: 27% of residents of a rehabilitation facility do not abstain from using their primary drug during their residency. This is consistent with the Operations Manual of Newport Coast Recovery- which has a goal of getting and keeping "75% of all clients sober /clean for the duration of the program." Therefore statistically in the discussion of the facilities that follow, one can reasonably assume that one quarter of the residents of the facilities continue to use and abuse their primary drug. As of the date of this submittal, the following has occurred: • The 11 -bed Balboa Horizons facility for women at 1132 West Balboa received a conditional use permit under the Ordinance. • The 29 -bed Newport Coast Recovery facility for men at 1216 West Balboa was denied a permit under the Ordinance. However, an appeal is anticipated based on Mr. Mike Newman's (one of the owners of Newport Coast) statements to the Daily Pilot in the Sunday, February 1, 2009 paper. • The 12 -bed Kramer Center facility hearing on Thursday, January 29, 2009 was cancelled- because the operator has withdrawn its application. [In accordance with an email from Mr. Kiff to interested parties, this does not mean that the operator won't seek reasonable accommodation.] • An Ocean Recovery 6 -bed rehabilitation facility is expected to receive a state ADP license shortly at 1217 West Bay Street. As a six bed licensed facility- the City has no power to reject its operations at this location. • An unlicensed fourteen bed facility at 1129 West Balboa Boulevard is scheduled for abatement. • Two Ocean Recovery facilities- the one discussed in this memorandum at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard (UP- 2008 -030) and its facility at 1601 West Balboa Boulevard (UP- 2008 -031) are set for hearing under the Ordinance on February 5`n, 2009. DISCUSSION Ocean Recovery Operations at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard Ocean Recovery operates a residential care facility located at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard. There are two buildings at the project which house a total of 22 adult residents in a sober living environment. The facility has been operating since the summer of 2004. Under the Ordinance Ocean Recovery applied for a Use Permit from the City for its activities. There has been a substantial amount of evidence submitted proving Ocean Recovery 's inability to meet the requirements necessary to receive a Use Permit. Correspondence from nearby residents delivered to you (some but not all of which is attached to this document as Exhibit One) indicate that at the 1115 West Balboa site - Ocean Recovery: • has eliminated all on -site parking, despite the fact that some of its residents and many of its regular visitors drive and park automobiles at the facility; • constantly generates second -hand smoke at the facility which permeates the adjoining neighbors' properties; • has clients at the facility regularly using inappropriate coarse, vulgar language full of curse words often within hearing range of young girls; • accumulates dramatic amounts of trash which is stored without proper bagging directly below the open windows of neighbors' bedroom windows- causing odor and bug problems when it is warm; • has not adequately supervised its clients. There is a reoccurring theme in the correspondences received of inappropriate behavior, • does not adhere to the required "quiet time" from 10 pm tog am, and in violating this requirement, its clients use loud and crude language both late at night and very early in the morning; clients participate in the institutionalized weekend alcohol and drug rehabilitation gatherings on the beach at 15th street, just 50 feet away from children utilizing the playground; and is evidence of over the overconcentration of residential care facilities on the 1100 and 1200 blocks of West Balboa Boulevard. Additional salient facts: Ocean Recovery, despite having its operations begin in 2004 at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard in 2004, never applied for a Federal Exemption Permit under the law that existed prior to the Ordinance. A petition signed by 120 neighborhood residents of the neighborhood expressing their position that there is an overconcentration of group residential facilities and that there are too many- too close to Newport Elementary school and the Use Permit for 1115 West Balboa Boulevard (as well as 1601 West Balboa Boulevard) should be denied. A copy of the petition is attached as Exhibit Two. ANALYSIS In order to allow an existing legally operating group residential care facility to remain in operation, a Hearing Officer must find, following a noticed public hearing, that all four of the findings identified in NBMC §20.91.035 (A) and all seven of the findings identified in §20.91A.060 have been met. Ocean Recovery is located at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard ( "Use Location") in Newport Beach, California. It is a group residential care facility that is a state - licensed alcohol or drug residential treatment home for up to 22 persons (ADP License No. 300144BP). The Use Location is within the Nonstandard Subdivision Area as defined by the Ordinance. Proximate to the Use Location are the following uses referred to in NBMC §20.91A.060 (D): Other Residential Care Facilities: 1. Within 122 feet: Balboa Horizons Recovery Services (I1 bed licensed treatment facility located at 1132 West Balboa Boulevard, with an approved use permit), almost directly across the street from the Use Location. 2. Within 33 feet: 1129 West Balboa Boulevard (14 residents- unlicensed facility subject to abatement). 3. Within 400 feet: Newport Coast Recovery (29 bed licensed treatment facility located at 1216 West Balboa Boulevard, with a use permit denied by the Hearing Officer but with appeal anticipated). 4. Within 550 feet: Ocean Recovery- 6 bed license (being finalized) treatment facility located at 1217 West Bay. Schools and Child Care Facilities: 1. Within 700 feet: Newport Elementary School for students in grades Kindergarten through 5th grade at located 1327 West Balboa Boulevard. 2. Within 1175 feet: Christ Church's large (44 children capacity) state - licensed day care center located at 1400 West Balboa Boulevard). Outlets for Alcoholic Beverages: 1. Within 1650 feet: Outlet for alcoholic beverages is Fry's Market located at 115 E. 15th Street the American Legion Hall located at 215 W. 15th Street. 2. Within 1725 feet: Outlet for alcoholic beverages is the American Legion Hall located at 215 W. 15th Street. In analyzing the circumstances of this Use Permit application and reviewing the project setting, supporting evidence to make the required findings of NBMC Sections 20.91.035 (A) and 20.91A.060 is simply not present. The required findings, and discussion regarding whether or not the finding can be made are as follows: 4 1. NBMC Section 20.91.035(A) Finding NO. 1: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The use is not in conformance with the requirements of this finding and this finding cannot be made for the following reasons: This finding cannot be made because the use is not in accord with the objectives of NBMC Section 20.91A.010. One of the two stated purposes in the provisions of this section is "to protect and implement the recovery and residential integration of the disabled, including those receiving treatment and counseling in connection with dependency recovery. In doing so the City seeks to avoid the overconcentration of residential care facilities so that such facilities are reasonably dispersed throughout the community and are not congregated or over - concentrated in any particular area so as to institutionalize the area." The achievement of this purpose is compromised at the subject property location by the proximity of the surrounding uses. There is easy access to alcoholic beverages at two locations- three and a half blocks away. Due to the sober living objective of the project use, nearby commercial uses that either serve and/or sell alcoholic beverages is a concern. Even more troubling is the degree of residential care facilities nearby. It rises to the level of institutionalization of the area. There are four other facilities less than a block length away. An 11 bed facility is directly across the street (1132 West Balboa Boulevard). Another 14 bed facility is one house away (1129 West Balboa Boulevard). A third 29 bed facility is a block away (1216 West Balboa Boulevard). Another 6 bed facility will be a little more than a block away (1217 West Bay). Including the Applicant- within less than 550 feet (less than calculable median block length of 617 feet in the area as will be discussed in greater detail below) there are currently five residential care facilities with a total of 82 beds). This is institutionalization. 2. NBMC Section 20.91.035(A) Finding NO,2: That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. The use is not in conformance with the requirements of this finding and this finding can not be made for the following reasons: General Plan Policy LU 6.2.7 directs that the City regulate day care and residential care facilities to the maximum extent allowed by federal and state law so as to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods. But based on the record provided- substantial detriment to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and welfare of persons has been demonstrated in the record presented especially in light of the fact that the facility is only a block and a half from the elementary school (700 feet). During any particular time statistically there will be over five individuals who are continuing to abuse drugs at the Applicant's facility. Combined with the other four residential care facilities listed above there will statistically be at least twenty ongoing abusers of drugs within 700 feet or less of Newport Elementary School- every day. This is too many, too troubled people at such a sensitive location. If Ocean Recovery's 1601 facility is included in the count (it is 1,000 feet from the elementary school), this number increases to nearly 25 ongoing abusers of drugs 1,000 feet or less from our elementary school- every day. 3. NBMC Section 20.91.035(A) Finding NO.3: That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The use is not in conformance with the requirements of this finding and this finding cannot be made because the facility does not comply with the requirements outlined below in Items NO.5, NO.6, NO.8, NO.9, and NO. 11. 4. NBMC Section 20.91.035(A) Finding NOA: If the use is proposed within a Residential District (Chapter 20.10) or in an area where residential uses are provided for in Planned Community Districts or Specific Plan Districts, the use is consistent with the purposes specified in Chapter 20.91A and conforms to all requirements of that Chapter. This finding cannot be made because the use is not consistent with the purposes of Chapter 20.91 A. As stated earlier, one of the two stated purposes in the provisions of this section is "to protect and implement the recovery and residential integration of the disabled, including those receiving treatment and counseling in connection with dependency recovery. In doing so the City seeks to avoid the overconcentration of residential care facilities so that such facilities are reasonably dispersed throughout the community and are not congregated or over - concentrated in any particular area so as to institutionalize the area." There are simply so many residential rehabilitation facilities nearby that clearly there is institutionalization that needs to be mitigated. In addition there is alcoholic beverage accessibility too close to this facility. 5. NBMC Section 20.91 A.060 Finding A: The use conforms to all of the following applicable provisions of Section 20.91A.050 (Development and Operational Standards). These development and operational standards are summarized as follows: a) No secondhand smoke can be detectable outside the property. b) Operations must comply with state and local law, the submitted management standards plan, including any modifications required by this Use Permit. C) A contact name and number be provided. d) No services requiring a license can be provided if the facility does not have a license for those services. e) There shall be no more than 2 persons per bedroom plus one additional resident, unless a greater occupancy is requested and granted. Occupancy must also comply with state licensing if applicable. f) If certification from an entity other than ADP's licensing program is available, applicants must get that certification. g) All individuals and entities involved in the facility's operation and ownership must be disclosed. h) No owner or manager shall have any demonstrated pattern of operating similar facilities in violation of the law. There is substantial evidence in the record indicating that Development and Operational Standards Item (a) will not be met and therefore, this finding cannot be made because many residents of the City have provided testimony of the serious, unrelenting problem of second hand smoke at the facility. The applicant has not provided any reasonable basis for how it would avoid this problem at the facility. 6. NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding B: The project includes sufficient on -sits parking for the use, and traffic and transportation impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. The use is not in conformance with the requirements of this finding and this finding can not be made for the following reasons: The NBMC states that the required number of off - street parking and loading spaces for a residential care facility is one space per three beds. Based on the evidence provided, the project site provides no parking spaces in the garage at the rear of the building. The number of parking spaces provided do not meet requirements of the code. Based on the evidence provided by adjoining residents the complete elimination of parking spaces provided on -site by the Applicant, leaves it to meet the parking needs for the activities of the facility. In addition the adjoining residents have provided evidence indicating that the facility vans provides transportation for residents are blocking the alley behind the facility. 7. NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding C: The property and existing structures are physically suited to accommodate the use. The writer is unable to generate a conclusion on this finding at this time. 8. NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding D: The use will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and the addition or continued maintenance of the use will not contribute to changing the residential character of the neighborhood, such as creating an over concentration of residential care uses in the vicinity of the proposed use. In making this finding or sustaining such a finding, the Hearing Officer and/or City Council shall consider, as appropriate, the following factors: a. The proximity of the use location to schools, parks, other residential care facilities, outlets for alcoholic beverages and any other uses which could be affected by or affect the operation of the subject use; and b. The existence of substandard physical characteristics of the area in which the use is located such as lot widths, setbacks, narrow streets, limited available parking, short blocks, and other substandard characteristics which are pervasive in certain areas of the City of Newport Beach, including portions of West Newport, Lido Isle, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Corona Del Mar and Newport Heights, which portions were depicted on a map referred to as the Nonstandard Subdivision Area presented to the Newport Beach Planning Commission on September 20, 2007 and on file with the Director of Planning; and c. Whether, in light of the factors applied in subsections 20.91A.D.1 and 0.2, it would be appropriate to apply the American Planning Association standard of permitting one or two such uses per block. Median block lengths in different areas of Newport Beach widely range from 300 feet in the Nonstandard Subdivision Areas to as much as 1,422 feet in standard subdivision areas. The average calculable block length in much of the standard subdivision areas is 711 feet and the calculable median block length is 617 feet. The Hearing Officer shall apply the American Planning Association standard in all areas of Newport Beach in a manner which eliminates the differences in block lengths. In making this determination, the Hearing Officer shall be guided by average or median block lengths in standard subdivisions of the City. The Hearing Officer shall retain the discretion to apply any degree of separation of uses, which he or she deems appropriate in any given case. A copy of the American Planning Association standard is on file with the Director of Planning. The use is not in conformance with the requirements with Subsection 8a above and this fording cannot be made for the following reasons: The subject property's location in relatively close proximity to commercial uses which sell and/or serve alcoholic beverages is not conducive to the facility's sober living objectives. At three -block and a half blocks of the subject property there are two alcohol sources- a restaurant/bar that sells alcohol, and a convenience store that sells alcohol. Additionally the dramatic number of residential care facilities so close to an elementary school and a large day care facility is indicative of an overconcentration of these facilities and the institutionalization of an extremely sensitive area. The ongoing concerns of the weekend mammoth drug and alcohol meetings beside the school playground are direct evidence of this overconcentration in precisely the wrong location for the City and its residents. The petition submitted by the surrounding residents of the elementary school speaks directly to this overconcentration at such a sensitive point. In addition, if the Hearing Officer did determine to apply the American Planning Association Standard under Subsection Be above, he should determine under the Standard that the Use Permit should be denied under the terms of the Standard. A detailed analysis of the Standard is attached as Exhibit Three. As the analysis notes, the Standard states that one or two "Group Homes" are acceptable per city block. But Applicant's Use Permit is not for a "Group Home" as defined under the Standard -- it is for a Halfway House. The Standard is clear that a higher degree of regulation and separation is warranted for such a use. Clearly, in light of the existence of a total of five facilities and 82 beds (if Applicants facility is included) within a distance shorter than a median block in the area the Standard is dramatically exceeded. 9. NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding E: The operation of buses and vans to transport residents to and from off -site activities does not generate vehicular traffic substantially greater than that normally generated by residential activities in the surrounding area. The use is not in conformance with the requirements of this fording, subject to appropriate conditions. This finding can not be made because facility vans do park, load, and unload illegally in the alley blocking the flow of traffic, because there are no garages available onsite. 10. NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding F: Arrangements for delivery of goods are made within the hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. The writer is unable to generate a conclusion on this finding at this time. 11. NBMC Section 20.91A.060 Finding G: Arrangements for commercial trash collection in excess of usual residential collection are made within hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. The use is not in conformance with the requirements of this finding. This finding can not be made because there has been credible evidence presented that trash in excess of usual residential collection is present but no commercial trash collection occurs at the facility. APPLICANT UNQUALIFIED TO MAKE PERMIT APPLICATION In any event, Ocean Recover is not qualified to apply for and receive a Use Permit under NBMC Section 20.62.030 (Determination of Nonconformity). Subsection B of NBMC 0 Section 20.62.030 provides that a use that was lawfully established under the laws in place at the time, but that no longer conforms with the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which it was located because of a subsequent Code amendment, shall be deemed to be a nonconforming use. However, "A use shall not be considered to have been "lawfully established and maintained" and is an illegal use if it was established or operated without required permits (emphasis added) and licenses, including but not limited to permits and licenses required by any federal, state, or local agency ". When the applicant applied for licensure with ADP in 2004, it applied for a license to house and treat more than six clients onsite. Commencing or continuing operations as a use then characterized as "Residential Care, General" by the City of Newport Beach required an FEP under the Zoning Code in effect at that time. As was noted by the City Staff in its Attachment C to the January 22, 2008 Submittal to the City Counsel seeking the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -5- Summary of Comments (page one of six)- Denys Oberman is attributed as stating: "Existing uses need to be legally compliant." The Response from City Staff was: "Agreed, generally. Existing uses that have violated the Moratorium or did not apply for an FEP yet should have are ineligible to receive a Use Permit." These are the circumstances that Ocean Recovery finds itself in and therefore its non- conforming use should simply be abated. ANALYSIS SUMMARY As indicated at the beginning of this memorandum, denial of the Use Permit request of Ocean Recovery at 1115 West Balboa Boulevard should occur for the following reasons: Inability to make all of the findings required by the NBMC Sections 20.91.035 (A) and 20.91 A.060. 2. The proposed use is not consistent with the purposes of NBMC Section 20.91A as set forth in Section 20.91A.010, and the requirements of Section 20.91.020. Failure of Applicant to be a legally operating residential care facility at the time of applying for a Use Permit under the Ordinance. Thank youW your attention to this matter. 10 EXI3IBITS Newport Beach Residents Correspondences 2. Newport Beach Residents Petition 3. American Planning Association Standard Analysis 11 EXHIBIT ONE NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENTS CORRESPONDENCES ARE SEPARATELY INCLUDED IN APPEAL EXHIBIT. TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OF SUBMISSIONS THEY HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS DOCUMENT. EXHIBIT TWO NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENTS PETITION PETITION IS SEPARATELY INCLUDED IN APPEAL EXHIBIT. TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OF SUBMISSION IT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS DOCUMENT. EXHIBIT THREE American Planning Association Standard Analysis Larry Mathena 1125 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92661 949 - 752 -5115 Extension 18 mathenaesq @aol.com January 13,2009 To: David Kiff, Assistant City Manager of Newport Beach Subject: Newport Beach American Planning Association Standard Policy Guide dated September 21, 1997 From: Larry Mathena Question: What does the American Planning Association Standard ( "Standard ") that Newport Beach is relying on in regulating the typical alcohol/ drug rehab group home in Newport Beach define these homes as? Answer: Because the homes in Newport Beach typically have clientele stay 30, 60, or 90 days that they are "Halfway Houses" under the Standard not "Group Homes." Question: What is the significance of the homes in question in Newport Beach being defined as "Halfway Houses" as compared to "Group Homes "? Answer: The Standard is clear in defining that the "Halfway Houses" are more akin to multifamily housing as opposed to single family housing and should generate "significant differences with implications for proper zoning regulation." Question: What does this mean practically? Answer: If nothing else, there is a clear basis in the Standard for taking into consideration the more intensive use of "Halfway Houses" compared to "Group Homes" under the Standard in determining the location and the concentration of "Halfway Houses" compared to "Group Homes ". Discussion: What the Standard says (note all language below is from a scanned and translated copy of the Standard (but with emakasis added): Definitions Because there is so much misunderstanding of this subject, it is essential to first define several terms. Group Homes A group home is a relatively permanent living arrangement where tenancy is measured in years. Residency in a group home is long term relatively permanent and measured in years, not months or weeks. «s« Recovery homes for people with drug or alcohol addictions are another type of group home. Occupants typically sign an annual lease and can live in a recovery home for years. Halfway house ... These are persons who are receiving therapy and counseling from support staff who are present when residents are present, for the following purposes: (a) to help them recuperate from the effects of drug or alcohol addiction (a disability); ... Residency is limited to a specific number of weeks or months. People with drug or alcohol addictions often need to live in a halfway house as a transitional living arrangement before they can live more independently in the community or return to their homes. The key for them is to learn to abstain completely from using drugs or alcohol. Treatment usually consists of an initial withdrawal period followed by intensive counseling and support both through treatment programs and through residential living arrangements. Such community residences are based on the croup home model with some sknificant differences with implications for proper zoning reeuladon. Nearly all halfway houses place a limit, measured in months, how long someone can live there. Unlike a group home, the halfway house aims to place all its residents into independent living situations upon graduation.... Because the number of residents in a halfway house is greater than in a group home and their length of tenancy shorter, halfway houses more closely resemble multiple family housing than single family residences, although, like group homes, they work best in single family neighborhoods. « «« FINDINGS s *• 5 Community residences should be scattered throughout residential districts rather than concentrated in any single neighborhood or on a single block. For a group home to enable its residents to achieve normalization and integration into the community, it should be located in a normal residential neighborhood. If several group homes were to locate next to one another, or be placed on the same block, the ability of the group homes to advance their residents' normalization would be compromised. Such clustering would create a de facto social service district in which many facets of an institutional atmosphere would be recreated and would change the character of the neighborhood. POLICY 2: When a proposed group home for persons with disabilities does not comply with the jurisdictions definition of family, then the jurisdiction is required to make a reasonable accommodation in its zoning code to allow group homes for people with disabilities as of right in all residential districts if it meets these two requirements: A one block spacing distance appears to be long enough to assure that community residences achieve the normalization they seek for their residents and help preserve the residential character of a neighborhood. Concentrating or clustering several community residences on a block can recreate an institutional atmosphere exactly the opposite of what community residences seek to achieve. Group homes include recovery homes for people with drug or alcohol addictions, like other group homes recovery homes are long term residences that do not limit how long individuals may live there. They should not be confused with halfway houses for people with disabilities, including drug or alcohol addiction. POLICY 3: When a proposed halfway house for persons with disabilities does not comply with the jurisdiction's definition of family, then the jurisdiction is required to make a reasonable accommodation in its zoning code to allow halfway houses for people with disabilities as of right in all multiple family residential districts if the proposed halfway house meets these two requirements: 1. That a rationally based spacing requirement be provided to avoid an undue concentration of community residences and 2. When the proposed group home or its operator must be licensed or certified by the appropriate state, national, regional, or local licensing or certification body. 0 From a zoning perspective, halfwav houses perform more like multiple family housing than single family housing. They don't emulate a family quite as closely as a group home does. They billet many more people. They place a limit on length of residency, unlike a group home which is a more permanent living arrangement akin to single family housing. POLICY 4: Halfway houses should be allowed in all single family zones by special use permit due to their multiple family characteristics that warrant the extra scrutiny provided by the special use permit or comparable review process when locating in a single family district. On many occasions the operator of a halfway house may prefer to locate it in a single family district. Halfway houses are not, per se, incompatible with single family homes. However, the heightened scrutiny of a conditional use permit hearing is warranted to assure that a proposed halfway house will be compatible with the other land uses in a single family district. The standards to apply are the same ones used for other special uses. Analysis: The conclusions to reach from the language above follows: 1. Halfway Houses are not Group Homes. 2. As compared to Group Homes, Halfway Houses are more the equivalent of multifamily housing not single family housing. 3. There should be no more than one or at most two Group .Homes per block. 4. For a CUP hearing in a single family district for a Halfway House, the standards that can be applied are those for other special uses (which can certainly be something more burdensome than those of an equivalent group home in light of the distinctions that the standard goes out of its way to point out). If the writers of the Standard wanted to state that the permit requirements for a Halfway House were the same as those of a Group Home - they would of, could have, and should have easily said so. They did not - in fact they went out of their way to observe that Halfway Houses are different than Group Homes and a stricter standard in determining conditions of approval - should apply. A clear place to apply this stricter standard for Halfway Houses compared to Group Homes is in the case of density and another of course is location. If you have any questions feel free to call me. Larry Mathena EXHIBIT TWO: Newport Beach Residents Petition 143 Petition Signatures In Opposition To The Use Permit Applications for 1115 and 1601 W. Balboa BIvd. Note: -Most signatures by residents living within 3 blocks of the 1115 Facility - Approximately 30 Signatures From Families With Children Attending Newport Elementary School February 5, 2009 To: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer David Kiff, Assistant City Manager Subject: Petition Opposing the Ocean Recovery Facility Group Residential Use Permit For 1115' W. Pr alboa slid -16-0 Balboa a . Dear Mr. Allen and Mr. Kiff, Attached please find a petition that has been signed by 120 local residents who are strongly opposing the issuance of Residential Use Permits for both 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. and 1601 W. Balboa Blvd. These local Newport Beach and peninsula residents are requesting that the City deny the approval of these Ocean Recovery facilities on the following grounds: ' • The two business locations- are less than 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 6 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational Incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1116 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and famifies with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the CWs denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1128 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate - there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and the playgrounds. I also know that several residents have elected to voice their opposition to these applications through writing letters and or sending their petition signatures directly to Dave Kiff. I am aware of a least nine letters that have been sent or are being sent to the attention of Dave. I have copies of each and trust that you both do also. Additionally, please note that these signatures and letters have been generated by the following individuals: 1) Approximately 30 signatures on the petition are from parents/families of children attending Newport Elementary; over 70 of the signatures are from residents within 3 blocks of the 1115 W. Balboa facility. 2) Includes signatures and/ or letters of all neighbors abutting directly to the north, south, and west side of the 1115 facility, including owners and renters. I trust that the City will take into consideration this overwhelming opposition to the Group Residential Use Permits for the Ocean Recovery facilities at 1115 and 1601 W. Balboa Blvd. We strongly urge the City to reject these applications. Paul A. Lopez 1125 !/2W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 949 -673 -0489 February 9, 2009 To: Thomas W. Allen, Heating Officer David Kiff, Assistant City Manager Subject: My letter dated February 5, 2009 delivered to Dave Kiff regarding petition signatures opposing Use Permits #UP 2008-030 & UP 2008 -031 Dear Dave, I never received formal confirmation from you regarding your receipt of my letter dated February 5, 2008 that included a petition signed by 120 local residents who are strongly opposing the issuance of the above residential use permits. I provided you with the original petition signatures. I am now sending along a copy of this February 5d' Ietter and copies of the petition again as I want to ensure these become part of the public record. The personal letter dated January 27, 2009 and which included 18 photos was delivered to you at the same time. Additionally, I am including 23 new local resident signatures on this opposition petition. This now brings the total number of petition signatures to 143, most of these from residents that live very close to the 1115 W. Balboa facility. Also, approximately 30 signatures on the petition are from parents and families of children attending Newport Elementary School. I am also including copies of 10 opposition lettem/emails that have been sent/emailed prior to your attention. These are letters that I have copies of, but believe you have received others. Please note that I have once again included 18 photos that visually support several of the key issues raised in my personal letter. Dave, please confirm receipt of these 143 opposition petition signatures, my letter with 18 photos and the 10 opposition letters included. Your confirmation will then assure me that this entire packaged will be given to Mr. Allen for his review and will become part of the public Thanks, Paul 11251/2 W. Bal a BIv . p.lotxez(rt�roadmm�er.00m 949- 673 -0489 February 10, 2009 To: Thomas W. Allen, Hearing Officer David Kiff, Assistant City Manager Subject: 1115 and 1601 W. Balboa Use Applications- Petition Signatures and Letters in Opposition from "Local Residents" Dear Dave, Attached please find all materials that have been sent by local residents requesting denial of the 1115 and 1601 applications. I have included an additional 23 local resident signatures and a total of 10 letters/emails that I know have been sent to you directly. This now puts the total petition signatures at 143. Please ensure that all of this information is given to Mr. Allen and becomes part of the permanent public records for this upcoming hearing. Thanks, Paul Paul Lopez 1125 % W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 949 - 673 -0489 cc: Michael F. Henn Jaduary, 2009 — PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & IMMEDIATELY ABATE RESIDENTIAL DRUG and ALCOHOL TREATMENT BUSINESS- OCEAN RECOVERY. LOCATED AT: 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. and 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1116 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business locations- are less than 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and Ks adjacent playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an ovarconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that Is expected to appeal the City's denial of Its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one In Ikmnsing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abase- there are simply too many facilities too dose to the school and playgrounds. Name Name Signature Address Signature Address Name Signature Address Name Signature Address Name Signature Address Name Signature Address Name Name Signature Address Signature Address January, 2009 - PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT S IMMEDIATELI ABATE RESIDENTIAL DRUG and ALCOHOL TREATMENT BUSINESS- OCEAN RECOVERY, LOCATED AT: 1195 W. Balboa Blvd. and 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business; Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business locations. are less than 1,000 feet away from Newport Mementary School and its adjacent playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public heath R safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems far over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); Ulter, loud noise and profanity; littering; and confrontadonal incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At die 1115 facl0ty, all onsita parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilitles- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the Chy% dental of Its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more Bites tat face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one In Ikxnnsing at 1217 Vilest Bay- that the City can not abate - there are simply too many facitides too close to the school and playgrounds. Name 1A.14L Name Signatures Signature f Address 1f^ eS Address Name Name Signature Signature Address Address Name Name Signature Signature Address Address Name Name Signature Signature Address Address Jadivary, 2009 — PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & IMMEDIATELY ABATE RESIDENTIAL DRUG and ALCOHOL TREATMENT BUSINESS- OCEAN RECOVERY, LOCATED AT: 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. and 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business locations- are less than 1.000 fast away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter, loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of Its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate - there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name 1t ,c c T I I Q M Name Slgnatu Signature Address I I I Co Ups, ! PAf 's�licr e�� Address Name I Name Signature Signature Address I 1 iT" Address _tMkk c - ara—S3 Name Name Signature Signature Address Address Name Name Signature Signature Address Address I January, 2009 — PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & IMMEDIATELY ABATE RESIDENTIAL DRUG and ALCOHOL TREATMENT BUSINESS- OCEAN RECOVERY, LOCATED AT- 1116 W. Balboa Blvd. and 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following; • The two business locations- are less than 1.000 feet away from Newport Elementary School'and its adjacent playgrounds, and are Incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter; loud nurse and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all om to parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an over concentration of facilities - with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of Its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one In licensing at 1217 West Bay - that the qty can not abate - there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. W Name Name Address Name . . . . Address Name Sl nature ' o Name Signature Address January, 2009 — PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & IMMEDIATELY ABATE RESIDENTIAL DRUG and ALCOHOL TREATMENT BUSINESS- OCEAN RECOVERY, LOCATED AT: 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. and 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to Immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business locations- are fees than 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over b years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter, loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and tic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentiation of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1152 W. Balboa; a facility that Is expected to appeal the C[Ws denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate, there are simply too many facilities too dose to the school and playgrounds. Name ,� Name Signature Signature Address `- J� 6r @ —/ Address Name Name Signature Signature Address Address Name ism Name Signature Signature Address -- ` Address Name Name Signature Signature Address Address PERMIT & IMMEUItp I L.1_ 1 January, 2009 — PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE _ uT —v�Td ABATE RESIDENTIAL DRUG and ALCOHOL TREATMENT BUSINESS OCEAN RECOVERY, LOCATED AT: 1115 W- Balboa Blvd-.-and 101 W` I Ilse petition the, ity of Newport Beach to-7e operating We, the undersigned Cio erebmpetat�Y abate the business: Ocean Recovery , p Permit and urge 111s W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based en theSchool lnd its adjacent ort Elementary • The two business locations- incompatible with than surrounding uses, public ic health 8 safety. playgrounds, and are income rs; smoking (second hand smoke and • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 6 yea butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. all onshe • ltle business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 faci to area to have parking has been eliminated. t The operation of to business precludes neighbors and families With children frequenting safe, healthy and peaceful environment• approved facility at 11 two ore facilities that facility fa e's that T here is an overconcentration of facilities -with t request at 1216 W Balboa; expected to appeal to City's denial of its permit req and another one in licensing at that the City can not abate -there are simply too many facilities too close to to school and abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Bouleva ; 1217 West Bay - playgrounds. - r Signature /A � / Address Address Name 1 ! Signature— --bit Address Signature Address tr Address Name Signature Address January, 2009 — PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL- USB -PERMIT & IMMEDIATELY ABATE RESIDENTIAL DRUG and ALCOHOL TREATMENT BUSINESS- OCEAN RECOVERY, LOCATED AT: 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. and 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business locations. are less than 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for aver 5 years: Making (second hand smoke and butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcent ation of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate - there are simply too many facilities too close to the school. Name C1 rl c h Veyd ai-4 o Name Signature Signature Address //13 t.i• Address � v r¢ ac � CA -9266 Name D Name Signature _ • Signature Address 1.4 16m, Address Name Name Signature Signature Address 1163 W C4 13L Address Name Name Signature Signature Address Address - arY-, M9— PETITION- T0VEN AL- USE-PERMIT -&1MMED1 ABATE RESIDENTIAL DRUG and ALCOHOL TREATMENT-BUSINEM OCEAN RECOVERY, L oa v . an I W. Balboa B&U evard We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1116 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business locations-are fessiban-t,-000 feet iomvnfzrySchlyal -Md its adjacent Playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter, loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onslte parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that Is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate- there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name jy[i) (/3�JS C/1�mKIG(� Name Signatu t /�l!I fI�Pg,Q� Signature Address �@2l�ic ��(j1({- Address Name I 4 Name Signat Signature Address F:egA�-r-- Address Name Name Signature Signature Address Address Name Name Signature Signature Address Address E - 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. and 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • ThFIWO business locations- are less than 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent playgrounds, .. and are incompatible with surrounding uses;- public-health4.safety: • Neighbors have- expedenced repeated nuisancer problems for over 6-years: smoking (secondhand smoke and butts); litter, loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational inciddnts. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities -with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate- there are simpiv too manv facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name �- Nam K-- l �i Signature Signature Address JO /� `y `nv ` -�T t j�1vV7�� Address 4 t Il Wu t--- LAY,� �Y ^T P (A Name LIA- Name s _Wq Signature Signature \AJ l/� ` _ /00z c5� ((11,, bAddress Address 4 Name,( [[�( �? % D Name Signature % �� . Signature Address �/ r Address Address 1 '' I'S o& A Name Nam lie Signatut! Signa Address �j ��5�(�J�4,o - lvcu Address 5 Dd LrJ ♦v< o-0rn- We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business, Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • Thetwo uemss locations--are less than 1,W ee away Irom Newport Elementgry arm it"djacenr playgrounds, and are incompatible oath surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors havoexperienced repeated nuisance problems for over-5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1116 facility, all onsite Parking has been eliminated. • The operation of-the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentratton of facilities -with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bav- that the City can not abate- there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. A rrr Slanature Addres � I •I• 1� 11IF1 r -.ii t 'r �L tt ICl�L� ■Hf•!J ■•! ■}mod ►'<N• AL1�•1•f.�I• ■4Y�J�N� i ■ Ii4F� i17 ■1 ■A :1 aft 171Q:4'A1S•iyL11:4MJ SAFI 111 VI 'ACflt1 " . _jIT s1111E MU- i I • • : : e We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and of 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: one two ousmg-s locations- are less than 1.00gleet away from ewpo emen ary coo an t a lacen -f— playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter, laud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. " The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1125 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Ba_v- that the City can not abate- there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. n � 7 Name .a --1 UD Name Signature SignatuW �Q 0 {^ oli (Pj n Address Address Name i1 ,� -t �? Name Signature , i% Signature Address _� Address Name, n Name Signature ' Signature Address qfrn , Address Name Name Signature Signature Address Address 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. and 1601 W. Balboa We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: The two business locations- are less than 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and Its adjacent playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 6 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter, Idud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational Incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1116 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1182 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay - that the City can not abate- there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playground. Name Signature i Addresq %✓ n 9w a Name V Signature / S i w: 1� •ta]'Ia:i'AB•Iei_ \1a■1_�i>iitr [- y���A- h1ITF1- 3PI%�TiT(i[Yly &FjM :rI7M. :.m[ --1Ty We, the- undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: oca ons- are an t away from Newport Elementary School an its adjacent playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems forever 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter, laud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational imddeats. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay - that the City can not abate - there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name 3koe� Cie Name Signature _ Signature Address /ZUt� (` Address &NMAX Name .001/jlpI lC/ / —V x2 Name rL A /J Signature //mac.✓ � Signature ✓ _ Address / O K /r-P-dlb -r- Address 1G 10 EST- 0c- rcAr1-iVto,A,r ?;66 Name Q9 /C1J i , 'i7F - �EQ Name t Signature Signature Address D8 I � s Address � s D 1 O— a.,-��% I N Name Name Signature Signature /ial'1 %�/�UG// H Address /%D h / �Pi��� .h,i- v Address,/UU A, ZL6 We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: e two business kiaiaiEns. are than 1,W0 feet away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent Playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health &safety. • Neighbors have exparlenced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years:- smoking (second hand smoke an butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. r There is an overconcentration of facili ies- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1128 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay - that the City can not abate - then: are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name DAv1,6 /�OLLE/ % Name tJUd( 1 L, You n6 Signatures �'—' Signature dam - Address ,,?OE, /.S,( f3ND fit/ Address A 1S) MnQ02 Nq�,W 20-0 NPa2i (:::Iq cA 9 61 Name Name C—Af4C4r c Signature Signatu Address �d� Address 1 r✓, rwe QJ`G ail Q Coo q z b 63 Name e .>> Leo ; Name Ez> T1 i b A Signature ii11 Address L1A_ Signature Addresss% A) 6r MAP/)`ALI'E� uP3 C� Name Sig re Signature AWZ71_% Ya Address ��,= /1 (( 1. ��?d Address LS621 CONCERNED FAMILIES - PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WMEUTATI`LrAE3A I E RES1DEN I IAL-DRItG -andAL O1" TREAT'MENT BUM RESS, OCEAN Rtzuuv f--KY, oca e at: B511355 Sma. an Balboa Boulevard We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business locations- are less than 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and Its adjacent Playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate -there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. I N me S nature `, • � � pis_..• _F_. ,I � \° .,, • �� - �.J �_��.� - 1 f� i ' CONCERNED FAMILIES - PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND IIIiM1= DIATEL BATE RESIDENTIAL DRUG "a1Pttl' ALCOHOL _ BUSINESS, OCUN RECOVERY, located at: 1115 W. E351115305 . and IOU Balboa Boulevard We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business Iocatluns- ei®7ess than 1,W0Uat AWW fr6m-NewportEI97mmt 7 School and ft adjacent playgrounds, and are Incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter, loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more far-tittles that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate - there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name ,;�', /iv; i7/,.d ..✓ Name Signature Signature Address It -17 Address Name &I /'1'I+�'l,� i' Name Signature /ct,'yo� I rte Signature Address 1,6 1Y L-) Oc.Z L2,, i, Address A),13 ' z64 s Name o w.� % ErFo�+v awS Name Signa -s- r- Signature Add Address Name I DS. �-.TC�7 a � r rs '%i Name Signature Signature Address E ..c .E Address ABATE-RESIDENTIAL DRUG and AMOH01 TREATMENT BUSINESS- OCEAN RECOVERY, 15 W. Balboa v. and 1601 alboa Boulevart We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1116 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: " e two business ns- are less than 1,0oo jja—tjw­ay from Newport Elementary School and its ad)aceW playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses; public health a safety - • 'Neighbor: have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 6 years: smoking (second hand smoke si butts); litter, loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. ■ The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. ■ The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have i safe, healthy and peaceful environment, ■ There is an overconcentration of facilities. with a City approved facility at 1182 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1128 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one In licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate - there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name Q,dppp ` r" Name 4 S20 Signature Signature �-- Address l a (a W , uA ,n, Address Name I\ Name v S L' / ) Signature v � Signature Address tee v r, Address Name G'' %i✓ /1�o Name Signature ` e Signature Address yS L,9 ��� N,xD Address nr9 Name zgrw Name 'IgJK .4- Signature Signature �° --- Address �/7 aor �iT, /dvi✓ r9 3 Add. �� January, 2009 - PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & IMMEDIATELY We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1116 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: �+nt5 ^a4s.locations_ am ess than Jinn feet aawan. _tn. ef_„7�nnA FlPmant ^rt Glu,[il. aodl Its -ai grant —. playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate- there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name • — Signature [i ��► Address 1 . � � r 1 January, 2009 — PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & IMMEDIATELY We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: _,! ._The..btrn ba&fltt;�ig,�tbttg -�1 €fls th ^n 1 0o feet av,+a}�from Ng�port Ele.,tnpntary �hool and its adi c nt,__.__ playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter, loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. ■ The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe,.healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate- there are shnply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. ,. Name, �/ Name Signature ��—� Signature Address ✓ %�Z����///��/ Address g Name Name 4,0 �A Signature Signature y Addrees � �,v7 v ��//s�� ddress �E && �f" �s X 4�. e [� G% A /ii4 S r�.r� /9f a r ✓ Ca 92 6,6 i Name ,rte Name Lo ima Vzoa R Signature l.ax..�� en -i Signature Address Address - �� yo 0c Aa i Y r CA 92166 Name Name �Y�ry Signature Signature Addre ss �'dL� ��% ,. L7 A Address lor 2009 — PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & IMMEDIATELY We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: playgrounds, and areincompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance, problems for over 6 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); fitter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1116 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an .overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay - that the City can not abate- there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name �'11 II Name Signature Signature Addre lb FIM Address �fi���ai f V eP- Pytl ( l Name 160�4 ynear:dt Name 'ei Signature Signature X ZA&66Z � Address j2-de) Gj. 7.1 times 6it.dt .JA._ Address 41\547 N N� GA 2-6 Name Signature L o�[OVC Name Ankri Signature Address I / ;L A V Ate_ Address `I 'y o W R`" WE .,j f o" 6 4 6 C ,e ..a C �f Z(o 1 Name �VjGt Name �1af)_0t711P Z- Signatu Signature 11,27 Address Address c11 a RECOVERY, LOCATED AT: 4715 W. Balboa Blvd. and 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard tNe, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business locations- are less than 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, 811 onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate. there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name TG I' t 1,&—C (--Ie N fI /J Signature Address /1'3 (o I>/gd tip 4�AI>7 Name Signature Address Name Name Signature Address Signature Address Name Signature Address Name Signature Address Name Name Signature Address Signature Address We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1915 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business locations- are less than 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational Incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one In licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate - there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name ��N MJ Signature r XOK ,13v 0000 Wy,/ Mp L Name • rlare5 Name Signature Signature Address J °a UMAIELY ABATE RESIDENTIAL"iSRUG and ALCOHOL TREATMENT BUSINESS- OCEW- RECOVERY, LOG E a oa v: an o 0 We, the undersigned do hereby petition.the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 9115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: ■ The two business locations- are less than 1,080 feet away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter, loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all Matte parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is on overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay - that the City can not abate - there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name MC(-le Name Signature Signature Address 4 Address 1 Name �/ J l� v. V qA) Name Signature Signature Addres, Address zbb Name Name Signature Signature Address Address Name Name Signature Signature Address Address AtsA I t tttblULNTIAL DRUG and AbWHOL TREATMENT BUSINESS- OCEAN laBlvd. an a oa ou evard We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional. Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business locations- are less than 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful bnvironmenL • There is an overconcentration of facilities - with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1128 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate - there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name Name Signature R1 wg D q. RIDpF Signature Address %la1{ tf1P9a�(i Address I� -Gur'i Name Name Signature _ j� %U Y1�rrc1 Q Signature Address �� � /0 »~ s 6F eeasa, Address /�t w a �cbf Name Name Signature Signature Address Address Name Name Signature Signature Address Address January, 2008 - PETITION TO DENY BUSINESS- OCEAN We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Nevrport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business locations- are less than 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent Playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 6 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1116 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 11211 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay - that the City can not abate - there are simpty too many playgrounds. facilities too close to the school and Name C- E� ,L Name !4,a.-, Signatures] _ ,fLfl Address _117-8 N () CeQp -roA'f W f g Signature Address Name Name Signature Address Signature Address Name Name Signature Address Signature Address Name Signature Address Name Signature Address JanmaLy, -9 9 — EFTIT1oN n_DEb MJINE�IATE-6k ABATE RESIDENTIAL DRUG and ALCOHOL TREATMENT BUSINESSMQCEAN RECOVERY, LOCATED AT: 1115 W. Balboa Blvd. and 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on theJollowing: • The two business locations- are less than 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent Playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 faculty, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate- there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name : b N'i Name A,i t6 ar AMA I r Signature Signature =� Address Q l V Address i'Z— S E. !3 A 4 A ✓F Name QOlC e� �� \G�!If h� T Name Signature _ P Signature Address ' (00 01 L4610 Pork Address 0.26.4 Q(A 12 )1 c 97 -7i#i,3 Name Name o eA� Kc Signature �.A;­7> {� Si gnature 4_ 0 Address /_ � ���, I Address .20 3 t-✓�� n '� 13 Gb (U�' -'tart tSeacl, Gf�t- °12�G� Name 5 if Name lid Signature Signature Address _ 4W Address Z e AytIA aZ rv- ?po9 _ P IU�1, ���J�A 1X- GOA:9ia19Ni�%L- t_�^s_"-•,hT 8rIfVFM£ti174-T-EL ABATE RESIDENTIAL DRUS"and ALCOHOL TREATMENT BUSINESS- OCEnnI -- tw%, m I Ctr m I : -I I I* w. Balboa Blvd. and 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business'locations- are less than 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent playgrounds, and are Incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke on- butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational Incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There Is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of Its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1128 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 121T West Bay -that the City can not abate- there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name L Q j Name Signature , Signatur Address ) '�7 // W �i"P(in rye {— Address J v4.A10T N CA c -_ gwtvT ALwa CA 991� Name r L p Name J) -ahn 310 1' oo Signature Signature ' ,) a %(� Address (�V , Address cot^g at [\--L cfq P2661.- Name / Name p- 1we LA ze���_ Signature 'N Signature Address Address 3w oz- Name C Name , I Signature Signatu i Address 1 ig UiA ..`` Ny?7, Address Lit- JanYAU- - 009.- PUIT19N_S9-DENYCmNDI-T- GNAL- USI=- P-E-RMIT, 4MME-DIAT —El ABATE RESIDENTIAL DRUG and ALCOHOEATMENT BUSINESS- OCEAN We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at 1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business locations- are less thdn 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent Playgrounds, and are Incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke ar butts); litter; loud noise and profanity; loitering; and confrontational incidents. The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a sate, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one In licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate- there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name N Name e e na M M +c h i j j Signature Signature S Address 5 517c� _ A Address 7 7 a aid 51 N 9 926 3 Name N Name January, 2009 - PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & IMMEDIATELY ABATEIRESIDENTIAL DRUG and ALCOHOL TREATMENT BUIESS- OCEAN We, the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Newport Beach to deny a Conditional Use Permit and urge the City to immediately abate the business: Ocean Recovery, operating at •1115 W. Balboa Boulevard and at 1601 W. Balboa Boulevard, based on the following: • The two business locations- are less than 1,000 feet away from Newport Elementary School and its adjacent playgrounds, and are incompatible with surrounding uses, public health & safety. • Neighbors have experienced repeated nuisance problems for over 5 years: smoking (second hand smoke and butts); litter, loud noise and profaridy; loitering; and conhontational incidents. • The business operations provide an undue burden on parking and traffic. At the 1115 facility, all onsite parking has been eliminated. • The operation of the business precludes neighbors and families with children frequenting the area to have a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. • There is an overconcentration of facilities- with a City approved facility at 1132 W. Balboa; a facility that is expected to appeal the City's denial of Its permit request at 1216 W. Balboa; two more facilities that face abatement under City regulations at 1129 and 1111 W. Balboa Boulevard; and another one in licensing at 1217 West Bay- that the City can not abate- there are simply too many facilities too close to the school and playgrounds. Name 5AlA L Name Signature Signature _ Q �„(J Address cw PJALfT Address Name / C Sit Name Signature Signatu Adydress /('?-(,o Address Name Name Signature Signature Address Address Name Name Signature Signature Address Address